Why "believable"? How does holding a false belief render a culture untenable.
Pam Carlson
>Look at RW religions & philosophies, all of which have differing
>interpretations of the nature of the world, the place of humans, the
nature of >deities, Truth, and all that jazz. Is any one of them really
right, with all >the others being completely wrong?
Pam, you're unfairly posing the question. The option isn't "one is right, all the others wrong". It can much better be stated "some have more truth than others".
ELVES VS. TUSK RIDERS
The Stinking Forest is NOT an elf woods. Yes, elves dwell within it, but
they are not the dominant intelligent species within its boundaries.
Trolls roam the Forest as hunting grounds, Tusk Riders dwell within it.
Ian Gorlick
>The tusk riders are forest nomads. Their pigs forage throughout the forest
>while the riders hunt and gather to supplement their diet. They are not
>damaging to the forest ecosystem. So they are not a fundamental enemy of
the >elves.
You give the elves too self-sacrificing an ethos. What do the pigs forage on? Young birch and aspen, acorns, leaves, roots, berries. The tusk riders burn trees for fires, cut them down for goods, etc. And you can bet that the Tusk Riders don't _ever_ consider Food Song (these are the Painful Cut, folks, after all).
It's true that the Tusk Riders don't hunt elves for food, don't engage in slash-and-burn agriculture, and don't poison forests with foundries. And as Ian mentions, their presence hinders humans & trolls (Tusk Riders eagerly hunt down trollkin for their sacrifices).
So the elves doubtless regard the Riders as a mixed blessing. The Tusk Riders, on the other hand, care nothing for the elves.
SUBJECTIVE VS. OBJECTIVE DEITIES
1) The subjectivist argument is, in essence, that the gods are whatever
their worshipers believe them to be.
2) No extant Gloranthan culture holds to this belief.
3) Does this not, therefore, indicate that the subjectivists are wrong?
Even if (_especially_ if) they are right?
Sandy
Powered by hypermail