Syncretism in HQ

[contracycle]

If your character made use of some kind of magical perception such as "Know Truth" or "See Magic" then the magical nature of the event would be apparent and your character would understand it.

I don't think that can work.  Becuase Truth depends on your culture, thus Know Truth would surely only show you your own truth.  And if see magic is a magic power, but in fact nobody has magic powers, as is conceivable, then nothing would be achieved.


It gets a little thornier when we consider the Refute power of the Mystics.  A mystic can Refute any attack directed against them, simply denying this possibility in the reality they inhabit.  What would that actually look like?  I have no idea how to resolve such an attack - or more accurately, I know precisely how to RESOLVE it, but I do not know how to NARRATE it.  What actually happens?  What does this look like?  What does it say about the magic powers I "know" I have from my deity?  Is my deity a wuss?

[contracycle]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. I generally accept people's claims about their religious beliefs unless I've seen strong evidence to the contrary.

Shamanism is not a belief; Shamanism is a magical practice.  This is not a statement of belief, it is a claim of expertise.

If anything I'm insulting the modern humans who can't conceive of an alternative way of thinking and assume every sensible person shares their views. There is at least as much belief today in "what the scientist says" as there ever was in "what the high priest says" a 5000 years ago.

Of course there is.  But that rather undermines your point - it is precisely because such similarities exist that we have good reason to think that humans several thousand years ago had intellects just like ours.

But neither case applies IN GLORANTHA where you allegedly meet your gods face to face in the god plane.  In that case, I am observing like a good solid scientist, and I would have direct personal knowledge of what I indeed saw.  I would NOT be making fuzzy apologetics about what I saw - I would and could simply describe it.

This appeal to some notional historic mindset is largely bogus.  There are certainly cultural influences, but inasmuch as they accord with Glorantha, they do so negatively, in that these systems are dishonest.

But I have repeatedly pointed out that I consider this line of argument invalid.  It is an ad hominem, an argument that due to some personal failing on my part I "just don't get it".  In order to challenge that I have to get into real metaphysics, which then comes full circle as sundry nutters accuse me of proving that I'm a dogmatic materialist.  The whole thing is entirely pointless, but much more importantly, totally irrelevant.

We are talking about a game, a published product.  Lets just talk about the damn game, not about our personal religious beleiefs.  They are not germane.

Proven by experience, not in the scientific sense of independently verified by controlled experiment. Of course the belief that scientists always have their results independently verified by controlled experiments is a modern myth.

And again, this sort of claim is very discouraging.  I simply do not want to get into that debate, and if that debate is the only way that Glorantha can be apprehended, then my criticism that it is incomplete as a published product is valid.

This is your problem, Glorantha doesn't have one belief system but many. They contradict because each of them has found enough evidence to support their view. You have no more chance of reconciling all these different belief systems than you do of reconciling all the real world religions. To me this makes Glorantha more interesting and much closer to the real world than simplistic worlds where the creator has provided a canon explanation for how the world works.

Right, but:  I am *THE GM*.  I am the person who is appointed to make RULINGS about the local game we are playing.  I NEED to understand how Glorantha actually works - otherwise I cannot apply the resolution system.

The multiple perspectives is valid, and does indeed make Glorantha much richer than more orthodox fantasy worlds.  But that is still no excuse for failing to explain your game world to your buying customers.  It is as if there is no game, but only splats.

You see, while the local perspectives of local people is intersting, and informative of their culture and values and mindset, it is not ACTUALLY telling me about the world they really live in.  It is only telling me about the world they THINK they live in, and these are manifestly not the same.

As far as I can tell Greg isn't very interested in the metaphysics of Glorantha so doesn't write or explain much about it. Just about everything published is written from one cultural viewpoint or another.

Yes I agree.  That in fact is precisely the charge that I have levelled, and why I expect my £50 will never be claimed.  It is not just that there are conflicting views - it is that nobody knows.  Arguably, not even Greg.  And I have to say I find it exceedingly weird that a game product has survived all this time with a fundamental metaphysical hole and nobody ever addressed it.

Unfortunately, it is precisely that information I need if I am to understand Glorantha as a place.

[soru]

I don't think that can work.  Becuase Truth depends on your culture, thus Know Truth would surely only show you your own truth.  And if see magic is a magic power, but in fact nobody has magic powers, as is conceivable, then nothing would be achieved.

I don't think 'there are no magic powers' is a possible viewpoint of a non-insane, non-totally-isolated member of any gloranthan culture. So I think that's a bit of a straw man.

It gets a little thornier when we consider the Refute power of the Mystics.  A mystic can Refute any attack directed against them, simply denying this possibility in the reality they inhabit.  What would that actually look like?  I have no idea how to resolve such an attack - or more accurately, I know precisely how to RESOLVE it, but I do not know how to NARRATE it.  What actually happens?  What does this look like?  What does it say about the magic powers I "know" I have from my deity?  Is my deity a wuss?

Not much point in discussing mysticism if we can't come to an understanding about the system it breaks the rules of.

soru

[James Holloway]

Clearly, he would be wrong.  I could say, no you and your buddies got drunk, fell down, and told a lot of wild stories the next day, I saw you.

And because I KNOW that the true Lord of the Middle Air is Sedenya, I kow that this is true.

Well, they got drunk and flew. That's telling.

But just because you think Sedenya is Lord of the Middle Air, that doesn't mean Orlanth doesn't exist, or that Kalurinoran doesn't exist, or that the Storm Realm doesn't exist. Who's lord of what is neither here nor there in terms of whether or not people really go into the Storm Realm. All these things exist. The Lunars don't hold that Orlanth is fictitious, they believe that he is evil.

[James Holloway]

What does it say about the magic powers I "know" I have from my deity?  Is my deity a wuss?

Well, in terms of the person whose attack is being Refuted, it's probably no different than someone defending with Gesture to Ward Off Magic. No one believes that their magic will work all the time when opposed by someone else's -- why would they?

[GB Steve]

I don't think that can work.  Becuase Truth depends on your culture, thus Know Truth would surely only show you your own truth.  And if see magic is a magic power, but in fact nobody has magic powers, as is conceivable, then nothing would be achieved.

What do you mean, nobody has magic powers? Everyone has magic powers in Glorantha. I know for sure that in my games this would work.

I have no idea how to resolve such an attack - or more accurately, I know precisely how to RESOLVE it, but I do not know how to NARRATE it.  What actually happens?  What does this look like?  What does it say about the magic powers I "know" I have from my deity?  is my deity a wuss?

Gods don't intervene directly in Glorantha, only through the medium of initiates so your deity is not a wuss, but you are.

Mystics have some secret fu that allows them to control the world around them, seemingly without intervention of Gods (who are really just very powerful entities, anyone or thing powerful enough can stake out a corner of reality and grant gifts to those who revere them).

Perhaps they are tapping into some basic fundamental law of reality, perhaps they can even, through hard work and self-denial, define what reality is? Each mystic is certain to have some concept of how this work, but they aren;t likely to all agree. It might be that they are all doing the same thing, or that, in Glorantha, there are many paths to power.

So the narration would use whatever notion the PC uses whether it be a denial of the God through the magic of dialectic materialism, or a belittling of the worshipper as an unworthy vessel, or a conviction that the mystic is somehow beyond the normal rules.

And if the mystic or theist should fail, blame the messanger and not the message. He was obviously not up in his studies or failed in his devotion and must try harder. The road to enlightenment, or oneness with God or whatever one you're after is hard.

[soru]

This is important if for example I am called upon to judge a conflict of powers.  Does Takanegi ACTUALLY possess the Eagle Heart, objectively?  That is not clear, not to me anyway.

The standard HQ way of resolving that, as a GM, would be you look at his character sheet, look at the rating of the 'Eagle Heart' ability there, and use that in a simple or extended contest. He wins, he had it, loses he didn't. Any outcome is easily narratable.

In this, Eagle Heart is no way different from Strong or Tall.

soru

[James Holloway]

And it is directly related to the issue of conversion and syncretism too.  Because, how can I convert or persuade anyone when the truth of my argument depends on them already agreeing with my argument, such that they have the correct perceptions to see my proof?

It requires heroic efforts, that's for sure. It's much easier to put a knife to their throat, probably. Then, once they initiate, they'll see that it's true.

But it is possible to do. The best example is by living well. This probably influenced a lot of Tarshites: "what is this delicious food?" "We call it maize." "How come we don't have any maize?" "Well, we got it through the blessings of Hon-Eel the Dancer." "Huh. And does this require any horrible blood sacrifices?" "Oh, no no no. Well, not many."

"Man, these Yanafal Tarnils initiates are eating our lunch." "I know, every time we go up against them they clobber us." "Maybe Yanafal Tarnils just is better than Destor." "Shut your mouth!" "No, seriously. Think about it."

"So you keep slaves, right?" "We do." "And keeping slaves is good." "It is! How else would we get all these fields harvested?" "How indeed. But does Orlanth approve of keeping slaves?" "Well, not reeeeally. I mean, it's technically OK, but he frowns on it a wee bit. It's the whole freedom, no one can make you do anything bit, you know." "But keeping slaves  is good." "True." "And if Orlanth disagrees with it..." "then he must be wrong!" "How right you are."

So yeah, people often convert for practical reasons, and only once they initiate do they find out the truth of their religion -- which you might interpret as being an illusion, but that would be all you.

The thing you have to grasp is that the otherwolds are not like the material plane. They are not really rational, cause-and-effect type places. If two people see slightly different things in the otherworld, that's not proof it doesn't exist -- it's just probably significant in some way. If some guy can't see the otherworld and we can, well, the poor sucker. What does he know?

[soru]

And it is directly related to the issue of conversion and syncretism too.  Because, how can I convert or persuade anyone when the truth of my argument depends on them already agreeing with my argument, such that they have the correct perceptions to see my proof?

I think the trick for active magical conversion is to steal their secrets, and show up in _their_ otherworld. Learn their ways in order to teach them yours.

Or just make your knowledge available, and hope they take what is offered.

Or, of course, kill them and raise their children as your own.

soru

[Kerstin Schmidt]

I'm not sure what you're suggesting here. I generally accept people's claims about their religious beliefs unless I've seen strong evidence to the contrary.

Shamanism is not a belief; Shamanism is a magical practice.  This is not a statement of belief, it is a claim of expertise.

Gareth,

A personal request from me.  I'd be grateful if you would step away from discussions of what real-world shamanism is or isn't.  There's a place for discussions of that sort I'm sure, but this thread isn't it.  

(Do feel free to PM me if you wish to comment on my request.)

Thank you.  


Kerstin

[contracycle]

It's the lost item analogy again. If you lose something, you want it to be by the rock where you sat down, because that would be convenient. But you don't believe that if it's found there that it's your belief that placed it there, do you? It's there because that's where it dropped out.

Erm, that makes no sense.  Where it would be most convenient for me to find does not seem to matter.  It will be found where it objectively is, convenient or otherwise.

This is the primary axiom which we disagree about. You feel that Gloranthan people think that they change the gods. When everyone else is telling you that from our reading they do not think that they do any such thing.

No no - I am saying, it is implausible to prpose that GLoranthans actually do go out and change their gods but don't notice their own behaviour.  That implies that all Gloranthans are intellectual cripples, which is surely nonsense.

Here you have the apparent creation of a god where there was none before. But, in fact, as we'll learn with ILH2 when it comes out, this is just the revelation of another entire otherworld. The god plane does not, in fact change at all in this case. Instead what you have is the revelation of an entire otherworld that was not known to exist previously, in which Sedenya has always reigned eternal over all.

Right, but as you pointed out, that is not in fact True at all.  What Happened is that a heroquest was carried out, and the god world was changed.  The suggestion that it has "always been this way" is precisely the post hoc rationalisation I accused Glorantha of using.

And for the umpteenth time, I am quite capable of understanding this process, I just want to be told about the game world.

Yes, in the mundane world your faith can change things, and change things drastically. That's magic.

Soryu said that GLorantha was not subjectivist, and here you claim it is.  Which is true?

Obviously you're interested in the topic, Gareth, or you wouldn't be here arguing. What you seem not to be interested in is exploring these subjects from a religious POV. You want a rationalist explanation for how these things work, when they don't work that way at all. They work logically, but from axioms that you see as non-rational.

Thats becuase they ARE non-rational, just as irrational as Orwellian doublethink: we have always been at war with Eurasia = the red moon has always reigned over all.

I do not actually have a problem with this happening in a society in the game.  I think that is entirely plausible.  What I am unhappy about is the entirety of Glorantha as a consumer product being written in doublethink.  Thats doubleplus bad.

I could allow the fact that traveling faster than the speed of light brings up certain irreconcilable contradictions ruin my suspension of disbelief when I play sci-fi games that have it. But I don't, and few people do. In part because the subject is complex enough that, indeed, simply not looking closely at the problem can suffice to make things work out fine.

That is not an accurate simile; it would be more like having a SF game that simultaneously says lighstpeed travel is both possible and impossible.

As I have now tried to point out repeatedly, I do not have any objections to fictional worlds of any stripe.  What I have a problem with is game products that are not complete and make contradictory statements.

Actually, what I'd suggest is creating a RPG that looks at these faith matters from the POV that you find reasonable. I think that would make a much better counter-argument than any other you've made here. If people played it more claiming that it makes more sense to them, then you'd be pretty vindicated, I'd say.

But thats easy.  I pick up my ritual Staff of Stafford and intone: "all in game magic really works as writ.  The gods exist objectively.  People from other cultures CAN see your magic and your gods, and worshippers REALLY DO go the god plane in a non-ambiguous manner"

But everyone tells me that any such proposal would be "not Glorantha" and would be "too rational" and "scientific".

Actually I think there have been other similar movements, but I'm not steeped enough in Glorantha lore to know for sure. Why should the Godlearners not be brought into the discussion. Your point seems to be, at least in part, that nobody in Glorantha ever took the rationalist POV. When, in fact, they have.

No, that issue has nothing to do with the godlearners whatsoever.  Its a simple quetion of ordinary people not seeing what is front of their faces, or seeing things that are not there.  The Godlearners are a whole different ball of metaphysical wax and the discussion inevitably breaks down as soon as we disucss the extremely local Gloranthan definition of "atheist".  

It should not required to investigate such a weird, specific, and subjective, but much more importantly UNPUBLISHED point of view simply in order to play a game.

And what's more telling is that this worked! For a while. So here's an interesting thing. The "reality" of Glorantha is that we don't know what the reality is, or, rather, like our reality, it's an open question.

But we don't know that!  All we know is that some people hold that opinion, that is all.  We do NOT know that it actually worked.

Yeah, I know you don't think that's functional. But it is. In fact, it allows the players to ask deep theological questions in play.

And the above is the reason that they in fact cannot - becuase it is only rumour.  It is not a statement about how Glorantha operates.

Is this functional in play? Quite. Does Sorcerer tell you if summoning demons is a good idea? No, it lets the players decide. In Glorantha, the reality is open to allow you to make your own statements about what these things are about.

But Sorceror does not provide me with a huge quantity of setting material that is mutually contradictory and intended to be so.  Thats why sorcerer does not have the same problem at all.

Your reading is quite different than mine. They only do give up their gods when presented with some pretty compelling proof. Which is, in part that the faith of the other people has allowed them to prevail in battle, but also that their faith can now be shown to be true.

Right.  So, thats not faith - thats basic rationality and observation.

Well, now we have to get all epistemological. How can anyone really "know" anything? Pascal posits that you have to start with the assumption that you exist, and extrapolate from there. But outside of that, humans are quite capable of doubting or believing anything despite evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence that can be 100% convincing. As such, faith can always be a choice for people.

You evaded the question again.  Do Gloranthans have faith or knowledge of their gods?  Becuase if the KNOW, there is no need for faith.  You do not need to belioeve in things that are self-evident.

Gloranthans do NOT have faith BECAUSE they actually do their gods face to face.

Unless....

Gloranthans DO have faith and do not in fact actually meet their gods face to face (or perform magic) - they merely have faith that they do.

But that's so not true. The Orlanthi are going to stage a comeback and win after being defeated in battle. Know how? They're going to heroquest to fix things. The faith of a few is going to end up rectifying some of the trouble that the Lunars have caused.

Which only begs the question: why don't the Lunars solve their problems by heroquesting, instead of with armies?

This is the overall theme of the metaplot. Actually I dislike that the metaplot seems destined to create these themes despite what the players do. But it does speak to the nature of the universe. It's a heroic place, again, and armies cannot stand before the might of the strongest of faiths.

....except that flies against the model of conversion in Tarsh proposed by James.  Armies can and do crush faiths by sheer power and inertia.

Who said the myths are metagame? They aren't. They are completely the beliefs of the people in the game, and what one encounters on the Hero Plane and elsewhere.

Grr this makes me want to tar my hair out, the circularity of this.

No they are not and cannot be statements about what one encounters on the hero plane becuase they are only individual perspectives - not statements of gloranthan fact about the hero world or anything else.

What's metagame is the player's ability to alter these things. Or, even better, it can be either way. That is, the reality of Glorantha doesn't say whether or not characters can change myths. What it does say is that the player can order their character to do things that will result in the myths changing. But, again, what we don't know as players is if the myth is actually changed, or if "it was that way all along."

Well WHY don't I know that as a player?  Its my bloody game!

Thats exactly the initial charge I levelled, yes.  And neither does the GM know.  There is a hole where Gloranthan metaphysics should be to the point that even the players anf the GM do not really know what is going on in the game world.  That is absurd.

This allows the player to make whatever statement he likes. "Ah, see, I changed the myth, myth must be alterable, so we should not worship the gods but instead make them bend to our will" OR "Ah, see, we've found the deeper truth, all hail Orlanth."

How does the myth get changed in play?  By a ruling of the GM - or whatever other credibility device is used.  But as you point out, neither the GM nor the player even know whether the myth needs changing!

This does confound the community, BTW, who used to D&D style cosmology for Glorantha, are still adjusting to a much more complex and interesting one.

No, current Gloranthan cosmology is LESS interesting, because it is an indistinguishable mass of unverifiable statements.  At least a D&D cosmology has different areas, power, textures, without any doubt as to these in-game facts.

We as players aren't informed by the game as to whether or not the characters are actually changing anything.

Yes I know - thats the issue that bothers me.  Will you please now accept that this is nothing to do with my personal view of the universe?  It has to do with the game text and as you agree, the game text does NOT specify.

The characters can't know the reality of the situation.

And for the umpteenth time, individual local perspectives are irrelevant to the question.  I don't care about what the CHARACTERS think - I care about what the PLAYERS think.  And I, as the GM player, need to know these thigs if I am to judge action resolution.

Please stop substituting character persepectives for player perspectives.  I have already complained about this.  The question is about players, not characters.

We can decide if we want, but that doesn't mean that the characters must act convinced.

I don't care about the character - the character is imaginary.  I only care about the players.

You aren't expected to ignore the contradictions, but to have your character find the explanation for them. In fact, if you were playing a character in my game who you said believed the way that I think that most do, and then you had that character say, "Hey, look, we just changed Orlanth!" I'd ask you to correct that to something like, "Hey, look, we just discovered the true nature of Orlanth!"

But I am the GM.  I don't have a character.  And how does a character find an answer if the GM is just as ignorant as they are?

It's like you're saying, "Look the characters are presented with a car, but then call it a plane!" and I'm saying, "No, when we play, they call it a car." Now we can argue all day about whether or not the text says to call it a plane or not...

No, the situation says that the device is both a car, and that it is a plane (not that it is a car-plane hybrid note).

Which ability will you call on to drive away or take off?  And how do you narrate it?

[contracycle]

A personal request from me.  I'd be grateful if you would step away from discussions of what real-world shamanism is or isn't.  There's a place for discussions of that sort I'm sure, but this thread isn't it.  

I'll make you a deal - you get the Glorantaphiles to stop telling me what atheism and rationality are, and I will completely agree.

As I have made plain, real world metaphysics are not relevant to this discussion and should never have been introduced.  Unfortunately they always are introduced.

[Kerstin Schmidt]

Well, so what is this: it is not clear that the Orlanthi actually do magic and commune with their alleged gods.  This is where the perception comes in that Glorantha makes perfect sense if you assume that nobody actually has magic powers.

Could you clarify this for me?  Looking at the game mechanics I see magic powers that work - magical abilities have effects on the game world.  So are you saying that IC these powers and there effects aren't "real" but merely exist in the minds of the users and targets?  

That would bring us to the old philosophical debate of whether "reality" is actually real or an illusion.  Is that what you are talking about?  

Because, how can I convert or persuade anyone when the truth of my argument depends on them already agreeing with my argument, such that they have the correct perceptions to see my proof?

Well, arguably it isn't easily possible to concinve anyone of anything - unless they want to be convinced of it or are at least open to being convinced, prepared to "see" differently.  This isn't true in religion only, it's true in everything.  Have you ever seen people block off all attempts to convince them that they were wrong about something, even refuting a presentation of (to you) comprehensive and convincing facts?  I know I have.  Unless a person is prepared to "see" my side of things (or I can find a way to present things in a light that they are able to "see" without changing their viewpoint first) I'm not going to get through to them.  

Now whether it is possible in Glorantha to start "seeing" the point of a new religion without ever having been formally initiated into it is another question.  I can think of any number of answers to that one - and for me that speaks of great freedom for groups playing in Glorantha.  For example, perhaps you can start having "visions" guiding you towards a change in religion, or perhaps you have to take a leap of faith and formally join the religion first.  

I wouldn't have a problem with this question being answered in any number of different ways for different religions - heck, not even for different characters courting (or being courted by) the same religion.  

But perhaps you'd like there to be hard-and-fast rules for this?

This is important if for example I am called upon to judge a conflict of powers.  Does Takanegi ACTUALLY possess the Eagle Heart, objectively?  That is not clear, not to me anyway.

So would you want certainty about, for example, Takanegi and the Eagle Heart so you'll know what powers to give him when you narrate a game involving him?  

If so I'm not sure I understand why you feel you need that kind of information to be provided by someone else, rather than make up whatever best fits your own game.  No game product gives a GM a full set of details on a game world, you always have room as a group and as a GM to explore/create things of your own.  Is that your point here?  You don't want vagueness and openness in matters of religion, specifically? (I actually love this openness, but that's personal preference of course. I'd like to try and see your point of view on it.)

[contracycle]

Well, they got drunk and flew. That's telling.

No its not.  Glorantha has quite a number of flying people.  that may just be normal.  Who knows?

I mean, its not as if we can appeal to a known definition of humanity, can we?

[James Holloway]

No no - I am saying, it is implausible to prpose that GLoranthans actually do go out and change their gods but don't notice their own behaviour.  That implies that all Gloranthans are intellectual cripples, which is surely nonsense.

Yeah, but I don't think the setting asserts this. In the extremely rare cases where the nature of the gods was changed, I think most people are probably aware of it in some way, given the appropriate historical knowledge.

Right, but as you pointed out, that is not in fact True at all.  What Happened is that a heroquest was carried out, and the god world was changed.  The suggestion that it has "always been this way" is precisely the post hoc rationalisation I accused Glorantha of using.

Well, there are a couple of options here. The Lunar would say: "it both has and has not always been this way," meaning something like "yeah, it's a recent development in historical time, but since it happened in Godtime, which is an eternal mythological past, it has now always been this way, even though it hasn't always always been this way."

Yes, in the mundane world your faith can change things, and change things drastically. That's magic.

Soryu said that GLorantha was not subjectivist, and here you claim it is.  Which is true?

That doesn't make any sense. Magic in Glorantha is not subjective -- it objectively happens. I'm not sure that this can be said to be the product of "faith" unless "faith" is being used as a synonym for "religion."

Thats becuase they ARE non-rational, just as irrational as Orwellian doublethink: we have always been at war with Eurasia = the red moon has always reigned over all.

I do not actually have a problem with this happening in a society in the game.  I think that is entirely plausible.  What I am unhappy about is the entirety of Glorantha as a consumer product being written in doublethink.  Thats doubleplus bad.

But is the reality of the Otherworlds necessarily rational?

But everyone tells me that any such proposal would be "not Glorantha" and would be "too rational" and "scientific".

Screw 'em. Seriously. If that's the best solution for you, go on with your bad self. I would bet you money that it's how 90% of the people playing games set in Glorantha play it anyway -- it's almost how I do. So what do you care what other people think?

Which only begs the question: why don't the Lunars solve their problems by heroquesting, instead of with armies?

Because it's almost totally impossible. Heroquesting the overthrow of Orlanth requires overthrowing Orlanth, that guy with the double-digit masteries in "Smite Interfering Mortals With Deadly Thunderbolts." If you do it in the material world, the Cosmic Compromise prevents him from getting up close and personal with you. So you engage in operations in the material world to destroy Orlanth's support system, and then you heroquest to take him out.

....except that flies against the model of conversion in Tarsh proposed by James.  Armies can and do crush faiths by sheer power and inertia.

Well, not forever. Eventually, Argrath's guys reconquer Tarsh. But in the short term, they weaned most of the Tarshites away from Orlanth. It didn't destroy the religion completely (because traditionalists held out around Wintertop Fort and of course in Sartar), but it dealt it a heavy blow.

Additionally, some heroquests were involved, most notably those performed by HonEel.

No they are not and cannot be statements about what one encounters on the hero plane becuase they are only individual perspectives - not statements of gloranthan fact about the hero world or anything else.

Well WHY don't I know that as a player?  Its my bloody game!

Why don't you just make up your mind? There are two or three different but consistent ways to address this problem. Why don't you just pick one and run with it?