>Metcalfe> But I'm wasn't giving my interpretation of glorantha. You
>are> differing, not me.
>And this is bad?
Yes. When people state a fact, you shouldn't dismiss it by saying YGMV. If you don't like it then you should say MGWV.
>My point is that if you take the honor out of Humakt, he becomes a
>lot less interesting and a lot less fun.
For you. Not necessarily for anybody else.
>I'm not saying this to shout other opinions down, but to provoke
>thought, elicit different opinions and hopefully learn something
>new myself.
There's far better ways of eliciting different opinions than depicting a fact as a variant interpretation.
>I believe the existence of broo Humakti (at least on army-sized
>scale) is highly problematic because either 1) you have to get a lot
>of broo to behave honorably (whatever that means),
Only if Humakt is worshipped with Honor among the Broo. But he's first and foremost a God of Death, not Honor. Even as far back as Tales #5, the following was said about him:
In some places, especially among primitive people, his
aspect as God of War is greatly overshadowed by his
aspect as God of Death, and he is worshipped by
executioners, death-worshippers and similar grim folk.
That in a writeup which described Humakt as the God of Death and War with honor absent. Honor is only a Heortling interpretation of Humakt's actions, there are far grimmer ways of understanding him.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail