Syncretism in HQ

[James Holloway]

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.

The Malkioni believe that pagans and heathens will not receive Solace when they die -- which is, of course, perfectly true!

[droog]

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.

I think you're going a bit astray when you see the Malkioni as straightforwardly Catholic. I think they are more akin in religious terms to Jews. Now Yahweh in the Old Testament is one god among many--the supreme god, but one only.

I think that you would best be served by seeing Glorantha as the game of commentary on subjective viewpoints. Nobody is right; all cultures have their flaws. Hence the people will one day reject the gods altogether.

I have for many years played Glorantha at one remove. I suggest you try this.

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

It's a thought experiment. What if?...the gods are real...elves are plants...dwarves are machines...the God Learners are us...

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.

For me the text has, since at least the time of the Genertela pack, implied this very strongly. Assert away--that's what YGMV means to me.

HQ isn't a Sim game any more. It's Nar in that it asks you what you think. Maybe Greg Stafford doesn't actually mean it this way, but a text like Glorantha has taken on a life of its own. It means more than its overt meaning, just as we can find all sorts of unintended meanings in Heart of Darkness or Salammbo. I pick these 19th century examples carefully; because Glorantha, intentionally or not, has a whiff of Victoriana about it. Go ahead and deconstruct it. Use it for your own commentaries and political thinking.

[soru]

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.

Well, there very much is a game mechanic in with that purpose, the 'misapplied worship' rule. This states that if you try to tap a source of magical energy with the 'wrong attitude', you pay double hp cost. You could tie that into moral failure by arguing the points you spend on that you are not spending on 'pious', 'loyal to feudal lord', 'slave all day in the fields', 'survive on diet of turnips', etc.

In the specific case of malkioni, the 'wrong attitude' is looking at Orlanth not as a god to be emulated, but as impersonal forces owned or guarded by a personality that needs to be negotiated with - i.e. demonology.

The thing that 99.9% of malkioni will never be in a position to know is that there is also a 'right' way to worship those gods, a way that does fit into a society, rather than place you in opposition to it.

Incidentally, most people find the misapplied worship rule pretty unplayable (it jumps from normal cost to double cost), so if you were going to run a game focusing on that area it might be worth trying to come up with something a bit better.

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.

I'd agree a nice long essay along the line 'how to narrate interactions with conflicting myths' would be a good thing. Some people get it, some don't, and I'm always an optimist that more explanation can help move people from one camp to another.

soru

[joshua neff]

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.

You misunderstood me. What I don't understand is this: if, as you claim, Glorantha is a "car that doesn't run" (despite the fact that many of us get a great amount of mileage out of it), and if you think the game is only worth the money you spent on it if someone out there defines exactly how the gameworld works in absolute terms (rather than you doing that yourself), and if you think the Glorantha "community" are being jerks for handwaving aside questions that you want answered or otherwise not answering them to your satisfaction--if this is the case, why do you persist in trying to get the answers you want? What is it about this setting and this game that make you want to play it, even as you deride it for being "broken"? What makes you want to play this game even as you have so little respect for the other people playing it?

[pete_darby]

Okay, about these Malkioni: they typify theistic gods and spirits as "the enemy", and, from their PoV, they are right. They represent the two other alien otherworlds whcih are anathema to the essential otherworld, and thus threats to their foothold on Glorantha

Now, let's look at football; Arsenal see Chelsea & Manchester United as "the enemy", as they are competing for primacy in the league.

Which one of these is allowed more leniency by the rules of football, ontological privelige if you will, becuase they are "right"?

Please let go of ontological privelige in Glorantha. It doesn't exist, no single group is right about everything, just because they point to an opposing group and say "evil!" doesn't make them right, even if their magic tells them it is (everyone's magic tells them they're right).

How does a Malkioni know that theists and animists get their comeuppance? By knowing they won't get to Solace in the afterlife. Yeah, that'll learn 'em.

If you place ontological privelige into Glorantha, if you say that these players get bonuses because they are right and their opponenets are wrong, it is purely something you have done, not anything the designers have done. It is not only uneccessary for Glorantha, if it were true of Glorantha, Glorantha would be very, very different.

Some writings about Glorantha make claim ontological privelige for one group or antoher, but they are plain wrong.

Finally, when you ask for an answer, and you get an answer, and say it's just handwaving, ask who's waving the hand. You are waving away the answer, and accepting that answer may require you to change the way you think.

[James Holloway]

In the specific case of malkioni, the 'wrong attitude' is looking at Orlanth not as a god to be emulated, but as impersonal forces owned or guarded by a personality that needs to be negotiated with - i.e. demonology.

