<< Trotsky:
> Furthermore, the Teshnan bats are descended from a
> spirit being, whereas Mahaquata is, AFAIK, a goddess (although as an
> underworld deity she *might* be 'defiant' which confuses the issue). IMO,
the
> 'all bats are children of Mahaquata' quote is a statement of Pelorian
belief,
> not of universal Gloranthan truth.
I suspect it's 'magically true', though. Let's say a Pelorian has some sort of bat magic, based upon the Truth that 'all bats are children of Mahaquata'. Then she finds herself in Teshnos, for some reason (making a handy example of herself, mainly), and encounters some bats which _local_ tradition accounts for as TT. describes. Does that make her magic completely useless with them? Not by a long chalk, methinks. (Though precisely how successful it is may well depend on their similarity to 'her own' bats, how successful she is in 'identifying' them magically as children of Mahaquata, and such like.) >>
Oh, certainly. If you can prove Oakfed (a Praxian spirit being) is the son of Lodril (a Pelorian deity) I'm sure you can 'prove' Teshnan bats are descended from Mahaquata. Even if the Pujaleg mythology is clearly incompatible. And any Mahaquatan bat-controlling magic would still be fairly effective in Teshnos, I should think (and vice versa).
Forward the glorious Red Army!
Trotsky
Powered by hypermail