> > Correct. In fact, Alex complains that I don't have enough mythic depth
>to
> > the Onslaught character, but I've written far more words about him in
>one
> > story than appears on Jar-eel in any offical literature. Where is
>Jar-eels
> > mythic depth? Where do we know how she grabbed all her powers and on
>what
> > heroquests did she partake? If one looks at it objectively, she seems
> > rather bland and thin as written.
This seems sensible to me. What concerns me is the way "Heroes" relate
themselves (in Glorantha) with other not heroic people.
For example, we know that Onslaught, since he tries to incarnate death
(either you consider him a true Gloranthan Hero or a "literature hero"), he
usually delivers death, when he is given the chance, to all those he
meets...
In my opinion any Gloranthan Hero tries to embody the "virtues" of
a) a god b) a principle (or Rune) c) another hero or saint or demon or anything from the Otherworldmaybe he tries to embody these virtues in a "pedissequal" (one-way) mode, maybe he is more creative and mixes some different sources to obtain unique powers.
> > The problem we have here is that there has been few efforts to clarify
>what
> > a hero is, and what qualifies one for the status.
I have tried. Not a great accomplishment, but above you can read it.
> The HW rules say you> > need a tripple mastery and a couple of doubles to
>qualify but this is > > "mundane" and not what Alex and others see as being
>appropriate.
Correct.
>I'm not saying that it's _in_appropriate; just that that's not all
>there is. You can 'heroquest' in the sense we often use the term
>at any ability level, of course, but in order to be a Hero, as a
>Heortling would understand the concept, you have to have both these
>elements in play.
Correct, too. It fits my defintion of G-Heroes.
Being A G-Hero, I reply because I do not like to be always ambiguous, is not
a Status, but a Motus: It depends not on what you are able to do, but on
what you are willing to do.
There is a *huge* difference.
Onslaught is a G-Hero because he wants to embody Humakt.
Harrek could not be, because he already controls a Bear-god, but he is not
following the "path" of no-one. If he is a mere destructive machine, he
qualifies as a Chaotic Hero, no matter his allegiance. If he follows
something or someone (Argrath) I don't know at the moment, but *he* knows
and has a definite (not definitive) goal in mind, then he is truly a *Hero*.
In a short statement, we could say that "An hero is a sentient being with a
purpose greater than him", greater in terms (vague but necessarily so) of
Gloranthan Power.
>I haven't played long enough to have a terribly good feel for this
>(and the 'Johnny One Ability' thing is something I've feft sufficiently
>uneasy about that I have have (not so) subtly discouraged it, anyway),
>but I think the recognise the pattern, yes. It's certainly different
>from RQ; as far as making a good game, and perhaps even as regards
>'Gloranthan reality' I think it maybe goes a bit _too_ far in the
>other direction. (In RQ everyone does everything, in HW nobody
>does nuthin', to put it in crude terms.)
I didn't understand always what Alex means. My fault.
>Two good HW rules to help counterbalance this, btw, are directed HP
>awards (which I think are mentioned, though very much in passing last I
> >looked), and the rule about half-cost for abilities that were
>narratively significant. (Or double cost for ones that weren't, for
>you pessimists...) Thankfully neither of them are in the realms of
>RQ 'tick-fishing', though.
Idem as above. Please, Alex, explain me what's your point here.
Ciao
Gian
Powered by hypermail