Re: Re: Fossils?

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:12:37 +0100 (BST)

> Jane
>
> >It seems very
> >unlikely that they're the remains of beasties that
> >died a very long time ago and got buried/squashed
> in
> >mud, later arising as sedimentary rock. Boring.
>
> Well that's not boring in our world, so why would it
> be boring in Glorantha?

OK, tastes differ, and I'm obviously still suffering trauma from studying geology as part of my degree (for certain values of "studying").

> There's a disturbing trend towards "one true way" in
> some recent
> posts, that one way being "it can only be mythic."
> Now Glorantha is
> obviously a mythic world, but part of the charm is
> that almost
> everything has multiple explanations.

True.

> So feel free to come up with other true explanations
> for Gloranthan
> fossils, but IMG they are ancient beasties squashed
> into rock. Some
> from underwater. Like at Whitewall. About which
> there are obviously myths.

There certainly are!
http://www.runegate.org/whitewall/wiki/Whitewall%20Rocks

And when Helamakt's magic was weakened, didn't we have them coming back to life - er, undeath? Bat above, rising water and undead sea monsters below... well, we needed something for the PCs who aren't attacking the Bat to do, didn't we?



Yahoo! Mail is the world's favourite email. Don't settle for less, sign up for your free account today http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/evt=44106/*http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/mail/winter07.html

Powered by hypermail