From: Barron Chugg (bchugg@leland.stanford.edu)
Date: Mon 27 Jun 1994 - 09:56:15 EEST
Hello All.
First a commment on nomenclature. Before my idea is eternally labelled "Chuggian Pathes" let me offer the name "Runepathes" (a cross between Hero Pathes and RuneQuests, as if that weren't pretty blatant). Not that I mind being imortalized in this way, but...well...when I was but a wee physicist I used to dream about discovering a new element (Chuggium) or a sub-atomic particle (the Chuggon), and lets face it: next to a mention in the CRC, a side bar in a game don't rate (:-)). Anyway, considering I am not the first explorer in this area, I think Runepathes is a nice generic.
It seems that the hardest part of this idea for me is the question of "is the god independant of the pathes or not". So far I have managed to convince myself one way, then the other, a dozen times. I am becoming more and more convinced that the answer is _highly_ dependant on the person asking. Sure, as GMs, we want a concrete answer, because, darn it, it impacts on our gaming. But I don't think having a set in stone answer is good (in a mythical as well as gaming sense). We know that people have interacted with the gods in both manners (personal and mechanistic), so both most be possible. Both sides can explain the others aparent success as well. So why must only one be correct? This is a great example of paradox as opposed to contradiction. While the two views seem mutually exclusive, they are also both correct. If we look at this as a contradiction we get stuck, and will likely be forced to invalidate one groups views. If, on the other hand, we look on this as a paradox (in a slightly Zen sense) where both can be true without invalidating the other, then we can use both safely.
Sort of like one's first semester of Quantum Mechanics. For that brief, shining moment, you are sure that the particle is still a billiard ball. Then you start to see how that is not possible. Okay, fine, you think, it is definately a wave. But then again, it sure acts like a particle...but it acts like a wave too. Yeargh!!! There follows an obligatory crisis of faith. This crisis is usually resolved when one accpets the paradox. The particle is either a billiard ball or a wave depending on how you look at it. But what, asks they aspiring student, is it when I am not looking at it. Ahhh, sighs the master, it is both, but niether. Contemplate this student, until you attain enlightenment (or a Ph.D.).
Hope this makes sense. I can feel several more paragraphs struggling to get out, so if this is still unclear let me know and I'll post them.
>I said:
>>> Even in the event of success; if *any* other Humakti priests found out about
>>> it, these "new worshippers" would be excommunicated so fast it would make
>>> their heads spin clean orf. And they would be right back at square one.
>
>Alex (thinks he) disagrees:
>>
>>I disagree with this particular bit: one should only be able to excomm.,
>>or sic spirits of reprisal on, cultists from the same "hierarchy".
>
>Indeed, but the way I see it, these chaps *are* effectively in the same
>hierarchy.
Side note: I think "sect" would be a better word than "hierarchy".
>
>My view is: because the Cacodaemonists learned the rituals by rote from
>the priest it is effectively as if he had initiated them himself and therefore
>he knows full-well how to excommunicate them.
I am not convinced that "by rote" recitation of the rituals is enough for initiation (for ogres, maybe, but they, like illuminates, are special). I believe that to follow the Runepathes successfully, you need the right "frame of mind". This is why there are certain similarities between people in the same cult (not all of them, but a plurality).
[Good discussion of excommunication by way of Runepathes follows.]
I'll go with this idea. I think the most likely thing that would happen is that the priest would leave a "shadow" of himself on the path looking for the reprobate and booting him off. I doubt the priest consciously thinks that this is what he is doing, but it is the simplest interpratation. But then, I'm not sure yet how metaphorical (as opposed to Heroquesty) the Runepathes are.
>
>Worshippers from geographically distant areas would tend to worship in slightly
>different ways. They may nominally all worship Humakt but their rituals
>would differ. Hence a priest from one area may be incapable of Excommunicating
>an initiate from another area.
Righto, they have emphasised different pathes and probably see the common pathes differently. So the priest who leaves his "shadow" at the crossroads he knows is not going to catch them.
Paul Reilly:
>
> Alex replies to me (after I replied to Sandy about DI in enemy temples):
>
>>Rune magic appears to work in wrongly-sanctified areas,for some weird reason.
