From: Alai MacFergail. (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Tue 03 May 1994 - 22:56:16 EEST
Loren Miller:
> Why do you think that "cult" is in "culture"?
My personal theory here is that one comes from the Latin _cultus_, from the verb _colere_, "to worship", while the other comes from the Latin _cultura_, from the verb _colere_, "to till".
<pause>
Hey, wait a minute! ;-)
> IMO, cult and clan *are* unitary. Or if not then why is there a different
> Orlanth cult in Prax from the cult in Sartar?
For one thing, the Praxian cult isn't worshipped by clans at all, but by aberrent individuals.
But I can certainly accept that there are clans for which this is true. But as clans become progressively more civilised, urbanised, Lightbringer- influenced, and generally more liberal, I think it becomes less so.
> I believe that the Orlanth cult
> is different from each clan to the next, and that the only reason the
> rulesbooks don't mention it is that it would be unplayably complex to have all
> those different long-form cult writeups, one for the Colymar, one for the
> Lismelder, etc, etc, etc.
Note those are tribes, not clans. Probably a more likely scale for major cultic variations. How "different" do you believe they might be? My guess would be that published long-forms are generally true for most worshippers, though lots of other details we haven't been privy to doubtless vary locally. (Exact myths and rituals, hero cults, colour of pointy hat worn by High Priest.)
> This goes back to the idea that every worship
> service is a heroquest that has the possibility to change the cult
This isn't the intent of worship, however, so it isn't likely to be a common occurrence. And if a (useful) change does occur, it will tend to spread, either by direct effect of the HQ, or subsequently by mundane means.
> >But: what I'm quibbling about, is to the general effect that I'm
> >not convinced that for all Gloranthans, Initiation into their society
> >is _necessarily_ coincident with Initiation into the full, active religious
> >life of the community. And if it does, I'm not much impressed by the
> >existing, or proposed rules for it.
> I disagree. Adults are *all* capable of participating in religious ceremonies
> in adult roles, because they have become adults and that's the purpose of
> adulthood initiations.
I don't deny this is a valid position to take. However, I don't see it as being true by definition, or stated or implied to be true by published rules or background material.
> However, there are mysteries that require additional
> initiations. Frinstance, the village chief goes through an additional
> initiation that ties his prospects to those of his village.
This is an easy case: after all, there's an Orlanth sub-cult specially for it. However, I think it would be stretching thing to suggest that _all_ individuals, whatever their role, join the same cult. Does the merchant, the sage, the lawspeaker, the healer, and the trickster, in addition to, or instead of their "natural" cult? Are you suggesting all these would be effectively "subcults"? You need to be more specific before we consider merging minorities (of one?). ;-)
> Now to respond to your precise point, that religious initiation and local
> social initiation aren't quite the same thing, or if they are then the rules
> proposed for it suck...
Aren't _necessarily_ the same thing. In some places they are, evidently, and maybe even everywhere, but I don't see the case as proven.
> Everyone joins the same cult. That's the social glue for their community. By
> joining the local cult the adult should get all the benefits required to live
> successfully.
I don't think this is the case, unless one takes a very syncretic view of what a cult is: it would have to subsume the functions of every other "useful" cult.
> In a clan in which Barntar is the pre-eminent
> deity the land goddess (Ernalda, etc) would give her spells to him, not to
> Orlanth.
Or quite possibly to both. But I dislike the idea of _all_ (male path) prospective adults having to join (in this case) Barntar.
> So, each locale and/or clan version of a cult would have different
> associated cults.
I agree with you here, this is very much susceptible to local variation. Particularly if one believes as I do that "important" associates have shrines in smaller temples than the rools would have us believe.
> It would make Alex's and other folks' objections to pantheon-style
> worship unnecessary.
Partly. This is somewhat like what I had in mind when I suggested placing greater emphasis on associate worship, but may go Too Far; I'm not sure.
> So... we need some way of describing both cult and society to produce a whole
> which is unique in every little village.
Logically, it would be one cult per _clan_, rather than by village, to extend your argument. I think your scheme breaks down somewhat for less rural areas, for reasons similar to those Joerg assails me with in regards his view of Orlanthi cities.
> Village initiation will then produce
> a religiously active adult, an adult who is initiated into the main cult and
> an associate member of the associate cults, without needing to spend 3POW
> because he doesn't worship Orlanth or whomever the "ruler" god is. Those who
> wish to initiate further into mystery cults may spend POW and do so. That's
> what I want. I'm not sure how to write rules for it either, anybody else got
> any ideas?
RQ3?
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:07 EEST