From: Jonas Schiott (jonas.schiott@vinga.hum.gu.se)
Date: Thu 05 May 1994 - 03:28:26 EEST
Yay! Tricksters are back in the discussion!
Charles:
>Some while ago, a request for the "official" Eurmal cult writeup was posted
>here on the digest. Since Phil Davis is my GM
>Eurmal is associated through his parentage with the runes of Disorder and
>Life and, through his reluctant fealty to Orlanth, the Storm Rune.
I'm not arguing against any of these, I'd just like to know what became of Illusion?
>B. Social/Political Position and Power
>[...]
>Outside Orlanthi lands, Eurmal is treated as any of the other Trickster
>Gods and considered fair game.
>Initiates must sacrifice one point of Power on each Holy Day and all Magic
>Points plus one point of Power on the High Holy Day of the cult. This must
>be done only if there is a shrine or Temple within five days travel of the
>initiates location.
Is this really supposed to say "Power"? If it does, that means you get to blow 6 points of POW each year. Or spend a lot of time on the road. Knowing what tricksters are like, the later seems more likely, so what you will get is essentially ceremonies with nobody present. Why, then, do they have an organized cult at all? It makes for a good meta-joke, of course, but for how long can they keep that up?
Otherwise an interesting piece to scavenge ideas from.
John:
>While Alex's idea of
>Tricksters worshipping together has some intriguing scenario
>possibilities, it also strikes me as somewhat odd.
I second that... wait a minute, I think I already have?
>Some unpublished stuff I have on Trickster
Intriguing stuff, thanks for sharing it with us. BTW, who wrote it?
>Now perhaps I'm a cynic and of little faith, but I like to draw
>distinctions as to what 'level' I'm discussing. I see at least four
>fairly distinct and (IMHO) ultimately unreconcilable levels of
>Gloranthan 'reality'.
Bravo! The best piece of analytic philosophy I've seen on the Daily so far. And I say that with absolutely _no_ smileys intended. Your distinctions are clear, to the point, and explain what a lot of the confusion is about.
I'm just not sure the bulkheads between the levels have to be as hermetically sealed as you make them out to be. In particular, I'm concerned about the relationship between RQ-derived and Gloranthan realities:
>The RQ rules [I] WERE NOT however,
>designed to simulate large scale social, environmental or magical
>effects.[I] Certain of the more
>'absurd' Gloranthan phenomena (cult membership rules, initiation,
>certain spells) were derived for and work only at this level [that of
>adventuring].
I agree that the rules, _as they stand_, lead to absurdities when you try to extrapolate a society from them. But couldn't one work from the other direction? Trying to modify rules so that at least a small-scale social situation can be played out without complete suspension-of-disbelief failure is my number one RQ priority. By "small" scale I mean the clan/tribe kind of thing. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "large" scale, but assuming it includes things like wars, migrations and the founding of new religions, I would agree that the RQ rules have nothing to say on such subjects. Oh, and to avoid more confusion: I am _not_ suggesting that the rules should be directly applicable to the workings of a society, just that they should be compatible with what we (the GMs) intuitively, common-sensically, mythologically or whatever have decided will happen anyway.
Jonas
---------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:08 EEST