From: Martin Laurie (MLaurie@compuserve.com)
Date: Wed 02 Feb 2000 - 03:40:15 EET
Alex:
And just as well too, as I recall you don't acknowledge Conan as great
>I feel almost morally bound to steer clear of lit-crit here,
>so accordingly I shall attempt to treat of Onslaught purely as a
Gloranthan >Construct(TM).
Sure, I'm game.
Martin Laurie:
>Well, there's "Kills things", with the other dimension being...?
<sigh> Alex, we've had this out before and you are not alone in having this
> As for limits to heroic ability, there are limits. Onslaught is himself
> totally two dimensional as a hero.
out with me. What you and the other people who follow this line of
argument fail to grasp is that there are MANY ways of killing things and
that violence has multiple styles. Just like boxing has pugilists of
numerous methods and maneuvers, so to does the heroic killer. So where you
see boring sameness - "What does Onslaught do, he just kills things?!?!" -
I see a whole series of styles in question. Is he ruthless, is he
economical, does he go berserk, does his fly through the air, does he have
weird magical effects, does he use two weapons etc? These things interest
me as much as things like the penetration ability of an 120mm APFSDSDU
round fired at the glacis of a T-72.
I know you do martial arts like myself but again we have a different stance
on that. You do a true martial art - Aikido, I do Thai boxing, Kali and
Escrima which are simply methods of beating the brains out of people and
have little "art" to them. You look for great literature in Onslaught, me,
I look for a good fight. Was the movie "Dark City" better than the
"Matrix"? In terms of story and plot yes but I would argue that the matrix
had way cooler fight scenes with guys running up walls and stuff, hence it
was a better movie.
Basically each to their own is what I'm saying. I don't understand your
view of the world and you don't get mine. We simply act as if being in the
fifth dimension - we occupy the same space without understanding each
others existence.
> Argrath is far more versatile and hence unable to compete with
> specialists like Onslaught in combat but can kick there ass in
> other areas.
>I find it harder to take Onslaught seriously as a 'Hero' in that sense,
>and of that magnitude,
Argrath is NOT that good at fighting. How would he have the time and
>than I do to take on board the idea of an RQ character with 200% bite (or
Thats simply because you don't like that style of RQ game. Not everyone
>He seems totally decontextualised, has no mythic depth that I've been able
And what is wrong with that? Are you saying that Glorantha has no room for
>A 'real Hero' consists not just of mundane skill, but of an authentic
inclination to match a specialist? He even has Humakti bodyguards - why?
Because they are the best at what they do. Do they organise, lead and fund
his efforts? Do they control ritual and interact with myth? Not like
Argrath. He is superb at that.
whatever it >was).
agrees with you.
to >discern, and is in short pretty much just an exaggerated version of
the
>'phenomenally skilled loner' stereotype.
the "Man with No Name"? Its the exceptions that are interesting as well as
the mythically rounded.
>divine world.
What does this actually mean?
> Now, I'll grant you that, say, Harrek is somewhat limited in this regard,
There you go again. You keep assuming that because they focus on death,
and is a >cheatin' bastard besides, and with little doubt, Humakti
HeroQuesters may be on the >Somewhat Boring sides too.
they're dull. That's simply your view. I happen to find that end of it
fascinating. As for Harrek, its his individualism and exceptional
background and "give them the finger" existence that makes him so damn
interesting. To me anyway. You don't see it that way.
>But they _have_ to be a touch better-rounded, not to say grounded, than
Onslaught -- >pleasegod.
Do they ALL have to be rounded? Whats wrong with some extremity from time
to time? I like extreme characters, always have. My heroes are those who
practice absolutes. I hate middle of the road heroes. If I'd been
Skywalker, I'd have joined dad and kicked the Emps scrawny butt.
>In a nutshell, I won't be rushing to use the doubtless forthcoming
Onslaught DP >counter.
He is a loner and wouldn't rate a counter. Any men who follow him end up
dead as he expects the same standards of them as he expects of himself. A
DP counter represents a warband of hundreds.
Martin Laurie
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 20:56:59 EEST