From: Alex Ferguson (abf@interzone.ucc.ie)
Date: Thu 19 Jun 1997 - 21:16:04 EEST
Oliver Bernuetz asserts that:
> A lot of the arguments from the subjectivist camp seems to be based on
> the premise that an individual's experience of the divine in the RW is
> genuine or else that it doesn't matter-i.e. that people belief in
> god(s) etc. in the RW is sufficient in and of itself.
It is? Greg might argue thusly, so I wouldn't dismiss it _too_
> This notion that everyone's right and nobodies wrong smacks of humanism
OK, I'll bite. Who in Glorantha is "wrong", then? Presumably, all
casually, but I haven't noticed anyone actually arguing here from this
position. I for one certainly think that religious experience in
Glorantha is "genuine" in a sense that RW religion is not. However, I
don't think that having a genuine religious experience has much to do
with being able to get God's telephone number.
> not theism.
the non-theists, in the light of the above.
> This argument is getting pretty damn boring.
I'll not disagree with that. The trouble is, while the "subjectivists"
If this all just comes down to a personal preference, fine and dandy.
What my concern is, though, is the apparent wish to establish some sort
seem largely happy with the Gloranthan status quo, that certain
"objectivist" splinter groups insist on demanding that Glorantha be
"fixed". When they're repeatedly invited to explain what's broken about
it, we reach this sort of impasse. The implication is often made that
a "subjective" Glorantha is a moral atrocity or an unplayable nightmare,
but rarely gets backed up by any reasoned argument, or at least not one
what takes makes account of what the other side is actually saying.
If someone wants to assume, or construct, or JeSeven out of late-60's-
to-early-80's obscuria an Objective Reality that suits their campaign
purposes, or simply their personal predilictions, then good on 'em. If
subsequent Gregging attempts to dent this, then I strongly recommend you
cry "Screw the fecker", as they might say in these parts. For most
campaigns, I suspect what the "objective truth" of Gloranthan reality is
doesn't matter a whole lot, as there's probably not much disgreement
between different subjective viewpoints, so to assume that the consensus
view is Objectively True is (at worst) largely harmless. If ones campaign
is so broad-ranging that different viewpoints are going to require a lot
of work to reconcile ("It's Tuesday, so this must be Carmania", if you
will), then one can try to do the same thing, but you may have to knock
some corners off the "official" version.
of before-the-fact criteria that only things which _can_ be so
reconciled become part of the Gloranthan Canon (and I suspect that not
even the self-proclaimed Objectivists would agree what sort of
reconciliation is possible or desirable). I see this as, to pinch
Martin's phrase, limiting. I don't see that (say) hunters, herders, and
civilised folk perforce _ought_ to agree what happens to animal's souls
upon slaughter, or that there should be some Ordained Truth as to which
of them is right, and which wrong. Ditto with Doraddi and Losalmi
beliefs about what happened at the Dawn and in the Darkness, etc, etc,
yadda-yadda, blah, blah. Some people seem to think the "subjectivists"
are intolerantly and unilaterally trying to impose a "One True
Glorantha" on everyone else, but the reverse danger seems altogether
more real.
> Sure, it has no effect on PC/NPC interaction but it could have an effect
> on game play as far as we're concerned. [...] If two cultures are
> clashing [...] it's nice to know the basis of their belief.
There's a considerable difference between something having a perceptible
effect on game play, and something which a particular GM thinks it would
be "nice to know". In order for the Objective Truth to make any
difference in a "culture clash" situation, it implies that at some point
it'll poke out at them, and one (or both) will realise their error,
repent of it and assume some more "true" position. As _you yourself
argue_, Oliver, this doesn't seem to happen very much. Cultures
encounter each other, and emerge with their prejudices largely intact,
if not reinforced. Furthermore, when it does have an effect, as in the
case of say the Theyalan Coucil, or the Middle Sea Empire, many would
question if the New Truths discovered are any more Objectively True than
the old ones, as compared with what a hypothetical "unbiased" person
would think the most likely historical facts to be.
> I really dislike this idea that myth is so mutable that it can easily be
> changed to suit changes in circumstance or situation.
I don't think anyone is suggesting myth is "easily" changed. We're
talking Major HeroQuest, here. To take the Huma?t? example, we're
dealing with _Arkat_, heavens to murgatroid. And the net result of this
huge change is that: an associate deity or two gets dropped; a certain
spell becomes reusable, and maybe they get one or two others; a single
letter in the god's name gets moved and transmuted; and there's a change
in the mythology, to "explain" all the above. Sounds dealable-with to
me. I think the idea that Arkat could equally have changed Humath into
the god of Pink Bananas or whatever is fanciful, and bordering on being
one of these humanoid figures constructed of dried grain stalks. Making
an entirely wholesale, and mythically unreasonable change is either a)
flatly impossible, or b) requires a corresponding bigger heroquest to
accomplish (thus in effect, see a), for all practical purposes).
The real clincher for me is that the above two cases are effectively
indistinguishable. When Arkat "invented" Humakt, was he making up new
myth out of whole cloth, or was "rediscovering" bits of the Objective
Truth which were previously obscured under subjective cultural detail?
It's impossible to tell either way. If you want to interpret it as
one rather than the other, you're entirely free to do so.
(Dead)Doggedly,
Alex.
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 17:01:41 EEST