And just as well too, as I recall you don't acknowledge Conan as great literature! Bizarre!
>so accordingly I shall attempt to treat of Onslaught purely as a
Gloranthan >Construct(TM).
Sure, I'm game.
Martin Laurie:
> As for limits to heroic ability, there are limits. Onslaught is himself
> totally two dimensional as a hero.
>Well, there's "Kills things", with the other dimension being...?
<sigh> Alex, we've had this out before and you are not alone in having this out with me. What you and the other people who follow this line of argument fail to grasp is that there are MANY ways of killing things and that violence has multiple styles. Just like boxing has pugilists of numerous methods and maneuvers, so to does the heroic killer. So where you see boring sameness - "What does Onslaught do, he just kills things?!?!" - I see a whole series of styles in question. Is he ruthless, is he economical, does he go berserk, does his fly through the air, does he have weird magical effects, does he use two weapons etc? These things interest me as much as things like the penetration ability of an 120mm APFSDSDU round fired at the glacis of a T-72.
I know you do martial arts like myself but again we have a different stance on that. You do a true martial art - Aikido, I do Thai boxing, Kali and Escrima which are simply methods of beating the brains out of people and have little "art" to them. You look for great literature in Onslaught, me, I look for a good fight. Was the movie "Dark City" better than the "Matrix"? In terms of story and plot yes but I would argue that the matrix had way cooler fight scenes with guys running up walls and stuff, hence it was a better movie.
Basically each to their own is what I'm saying. I don't understand your view of the world and you don't get mine. We simply act as if being in the fifth dimension - we occupy the same space without understanding each others existence.
> Argrath is far more versatile and hence unable to compete with
> specialists like Onslaught in combat but can kick there ass in
> other areas.
>I find it harder to take Onslaught seriously as a 'Hero' in that sense,
>and of that magnitude,
Argrath is NOT that good at fighting. How would he have the time and inclination to match a specialist? He even has Humakti bodyguards - why? Because they are the best at what they do. Do they organise, lead and fund his efforts? Do they control ritual and interact with myth? Not like Argrath. He is superb at that.
>than I do to take on board the idea of an RQ character with 200% bite (or
whatever it >was).
Thats simply because you don't like that style of RQ game. Not everyone agrees with you.
>He seems totally decontextualised, has no mythic depth that I've been able
to >discern, and is in short pretty much just an exaggerated version of
the
>'phenomenally skilled loner' stereotype.
And what is wrong with that? Are you saying that Glorantha has no room for the "Man with No Name"? Its the exceptions that are interesting as well as the mythically rounded.
>A 'real Hero' consists not just of mundane skill, but of an authentic
connection to the
>divine world.
What does this actually mean?
> Now, I'll grant you that, say, Harrek is somewhat limited in this regard,
and is a >cheatin' bastard besides, and with little doubt, Humakti
HeroQuesters may be on the >Somewhat Boring sides too.
There you go again. You keep assuming that because they focus on death, they're dull. That's simply your view. I happen to find that end of it fascinating. As for Harrek, its his individualism and exceptional background and "give them the finger" existence that makes him so damn interesting. To me anyway. You don't see it that way.
>But they _have_ to be a touch better-rounded, not to say grounded, than
Onslaught -- >pleasegod.
Do they ALL have to be rounded? Whats wrong with some extremity from time to time? I like extreme characters, always have. My heroes are those who practice absolutes. I hate middle of the road heroes. If I'd been Skywalker, I'd have joined dad and kicked the Emps scrawny butt.
>In a nutshell, I won't be rushing to use the doubtless forthcoming
Onslaught DP >counter.
He is a loner and wouldn't rate a counter. Any men who follow him end up dead as he expects the same standards of them as he expects of himself. A DP counter represents a warband of hundreds.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail