Syncretism in HQ

[joshua neff]

No, Gareth, it makes sense to me because I don't have a problem with contradictions in the game, and I don't feel any need to resolve them. Now, it may be that during play, it could come up, and my group as a whole will decide that, say, Nysalor was never Gbaji while Arkat was. And that sounds great to me. But I don't see any need to decide before play has even started.

But beyond that one example--no, I have no problem with metaphysical contradictions. I have no problem with the Orlanthi being correct about the metaphysics of Glorantha some of the time, the Lunars being correct other times, and both being right or wrong other times. Part of it is turning a blind eye, yes, because it simply doesn't matter to me. Part of it is that contradictions don't bother me at all in this context, and I have no problem holding the contradictory ideas in my head. I'm a Doctor Who fan, and I have no problem with Atlantis being destroyed on three different and separate occasions in three different ways that all contradict the other instances.

In fact, one of the things I like about the Lunar religion is that it frequently seems to be paradoxical and weird. I like paradoxical. Paradoxical makes more sense to me than everything explained concretely.

What I still fail to understand is why it's so important for you to prove that Glorantha is "broken" and that all of us who have no problem with it are just "turning a blind eye" and ignoring how broken it is. I don't understand what your obsession is here. Why is it so important for Glorantha to make sense to you?

[James Holloway]

For the thousandth time, please address the point of view of the players, not the characters.  The characters are only imaginary.

I have never done this; you are misrepresenting me. I am saying that in-game, there is no reason that the objective success of Orlanthi magic would necessitate the objective truth of Orlanthi cosmology.

But instead, you have proposed that I should not ask those questions, because they cannot be answered, and instead propose I simply pick a culture as a short cut to getting an actual game running with a working social contract.

I said nothing of the kind -- I said to pick a solution to the problem, not an in-game culture. "All magic works fine" is a perfectly valid solution, and does not privilege any culture.

Listen: the fact that magic functions does not mean that the Orlanthi are picture-perfect right on every point of their mythology. Mythology is a reflection of the real state of the otherworld. It contains fundamental truths ("Elmal is brave and steadfast; when tested he endures"), facts that lead to useful generalizations ("Teller of Lies could not flatter Elmal into abandoning his lord" = "pride is dangerous; honor is knowing your place") and meaningless details ("Magasta is Humakt's uncle.") It is not absolutely right; it is also not absolutely made up. This is what I've been saying all along for like a hundred posts.

The Orlanthi cosmology does not contain in it anything that, if true, would fundamentally negate the Lunar one, and vice versa. You think that Sedenya's Lordship of the Middle Air should give her power over all the air everywhere, and you think it's an inconsistency when it doesn't, but this is only because of constructions you are putting on the material. It is no more true that Sedneya's Lordship of the Middle Air would give her total control over it than that by becoming Duke of York, I could tell everyone in York to do whatever I liked and they would have to do it no matter what they wanted.

As for Arkat, this is a side-point about the kind of game I would run: I'm perfectly happy with the "real world" of Glorantha being a non-rational place, such that Arkat was simultaneously both five different people who all called themselves Arkat, like saying "I am Spartacus!" and a single entity occupying five different bodies. I am equally happy with there being parts of Glorantha where up is down, black is white and short is long. However, I haven't been arguing on this basis, as I'm trying to come up with solutions that are helpful to you. I was just using my preference as an example of one of the range of possible play styles supported by the text, not suggesting that you should want to play this way.

Your big problem seems to be that you're conflating "some" and "all." If Orlanthi magic works, all Orlanthi mythology must be exactly true. If the gods were real, nobody would ever act this way. Some Gloranthan documents are in-character, so there's no out-of-game description of how magic works.

edit: the first three paragraphs of Pete's post are a much better expression of what I'm saying.

[James Holloway]

Was Arkat also Gbaji? Yes. Was Arkat the guy who fought Gbaji? Yes. Was Nysalor Gbaji? Yes. Was Nysalor the guy who fought Gbaji? Yes.

Well, actually, this one is a little easier. "Gbaji" is just an insult, "Deceiver." So cultures who sympathize with Nysalor call Arkat "Gbaji" while cultures who sympathize with Arkat do it the other way round. It's as if supporters of George Bush and John Kerry had both decided never to speak the opponent's name, but just to call him "that son of a bitch." I don't think there is some Gbaji-ness somewhere that both entities aspire to. So this is not a contradiction, Gareth, just a terminological dispute in the game world.

[James Holloway]

Sure, well, OK then, explain it to me.  As you have just said, it makes sense to you, it does  not to me.  This is precisely the issue on which I am seeking clarification.

Ask a specific metaphysical/mythological question about Glorantha, identifying clearly where you feel the contradiction occurs. Please do not respond "I've already done so"; cut and repost if you have to. I know most about Dragon Pass, a good deal about the Empire, and less about the other parts of Genertela, so please take that into consideration.

I will grant you right now that some of the material is poorly or confusingly explained.

[soru]

On the specific point of arkat:

1. out of game, that is intended to be one of the limited number of explicit mysteries, not a normal background detail.

2. in-glorantha, few people are _entirely_ sure their version of the truth is correct, they will mostly be aware of the other viewpoints about him.

3. there are no widespread and powerful magics associated with arkat, no empires or kingdoms that regard themselves as his heirs.

None of those points is coincidental.

soru

[Mike Holmes]

The fact is that it's simply not neccessary for the players to know the absolute truth of the game world. It's just not. All the players need to know is what the characters in the setting believe.

You keep claiming that we've not made even a prima facia argument about this, when we have repeatedly. You claim that the game is incomplete and that we've not showed you how it is, in fact playable, when, in fact we have many times over. Now, I could be just saying that, so I'll try one more time to reiterate my argument. If you choose to ignore it, as not addressing your problem, then I'll be done arguing this point, because I'll have already given you what you've asked for.

All that a game has a need to do is to indicate to the participants how to narrate the events that occur in game. It is simply not required to give you a hard "truth" about the nature of those events. In fact, many of us would argue that the game is superior because it does not tell you these things.

You say, ah, but then I have to make up the truth myself. Well, you only have to make up character perceptions. These do not have to be truth itself. But, yes, you do have to make up stuff in an RPG. This is the nature of an RPG. If the player says that they go left at the turn, do you expect that the truth of what lies there will always be laid out in the gaming texts? No, to some extent, you are always required to make up some information on what the characters percieve. Now, you can take that information that you've made up to be objective if you like, but interestingly, to the character in question, there's no way to "prove" the existence of the objects encountered. Not unless Glorantha is somehow significantly different from our world in this, something which we cannot assume since it's not indicated anywhere. An unwritten rule of all RPGs is that where unstated, assume that things work as they do in our world. There's nothing in the book saying specifically that if a person jumps into a fire that they will be harmed - it only gives resistances and assumes that we'll figure out what the results will be.

So we have fictional characters in fictional Glorantha who, like us in the real world, are limited to our perceptions in determining reality. The Glorantha texts tells us what the characters believe, even some contradictory things. So, does this cause a problem when you come to the contradictory information? No, you simply give the player what his current perceptions are. Which may appear to explain the mystery or contradiction in question, or which may actually remain contradictory.

Example:
GM: you see standing before you five Arkats, yet only one Arkat.
Player: how can that be, I as a player have a hard time wrapping my head around that?
GM: So does your character, when exposed to this great mystery.
Player: well, my character has been told that Arkat was really just that one guy on the left. The rest must simply be illusion. I attack the rest in order to make the universe make sense again.
GM: OK, let's roll.

There simply is no problem with contradiction in play. The real players can understand how somebody might react to such information, and they proceed to continue to play. The narrator can present it, and the players can play through it.

Give me an example of a situation in actual play where you'd not be able to narrate something interesting to the players. Where it's not simply a matter of your own personal preferences? If it's simply a matter of your preferences, then we've been right for the last five pages or so, and you're just saying that you don't like a world presented this way.

In which case, I think you should ask Issiaries Inc for your money back, if anyone - I don't see how it's our responsibility. That said, I think that if a car works for one person, but not for you, that caveat emptor applies here. If HQ works for most players, but you just don't like it, well, I'm not sure that you're entitled to a refund.

What I am also just as sure of is that given your needs, and how Glorantha is set up, that nothing we say can help you. It's very much like you've said, explain to me how this car can fly like an airplane just by looking at it differently. Well, it's not, you've bought the car. So either drive it, or...don't.

You can call this sticking our heads in the sand all you want. Doesn't make the game any less playable for us.

Mike

[droog]

I'll have a go. You know, contra, that in real-world terms I am as close to your philosophical position (historical materialism) as anybody.


The Malkioni worship the creating force of the universe (noting that this gives them no magic). They see theists as worshipping part of this entity's creation. In game terms, ie for the players, magic comes from accessing a plane of abstract energies.

Theists may agree that there is a Creator, though they may also disagree on the nature of this entity. Rejecting direct worship of the Creator, they worship beings that personify natural or social forces. In game terms, magic comes from making bargains with powerful entities.

Animists worship the lesser beings of Creation, the immediate life-force of people, trees, rocks etc. In game terms, magic comes from direct control of magical creatures.

Thus, magic comes from distinct sources.

The entities that theists interact with are mind-numbingly powerful. The Orlanthi, for example, can never know the truth of Orlanth because ordinary human minds are not built for it. What they do understand is filtered through their own cultural symbols. Hence, two Orlanthi may never see Orlanth in quite the same way, as their own understanding of these symbols may differ, if only slightly. Naturally, people's myths may or may not reflect the Real Truth; but they have discovered that they work to an acceptable extent.

Subjective understanding affects the magic one can do. Hence the various aspects, subcults etc. If there was unlimited time and paper, one could detail subtle differences between each clan or perhaps even each family's magic.



As for Arkat, Josh makes a point--the point of the game is to sort this out for yourself. Which one is Arkat? Too many stories; we don't know. Find out through play. Otherwise you are playing before you play.

No, I don't know that Greg Stafford has any better idea of all this than me. I like to think that my notions--even the ones still not fully formulated--are just as good. I think he's making it up as he goes along just like me.

I could do with 50 quid. Can I ask you to respond to this so that I may work towards the cash?

[jorganos]

b) I don't understand why you say this. Why does the Orlanthi having magic mean that they have to be right about everything?

For the thousandth time, please address the point of view of the players, not the characters.  The characters are only imaginary.

The point of view of the players is that of an outsider observing Glorantha as a game setting. They can receive facts for the game setting.

Fact: Orlanthi have magic derived from their deities which works as long as they can contact these deities and these deities are willing to grant them those magics.

Fact: Orlanthi have believes which they regard as absolute truths. To play an orthodox Orlanthi, the player ought to have his character adhere to these views.

Fact: The Lunars tell a different story. They have magic which works, and even magic which blocks contact between Orlanthi and their deities (after siege of Whitewall).

If the proposed solution is to pick on culture and privilige it as the point-of-view of the GAME SYSTEM, so that narration and resolution coincide, then anywhere that this culture's perspective contradicts any other culture, the foreign culture must be wrong.  

The GAME SYSTEM has no point of view. It is only imaginary.

The narrator presents the world to the players. He doesn't present the Absolute Truth, but observable reactions of the setting to actions of player and non-player characters, as well as developments outside of the focus of gameplay whenever they touch gameplay.

And seeing as so much of Glorantha is contradictory to such extent, about nearly everything, then yes the ovwerwhelming bulk of all other dicuments will have to be treated as mistaken or fraudulent.

Thus, if the Lunars have magic based on their erroneous understanding of what really happened in the lightbringers quest, then it cannot work.

Wrong. If the Lunars have contact to deities who grant magic for that understanding of what happened wherever (I won't go into details whether the 7 Moms messed with the Lightbringers' Quest or something else), it's not Orlanthi business. Orlanthi have myths of Orlanth praying to greater powers before going on the Lightbringers' Quest. They know that Orlanth is not the ultimate deity. And they know that there are other sources of power and magic which are evil or wrong to the Orlanthi way.

Your players don't need to know about these greater deities. The narrator doesn't need to know. The story works without finding out who exactly Orlanth addressed.

In fact, the story works for the narrator and the players jointly to experiment with a model who these greater truths/beings were. The Aeolians in Esvular believe they know the greater truth. So did Lokamayadon's cult of Tarumath, and so did the EWF Orlanthi. All of these draw (drew) magic from a source beyond Orlanth. All of that magic works under given premises. And none of these magic sources need to be the penultimate. There's turtles all the way down.

But instead, you have proposed that I should not ask those questions, because they cannot be answered, and instead propose I simply pick a culture as a short cut to getting an actual game running with a working social contract.

You can ask these questions. Many others have before. Check the Glorantha Digest archives for "sobjectivity", for instance.

If you take any one (imaginary!) culture's point of view as binding for the entire setting, the setting won't work as soon as you leave the frame of that culture - in fact as soon as you contact any other culture.

So: don't.

But: Do present beliefs of the characters to the players as if they were truths. Treat it like the background of Mage-the Ascension - other truths are waiting to be discovered. Truths that may change the rules. Because that is what the Hero Wars setting in Glorantha is about, and that's what the HeroQuest rules are written for.

No you seem unhappy with what your proposed solution produces, and want to go back to talking metpahyisics.  OK, what are the metaphysics of Glorantha that reconcile its contradictory statements?  My £50 remains unclaimed.  I WANT to know.

What exactly are the irreconcilable contradictory statements you complain about? There is one (entirely imaginary) obective Glorantha, a section of the surface world where for a given time there are (imaginary) observable facts.

There are holy places which ease magic because they act as the place where some myth happened, even though the myth happened elsewhen and, by being a myth, in the mythic realm, possibly with mundane world byplay. The Hill of Orlanth Victorious is given as the place from which Orlanth set out on the Lightbringers' Quest, and it eases entry to that mythic realm. It doesn't have to be the only place to do so, for the reason that it was the starting place, because where Orlanth really started from was in the mythic realm in which the Lightbringers' Quest took place - and that's a place without completely observable facts, as per rules.

It doesn't matter in which sequence you add the numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, the result will be 15 unless you change the context (if you go hexadecimal, the correct answer will be F instead).

Magic effects can be observed. Magic is changing the context of the mundane world into that of the mythic realm. Much of this can be viewed as remaining in context if you define the context taking in a set of mostly compatible myths. If a different context is used, the result may appear to make no sense - my three year old niece will tell me that you cannot count to F, so that's no number and I talk bollocks.

But then, I quite like the idea that there are multiple Greatest Mountains, just like I like the idea that Arkat was simultaneously the same entity inhabiting five different bodies and five different people using the same name. I suspect that would bug you.

Of course it bugs me becuase its blatently bogus.  I can understand oine entity in 5 bodies; I can understand 5 different people; I cannot understand what on earth you mean when you say both of these are the case simultaneously.

Stop thinking in exactly three dimensions. That's the wrong context.

Let me present to you five different people: me when I was born, me when I entered school, me when I left school, me when I left university, me today. I haven't met more than one of these at a time, but that's because I lack the ability to go back through time. Let me assure you that me today is different from me when I was born. We probably share hardly 1% of the atoms.

I know you'd be impressed if I could alter your context so that I could present more than one of me at the same time.

Glorantha is about altering that context, to an extent.

They cannot be.  So what do you ACTUALLY mean by this statement?

That cannot be in the context of the world we appear to share. That's not the context of Glorantha - for starters, we don't have observable effects of magic here. By shifting the context to allow for observable magical effects, you'll have to shift it further to accommodate one entity spread simultaneously to several locations. My hand can make contact with a 2-dimensional surface in several locations, it still is one hand. Nowhere on that surface will you be able to observe the entire hand, but it will be adjacent where my palm rests nonetheless. And where the tip of my thumb rests, too. etc.

Does this help answer your question?

[contracycle]

The fact is that it's simply not neccessary for the players to know the absolute truth of the game world. It's just not. All the players need to know is what the characters in the setting believe.

the GM is also a player.  It is necessary for the GM to know in order to judge and narrate resolution.

Now, I could be just saying that, so I'll try one more time to reiterate my argument. If you choose to ignore it, as not addressing your problem, then I'll be done arguing this point, because I'll have already given you what you've asked for.

No, I have NOt ignored your argument.  I have repeatedly explained why it is inadequate, and you have repeatedly ignored my points and simply reiterated your position again.  It clearly is not convincing me.

All that a game has a need to do is to indicate to the participants how to narrate the events that occur in game. It is simply not required to give you a hard "truth" about the nature of those events. In fact, many of us would argue that the game is superior because it does not tell you these things.

Then why bother buying it?

You say, ah, but then I have to make up the truth myself. Well, you only have to make up character perceptions.

No, not perceptions, because perceptions conflict but dice resolve.  To advabnce this claim you are essentially saying "system doesn't matter".

Now, you can take that information that you've made up to be objective if you like, but interestingly, to the character in question, there's no way to "prove" the existence of the objects encountered.

the character doesn't exist.  The character is imaginary.

It is not the character I must convince, but the player.  Please provide me with a player explanation, not a character one, as I have repeatedly requested.

An unwritten rule of all RPGs is that where unstated, assume that things work as they do in our world. There's nothing in the book saying specifically that if a person jumps into a fire that they will be harmed - it only gives resistances and assumes that we'll figure out what the results will be.

Yes - thats how it normally works in RPG's.  But it doesn't work that way in Glorantha becuase therevis no objectively shared space, only isolated character perceptions.  So if a character has a perception that fire was harmless, that would be just as valid a statement about Glorantha as any other.

So we have fictional characters in fictional Glorantha who, like us in the real world, are limited to our perceptions in determining reality.

Limited is not the same as poor.  Our technology does produce reliable, predictable results common to all observers.  In this it is NOT like Glorantha.

The Glorantha texts tells us what the characters believe, even some contradictory things. So, does this cause a problem when you come to the contradictory information? No, you simply give the player what his current perceptions are. Which may appear to explain the mystery or contradiction in question, or which may actually remain contradictory.

And yet again, a response is given in character terms when the question is in player terms.  And once again I will tell you: I can determine what contradictiory or false PERCEPTIONS exist if I know what is true.  What I need to know as a plyer/GM is what is true in the game world.  The fact that my character may be mistaken is totally irrelevant.

For example, if I was playing Conspiracy X, it may REALLY be that a Man In Black is transformed Saurian.  And then, if there is a discrepancy between what the player expects is normal behaviour for a human, and what the MIB actually does, then that discrepancy may be a Clue.  But I will not of course, as the GM, come out and say so.  I will tell the player what the CHARACTER percieves based on my knowledge of what the game world OBJECTIVELY is.  But Glorantha does not let me do that, becuase it never tells me anything objective.

Example:
GM: you see standing before you five Arkats, yet only one Arkat.
Player: how can that be, I as a player have a hard time wrapping my head around that?
GM: So does your character, when exposed to this great mystery.
Player: well, my character has been told that Arkat was really just that one guy on the left. The rest must simply be illusion. I attack the rest in order to make the universe make sense again.
GM: OK, let's roll.

Yes, this is an example of how it fails in my eyes.  The alleged "mystery" of the multiple Arkats is ignored in favour of stock RPG kill-em-all-and-take-their-stuff.  

And also, the player plainly does not see this is an important spiritually significant issue - the player selects a quickie off-the-shelf pat solution with no depth.  So what was the point of doing all this in the first place?  Nobody cared.

And from this basis, why should I think ANY of the metaphysical "truths" of Glorantha are anything other than empty rhetoric?  The course of play does not prompt a study of the multiple natures of Arkat - indeed, in your example, it is the PLAYER who proposed the solution.  For explorative purposes, that is totally valueless; nothing could be learned because the player made the decision.  The world could not be explored.  For me, as I said, this kills the game stone dead.

Give me an example of a situation in actual play where you'd not be able to narrate something interesting to the players. Where it's not simply a matter of your own personal preferences? If it's simply a matter of your preferences, then we've been right for the last five pages or so, and you're just saying that you don't like a world presented this way.

Yes.  Do the Orlanthi really visit the god-world during their sacred time ritual?

Do Orlanthi really have the power to Fly?

Where is the Greatest Mountain?

I have offered many examples and none of them have been addressed - all that has proposed is that it be handwaved.

In which case, I think you should ask Issiaries Inc for your money back, if anyone - I don't see how it's our responsibility. That said, I think that if a car works for one person, but not for you, that caveat emptor applies here. If HQ works for most players, but you just don't like it, well, I'm not sure that you're entitled to a refund.

And as far as I can tell, this is a company selling a car that doesn't run but has a fanbase that likes sitting in the stationary in the vehicle in the garage.

You can call this sticking our heads in the sand all you want. Doesn't make the game any less playable for us.

Well, theres not accounting for taste.  But lets remember the topic here: how does syncretisation and conversion work in Glorantha?  That question remains unanswered, and it seems will never be answered.  Now I am quite willing to express a preference, and acknowledge my own tastes, and am quite happy to do so.  And if it is the case that in this game, you cannot and simply never are expected to Immerse into your character and see the world as they see it, as we see our world, then yes indeed I can happily say that this is not the game for me.

But the fans themselves keep asserting that this is not the case, that nothing is wrong, and if only I was open-minded enough I would be able to understand.  That is why I keep the door open for people to explain it to me.  If there is ano explanation, then I think these products should be much more explicit about how they are intended to be used.  I made the mistake of thinking I was buying an RPG, and instead I have bought a set of props.  It appears to me to be a dishonest product.

Thsat is a perception reinforced by the torturous lengths this cpnversation goes to in order to avoid admitting that there is in fact no coeherence between Gloranthan products.  While I was on one of the old mailing lists, many new players of HW wrote in to ask much the same question,  and many many were shamefully abused by the old hands.  Cries go up of "oh no not the s/objectivism debate again, won't you idiots learn that its not worth raising the issue".

Why treat your customers with such hostility and contempt?  I/we bought the game wanting to play - if we have questions, what we want is answers, not to be told that we are mentally deficient for failing to "get it".  We are not being mischevous or spiteful in asking these questions - if we really didn't want to know, we would not ask them.  And if we end up alienated from the product both as a result of its inherent deficiencies, the total silence of the authoer on the topic, and the self-appointed elitism of the old hands, then that is not because we are possessed of some vendetta.

I saw a whole procession of people join that list and simply get turned away, often rudely, as this thread has shown.  What you all seemt to fail to understand is that if I didn't actually want Glorantha to work, then yes I would just go away and laugh from the sidelines as a product that has always struggled  (now, to me, unsurprisingly) continues to struggle.  My ideal outcome would be a publication with sufficient design notes and discussion of intent such that the material actually makes sense.  Or, just be honest about it - when a question is asked about syncretisation, just respond, "actually these materials area really just props and that sort of thing is outside its scope", instead of all the apologetics for multiple perspectives that fail to address the issue.

[contracycle]

Ask a specific metaphysical/mythological question about Glorantha, identifying clearly where you feel the contradiction occurs.

Do Orlanthi REALLY go to the god-world during their sacred-time rituals?

Which is the Greatest Mountain?

How can more than one entity be Lord of the Middle Air?

[GB Steve]

Are you still all discussing this? It seems fairly fruitless to me. The fault lines between the positions have been identified and there seems little hope of reconciliation.

Just looking at Gareth's 3 questions I can see that there will be several different answers because there is no right HW, there's just the HW that one plays.

FWIW, my answers are:
Sometimes they do.
There's a bit of it in every mountain.
It depends on who you ask.

I see these as being of no use to Gareth. Isn't it time to draw a line under this and move on?

[contracycle]

I'll have a go. You know, contra, that in real-world terms I am as close to your philosophical position (historical materialism) as anybody.

Yes I remember

Thus, magic comes from distinct sources.

I don't have any difficulty with magic coming from different sources.

But lets look at the Malkioni case a bit more closely.  It is not just that the Malkioni assert their view, it is that it has implications for other views.  And we know this well from our real history: the religions of One God have consistently viewed all other metaphysical entities as being guises of ther deceiver, where they have acknowledged the existance of those entities.

To me, this is hugely significant.  Malkioni lands are set up like Feudal europe; one would expect Malkioni priests to treat Orlanth worship as akin to devil worship.  It is not just that the power comes from another source - in their metaphysics, the power is tainted, and probably contains a moral dimension, like the story of Faust.  It seems to me that if you played a game based on these views, and resolved die rolls based on these views, you are establishing a social contract that privileges these views - that is, you would need to demonstrate say that the worshippers of false gods get their due comeuppance for consorting with the Deceiver.

Subjective UNDERSTANDING of objective FACT I can understand.  Subjective fact, I cannot.

As for Arkat, Josh makes a point--the point of the game is to sort this out for yourself. Which one is Arkat? Too many stories; we don't know. Find out through play. Otherwise you are playing before you play.

Except, that will not be "finding out" during play - it will be asserting during play.  IUf I am to assert - if Arkat is intended to be a "user configurable device" - then the text should say so, IMO.

[contracycle]

On the specific point of arkat:

1. out of game, that is intended to be one of the limited number of explicit mysteries, not a normal background detail.

2. in-glorantha, few people are _entirely_ sure their version of the truth is correct, they will mostly be aware of the other viewpoints about him.

3. there are no widespread and powerful magics associated with arkat, no empires or kingdoms that regard themselves as his heirs.

None of those points is coincidental.

soru

OK.  Now, this strikes me as the right way to proceed, becuase this does imply that Arkat has some underlying logic which the products then implement.  That is expecially striking in the sentence that none of these is coincidental.

So, can you expand on this?  This is the kind of thing that has for so long seemed to suggest that there is some coordinating principle in operation, and if only it were openly discussed I may find the products more accessible.

[contracycle]

I don't understand what your obsession is here. Why is it so important for Glorantha to make sense to you?

Just that I wish to be able to immerse into the characters perceptions, and as a GM, to understand when those percpetions conflict with the single reality the multiple opinions share.  I want to be able to treat my character as a person, rather than as a mere token.

[James Holloway]

Do Orlanthi REALLY go to the god-world during their sacred-time rituals?

Yes.

Do Orlanthi really have the power to Fly?

Some of them, which is to say the ones who worship Vanganth the Flyer. Other Orlanthi sort-of fly by summoning Umbroli or Herothroli to carry them, which to observers looks like much the same thing, but isn't quite the same as the Vanganthi ability to fly under their own power. During the Sacred Time rituals, all Orlanthi fly, even if they can't do so otherwise, but it looks as if in the material world they aren't in control of it: they are lifted up and carried by the wind, but they don't control where they go, at least until they get to the other side.

Which is the Greatest Mountain?

The Greatest Mountain is a spot in the otherworld, a sort of ur-mountain which embodies the lofty heights to which the Orlanthi can go. Particularly tall physical mountains partake of the nature of the Greatest Mountain, and thus can be used as conduits to access the Greatest Mountain. In this sense they are said to "be" the Greatest Mountain, in the same way that a heroquester taking on the role of Orlanth or Humakt is said to "be" or "become" the god. Naturally, most Orlanthi believe that their particular Greatest Mountain is the Greatest Mountain as a bit of regional chauvinism. If you had to pick a greatest Greatest Mountain, the best bet would probably be Kero Fin in, er, Kerofinela, which is both Orlanth's mother and (IIRC) the tallest mountain in the world. But the nature of the connection between our world and the Storm Realm means that there genuinely can be more than one Greatest Mountain, or rather that all these mountains are really different guises of the same Greatest Mountain.

How can more than one entity be Lord of the Middle Air?

More than one entity can't, really. Now, I don't know where it says that Orlanth is Lord of the Middle Air. TR tells me that Orlanth was born in the Middle Air, but that's all I can find on a quick glance through the books. It may be that Orlanth was the Lord of the Middle Air, that Sedenya performed the quest that would entitle her to be LotMA, and that now they're going to have a dirty great fight to settle the issue, but I couldn't comment until I saw a reference that said Orlanth was LotMA.

edit: note that I said, "clearly identifying the contradiction." The questions on entering the godworld and flying are, as far as I'm concerned, no-brainers, which is why I ask about the perceived contradiction. If I can understand why you think that Orlanthi might not fly, or why you think they might not enter the Storm Realm, that would be good.