What Source Material Does HQ Magic Match?
I often argue that the way magic is described for Glorantha actually, despite what some may say about it being "Glorantha specific," be good for describing the workings of magic in any fantasy setting. There's one part of it that I'm trying to work through to see if it needs alteration for other worlds - basically to see if it can be made more generic to fantasy.

In HQ, Glorantha is described as having many Otherworlds. Some players actually get caught up at this point, and find this hard to grasp. But I think that it very much makes sense, given that different mythologies have different otherworlds in our world, and even in the fantasy literature and other RPGs we see lots of otherworlds at times. That said, most often with these other sources, the mythology is unified to some extent. In a fantasy book, we may only understand the cosmology of the world from the point of view of a single culture, for instance.

The D&D Model
Even in D&D, where I could argue that there is one otherworld for each alignment, these all exist as part of one mythology that everyone shares in terms of the nature of the otherworlds. That is, even if you're lawful good, and believe in the seven heavens, you also apparently believe in the plane of Neutral Good With Chaotic Tendencies that's three steps clockwise from it.

In D&D, everyone's mythology seems to incorporate every god - they just consider their gods the only ones worth worshipping. And, then, wizardry is considered a secular sort of thing, more akin to science than anything else. And there is no animism per se. So all of the planes are really sorta like one big otherworld that has lots of different sections that are hard to traverse to (and inimical to you depending on how off your alignment is).

I personally believe that this sort of cosmology is the bastard son of gamism necessity. That is, it developed as D&D developed, not to be a cosmology like real world ones or fantasy ones, but one that fit the needs of the rules of the game. Indeed can you think of any fantasy literature that has a cosmology remotely like D&Ds (outside, of course, the literature spawned by D&D)? I can't.

So let's not include this sort of cosmology. I think it's ill conceived of in the first place, and once you "fix" it using HQ, I find that the same world plays much more interestingly.

Sci-Fi
I also have to disclude any "fantasy" that is actually sci-fi in disguise. Pern, for instance. Jorune, as an example of a RPG, as well as Tekumel actually. That's not to say that HQ couldn't be altered to cover these things, but just that the magic rules as they stand with the varying otherworlds don't cover this, because the "magic" in these cases turns out to be scientifically explained, and just comes from the physics of the mundane world.

But let's look at a couple of classic sources, Middle Earth and Conan.

Middle Earth and Mono-culturalism
Middle Earth has the "problem," IMO, that it's meant to be myth itself. So, in fact, it's written to be something like the myths of the real people of England. So, of course, there's only one cosmology involved. From a slightly more open POV, you could say that the myths of the Silmarillion are the myths of all of the people of western Middle Earth. It's important to note that these people share the same language - the humans at least (Westron), and that Tolkien was writing the setting to fit his study of languages. He came up with the languages first - elven, and then created the mythology to fit both the English and Elven languages. And the elves are actually divine beings and part of the mythology, so there's really only one culture involved here from a linguistic POV - which is the only POV important to Tolkien.

So we have to discard Tolkien as a sample, too, unless your RPG world is monocultural. If that's the case, then HQ simply isn't the right game, as it's all about poly-cultural fantasy. Most fantasy RPGs, however, would claim to be poly-cultural. D&D worlds certainly are. Which is what makes the seeming "single pantheon" cosmology seem odd. It's based on the idea of delivering an objective explanation of the entirety of the cosmology, and saying that the worshippers have that objective understanding of it. I can imagine a world in which this is true, don't get me wrong. It's just not at all like the real world, nor like the source material.

Conan
Consider Conan, for instance. Not a lot of magic there, but it happens. In that world, the people have distinctly different religious beliefs. There's no pretending that just because magic seems demonstrably real that suddenly everyone has an objective understanding of how the world works. Instead we have several competing beliefs.

This is what HQ is all about. This sort of poly-cultural fantasy where, like the real world, the people have varying beliefs, and only your culture's magic is, to you, legitimate. All others being some sort of sham or magic from evil beings. Or, at best, slightly misunderstood. In this sort of world, I think that belief in varying otherworlds makes sense too. Certainly they're going to be named differently by the different cultures. From the perspective of the people of the world of Glorantha, in fact, I'm sure that they believe that their god's locality in the god world is actually a completely separate otherworld from the ones of their enemy gods'.

Three Otherworld Perspective
In fact, seen from this perspective, the "Three Otherworld" model of Glorantha seems suspect on first glance. To clarify, there is no such model in reality - there are any number of otherworlds in Glorantha. What the rules do tell us, however, is that all of the gods - except for those of the Lunar Way - are from the God World. This seems on the face of it to be telling us something about the cosmology. And, in fact, from what I've heard from Greg, I think that it is just that which he intends (though he's quite philosophical and might not disagree with the following interpretation, seeing them as potentially equivalent).

But, fortunately, you don't have to see it that way. What the otherworlds seem to represent in their division is groupings of entities that provide power, grouped by how one must worship in order to get the power. It's important to sometimes consider otherworlds to be something like states of mind. It's a matter of getting your head right to get across to being X, or being Y. Sacrifice for gods, ecstatic worship for spirits, veneration for saints, and study for wizards. All of the above with Sedenya being worshipped as the ultimate source for all of this, if you're part of the Lunar Way. Where there are otherworlds besides these, they represent different routs to power.

The importance of these otherworlds, then, is not to give so much an objective separation between these worlds as to explain that there is a different mental leap necessary to get to each sort of world and the entities therein. The "separation" between all of these things, then, is really more about the different ways in which we seek to understand the universe, rather than something set about the cosmology of the world in question.

Mechanically this is represented by not being able to merely "walk" from some place in one otherworld (or the mundane world) to some place in another. One must do a "Crossing" (with attendant 3W10 difficulty). Again, this represents the leap in method. The other mechanical representation is the "Alien World Penalty" for those who have so dedicated themselves to one mindset, that they have problems when dealing with another.

All seems quite sensible to me for any fantasy world. This is merely a description of the basic differences between forms of magic. Draw these lines anywhere they seem to make sense to represent your fantasy world.

BTW, this all seems to jibe with some of Greg's recent revelations about what it means for a character in Glorantha to become "enlightened." Basically they learn that there is some deeper truth that transcends all of these required methods of worship based on the idea that at their heart they really are all about one central truth. Of course, this itself is just another belief system, and doesn't invalidate any of the others or make them inferior other than that one may believe them to be so. There's still no objective truth here.

Seen from this perspective, I think that people can see that the otherworld concept is really something that can be applied to any poly-cultural fantasy setting. Create as many otherworlds as you find methods of getting to otherworld entities that you find sufficiently disparate to merit it. That might be one, or it could mean thousands - you might want to declare that the specifics of the worship of any being or study of any essence or whatever are sufficiently different to declare them all otherworlds.

Mixed Worlds
This leaves, however, the question of the "mixed worlds." There are three important ones in Glorantha that come up frequently.

Underworld
The least contentious of these is the "underworld." Really the only question is whether or not there should be one underworld or many. In Glorantha there is only one, but this really isn't any different from the notion of the other various otherworlds. The Underworld is the place you get to by doing bad things. Or, from a Trollish perspective, by doing trollishly dark things (which are, to them, good, effectively). Just because it's "shared" by religions, it's really no more shared than, say, the god world is. Again, the people may see it as different places. The only unifying feature of it, really, is how one gets there again. Mechanically it means that for most there will be an Alien World Penalty for being in the Underworld.

Mundane World
The second mixed world, the mundane world, has on odd feature. And the feature is that there exist within the mundane world, various entities that have a nature that would indicate that they have an affinity with one of the non-mundane otherworlds. So you have spirits in the mundane world.

This seems to me to be a layer of complexity that might not be necessary, and is hard to explain. That is, what this explanation means is that, for instance, ones own soul is not in the otherworld, it is here with one now. A spirit in a tree is all in the mundane world (and requires the tree as a body so that the spirit can stay), and has no part of itself in the Spirit World. A fetish, in fact, is a body that holds a spirit who was previously in the spirit world, but whom the animist has given said body to in order that it might stay with the animist in the mundane world.

Now, the idea of a being existing on the other side, or having a manifestation in this world, is a common enough one. Demons are summoned and let loose as a classic example.

But something in me wants to say that a spirit in a tree is simply in the otherworld, and dealing with the mundane world through the agency of the tree. What is a ghost? They don't have bodies, by definition. You can pass through them. So are they really here, or in the otherworld somehow, and simply "projecting" an image across to the mundane world? If you're dealing with the essence of a river, aren't you dealing with the representational world behind the river?

Isn't your essence that otherworldly explanation for your form? Your soul your connection with the god world? Your spirit that part of you that belongs to the spirit world?

I can see both POVs here, and maybe it's not necessary to determine the precise nature of the phenomenon of "otherworld entities" creating parts of the "essential landscape," the "spiritual landscape," etc, in order to play effectively at most times. But this is one place where I'd somewhat like an explanation in order to adjudicate certain things. For instance, I've seen descriptions of spirits of fear that are insubstantial. How are they existing without a body, if that's the case? Are there exceptions to this rule? Or is a "tangible" aura of fear present in something enough "body" for them to stay in and not return to the spirit world?

Are these otherworlds at all representational of the mundane world? If not, then that goes a long way to explaining things, yet, it leaves a gap as the representational world is one we expect. I'm guessing that the notion is that the "representational world" in Glorantha merely means all of the beings that do underlie certain bodies in the mundane world. But that hardly seems to be a world itself. For example, it doesn't seem that one can traverse it. You just walk around in the mundane world, and use your special perceptive abilities to see the representational world.

That's not how people who believe representational worlds in the real world see it, is it? Is this just a Gloranthan thing? Or am I misinformed on representational worlds?

The more I describe it, actually, the more I "get" the mundane/otherworld entity model, actually.

