>There's only one (modern) species of
>horse, and I don't think the "breeds" of horse have much in the way
>of significant genetic diversity.
>
True - but the different breeds of horse in AR are quite clearly
distinct and stated to be such. That they're different 'species' might
be less apparent I'll grant you, but since they can (I believe)
interbreed, the meaning of 'species' isn't necessarily the same in
Glorantha as it is in the RW. Though, come to think of it, you're
usually eager to point out that wolves (_Canis lupus_) and coyotes (_C
latrans_) can interbreed with each other, and with other canids besides,
when the opportunity arises :-)
> OTOH I believe there are several different species of raccoon...
>
Six, although five are found only on tiny little islands. Unless one
extends the term 'racoon' to include procyonids in general (cacomistles,
for instance).
>
>
>I'm frankly still entirely at a loss as to Greg's thinking, and indeed
>his meaning here. If the "different" animals don't have to be separate
>species (whatever that means (esp. in Glorantha),
>
I believe Greg uses the term 'species' in Glorantha to mean a group of
animals with both a common origin and a distinct set of similar physical
and mythic features. In the absence of genetics, that seems as good a
definition as anything else to me. Although, in this particular
instance, it is somewhat tautologous, since its that definition that
you're presumably unhappy with...
>can evidently
>interbreed enthusiastically, then I can't see how it can be anything
>other than a defeasible, if not outright infeasible, assumption that
>origins in different otherworlds must maintain some sort of strictly
>separate identity.
>
The half-breeds (e.g. a daron/sered cross) are no more unfeasible than a
wolf/coyote cross, among other RW examples. Such hybrids will have no
direct mythic link, IMO, making them tricky to use if one wants, say, a
horse to take the role of Elmal's Steed in a heroquest. In the case of
hybrid humans (e.g. Seshnegi/Heortling) the fact that we have free will
overrides this, and the person can chose whether to be a theist or a
sorcerer, and what (if any) mythic identity to take on. But then
*anyone* can do that :-)
>It seems to me that of course, in some cases there will be entirely
>different, mythically valid accounts for similar-but-different things.
>But equally, it's the nature of myth that there will be entirely
>different, mythically valid accounts of the _same_ thing, in some
>cases. (Be it a species of animal, the sun, etc.) If there this
>were not so in Glorantha, I don't see how this can help but make it
>a less interesting place mythically than it otherwise would be -- and
>indeed hitherto appeared to be. After all, animals, like humans,
>are creature of the inner world; it's not as if they _have_ to be
>irrevocably wedded to one and only one other world.
>
I rather liked the old idea of the four otherworlds grading into each
other rather than being completely distinct. Humans could be a bit of
both (although not a *lot* of both) if they wanted. But that isn't what
we've got now, and its what we've got now that I'm trying to elucidate.
Note that, even now, humans can be 'none of the above' when it comes to
the otherworld, simply by focussing on Common Magic (or so I gather),
and I assume there are many animals of which this is true, too.
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ --__--__--
Powered by hypermail