From: DevinC@aol.com
Date: Wed 22 Jun 1994 - 20:23:35 EEST
Devin Cutler here:
Colin Watson responds to the growing "Can the gods decide who is naughty and who is nice?" dabte by citing "Lokamayadon"
IMO, this is a situation much like the Priest of Orlanth in Pavis (I forget his name, but he is a Lunar stooge). The answer is Illumination. And we all know that Gbaji/Osentalka/Nysalor/Arkat was, in a previous incarnation Rashoran. Therefore, I submit that those persons of the council who helped to create Nysalor/Gbaji were probably Illuminated early into their work. Thus, we can blame Orlanth's inability to react to his treachery on Illumination.
Chris Cooke asks about a potential conflict between a Stormbull who wants to kill a Chaos creature which has been slept by a Chalanna Arroy.
In RQ2 this was a problem (it was in my campaign, where I had the same problem). However, in GoG, it specifically says that Chalanna Arroy may slay Chaos. Therefore, they do no have to protect Chaos who are slept by their magic.
In my current campaign, a similar problem has been arising. The party leader is an Illuminated Yelmalian who insists upon still following his geasa rigidly. When the Chalanna Arroy sleeps a Troll, she is required to protect it...yet Yelmalians can never show mercy to a Troll. Now, there's a conflict for ya!
Michelle Ringo complains about sexism in Glorantha.
I have always thought that Glorantha was fairly balanced in this regard. After all, let's take a look:
Lunar Empire - Definitely female oriented, with equal opportunities for both sexes
Trolls - Completely matriarchal...with females have much better stats as well
Trowjang - Amazon society......with male slaves for breeding most likely
Orlanthi Society - Vinga the Adventuress
Yelmic Society (supposedly one of the most repressive) - Yelorna
I think there are plenty of opportunities for females playing empowered female characters.
Rather than have a completely egalitarian world, which seems unrealistic and uniteresting, I prefer that we have the gender biases swing both ways, as we do with Uz.
BTW, the campaign I run has a female player in it, and the one I play in has a different female player as well.
"I'd say the info from the divination is just based on what the god usually
knows (mostly from worshippers prayers). If the Divination gives you a
"good reference" then you get accepted. A bad reference, or too-little info
would result in rejection."
Nick writes:
" Besides, you have in the past protested that you're not the
least bit interested in any of the historical, anthropological or cultural
material on these lists (I can look up references, if you're going to pull
a "Scholars? Moi?" again). Wilful ignorance seemed the easiest answer. <g>"
Go ahead and pull the references. I do not think you will find me saying "I am not IN THE LEAST BIT interested..." ; this is you exaggerating my point that the daily was focusing TOO MUCH on such points. I AM in fact, IN THE LEAST BIT interested in such things...just not IN THE MOST BIT interested in having them dominate Gloranthan thinking.
As far as "Scholars, Moi?", I assume you are referring to the fact that I claim to have never specifically named anyone on the list as a Scholar. I still stand by this and await a copy of any posting wherein I did name someone as a "Scholar". If "Scholar, Moi?" refers to something else that I have been inconsistent about, please let me know.
"I think you will find the people who support that contention are for the
most part not historians, psychologists, or anthropologists. Though they
may be Americans. <g>"
Then we both think differently. How shall we prove it? <g>
Joerg writes:
"Sez who? Game practice? Resurrection R Us?
I stand against a reliable resurrection service in Glorantha, but I don't want to revive this dinosaur thread once again."
Well, I must have missed this thread. But it IS a big issue here. You will have to somehow explain to me how, in a Glorantha where Chalanna Arroy has a reusable Resurrection, charges only what the recipient can afford (donations actually), and is willing to heal almost anyone, Resurrection is not widely available?
"If the blank lands were positioned there, why not. They aren't, though. "
Well, if we are going to say that every place in Glornatha has some significance, then Blank Lands would be right out. But, I still think there must be at least 1 out of the wayish area in each region of Genertela that can hold some sort of Blank Land.
"This is why I tossed in apparent death, a phenomenon popular enough to give
a man like Poe nightmares."
Right, but the Gloranthan sees a dead man brought into a Chalanna Arroy temple, the Chalanna Arroy does a 3 hour ritual, and more often than not, the recipient is raised. The Pre-Ren sees someone rise up from a false death maybe once in a blue moon, at random. A level of predictability is missing in the latter.
Cullen writes:
"Well, just to judge from your ideas, I also assumed you hadn't studied
much history. Of course here in the US, schooling only include US
history in most places (as a requirement) and our history isn't very
long (since we don't really study the natives)."
Nevertheless, always better to ask than assume <g>
I am very well-versed in accounting, but I have not chosen to expound upon Accounting systems in Glorantha and did not get involved in the great double entry Lunar bookkeeping debate of some time ago. Mainly because I find it wholly uninteresting. My silence on an issue, or my desire to see less of something on the Daily does not, in and of itself, mean I have no knowledge of the subject. Were the double entry bookkeeping issue to have raged on and the Daily become devoted primarily to the various accouning systems of the Malkioni versus the Kraloralens, then I might rail against all of the accounting appearing on the daily. Nevertheless, I could probably out account most of you on the list (Nick excluded, since I seem to remember that he was an accountant :-)).
Similarly, Russia vs the Gemrans in WW2 is being brought up as a means of comparing Kow vs Loskalm. I am an expert on WW2 history, but again, I refrain from putting in my two cents because I consider such a comparison irrelevant.
"Then why were YOU comparing ancient and medieval peoples to Glorantha
peoples and saying Gloranthan peoples are more devout. If you don't
want to make a comparison-- fine don't make one, "
Gee, somewhow I see comparing how Glorantha DIFFERS from Ancient Earth as a bit different than saying Glorantha IS just like Earth. I have been railing against Glorantha as a mirror image of Earth. My argument for this devoutness thread IS JUST THAT! I must compare the differences in Glorantha and Earth in order to support my contention.
"but don't expect to
make wrong-headed statements about history and not get corrected."
Well, this is all very high-and-mighty sounding, but I will contend that I have not made any wrong-headed statements, and that you have, and that it is I who have been correcting you. Nyaaa!
If you want to cite a FACT that I have misstated, that's one thing, but I think one might want to respect an opinion one disagrees with, even vehemently.
"I hope this isn't actually the case... Ancient peoples differed from us
at a very profound level. Not biologically, but that isn't necessary.
People aren't born with many preconception about the world, so almost
all our notions about the world are cultural."
"Haven't you ever heard a discussion between an Atheist and a Baptist
Fundamentalist? The basic approach of these two persons is different at
a very deep level, yet they come from what is supposed to be the same
culture. The discussion generally breaks down fairly quickly because
they generally can't seem to agree on a basis for discussion (largely
because they don't share even remotely the same epistemology)."
Yes, their discussion breaks down on an intellectual level. I am not talking about intellectual or even philosophical levels. I am not talking about paradigms, which certainly change as the world around us changes. I am talking about root human emotions, reactions to stimuli, etc.
Most Atheists and the Baptists (and human beings), for example, have a deep rooted fear of the unknown (i.e. death). However, they deal with this commonality in different ways. The Baptist comforts himself with the notion of a Heaven. The Atheist does something else entirely (maybe denies it on a conscious level), but the deep seated commonality remains.
"Why would we study ancient peoples if they were just like us? It is so
much easier to get information about people around us, who are
presumably even more similar than ancient peoples? We study history for
precisely the opposite reason, because of those differences. History
helps us to see OUR root assumptions about the nature of the world."
We study them partially for their differences, as you claim. Their different philosophies, art, literature, etc. can provide insight into our own "root assumptions about the nature of the world" as you wrote.
However, if we did not share some sort of basic (maybe almost Jungian) common humanity with Ancient men (and by humanity, I do not mean biologically, I mean we share the same sort of wants, needs, desires, fears, etc.), then it WOULD be useless to study them, because anything we gleaned from them would be utterly irrelevant to our lives. The fact that we do study ancient cultures means theat we use their differences to find alternate ways to deal with common predicaments.
Regards,
Devin Cutler
devinc@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:35:22 EEST