From: alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Date: Sat 28 May 1994 - 00:59:19 EEST
> Devin Cutler here:
> Nevertheless, people react differently when presented with a belief as
> compared to when presented with the physical presence or manifestation of
> power of a deity.
And what about a belief _in_ the physical presence or manifestation of the power of a deity? Our disagreement seems to be about how much the "orthodox" view of Glorantha, that Gods exist in a real deterministic, provable sense reinforces what we seem to broadly agree many earthly people believed anyway.
Also, much discussion of late has been about the Invisible God, who of course _doesn't_ exist in a deterministic, provable way.
> Many modern day Christians and other modern day religious persons will
> certainly say that without a doubt they believe in their God and hgis
> omnipotence. Nevertheless, I can imagine that if God were to make blatant
> weekly showings of His powers, then these persons would become much more
> devout.
What part of Glorantha is (almost any of) modern-day earth a fruitful comparison for?
> The pre-Renaissance persons may have believed their God was active, but they
> never saw such activity. Physical proof is a wonderful motivater.
And if they believed they saw such activity, as many of them clearly did, ditto.
> In addition, even in pre-Renaissance times their were many, especially
> amongst the learned or the nobility or the well-to-do, who, while paying lip
> service to belief in a God or gods, did not truly believe in such. Certainly,
> the Romans were a good example of this.
The Romans may not have been "pious" in the way many people understand the term, but they seem to have been pretty superstitious, and felt the forms of religious observance to be important. I see no reason to rule out comparable religions from Glorantha.
> The divinatory information from Gaumata's Vision at the very least tells you
> pretty much without uncertainty that a village somewhere in Sun County has
> been corrupted with Chaos. When I ran the scenario, this was deduced by the
> players instantly without any thought whatsoever.
This sort of deduction is often aided by thoughts such as "We're in the obvious "hook" part of the scenario, so..." Maybe you just have keen players.
> In RQ2, many cults would use Divination to screen out initiates. Cults of
> Terror mentions this many times, and such mentions suggest that this
> information is reliable (i.e. at least Pow 18 Priest x5%=90% of the time).
Reliable in what way? Reliable as in "gives an answer which can be interpreted as indicating whether to accept the candidate", or reliable as in "gives a readout on his relevant skill numbers, moral values, personal qualities, and hidden motivations"? Given the number of ogres floating round in "legitimate" cults, it's not what _I'd_ call reliable.
Martin Crim:
> Alex says: "Wakboth is making me post [this long message on
> initiation]."
[...]
> Anyway,
> subtle hints from several quarters having failed, I join in the
> plea for a cease-fire.
No promises, but I'm inclined to ease off on the mega-diatribes, at least long enough to see if the discussion dies a natural death without me animating its rotting corpse artificially.
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:34:40 EEST