From: Alex Ferguson (email@example.com)
Date: Sun 01 Jun 1997 - 05:00:39 EEST
My off the cuff term "HVO" seems to have more legs than I'd have
thought, with Nils and David C. surprised to find it adhering to them,
and Simon Hibbs queasy about being called either HVO or "Subjectivist":
> I do believe there is a real, objective Glorantha. However, I doubt that
> it is fully comprehensible to the mortal mind, and certainly to
> rationalist analysis.
OK, I'll grant that's not quite what I intended by my definition of
HVO, since it was supposed to cover people who believed in a real,
objective Glorantha, and _knew exactly what it was_ (!). (Or at least,
knew better than the hapless Gloranthans.)
I won't insist on shoving Simon into the "Subjectivist" box, as I agree
the term has all sorts of connotations and inexactitudes associated with
it that confuse the issue. I can't immediately think of a snappy term
for "I believe that personal experience of Glorantha varies in potentially
'contradictory' ways, and don't have (or want, or feel the need for) a
neat explanation of why". But that's the position I meant, when
describing (and defending) the S-word "case".
Mr. Cake is a HVI wannabe, it seems:
> And I certainly do believe that we need to define the Hidden
> Reality (the true rules of the Otherworld) at least a tiny bit, if only
> because its the only way we are ever going to ever have things that
> resemble heroquest/ T&J mechanics.
Well, you have a point there. In the first instance, I'd settle for
a really good set of HQ/Tajjing rules for a single cultural viewpoint
-- which may possibly be what G:tG gives us. But to describe cross-
cultural interactions in the invisible world, then we need some sort
of common "truth" that describes the overlap. Though I don't think this
need necessarily be an underlying "objective reality", or even part
thereof. One could simply say that what the two cultures happen to
agree on, they experience as a sort of HQ "frame of reference". If
they agree on next-to-nothing, then an Otherworldly meeting is, almost
by definition, unlikely. What they disagree on, may either be irrelevant
(didn't come up in this T&J, or what did happen was perceived differently
on either side) -- or may in fact be precisely what's "at issue" in an
adversarial HQ. An instance of this might be Rich Olsen's question:
> "Say a Yelmalian and an Elamali meet on the
> heroplane. Then they ritually run into the sun. Who is it?"
If something like this happens on a HQ, it's obviously for a Reason.
For example, the Yelmalion and the Elmali are on an adversarial "Who
is the true sun?" HQ. If they meet the sun, and both see that
(gasp!) It Really Is Yelm, then guess who Won? In fact, I believe
Greg drew out an example much like this at a Convulsion, stating that
if this happened to you, then you weren't, and _couldn't be_ an Elmal
worshipper any more. (I may misrecall the details.)
If this meeting happened "casually" (if one can credit anything being
casual on a HQ), then it would be possible for each to perceive the
sun the way they "expected" to -- that is, in some way consistent with
their own beliefs, and not necessarily the same as the sun the other sees.
> The subjectivist gives us no answer.
The "subjectivist" answer would be that whatever happened, or seemed
to happen, was true. ;-) Determining what happens is left as an
exercise for the GM (and games designer!).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 17:00:18 EEST