Dayzatar and less

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: alex (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Fri 08 Jul 1994 - 20:39:45 EEST

Sandy "What this net needs is more ^Ms in its diet" Petersen states, in a flat mono(myth)tone, concerning Der Official Dayzatar Cult:
> Only minor alterations are needed for the Teshnan version: Zitro Argon.

Where _did_ I put that list of execution methods? };-)

Personally, I consider my project to produce a variant Dayzatar cult in _Peloria_ only temporily shelved...

> Folk who die in the worship of Dayzatar go to dwell forever in
> heaven.

Who ever said it was a sure thing, eh, Sandy?

> Dayzatar is the Source of Truth, and is always
> alsoassociated with the Light Rune.

> Some monasteries are complete little communities and supportthemselves.

How, exactly? It's not likely Monks do physical labour, much less <gasp> till the land, so they're not likely to be self-sufficient after the fashion of some earthly monasteries.

> Monks of Dayzatar are free of all cult responsibilities.They
> may ignore any calls to service, former geases, andresponsibilities
> beyond those of seeking the truths of Dayzatar.

> Most sky and fire gods are friendly to this cult. Their priestsmay
> join this cult upon retirement from active duty.

What happened to that Extensive Qualifying Period, huh?

> Alex Ferguson, bitter foe o' the Monomyth:
> >But was it _really_ true? That it "worked" for a while, and in a
> >limited area, merely shows that it was a useful working model, or
> >approximation, within that domain.
> 'Twas never claimed to be more than a useful approximation.
> For all your nitpicking, the Monomyth concept still works better than
> any other way of trying to understand the Gloranthan universe. The
> fact that the myth had "bugs" in no way invalidates the basic idea.

Firstly, the Monomyth _isn't_ a myth (or at least, wasn't until after the GLers), so claiming that it has "mythic truth" is suspect.

When I hear statements like "the Monomyth is true", I don't so such think "clearly, it's actually false", but rather "in what sense do you mean, _true_?" To what are you claiming it's a useful approximation to?

  1. The History of the Godtime. It Really Happened this way, honest, guv. The Jrurgian Monomth, as it were.
  2. The myths people told about the Godtime, based on some form of a). Possibly how the Jrusteli regarded it?
  3. The myths people told about the Godtime, their Deeply Ingrained Psychological Need to believe such things: the Campbellian Monomyth, Jung, the earthly "science" of mythography.
  4. The observable state of the Godplane, as it exists currently, or either immediately before or after the GLers got to it.

And before I'm accused of trying to pin you on the chaotic horns of a False Tetralemma, I don't assert the above to be exhausive, or mutually exclusive.

> It's like saying that the fact that certain biological facts
> are difficult to explain means that the whole theory of organic
> evolution is bunk (an argument I've heard from creationists).

Or a bit like saying this phlogiston theory business has one or two minor bugs in it.

> I'm
> sure that the God Learners and subsequent philosophers spent years of
> their life arguing about this or that detail of the myth (much as we
> are doing). In any case,

Things like what caused the Darkness is a Minor Detail? What we're doing is only comparable to the above if _we accept_ the Fundamental Truth of the Monomyth.

> >Just like turn of the century earthly "scientific" mythography did
> >the same for us? Like Lewis Spence "proving" that Ancient Eygpt must
> >have gone through a shamanistic phase of worship?
> Exactly.

Clearly novel use of the word "true", then.

> Since we know that the Tolat special night is only one night long
> [...] this lets us learn some conclusions about Alex's
> own sexual habits.

Hey, if you're having sex on the Godplane, one night could encompass the proverbial Mythic Age, no?
(An unsporting correspondant would perform a similar calculation for Sandy's "pleasurable" hypothesis, and send appropriate condolences to Mrs. P. ;-) ;-P )

> I suggested that the Hrestoli not be as sexist as the Rokari. Alex
> wonders:
> >Why? Rokarism isn't all that long-ago an "offshoot" of Hrestolism.
> So that Western PCs will be able to experience a more dynamic
> imbalance between Rokarism and Hrestoli.

You seem to have abandonned "Glorantha-level" arguments several messages ago on this thread, but I'll press on regardless.

Note that you're not merely suggesting the Hrestoli be somewhat less sexist than the Rokari, you're suggesting they have _institutionalised_ egalitarianism (of the sexes), while Rokari have institutionalised sexism.

> If all the Malkioni (except
> minor heretics) are rabid sexists, then there is less to chose
> between them.

I've already suggested that they have _different_ caste systems for women; I just happened to put 'em the sensible way round, unlike my various detractors. ;-) I think there's already a great deal to choose between the two; they might be at each other's throats (theologically speaking) but we need hardly make them dualistic opposites.

> Jeez, Alex, I thought you'd be the Last Person to argue
> against the expansion of a Rune to mean more than the original narrow
> definition. Hunger means Undeath, and it means Hunger, and it
> probably means some other stuff, too, of interest primarily to
> Chaotic philosophers.

Expansion, schexpansion. It's been _moved_, and more to the point, moved to a less meaningful place. For example, does Gark possess the "Hunger" rune? I doubt it, but he would certainly have possessed Undead. And as you yourself have mused, not all "hungry" cults have Hunger; Hunger is seemingly reserved for Nasty Chaotic Hungry Types. Messy-messy-messy. And all because Greg and his little helpers couldn't think of a more amusing runic association for Krasht, so they nicked (not Nicked, just nicked) the hitherto-sensible Undead rune. Hey, I almost sounded like Devin, just then, didn't I? ;-)

> I should
> think a line of flying Shades would be an excellent technique to
> break up a cavalry charge, seeing as 98% of the horses charging you
> get Demoralized as they come, and 10% either drop dead or collapse in
> their tracks.

Now work out how many close-order infantry could could have nobbled for the same cubic metrage of Shade.

Alex.

Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:35:46 EEST