I'm not sure I understand this -- Malkioni don't worship Orlanth, except for the Aeolian church, who worship him as a saint.

[jorganos]

In the specific case of malkioni, the 'wrong attitude' is looking at Orlanth not as a god to be emulated, but as impersonal forces owned or guarded by a personality that needs to be negotiated with - i.e. demonology.

I'm not sure I understand this -- Malkioni don't worship Orlanth, except for the Aeolian church, who worship him as a saint.

They still recognize Worlath the World Storm as a major player outside of the church saints, ofttime enemy or neutral.

It's a bit like the Orlanthi not worshipping Yelm but having him in their religion as a major independent player (getting killed then rescued by Orlanth).

I think that Soru was after propitiatory worship of that force which makes up Orlanth - getting magic to survive the storm. Or non-orthodox but pragmatic worship of what is there and likely to cause conern.

Some of this can be found in the Men of the Sea western keywords (Loskalm, Quinpolic League and Malki) with the Little Saints acting much like acceptable facets of theist deities of the neighbours.

On the subject of which Malkioni do worship Orlanth, don't get me started - I've rambled on the digest about Ralian henotheists, Jonating and Wenelian  Orlanthi/Malkioni blends and earlier ages. Check Lokarnos.com...

[James Holloway]

They still recognize Worlath the World Storm as a major player outside of the church saints, ofttime enemy or neutral.

OK, so in the same way that Orlanthi "worship" Zorak Zoran by devoting some time in rituals to keeping the bastard away. Only in the case of Malkioni it's misapplied propitiation? Cool. I haven't read MotS yet (because I'm trying to focus on Dragon Pass first) but I'll definitely check it out.

[soru]

From http://www.glorantha.com/library/prosopaedia/w.html#worlath

Malkion pantheon -- a false god
Worlath imprisoned himself within a storm to escape the truth of Malkion. Since then he has been cursed to remain there, and he wars upon the world because he is angry and frustrated with this enforced exile. Only ignorant barbarians worship him.
Worlath is displayed as a bare-headed barbarian knight, capable of striding across the air and clouds and wielding a gigantic sword. His coat of arms is a blue spiral upon a white background.

From the point of view of a malkioni, he isn't worshipped in the sense of havign a church or cult, but can be magically interacted with, presumably at the cost of suffering fom the 'misapplied worship' rule.

soru

[contracycle]

I think you're going a bit astray when you see the Malkioni as straightforwardly Catholic. I think they are more akin in religious terms to Jews. Now Yahweh in the Old Testament is one god among many--the supreme god, but one only.

Yes, but Christians today are loathe to admit that.  I agree that the implication in the old testament is that of a form of henotheism, like those standard in the mesopotamian societies.  But my point is that in all the three faiths that emerged, they end up claiming absolute universality and, inasmuch as they acknowledge other powers, these other powers are necessarily tainted by the Manichean other.

I think that you would best be served by seeing Glorantha as the game of commentary on subjective viewpoints. Nobody is right; all cultures have their flaws. Hence the people will one day reject the gods altogether.

Maybe.  I have considered that myself - hence the whole magicless Glorantha approach.  But if the author describes himself as a Shaman, that seems unlikely to me.

I have for many years played Glorantha at one remove. I suggest you try this.

For me the text has, since at least the time of the Genertela pack, implied this very strongly. Assert away--that's what YGMV means to me.

OK, but I have no idea of what you mean by the Genertela pack.  I presume its a prior publication.

If its intended for us to create these things, how do we know that is what we are supposed to do?  Also, does your Glorantha not steadily deviate from canon glorantha?  While publishing series of adventures is a new development, surely the existance of the for-purchase adventure implies some expected consistency in then local games that will then host these adventures?

But even then, this does seem to me rather like a cop-out.  It reminds me of the "you can do anything with D&D" argument.  OK sure I can, but that defeats the purpose of purchasing a product designed by others.

The irony is that my introduction to Glorantha was the Dragon Pass boardgame.  Arguably, I would have been better off creating my own Glorantha from that than attempting to investigate the glorantha texts.  But that seems counterproductive to me, from everyones perspective.

I pick these 19th century examples carefully; because Glorantha, intentionally or not, has a whiff of Victoriana about it. Go ahead and deconstruct it. Use it for your own commentaries and political thinking.

Yes I agree with that too - It seems to me that the tacit morality of Glorantha is essentially Christian.  So frex the discussion of Devotional sacrifices uses a very late concept of sacrifice as suffering, rather than the earlier concept of sacrifice as "making sacred".

[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.

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

Yes, I'm including the GM when I write "player." And, no, he does not need to know the absolute truth. He simply has to know what the appearance of the thing is to the character. He simply has to be able to narrate, "Your character sees Five and One Arkats." Which you can get from the text. Which people do get from the text.

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?

To have the subjective appearances suggested to us (to say nothing of the rules). That is, the text is not devoid of inspiration. It just doesn't always tell you what the absolute truth is. It gives you possible truths and the observations that the characters have. Which, again, is all you need to narrate to the players what their characters percieve.

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".

Could you explain this argument better. I don't see at all how it follows. Yes, the dice can cause results that affect what the character percieves. I don't see how this is in the least problematic, or contradicts what I've said. After the dice are rolled, you still have to narrate the results, and you still have all the tools you need to do so provided by the game. At least as much as any other game provides.

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.

The "player explanation" is that he's only recieving the fictional character's sensations - just like when reading a book. Which include an inability of that character to be sure of what's objectively real.

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.

Sure. For some characters it is harmless - that's magic. The system will determine whether that's so or not, which includes input from the narrator and all players really.

That doesn't mean that the players don't share a space. I'm not really convinced that this ever happens anyhow, or that it's important at all. But assuming that it does happen and is, there's nothing about Glorantha that makes this SIS any less objective than in any other game. It's not like one character sees one thing, and another character sees another in the case of the fire. Or perhaps they do. But that doesn't mean that a player can't imagine a SIS in which one character can percieve something, but another cannot. I mean, what if a character has X-Ray vision? He can see things that others cannot. Does the difference in character perceptions mean that we can't imagine the situation? Not at all. We imagine it as players from the POV of all of the characters present.

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.

I think that's a matter of your opinion. People of faith will tell you that their experiences with the metaphysical have, in some cases, even more ability to convince people than science does.

They may be wrong, I'm not putting forth an opinion. I'm merely saying that it's common for real people to feel this way, and so it's not at all odd to have a fictional world Glorantha in which the fictional characters have similar perceptions. The player, assuming he's playing a character that has such beliefs, recieves his perceptions of the events through the filter of the character's perceptions. "You're character sees five in one Arkats" as opposed to, "You as a player know that there is one Arkat posing as five separate entities."

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.

My point continues to be that you don't need to know what's objectively true to play as a player. All you need is your character's perceptions. Yes, if you're told what's true, then you can present the world objectively to the player. But why is this neccessary to do? Again, some would argue that:

"Your fictional character sees X"

is superior to:

"X is true in our fictional game."

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.

But it does give you options. In fact, you could choose to see Conspiracy X as subjective as well - have you ever changed the backstory, and explained it as problematic perceptions? If not, why not? It's a useful technique.

We all agree that the world in question is fictional. So why does it have to have some Objective truth? Why can't you take the suggested text as likely perceptions by the characters? I don't see how this is any harder than the objective version.

Especially because in 99% of all situations the subjective perception may as well have been objective. That is, if I tell a player, "You see a hut." Yeah, it could be an illusion, or it could be that somebody else doesn't see it. But it's so rare in Glorantha that it just doesn't matter. I mean, when I say, "Ragnar shoots lightning from his spear." I don't mean "Ragnar alone percieves lightning shooting from his spear." I mean "everone present percieves lightning coming from Ragnar's spear."

So the SIS is easily maintained just like in any other game. The only cases where this even becomes potentially problematic is when we're talking about going to some misty otherworld and poking around with things metaphysical. And even then it's rare - most heroquests are about just getting magic items or something.

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.  

I was being campy. Sorry. What I mean is that play can continue in quite any manner that the players want. Which could involve deep philosophical speculation at this point if that's what you want. Will the game answer the questions that the real players have about their fictional character's questions? No, it allows the players to make up their own answers. Not that this means that we will somehow know objectively that Glorantha is X when it's done. We'll know that the player in the real world has said that it's more interesting to look at things in X way.

For example, you may be interested to know, one of my first characters that I made to play in Glorantha was set up to "prove" that the gods did not exist. That is, as a player I took a character who, if I played him long enough (I didn't as it turned out) would hopefully have given me a chance to make a statement through play that the whole apparent subjectivity of the god meant that they were frauds.

If the game had already said that, it wouldn't have been a theme that I'd have been interested in persuing. Personally.

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.

Sounds decidedly simulationism based. In narrativism it's precisely giving the player the ability to make such decisions that's what's sought in play. Sounds like a simple problem with mode preference here.

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

When the Orlanthi do their ritual, I narrate that their characters percieve being in a world that they'd term the god-world.

Do Orlanthi really have the power to Fly?

