> the comments on the Digest) to primarily be a figure of humor who pulls
> pranks of one sort or another.
Guilty (raises hand, looks abashed). Part of the problem, IMO, is that the
trolls already have a Creator (Kyger Litor) and a Destroyer (ZZ), which I
think narrows the vision. I guess one thing that should be considered is
going _before_ these deities, and exploring those myths.
> Whatever or whoever the trickster might be, I think the trolls would
> understand him through one of the most trollish things of all -
> cruelty. It is my contention that cruelty is to uz as humor is to
> humans: something that entertains, that creates social bonds.
Hmmm. I don't deny the merit in your argument, but by saying "trolls are cruel" aren't we guilty of putting a Human bias on their actions? For example, if a troll slowly eats an elf, is he being cruel? As far as the troll's considered, an elf has about the status of RW broccoli.
IMO, humor _is_ important to the trolls. On the face of it, trollish society is "might makes right" to an extreme -- most of the insights we get in Trollpak imply that trollish relations are determined by power first, other interests second. E.g., ZZ can usurp the _son_ of the ancestral/creator deity if the local cult representative has the power; or Bina Bang can persist in heretical (to KL) beliefs if she can withstand Lord Lurker in Shadows.
But what's the release mechanism? Either every inter-troll coflict ends with the bloody elimination of the losers, or at some point the losers back off. I think humor plays a part in this. +>3tm{{
Peter goes on to make several good points which would seem to imply ZZ is the Uz trickster. On the whole, the arguement is very good. The only problem I have with it is that Zorak Zoran is in some ways the one-sided deity he earlier argues against -- IMO, ZZ is _not_ a creator deity, he's Scary Monster with added bells and whistles.
Powered by hypermail