God Learners, _The_ Truth

From: Stephen P Martin (ilium@juno.com)
Date: Wed 22 Jan 1997 - 09:23:48 EET

David Cake <davidc@cyllene.uwa.edu.au>
A God Learning we will go....
I've been paying only peripheral attention to this discussion. But...

> Gregs RQ Con DU explanations of Illumination talked about it as
>'reconciling the impossible' or something like that. Having both very
>and very merciful natures, for example. Which is not mercurial change
>the illuminates viewpoint (it all makes sense to them) but certainly
>appear like a changable nature to others.

But you need to be careful, as Illumination is not a universal state --
different societies view it differently, achieve it differently, and
achieve different things with it. And all of them are correct in their
own realm and perspective.

> Nick continues to dump on the poor God Learners
>The God Learners eventually came to fiddle with the structure of the
>just to see what would happen. Their initial heroquesting techniques
>started the same, but ended up very different.

I don't think this is quite correct. The God Learners, by and large, did
not do it just to see "what would happen". They did it to realign the
Hero and God Planes, to make them the way they "should" be. If the storm
god in Dara Happa was a woman, that was probably OK. But for her to be a
peaceful storm goddess, that must have been the result of divergant
mythology and evil religion. Eventually, their plans would have involved
turning her into Molanni, the Bad Calm Air Goddess. Or, reducing her in
power to be little more than Mistress Calm. They felt that they were
correcting errors caused due to the Great Darkness and Time. In their own
way, I think most of them were trying to bring back the Golden Age, as
they interpreted it.

By the end, I doubt most of them were so altruistic/idealistic. But some
of them were (Moray and Telerio, for example), and some had been all
along. IMO.

> Except Yanafals Tarnils.....

As a Carmanian, I don't think Yanafal Ta'arnils had ever _heard_ of the
Humakt cult when he helped to create the Red Goddess. He probably
worshiped the Carmanian War God (Carmanos?), which has some similarities
to the Humakt cult. But from what little I remember about Carmanos, I
think it likely the War Cult of Carmania allowed resurrection. For the
right people. I could be wrong.

> I have a PC who is currently leading a heroquest, a >reenactment
>the Orlanth and the Dragon quest. He knows the myth. He has also studied
>the myths of other cultures, and is consciously making connections (he
tells >Praxians he will free Thunder Bird). His motivations are not
>pure, either - he is not averse to some personal power, and is certainly
>motivated in large part by hatred of the Lunars and Sun worshippers. And
>think when it comes down to it, he will do his best to follow the script
>the heropath rather than just react emotionally - I think if he thought
>troll friend had the Lower Wind and refused to give it up, he'd take it
>force, for example. So, is he a filthy God Learner, or just an Orlanthi
>hero who happens to have some understanding of how the heroplane works?
Since all of this could be used to describe Argrath, IMO, you could ask
this question of him. And have just as hard a time answering it, I think.

d.bourne@dial.pipex.com (danny bourne)
Gloranthan CCG
>Has anyone
>>else tried to adapt HeroQuesting to a CCG type of game?
Um, what's CCG again? These abbreviations are _always_ throwing me.

>Lawrence Whitaker and myself wrote an Elric! CCG, (it's not the same as
>official one that's coming out), but it can easily be converted to
>Glorantha. It doesn't cover HQ as such, but works nicely for different
>pantheons struggling for control of an area. If enough people are
>interested I'll post the details.
I'm interested! I'm interested!

& Kisses (from Carol, natch)

Martin Crim
Alynx Breeds
> The statistics and description in Gloranthan Bestiary are
>incorrect. The larger breeds, which hunt deer, have a STR in the 2D6+10
>range. Smaller specimens have a STR of 2D6 + SIZ +2. However, none of
>ever have a damage penalty.
I would suggest that they are not _incorrect_, but are _insufficient_ for
_your_ needs, obviously. Not that you haven't done an impressive bit of
work here, but lets remember that not everything we say here is _the_

I suppose I am asking that when people are quoting sources, they can say
"is". When they are providing their own ideas, I would prefer that they
say so. Otherwise, to people who don't have all the sources, an
assumption could be made that you are quoting published or "official"
(whatever that means) information.

On the alynxes, is it possible that the smilodons mentioned in Gloranthan
Bestiary are actually a very large breed of alynx? I had never considered

this, though it seems possible to me now.

Stephen Martin
- -----------------------------------------------
The Book of Drastic Resolutions


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:56:31 EEST