Ian Gorlick writes to tell us that modern evidence suggests our historical
sources for Moloch child-sacrifices and Aztec flowery deaths are very much
exaggerated. Sorry, but this isn't what I need to know when I'm writing my
role-playing background! I use the more lurid ancient historians and loony
theories from modern times *because* they are more fun and colourful. The
fact that works like Flaubert's "Salammbo" (Carthage at her most ripely
decadent) and Jennings' "Aztec" (sacrifices, cannibalism and torture all
over the place) might not be "historically accurate" does not detract from
their value as rattling good yarns. I hope to write and play rattling good
yarns in Glorantha, not produce monstrous works of historically accurate
anthropo- and archaeologico- wanking...
...or next you'll be telling me that the goat-horned men in the wilderness
are really just engaged in peaceful pagan worship services, and that it's
ludicrous to suggest they're worshipping the Devil...
...or that Trolls don't eat babies.
So, read gullible and colourful sources which assume "our enemies" *are*
vilely, irredeemably evil, if you want to come up with an interesting
background. And remember, even if *you* (the referee) know they aren't
*really* that bad, you should certainly produce player backgrounds and
handouts and briefings which exaggerate the evils of the Enemy.
Nick