When they use their feats to do so, I narrate that every character present sees them as flying, yes. When they're in the god world, of course, only those in the god world with them can see them doing this.

Where is the Greatest Mountain?

If a player wants to know what their character knows, if they are Orlanthi, I tell the player that their character has been told that Kero Fin is the Greatest. And further, if they've seen it that it was great indeed. And if they saw another culture's great mountain? I'd say that it also seemed to be just as great (I'm trying not to dodge here, but I could point out that it might appear differently to that character based on the character's ability to see the "real" mountain). Does this mean that the character now has something to think about? Yep.

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.

Except that I've run it over 100 times now. Purrs like a kitten. I even have IRC logs for 35 or so of them if you demand proof.

But I'm sure that you'll claim that I'm running the game despite the metaphysical problems that you think exist. But that actually defies the fact that I've gone out of my way to make the metaphysics intrinsic to the play that we've had. They've only served to make the game more interesting and intense, not less.

Well, theres not accounting for taste.

I understand that you're frustrated, but ad hominems? In any case, you saying that I have bad taste will not change my taste. It'll only make me feel like this is one massive case of sour grapes.

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.  

Well we disagree on the state of the discussion (no surprise). I think that I've given a quite cogent display of how it can happen quite coherently in the game. If your question is, "How can I know the objective truth of how syncretization works?" then I agree that you're never going to get an answer. But the original question in this thread by Sam never stipulated that this was part of the request. Yes, if it were true that a method of play that couldn't support my concept did not exist, then I'd think that you'd be correct in questioning it. But it does work, and has worked in actual play.

So all we're left with is that my concept (and those of many others) does not work for you because it doesn't leave you with an objective answer which you feel is required for play to be satisfactory. The only answer to this is that you'll either have to figure out how to make it work for you, alter the game, or not play it at all. I'm sorry that this is unsatisfactory to you. I don't have a better answer. Whether or not you feel entitled to one.

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.

Actually, ironically, the subjective character perspective is usually said to be the prefered method for Immersionists. That is, being told objective truths OOC is often seen as distasteful to players claiming to want Immersion.

But I completely believe you when you say that there's some quality about it that you don't like.

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.

Well, I think that most RPG players, at the very least myself, see RPGs as just a set of props; precisely that. It's all I've ever expected out of a setting. In any case, you're ignoring the system which is, I think a thing of beauty. But that's not really pertinent to the discussion. In any case, this is just another case of us throwing up preferences.

In any case, I'll continue to suggest that people play the game. Beyond my own bias as somebody who may make money off of play of the game someday (I want to be honest here), I've only seen people have fun with it, and consistently more fun than with any other RPG that I've personally ever played. And I've played a few.

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.

Oh, I hold no sympathy for the state of Glorantha in terms of it's mishmash of player contributions and general chaos. Yes, the setting really does require a lot of work to make it playable IMO.

In fact this is one of the reasons that I don't play in Glorantha, but instead port the metaphysics over to a setting that's much more stable and open for development in play.

Why treat your customers with such hostility and contempt?

In the examples given was it really Issiaries personnel who were offensive? Or just the rabid fan base. Again, I have no tolerance for most of them either. I am not a Gloranthaphile, nor will I likely ever be.

And I have to admit that even Issiaries does sometimes just use "YGWV" as a solution to problems - which I have said previously in reference to the car analogy is like being sold a car with a problem and being told that you can take it to a garage to get it fixed. I have a whole thread here on that subject alone.

But now we're not even talking about the text, but follow on support from the company and community. The text is quite playable as is - moreso that many other games.

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 agree. I think that the author and the old hands, however, tired a decade ago of such debates have simply been very turned off to them.

That said, I've found them all very approachable and have gotten great responses. I suppose that makes me in the good old boys camp now? I don't see it that way personally.

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.

Well, I at least, have admitted on this thread that the notes that I give here are how it all makes sense to me and the people I play with, and not something that one gets automatically from the text. I agree that this isn't covered all that well. And I too would appreciate such notes as you suggest (I would no doubt find myself to be very wrong about the "reality" of Glorantha).

But, again, given the narrowness of the topic in question, it's sorta "high-level" nature if you will, and the fact that there are some ways that I don't find difficult by which one can figure out how to play through these issues, I hardly think that the game is broken to the extent of requiring a refund. Imperfect? Sure, as all games are.

So, I believe that I've provided a method that works for some to explain syncretization and how you can play through it in HQ, but I realize that it doesn't work for you. Nor do I think that one is forthcoming, given the basic nature of the design. That is, given that the world of Glorantha seems to me at least to be presented subjectively in terms of the perceptions of it's fictional inhabitants, there is no way to interperet the setting such as to get the objective truth from it. If you want any sort of play that requires the objective truth, you will have to pick and choose from options to decide what that is.

I don't think there's any way around that. Now, I think that the contradictions are few enough in play and that it's easy to decide on the spot that the truth is - usually it suffices to just pick one of the suggested truths at random. As such, I don't even think that this is really problematic. But if it doesn't fit your requirements, then I think you're out of luck. I don't think that the mechanics can fix this for you without ruining your other reasonable criteria which is that the fictional characters make sense to the players (and not be dupes).

Now, I'm willing to be proven wrong, that there is a sensible way to do this. But especially sans anyone working hard to try and satisfy your requirements - you personally seem to be trying to discover how they can't be met, at least using the methods we propose - I think that we're not going to get your solution any time soon.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

At the risk of following up the post above, I have to comment on the Malkoni, having been raised Catholic, and it beeing quite interesting to me.

It seems to me that the Malkoni are Jewish only in that they have no Christ parallel. Even Sedenya is not the daughter of God in the Lunar Religion, she's merely the most important prophet.

I think that a lot of interesting questions pertinent to the thread are raised by this - basically in part of the religion Sedenya is supreme, while in others she is subordinate to the One God.

Anyhow, the point is that Malkionism and the faith in the One God is widespread in different cultures, and handled in substantively different ways in many of them. This is as compares Judaism which remained remarkably unaltered in it's different communities despite the diaspora and other events that caused the movement of their population over the centuries (including, for example, the exodus created by the Inquisition in Spain). Also, the Jews do not have saints; prophets are few, and even then not prayed to as intercessors.

Malkionism seems to me to be more like Catholicism sans Christ. There is a church heirarchy, but in fact more than one - this is like the schisms of the Greek Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and other such versions as they differ from Roman Catholicism. Malkion himself seems to serve as a cognate for the apostle Paul. Though as "first prophet," perhaps he's more like Abraham. The question is whether or not there is or was some religion that predates Malkion from which his is derived. Does anyone have anything on that?

Interestingly, Carmanian monotheism, such as I've seen writups on it called Carmanian Orthodoxy, seem to deliberately be patterned after Islam. They have a later prophet who is all important to their version, Shah Karmanos. http://www.etyries.com/sects/carmanian.htm

Another parallel is that it seems that the Carmanian's proper were invaders who swept over an earlier empire, following their Shah, which sounds like the original Arab expansion following the founding of Islam. Given the "middle eastern" feel of Carmania (with viziers and such), it seems that the authors probably probably felt something like Islam was appropriate for the region. I'm looking forward to how this is addressed in ILH2.

Mike

[James Holloway]

Interestingly, Carmanian monotheism, such as I've seen writups on it called Carmanian Orthodoxy, seem to deliberately be patterned after Islam.

Carmania is meant, I think, to be based on something like Sassanid Persia (indeed, "Carmania," IIRC was a real-world region of Persia). The Carmanian thing about knowing how to ride, shoot, and hate the Lie is a direct lift from Persian Zoroastrianism.

[Mike Holmes]

I completely agree in terms of culture. But that makes sense, as the Sassanids were overrun by the Arabs. It just seems like the cultures are being smashed together to get a sorta "mythic mideast" feel. Basically like the resulting Persia following the Arab conquest. Going all the way until 19thy century Turkey, too. One almost expects a Sultan.

Reminds me, in a way, of the amalgam culture that they use in the Disney movie Aladdin (I stole my Carmanian character's picture from the TV show). But, the Orthodox religion has lots of Islam parallels.

Mike

[soru]

Going back to Arkat, there really isn't that bigger an inherent contradiction between the different cults of Arkat than there is between, say, Yelm the Youth, Yelm the Warrior, etc.

If you look at a unified, organised culture then all the different magic-giving aspects are tied together into a single coherent narrative, with most of the loose ends tied off and variants suppressed. In that particular case, the contradictions are resolved by associating the different aspects with progressive age-groups, but it could also be done by associating them  with sexes, castes, professions, clans, moral choices (e.g. the Jedi/Sith mythology of Star Wars, with a light and dark side), or any other organising principle imaginable. However it is done, the structure of the society reflects and reinforces the structure of the myths, leading to more powerful magic, a more materially successful society, and so on.

Look at an open, conflict-ridden society, and there isn't that unifying explanatory narrative connecting the individual power-giving myths. So the corresponding cults are in conflct, because they know no way of cooperating without betraying the essence of what they are. They can't share and explore secrets, discover deeper meanings, guide members to the aspect most appropriate to their talents, etc.  So their magic remains weak, their society remains divided.

soru