From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Date: Wed 25 May 1994 - 18:32:23 EEST
Egad, another unsent mega-message on initiation found lurking on my disks, which Wakboth is making me post, regardless of the danger of it having been overtaken by subsequent events. Oh well.
The usual suspects:
> > Your "definitive sources" are getting thinner by the second, Joerg. ;-)
> I fail to see any of yours... ;-)
Never claimed to have any. Unless you count every single reference to a "cult" of any individual deity, of which there are bazillions, which, fortunately, I'm far too sporting to do.
> > Minaryth isn't a "typical" 14 year old, I'm sure. Someone given "a quill,
> > a way with words" at birth could be at 90% Write Sartarite by 14.
> By a "gift and geas" mechanic? How do I create such unusual characters as
> PCs?
Sparingly, I hope. I don't want to get into advanced character generation rules drafting. (Yet.)
> > Cultic initiation is _not_ a rite of passage, as such, for adults: no
> > one argues that one can join a cult as an adult, of any age, so it
> > can hardly have the same ritual significance as passing into culthood
> > (for the first time), and Adulthood (for the only time).
> Hey, cultic intitiation defines your afterlife, your Runes, your life.
> Your standing in family, clan and tribe changes, you get access to
> radically different positions. _Not_ a rite of passage?
Fine, Joerg. If this is such a big deal, why are you sweeping it under the carpet entirely, in favour of turning up at the Generic Temple and saying "I fancy an Issaries spell this week"? If I understand your pantheonist rules correctly (and it's a big If, I concede), then being initiated into a _particular_ cult has either become entirely superfluous, or has become roughly "sacrifice a point of POW, take on no new responsibilities".
> Tell that the guy initiated to Eurmal, for instance.
Special case.
> > This is a pretty deuced clear-cut example of initiation into a single
> > deity, but paying attention to one's normal social, including other
> > religious, due.
> I.e. to the pantheon, ot the temple.
I think if we want to wind this discussion up, trying to get in the final "Is too!" without making any new point is counterproductive.
> All (85%) Orlanthi males are initiated to Orlanth (KoS p.245f).
I think this statement is true by itself, but isn't a correct reading of the paragraph in question, which seems to be using the phrase "ways of Orlanth" in some way known only to itself. (It doesn't specify "male", please note.) Perhaps to mean "adulthood/clanic/tribal initiation", since the beginning of the _next_ paragraph speaks of "any cult in the pantheon".
> Is this worthy associated with e.g. Eiritha, Babeester Gor or other
> associates of Ernalda? Since he uses oxen to plow, possibly with Eiritha.
> If he tends an orchard, maybe even with Aldrya? Is he associated with
> the Lightbringers? With Heler? With Mastakos? Urox? Humakt? Valind?
I'm not sure in which sense you mean "associated". Do you mean in the sense of "associate worshipper", or in the sense of "is an `initiate' of"? In this context, I'd say the Barntar cult would be considered associated to some of Ernalda's associates, and some of Orlanth's. Say, Voria, Ernalda, Asrelia, Eiritha, Orlanth, Heler, Chalana Arroy. I don't think he'd typically be an Initiate of any of these.
My understanding of the concept "Initiate of" isn't, as Joerg implies, "entry-level worshipper of", or "person turning up at the ceremonies of". Rather, "walker in the hero paths of", "cosmologicly bound to", "keeper of the secrets of", "person prepared to commit themselves to a significant expenditure of time, money and effort in the service of". I think Joerg's model, in seeking to liberalise worship in broadly laudable ways, does serious damage to the established significance and importance of cultic initiation.
I think that if you ask the typical Gloranthan "Who is your god?", you get a short, singular, non-collective answer, not an elaborate formula involving recourse to concepts like pantheons.
(Though if you ask a Eurmali, he might just fib.)
> All of these, with varying degrees. If you can express this in
> the one man - one cult scheme, you are well off. I can't really.
"Initiate of Barntar" works for me. If he wants to joins another cult too, great stuph, but I don't see why it'd be necessary.
> > I find it strange that people can simultaneously propose, or agree with
> > propositions that initiation is a "theistic heroquest of personal
> > transformation" [...]
> > and then suggest that the person who emerges from this is a
> > Generic Theyalan Pantheon Initiate.
> I heroquest in my (cultic) initiation rite to get my place at Orlanth's
> Stead.
For me, heroquesting means following the path of the god, initiation HQing doubly so. Some aggregate involving putting on the hat of every god in the (even local) pantheon seems much less satisfactory to me, even if you can think of a suitable composite myth.
> If I am to plow the land, I ask Barntar to show me the knack
> [...many others...] I fetch Chalana Arroy to help my charge.
This is all one initiation HQ? Or an example of My Life as a HeroQuest? Let's not get on to that topic, too, at least in this thread.
> Whenever a specific problem is at hand, I worship the appropriate
> member of Orlanth's Stead.
Recall that I proposed a (possible) such cult (I suggested "Orlanth's Hearth", roughly Orlanth, Ernalda, Barntar, possibly other children, to rationalise the plowman's dilemma ("Do I worship Orlanth, Barntar, or what?")), but this description doesn't cover all the deities in the pantheon. And in any case, it would be a (gasp, horror) "fudged" cult.
> If I want assistance in a
> matter of love and courting, I can either fall back to Orlanth's youthful
> role in his wooing of Ernalda (which is perfectly well for a dalliance with
> an experienced woman), or I ask Uleria (or even Eurmal) for charm and good
> looks to get that maiden from the neighbouring stead into the hay
Unless you're suggesting that the current rules suggest that you need to become an initiate of Eurmal or Uleria in order to fall in love, I don't see the force of this argument. I think I need to define a macro-key bound to "associate worship" to spare myself some RSI.
> This needn't be measurable magic by rules criteria, but it is one
> element of this individual's worship - of Orlanth's Stead
I agree that individuals worship, in some sense, more than one deity from the pantheon. Have been agreeing, loudly and seemingly ignoredly. I just think it's a great mistake to devalue the meaning of the status of Initiate so that "everyone gets to be an initiate of everything". A much more profitable avenue, IM(NS)HO, would be leave initiation (mostly) unmolested, and ask: "What magical benefits should accrue to a person not an initiate of any cult, or to a person belonging to a different cult in the pantheon?" And: "How do they take part in the worship of the given deity?". And while we're at it: "What do we call them?"
> In fantasy literature, most authors have their characters invoke a deity
> fit for the task at hand [...]
> I use the pantheon initiation as an attempt to make the player realize
> that there are a plethora of potentially benevolent entities which might
> be helpful in specific situations.
This is what John H. would call a "RQ-level" argument. I'd rather have a role for initiation with some "Glorantha-level" mythic power, and cultural significance and worry about how I'm going to work in cameos from assorted pantheon bit-players afterwards.
> If being an initiate is close to
> roleplaying one's chosen deity, then asking one's patron's recorded
> helpers, the members of his pantheon, for help is playing in role.
Yes, I see that analogy. Sounds like <reaches for macro> associate worship to me. At least _some_ form of associate worship, even if there are serious problems in the current rules. Are there?
> If my mundane occupation lacks a direct role model in the pantheon,
> then I have to fudge my role model form the existing ones.
Hrm. I think the best question to ask is simply what deity (or recognised aspect) is the _most_ important or applicable. Others are probably satisfactorily rationalised by associate worship.
> I am a male adult, so my role model is that of the male adult - Orlanth.
> I live in a village where everyone, including myself, plows a piece of
> land, so my role model includes the plowman - Barntar.
> I happen to be the village's clerk, in that I am responsible to collect
> tithing and feorm for temple and chieftain (Issaries) and to record
> the village history of economy (Lhankor Mhy).
A fairly contrived-sounding example (clearly, you can't have a whole community of such people), but if I were playing or reffing such a character, I'd say he fitted the Lhankor Mhy job description rather well, if the clerk/historian roles are the keys ones. Or Orlanth Lawspeaker, if that aspect is locally recognised.
I don't believe you have to be an "initiate" of Barntar to use a plow. Particularly if the Barntar cult is already strong, and can "support" a non-member or associate member who is providing a useful contribution otherwise. I don't believe you have to be an initiate of Orlanth to be a male adult. Well, unless you do: I'm hazy about this one. ;-/ (And I don't believe you have to be an initiate of Voriof to be a male child.) I don't believe you have to be an initiate of Issaries to collect taxes, in fact I don't think that's even the correct cult. (LM function, I think.)
> My role is a complex one. I could call myself a Harst initiate, but
> there is no such independent cult. If there was, it would be weak, and
> my exclusion from the village's worship would weaken the village as well.
Exclusion? I don't see how he'd be excluded. Clearly he's not as much magical "use" as a dedictated Barntar initiate, but to hope otherwise is surely over-optimistic. If "All of the benefits, none of the costs" is an intended selling point of pantheon initiation, I'm certainly not buying. If the local LM site or shrine is located in the Barntar temple, then they are de facto associates whether the rules say so or not.
> If viewed strictly by the rules, only old Venharl would qualify as Orlanth
> initiate, the rest might as Barntar initiates.
I don't think it's true that farmers worship Barntar in preference to Orlanth, as a rule. After all, your source for widespread Barntar worship as such is Heortland, an area you yourself think is "not really Orlanthi". (Of course, in Sartar, Lunar occupation makes a difference.)
> But how should they perform
> their Sacred Time rites with but one real Orlanth guy, and one who is
> getting too old for all of this short LBQ business?
"God of Chieftains, Warriors, and Farmers, all." Personally, I believe your model is in danger of us having no "real Orlanth guys", and no real Chalana guys, etc, as they all end up as some undifferentiated shade of Cafeteria Theyalanism. I'm quite sure this isn't your intent, but your suggestions seem to me to risk throwing the identifying-with-your-god baby out with the overly-rigid-cult-writeups bathwater.
> A certain flexibility in these matters is mandatory.
Indeed. But too much flexibility looks like laxity. Or even fudge. And having much more flexibility in the "rules" than in the "real" cults is obviously undesirable. And I don't think you can deduce what the "correct" structure of a cult is purely on the basis of what would suit a worshipper, or even community of worshippers: they have to contend with the harsh, awkward, bumming-out facts of life of magical ecology. Whatever they are. The question is duly begged, I know.
> One might "fudge the cults", as Alex proposes. Makes me ick.
I really don't see why: Do you have this objection to Orlanth Goodvoice, then? And if so, why doesn't Pantheon Initiation have a similar, but greater effect on you? It sounds, to me, that it'd be One Great Fudged Cult: if you ever actually described it, that is.
> In RQC, these are called
> initiates of Barntar, in KoS they are called initiates of Orlanth, assuming
> the Volsaxi Orlanth-worshippers fit both bills.
Different people. The Heortlings of KoS (a term originating from the first age) are _not_ the Malkionised Heortlanders of the RQC (third age).
> > Worshipping many entities makes you _less_
> > specialised, by any reasonable metric, surely.
> Expressed by Cult Lore skills, my character above is likely to have
> 89% Orlanth (Thunderous) and Ernalda Lore (he's pious), 85% Barntar Lore,
> 65% Grain Goddess Lore, 55% Issaries Lore, 35% Asrelia Lore, and quite
> low skill in say Mastakos Lore or O.Adventurous Lore.
If he's particularly pious, it's not unlikely for him to join more than one cult, and put up with the extra mundane costs. Especially if he's a priestly (/RL/acolyte) wannabe. I don't accept you can be zealously involved with several cults (as RQ3 would have it), while only putting in a fixed ammount of effort. Jack of all trades...
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:35 EEST