>Not really. I'm wondering about how those systems are going to view
>Death. The West seems it could have Death without any god of death or
>someone controlling death, even an Angel of Death. God kills when God
>kills, that's what it is. Or Death maybe entered the world when it
>broke the first time, and before that there was no death.
Death is God taking the faithful to Solace and consigning the rest to Hell. Precise definition of faithful varying by sect.
>As for the
>Animists, I'm not sure. There are spirits of the dead, but is there
>a Spirit that is Death? Lots of spirits can kill, but I'm not sure
>that's the same thing.
I'm sure there are spirits who guide the dead to their destination which is the equivelent.
>True. But Humakt as he has been presented is partial. He is only
>honorably death. He eschews poison. Disease appears to be not his
>provnance, and yet all these things bring Death. So he is not all
>forms of death, even in his quasi-impartial form we know.
I don't think disease brings death in Glorantha, nor does poison. Humakt brings death to those crippled by either - that is his gift and his victory over Mallia and chaos.
At least that's the Orlanthi version, I suspect Carmenian Humatki regard poison as part of their provenance.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/ ------------------------------
Powered by hypermail