Illuminated PC:s in your games

[mfbrandi]

34 minutes ago, davecake said:

An initiate of a god should not be a humanist who doesn’t think their god has moral authority. 

Forget illumination for a minute. Why must an ordinary believer think that their god is an authority in matters of right and wrong?

We can easily see why religions interested in control and temporal power would push the twin ideas that the god knows best and that they (the priests) know what the god requires of the sheep. We can see why a human institution might push the idea of deity as moral authority — not because it is true, but because it serves their interests. But we are not interested in why someone would promote the idea but in why we should accept it. So what is there to be said for the idea of divine moral authority — distinguished from gods’ power to reward and punish (whether or not those rewards and punishments are justified) — if anything? Is the idea essential to religion?

47 minutes ago, davecake said:

Though believing your moral views trump natural law is still pretty wild.

I guess that is true, as moral beliefs are about what ought to be and natural law is about what is (or has to be). It is hard to see how these things would ever come into conflict, so it does seem a mad belief. Who believes it? 😉

[Memestream]

On 6/21/2024 at 3:17 AM, davecake said:

An initiate of a god should not be a humanist who doesn't think their god has moral authority. 

Not in my Glorantha

I wouldn't call them humanists but the vast majority of my Gloranthans see religion as something you do, not something you believe. They almost always start from the perspective of transaction and become more genuine in their belief as their rune scores progress through the practice. (Or the God starts to lay full claim on their soul, six one way, half a dozen another)

[mfbrandi]

1 hour ago, Memestream said:

Not in my Glorantha

Although to be fair to Mr. Cake, there is a difference between a moral authority and a moral exemplar:

• a moral authority either knows what is good and/or right or lays down what is good/right, but might behave very badly
  » “I am the law” — and they are not wrong — “but I suffer terribly from weakness of the will.”
   
• a moral exemplar has all the virtues and/or does the right thing, but they might not be very good at answering questions about the good and/or the right
  » they are naturally or instinctively good/virtuous/right (but possibly a bit dim or unreflective)

One tells us, the other shows us through their conduct. One is a self-important pain in the arse, the other is a goody-two-shoes.

If we think of the Gloranthan gods as forces of nature with faces painted on them, then we don’t regard them as agents at all — so neither authorities nor exemplars … not even maybe. This sometimes seems like the force of “gods don’t have free will” (who does?) — they are just natural phenomena bound by natural laws, not great contracts, compacts, or promises. We might call this the “naturalist” take on the Great Compromise.

But sometimes we just think of them as very naughty children pulling the wings off flies — and utterly incapable of moral improvement. 😉

[Aurelius]

I guess the illuminated insight I got from this thread is that perhaps the acceptance of Chaos is not the core essence of Illumination -- which had always felt weird to me -- but maybe its just a part of how Illuminates reposition themselves with runes. 

Chaos is just one rune among others, after all. To them. 

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Aurelius said:

I guess the illuminated insight I got from this thread is that perhaps the acceptance of Chaos is not the core essence of Illumination -- which had always felt weird to me -- but maybe its just a part of how Illuminates reposition themselves with runes. 

Chaos is just one rune among others, after all. To them. 

Yes, it's just one of the aspects of accepting everything. Kind of inevitable that everyone else would fixate on that one aspect though.

[French Desperate WindChild]

On 6/21/2024 at 11:15 AM, mfbrandi said:

Why must an ordinary believer think that their god is an authority in matters of right and wrong?

For me there are two reasons that, together, make it "obvious"

1) there is no belief, no faith (so difference with irl there). There is a fact, the god exists. The worshipper (not the believer then 🙂 ) has experimented it in the same way that an astronaut experiments our Earth is not really... flat. Of course it can be an hallucination, or some psychologic bias or anything, (after all some people disagree with what I call a "fact")

2) there is not one god, or even one pantheon: the god and/or the worshipper choose each other. So somewhere, if you consider this god isnot a moral authority... just don't follow it and choose another one ! And in the other side, if a god consider that you don't share the same right and wrong, there is no reason to "call" or "accept" you in its circle

So for me, yes worshippers consider their gods do what is right (I consider it different than "good" , you may consider your god as bad, if you consider yourself as bad and like it. Or just consider that the bad is better than any other option)

In the same way, I would not see gloranthan cult like irl cult. I would more see them as a temporal hierarchy. Imagine the gloranthan god like a irl king, the gloranthan archi priests as the irl king's advisors / princes, gloranthan local priests like irl local count /missi dominici / or any "role/name" I don't know from some cultures.

Of course that's doesn't mean that a gloranthan priest cannot do thing for its personal goal, even some "wrong" thing from their god's perspective. But the main difference is that there is a risk that the god may react and punish in this life, in the same way that a king may react and punish our not loyal guy. That's a big difference with  irl priest who, potentially doesn't even believe on the god, and in all cases doesn't fear any repercussion, and uses their position for their own purpose.. (I would see there the analogy with a gloranthan -bad- illuminate, the god may exist but that's not important, the -bad- illuminate doesn't fear the god anymore because the god is not able to do anything against the -bad- illuminate anymore)

[PhilHibbs]

22 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

...So somewhere, if you consider this god isnot a moral authority... just don't follow it and choose another one !

Or just accept that he/she is a bit of a monster sometimes, but is on our side. What's the point in being a god if you can't swing it a bit?

[davecake]

On 6/23/2024 at 12:02 AM, Memestream said:

I wouldn't call them humanists but the vast majority of my Gloranthans see religion as something you do, not something you believe. They almost always start from the perspective of transaction

If you think most Gloranthans do not believe the gods are worthy of reverence, and regard trading their soul for magic with the same level of spiritual importance as investing in shares, there is not much I can do to convince you, other than suggest you might want to read some actual Bronze Age spiritual material. 

On 6/21/2024 at 5:15 PM, mfbrandi said:

Forget illumination for a minute. Why must an ordinary believer think that their god is an authority in matters of right and wrong?

Why would you follow a god of, let's say, chieftains if you thought chieftains in general were immoral, and your god in particular? And in particular, why would you dedicate part of your very soul to supporting that god, and vowing to follow his ways and promote his importance? In so far as gods are elements of the social order, you believe they are important. And if you follow a god of disorder, it's going to be because you are disorderly and reject the social order and believe that is right as well. 

 

[mfbrandi]

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

So for me, yes worshippers consider their gods do what is right

First, I don’t want to be prescriptive — people can have their Gloranthas however they like.

But if I have understood you correctly — and I may not have — you are saying that worshippers can just shop around for a god who agrees with them about moral matters: “I pick this god because it has the same values as me.” They can do that, sure, but the point of a moral authority is that it may disagree with you, and if it does, you say, “My deepest moral instincts and most careful moral reasoning must be wrong; my god is right; however much it feels wrong, I must do what the god says.” Else the god is not an authority, just a carefully selected entity for your curated echo chamber. 😉

[mfbrandi]

4 minutes ago, davecake said:

Why would you follow a god of, let’s say, chieftains if you thought chieftains in general were immoral, and your god in particular?

But think about other cases — not just gods of social institutions — like the goddess of tsunamis or the god of tropical cyclones. The god is awesome, powerful, frightening, and (one might think) owed reverence because they are (or are the face of) a power in the world. Morality doesn’t come into it, IMHO. You might see these terrifying phenomena as having a valuable place in the world — as being good, all things considered — but you might not see all the deaths caused as moral judgement in action, and the god might not be interested in being a moral legislator (too busy destroying things and maybe never thinks about anything).

But that is just me, obviously. 😉

[davecake]

5 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

You might see these terrifying phenomena as having a valuable place in the world

Of course, it's why our people are great, that we have such a powerful god who supports us. Or at least doesn't smite us. 

5 minutes ago, mfbrandi said:

but you might not see all the deaths caused as moral judgement in action

Its because those other fools didn't listen to us, and so when it they are smitten by the greati god of tsunamis it will be because they didn't do as we do, and thus deserved it. I mean, you can see that it is a bit sad from their viewpoint, but it's how the world works. 

[French Desperate WindChild]

4 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

But if I have understood you correctly

you did, with my poor english 🙂 

I think I have another illustration - the french touch - : a love relationship.

 

4 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

worshippers can just shop around for a god who agrees with them about moral matters: “I pick this god because it has the same values as me.”

in the same way that when a love story start ( a true love, not just "mmmm the other is beautiful or smart or rich or ... that's what I m looking for with all my rationality")

there is something, in addition of the choice, something maybe like "runes" or anything "magical"... ah love .... it's magic ! -if it is shared... unfortunately -

4 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

They can do that, sure, but the point of a moral authority is that it may disagree with you, and if it does, you say, “My deepest moral instincts and most careful moral reasoning must be wrong; my god is right; however much it feels wrong, I must do what the god says.

yes, exactly the same way that your love. You accept thing from the other even if it is not really what you think right. And sometimes your love is so strong that you consider that you were wrong and the other is right... of course. Until... until you are upstet because the other forget to often to do the dishes, or maybe the other have betrayed you once too often or maybe you meet another "other"... and you leave the cult

4 hours ago, mfbrandi said:

Else the god is not an authority, just a carefully selected entity for your curated echo chamber.

yep maybe it is not love, just sex friend / one-night partner /  anything based on lust, not on love/devotion 😛

 

 

[mfbrandi]

10 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

you did, with my poor english

I didn’t mean that — just my poor understanding of anyone’s words! 😉

[Memestream]

On 6/24/2024 at 10:57 AM, davecake said:

If you think most Gloranthans do not believe the gods are worthy of reverence, and regard trading their soul for magic with the same level of spiritual importance as investing in shares, there is not much I can do to convince you, other than suggest you might want to read some actual Bronze Age spiritual material. 

