The Forest of Glomdoring has a motto, "Nothing matters but Glomdoring." How does this compare with the Hallifaxian ideal of Collectivism?

Let us take a look at the motto's meaning. On a first look, the phrase is literal in that there is nothing more important than the Forest as a whole. That even within it, in general, there is no person or group that is valued more than another. But this saying also extends out to an outlook on life as a whole. Everything a Glomdorian does is for their forest.
 
So far this seems to be on almost an equal footing with Collectivism. Everyone has a place and everything is done is for the greater glory of the organisation in question, but this may be where the similarities end. "Nothing matters but Glomdoring" goes beyond this notion of unity and togetherness. The forest demands that one would be willing to give their life if it meant bringing glory. Does the spilling of one's blood truly bring glory to this forest?

One example of this idea that should be looked at from relatively recent times is a Nightshade by the name of Averi that came to the Forest soon after Karlach ascended. This priestess demanded that the bards of the basin spill their blood for the forest, and for the commune members to lead them to a mound of roses. There, Averi would cut their throats and allow the roses to feed on the blood. Soon this mound sprung a statue from it. Upon such, one more sacrifice was demanded. The life of Averi herself. On her cutting her own throat and giving her life to her cause, the Lady Viravain returned.
 
Is the life of a few dozen bards and a follower of a Goddess minor compared to what it returned? Are the possible future creations those bards, or even Averi, outweighed by the return of a Divine? Perhaps the work of the bards can be argued as trivial for the overall culture of the place. But any future cultural works Averi may have created to increase the standing of the forest vanished with her life.

Aside from it being used as a mass greeting, the motto is flawed in some ways. Glomdoring's ideals are based on blood and fighting. The scholarly and literary works may have some value, but not nearly as much as one who is able to fight. To be the supreme force in the Basin, a nation needs more than just fighters. There is a need the writers and bards who create masterpieces out of words. Within Hallifax's Collectivism, everyone has a place. Even those in the lower castes give their part so that the higher castes can give theirs. While everyone may be separate, everyone is equal.

While it is true that some bloodshed is required to expand the territories of a nation, and while perhaps nations enjoy having warriors who will throw their swords to crush the enemies, it is not the only way. Some more sensible locations that are able to be swayed know the value of words. They understand that pointless bloodshed will not do anything but soak the soil. This reveals an interesting fact about the world in which we live. That a sword is much quicker at convincing someone and is often the easier of the two methods. Has the Basin lost its touch with trying to talk people into a way of thinking? Perhaps, but a nation that does not use force is also foolish and will not grow to become a great empire. The key is knowing when to use force and when to use a less violent way. And this brings up an important point with Glomdoring and its motto.

Another flaw found within the motto is that of pride. If members of the forest claim that their motto is truth, then why would anyone leave the boughs of the Wyrden trees? Either those lie during their time or see that the phrase is not true at all. This is not to say that Glomdoring is completely barbaric. The seeds of Collectivism are there. They are just misguided. Glomdoring is a prime example of what happens when something is ruled by warriors and the more intellectual professions sit at the bottom.

In some Glomdorian texts, 'wyrd' is translated to 'perfection'. This is a common theme within the forest, that any imperfections that may arise are quickly cut away. Can something truly be perfect? If so, can that perfection last forever? The concept of perfection is always changing and it is always different from person to person. One person's thoughts should not decide perfection, but instead a council, ideally one free from the influence of the place in question, should vote and decide if something is perfect. However, this brings us back to the idea that no one else matters. That an outside council shouldn't have any say in the matter of if something Glomdorian is perfect or not.

Every nation seeks to be the greatest and seeks that all other nations fall under its domain. What if everyone was under the rule of Hallifax? That the other nations were self governing, but still under the banner of the Collective? Could each of the nations have this sense of identity and that they are the best? Culture is an interesting thing in that while, for this example, everyone would be under the rule of Hallifax officially, they could still set their own laws for within their borders and their culture. They could argue that they are best among the protectorates.

There are similarities between Glomdoring's motto and Collectivism. But there are also differences that one most think about when talking about the two. 'Nothing matters but Glomdoring' seems prideful and from the outside, it looks untrue. But one could say that everyone says their home is all that matters and that every nation living under them is final goal. However, what is important is what brings the best for the nation and what is best is that people have a place where they excel that is appreciated for the greatness they bring. Collectivism is this ideal mental state. Everyone has something they are good at and they are all equal in what they bring to the glory of Hallifax.