One might suppose that if the God Learners were more familiar with Shargash, they'd have been slower to decide Humakt was the "owner" of death. (Or knowing said cheeky chappies, they'd have promptly tried to combine the two.)
But various other theist cultures seem to get along quite happily without such hideously over-engineered Death Gods. I'm sure everyone needs a ruler of the underworld, a psychopomp, etc, but those two are such a big deal largely because they're in no small amount concerned with death as the art of inserting pointed objects into each other, whereas one can quite happily have a larger separation between the two, even taking them both as inevitable.
> >If you don't know whether this is such a thing, how do you know which
> >entities it isn't? (As it were.) Pragmatics might seem to indicate
> >that if there's anything "above" Humakt, it's not an "entity" that
> >one can reach and identify by (for example) any reasonable theist
> >means.
>
> Exactly! Now if there were some terrifying Death Mystics out there,
> we might get to the bottom of this.
Well, the High Gods are at best part of the "low transcendent" (if you can stomach such a concept), rather than being part of any Mystical Ultimate, so you could argue about whether such people were "True Mystics" as such. OTOH, I have a pet theory or two about the sort of person one finds lurking around on Vormain...
> Yup and double yup. I think the anthropomorphic theist system
> breaks down as you rocket off toward those "Primal Runes." It's too weird
> there.
Certainly if you want to be "consistent" between different theist systems.
Powered by hypermail