Good point. I blame that Ocron fellow; he was a GL, wasn't he? :-)
>>> 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 :-)
>>
>
>And don't get me started on bisons... Indeed, that was pretty much the
>reason behind my double-barrelled caveat about species...
>
Trust bison to be too thick to read the damn text books, though.
>>>> >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...
>>
>
>I don't consider myself to have enough of a definition to be too unhappy
>at that as such; it's just another semantic hurdle to surmount in regards
>the larger question. But if you say [X] and [Y] are different species
>of horse, then I'd understand you to be implying that they're greatly
>"more different" in material terms (indeed, many orders more so) than are
>any two "breeds" of RW horse, and not just "they're different breeds,
>but we'll call them species for the heck of it".
>
True. However, the differences may not be anything that would apply in the RW - zoologists not being noted for using HQing as a tool when assigning taxonomic names. So, sure, take them out of their mythic context, and they probably are no more different than two 'breeds'. Its just that taking things out of mythic context isn't usually a helpful method of reaching understanding in Glorantha.
>>> 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.
>>
>
>This seems to me to be conflating two different things ("mixed otherworld
>nature", and "mixed religious practice"), and in neither case does it
>seem to me to be much at all like what I'm suggesting.
>
Ah, then I misunderstood you. Mea culpa.
>>> 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.
>>
>
>Since the final word on Common Magic last time the topic came up was
>on the lines of 'desist with these inaccurate speculations and under-wraps
>previews', I'm not greatly enlightened...
>
Well, me neither, to be honest :-)
-- Trotsky Gamer and Skeptic ------------------------------------------------------ Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ --__--__--
Powered by hypermail