IMG, it depends upon the tradition and culture as to how much belief factors into the matter.

My Orlanthi revere(and they do revere) Orlanth because of his achievements and potence, which is the same reason they revere (and they do revere) other human beings and spirits. 

My Lunars worship TRG and the Seven Mothers for reasons more closely approximating modern religious reverence, based on a personal relationship with the tradition and the Goddess(typically through the Seven Mothers) herself.

Solar people sit somewhere in between, seeing the Law as a divine authority which they would be wise to apply in all matters 

 

However, it's interesting that you should mention the source(however snootily given the inclusion of 'actual'), because my perspective is largely drawn from both The Torah, as well as the extant practice of Judaism and polytheistic religions in the world today. 

While a very broad topic, Judaism, at the very least as a narrative, rests upon a covenant between Elohim/YHWH and Abraham. None of the laws listed or following from this prescribe any sort of belief, but examples abound concerning prescriptions regarding behavior. 

As for extant polytheistic traditions, many many millions of people in Japan and India will tell you with a straight face that they aren't religious before setting off to the nearest appropriate temple to make an observance that bears suspicious similarity to the religious, and in many cases even demands a material sacrifice of some sort.

I project these observations into my Glorantha because I feel that it's worth communicating to my players(and anyone that will listen, clearly) that the perspective of divinity as a moral authority is but one of myriad ways human beings have construed divinity not only throughout history but in the world we live in today. Furthermore, I think Glorantha is an exceptionally strong vehicle for this message because I feel that it very effectively conveys the point that religious fervor inspired by such a perspective is no less sincere than perspectives which are more familiar to modern western audience.

Finally, I find it really interesting and worth exploring because it was an idea that eluded me for many years and brought about an entirely new paradigm for relating to the world when I apprehended it. YGWV, but I just wanted to throw it out there that there's a lot of room between cynical materialism and the ontological argument as held by Western Philosophy and I explore every inch of it I can through this game.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

On 6/24/2024 at 8:57 AM, davecake said:

If you think most Gloranthans do not believe the gods are worthy of reverence, and regard trading their soul for magic with the same level of spiritual importance as investing in shares, there is not much I can do to convince you, other than suggest you might want to read some actual Bronze Age spiritual material. 

I prefer to agree with you here.

However, people much higher up in Chaosium than I disagree.  Gloranthans are pragmatic.

1) Praxians routinely ally with Chaos (i.e., Broos)

2) The current commander of the Praxian Sun Dome mercenaries, a Yelmalian (Truth, Purity, Honor), got to this position by plotting treachery to change sides in the middle of battle, then committing Secret Murder of his legitimate (if stupid and possibly corrupt) commanding officer.  Other than harming a horse needlessly, not sure what could be worse for a Yelmalian.

Yes, these are reasonable, pragmatic decisions.  I might make them myself.  But there are no repercussions, no excommunications, no criticisms by their peers, no spirits of reprisal from their Gods.

[Malin]

5 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

2) The current commander of the Praxian Sun Dome mercenaries, a Yelmalian (Truth, Purity, Honor), got to this position by plotting treachery to change sides in the middle of battle, then committing Secret Murder of his legitimate (if stupid and possibly corrupt) commanding officer.  Other than harming a horse needlessly, not sure what could be worse for a Yelmalian.

To be fair, Lord Belvani is illuminated, and his actions led to a massive schism within Sun County, which resulted in  Lady Vega Goldbreath becoming Count of Sun County, and the resulting Time of Two Counts with all the resulting ideological chaos. The fact that Lord Belvani is allied to Argrath (also draconically suspect and illuminated) is the one thing that's keeping him in power I bet. So there's a lot of Yelmalians that doesn't agree with him.

[davecake]

6 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

However, people much higher up in Chaosium than I disagree.  Gloranthans are pragmatic.

1) Praxians routinely ally with Chaos (i.e., Broos)

You can believe that your god is right to despise Chaos and hate them, while acknowledging that right now that the world is complex and there are pragmatic decisions to be made. You aren't helping the broo achieve their long term goals, but using them to achieve yours. Principles guide practical decisions, but are not the only thing that does. Believing your gods, and by extension, the society they decree are morally correct is one thing - ensuring that society survives into the future may sometimes necessary actions that are undesirable, once you have survived. 

6 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

2) The current commander of the Praxian Sun Dome mercenaries, a Yelmalian (Truth, Purity, Honor), got to this position by plotting treachery to change sides in the middle of battle, then committing Secret Murder of his legitimate (if stupid and possibly corrupt) commanding officer.  Other than harming a horse needlessly, not sure what could be worse for a Yelmalian.

That example probably makes exactly the opposite point that you think it does. Spoiler for Sun County

Spoiler

Belvani is Illuiminated. He gets away with doing all of this only because he is, and also because everyone is happy enough at the outcome so just mostly accepts it (or has no evidence to justify a serious investigation). 

 

[Rodney Dangerduck]

8 hours ago, davecake said:

You aren't helping the broo achieve their long term goals, but using them to achieve yours

 The Broo are thinking the same thing... 🙂

 

[Darius West]

On 6/21/2024 at 6:10 PM, PhilHibbs said:

I wouldn't call humanism "solipsistic". Humanism might be the wrong word, but illuminates are just as capable of self-sacrifice as anyone else, if not more so.

Except illuminates are almost never actually self sacrificing.  Most of them rush to the Gbaji side with open arms the moment their convictions are put under pressure.

[davecake]

3 hours ago, Darius West said:

Except illuminates are almost never actually self sacrificing.  Most of them rush to the Gbaji side with open arms the moment their convictions are put under pressure.

You just seem to always meet the wrong Illuminates. Maybe its you. 

The majority of Illuminates seem to be loyal subjects of the glorious Lunar Empire. If you think that makes them adherents of Gbaji, maybe that's the issue - political bias. 

[Akhôrahil]

On 6/21/2024 at 10:17 AM, davecake said:

An initiate of a god should not be a humanist who doesn't think their god has moral authority. 

I don’t believe polytheistic gods need to be considered moral authorities. Zeus? Odin? Tezcatlipoca? The gods are important because they’re powerful and can mess you up, not because they’re paragons of virtue.

[Akhôrahil]

On 6/21/2024 at 10:34 AM, PhilHibbs said:

What do you mean by "natural law" in this context? That phrase has been used to justify some pretty outrageous stuff in the past.

Realizing there is no natural moral law is surely one of the first effects of Illumination (and might even be part of how you end up there)?

[mfbrandi]

On 6/21/2024 at 9:34 AM, PhilHibbs said:

What do you mean by “natural law” in this context?

I had just assumed it meant stuff like “every object perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, except insofar as it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.” What else could it mean?

On 6/28/2024 at 12:13 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Realizing there is no natural moral law is surely one of the first effects of Illumination (and might even be part of how you end up there)?

A compressed and entirely bogus history of moral philosophy (meta-ethical thinking?):

• God tells me what is right and wrong, so I don’t have to worry my pretty little head about hard questions.
• How does God know? (And anyway this chap with a moustache tells me She is dead. What, that comes later? OK.)
• Maybe we can bootstrap morality from rationality or the essential nature of the universe … or something.
• I got nothing: if I don’t start with some values, I don’t seem to be able to derive any.

At this point the room splits:

• I think I am going to have the screaming ab-dabs, now. Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh!
  or
• Well, that doesn’t seem so bad. What answer were people expecting?

Gloranthan lore sometimes seems to run together (or maybe somehow encourages fans to run together):

• staring into the abyss and not liking what one cannot see there
  and
• having a cup of tea and a bit of a ponder about the nature of justification.

It is certainly a lark to equate the failure to find “moral bedrock” with Nietzsche’s Death of God and some cod-Zen mystical experience, but I sometimes get the feeling that some people round here — not you if you’re reading this (whoever you are) — think that the failure to find a “natural moral law” really does make one a dangerous self-serving lunatic. But then I think I must be wrong … because why would anyone think that?

Spoiler

natural law

• a nonlogically necessary truth; law of nature (British English)

Examples:

• It used to be a sort of natural law that urban Catholics voted Democratic.
• Another natural law is that the force required to move a body depends upon its size and weight.
• One other natural law which affects the running of watches is this: Variations in temperature affect the elasticity of metals.
• “Natural Law in the Spiritual World” is a book written to show how the physical laws hold true in the region of spirit.

… because I thought for a moment that I was going insane!

Edited Saturday at 10:06 PM by mfbrandi
added concealed text of extreme pettiness

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, mfbrandi said:

I had just assumed it meant stuff like “every object perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, except insofar as it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed thereon.” What else could it mean?

"Natural Law" is something completely different than "Law of Nature".

Wikipedia: Natural law[1] (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a system of law based on a close observation of natural order and human nature, from which values, thought by the proponents of this concept to be intrinsic to human nature, can be deduced and applied independently of positive law (the express enacted laws of a state or society).[2] According to the theory of law called jusnaturalism, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason."[3] Natural law theory can also refer to "theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality."[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

"Natural Law Theory" has been extremely important throughout history.

[Jens]

Perhaps Glorantha needs the equivalent of the Natural Law Party, and their appeal for 7,000 yogic flyers to eliminate war and crime-