Syncretism in HQ

[contracycle]

]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.

Yes, but why would I do this?  Seeing as I don't understand the significance of Arkat, and the player does not understand the significance of Arkat, all we have done is genuflect to the text for no good reason.  What did we do, throw Arkat in just for tourism purposes?

Thats why the GM IMO does need to understand the reality of Arkat.  Because without knowing that, I have no idea what to do with Arkat at all.  Why bother?

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.

I disagree with your last sentence, no other game I am aware of contradicts its own statements other than by accident.

But to address the system doesn't matter thing, this is what I mean: if system negotiates the credibility to define the imaginary space, then it implies congruence on the content of the imaginary space.

But if your solution is to narrate according to the character's perceptions, and these perceptions are themselves mediations of ideology and fact, then the player is never actually able to see the game space in which their token exists.  The credibility to state "I fly to the top of the tower" is contradicted by the GM saying "OK" but thinking "actually the character climbed to the top of the tower, but perceives this as flying".

This proposition destroys the shared imaginary space and establishes two spaces.  It renders system as a means of negotiation moot, as system itself does not fix items in the IS.  In effect, EVERYTHING is GM fiat.

And that is more or less the experience I encountered the one time I attempted to play HQ with an experienced group.  As soon as I got a pre-prepared character sheet, it became clear to me that this groups understanding of Glorantha and mine were radically different; worse, it seemed like there had to be another negotiation over every action.

I don't want to make a big deal of this because IMO it is not a case of being put off by a particular play group.  Fundamentally, two adults reading the same rules should be reasonably able to agree as to what is going on.  The mutually contradictory statements in Glorantha destroy this; the inability to talk to the players straight means they never can really share a coherent SIS.  The acceptance of "as it appears" narration destroys the Lumpley principle, IMO

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.

Right, and player includes GM, thus neither GM nor player know whats really going on in their own game.  I cannot understand why it is acceptable to give the GM only fictional perceptions - the GM has to handle many characters, not just one.

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.

They must see different things if they do not share the same beliefs.  Again, this occurs to me because I was toying with a game featuring Orlanthi and Lunar characters yada yada.  So if we return to the flying-up-the-tower example above, after the GM has said "OK" with the private caveats to the Orlanthi player, the GM turns to the Lunar character and says "you see Bob clamber laboriously up the tower".  Yet just a second ago the GM accepted the Orlanthi players claims to flight as credible without demur, and that may even have been resolved by system.

Thus, again, system doesn't matter.  System apportioned to the Orlanthi player the credibility to make the statement about flying up the tower, but then the GM is obliged to undermine this by reporting a contrdictory IS to the Lunar player.  There is no Shared IS in this proposition.

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.

There is a huge difference here - seeing different aspects of a SHARED Is is not the same as seeing two IS's.  The character with X-ray vision may shout a warning about an oncoming truck say - whereas in Glorantha, the existance of that truck is itself a feature of the characters perception, and a character without such vision cannot be forced to interact with the truck they do not perceive.

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.

I am quite sure that they are able to convince.  But they are manifestly NOT consistent to all observers, unlike technologically derived data.

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.

You're quite right, its not odd that characters have such perceptions.,  What is odd is that the text written for the players is phrased purely in terms of those perceptions.

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.

Becuase I pay people to make that stuff up for more.  Remember, I have never claimed to be a creative person - I am a consumer of other peoples creative efforts, for which I am prepared to pay.  That seems reasonable enough to me.

Yes, I could in fact choose to see the factual statements in Con-X as subjective claims.  In fact, I suspect that may actually be the case in a limited sense.  But you have not really dealt with the substance of the point I raised.  I acknowldge, and always have, that character perceptions of the world may not be accurate, and that it may be exploited for dramatic effect.  But that requires that someone, somewhere, knows the underlying reality and therefore that there is even a missperception in the first place!  And that is NOT what Glorantha does - it says they are all simultaneously true.

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.

Becuase in my capacity as a referee I expected to make judgements, and those judgements must be fair.  If I have no idea of the objectively reality occupied by the characters, but instead have only access to in-game perceptions, then I cannot be fair in any sense.  All I can do is impose fiat.

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."

Yes, and Gloranthan texts exploit that elision relentlessly.  It starts to collapse as soon as you have a multicultural group, which is precisely how I found myself in precisely this dilemma.  

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.

But deep philosophical speculation about WHAT?  

We the players, all we know is that the book makes contradictory statements.  Wheres the profundity in poor continuity control?  IF there were a point to the whole Arkat construction, if in fact it did say or suggest something profound, THEN we might have such a conversation.

This is different from the contradictory statements I might make as a GM in regards the MIB in Con-X.  There, the contradiction is expressly intended to communicate something to the player, to create a meaning.  I know what its for; I can assess whether they pick up on it or not.  It is a means of exposition.

The Glorantha case just appears to be contradiction for its own sake.

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.

Right.  But who cares?  I can sit down and assert that it would be "more interesting" to see something in a certain way without needing to play a game.  But also, why is it interesting?  Just aesthetic preference?  OK, but then its not even basic Exploration.

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.

Thats decidedly possible.  Thats exactly why I am sympathetic to Christopher Kubasiks proposition that Glorantha IS myth, rather than a game about myth.  I still have concerns over whether even the foundational level of Exploration is really viable, but if we all came to the consensus that Glorantha is a sort of extreme Narr design, I would indeed regard that as progress.

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. [/quote]

Thats not the questions I asked.  I can figure out character perceptions myself from first principles - what I want to know is IF I am narrating a local delusion, or IF I am narrating an event that actually happens.

So once again: Do Orlanthi visit the god world during their sacred time rituals?  This should have a Yes or No answer.

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. [/quote]

I didn't ask about what you narrate.  I asked whether Orlanthi can fly, precisely becuase my concern is to include all cases, not just those cases in which all characters share the same ideology.

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.
[/quote]

And as I have repeatedly said, I'm not interested in the character, I'm interested in the player.  You have to hook players, not characters: that is an established truism here.  What is the PLAYER LEVEL answer to the question: Where is the Greatest Mountain?

I'd like to point out here that a game with an objectively coherent metaphysics could produce the confused effect.  If for example, the Greatest Mountain was itself a spiritual entity, with multiple avatars in the material world, that could make sense at the player level easily enough.  Then, there is no THE Greatest Mountain but multiple representations of the Greatest Mountain in several places.

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.

That was not meant as an ad hominem at all, just as a reflection that our preferences may differ to an extent that allows you to play a game I can't get my head around.  I mean obviously, you and I differ on our positions on many issues, and this can easily be accounted for in that framework.  But the fact you and others can and do play the game does not actually address the problems I encounter.

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.

Well, I am not aware of this.  I regarded James Holloways contribution as the best to date on the topic, but still point out that it kinda implies a non-magical world.  But still and all, becuase we only discuss the characters perceptions as character perceptions, instead of player coomprehension, the state of the discussion appears to be that player fiat determines conversion, and the characters actual psychological experience is never touched on by game play.

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.

No.  I would be able to figure out how syncretisation works if I knew what was really going on in the game world, i.e. if there was a unifying metaphysical model.

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.

Yes thats right.  And I would want all my information during play to be phrased in character-subjective terms.  But as with the Arkat example, your mode does not really seem to me to leave room for that - rather than me thinking about Arkat, and the mystery of multiple identities, and seeing this issue from the inside my characters head, instead my raw, OOC opinion of which would be "most interesting" is used instead.  The mystery of Arkat is never something that I contemplate through the vehicle of my character - Immersion is denied.  

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.

Yes I will agree that I don't begrudge paying for the basic HW book which lays out the system.

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.

Well, I don't rightly know if Issaries has any personnel at all, properly speaking.  We are taking about the fan base, but we are also about the luminaries of the fanbase.

But still and all, I really don't understand the decision to leave the s/objectivism debate as an open running sore if it could be cleared up by a frank discussion of "how to use this book" or, if the Narr conclusion is valid, by a discussion of Narr.  But to date it appears that despite knowing how frequently the problem appears, it is deliberately maintained rather than dealt with.  Again, that kinda gives me the impression that there is some purpose to it, but if there is no purpose, then it would seem reasonable to me to discuss matters openly.

Again, I can't really see what is to be feared by discussing the game in, say, the light of Chris Kubasisk proposal.  Would such a view undermine some necessary component of Glorantha?  Its the pretension to some sort of mystical sensibility that is irksome.

[pete_darby]

Gareth:

Why must people see things differently if they share different beliefs?

They may not agree on the "why" of things ("I can fly becuase I have been gifted by Orlanth, lord of winds" "He can fly because he is in thrall to a false god with many tricks"), but the flying is beyond question here. As is the lightning for the lightning hurler.

You repeatedly claim that the rulebook undermines this, but I still can't see where: where does it say "You throw thunderbolts if you believe you throw tunderbolts, but other people won't necessarily see you throw thunderbolts"? Or anything of the sort?

The inability ot talk to the paleyrs striaght isn't coming from th rulebook, it's coming from you.

The differing character perceptions is a red herring: if you accept that magic works, that people do what they think they're doing with it (even if the why is incomplete or wrong) then it disappears.

Again, please tell me where it says that if a character in Glorantha doesn't share someone's exact beliefs, they see something completely different.

I don't think the books say that mutually contradictory belief systems are true, because that would pre-suppose that they are right. Think of them in terms of being right about effects (if we sacrifice in this way and re-enact this myth we will probably get this magic...) but not causes (... and this is because Orlanth is the true god and the Red Goddess is a usurper that he shall hurl down in his righteous anger real soon now).

Right, let's answer your questions, and answer them from the PoV of an omniscient observer to Glorantha, as far as I can:

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

Yes, although possibly only their souls do. And yes, I was thrown by the dichotomy of the description in Thunder Rebels when it said "The Orlanthi experience this, outsiders see that," and I reconcile it by positing an out-of the body experience. All evidence points to them interacting with the god-world in a mythic manner to gain magic, whcih is consistent with the rest of the background.

Do Orlanthi really have the power to Fly?

Those with the power of flight, yes. Since Lunar battle tactics include anti-flier techniques, I'd be surprised to find they were "really" jumping off boxes, etc.

Where is the Greatest Mountain?

On the godplane: some mountains in the mundane world have a quality of "greatest mountain"-ness about them, they more perfectly reflect the greatest mountain. In my opinion, Kero Fin is most GM-ly, but I'm biased by the predominance of kerofini material.

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

Okay, who is saying who is LotMA? Objectively, there was an almighty smackdown between the red goddess and Orlanth, Orlanth lost. The Orlanthi are proud, and say she cheated by using chaos, and will probably do bloody anything to avoid saying she is LotMA. The Lunars are all in your face about it, claiming it means Orlanth has no place in Glorantha. Again, who is saying that? Is LotMA the defining quality of Orlanth, meaning he has lost his mojo, or is it incidental to him?

Inn other words, in terms of the objective giving of magic, does it matter? apparently not. In fact, during the time that Orlanth is Dead, his absence causes massive problems, indicating that he is still a vital component of Glorantha.

Gareth, please, is any of this helping? Glorantha isn't a collection of props for myths in terms of just some airy-fairy stuff that can change at whim (I think that's Capes... TLB, I kid, because I love), but an ongoing attempt to make a stable world that has a mythical metaphysic which demonstrably works diagetically.

[James Holloway]

So once again: Do Orlanthi visit the god world during their sacred time rituals?  This should have a Yes or No answer.

And it does: the answer is yes.

I didn't ask about what you narrate.  I asked whether Orlanthi can fly

They can. I covered this already also.

I'd like to point out here that a game with an objectively coherent metaphysics could produce the confused effect.  If for example, the Greatest Mountain was itself a spiritual entity, with multiple avatars in the material world, that could make sense at the player level easily enough.  Then, there is no THE Greatest Mountain but multiple representations of the Greatest Mountain in several places.

Which is the case (well, "otherwordly" rather than spiritual, but you get the picture).

Well, I am not aware of this.  I regarded James Holloways contribution as the best to date on the topic, but still point out that it kinda implies a non-magical world.  But still and all, becuase we only discuss the characters perceptions as character perceptions, instead of player coomprehension, the state of the discussion appears to be that player fiat determines conversion, and the characters actual psychological experience is never touched on by game play.

You're very kind, but I certainly never meant to imply a non-magical world. I think you are getting an idea that the existence of the gods would necessarily inspire a sort of do-or-die fanatacism, which I have repeatedly tried to show is not necessarily the case. You may consider this result "unrealistic," of course, but I don't think it's inconsistent.

No.  I would be able to figure out how syncretisation works if I knew what was really going on in the game world, i.e. if there was a unifying metaphysical model.

Well, here's the thing that has never really been raised in this thread: in Glorantha, syncretization in the sense of the creation of something like Haitian Vodou doesn't really work very well -- there are obvious examples of the adoption of foreign deities in Godtime (Elmal, Heler), and it is possible to incorporate cults into your religion that make sense in terms of what's already there ("Argar Argan" in Esrolia, for instance), but coming up with a whole new way to look at existing elements of religions? That doesn't happen much AFAICT and when it does it's either:

a) the Lunar religion, which has syncretic things about and generally says "well, contradictions exist. And yet, We Are All Us. Ommmm." Or,

b) the Aeolian Church, a crappy religion that only a fool would join.

Actually, I guess Common Magic is syncretic, in that it can be Feats or Spells or whatever and everybody learns whatever they like all higgledy-piggledy. But for the most part, there isn't much large-scale syncretism in Glorantha. Which is a shame, but would be hard to implement using Glorantha's metaphysical structure.

[pete_darby]

James:

Huh? I thought Common Magic meant syncretism went on all the time: in fact, the whole history fo Glorantha can be seen as an excercise in extreme syncretism with a very big special FX budget...

[James Holloway]

James:

Huh? I thought Common Magic meant syncretism went on all the time: in fact, the whole history fo Glorantha can be seen as an excercise in extreme syncretism with a very big special FX budget...

Yeah, but in terms of the way Common Magic actually works in game I don't see it as a very useful or interesting feature of most campaigns. I could be wrong. I think that the desire to avoid getting stung on the concentration and the liberal common magic rules mean that most people just get whatever kind of magic they won't lose when they concentrate, an unfortunate artifact of the game mechanic.

I recognize that CM is meant to represent a set of underlying I-don't-give-a-fuck syncretic magico-religious practices which are then overlaid by the specialized religions... but in practice I don't know that it works out like that in play.

[pete_darby]

I recognize that CM is meant to represent a set of underlying I-don't-give-a-fuck syncretic magico-religious practices which are then overlaid by the specialized religions... but in practice I don't know that it works out like that in play.

Heh... I've seen quite a few people go for the "kitchen sink and damn the HP cost" mentality. It's certainly supposed to be the Gloranthan norm, but probably not the PC norm.

[contracycle]

Gareth:

Why must people see things differently if they share different beliefs?

Am I correct in thinking you mean "see" as in visually observe, rather than in the sense of think or conceive?

If so, I am NOT saying this is necessarily the case.  

Look, I am actually trying to be quite controlled about this conversation, rather than opening up too many lines of enquiry at once.  If it would help, lets label the proposition I was addressing as the NMG, the Non Magical Glorantha.  I am not, of course, assetting that the NMG is a correct model, because I openly admit I do not know what the correct model should be.  But as I think should be clear from the fact that Mike, Droog and I have arrived at a similar perception of how the NMG might be seen as being present in the text, that might be *A* valid interpretation.

I have laid out the problems I have with that interpretation above.  Some of those problems apply to other modesl such as what might be termed the Universally Magical Glorantha, and some not.

You repeatedly claim that the rulebook undermines this, but I still can't see where: where does it say "You throw thunderbolts if you believe you throw tunderbolts, but other people won't necessarily see you throw thunderbolts"? Or anything of the sort?

Right - it does not.  But it also makes a mishmash of the statement about the Greatest Mountain, to name but one.  Thats why the fact it does not specifically say this does not mean it is not true - remember, everything we know is phrased in terms of character perception, not objective statement about the world of glorantha.

The inability ot talk to the paleyrs striaght isn't coming from th rulebook, it's coming from you.

No, I don't accept that at all, and I think that is an unfair accusation.

Again, please tell me where it says that if a character in Glorantha doesn't share someone's exact beliefs, they see something completely different.

OK, I will repeat:

Thunder Rebels page 120:"At any ceremony outsiders do not see what truly[/] occurs.  They do not see what the worshippers do, becuase they do not know the secrets or have the proper perceptions"

This is reinforced with: "Similarly, outsiders at an Ernaldan rite see the women continue to dance, even after the worshippers know that they have fallen asleep and entered the God World".

So quite explicitly, if you do not share the beliefs, you do NOT see what the Orlanthi themselves see and experience.  The Ernaldans perceive themselves to be asleep in the mundane world and astrally projected, if you will, into the god world, while to an outside non-Orlanthi observer they are neither asleep nor projected.

Note the use of the word KNOW rather than believe.  

Yes, although possibly only their souls do. And yes, I was thrown by the dichotomy of the description in Thunder Rebels when it said "The Orlanthi experience this, outsiders see that," and I reconcile it by positing an out-of the body experience. All evidence points to them interacting with the god-world in a mythic manner to gain magic, whcih is consistent with the rest of the background.

OK.  I can get behind some form of astral projection into the god world to gain magic.  Except, why then the multiplicity of aspects of Orlanth?

On the Issaries site, the section on Orlanthi religion states: "The breadth of the Orlanth cult's spread is extensive, and it is understandable that such diversity would spawn some differences of worship depending upon the local customs. "  Except its not understandable at all: if Orlanthi are really going to the same god world to interact with the same god, what relevance  do "local customs" have?  Why should mere human customs have any impact on the god world whatsoever?  That seems to suggest that the relationship is in reverse, rather like the model Pratchett used in Small Gods: the ideas and belief of the faithful empower their gods.  Humans don't get magic from the gods, gods get power from humans.

We also need to return to the question of subjective heroquesting.  If we firmly assert the UMG model, then one would expect the hero quests to remain consistent to all observers.  They express metaphysical facts, rather than the opinions of humans, surely.  In which case, the previously proposed method by which a worshipper changes their god, or introduces an aspect or whatever, and alleges that in the doing they have "discovered" this thing, is necessarily false.  Also, one would expect that such a change would aply instantly to all worshippers of the god, as the change to the god world has no geographical correspondance.

But then... we return to conflicting claims that have been 'proven' in the magical otherworlds.  Such as the fact that Ernalda has been 'proven' to be She Who Waits, or the replacement of Orlanth with Doburden in Tarsh.

In this regard, James Holloway previously said:

Here's the thing: as far as I know, no one has suggested that Orlanth is Doburdun. I could be wrong about this. But my understanding is that they have replaced Orlanth with Doburdun because it does minimal damage to the mythology -- Doburdun is also married to Ernalda, Doburdun is the god of the storm, etc. In some highly technical metaphysical sense, Doburdun may "be" Orlanth, like they both embody the Storm Rune or something, but for practical purposes they are different cults AFAIK.

OK.  So, it is precisely that 'highly technical metaphysical sense' with which we are concerned.  Doburden IS Orlanth; the Lunars Proved this.  So once again, how come the Orlanthi otherworld does not reflect these facts?  They may well be different CULTS, but both cults are of the same GOD.

We are back to Jim-Bob ther god of tarot, and the quests that can impose retroactive change on the god world, as further presented by James as follows:

a) they fuck it up. Sorry, guys, Orlanth never passed this way. See if you can use your existing magic to grow taro roots or something. You're not worshipping Jim-Bob.

or

b) they pull it off. Turns out Jim-Bob is the son of so-and-so, which makes him Heler's first cousin and therefore willing to grant them his blessings if they make the appropriate sacrifices, etc., etc.

How can this be possible in the Universally Magical Glorantha in which the gods are geunine entities, the magical planes objective places?  Why all the references to culture, or to what orlanthi want and need, in reference to the magical planes and their denizens?

In other words, in terms of the objective giving of magic, does it matter? apparently not. In fact, during the time that Orlanth is Dead, his absence causes massive problems, indicating that he is still a vital component of Glorantha.

Sure, it looks that way.  Unfortunately, I don't understand why the same didn't happen during the conquest of Tarsh.

Gareth, please, is any of this helping? Glorantha isn't a collection of props for myths in terms of just some airy-fairy stuff that can change at whim (I think that's Capes... TLB, I kid, because I love), but an ongoing attempt to make a stable world that has a mythical metaphysic which demonstrably works diagetically.

Well, it is helping in that it is furthering the discussion, but I'm not yet convinced of the unity of the mythical metaphysics.  This is becuase of all the references to cultural specifics both in terms of the aspects of gods and changes via heroquesting.  In the UMG, I cannot see how or why heroquesting is important, as I can see no basis for expecting that humans are able to change the very gods themselves, if the gods truly do exist.  And all the references to culture are what drives speculation to the NMG model.

[pete_darby]

The multiplicity is, for me, very easily dealt with: Say Orlanth has, somewhere in the God world, a definable, fixed (as much as he can be), objective existence. However, and this is explicit in the rulebooks, Orlanth can't be fully comprehended by Gloranthan humans. Well, he can, but you can only do this by fully partaking of his nature, which is learning the Great secret of Orlanth, when you bceome Orlanth, Orlanth becomes you and you disappear, quite literally, in a puff of wind.

All this is as much as to say, the true nature of Orlanth transcends a Gloranthan human's experience.

However, by acting in accordance with the myths of Orlanth, in making themselves "orlanthlike", the Orlanthi can gain some of the superhuman abilities of Orlanth. The Gloranthan metaphysic is such that this partaking of the nature of Orlanth can only be acheived through use of mythic thinking and action.

Now, this is to say that any ritual which has at it's heart, however expressed, a genuine mythic relationship with Orlanth expressed sincerely will gain something of the nature of Orlanth, some magic, for the participant. Which is how regional differences occur: tribes split, ceremonies are passed down slightly differently. Someone goes and heroquests slightly "wrong", but instead discovers a previously undiscovered facet of Orlanth.

Even if they go to the same godworld and interact with the same god, remember that in the godworld, time is to some extent FUBAR. Same world, different ages. Also, the Gloranthan's perceptions, myths and beliefs shape what they can see and interact with in the godworld; in many ways, the Godworld is much more like the environment you've been having problems with, but if differing beliefs are clashing on the godplane, they should (IMHO) all become manifest to all present.

Thirdly, especially in large ceremonies such as those taken at sacred time, identity gets fuzzy and sometimes downright lost on the Godplabe. You remember what happened there after you come back, but while there it's hard to remember who you are beyond broad archetypes (I am an Orlanthi warrior / Thunder Brother / Helemakt depending on level of commitment).

The other world expresses not physical facts but metaphysical relationships through the lens of constructed belief, hence the fluid nature of the otherworlds.

When did the Lunars "prove" Orlanth was Doburdun?

anyway, time to go, more later!

[jorganos]

Seeing as I don't understand the significance of Arkat, and the player does not understand the significance of Arkat, all we have done is genuflect to the text for no good reason.  What did we do, throw Arkat in just for tourism purposes?

Arkat is fairly easy: here you have originally a single person going off into the mythic realm doing first one total identification, then a series of different total identifications. Already during his interaction with his Other (Nysalor, who was not complete, and from whose "leftovers" Arkat came into being) Arkat started encountering prior total identifications of himself in the mythic realm.

Effectively, Arkat left his mark upon the cult aspects he touched, and those became somewhat independent entities.

Thats why the GM IMO does need to understand the reality of Arkat.  Because without knowing that, I have no idea what to do with Arkat at all.  Why bother?

You might see this as a fun or interesting conflict to play. If not, why bother indeed.

But to address the system doesn't matter thing, this is what I mean: if system negotiates the credibility to define the imaginary space, then it implies congruence on the content of the imaginary space.

There is more than one level of imaginary space, and that appears to be your problem with Glorantha. You appear to have a hard time accepting that myth is malleable. I guess you'd hate a time travel setting where you can shoot yourself, too...

There is the Physical World of Glorantha, which is predictable and explainable to players and narrator. There may be sudden changes carried over from the Otherworld (aka magic or heroquesting), but these remain until changed again.

Then there are the Otherworlds, which aren't predictable. The Hero Planes are predictable to a certain point, the God World is somewhat predictable if you stick to the "known" routines, but that's it. Leave the predictable and receive the unpredictable. That's what Arkat did systematically, btw.

But if your solution is to narrate according to the character's perceptions, and these perceptions are themselves mediations of ideology and fact, then the player is never actually able to see the game space in which their token exists.  

I agree. For the Otherworlds, that is a feature. That's similar to fractal space or hyperspace encounters in Science Fiction settings - neither narrator nor player can correctly know what they are in. It's like dealing with quantum mechanics - you find out how it appears to work, and work on that basis until that fails and you'll have to bring in another, even harder to approach theory.

The credibility to state "I fly to the top of the tower" is contradicted by the GM saying "OK" but thinking "actually the character climbed to the top of the tower, but perceives this as flying".

I see what you are getting at.

The characters experience full sensory VR while the uninvolved audience sees a stage play with minor special effects.

How do you narrate cyberspace physiological effects, say a character experiences a VR fall and carries over actual falling damage even though his comrades see little more than him twisting in a VR tank?

This proposition destroys the shared imaginary space and establishes two spaces.  It renders system as a means of negotiation moot, as system itself does not fix items in the IS.  In effect, EVERYTHING is GM fiat.

Funny. I experience this the worst when a narrator tries to tell me things in a historical setting, insisting on Braveheart-style historical accuracy, which I know to be different. Not knowing makes make-believing a lot easier.

And that is more or less the experience I encountered the one time I attempted to play HQ with an experienced group.  As soon as I got a pre-prepared character sheet, it became clear to me that this groups understanding of Glorantha and mine were radically different; worse, it seemed like there had to be another negotiation over every action.

This happens to me with any setting where there is some level of detail information. World of Darkness, Forgotten Realms - everywhere you get old nags doing things strangely different, and having done so for ages. Join them or ignore them.

I do agree that Glorantha has a greater share of old nags, though.

They must see different things if they do not share the same beliefs.  

That's just a very literal reading. Participants in the ceremony will see mostly the same things. Details may vary, but that is about on the level how an unmasked Vorlon appears differently to Mimbari, Humans or Narn in Babylon 5.

Again, this occurs to me because I was toying with a game featuring Orlanthi and Lunar characters yada yada.  So if we return to the flying-up-the-tower example above, after the GM has said "OK" with the private caveats to the Orlanthi player, the GM turns to the Lunar character and says "you see Bob clamber laboriously up the tower".  Yet just a second ago the GM accepted the Orlanthi players claims to flight as credible without demur, and that may even have been resolved by system.

Ok, here's how I would treat that situation:

A) The Lunars are involved in the Ceremony, as opponents. They are moved into the mythic realm just like the participants in the ceremony. They experience the same special effects as the player characters.

B) The Lunars cannot interact with the ceremony - they cannot enter the "force shield" - and see vague blurring images of mummery. This would happen if they have no relation to the player characters in the ceremony. As soon as they do have a relation and are meant to interact, they are drawn into mythic space, and mythic space is drawn to them.

There are "precendents" that unwilling opponents can refute the mythic space of an enemy, and draw them back to a more mundane level. This affects the entire ceremony, and causes it to change drastically. But it happens to all participants.

Thus, again, system doesn't matter.  System apportioned to the Orlanthi player the credibility to make the statement about flying up the tower, but then the GM is obliged to undermine this by reporting a contrdictory IS to the Lunar player.  There is no Shared IS in this proposition.

Really bad example, because Orlanthi observably have the magic to fly. Participating in a ceremony, they gain magical abilities they might not have outside of that environment.

What you get is an encapsulated SIS within the ceremony, with an event horizon separating it from the mundane world. There can be no interaction across that event horizon other than to enter the encapsulated SIS and join those rules.

You're quite right, its not odd that characters have such perceptions.,  What is odd is that the text written for the players is phrased purely in terms of those perceptions.

Again, how would you narrate a Virtual Reality encounter? I wouldn't say "In the VR, you see the alien advance on you." but would use active tense: "The alien charges you." Both narrator and player know that the player character is in an environment with different rules. Still, the character may awake from the VR with bite marks or a ruptured (but thankfully uninhabited) abdomen.

I acknowldge, and always have, that character perceptions of the world may not be accurate, and that it may be exploited for dramatic effect.  But that requires that someone, somewhere, knows the underlying reality and therefore that there is even a missperception in the first place!  And that is NOT what Glorantha does - it says they are all simultaneously true.

One truth for a given encapsulated setting. Your Lunar patrol cannot enter the enclosed ceremony without entering the mythical space there, and either adjusting to the myth (possibly gaining unexpected powers) or causing the ceremony to fade back into mundanity.

Your Lunar patrol leader will see the barbarian chieftain, but he will recognize that masked within that character there is a greater power (say Orlanth, whom he may address as Rebellus Terminus and whom he might see wield an ebony crystal sword rather than the bronze blade the Orlanthi might see). Neither perception will be accurate, but they will be sufficient to give a common context. They are using different senses (to wit, their "initiate" or similar ability) to perceive the deity behind the barbarian leader and get different results - compare an xray of a human body to an ultrasonic picture. It still is the same body.

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.

Becuase in my capacity as a referee I expected to make judgements, and those judgements must be fair.  If I have no idea of the objectively reality occupied by the characters, but instead have only access to in-game perceptions, then I cannot be fair in any sense.  All I can do is impose fiat.

That's a noble position, but not necessary. Fair within the limit of the rules may still be unfair to the player. And there are times when one player acts unfair to the enjoyment of the others, and as a narrator (not umpire) you can unfairly to this player cut that back. GM Fiat isn't all bad. Sometimes it is necessary to preserve a lesser consensus if a greater consensus cannot be had.

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."

Yes, and Gloranthan texts exploit that elision relentlessly.  It starts to collapse as soon as you have a multicultural group, which is precisely how I found myself in precisely this dilemma.  

I don't agree with the "everybody perceives..." line. There is magic which produces actual lightning, behaving like somewhat controlled lightning and creating effects like lightning. There are few characters who can produce lightning in the mundane world, but when they can, they do.

Magical effects are real in the mundane world of Glorantha. No need to tiptoe around with perceptions.

People using magical perceptions might perceive some extra effects depending on the meta-reality the narrator might wish to add, but it is those characters who are out of tune with imaginary reality level zero, and on level one (Otherworld) there may be different aspects visible.

On a higher level (Transcendant) all the different aspects are joined together again. There can be no complete transcendant perception, only an approximation. The narrator may decide on a meta-rule to define his truth and derive the visual effects, tinted towards the perception of such characters. But that much effort would be necessary only when the characters start switching goddesses or similar high-brow stuff. Might be fun, but might as well be uninteresting, depending on your player group's SIS.

We the players, all we know is that the book makes contradictory statements.  Wheres the profundity in poor continuity control?

Getting hung up on the True Greatest Mountain again? Both Kero Fin and Top of the World are representations of the True Greatest Mountain in Orlanthi Godworld. The Talastari Orlanthi might come to Kero Fin, notice the differences to Top of the World and look with his magical senses to perceive that beyond its mundane appearance it is Greatest Mountain. If this confuses the player as much as the character ought to be confused, I'd say good job, narrator and Issaries. If you as narrator can't cope with this, don't go there. I've met enough people to whom I wouldn't recommend Glorantha as a game setting. And I usually do recommend Glorantha...

IF there were a point to the whole Arkat construction, if in fact it did say or suggest something profound, THEN we might have such a conversation.

I discussed Arkat above. I don't claim being profund, but I fail to see how a situation like that damages SIS. Please explain what is wrong with that.

The Glorantha case just appears to be contradiction for its own sake.

A slight touch of paradox, there to be explained away or ignored. As a narrator, I don't claim to know all Greater Truths. I'm satisfied when I have an imaginary space which gives me a consistent story to narrate and to share. Profound insights be damned, this is a game, meant to be fun.

[Mike Holmes]

Yes, but why would I do this?  Seeing as I don't understand the significance of Arkat, and the player does not understand the significance of Arkat, all we have done is genuflect to the text for no good reason.  What did we do, throw Arkat in just for tourism purposes?

Thats why the GM IMO does need to understand the reality of Arkat.  Because without knowing that, I have no idea what to do with Arkat at all.  Why bother?

You're getting into deeply existential terrritory here. Why do we roleplay at all? I sense that the meanings behind why you and I roleplay are different enough that this explains our different viewpoints on this.

Why would I have Arkat show up like this? Because it creates an opportunity for players to examine their own thoughts on the nature of reality through the mechanisms of the fictional characters in a game. A player making a statement via their character doing something in-game, might, for example, be struggling with his own understanding of the holy trinity. Or he might be making a statement about the problems of religion. It seems to me that throwing in Arkat like this is precisely the sort of thing that makes Glorantha good as a game to discuss these sorts of things. If the game were to say that there's only one Arkat objectively, but the player does not know this, then that statement is the same - but we didn't need to know that there was only one Arkat objectively. If the player does know that there's only one Arkat, then his only potential themes are, "My culture is sensible, becuse they know the truth," and "My culture has been duped, because their beliefs are not true." The only way to get more and deeper themes than these is for there to be no objective truth.

I disagree with your last sentence, no other game I am aware of contradicts its own statements other than by accident.

I agree, but I disagree that contradictions are any less playable than "facts" about the game world. They're both sorts of information, and both playable.

But to address the system doesn't matter thing, this is what I mean: if system negotiates the credibility to define the imaginary space, then it implies congruence on the content of the imaginary space.

Yes, but, again, congruence does not have to mean that the players all think that all of the characters see the same thing. They simply have to agree on what each of the individual characters see. In a way this creates two spaces, but they, together make up the total SIS. Again, this is no different than having two characters in different scenes. Each sees different things simultaneously. Just because their perceptions are different, doesn't mean that we can't imagine that.

The credibility to state "I fly to the top of the tower" is contradicted by the GM saying "OK" but thinking "actually the character climbed to the top of the tower, but perceives this as flying".

This is always true in every RPG. Sometimes the GM will relate that the character thinks he's succeeded at something, for instance, only to have the player find out later that the character has determined that he's actually failed. As I recall, MegaTraveller actually had very hard rules about this, when tasks had to be labeled "uncertain" and you had to roll not only to succeed, but to know how well you succeeded. This is standard with perception checks, "You think you see ghost off in the forest" when actually it was just a fumble.

What's out there to be percieved is always a GM call. Winning a perception check only in the game Dunjon, actually creates the thing seen. The end result of using an ability to get to the top of the tower is that you get to the top of the tower in HQ. What HQ specifically and intentionally does not tell you is how you got to the top of the tower - it leaves that to the "narrator" to narrate. So in the case in question, this is never any different than what any GM does in any other RPG.

And, again, when playing with the "magic works" paradigm in the Gloranthan mundane world, everybody does see the guy climb the tower, and everyone playing can assume for ease of play that it's objectively true. It's only in your "magic is just the belief of the individual in the mindane world" that you run into this problem. When I narrate that the character flew to the top of the tower in the mindane world, that might as well be objectively what he did.

Fundamentally, two adults reading the same rules should be reasonably able to agree as to what is going on.  The mutually contradictory statements in Glorantha destroy this; the inability to talk to the players straight means they never can really share a coherent SIS.  The acceptance of "as it appears" narration destroys the Lumpley principle, IMO

My anecdotal evidence is completely the opposite. I've never seen anyone have any trouble with any such issue. And I've played with all sorts of people, even random ones in convention events who claimed that they weren't going to be able to "get" HQ from what they'd heard about it previously.

Right, and player includes GM, thus neither GM nor player know whats really going on in their own game.  I cannot understand why it is acceptable to give the GM only fictional perceptions - the GM has to handle many characters, not just one.

I can't understand why it's not acceptable to do so for the GM. I've been that GM. It works fine.

The character with X-ray vision may shout a warning about an oncoming truck say - whereas in Glorantha, the existance of that truck is itself a feature of the characters perception, and a character without such vision cannot be forced to interact with the truck they do not perceive.

That's non-sensical. I can make them roll to not get crushed by the truck if I want. Yes, that means that I've just invalidated one character's perceptions. That happens all the time, too. What I can't do is to violate the system. If the system says that they see the truck, then they see the truck.

Now, back to the tower, it's not a problem what the characters percieve, as long as they all percieve the same end result, which is the character being atop the tower. What does it matter if he flew or climbed? Either way I can narrate to the endpoint provided by the system.

"You guys see him fly to the top of the tower, and you guys see him climb up. In any case, he's up there now."

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.

You're quite right, its not odd that characters have such perceptions.,  What is odd is that the text written for the players is phrased purely in terms of those perceptions.

It's unique, I'll give you that. All of those "Voices" articles saying stuff like "Our tribe is closest to the spirits!" and such. I've seen such before, but not to the extent that Glorantha does it, no. Still, not problematic in play.

Becuase I pay people to make that stuff up for more.  Remember, I have never claimed to be a creative person - I am a consumer of other peoples creative efforts, for which I am prepared to pay.  That seems reasonable enough to me.

So any time the product gives you two options about a truth, it's a bad product for not having decided on one instead? If they're both fun options, I'd rather have more information than less. Again, sounds like a preference to me. I can understand your viewpoint - I just don't share it.

I acknowldge, and always have, that character perceptions of the world may not be accurate, and that it may be exploited for dramatic effect.  But that requires that someone, somewhere, knows the underlying reality and therefore that there is even a missperception in the first place!  And that is NOT what Glorantha does - it says they are all simultaneously true.

What I'm not getting is what is lost by not having an objective truth. I mean, I can continue to narrate, some people can enjoy the game - I don't understand what the problem is.

Becuase in my capacity as a referee I expected to make judgements, and those judgements must be fair.  If I have no idea of the objectively reality occupied by the characters, but instead have only access to in-game perceptions, then I cannot be fair in any sense.  All I can do is impose fiat.

Except that the system makes things fair. If two players go up against each other, we'll have a victor and a defeated character. The description of how that occurs is simply color. Important color philosophically, I'm not dismissing it. But color that does not affect "fairness."

Yes, and Gloranthan texts exploit that elision relentlessly.  It starts to collapse as soon as you have a multicultural group, which is precisely how I found myself in precisely this dilemma.

I don't agree that this is true. That is, your assumption seems to be that Lunars won't see the Orlanthi's lightning. My reading of the text is that the standard method of play is that the Lunars do see the lightning (in the mundane world).

