From: Alex Ferguson (abf@interzone.ucc.ie)
Date: Sat 19 Apr 1997 - 01:40:10 EEST
David Cake claims that:
> divine cults are descended from shamanic cults.
I think there's a lot of truth in this in many cases. I think there's
even a RW mythographic theory to that effect (I think it goes something
like: animism, shamanism, ... other stuff.) However, in some cases it
seems the shamanic stage is "missing", or obscured, or is perhaps just
so long ago or "purged" that it appears that the thje current "divine"
cult evolved from something quite other. This seems to be the case
in Peloria, for example, and to a lesser degree in the East.
But I agree that for a lot of Glorantha, the model of there being a
continuum between "spirit" and "divine" is on the money. Another
caveat I'd have is that although elves and trolls appear to fit this
model somewhat, they seem to me more likely not to be transforming
from one state to the other, as to be in a condition of their own
which, to some extent, just "happens" to resemble such human part-
divine, part-shamanic "intermediate" cults.
I also largely agree with David largely agreeing with me on "merged
cults" generally, elsewhere. Surprise! I'll spare you all any further
mutual admiration. ;-)
Stephen Martin:
> I can't see how Yelmalio or 7M would have to be "fixed" to account for my
> theory. Yelmalio is a god constructed from 1 1/2, 2, or 3 other deities,
> thus seeming to fit my theory quite nicely.
It rather depends on who the entities are, and whether they at all
correspond to the Light Sons/Light Priests dichotomy, doesn't it?
I would nominate the notorious "Elmal + Shargash" pasteup of Yelmalio
as an example of "inappropriate fixing", for example.
In the same vein, I also have my doubts about the notes about Thanatar
in Lords of Terror, which more or less contradict the information in
Shadows on the Borderlands. In this case, though, I have to admit to
somewhat mixed sympathies as to which version of the cult I find the
more convincing.
I won't say Stephen's theory is clearly wrong in any one instance;
what irks me is the seeming presumption that in any case where the
theory and any given cult writeup conflict, it's the cult writeup that
has it wrong. Of course, most of the cult writeups _are_ wrong; I
just don't think this is necessarily a principle which would help
"correct" them.
> Though I will remove 7M from
> my argument mostly because I don't think even what we have in GoG can be
> said to be accurate about it anymore, with all the changes the Lunars
> have undergone in the last year.
Nothing I've read of the New Lunar Thinking would appear to immediately
invalidate anything about the 7M cult, but neither am I betting huge
sums of cash that the next 7M writeup we see won't be a lot different.
> Finally, having different ranks of a Carmanian mystery cult is
> completelyy irrelevant to a discussion of "rune levels", which in itself
> is a bad term -- these are not terms of cult rank in a RQ3 cult sense;
I quite agree the "rune level" is a bad term to use so broadly; which is
partly the point of my objection to such a broadly-drawn meta-theory
that it claims to apply to "all cults" and "all rune levels", from
Pamaltela to Peloria, with only the most ad (and post) hoc of
qualification as to what is really meant by either term.
> Cult of Ernalda was in RQ3 Glorantha Book. Pretty bare bones, and the
> Dendara stuff was very contradicted by GoG, for the better (though still
> not enough).
And the GoG stuff is even more thoroughly Gregged in its turn by GRAY,
and (especially) the Entekosiad. Just as well no-one out there had
rolled up a Dendara character, isn't it? ;-)
Jeff Richard rallies to the (partial) defence of his Two First Names
colleague:
> I fully concur with Steve that the Orlanth cult is a composite of a fair
> number of older cults. Most now continue as subcults, but the old
> Thunderer cult still survives in the form of the Storm Voices and the
> old war-god cult still survies in the form of the Wind Lords.
I'm interested in how Jeff puts this view into practice in ToDP. Do the
Do (m)any other of you good people think the separate priesthoods of
resettlers have two separate cults, or the already "merged" cult, or
some other arrangement? For myself, I would think that in an existence
as marginal as his campaign reports indicate, that the Adventurous
aspect would simply not be present yet; it'd be either be a later
import, or a internal (re?)evolution of some sort.
Orlanth are traceable back to actual separate cults (of actual separate
gods?), all the way to the Dawn?
And come to that, in a different sort of "historical development", who
else puts the interpretation on the CoP Orlanth (or any other RQ2
evidence, come to that), that the cults were "separate" (as opposed to
merely not published in the same version for Praxtical reasons)? In
particular, did anyone run a Sartarite game where limited "cult
compatibility" between the assorted Orlanths was the order of the day,
and if so, to what degree? I'll try not to sound off too vociferously
on this subject myself, not least becuase my "reference copy" of CoP is
about 500 miles away, and I'm not sure I want to tempt fate based on my
recollections of its contents.
Slainte,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:59:05 EEST