From: Argrath@aol.com
Date: Wed 25 May 1994 - 02:55:58 EEST
Devin:
You mention as an example of how the historical revisionism of Glorantha messes up your game "an ancient ruined temple to Kolat that was supposedly sacked in the First Age." This is not a good example, for reasons I'll get to shortly. I'm not saying there aren't any examples, just that this one isn't.
Worst case scenario: the GLs did invent Kolat. Possibility 1: they invented him out of whole cloth, with no preceding cult. In this case, either the temple was to some other air god, possibly one who is now no longer worshiped, or the temple isn't really first age. Possibility 2: they invented him, using an existing air god as a template. The temple is that prior air god's.
How can your characters, in the third age, tell whether the temple is Kolat's, some connected air god's, or some unconnected air god's? I submit they have no way of knowing for sure, based on the remnants of the temple. "Hmm, there's part of an idol here--it must be Kolat." For a take on the essential bogosity of archeology, see _Motel of the Mysteries_ (and I say that as a person with an Anthropology degree).
Even if your characters heroquest back in time, there are two possibilities: one that the GLs changed the past already, to accord with their ideas. The other that they didn't, and the characters get confused. But I submit that that is a pretty darn unlikely off chance.
You further say, "No amount of Heroquesting is going to retroactively create a First Age Temple for a god created in a later age." I beg to differ, and cite as my authority Greg Stafford's comments at the Heroquest seminar at RQ Con I.
Much the same reasoning applies to Sandy's "millennia-old gbaji-worshiper who was a shaman of Kolat." Maybe he's mistaken as to who he started out worshiping. When you get that old, doesn't your memory weaken a tad?
But Sandy's example seems to be contradicted by the discovered role of Kolat. If he's just a place-holder in the theogony, then he never had a cult. But, Devin, then you can ignore this and say, "Well, the locals *claim* it was a first age temple to Kolat, and who are you to refute them?"
Aden Steinke raises much the same point. To which I reply, but just because cult structure A is pleasing to Humakt, does that mean that cult structure B is not pleasing? I agree about the outer limits of variation--no Humakti assassins, no chaotic Orlanthi (unless all in the temple are illuminated, of course). But check out the Humakt write-up from TotRM for some reasonable variations (like the lottery swords).
Re: effect on the game of excessive scholarship
I submit that the scholarly dialogue on the Daily is needed precisely because supplements like Dorastor and Strangers in Prax lean very heavily toward scenarios and encounters, as opposed to background. I see no danger of driving people away because of the existence of a small coterie of hard-core fanatics to whom Glorantha is more than a gaming world. If people are bored by or (heaven forfend) intimidated by the Daily, why do they read it?
If you want to complain about the discussion on the Daily, though, I can suggest a few topics for consideration. (Let's not and say we did.) :-)
Re: What's in It for Me?
I was glad to see Boris touch on something I feel needs to be addressed in our ongoing discussion of religions in Glorantha. This is the fact that much of the benefit of any religion is psychological, often depending on the fact that one is helping one's god. "Yeah, I sacrificed half my soul to my god. No, I didn't ask for anything back. He needs the soul force more than I do, in beating back the hordes of darkness/chaos/light."
Re: Nick's People's Tribune
Hmm, a Gloranthan Paranoia scenario? Ken must be pleased.
--Martin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:34 EEST