I seem to recall that there was a mixing of species within the zeitgeist of certain groups somewhere back before time. That the man rune has more to do with sentience than human form and that this is the basis of a lot of hsunchin and even Praxian world views and religious beliefs, spirit magic etc. Having said that, I don't believe that the man rune is a prerequisite for sentience to now I'm confused again.
>
> Griffins and Morokanth are intelligent (along with the rare intelligent
> fish, great stag and other exceptions). But I would not argue that they had
> the Man rune.
> Herdmen (Morokanth's herd animals) do have the Man rune, I think, but are
> not intelligent.
>
> What I think is going on here is that the unintelligent creatures either
> found a way to succeed on their own (deer, birds, salmon) or they found an
> intelligent partner (bison, impala, horse, herdman) at the time of the Great
> Darkness; or they died out. And I think that dying out was the most common
> of the "options selected."
>
> On the other hand, gaining shape-based features ("Morokanth thumbs", speech,
> maybe air-breathing) are useful to Beast-rune intelligent creatures, and I
> think that these do stem from the Man rune.
>
> --Todd
>
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 11:13 AM, nils_w <nils_at_...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Nicely put. That would conversely mean that a sentient animal
> > (like the intelligent fish of Zola Fel) could have use for
> > Man rune magic. Or is their sentience due to them having the
> > Man rune? That is, is the Man rune the mark of all sentient
> > mortals, not just the upright two-legged, two-armed ones?
> >
> >
> > /Nils W
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>