Alex:
>
> Interesting clause, that last! Mind you, one has to set the
> 'transcendence bar' pretty low for this to be strictly consistent
> with existing usage, vis frex Yelm/Antirius. (Emerson!)
Could you please elucidate a bit here. How much is the word avatar really used in Gloranthan publications? And what is the problem with Yelm/Antirius in this respect?
> How do people think the different forms of 'identification' differ
> from each other? Is heroforming vs. divine devotion vs 'avatarism'
> a different primarily in 'scale' of object, or is the distinction
> more a matter of Method?
Hmm, quite an interesting issue. I'd say the effects are very similar, but the method differs: heroforming is initiated by the devotee, an avatar is sent by the deity. So, I think you can say that the resulting entities are indistinguishable, but they got there from opposite directions.
This has a direct parallell in the ongoing Red Emperor debate: according to the RMM model, the RE is more like a heroformer, in Greg's model he is more like an avatar. (NB: I write "more like" as it isn't nearly as clear cut as what I write above).
Powered by hypermail