>> It is hard for a human Praxian to consider eating an Outlander. It is >> not so hard for a Morocanth to do the same because they already eat >> two-legs and are biased against them for cheating. Doing it idly for >> random food is your construction, not mine.
> I don't know about this. I am pretty sure that non-Morocanth Praxians
> will cheerfully eat herd people because they are aware that herd-people are
> animals
So? Herd-people don't talk. Outlanders do. To the Morokanth, talking Outlanders is a bitter memory of the Survival contests and the two legs who cheated in it. They are less likely to accept Outlanders as food not to be eaten in such circumstances.
> Most tribal cultures are very conservative; since there is a clear
> distinction between animals and people (and a spell or something to change
> one to the other -- assuming that made the leap from RQ to HQ and from
> one-system-fits-all magic to theism/animism), I can't see Praxians thinking
> "Outlanders are the same as animals."
Can you quite strawmanning? I didn't say Praxians think Outlanders are the same as animals. I said the Morocanth would have an easier time of eating outlanders and explained why.
> The Praxian divide (as far as legitimate food is concerned) is between
> "animals that can eat off the land" and "people who eat animals."
No, that only applies to the creatures that took part in the survival
contest. Waha's rules are silent about things outside the Survival
Covenant and Praxians must rely on their own judgement whether such and
such practices are acceptable. Because of their background, Morocanth
are more likely to consider eating outlanders as acceptable.
>> So how would Waha consider the Newtlings who are sometimes killed for >> their tails?
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail