From: Alex Ferguson (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Mon 25 Apr 1994 - 00:52:08 EEST
Sandy:
> I think there's no doubt that imaginary cults can be created
> with greater facility among theists than new Invisible God heresies
> can be formed.
I have to disagree with this. All a new heresy takes is a crackpot bishop (or an ultra-zealous superior), as terrestrial history makes fairly evident. Of course, whether it survives or flourishes is another matter.
To worship a Whole New God seems much more difficult. On both earth and Glorantha, most `new' gods are in fact adoptions from different, or earlier, cultures. The original `invention' of a god tends to be hidden in the depths of prehistory, arising from some primal need of hir worshippers.
> Though imaginary Saints are a possibility.
To use RCism as an analogy, new saints are probably being canonised every day of the week, and "derecognised" at a roughly equal rate. "I'm sorry, St. Egbert doesn't measure up to the Three Major Miracles (Confirmed) standard, so the Archdiasis is removing his accreditation."
I'm sure many saints which have (or at least grant) no magical power are worshipped, making the above doubly true.
> I submit this was part of the God Learners' techniques,
> finding obscure spirits that were possessed of a Secret Power, and
> inflating them to full cult status.
Sounds good to me, though it's hard to tell which ones might have gotten such treatment. After all, we don't really know what cults existed during the first age, and they they could easily have evolved by themselves before or since the God Learners anyway.
Sandy has referred to Secret Powers before, and I was uninformed then too. What are they, apart from things which grant Rune Lords 1d10 DI? (If anyone says "It's a secret", I hereby cordially invite hir to Convulsion for a Personal Thumping. <g>)
> Ed Wallman states:
> >In general, I find the western civilizations to be much more
> >difficult to use for a game setting than good old barbarian
> >settings.
> I find this to be a very interesting comment, especially
> since AD&D(TM), Pendragon, and most trash fantasy books almost
> exclusively use this type of setting.
They are typically `Western', and `Mediaeval', but _not_ monotheistic. There seems to be great commercial resistance to fantasy material portraying monotheism in the schlock fantasy market, particularly historical monotheism. Some lead-balloon reviews of GURPS Fantasy expressed exactly this reservation, and even C&S has fallen victim to it. Pendragon finesses the issue by being more pluralistic.
> (I slammed the Carmanians, saying they weren't very nice.)
> >I'm curious, is this a Relative judgement or absolute statement?
> A relative judgment. In the eyes of most Gloranthans, the
> Carmanians are repressive grasping villains. Obviously there's plenty
> of kind, caring Carmanians, just like there were no doubt many Nazi
> party officials who liked dogs and children.
It's very confusing to hear these sweeping statements about Carmania ("Exactly like Persia." "Nazi-level morality.") on the basis of so little published info. Is there a mine of data in the Type B Ruin, or is everyone speaking off the top of their heads? (Though hopefully, not Out Of Their Hats. <g>)
> But most defenders of Moral Relativism I've met won't go so far as to
> defend it in regards to the Final Solution.
Much easier to do from a point of view of Moral Absolutism, all things considered.
> Here is why. The Doraddi
> "kinship" system I designed is based on lineages named after plants.
> The Lineages are complicated, but dominate all courting and sexual
> relationships.
And is matrilineal?
> I can't help but feel that the Left-Hand "skins"
> should not be totally different from the Doraddi "lineages"
From what I've heard thus far, they could be identical for all I know. (Hint, hint.) How do Petersenic/Right Handed lineages work?
> Give me a hand, John. Maybe one or both of us can modify our
> concept so that the Skin/Lineage dichotomy becomes compatible
Yeuch. Why can't we settle for separate descriptions of distinct (but interlocking) cultures, and _then_ worry about how they interact with each other afterwards? I'd love to make suggestions here, but I have essentially no info on the Official System. (Hint, hint, hint.)
> [...] the Doraddi are friendly and curious about strangers, not
> xenophobic at all.
Note that John's article makes it _explictly_ possible for a total, unrelated, even non-Agimor stranger to be "assigned" to a skin once sie is known to the tribe. So Right->Left isn't a problem. Doubtless Right Hand tribe could jury-rig similar arrangements if the need arose.
David D:
> Another linguistic problem: the word "thane." In Pagan Shore, thane is
> essentially a clan chieftain.
This is historically "correct", roughly, I believe: "Hail to thee, Thane of Glamis."
> In the Orlanth writeup in Heroes I.4, anyone
> in the Orlanth Rex subcult (which includes tribal council members on
> council business) is called thane.
I've not seen this writeup (Sam! <g>), but my guess would be that "All O. Rexi are thanes (or chieftains, or tribal kings, etc), but not all thanes are O. Rexi".
> But in King of Sartar, the rank is
> broadly defined to any sort of leadership role: heads of household, godi,
> leading merchants, and members of the clan council [243]
Remember that thane isn't a `noble' class: all it requires is that one's fellows think enough of one to merit the status. (Not that birth and wealth aren't gonna be factors.)
> (does this mean the Trickster member is automatically a thane?).
Thane of Drunks, Thane of Idiots, perhaps. I don't think _all_ persons on the clan council need be thanes, they're merely likely to be. (Tricksters rank as Outlaws, officially.)
> And it's listed as an occupation [246].
Presumably this covers anyone of thane rank who has nothing better to do with their time: eg, weaponsthanes. "Professional Thanes", as it were. I don't see this as at all problematic, but it is admittedly somewhat linguistically imprecise to `overload' the term in this way. (As if language were ever precise.)
> And of course there's Elmal the Loyal Thane, obviously this third meaning.
This appears to fit: Orlanth :: Chieftain, Elmal :: thane. A westerner would have said "Loyal Lieutenant", with the same degree of (im)precision.
> So Greg not only Gregged Yelmalio, he Gregged Orlanth Rex.
Hey, he has to keep his hand in. ;-)
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:33:55 EEST