Exactly. I am trying to make a distinction that I think is not aproblem with what Greg is saying, but with the exact words he uses to say it. Serial killer is a term that is often used to describe a particular profile of multiple murderer, a profile that does not include Kaczinsky, but does include Bundy, Dahmer and Gacy, and is familiar because of its prevalence in crime fiction and movies. Other terms are often used now precisely because of the tendency to terminological confusion (for example, some criminologists use the term 'signature killer').
> > ...Fortunately, about half of this group is simply ignoring
>> Greg's more extreme new idead about Humaktis.
>
>I'm not ignoring them, and I don't think they're particularly new.
>We've had discussions similar to this one on the Digest for many
>years. It's becoming a tedious habit to criticize any expansion of
>Gloranthan material by Greg as being re-interpretation,
>or 'Gregging'. Sure some re-interpretation is occuring, and is
>necessery, but I think it's much more limited than many suppose.
I agree. Greg has been saying similar things about Humakt for a very long time, since at least RQ2 days. Worshipping death is a serious business, and there is a tendency in RPGs to trivialise the emotional impact of killing, and the emotional makeup necessary to make killing not just a vocation, but an idealised way of life. Bringing this to peoples attention is not a re-interpretation, just a reminder.
>The fact that some people have an overly romanticized view of what
>Humakti are like is their problem.
Yes. While Humakti honour is an important part of their makeup, there is a tendency to make that the central element of their religion and avoid the potentially frightening death worship idea.
> > And the bizarre idea that they are sleazy lawyer-types who weasel
>> their way out of oaths never gained any support. That's good!
>
>I don't think they weazel, but then I don't think their oaths mean
>to them precisely what some of us think they should mean. Heortling
>culture is very different from ours, and their concept of right
>and wrong is next to alien in many respects.
Yes. I think to Humakti, often its what the oaths mean to them that matters, and other peoples interpretations are not important. Sometimes, this may look like weaseling out, but its not - if they have kept their commitment to themselves and their god, opinions of observers are unimportant.
Cheers David
Powered by hypermail