The thread is about syncretism, and the only contradictions that I'll stipulate that must happen, are in the world of myths and gods.

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.

But deep philosophical speculation about WHAT?  

Epistemology, for one. The meaning of life. Morality. Ethics. Anything one likes.  

IF there were a point to the whole Arkat construction, if in fact it did say or suggest something profound, THEN we might have such a conversation.

It seems that paradox is deeply profound. One can either go to great lengths to explain them, or they can be discarded based on their paradoxical nature, or they can be seen as metaphor, etc, etc. Tell Thomas Aquinas that the paradox of evil isn't deeply profound.

The Glorantha case just appears to be contradiction for its own sake.

No, it's fictional contradiction to emulate real life contradictions. Again, like the Holy Trinity. If such subject matter doesn't interest you, that's one thing. But I think it's interesting to play characters who have such beliefs. Whether or not I have them myself. And, again, if the game gives me an answer it's a much bigger let down than if I get to make my own statement.

Do you dislike movies that end without a resolution? Where you are left to imagine for yourself how things might have ended? I like such films. I don't see these endings as a cop-out as long as the questions raised for me to answer are as interesting as any one of the potential endings.

Right.  But who cares?  I can sit down and assert that it would be "more interesting" to see something in a certain way without needing to play a game.  But also, why is it interesting?  Just aesthetic preference?  OK, but then its not even basic Exploration.

What about the other participants? And, again, there are some basic expectations about the "reality" of the world. Glorantha really isn't that different from our world, IMO. Certainly not when I play.

Thats decidedly possible.  Thats exactly why I am sympathetic to Christopher Kubasiks proposition that Glorantha IS myth, rather than a game about myth.  I still have concerns over whether even the foundational level of Exploration is really viable, but if we all came to the consensus that Glorantha is a sort of extreme Narr design, I would indeed regard that as progress.

I don't even think it's "extreme." I think it's not as nar as, say, Sorcerer. But, I'm willing to put this all down to mode preference, sure.

Anyhow, it shouldn't be surprising that I find HQ fun this way when I play that silly game with the Coins where the mechanics only establish who has authority to say what, when, and where absolutely no objective reality is attempted to be constructed, instead giving over in favor of empowering players to create a story in any fashion they like. :-)

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.

Thats not the questions I asked.  I can figure out character perceptions myself from first principles - what I want to know is IF I am narrating a local delusion, or IF I am narrating an event that actually happens.

So once again: Do Orlanthi visit the god world during their sacred time rituals?  This should have a Yes or No answer.[/quote]Well, I don't need it to. Irellevant to me what he "reality" of the fictional world is.

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.

I didn't ask about what you narrate.  I asked whether Orlanthi can fly, precisely becuase my concern is to include all cases, not just those cases in which all characters share the same ideology.[/quote]Orlanthi are fictional. For play purposes, all I feel a need to know is how to narrate the results of declared actions.

I'd like to point out here that a game with an objectively coherent metaphysics could produce the confused effect.  If for example, the Greatest Mountain was itself a spiritual entity, with multiple avatars in the material world, that could make sense at the player level easily enough.  Then, there is no THE Greatest Mountain but multiple representations of the Greatest Mountain in several places.

Sure. I just don't need that information.

That was not meant as an ad hominem at all, just as a reflection that our preferences may differ to an extent that allows you to play a game I can't get my head around.  I mean obviously, you and I differ on our positions on many issues, and this can easily be accounted for in that framework.  But the fact you and others can and do play the game does not actually address the problems I encounter.

I completely agree with all of this.

I regarded James Holloways contribution as the best to date on the topic, but still point out that it kinda implies a non-magical world.

I think he's probably made the best attempt possible to reach all of your needs, yes. But he still fails, right?

But still and all, becuase we only discuss the characters perceptions as character perceptions, instead of player coomprehension, the state of the discussion appears to be that player fiat determines conversion, and the characters actual psychological experience is never touched on by game play.

Non-sequitur, and I'm not sure agree that "player fiat determines conversion." If you mean that the player controls their character in terms of their own conversion, I agree. But converting others is definitely something that the mechanics handle. In any case, the characters psychological experience regarding such matters is about all we play about in my game.

Take one character created recently. She comes from a lowly economic background, but has been made a holy warrior of a goddess of Luck rather out of the blue. The whole point of the character is going to be (already has started to be in the first scene), what's happened to her, why it's happened, and how or if it makes any sense in the larger cosmology. I've got another character who had, in his past, been a priest of an "evil" diety, but who has tried to take his belief system and convert it over to another. In play I'm just starting to get heavy on the bangs which show that perhaps he's still worshipping the evil diety and just doesn't realize it yet. Players basic idea, my own twist on it. Another character has "secular" magic, in that it's taught by a secular order. But he's used it to resurrect a dead girlfriend in a state of mechanical operation, and it turns out that the magic used is so potentially "evil" that whole nasty cults are dedicated to it. The moral implications are tremendous.

I can go on and on if you like. It seems to me that HQ is specifically designed, in fact, to produce characters with this sort of conflict. And in play it's all be quite wonderful.

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.

No.  I would be able to figure out how syncretisation works if I knew what was really going on in the game world, i.e. if there was a unifying metaphysical model.

I don't see the disagreement here. I agree that, sans a unifying metaphysical model present, you'll either have to make one up, or not be able to play.

Yes thats right.  And I would want all my information during play to be phrased in character-subjective terms.  But as with the Arkat example, your mode does not really seem to me to leave room for that - rather than me thinking about Arkat, and the mystery of multiple identities, and seeing this issue from the inside my characters head, instead my raw, OOC opinion of which would be "most interesting" is used instead.  The mystery of Arkat is never something that I contemplate through the vehicle of my character - Immersion is denied.

Uh, non-sequitur again. How does explaining things in only subjective mode lead the player to the behavior indicated? In any case, even if you're correct, since I don't require this (nor do I mind it), it still works for me either way.

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.

Well, I don't rightly know if Issaries has any personnel at all, properly speaking.  We are taking about the fan base, but we are also about the luminaries of the fanbase.

Issiaries, Inc. has two employees, if I understand correctly. Greg Stafford and Stephen Martin. Nils Wilander (SP?) the webmaster may or may not be an employee, I'm not sure. But he doesn't handle policy in any case. Only the other two do.

Rory is an author of much of their stuff, and though he has hit me with the YGWV bat on occasion is very consistent in his responses. Mark is another author and the most important freelancer for Issiaries, I'd say, and he's nothing if not completly respectful and helpful. Basically, if you want a good answer, ask the people who are in it for the money (or, rather, have some money invested). :-)

As for the other "Luminaries," well, who cares? They don't create the cosmology, and in fact spend a lot of time complaining about getting "Gregged" meaning having their ideas stomped all over by the owner of the IP. So, no, don't listen to them if you want a straight answer. OTOH, if you want tons of creativity...

But still and all, I really don't understand the decision to leave the s/objectivism debate as an open running sore if it could be cleared up by a frank discussion of "how to use this book" or, if the Narr conclusion is valid, by a discussion of Narr.  

I've been a strong advocate for this. That said, given the state of Narrativism, I think that HQ is amazingly oriented that way without the authors even really understanding thoroughly nor agreeing with the theory. Part of the problem is probably that HQ is Sim/Nar incoherent to some extent, yes. Some would say moreso even than HW was.

That said, I'm against an explanation of the metaphysics that nails things down to one solution. Again, for me, that would be ruinous.

But to date it appears that despite knowing how frequently the problem appears, it is deliberately maintained rather than dealt with.

On the nar front, I think it's a willful rejection of the theory here at The Forge. Not in a malicious way, but in a "we know what we're doing designing games and don't need any hairy theory to do it well" sort of way. I really don't blame them, actually.

On the cosmology front, well, I think it's simply Greg's vision. No different than any other setting author there. His is just more complex. And so it doesn't surprise me that such a groundbreakingly complex cosmology might have problems in presentation.

Again, I can't really see what is to be feared by discussing the game in, say, the light of Chris Kubasisk proposal.  

Well, in that thread, Chris says that he agrees with me. Not that I understand that, but if we do agree, then he's saying what I'm saying about playing HQ. II'm willing to have my understanding on that improved if anyone might.

Mike

[pete_darby]

Okay, back again, where were we, ah yes, Doburdun.

The problem here is that the lunars have kind of made a rod for their own backs. Fo rtheir own purposes (permanent setting of Sedenya as Lord of the Middle Air), they've co-opted Yelmic myth, identifying Orlanth as Rebellus Terminus. Whatevr and however they've done it, they've set themselves up so Orlanth Has To Go, in their big scheme of things.

This leaves a problem: no storm powers, no movement... oh, but hang on, here's previously obscure minor deity Doburdun, the tamed wind. He shares some aspects with Orlanth (one of Ernalda's many husbands, storm god), but few of what the lunars think of as bad ones (like being king of the storm tribe).

So they are quite separate, but similar. Kind of like replacing Zeus worship with Thor worship. Just because they've both got lightning bolts doesn't make them the same.

Quite apart from anything else, it lets the Seven Mothers missionaries to go in and say "Look, you know we had to outlaw Orlanth, rebellus Terminus and all that, but look: devote yourself to doburdun and you still get all your cool storm affinity intact". This is thanks to their "enlightened" magical practices rather than a deep metaphysical bond with some putative "uber-storm" deity that is the "real" source of Orlanth & Doburdun.

I really don't see how you can look at the material and say "Aha! So they really ARE the same god!" What makes you say that?

Orlanth didn't die after the conquest of Tarsh, because the Lunars hadn't filled every major temple of Orlanth with earth. Once Whitewall goes under, poof, Orlanth has a major connection to mundane Glorantha ripped away from him. The Fimbulwinter was, IMHO, a completely unseen consequence. I can imagine the Lunar priests having the discussion... "Listen, are you sure it's a good idea to cut the great storm off from Glorantha entirely?" "Ah, heck, we still got Doburdun, what could possibly go wrong..."

In Glorantha, the Gods are real, but transcendant beings, whose nature can only be understood by Gloranthans through the tool of myth. We have no "outside Glorantha looking in" view of them, because that would put us in the position of looking at any Gloranthan character as a fool, dupe, or whatever. If we accept that their nature cannot and will not be objectively nailed down, except through their myths, we can start working with them in the game. They are not characters, they are not even embodied impersonal forces, they are the sum total of their myths.

The cultural references are their because that is, in a very practical sense, the only way to understand the Gods, magic, the otherworlds, because they can only be understood as the subjects and products of myth which also produces very real physical effects.

Merely because something is real doesn't make it mundane in Glorantha: each god has a variety of natures (Orlanth is the storm, the rebel, the hunter, the thief, the king, the warrior... or was that Conan, I forget). IN Glorantha there is certainly evidence that each cult we see (Issaries, frex) is both the syncretization of many local cults that sprang up in the dawn age, but also, as worshipping one aspect of a more abstract, impersonal principle (Issaries and Etyries are very similar in interests & etymologies).

If you can get away from the idea that the Gods are "really" very big people with superpowers, or entirely separate personifications of abstract concepts, because, despite the presence of the Godplane, despite the availability of deity granted magic, the mythology of Glorantha is very like the mythology of Earth in that it is messy, syncretic, the product of thousands of years of very messy human interaction with the added bonus of giving access to magic.

Picking up some of your language, look at this: the Godplane only has an objective existence as a collection of stories, myths: interacting with them is only possible through myths.

If you can't buy that, and I'm not saying you should, Glorantha as written, UMG, doesn't, cannot work. It's what the metaphysic rests on.

[James Holloway]

Right - it does not.  But it also makes a mishmash of the statement about the Greatest Mountain, to name but one.  Thats why the fact it does not specifically say this does not mean it is not true - remember, everything we know is phrased in terms of character perception, not objective statement about the world of glorantha.

You keep saying this, but it isn't the case. Many sections of the books are out-of-character, others are in. The Greatest Mountain case is a bit of a slip-up, but if you look at it in terms of the descriptions of Orlanthi sacred time rites throughout Thunder Rebels, it's clear what happens. See for instance TR p. 132 which says "the nearest sacred mountain." That clearly makes a lot  more sense.

No, I don't accept that at all, and I think that is an unfair accusation.

Sorry Gareth, but I really do agree: you're creating difficulties where none exist.

OK, I will repeat:

Thunder Rebels page 120:"At any ceremony outsiders do not see what truly[/] occurs.  They do not see what the worshippers do, becuase they do not know the secrets or have the proper perceptions"

This is reinforced with: "Similarly, outsiders at an Ernaldan rite see the women continue to dance, even after the worshippers know that they have fallen asleep and entered the God World".

So quite explicitly, if you do not share the beliefs, you do NOT see what the Orlanthi themselves see and experience.  The Ernaldans perceive themselves to be asleep in the mundane world and astrally projected, if you will, into the god world, while to an outside non-Orlanthi observer they are neither asleep nor projected.

Note the use of the word KNOW rather than believe.  

What's the problem here? When someone enters the God World, or heroquests, they appear simultaneously in both worlds -- this is in lots of cases. Look at the illustrations of the heroquests in KoDP, which clearly show people in costumes, using puppets, etc. (and yet people still die), or -- is it River of Cradles? -- where a heroquester engaging in a battle with some kind of river god appears to the PCs as a guy floundering around in a river.

And yet, in ooc tones, the books make it very clear that the characters are genuinely entering the god world. TR p. 132 again: "all initiated Heortlings have been to the God World."

If you are not an initiate, you cannot perceive the realm of that pantheon -- you are not welcome there. That's why people can't see into the Storm Realm unless they're initiates or participating in a big heroquest, like when Palangio the Iron Vrok invaded the Storm Realm.

OK.  I can get behind some form of astral projection into the god world to gain magic.  Except, why then the multiplicity of aspects of Orlanth?

On the Issaries site, the section on Orlanthi religion states: "The breadth of the Orlanth cult's spread is extensive, and it is understandable that such diversity would spawn some differences of worship depending upon the local customs. "  Except its not understandable at all: if Orlanthi are really going to the same god world to interact with the same god, what relevance  do "local customs" have?  Why should mere human customs have any impact on the god world whatsoever?

Because the god world is not exactly as worshippers perceive it -- the entities that inhabit it are too big to be grasped by human minds, so aspects and subcults are created to manage worship -- the god world is interpreted through the cultural biases of the viewer, as far as the superficial details go. Also, if you read this, it says that there are differences of worship -- cult rites are different, prayers are different, etc. But Orlanth doesn't care about that crap, not really -- hell, he allows those goofball Aeolians to venerate him as a saint! So in this sense, cultural norms determine how Orlanth is worshipped.

We also need to return to the question of subjective heroquesting.  If we firmly assert the UMG model, then one would expect the hero quests to remain consistent to all observers.  They express metaphysical facts, rather than the opinions of humans, surely.  In which case, the previously proposed method by which a worshipper changes their god, or introduces an aspect or whatever, and alleges that in the doing they have "discovered" this thing, is necessarily false.  Also, one would expect that such a change would aply instantly to all worshippers of the god, as the change to the god world has no geographical correspondance.

And when it happens (almost never) it does apply equally to everyone in the appropriate cults -- which is why the goddess swap was such a big catastrophe, for instance.

The UMG includes some play -- it is objectively true as part of the setting that it's possible to fuck around with the truth a bit in the hero plane. Hmmm.

How can I put this: the god world has truth. Not fact, truth. So some people say Odayla is Orlanth's brother and some say he's his son. Whatever; the truth is that Odayla is tightly bonded to Orlanth. Some say that Rigsdal is part of Orlanth, and some that he's part of Elmal. Well, the truth is both -- because the truth is that he's responsible like Orlanth Allfather and loyal like Elmal. The "fact" -- that he's Orlanth's son and Elmal's employee, or some damn thing -- is a culturally-contingent expression of the truth.

But the truth of the Orlanth myths fits the cultural biases of the Orlanthi pretty well, not because they created him, but because they are the kind of people who would worship him. Mind you, Orlanth is vast and different cultures take his lessons in different ways. So although the Hendreiki, the Tarsh Exiles, and the Heortlings all believe in Orlanth, they've incorporated his lessons into different cultural norms, each arguably supportable by theology -- that is, supportable by the superhuman truth of the Storm Realm.

But then... we return to conflicting claims that have been 'proven' in the magical otherworlds.  Such as the fact that Ernalda has been 'proven' to be She Who Waits

Ernalda is not She Who Waits -- the Lunars are telling porky pies on this one. HonEel is Ernalda, in some aspect, but Ernalda is not really She Who Waits. I suspect we'll have to wait for ILH2 to find out what's really going on here -- I suspect it is something to do with the mysterious, deceptive power of SWW, who for my money is Arachne Solara/Ginna Jar.

In this regard, James Holloway previously said:

OK.  So, it is precisely that 'highly technical metaphysical sense' with which we are concerned.  Doburden IS Orlanth; the Lunars Proved this.

I can't find any source for this -- it's not in the Doburdun write-up in BA, it's not in the Doburdun entry on the website. In fact, http://www.glorantha.com/support/doburdun.html very clearly states that Orlanth and Doburdun are two different deities: "when violent Orlanth came to take Ernalda away, Ernalda commanded Doburdun not to fight." This is a wrong idea you have, not something actually in the text.

How can this be possible in the Universally Magical Glorantha in which the gods are geunine entities, the magical planes objective places?  Why all the references to culture, or to what orlanthi want and need, in reference to the magical planes and their denizens?

In this instance, I was using Mike's example of a case in which the GM has not decided whether the relationship exists or not and is allowing the players to determine it. But even if the relationship exists, the heroquest can still fail  if the Heroes fuck it up.

Sure, it looks that way.  Unfortunately, I don't understand why the same didn't happen during the conquest of Tarsh.

Because Sartar is uniquely sacred to Orlanth -- it's where he was born, it's where he set off for the LBQ, it's where he slew the dragon. Not that it was called Sartar then, but you know what I mean. The Old Wind Temple, Kero Fin, and the many other sacred Orlanthi sites are part of his power and destroying them gives you a huge boost to the contests necessary to kill them. With powerful Orlanth worshippers still active in Sartar, this was not possible in Tarsh.

Look at the failure of the cults of Daysenerus and Tarumath -- a couple of people deciding to stop worshipping the High Sun and High Storm doesn't make a difference. But the root-and-branch extermination of those cults and the destruction of their temples? That'll help.  

Well, it is helping in that it is furthering the discussion, but I'm not yet convinced of the unity of the mythical metaphysics.  This is becuase of all the references to cultural specifics both in terms of the aspects of gods and changes via heroquesting.  In the UMG, I cannot see how or why heroquesting is important, as I can see no basis for expecting that humans are able to change the very gods themselves, if the gods truly do exist.  And all the references to culture are what drives speculation to the NMG model.

In the UMG, the gods truly do exist -- but if you can get access to the god world and are sufficiently powerful, they are truly, objectively mutable. They've just been in their current states for a long long time (well, the tough gods have) because changing them is almost impossibly difficult. But this information is not known to most people, partly because you have to be hard as a coffin nail to pull it off, partly because it requires a level of metaphysical consideration that most people aren't willing to put in, partly because most people don't see any need to change the Gods World (except Lunars, of course, who are radicals in many ways), and partly because every time someone tries it it goes horribly, horribly wrong and therefore the information has been intentionally suppressed. So it is both true that you can change the gods world and true that magic works as advertised -- the two are linked, in fact.

Anyway, I'm off on holiday for the next week and a bit, and I don't think I'll be online much. I hope that I've provided you with some food for thought. I know that Gloranthan materials are often confusing and difficult, but I think it requires a rather more careful approach to fully understand them than you are taking -- as long as you're not willing to improvise, that is. Declaring that all Gloranthan information is subjective and therefore not of value in determining how magic works is, to me, a very serious mistake, and will cause you a lot of problems in understanding the world.

EDIT: my italic tages are all screwed up. Weird.

[soru]

On the Issaries site, the section on Orlanthi religion states: "The breadth of the Orlanth cult's spread is extensive, and it is understandable that such diversity would spawn some differences of worship depending upon the local customs. "  Except its not understandable at all: if Orlanthi are really going to the same god world to interact with the same god, what relevance  do "local customs" have?  Why should mere human customs have any impact on the god world whatsoever?  

Because to get to the god plane via ritual (as oppsed to physically flying there), you have to go via the hero-plane, which _is_ subjective (or alternately, so immensely complex, multiplex, mutable and interwoven that it is virtually impossible for a pair of human minds to come to a common conclusion about it without sharing information).

The nature of the ritual used, as remembered in local tradition,  governs the path you take through the hero plane. Only when you complete that path do you visit the godplane itself, and then only for a single timeless moment.

That seems to suggest that the relationship is in reverse, rather like the model Pratchett used in Small Gods: the ideas and belief of the faithful empower their gods.  Humans don't get magic from the gods, gods get power from humans.

I suppose some kind of power-sucking magic creature could pose as a god (there are elements of this in the Vivamort vampire 'cult'), but I very much don't think that is the usual case. Gods don't need or necessarily want worshippers, although priests often want congregations, and kings may want magically-empowered subjects. Some immensely powerful entities are hardly worshipped at all.

We also need to return to the question of subjective heroquesting.  If we firmly assert the UMG model, then one would expect the hero quests to remain consistent to all observers.  They express metaphysical facts, rather than the opinions of humans, surely.  

Everyone on the same ritual quest is sharing the same enabling magic, and so sees things essentially the same way, absent any special magical perceptions or relationships with entities met ('that's not just a mysterious solar guardian, that's Yelmupthalio!' 'Who?').

For hostile questers to arrange to meet, they will have to to some extent infiltrate, subvert or magically track the ritual, and so

In which case, the previously proposed method by which a worshipper changes their god, or introduces an aspect or whatever, and alleges that in the doing they have "discovered" this thing, is necessarily false.  Also, one would expect that such a change would aply instantly to all worshippers of the god, as the change to the god world has no geographical correspondance.

But the majority of a ritual quest takes place in the hero plane, which very much does have a geographic correspondence to the real world - every temple or sacred site starts you at a different place, although some are similar in appearance.

How can this be possible in the Universally Magical Glorantha in which the gods are geunine entities, the magical planes objective places?  Why all the references to culture, or to what orlanthi want and need, in reference to the magical planes and their denizens?

If it's objectively impossible for them to pull it off, then they always fail. If you want to simulate that in-game, you need a deterministic resolution mechanism (e.g Amber-style 'very simple contests', or just make opposition 6 masteries stronger than the protagonists). You also need players who buy into that idea, or at least promise not to hit you.

Well, it is helping in that it is furthering the discussion, but I'm not yet convinced of the unity of the mythical metaphysics.  This is becuase of all the references to cultural specifics both in terms of the aspects of gods and changes via heroquesting.  In the UMG, I cannot see how or why heroquesting is important, as I can see no basis for expecting that humans are able to change the very gods themselves, if the gods truly do exist.  And all the references to culture are what drives speculation to the NMG model.

Culture is the glue that ties the different otherworlds together. Think of it as a vast interconnecting  web of myths, where one strand leads from one individual temple in the mundane world, joins with others, braids together, and attaches to one particular spot in the godworld.

soru