Hero Planes
The most contentious of the mixed planes, however, is the Hero Plane, I'd argue. This seems to be a deliberate construct to explain something about heroquests. I sense that there's some cosmological problem that the hero plane exists to solve. The way it's explained, in the god world, spirit world, etc, things are not really maleable. The Great Compromise is an agreement between all of the entities that they would stop fighting and become completely static, allowing Time to begin in the mundane world. The Hero Plane is also known as the Gods War, because it's an echo of the times in which the gods, spirits and essences were, in fact, fighting and still maleable. As such, it's the place where characters go to alter things about myths, essentially.

This is odd to me, because most of the quests that people seem to be rather about emulating some myth, rather than redacting it. If that's the case, why can't they get the same benefits from going to the world appropriate to the emulated being? In fact, Greg admits that one can get similar benefits, and this is precisely how most magical powers that one sees listed in the specialized magic rules are gained. He even says that it's not out of line to use the heroquesting rules to represent this sort of acquisition on the god plane or whatever.

So, really, the Hero Plane seems to exist solely to support the idea of "experimental heroquesting" where one changes the myths. But what I don't understand is that this cannot change the actual nature of a god or such - you can do that in theory, but it requires actually facing a god instead of some echo of him (which is far, far more difficult to accomplish). So, it doesn't seem likely that, for instance, raising the red moon could have been accomplished by a heroquest. So what's the point of experimental heroquesting?

More importantly, why the need for the whole Great Compromise? Why not allow players to quest into the god world and just make changes there if they can? Is it merely to give a lower level of power so that you don't have to be a great hero to accomplish a quest? That could be accomplished in a number of ways. Is it because then we can have PCs meet other questers? Why can't this happen in the God's World, or the Spirit World, etc? Is it important that the world where quests happen be mixed so that one can fight entities originating from otherworlds that are, otherwise, rather inaccessible? What's wrong with a mythic version of such a being existing in the "wrong" world? Or would that make a sham of the real myth? Aren't heroquests shams of the real myth by definition?

So at the moment I'm leaning towards the notion that the hero plane concept may well exist solely to accommodate some previous objectively determined mythology of Glorantha. In practice, I've only used the Hero Plane in other games sorta conceptually as a weak, more accessible version of the real otherworlds. If that. Mostly I let people quest in all of the otherworlds.

In fact, when describing the hero plane concept, players seem to go all cross-eyed. I don't mind some learning curve to this material, but this one element I find hard to describe in general terms.

Discussion
So, thoughts on all of this? Am I too much of an apologist for how HQ handles cosmology? Is the complexity not worth the learning curve? Are the mixed worlds not as problematic as I find them?

Mike

I have a few thoughts. . .

First, lemme say I'd be very interested in seeing your "fix D&D cosmology with HQ" treatment if you ever feel like doing so.

Good points about Middle Earth, but I don't buy that "the elves are actually divine beings and part of the mythology, so there's really only one culture involved here from a linguistic POV". . .if you look at the bulk of the Silmarillion, it's not "the mythology of Men, with Elves as divine beings within that mythology;" rather it's by and large the story of the Elves, by the Elves and for the Elves, especially the early stages with the Darkening of Valinor and the Revolt of Feanor and such. Even later when you see stories of, say, Beren or Turin, here are stories that are more Man-centric, even if they exist in a predominantly Elvish backdrop, BUT where are these stories reposited (within the mythos, that is)? With the Elves. Aragorn learns of Beren and Luthien at Rivendell, and Bilbo translates the whole freakin' Silmarillion at same. And if you want to talk about the linguistic side, well, as you said, JRR developed the Elvish language, then the people to go with it, and their stories, so of course it's about the Elvish people. And really, in the early stages behaviorally they're not so "divine;" the tales are as full of passion and vengeance and pride and folly as any collection of human legends.

More on the topic of this discussion, though, I don't think you can demonstrate very easily that the myths of the Valar and such are "the myths of all of the people of western Middle Earth." They're the myths of the Elves, certainly, and the Dwarves of course revere Aule though under a different name. But we don't see much of any sort of belief from anyone else. Sure, the Numenoreans, but they're a pretty Elvified culture. Whenever, say, the Hobbits encounter any of the Elvish myths, they're fascinated, like they've never heard of any of this, and they probably haven't. I'd probably argue thatthe Silmarillion's myths are largely unknown to the peoples of Man in Middle Earth, the descendants of Numenor being, as I said, an exception. It seems pervasive because we're seeing throught the lens of rather extraodrinary individuals;how many Hobbits or Men get as much exposure to Elvish culture as Frodo and company? If they even know about it, they fear and distrustit, as in "The witch of the Golden Wood." Which implies to me a lot of segregation of culture, which further implies a diversity of belief not unlike what you describe for Glorantha (the "ours is right,all else is sham or evil" model). there's certainly not as MUCH diversity, and we have the disadvanage of not having any material on it, but it is arguably there. I'd imagine the Rohirrim, for example, have a pretty distinct culture and mythology.

