Gloranthan Genre conventions / tropes

[newsalor]

You can understand Glorantha, but it is a personal experience and there certainly isn't an easy answer available. I think that you should try to find that answer by playing in Glorantha and reading the source material. To me that's a major part of the attaction.

Who said that understanding the foundations of a world as rich and complex as our own would be easy? If it would be easy, it wouldn't be half as fun and rewarding. However, if you feel that you don't know enough about the world to play it, you can always advice. Still you must recognize that ultimately using someone elses answers robs you something very important. Think of the underlying metaphysics of Glorantha (if there is such a thing ;) as a giant premise that you and your friends are constantly addressing.

IMO there is enough out there to start exploring, but no one can walk the path for you. If exploration is the essence of roleplaying then I would say that Glorantha can offer you a way to explore in a way that no other world can. When you explore the mythical world of Glorantha, delve in your premises with your gaming group, read the material and fiction involved and perhaps write something of your own, you are really exploring yourself.

[Brand_Robins]

For this reason, I'd offer up this as Trope 6 -- but I have no idea how to phrase it.

6. The Absolute Truth of Glorantha is unknowable. Unlike many fictional worlds there will always be uncertainty about Glorantha, from the metaphysical level to the historical. No one in the world knows the absolute truth of the setting, and neither do those playing there. This means that while characters may believe something, they can never know it is Absolute Truth. By the same token, even the players cannot know what is Absolute Truth in their character's worlds, except as they find/experience it through play.

Hrm. Not sure I'm happy with that. It also makes Glorantha sound specifically and totally narrativist in approach, which I'm not certain is true.

[Christopher Kubasik]

And personally, and this might be my own bugaboo, it seems to miss the point that this is a *good* thing -- that the delight of the place comes from the tension between needing to take action in world of faith, where faith is defined, not from "here's what's really going on" abstract at the back of the rule book, but by the PCs actions.

So it's not that the absolute truth is uknowable, it's that Myth / Religion matters, in ways no one will or can fully understand.

Christopher

[pete_darby]

Hmm, this one gets put in the best way I've seen in John Hughes' Lozenge building 101:

a) Relativism is an Absolute: there can be no certainties. There are at least four and a half correct explanations for anything. Everything you believe is only a prelude to initiation into gnosis. Arkat made but half the journey. Only Baboons know the truth, and only Lunars are aware of this. Godlearner documents are memic land mines. Epistemology and ontology consciously arise only when cultures clash (and twice on Godsdays). Choose your errors consciously and wisely. Praxis before Doxis.

Of course, the bug / feature nature of this is one that I've butted heads with Gareth over before: I believe your phrase to typify the default Glorantha last time was "clearly defined areas of uncertainty," wasn't it? Your view of the nature of mythology is, AFAICR, at odds with that which Glorantha was based on, so it's going to look screwy to you as described by Greg et al. I think, and I know you're not going to like this, that you'll have to decide the answers yourself for your Glorantha, and keep Greg "Garethed" (contracycled?) in your Glorantha.

I'm a lot more live and let live about this than I used to be... it's the Forge influence, I tells ya!

[simon_hibbs]

Extracted from an outstanding post:

I will suggest a third, middle way.  I suggest it only because it is of interest to me: Not knowing the metaphysical contexts while living in a metaphysically driven game is exactly what I would want because that's the tension of a religious premise I would want.  That is, yes, the PCs (and the player) are caught up in something larger than life (literally, larger than the mundane), and the definition of what that means is something each mortal PC (and each player of each PC) has to sort throug on their own.

This is exactly the way I see it, and very eloquently put. To paraphrase Douglas Adams "What's the point of pondering the question of the existence of God, if someone comes up to you and gives you his f***ing telephone number!".


Simon Hibbs

[Scripty]

And personally, and this might be my own bugaboo, it seems to miss the point that this is a *good* thing -- that the delight of the place comes from the tension between needing to take action in world of faith, where faith is defined, not from "here's what's really going on" abstract at the back of the rule book, but by the PCs actions.

So it's not that the absolute truth is uknowable, it's that Myth / Religion matters, in ways no one will or can fully understand.

Christopher

Good point. I'm wondering if anyone else cringed during Phantom Menace when Qui-Gon started talking about how mitichlorians and the Force. For me, the original Star Wars trilogy had it nailed. The Force was this quasi-mystical energy that people could learn to manipulate, but no one knew quite why exactly and some discredited the whole thing. In the latest series, we've discovered that this notion was wrong. The Force is just a mutation and it can be predicted with blood samples.

I learned in my anthropology of religion course that if something happens, is repeatable, and you're not sure why, it's magic (really good magic at that). If something happens, you know exactly why and you can riff on it all day long, it's science. IMO, Mitichlorians made the Force a science. If everything in Glorantha was spelled out, categorized and lined up, I think Glorantha would lose some of its magic, too.

Scott

[pete_darby]

Hmmm... new verb, to go along with lasersharking?

Midichlorian: to provide a simple, clear explanation for a previously mystical attribute. To make the mythological scientific. To immanentize the immaterial. To screw up (implied).

As with Lasersharking, it's a matter of taste disguised with fancy-schmancy verbiage. But I will be using it from now on.

[Christopher Kubasik]

Yes, yes, yes!  And RPGs have been Midichlorianizing (phew) religions from the start.  (Pendragon got close, though.)

Christopher

[Mike Holmes]

This, interestingly, is not a problem that I have with Glorantha. The way I see it, however, no matter how much you Midichlorian something, there's still room for doubt. So even in worlds where this is the case, I personally still get the same sense of wonder.

Shadow World goes to huge levels to Midichlorian things. But it doesn't matter, as the question of a monotheistic supreme being remains completely unaddressed. All of SW's gods could merely be beings in a universe ruled over by some larger being. You can always pose "larger" or something akin to it, so this is always in effect.

In fact, I rather like midichlorian explanations in my RPGs because they become philosophically interesting. I mean, given that the gods of SW are just "beings" of some sort, do they really deserve worship?

To put a point on it, who created the Midicholrians (and what was he thinking)? Dune is very explicit about this from the start, to the point that it's a theme. Paul doesn't think there's anything mystical behind his abilities, but many other's do.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

In fact, I rather like midichlorian explanations in my RPGs because they become philosophically interesting. I mean, given that the gods of SW are just "beings" of some sort, do they really deserve worship?

This is the key question that lies at the heart of any system of religious philosophy. Traditional RPG settings - and I'm mainly talking about D&D here but there are many other examples - are two dimensional and unconvincing because they fail to address this basic moralo question. What is the real difference between a god and a mere powerful entity with god-like powers? What differentiates a demon from an angel or a god? From what source do the gods (or even THE god for that matter) derive their moral authority? This is what makes religious choice and conviction such a contentious and personal thing in the real world. We don't have easy answers, and providing blithe answers as simple facts of a setting's background is, for me, very unsatisfactory. Where is the moral tension if every contentious situation can be resolved with a Detect Good spell?

To put a point on it, who created the Midicholrians (and what was he thinking)? Dune is very explicit about this from the start, to the point that it's a theme. Paul doesn't think there's anything mystical behind his abilities, but many other's do.

Whether Paul does or doesn't believe in Mysticism isn't realy addresed. He is very much concerned about the moral issues that he is faced with, but feels helpless. All his powers do is provide him the opportunity to try and find the least bad outcome for him, the people he loves and the species at large. He certainly never seems to question the validity of the established religion, even though it is obviously so contrived.


Simon Hibbs

[Christopher Kubasik]

Hi Mike,

Wait.  I'm curious.  You wrote: "This, interestingly, is not a problem that I have with Glorantha. The way I see it, however, no matter how much you Midichlorian something, there's still room for doubt. So even in worlds where this is the case, I personally still get the same sense of wonder."

Yet it seems to me that many of us are arguing that in Glorantha there's no Midichlianization going on.  That's the point.  I think that's the fulcrum where people are either siding on the side of "Cool!" or "Jesus, can't they just tell me what the damned game world is."

I suspect, though I might be really wrong about this, a lot of it hangs on the word "just" in your reference to the beings in SW.  To me that suggests a relationship between the Players and the Pantheon that is intriguing to some, but to me makes the Gods no more than frogs on a high school lab table.  This, I know, may not be how you see it.  But it is how I see it... And the gulf between these two points of view are, I think, the vital, live wire on the table for discussion right now.

There is no "just" in abot myth, pantheon or the god in Glorantha.  The Players don't get to have an objective (and thus "mastering them" point of view.)  This is either a turn on or a turn off.  But I do think it is why some are frustrated with the setting the context of this discussion, and others excited about it (again, in the context of this thread).

And I don't think there's any point in trying to convince, argue or prove ponts back and forth on this one.  And I don't think that's a cop out.  This is an issue of Premise, which either engages a person or not.  This is an issue of "Getting It" which either moves somone closer to where they want to go, or doesn't.

So, back to my curiosity, given all I've written, could this all be in fact the *very* problem you have with Glorantha?  In short, the Players have no "objective" relation to the "facts" of the world's mythology?

Christopher

[contracycle]

I'd just like to expand a bit on what I meant, because I'm not sure that the solutions offered so far are compelling.  At the very least, I think that if this is what Glorantha is expressly meant to be, then it would be greatly served by a work discussing this fact and providing some advice on how to deal with it.

I think the business of whether or not the CHARACTER knows, as in all the above examples, is irrelevant as I have pointed out repeatedly.  It is not the character who needs to understand, it is the player.  That is why I said I can only relate to such characters in Pawn stance: I understand that they hold to dogma X, but I don't really understand why they do so or what it means to them.  So its nothing more than a game restriction, a convention to which I have to pay lip service, but not something to really engage with.  Worse, as the GM, I know that these claims are contradicted by other claims, and that therefore the apparent certainty in the local culture is illusory.

Similarly, with Star Wars and the midichlorians thing, I think the appeal to the initial state of ignorance is misplaced here.  Sure, as a member of the AUDIENCE, all I need to know is that Luke is strong in the force; but if I were Lukes PLAYER - or worse, Ben Kenobi's player - I would need to understand much more than that for it to be emotionally or ethically significant.  Movies can get away with it because the audience is not in a position to demand answers, and is not expected to create on their own: they observe, absorb and comment.  RPG's make the player the active element, and makes the GM an active element; to me, both need some understanding of what the SIS is and how it works in order to agree on any but the most nominal, pawn-stance basis.

Yes it's true I can sit down with a What My Father told me and learn something about the local mores and viewpoint.  But as the GM, I may read multiple of these, and the system and rules say they are all true.  If here - instead of claiming they are all true - Gloranthan texts out-and-out said "these are just place-holders and you MUST develop your own essential understanding of how your Glorantha works" - I would have less problem with it.  Yes, this is defined areas of uncertainty, that is, the clear declaration that the the myths are just set dressing to be exploited or discarded at will, but I see no sign that Glorantha will ever have such a clear statement of intent.  At the very least, this would be my reccomendation for Glorantha as it currently exists (the other would be that, IMO, Glorantha has outgrown its creator, and the board should buy out the founder, kill the ducks, and take the concern where they can.  IMHO)

As mentioned before, I have difficulty however reconciling this perception with the apparent centrality of mythology to Gloranthan play.  If myths are purely tokenistic play restraints, essentially different from aD&D alignments only in quantity of detail, but admitting of no further underlying significance, then proposed premises like "What does 'We Are All Us' mean to us" make no sense.  My answer to this, if presented it as a player, is stock: WAAU refers to the unification of chaos and order under the red moon etc... after all, by giving me a mythology, you have already told me what WAAU means to us.  If I simulate an orthodox member of this society, I'm going to give you the orthodox response.  If you ask me as a player, my gut response is "Utopianist hogwash".  

The former is perfectly good by RPG standards - but both the text and the system of the game then go on to make strange claims about proof which undermine the previous Sim-satisfying certainty.  If Glorantha were limited to one viewpoint, then its ontological truth or otherwise would be unimportant.  But as long as it presents both GM and players with contradictory data, no discussion of how to resolve that data, and no indication that his resolution should constitute the primary purpose of play (if that is indeed the case) I can still only regard the product as fundamentally flawed, incomplete.

The claim that this is a valid representation of ancient mythologies is undermined by two problems: 1) I content the problem (reconciling contradictory claims) never arose for most people because of the lack of mobility and inability to develop a rigorous proof of anything, and 2) this analysis of ancient mythic praxis is not discussed.  Now, over in the Ritual threads by Chris Lehrich, an alternative understanding of the mythic contradictions is offered: that the 'mysticism' is just basic ignorance  dressed up in an obfuscatory manner for the purpose of developing some sort of social authority.  So, seeing as I come from that perspective, I would need an introductory text explaining to me what the view of this product is on the matter, and how the product is to be used in that light.  It cannot just be presumed that I already know and agree with Staffords views on ancient mysticism or that it can be deduced from the text.

The net result is that Glorantha appears to me almost the diametric opposite of what many of its main adherents appear to get out of it: it appears to me that the myths are essentially valueless and meaningless, because they contain no real insight and impart no real understanding, they are just a very complicated and under-explained prop.  Its nominally about a clash of ideologies, but the consequences and outcomes of these clashes are not discussed.  Sure, I can have a character in this world, much as I can have one in a computer RPG - and like a computer RPG, I will engage with its props and sets as objective problems to solve rather than as addressing some personal significance to either character or player.

[Scripty]

Okay, I'll bite. Let me preface this by saying that there are many others on this forum who are far more qualified than I to answer these questions by virtue of their experience alone. However, as a fellow newcomer to Glorantha and to HeroQuest, as well as another HeroQuest "fan" who is not particularly a fan of Glorantha, I think I might be able to provide some insight based on what I have read thus far and what I have encountered on these forums and elsewhere.

Similarly, with Star Wars and the midichlorians thing, I think the appeal to the initial state of ignorance is misplaced here.  Sure, as a member of the AUDIENCE, all I need to know is that Luke is strong in the force; but if I were Lukes PLAYER - or worse, Ben Kenobi's player - I would need to understand much more than that for it to be emotionally or ethically significant.  Movies can get away with it because the audience is not in a position to demand answers, and is not expected to create on their own: they observe, absorb and comment.  RPG's make the player the active element, and makes the GM an active element; to me, both need some understanding of what the SIS is and how it works in order to agree on any but the most nominal, pawn-stance basis.

I think I see your point here and I both agree with it and disagree with it. I agree that if you're going to have setting elements that one player (the GM) knows all about and the other players don't then you've created a hierarchy within the group that doesn't necessarily need to be there. You call this pawn stance. Basically, the GM knows everything about the setting and bats the players around in it like chess pieces. But I don't think that this is relevant in cases where the setting element (here magic, myth or religion) is a grey area to all.

For example, the Force. It worked just fine in WEG's Star Wars, with no mention of mitichlorians. Did GMs and players wonder where it came from or what caused it? I guess so. But I didn't know of any personally who did. The Force existed just because. And it seemed to work fine in the movies and the game without much more explanation than that. If I were to run a Star Wars/Pool game, would I really need to break out the Force powers by Sense, Alter, Control, etc.? Not really. Most people familiar with the setting are familiar with the capabilities of Force-users. I believe your average 10-year-old could wing it without a trace of the metaphysical (or biological) mumbo-jumbo.

Another example, in Mike's Shadow-World game, my character had a gem called the "Gem of the White Wood." It has certain powers. Do I know where these powers come from? No. Does Mike? No. Do I even know what the White Wood is? No. Is the game playable and fun? Yes. Does the mystery over the gem's powers infuse the game with a degree of excitement it might otherwise not have if Mike and I worked out the whys and wherefores of how the gem works? Undeniably, yes.

I can understand why someone would want everything spelled out in fine detail. But I don't think it is necessary for a game to work, as you appear to suggest. In fact, I have some experience that supports a game might be *more* magical the less magic is broken down into scientific steps and equations.

Yes it's true I can sit down with a What My Father told me and learn something about the local mores and viewpoint.  But as the GM, I may read multiple of these, and the system and rules say they are all true.  If here - instead of claiming they are all true - Gloranthan texts out-and-out said "these are just place-holders and you MUST develop your own essential understanding of how your Glorantha works" - I would have less problem with it.

I think something that is missing here is that the HeroQuest Voices are only true from the standpoint of a particular culture. The system and rules, to my knowledge, do not propose that each HeroQuest Voice is canon or honest-to-god truth. Just look at our world for any example. Some people from the U.S. may think that football is the greatest game ever. While tribal people from New Guinea may think that cricket is the greatest game ever played. Neither viewpoint, or "voice," in this instance, makes either of those statements universally true.

And regarding the statement that HQ texts should say "these are just place-holders and you MUST develop your own essential understanding of how your Glorantha works," I suggest re-reading the "Your Glorantha May Vary" section of the HeroQuest corebook. To me, this is exactly what it says.

We come at the same problem from two different directions, IMO. You appear to see Glorantha as highly detailed, structured (even rigid) and lacking in detail for a number of very important areas. I see Glorantha as very malleable, even vague. That's my source of intimidation with the setting. What if I step on some toes in "My Glorantha"? Will the Glorantha police come get me if I shoot Durulz out of canons (or cannons, if I run out of fryers (or friars)) or give the Seshnelans cathedralpults? I'm beginning to crawl out of my shell a bit, as my familiarity with Glorantha grows. But I'm coming to realize that, to a wide number of people with whom I've conversed, that it really doesn't matter. The setting really is open to interpretation. I would add, however, that there also seems to be a fairly structured foundation left over from the RuneQuest days.

But I think that's a hold-over from the past and a great source for these schizoid contradictions that seem to pop up every once in a while. As time goes on, HeroQuest seems to be getting more malleable, IMO, not less.

Could I run a game without ever knowing what a God Learner was? You bet. But if I had a player show up who had been playing RQ and HW for years and he wanted to know why there were no God Learners, what would I do? Would an entire campaign have to be scrapped? I don't think so. I'd ask the player: "So, what are these God Learner things?" He'd explain. I'd work it into the setting. Consequently, I'd do the same thing if a player wanted to be from a clan of ninjas serving the dragonewts.

It's my impression that Glorantha is a setting where you can (and should) do these sorts of things. I couldn't do it with Greyhawk, Dragonlance or the Forgotten Realms. But with Glorantha, from my understanding, it's okay. In my eyes, it's a new approach to a new kind of setting.

The former is perfectly good by RPG standards - but both the text and the system of the game then go on to make strange claims about proof which undermine the previous Sim-satisfying certainty.  If Glorantha were limited to one viewpoint, then its ontological truth or otherwise would be unimportant.  But as long as it presents both GM and players with contradictory data, no discussion of how to resolve that data, and no indication that his resolution should constitute the primary purpose of play (if that is indeed the case) I can still only regard the product as fundamentally flawed, incomplete.

Here, I can agree. Glorantha can seem pretty contradictory, even hypocritical, at times. This is only exacerbated in online forums by some participants telling you to wing it and others slamming the book of "All that is Glorantha" down on the table and telling you how wrong you're doing everything. I don't think that this means the product is "fundamentally flawed". IMO, this is just a carry-over from RuneQuest days. If HeroQuest had an entirely new setting instead of drawing on Glorantha, I doubt we'd have near as many mix ups over how things worked, what was omitted, etc. etc. HeroQuest, IMO, is far more "complete" than most other RPGs I've bought (with the possible exception of Call of Cthulhu).

The claim that this is a valid representation of ancient mythologies is undermined by two problems: 1) I content the problem (reconciling contradictory claims) never arose for most people because of the lack of mobility and inability to develop a rigorous proof of anything, and 2) this analysis of ancient mythic praxis is not discussed.  Now, over in the Ritual threads by Chris Lehrich, an alternative understanding of the mythic contradictions is offered: that the 'mysticism' is just basic ignorance  dressed up in an obfuscatory manner for the purpose of developing some sort of social authority.  So, seeing as I come from that perspective, I would need an introductory text explaining to me what the view of this product is on the matter, and how the product is to be used in that light.  It cannot just be presumed that I already know and agree with Staffords views on ancient mysticism or that it can be deduced from the text.

If this is all about what's up with mysticism, then I recommend skimming through "An Introduction to Glorantha." It's a pretty thick paperback with a lot of the metaphysics that you're searching for, in very poetic, loopy, psychedelic and poorly spell-checked prose.

The net result is that Glorantha appears to me almost the diametric opposite of what many of its main adherents appear to get out of it: it appears to me that the myths are essentially valueless and meaningless, because they contain no real insight and impart no real understanding, they are just a very complicated and under-explained prop.

Have you read Ron Edward's article on Thed in the last Daedalus online zine? Do yourself a favor and look that up. It's a great article and it addresses how people are actually playing HeroQuest to do exactly what you're saying cannot be done here.

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=8370

It also looks at how the same pantheon can mean different things to different groups of people and how those perspectives can be both wrong and right at the same time. It really is a great article and well worth the read.

I hope you reach peace with this issue. I too am unsold on Glorantha, but I haven't given myself over to frustration on the topic. I would happily play in a Glorantha game. I don't feel confident enough to run one yet. But I think that's more me talking myself out of it than any lack of capacity on my part. As concerns Glorantha, what I've heard thus far is: Run with what you know, improvise the rest. Most Gloranthaphiles I've run across seem quite okay with that. Ignore the others. It's your groups' game, after all. As long as you guys (and girls) are having fun, who cares what user "GloranthaPhD" and other RuneQuest scholars think?

Besides, how is that different from running D&D with house rules or adding a new continent to Forgotten Realms? I don't know of one single campaign I've played in that hasn't been tweaked by the GM one way or the other. HeroQuest seems to accept this as a fact of life upfront. No two Glorantha games will be the same. That's true for any other setting out on the market, IMO. Glorantha just says it on the packaging.

Scott

[Mike Holmes]

Chris, I wrote that post poorly. First, I was saying that I like the fact that Glorantha handles things the way it does (I have other problems with it, but that's not one). But then I went further on to say that I don't see the midichlorian problem like some do.

The next point is that, yes, I know that Shadow World's gods came into our dimension at a specific point in history, due to a astonomical event (a planet being punctured by a tiny black hole). And I know that the gods have no power beyond the planet and its moons at all (or very little, its not clear). But the characters don't know that.

Now, as a GM, I don't tell the players either. It's an open secret however, and not something that I'm waiting to "reveal" particularly. The point is that it's interesting to look down on the characters and think, hmmm, they think their gods are omnipotent, interesting that they're not. It makes you think about real life religion, perspective, and its implications. Further, it means that it's quite as possible that another god or gods do exist. Which leaves a very interesting question of why it or they have not revealed themselves to the populace of this planet, instead leaving them to the devices of false gods. Are these people all close relatives of Job?

Even in D&D, sure the "facts" of the gods are theoretically laid bare. But not well enough to form a cosmology. Now, I won't claim that this is by clever contrivance. But if a character in D&D wants to wonder who made all the gods, he may well do so. And, other than system focus, there's nothing to stop said character.

From an even more top down perspective, in actuality, the gods of these games don't exist at all, no matter what the text says, since its all fiction. The most "real" thing that a character can discover is that they're characters in a RPG that exists in a world where we have cosmological doubt. See Over The Edge.

So, sure, the Gloranthan take is probably easier to slide into a philosophically interesting place. But other worlds aren't really all that less well positioned.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

That is why I said I can only relate to such characters in Pawn stance: I understand that they hold to dogma X, but I don't really understand why they do so or what it means to them.  So its nothing more than a game restriction, a convention to which I have to pay lip service, but not something to really engage with.  Worse, as the GM, I know that these claims are contradicted by other claims, and that therefore the apparent certainty in the local culture is illusory.

Suppose I were to run agame set in reconquista spain where all the characetrs were Moslems. We know a bit about Moorish culture from the time. I could write a What the Imam Told Me introduction, and we could all generate characters. Do I know whether Allah is the One God? Can I reconcile Jewish, Christian and Moslem theology? Of course not, yet is it realy not possible to play the game in anything other than pawn stance? I relay don't see why, and the same goes for Gloranthan characters.

Glorantha places no greater demands on a player playing a Gloranthan character than any historical RPG might place on a player trying to play a character from a different culture. I might play a Jewish characetr in one game or a Moslem character in another, and in each I can sufficiently understand why the character has his beliefs and what they mean to him, even if I'm neither Jewish or Moselm. Others might not, perhaps most of us here might not be able to comfortably play a characetr from a foreign culture or religion, but if so there realy isn't anything HeroQuest can do about that. Glorantha isn't our world, so all it's cultures are different from ours, so there realy isn't any way round this problem.

The net result is that Glorantha appears to me almost the diametric opposite of what many of its main adherents appear to get out of it: it appears to me that the myths are essentially valueless and meaningless, because they contain no real insight and impart no real understanding, they are just a very complicated and under-explained prop.

I realy have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that Gloranthan myths aren't true.

If this were true, then the myths would not work, would impart no magical power and studying them would impart no transcendent revelations. yet we know that in Glorantha they do give magical powers and can be heroquested and that gloranthan entities can even become gods by following the precepts of their religions. What more value could you ask for?

You and I have discussed this before, and it comes down to the symbolic meaning of myths. This is why different cultures can have different myths of the Storms, because they can have different ideas about what the Storms mean for them and how they affects their lives.

To the Hillmen of Sartar the storms bring rain and fresh winds that bring life to their grassy hills and make their lives possible. The clouds shield them from the hot sun. They understand how storm affects their lives and this undertsanding helps them to survive, and through their worship they gain magic. Their magic works because their undertsanding of storm is true.

To the farmers of Peloria stroms are dangerous and destructive. They don't need the rain because the river Oslir waters their fields, and storm destroys their fragile crops, blocking out the life-giving rays of the sun. To them Storms are dangerous foreign powers that kill and destroy. Storm is an enemy and they develop myths for fighting Storm. Their understanding of staorm is true, and so their myths give them functioning magic that works.

The Dara Happans and Orlanthi have very different myths about storm and gain very different magic as a result, but their understanding of storm and it's place in thier lives, while different are both accurate, and their myths encapsulate these truths in the form of naratives. These are the ways that people in Glorantha undertsand their world and interact with it, it's also the way many people on earth understand and interact with the world around them.

There's nothing unique to Glorantha about this. Similar explanations can be found in real world analyses of religion, myth and folklore. Just about any book by Joseph Campble is chock full of this stuff. Isaac Bonewits witters on about it incessantly.


Simon Hibbs