From: David Weihe (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon 13 Jan 1997 - 17:21:01 EET
> From: "Erik Sieurin" <BV9521@utb.hb.se>
> Let's say you have a heroquest which is very similar to Androcles and
> the Lion, OK?
> So in the story, the Hero helps a wild beast out of the kindness of
> his heart, and as result he is later not attacked by the same beast.
> Now, suppose that a person named X is to perform this quest. I assume
> most heroquesters know the myth they are following, though certain
> details may faulty. So X goes along, and when he encounters the Lion,
> he helps it, but NOT because of kindness, but because of cold
> calculation: if I help the Lion, he will not attack me later.
> So the quest-question is: Is intent important, or action?
The Greeks didn't care about intent or inner beliefs - a man was defined
by what he said and what he did. I think that most other societies in
the RW Bronze Age felt the same way. Thus my expectation is that action
is the most important part.
On the other hand, if the Quester approaches the beast with *too* obvious
a cynical intent it will affect the reaction, so that the Heroplane
beast will make a precise bargain, rather than a friendship bargain. That
is, the letter will be kept, rather than any spirit. Lion might give
Hero a hank of mane hair with which to request aid, but if the Hero lost
it Lion would not give aid, whereas if Hero had approached with a
seeming helpful demeaner, Lion might actually decide to keep a lookout
for when his new friend gets into trouble.
This is the difference between Arkat's "Always with Humility" and the
late period GodLearners sacking the HeroPlane for powers. The Arkati at
least fain concern, and so get better relationships with the Powers.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:56:03 EEST