From: Alex Ferguson (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Thu 12 May 1994 - 18:58:27 EEST
Jonas:
> Alex:
>
> >Steady on there... I'm absolutely _not_ suggesting a Quorum of 75 Eurmal
> >Acolytes at every Holy Day.
> So does this mean you agree that the 75-inits limit is bunk in general?
Yes and no... I think it can stand to be "loosely interpreted" (counting associate worshippers. to some extent), perhaps bumped down to about 50 ("seven sevens"?). Eurmal's weird cult structure suggests further fudging, though.
> Joerg: perhaps you should send it to Alex as well, or perhaps even post itI
Yah, why not post?
> By "official", I didn't mean "recognized", I meant "formalized". I.e. when
> Eurmal gets a _priesthood_ that seemingly has a set job description, a
> salary, a uniform, etcetera, I think we're getting away from the spirit of
> Trickster.
Well, no. When a Eurmal acolyte becomes a "priest", he gets a shrine
to sleep it off in, regular buckets of slops on the head, and jeers and
derision on demand.
> This is a problem with the other write-up I mention above as well: it
> anarcho-democratic do-it-yourself tricksters of GoG!
I do too, I think most Trickster worship is like this. On the other hand, I'm resistant to the idea of Trickster being a monolithic GLised entity with only one universal mode of worship. And in places where he isn't _totally_ beyond the Pale, such as the Barbarian Belt, perhaps it is possible to worship Eurmal, in some way, without becoming an outcast? Just a thoughtlet.
> When you argue for a
> complete _separation_ of these questions, it seems you're saying that RQ as
> a rules system should be governed completely by considerations of
> (power-)gaming balance.
There's something of a dangling referent here, I assume "you" is John Hughes, not, say, me. At any rate, I'm about to broadly agree with Jonas here, just as soon as I've uploaded the latest excessive number of outgoing messages...
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:16 EEST