Plenty of it alive, well, and living in the HW rulebook, at least.
> >Alex
> >The point is, if you don't recognise more than the four worlds, then
> >they 'must be' mystics (or some crossbreed thereof -- let's not get
> >into that). If you're prepared to recognised the draconic world
> >as being in some way distinct, then you needn't explain them with
> >reference to mysticism at all.
>
> This gives the Dragonewt 1 of 6 pure viewpoints, Kralori are mixed users
> Draconic/Mystic, EWF were Theist/Draconic in the same way that Heortlings
> are Theist/Animist
Hrm. Not quite what I had in mind, to say the least. I mean the Kralori _are_ the draconic viewpoint. The 'newts are a viewpoint at all, from a human perspective, just a bunch of crazy ole lizards. I don't see what saying that some is a 'Draconic/Mystic mixture' tells us. What bits are mystical, and what bits are draconic? There are no such distinctions to be usefully made, I suggest.
> Primary Theist Animist Mystic Sorcery Draconic Dream
> Secondary
> Theist DH Prax ? Stygian ? ?
> Animist Heortling Pamaltela ? ? ? ?
> Mystic ? ? Vithela ? ? ?
> Sorcery Lunar (*) ? ? Brithos ? ?
> Draconic EWF ? Kralorela ? Dragonewts ?
> Dream ? ? (**) ? ? ?
My only further comment on this is to note that your table has more gaps than actual table, which makes me wonder as to its utility as a taxonomic device. (Though I often wonder about Greg's, too.) In particular your choice of 'worlds' seems distinctly 'unorthogonal'...
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail