> The assumption has been to use analogues, not always with success
> (especially the Egyptian motif of the Holy Country)
It's understandable how this got started, of course, when the ruler of the united Holy Country was called the Pharoah (sic).
The use of analogues as starting points for visualization is completely defensible, I think; it's easier to find reference books, historiucal miniatures, and other roleplaying aids that portray real world cultures and customs than it is finding accurate representations of third-age Gloranthans. Even now, such representations are scarce as cockatrice teeth, though Jeff promises untold wealth in the future.
I encourage new explorations of Glorantha, as an ideal. I'm happy to see that Greg's vision of Glorantha is coming closer and closer to reality. Practically, however, if I'd spent years amassing miniatures, from the King of Sartar himself on down to the lowliest stickpicker, from the highest Satrap to the lowliest Pelandan peasant, I'd probably use those rather than rush out and spend thousands of dollars acquiring proper Gloranthan minis, and countless hours painting easch fold of clothing and each tiny runic embroidery. That's just my opinion; I wouldn't be offended if others chose to do so. My point is that if people feel that the analogues serve them well enough, they shouldn't be discouraged from doing so. For years, the analogues were all we had. Our Gloranthas, after all, do vary.
Guy (Hoyle)
Powered by hypermail