Subjects and Objects

From: Mark Sabalauskas (
Date: Mon 19 May 1997 - 01:51:55 EEST

>Let's be clear about this: the "subjectivists" have very particular
>reasons for their position. They want to be able to have a Peloria
>which believes in Pelorian myth, a Barbarian Belt that believes in
>Theyalan myth. Seem fair?
        Yes, that seems quite fair. But, speaking as an
"objectivist" I still don't see why "subjectivism" has
anything to do with different peoples having different takes

on the way things should be. Cults of Prax managed to include
cult write-ups for both Aldrya and Zorak Zoran. Recent Solar
and Lunar source material *could* have have been written in a
way that was distinctive yet still consistant with the gods

being real (but limited) beings.
>Why do you think the World Council had the One True Mythology and
>not say the Kralori, Artmali or the Malkioni? If the Gods are
>so powerful surely all they had to do was to pop over to those
>various places and reveal the Truth to the myriad people of
        If the theists' gods exist that hardly implys that they
are worthy of worship or that we have any reason to believe that
they know The Truth (pat. pend.).

        Anyway, in the real world, people manage to believe in
a loving, omniscient, all-powerful divinty whose revelation
occured in a specific geographic and cultural context as
opposed to everywhere and all at once.

>But what if I decide the objective nature of my Glorantha is to be
        As far as this objectivist is concerned, more power to
you! I (and, I'd guess, Carl as well) am simply saying that I
don't personally enjoy that recent increase in subjectivity.
I'd hardly want to impose my aesthetic principles on your
>I call it "distortion of our viewpoint". If the myths contradict each
>other then SOME ARE WRONG. If you accept the primacy of logic you
>can't get around that. If you don't, we're wasting our time
>discussing this.
        Uh-huh! Testify, brother!
        (oh, wait, I'm not allowed to just say "me too! :-)
        Uhh, I should just point out, again, that while I
dislike facts contradicting, a cult's moral or emotional
reaction to the facts hardly has to be the same as that of
other cults. Yelmalians and Zorak Zorani can take different
lessons from the Hill of Gold without one or the other of them
dissappearing in a puff of logic.
        Actually, in the good old days, back before we found
out that the Pelorians thought the world was a lot older than
1,600 years, there was more room for cults to differ about
facts. After all, one could simply chalk up differences to
the problems mortals have understanding a world "before" time.

(of course, this is no big deal for people who aren't concerned
about what actually happened, but are only interested in what
the various cultures believe happened.)


End of Glorantha Digest V4 #408

RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark
of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material,
unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the
author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to
excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for
electronic retrieval.

Send electronic mail to with "help" in the body of
the message for subscription information on this and other mailing

WWW at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:59:40 EEST