Re: Among our many types of animist...

From: David Cake <dave_at_...>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2000 00:00:38 -0400

>Greg uses 'animist' (and pretty much interchangeably, 'shamanic') in
>a manner that's rather too broad for my tastes.

        Indeed. Or at least, somewhat confusing.

> I think that at
>the least, there are 'primitive animists', such as the hsunchen,
>and a large chunk of the Doraddi tradition, which is closest to
>what HW presents as 'pure' animism: their core magic is
>integration, of one sort or another;

        Only large chunks of the Doraddi though - the Doraddi between them use at least all animist techniques, and probably a few more besides.

> then there are the 'totemic
>shamanists', which is how I would understand the trolls, and the
>Praxians. Spirit cults a-go-go. This latter sort seems, according
>to the HW take, more like part-animist, part-theist, which is indeed
>rather confusing, given that this is so common.

        And that what was until now considered pretty much the standard form for shamanism in the shamanic cultures we are most familiar with (certainly the two with most in print) is suddenly labelled 'an aberration'. Hmmph.

> One might also
>suggest that there's a somewhat 'animist sorcery' thread, for those
>shamanic types who're a lot more interested in (as it were)
>dominating spirits than integrating or worshipping them, but that's
>perhaps a less clear aspect. (Greg was certainly underwhelmed by
>this latter theory. <g>)

        Variants on that proposition have been known to have a similar effect on Peter Metcalfe, IIRC <g>.

>The particular objection I have is that the current rules make it
>sound as if integration is a correct thing to be doing for a
>Praxian, and worship of Great Spirits an incorrect one, which is
>just simply backwards, IMO.

	Exactly.
	It may be more or less correct for some cultures (Hsunchen, 

for example), but its certainly the wrong thing for others (Praxians).

>However, to look on the bright side, there's no reason at all
>HW can't be an excellent vessel for this sort of thing, once the
>Misapplication Zealotry is dispensed with. Most things use the
>same basic mechanics, magic included, so what sort of magic such
>and such and effect _actually_ is can be something of a theoretical
>rather than a practical one.
>

	Hear hear!
	I am rather looking forward to getting really into the HW 

magic system, but the Misapplication bugbear does seem to have made converting the Glorantha we know and love into HW rather more confusing than it might otherwise be.

	Cheers
		David