> The Orlanthi worship Humakt whom they acknowlege is _Death_ and yet
> they see him as Good! Given the normal human reaction to Death
> (something to be feared), surely Humakt should be an evil being?
I don't think Orlanthi in general think of Humakt as being particularly 'Good', he is just _necessery_.
> So what is to prevent Malia from being a 'good' diety in Glamour
> or other select parts of the Empire?
You have IMHO an unhealthy preocupation with arbitrary conceptions of Good and Evil. Mailia selfishly causes suffering, while Humakt brings an ease to pain.
on the other hand, david boatright says :
>Malia's reason for existance is to SPREAD disease. Just the SPREAD
>of your fould goddess. That makes her evil. Her write up is in
>LOT and COT thats good enough to make her evil for me.
Oh dear, Peter's dogmatic moral duelism seems to be spreading even to his opponents.
Andrew Joelson :
> Malia is another matter. She will infect and/or kill anyone
>without compunction. She has no redeeming features (such as truth or
>honor).
Truth? Honour? The manacles of intelectual slavery.
Simon Hibbs
simon_at_fcrd.gov.uk
End of Glorantha Digest V2 #482
WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html
Powered by hypermail