From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Date: Wed 25 May 1994 - 18:20:03 EEST
Joerg:
> It seems that my impression of the Compromise and its consequences differ
> from yours. I thought that the Compromise kept the deities out of
> day-to-day affairs of Glorantha, let alone have them worry over minor
> details as squabbles between different local interpreteations.
It does, but they still "intervene" (via spirits of reprisal, etc.) when actual sacrilege occurs. Thus I don't think a single theistic cult could become riven to the extent of IG worshippers, but this still leaves a great deal of scope. (Of course, one might counter that after a certain point the cults "split" entirely, then throwing up the issue of whether the gods does too.)
> I don't believe either that it is possible to look at someone's runes,
> not even for temple spirits. I liked the explanation why (some, per RQ3)
> illuminates are immune to spirits of reprisal: they don't feel the guilt
> the spirits need for homing in on the miscreant. Nothing divine in this.
Soul Sight reveals initiatory status to a priest, recall. (Oh no! RQ God Learnerism! ;-/) As to "seeing runes", I don't see why this shouldn't be possible (be _some_ means), but it seems neither here nor there in this context.
> > If a theist commits
> > a sacrilegious act, various consequences ensue, _without_ any human
> > intervention. (To wit, becoming an Inactive initiate (which has more than
> > just "rules nit" consequences, and/or spirits of reprisal.)
> You become inactive already if you don't show up for the High Holy Day
> ceremony (unless you got leave, like that keeper of Greenbrass).
You _become_ inactive when this happens (and for other reasons), you aren't "inactivated" by the priest. Though maybe that could be done too, but it seems redundant with sicking a SoR on the poor sucker. In fact, one could say that about Inactivity in general, in Glorantha.
> The
> spirits of reprisal are summoned and sent by priests using Command
> Cult Spirit, as I understood it.
Not necessarily, though I do think spirits of reprisal _may_ be Commanded.
> Like I said above, I have a more stringent view about the Compromise and
> its consequences.
One wonders how gods manage to act in _any_ way, given this view. A deity has knowledge of the actions of his initiate, and hence may potentially "notice" a sacrilegious act. The "link" to the initiate is within his domain of influence, so there's nothing Compromise-breaking about suspending it. To instruct a spirit of reprisal is no more compromise-breaking than answering a divination, as far as I can see: both are "communication", not "intervention".
> > Excommunication
> > needs human action, but will generally follow from the foregoing, and has
> > tangible affects. ("My Son, why have you Gone Inactive, and why are those
> > Flint Slingers banging away at your noggin? <zap> Consider yourself
> > an ex-initiate.")
> Those Flint Slingers were homing in on his feeling of guilt or betraying,
> not on the very act, unless he broke the cult restrictions in a way blatant
> to even an entity outside time.
So it's a matter of degree, not of Compromise-shattering prohibition? I agree with this view. Being a bit light on the tithe one month doesn't provoke divine retaliation, but peeing on the Altar of Orlanth Victorious cetainly would. (And I don't just mean the "temple defences", before someone jumps down my throat with this riposte.)
> > If a Rokari flouts his religions strictures, nothing much happens, unless
> > he's caught with his hand in the poor box, or some other part of his
> > anatomy in a local peasant wench/sheep/chaos monster. Even then, it's
> > a matter for the vagarities of human sanctions.
> The Yelmalio village foreman in Gaumata's vision had not been visited by
> Monrogh, either.
Had he done anything actually sacrilegious? Clearly gods don't act as a thought police, they only notice what a worshipper actually does (if even that).
> > Where a manifest (deity|saint) is worshipped too, your kilometrage may
> > clearly vary. ("No, really, I left the monks of St. Gerlant Flamesword
> > for, errrr, personal reasons.")
> Why so?
Because if a Saint grants non-wizardly powers, then he's effectively a manifest entity, so reasoning for initiates of visible gods (very broadly) holds. If the cult just grants a special sorcerous spell or twelve, then the Saint is (or at least may be) "invisible", and not at all manifest, in the same (non-) way as the IG.
> The only reason I'd accept is that the person which has learned
> to invoke a saint has become the Saint's Rune Lord or something similar.
I'm not sure I apprehend your drift. Are you saying that apostacy from a Saint's "cult" shouldn't "work like" that from a theistic cult, or that it should. I didn't actually say either, so it's hard to tell which you're "disagreeing" with. In any case, I think it depends on the nature of the saint, and of his cult.
_Anyway_, the point is that since some gods are _manifest_, they can do this sort of thing, at least under some circumstances. The IG isn't, and can't, in any way. Most Malkioni would lynch you before you could say "I didn't really mean--" if you so much as implied something which could be inferred as meaning that the IG was in any way manifest, visible, or whatever. "Proof denies faith, and without faith I'm just another crappy False God!", as it were. Of course, some sects believe the IG has a manifest aspect, but that's another boat of bananas entirely.
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:36 EEST