Now, about Glorantha:

Your explanation/exploration of the whole Otherworld system has helped me immensely to make sense of it, and warm up to it some. See, before now, I certainly got the whole "clash of cultures" thing, where the different peoples have distinct beliefs, practices, gods, what have you. but when it got to the Otherworlds, well, I confess it started to look to me more like that D&D thing you describe (which I HATE) where everyone has the same cosmology and they all know and acknowlege every part of it. Pointing out that different groups would surely think their own part of the "God world" is a separate place is a real eye opener. For some reason the HQ text didn't convey this to me. In fact, the way it talks about the different otherworlds, and refers to them in narration, suggested the opposite. I think if I ever played in Glorantha I would want to work out just what the individual cultural names WERE for the various Worlds, and hope to ever hear the words "God World" in play as long as I live.

Also, I'm one of those people who go cross-eyed at the whole "Hero Plane" thing. And Ithik part of the reason for my distaste (on top of confusion) is, again, how the text makes it seem as if everyone knows about all this and refers to it in the same terminology. Like D&D. "Where's Jeb these days?" "Oh, he's off on the Hero Plane." "Well, Gods bless 'im. Hope he gets back 'fore harvest."

Anyway, I don't kow how helpful my comments are, but those are my impressions. Thanks for helping make some things clear for me.

Peace,
-Joel

Hi, Mike.

As your post is pretty long, I’ll reiterate some parts to clarify it for me. If I misunderstand you, please fell free to correct me.

Your claim is that the way magic is described for Glorantha is good to describe the workings of magic in any fantasy setting. You do not want to talk about this in general, though, but only concerning otherworlds.
As regards otherworlds, you propose that they are common not only in existing mythology (lets say Norse or Greek) but in fantasy as well. So far, I fully agree with you.

Next, you analyze some fantasy worlds. You start with D&D. First, you argue that even D&D knows several otherworlds. But every mythos contains all deities. Also, there is no animism, so no spiritual plane (?) and wizardry is more science than magic. Therefore you postulate that there is really only one big encompassing otherworld, just with different sections. You want to exclude this sort of cosmology as it is not right (“ill conceived” but can be fixed).
Now, I am not sure I follow you here for two reasons. One, it seems to be more a matter of perspective whether you see one encompassing otherworld or several different ones. One could claim that the cosmos of Glorantha is all encompassing and just has different sections. Those sections just happen to be otherworlds, seen from the mundane world. I am aware that you adress this point later on. Two, you want to show that the magic described for Glorantha describes the workings of magic in any fantasy setting. But now you tell us that D&D does not fit the bill. You claim that D&D cosmology is ill conceived and I do not want to argue that. But obviously your claim cannot be maintained. Not all fantasy settings correspond to your claim. Unless, of course, you see the different planes in D&D as otherworlds.

Next, you exclude sci-fi fantasy worlds as magic is explained with science. I follow this argument; after all, otherworlds do not make sense without mythology to base them on. But again you invalidate your claim. Not any fantasy setting conforms to Gloranthan standards.

Middle Earth. You conclude that ME only has one culture and therefore is no good example, either. HQ needs a multicultural world. I think this point needs clarification. First, why cannot one people have different otherworlds? Let’s look at the Norse or the Greek. They know several planes (Asgard, Vanaheim, Jötunheim; Hades, Olymp, Tartaros). Are these not otherworlds? Of course, we have to differentiate two perspectives: an in-world perspective and an observer’s perspective (this leads to two different notions of otherworld). For an observer, all these planes could belong to the same otherworld (like, say, the gods world), while to the believer they are all different. So, I think you talk about the observer’s perspective, right? Because otherwise, a single culture could easily produce a plethora of otherworlds. But is the number of cultures important for determining otherworlds? Again, Norse, Celts, and Romans lived happily next to one another. But they all believed in a pantheon. In HQ terms there is only one otherworld, that of the gods, although we have three different cultures. Therefore I claim that cultures are irrelevant for determining otherworlds. I think, and you say it yourself, otherworlds inform us how the characters can access power and that they have to do it in a different way in-game. I speak of the game term “otherworld”, by the way.

You continue, that the three otherworld divide can be utilized for any fantasy setting. You say:
"All seems quite sensible to me for any fantasy world. This is merely a description of the basic differences between forms of magic. Draw these lines anywhere they seem to make sense to represent your fantasy world."
And this I do not comprehend. Do you mean, that one type of otherworld can be found in every fantasy setting? In one the gods world, in the next a spirit world, or even two or three otherworlds in a third? Or do you claim that all otherworlds can be found in all fantasy settings? The latter I reject. You give examples above invalidating this claim, it seems. The former does not strike me as great revelation. And I think it would be wrong. Of course, if there is magic in a setting, I will use a system to represent it. But there is no need for an otherworld. All the magic could exist in the mundane world without the need to link it to something else.

Another point: Let’s assume you were right. Your claim that otherworlds are a solid concept for all fantasy settings makes only sense (apart from a philosophical interest) if we also use the different game mechanics associated with the otherworlds in HQ. But that does not follow. Only because characters have to do different things to access power does not require different game mechanics. It could all work using one.

Okay. I will stop here for now. I think that your thoughts on mixed worlds might address some of my concerns. But this post is already long enough and I am getting tired.

Did I misread you?

Sebastian.

Joel,

I've already participated in some D&D work (World of Greyhawk). I'd love to do a fix of one of the settings more completely.

On Middle Earth - my point is merely that it's not a tale of two different cultures. As I'll point out in a bit, more importantly, they all believe in but one magic system (it seems to me). Mithrandir is certainly divine, the elves have some magic, and the humans use the magic made by elves and divine beings like Mithrandir and Sauron. The "West" is the otherworld from whence magic comes in ME. Even if it takes a long time to get there. The hobbits are a captive culture who seem to have no pariticular belief system other than "Home is good."

The Rohirrim have common ancestors with the Dunedain. If they do have a different belief system, I've never seen it. In any case, they don't seem to have any magic. Oh, you could make something up, but that doesn't make the case for multiple otherworlds. More on that below.

I think that the idea that people in Glorantha don't know about the objectively different otherworlds I got from Greg or Rory on the lists, but I could well be imagining that. In any case, it's how I play it, and how I think it works. I think that if you see the rules related to this as game structures, and the perceptions of the people as much more mustical than sometimes is implied, it goes a long way toward making multiple otherworlds make sense.

Good format for a response, thanks Sebastian.

sebastianz wrote:
Your claim is that the way magic is described for Glorantha is good to describe the workings of magic in any fantasy setting.

You do not want to talk about this in general, though, but only concerning otherworlds.

Also, there is no animism, so no spiritual plane (?) and wizardry is more science than magic. Therefore you postulate that there is really only one big encompassing otherworld, just with different sections. You want to exclude this sort of cosmology as it is not right (“ill conceived” but can be fixed).

Now, I am not sure I follow you here for two reasons. One, it seems to be more a matter of perspective whether you see one encompassing otherworld or several different ones. One could claim that the cosmos of Glorantha is all encompassing and just has different sections. Those sections just happen to be otherworlds, seen from the mundane world. I am aware that you adress this point later on.

Two, you want to show that the magic described for Glorantha describes the workings of magic in any fantasy setting. But now you tell us that D&D does not fit the bill.

Next, you exclude sci-fi fantasy worlds as magic is explained with science. I follow this argument; after all, otherworlds do not make sense without mythology to base them on. But again you invalidate your claim. Not any fantasy setting conforms to Gloranthan standards.

Middle Earth. You conclude that ME only has one culture and therefore is no good example, either. HQ needs a multicultural world. I think this point needs clarification. First, why cannot one people have different otherworlds?

But is the number of cultures important for determining otherworlds? Again, Norse, Celts, and Romans lived happily next to one another.

You continue, that the three otherworld divide can be utilized for any fantasy setting. You say:
"All seems quite sensible to me for any fantasy world. This is merely a description of the basic differences between forms of magic. Draw these lines anywhere they seem to make sense to represent your fantasy world."
And this I do not comprehend. Do you mean, that one type of otherworld can be found in every fantasy setting? In one the gods world, in the next a spirit world, or even two or three otherworlds in a third? Or do you claim that all otherworlds can be found in all fantasy settings?

All the magic could exist in the mundane world without the need to link it to something else.

Another point: Let’s assume you were right. Your claim that otherworlds are a solid concept for all fantasy settings makes only sense (apart from a philosophical interest) if we also use the different game mechanics associated with the otherworlds in HQ. But that does not follow. Only because characters have to do different things to access power does not require different game mechanics. It could all work using one.

First I respond to your reply and then go on two the second half of your first post.

It looks a bit to me like you are fighting against windmills. If I understand you correctly all you say is that the HQ model of magic with its otherworlds adds a level of detail to the explanation of magic. A level you find appealing.

Now, I would like to differentiate three different levels.
The first level is an in-game perspective. Various cultures worship different entities. It is possible that a culture believes in some sort of otherworld, a special place which ordinary people cannot access. This is no necessity, they could simply believe it to be all in the world. They also can assume a myriad of otherworlds for each being.

The second level is an onlookers perspective. The onlooker is not involved in the worship and has an objective eye for the situation. He sees the reality with all of the otherworlds there may be. He also sees whether people within the world “get it right” or are mistaken. This is our perspective as players. Usually, we are told how a given fantasy world is. We could see, for example, that there are three otherworlds: essence, spiritual, and a gods world. All of these otherworlds have their own pattern. These otherworlds could be further divided in sub-worlds, for example, the dwellings of particular deities. But all entities on the spiritual plane are accessed in essentially the same way, even if their particular kind of worship differs in details.

The third level is that of the game designer (in a broad sense). Once he knows the cosmology of the game world he can decide if he wants to support these in-game differences with different mechanics. AD&D does not. While priests and wizards have different spells available, they function in exactly the same way. The same is true for Rolemaster. There is a divide in essence, channelling, and mentalism with different spell lists. But they are learned and applied the same way. HQ, obviously, goes another route. It gives additional support for these differences. The purpose, I believe, is to make them important in-game. I think we are on the same page here.
I submit that the HQ model with otherworlds is a right fit for any fantasy setting if you want to make the supernatural, its nature, and how to interact with it an important part of actual play. If this does not interest you, than the different mechanics become superfluous. They add "crunch" although no "crunch" is needed.

The Hero Plane does not fit in this model. While the other otherworlds all provide power to the worshipper and can be channelled, this is not possible with the Hero Plane. We could try to understand the Hero Plane as Time. That is why myths can be changed. All otherworlds and the mundane world are represented in the Hero Plane as even gods and spirit exist in time if they come to the mundane world. Also, past deeds are re-enacted and this fits as well. It should then be possible, by the way, to encounter future myths. But, still, it is an odd feature.
For otherworld entities in the mundane world I see two possible explanations. One, an otherworld entity lives in a bubble of otherworld within the mundane world. This applies to landscape entities, but could also explain fetishes or talismans (these are even directly connected to the essence plane). Two, otherworld entities can exist in the mundane world as easily as mundane entities can in the otherworlds. That is, they suffer an alien world penalty. But a physical manifestation offsets this penalty. While they are still otherworld entities, they can now interact with the mundane world without penalty. Both explanation do not satisfy me, yet.

Sebastian.

I think the idea of the Hero Plane is useful anywhere you want to have:

1. gods being objectively real, with their followers being able to meet and talk with them without necessarily being deluded or foolish.

2. the same gods being worshipped in different places, as happened historically.

3. the structure of human societies not being radically altered by the above, for example different cultures respecting the same god still going to war.

4. rational people, in-game or out-of-game, also not necessarily being deluded or foolish in believing the world makes rational sense.

As the computer scientists say, there is no problem that can't be solved by adding an extra level of indirection. The Hero Plane is the Fox News and al jazeera of Glorantha, connecting you to a place that is as objectively real as Iraq, allowing you to see and feel real things, but always applying a cultural filter and usually a political agenda.

So you go to the big temple in the city at the High Holy Day, and get to stand at the back of the court while Orlanth the High King takes tribute from his sub-kings. And you go to a little shrine in the back-country, and watch as Orlanth the Rebel defies the Emperor. Maybe you can actively quest to change the channel, or even creatively quest to get to star in your own show.

Not something you'd want in every game, but a good solution to a common problem.

sebastianz wrote:
First I respond to your reply and then go on two the second half of your first post.

It looks a bit to me like you are fighting against windmills. If I understand you correctly all you say is that the HQ model of magic with its otherworlds adds a level of detail to the explanation of magic. A level you find appealing.

The first level is an in-game perspective. Various cultures worship different entities. It is possible that a culture believes in some sort of otherworld, a special place which ordinary people cannot access. This is no necessity, they could simply believe it to be all in the world. They also can assume a myriad of otherworlds for each being.

The second level is an onlookers perspective. The onlooker is not involved in the worship and has an objective eye for the situation. He sees the reality with all of the otherworlds there may be. He also sees whether people within the world “get it right” or are mistaken.

It gives additional support for these differences. The purpose, I believe, is to make them important in-game. I think we are on the same page here.
I submit that the HQ model with otherworlds is a right fit for any fantasy setting if you want to make the supernatural, its nature, and how to interact with it an important part of actual play. If this does not interest you, than the different mechanics become superfluous. They add "crunch" although no "crunch" is needed.

It should then be possible, by the way, to encounter future myths. But, still, it is an odd feature.

...a bubble of otherworld

...a physical manifestation offsets this penalty....

Mike wrote:
I've already participated in some D&D work (World of Greyhawk). I'd love to do a fix of one of the settings more completely.

Mike wrote:
On Middle Earth - my point is merely that it's not a tale of two different cultures. As I'll point out in a bit, more importantly, they all believe in but one magic system (it seems to me). Mithrandir is certainly divine, the elves have some magic, and the humans use the magic made by elves and divine beings like Mithrandir and Sauron. The "West" is the otherworld from whence magic comes in ME. Even if it takes a long time to get there. The hobbits are a captive culture who seem to have no pariticular belief system other than "Home is good."

The Rohirrim have common ancestors with the Dunedain. If they do have a different belief system, I've never seen it. In any case, they don't seem to have any magic. Oh, you could make something up, but that doesn't make the case for multiple otherworlds.

Mike wrote:
I think that the idea that people in Glorantha don't know about the objectively different otherworlds I got from Greg or Rory on the lists, but I could well be imagining that. In any case, it's how I play it, and how I think it works. I think that if you see the rules related to this as game structures, and the perceptions of the people as much more mustical than sometimes is implied, it goes a long way toward making multiple otherworlds make sense.

Mike wrote:
Yes, obviously I like it, or there'd be no need to debate it at all. The question is whether or not it's convincing to anyone else. Looks like it's working on Joel, for instance...

Mike wrote:
Otherworld can almost mean "frame of mind" and nothing else. Thus the "Essence World" in Glorantha is not a place where people often dissappear to, it's really more of a place one can view and see the essential underpinnings of things. Such that one can draw the energy of said underpinnings from that place.

Mike wrote:
I have a love/hate relationship with misapplied worship, but that's for another thread.

Mike wrote:
Excellent point. Here's my corollary? What is fantasy about? Yeah, sure, we can play D&D, which is all about killin' folks and taking their stuff. But is that fantasy? I mean, before D&D existed, is that what you would have thought of if somebody said fantasy? Even the Gor books are about more than that (see Phil Foglio's "What's New" strip vis a vis "Sex and D&D").

I believe that fantasy is about exploring magic. And to the extent that magic is made subservient in the rules to any other activity, an RPG doesn't really support fantasy.

At the risk of belaboring our agreement...

Melinglor wrote:
it's too bad you're not familiar with 3E stuff, simply 'cuz that's the version I'm exposed to, and it'd be nice to have the Holmes Perspective on its mythology. Then again, I'm unsure how much it's changed, so the work you might do could still be applicable/illuminating.

Still, protest though he did, if language is key, then nowhere is that more telling than with the Rohirrim, who have this whole sort of cultural feel that's radically different from, say, Gondor. I thik they suggest to me a whole 'nother culture and mythology, even if they're "supposed" to be the same.

(Incidentally, have you ever seen this lycical parody? It strikes me that you'd get a kick out of it. Personally, I was singing it for weeks, to the annoyance of friends and family.)

I think the mental block also stems in part from the fact that in real life, we don't automatically think of "culture and beliefs' in connection with magic. Not in the Modern World, anyway. So the fact that the Rohirrim don't seem to "have any magic," i.e. cast spells with overt effects, doesn't, to me, check them off the list for having their own culture. But of course, in the realm of systems for representing fantasy magic, of COURSE a unique culture with its own religion and mytsh is going to have its own magic.

So I'm down with all that now. One observation, though; it strikes me that original fantasy (not modern fantasy, mind, but the older tales that were Tolkien's inspiration) WAS by and large about the magic of one, particular culture; the gods and giants and dwarves and elves of Norse tales, are of course all different projections of Norse culture. It's only in our current, more multicultural perspective that we've begun to "zoom out" to weavstories of whole worlds of differing cultures like Glorantha. Not that this invalidates your thoughts, just another dimension to contemplate.

I wholeheartedly agree. Like I said, the tone of the book seemed different than this, ...

... the Otherworlds CAN be distinct places, or just frames of mind, or whatever in-between, as needed for a given fantasy setting. OR, you can challenge and question the true nature of the Otherworlds, and characters' belief in them, within a particular fantasy world.

When a D&Der's Fantasy sensibilities are inbred, it gets easy to conflate D&D's paradigm with "what fantasy is about." Your remarks here are a breath of fresh air.

I'd like to clarify, though, that (in my opinion at least) fantasy is about "exploring magic" in a thematic, moral, human-issue way, as opposed to the mechanics of "well, you see, spells of Essential binding can only be accomplished by an Adept of the Third Circle ascending astrally through the Celestial Firmaments. . ."

Mike wrote:
As I always point out, the idea of such a conversion, IMO, is not to use HQ to emulate D&D cosmology, but to alter D&D cosmology so that it becomes interesting in play.

Mike wrote:
That is, I think much of the disconnect for us comes from the fact that we see things through the lens of our own belief systems. If you're Catholic (as I was raised), you believe that the Pope is holy and infallible, you believe that at mass the priest makes bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, and you believe that these powers come from Christ in heaven acting in the name of his father, God.

How is this not magic?

Mike wrote:
You're talking about myth again. Fantasy starts with, I dunno, Edgar Allan Poe and Lord Dunsany, and Burrows. Tolkien is a deliberate throwback to myth, I'm arguing, which is why it doesn't work for HQ.

Mike wrote:
See what I'm getting at? We have no "proof" that the gods exist in Glorantha, just the rules that say that if a character does X, that it'll seem like a god gives Y magic ability.

Mike wrote:

When a D&Der's Fantasy sensibilities are inbred, it gets easy to conflate D&D's paradigm with "what fantasy is about." Your remarks here are a breath of fresh air.

But now I've doubled the irony here. Because I do want to play D&D. Sorta.

Melinglor wrote:
The big difference was that a Christian blessing or miracle was God exercising his omnipotent power for our benefit, and emphatically NOT any power inherent in, or wielded by, a practitioner.

So yeah, we do the same thing as these paranoid, isolationist, primitive cultures in, say, Glorantha, but it's both disguised and diluted (to varying degrees by individual) by our multicultural understanding of the world. Even when exclusionary Christians encounter, say, Buddhism, they have a much vaster understanding of both cultural and religious differences than missionaries a few hundred years ago. And it's a lot easier in many parts of the world to live as part of a community without being a devotee of a specific belief system, than it ever has anywhere before.

I'm NOT talking about taking broader understanding of fantasy literature back into D&D, as you describe.

Following up on the post above, looking through the data on the Greyhawk Pantheon, I see that under the listing for Pelor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelor) it includes the names for the diety in other languages. Again indicating the notion of an objective pantheon.

I also note that, if one wanted to break this down, that one could create a Flan, Oeridian, Baklunish, etc, set of pantheons. Understanding, again, that after the syncretization of the empire that they are all part of one pantheon, but with the current nations going back to worship only those gods that apply to them.

Or, even better, the imperial pantheon can have been syncretized by heroquest - think of it like what the Lunars are doing in Glorantha - and now that the empire is gone, the overall religion is breaking apart into it's constituent parts again, and in some cases into new religions.

Mike

This is all pretty damn brilliant stuff. That's about all I have left to say at this point.

-Joel

If two people go to look on a god in the god plane, they must be able to see two different things. In fact, I asked about this, and it's true (assuming I understand correctly). Why would a god "let" this happen? Because the god is unchanging. He can't do anything to alter people's perceptions of him. If one person sees one thing, and another sees another, the god can't "correct" this. He just continues to be.

So, without getting too deep into the epistemology, you're saying that it's a construct that exists for ease of use in play?

Mike

Only to the extent that is true for any aspect of a fantasy world designed to be used in a RPG.

It's a bit like Tradetalk, the semi-universal simple language - it seems more interesting to me to imagine a world where a gameplay convenience like that 'exists', rather than the double-indirection of first imaging a world where it doesn't, and then pretending it does for the sake of gameplay.

It's a fine distinction, but I would expect Glorantha-set fiction to contain the heroplane and Tradetalk, and perhaps in-character discussion of them, but not numeric action points, hero points, or other pure game mechanics constructs.

Incidentally, one pretty good fantasy novel series that has this type of metaphysics is Bujold's Curse of Charion/Paladin of Souls/Hallowed Hunt. In that, characters with magical ability see things that others dont, what they see is consistent and discussable, and changes made in that shared vision-space affect the real world. That magic is closely entwined with the dominant culture and religion of the setting, but, at least in the third book, it is made clear other cultures see things differently.

Took me a couple of readthroughs to get that. I think I see what you're saying.

This is a similar problem to the others we've been working through, then, I think. Basically this sort of thing is not in most game worlds in any form, really. But maybe ought to be, if one is to functionally support the rest of the otherworld concept from HQ that we're proposing overlaying already.

I'm still not convinced, however. What I'm not seeing is what you can't do with the other otherworlds that you can do with the hero plane. Why can't we see the same things sometimes, and different things other times? Because it doesn't mesh with the view of the otherworlds as different sorts of headspaces?

Mike

A bit of a digression:

The gloranthan types of magic provide paradigms for the use of non-fantastic or non-magical abilities.

Frex:

An affinity is a broad category from which feats may be improvised
Affinity < Feats
< Feat 1
<Feat 2
I do my Martial Arts Chi powers as Feats, with the "style" or "path" of the martial art functioning as an Affinity

"Sprits" provide rapid boosts of TN or AP numbers, or AP
[ ] I haven't used these yet, but fabulous technogies like "cloud of nanobots" or "psychic shield" could be mechanized this way.

The Spells of a Grimoire represent a narrow application of a set of magical powers.
I did my fabulous Kung-Fu moves as spells within a grimoire
Short Strike: Fist of the smashing stone = a very specific effect (a stone-hard blow) with a specific vector (a punch).  Sorcerous spells seemed the best way to treat and intense and specific manipulation of the physical world

Blessings: An inspirational Police Seargeant's speech could be modeled as a Blessing

Formularies and Talismans: A kung-fu warrior visits a temple and the priest passes on a Zen Koan that serves as a Formulary Spell in a time of need.  It needs to be refreshed by further visits to the priest.  Or a cop gets a special legal document from a judge.  Same deal.

"Blessings" pr

Did you get cut off? I'm wondering where your tangent is going.

Mike

I was just throwing out some examples of how magics derived from specificaly Gloranthan Otherworlds can be used in non-Gloranthan and non-fantastic settings.

I should have offered a conclusion:

- You don't have to do everything on the Affinity/Feat model
- The mechanics for Spiritists (charmes, fetishes, fetches), Sorcerors (grimoires, spells, formularies, talismans, blessings/curses), Theists (feats, affinities, secrets, heroforming), and even the old Mystics rules all provide interesting paths to resolving conflicts or performing tasks.
- Creative mechanics for heropoints can provide mechanical backing to a creative agenda
(i.e. the theme of trust in my Mountain Witch-derived game was well served by players donating hero points to each other)