>
> I think it's because the priest is doing the Rune Magic, not the god. He
>may have gotten it from his Goddess, but She isn't doing it. Difference
>between selling someone a gun and committing murder.
I'd go even a step farther (suprise!). I think the more apt metaphor is the difference between inventing the gun (or even teaching a gunsmithing class) and committing murder.
Close friend of Little Elvis: (If that _is_ your real name...)
[Responding to Colin]
>It does appear that paths of worship and heroquesting can be derailed or
>even forged anew (e.g. Gold Wheel Dancers, Arkat, God Learners). However,
>it only seems possible with a superhuman effort. Joe Schmoe who wanders in
>his religion is visited by nasty spirits. Joe Hero who wanders in his
>religion becomes a subcult. Joe Schmoe who wanders off the heroquest path
>gets devoured by Krarsht. Joe Hero who wanders off the heroquest path
>becomes a star in the heavens.
This is what seperates the heroes from the schmoes. The hero's will is strong enough to shape the world, the shmoe's will is shaped by the world.
>
>Here is an idea. Instead of a single heroic individual forging a new path,
>what if many many unheroic people kept throwing themselves at it. Sure,
>most would be snuffed out, but eventually the path would be trodden enough.
>This sounds so familiar as I write it, I think it must have happened in
>some form in Gloranthan history.
But then, maybe the collective wills of many schmoes is enough... Heropath accretion, anyone?
> ...[Good stuff on the gods and the Compromise.]...
>
>It all seems too convenient for the gods. "Oh, sorry, I can't really get
>involved because of this darn Compromise. What? Someone is getting
>powerful like me? I guess the universe will just have to turn against
>them and obliterate them. That's what they get for disturbing the
>natural order of things."
>
>I think it should be called the Great Conspiracy.
>
I'd say this is too much personification. The gods are intimately woven into the fabric of the universe. In many ways, they _are_ the natural laws. Thus, I think saying, "the gods crushed the GLs" and "the universe crushed the GLs" ar syonomous. Or, at worst, a matter of perspective.
Sandy:
I liked the write up on the GL's downfall and the Monomyth a great deal! "Anti-Bodies of the Sending Gods", yuck!
David and Joerg:
Thanks for the insight on the "how is Gbaji different from other deities" question. I liked your answers a lot. Esspecially the one about Gbaji not doing the "honorable" thing and departing the world of men. In fact, I liked it so mcuh I borrowed for later use in this post...
Paul Reilly:
>
> I think that there is an underlying commonality in the Gloranthan magic
>systems. To me this gives a world-flavor to Glorantha. I wrote something
>up on this a couple of months back, I planned to do an improved version for
>general release but have not gotten to it yet, so I am releasing the
>rambling, unimproved version that was meant to be personal correspondence.
>If it is well liked I may invest the time in improving it. Thanks.
>(I already know some people will hate it.) This was a personal letter to
>Nick and Greg, hence the personal references.
>
> Thanks for your indulgence...
I haven't had time to digest this in the least yet, but I will soon! From what little I've read I like what I see.
Nick:
>
>Oh: if the name "Saint Michelle" is too much to swallow, you could do the
>normal Chaosium thing and corrupt it to, say "Saint Myshella" or something
>similar (wasn't there a Moorcockian sorceress by that name?).
>
My version, Saint Ellysh (or some spelling like that) was just an inversion of Michelle, for the record. Sick minds think alike.
Martin:
>
>Re: Rune Magic
> This is a rather abstract thread, so I'm going to inject
>some game-stuff into it. Ready?
> In Mike Dawson's game, a trickster initiate had to steal
>something in order to gain a divine spell from a shrine he was
>visiting.
> Peter Michaels has suggested (off the Daily) that a mini-
>heroquest be required to gain divine magic. I suggest that a
>pilgrimage be a common variety of mini-heroquest, or RuneQuest
>(as someone has suggested).
I've always thought the gaining of runemagic in RQ was pretty sterile. Anything that jazzes it up is okay in my book. I'll even restate the idea that risk should be involved for the more important spells.
TTFN
Barron
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:35:32 EEST