doug.c:1: warning: expression makes pointer from unknowable aspect of the divine without a cast
> I have been spending way too much time on this, but I really don't like
> the thought that Urox and Storm Bull are not the same beastie. Greg's
> decree asside, it just don't smell right.
Please define what you mean by 'the same'. I don't believe Greg is saying anything so clear-cut or simplistic as, "Yes, there are two discrete, individuated entities, which are demonstrably not the same." He's just not saying "Yes, there is one discrete, individuated entity, which is demonstrably the same.", _either_. Or at least, he bleedin' well ought not to be, at least... The matter, to quote a certain archbishop, is open to question...
> Umath had 5 well known sons (perhaps lots of others too). Two of his
> brats are obviously theistic (Humakt and Orlanth). Kolat doesn't seem
> to be this way, in that his "followers" are spirit talkers, not god
> talkers. I'm OK with this as Umath himself was kinda primal and might
> not easily fall into any one of those 4 God Learner magic categories, so
> his kids might not all end up in the same branch of magic.
You're attempting to do a cross-cultural analysis, here. If you want to apply an Orlanthi set of myths to that 'true nature' of a Praxian deity, you are, pretty much by definition, attempting in God Learner territory, so there's no use complaining about their methods now. ;-) If you ask me, Sartarite Urox is squarely theistic, the Praxian Storm Bull is the Prax bog-standard animism-cum- theist mish-mish (which I proposed calling Totemistic, since it seems a reasonably common pattern, and is pretty different from a hsunchen or esoteric 'integrationist animist', if you ask me). Neither gets a 'Misaligned worship' penalty. Rationalise this as you will. Extra credit for a 'Gloranthocentric consciousness' type of explanation, but a large amount of marks will be given for 'the Misaligned worship rules are a serious crock'. ;-)
> A SB shaman couldn't stand
> in for an Uroxi godi as they don't look at the bull in the same way.
> But it is only a single bull.
They look like different ducks (in some ways), they quack like different ducks (ditto), but it must in some sense clearly be the case that it's the same duck?
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail