Re: Humakti acceptability

From: wulfcorbett <wulfc_at_...>
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:15:30 -0000

> I'm not arguing for pedantic detail, only fair treatment of
> cultures other than Heortling.

Well, I'm arguing for a game, a work of fiction, a playable system that doesn't need a dozen books to buy before we even scratch the surface of the endless profusion of unnecessary deities, demigods, heroes and assorted space-fillers. And yes, I do say unnecessary, I don't care how 'realistic' they may be to some imaginary culture, this isn't one, it is still a game. D&D had endless numbers of new monsters & magic items to spice up new publications, HW/HQ has the same in deities. I guess it pads out the books to make more money to support the system, so in that way it's good though. Some of the new deities are very nice, in fact, I like Ailrene from the Theves' Arm for instance. But the number of duplications and overlaps in deities' fields is just padding. A couple of dozen gods (including subcults and all other complications) would make a perfectly playable world (or at least culture), and no-one would even notice.

And note I do not suggest the Lunars/Solars say Yanafal is 'like Humakt', they would say Humakt was like Yanafal (although since Yanafal originates from Humakt the original statement would be supportable). Even the ammount of detail given to a Humakti subcult could adequately differentiate the two.

Without conflict we become complacent. I raise my voice (virtually) in that spitit.

Wulf

Powered by hypermail