> I don't believe that the definitions are _always_ equivalent
> but that a few gods are recognizably Great and that the
> definitions that we have are imperfect (to some extent or
> another) ways of delineating their greatness from hoi theoi.
That seems perfectly fair comment. This threat isn't necessarily, then, about any Great (as it were) Definitional issue, but is essentially around the margins of which/how many/to what degree exceptions (or at least, definitionally awkward cases) exist.
> Complicating this is that the assumption of a Great God for
> every rune is known to be broken in a few cases. Truth
> has no associated Great God (as Dayzatar is no longer a
> god), whether Eurmal holds Illusion or Disorder is probably
> unknowable and so forth.
Or worse, knowing it involves becoming a Trickster. Then convincing everyone else becomes troublesome.
> I don't recall calling Humakt a cultural perspective and
> I do recall asking just what was so Heortling about Humakt.
Well, since you ask... it's certainly been suggested that the "Great Humakt" is unconcerned with Truth, Honour, etc, and those are merely attributes of "GH's" Heortling aspects. If there is a Carmanian aspect lacking these foibles, then it would "prove" there's a GH in that sense, though for me it's periously close to "two different Death gods with the same name". (If they do indeed have the same name: Greg has done a flip or two on this, and I'm still hoping against hope the Imperial mob see the Light on this one.) Then again, one could say that about the "aspect" definition of GG in general...
> Secondly Great Humakt is no more redundant that the usage
> of Great Orlanth etc mentioned in Thunder Rebels.
While I didn't say it would be redundant -- well, it would be. Humakt is only worshipped in one aspect by the Heortlings, so for them to refer to such an entity, wouldn't make a deal of sense, other than rhetorically or mystically.
Powered by hypermail