___
KoW
Pope Jonas (well, he started making things ecclesiastical):
>I don't care if Greg Stafford and the 12 Apostles of TotRM say that
>the KoW *Must Be* a parody; I still think the approach is bad.
As one of the said Apostles of TotRM, maybe I'm the one who takes the 30 pieces of silver, because I happen to disagree on a number of points with St Nick and St Dave on this one (does this put me in the Doubting Thomas role?).
For the purposes of HtWwO, the KoW need only be a dark, ever-encroaching menace on the horizon, something to unite the western knights, something that is at the back of everyone's mind, even when they're arguing on the council floor such irrelevant details as whether wizards should use cutlery.
With the KoW on the horizon and coming this way, one would think such debates frivolous and emphemeral, but look at the hapless Byzantines for a RW example, who preoccupied themselves with religious controversies (such as minute distinctions in the relationship of the Son and the Holy Spirit) while the Turks encircled. Ah shit, I've gone and mentioned the Ottomans, dammit! Now that I have, I might as well go on: despite the fact the Ottomans had culture, art, etc., to the average Constantinopolitan cowering behind the triple defenses, while the Turks were still out there, and yearly coming closer, they did fit exactly the KoW model of the dark pervading menace.* Okay, so it might have been a suprise after the conquest that the Turks were actually quite tolerant (at the beginning, anyway), but to get to that, *one had to be conquered first*, and that's nasty.
*Note though, that the peasantry out in the countryside often *deliberately* went over to the Turks who taxed less than the Byzantines. I can't see many peasants willingly defecting to the KoW, can you?
But that's as far as the Turkish metaphor goes. When the KoW takes over, life gets substantially worse (hmm, the KoW taps the buggery out of you; the Turks might to circumcise you; what a choice!).
I for one, want to know what the Kingdom of War is like, and why? Except in bad fantasy, Kingdoms don't just exist as entities without a *history*, which explain why they are like the way they are. (I'll be perfectly happy with explanations from a native Gloranthan PoV, that display cultural biases and are not necessarily correct).
I for one was very impressed with the description of the KoW as a great consuming entity that just has to keep on conquering and looting to thrive (was it Jim Chapin who wrote this? Wish I'd saved it). There are a number of historical analogues for such an expand or die state. And not just barbarians such as Timur: I'm sure I've read a description of the Empire of Alexander exactly along these lines, but I can't find the reference right now, sorry.
MOB
Powered by hypermail