Me:
> > 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!)
NW:
> Could you please elucidate a bit here. How much is the word
> avatar really used in Gloranthan publications?
Not a huge amount, but it does pop up, most notably in Peloria.
> And what is the problem with Yelm/Antirius in this respect?
Because of Avivath -- is he the 'avatar' of a 'transcendent' being?
> > 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.
Or are being looked at from different ends of the telescope, at least. Though the 'details' of the method are doubtless different, at least. (Or 'technique' as opposed to 'method', as we may or may not have previously agreed to say.)
> 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).
Different points of view on the same thing, if you ask me. Who says frantic politicking can't be the means of incarnation of an avatar?
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail