> This completely changes the view of Glorantha I had. I didn't
> realize there were some "real" gods and others who didn't own
> runes and so weren't fundamental to the cosmos.
They're all 'real' gods, it's just that some more completely and universaly express the nature of a core and universal truth about the nature of Glorantha (a Rune) than others. Lesser gods emphasize certain aspects or combinatioons of the runes. They have meaning and are powerful, and are real gods (or Great Spirits, or Saints).
For example a god of murder is certainly a god of death, but he can't be THE god of death because he emphasizes a particular type of death or killing. If people stopped murdering each other, then there would be nothing for him to be god of, yet the world would still carry on working, so he's not essential to the existence of Glorantha. You can use the same analysis to see whether other gods or great spirits are fundamental - if the thing or activity they are god of was destroyed/stopped happening, what would the consequences be like?
> This explains why so many people defended Humakt as the one and
> only true god of death, at least.
Yes, and it would be possible to argue a point like that merely on the grounds that "It says so in Book X, Page Y". However there are sound theoretical reasons why this is so and the point can be argued successfuly purely arguing from Humakti mythology. I think that's much more interesting.
Simon Hibbs
Powered by hypermail