Peter Metcalfe:
> > > I don't see any relationship differences between the
> > > Grazer and their divinities and that of the Doraddi
> > > for example.
>
> > The Doraddi are a tricksy case; it strikes me that they
> > cover both 'traditions', to a fair extent.
>
> I'm confused. Before we agreed that the Doraddi were
> classical animists as opposed to the neo-theistic
> praxians etc. Now you think they include neo-theists
> as well?
I'm hedging my bets. I think they certainly include the former (hence my agreement with that proposition), and I _suspect_ an element of the latter, too.
> > > As for lack of integrationism, what do you mean? The
> > > Grazers can integrate their spirits.
>
> > As far as the mechanics of the HW:RiG write-up are concerned,
> > I must reluctantly concede. [...]
>
> > Having said that, it doesn't actually make much sense to me.
> > If I were feeling cynical (and I am, as it happens), then I'd
> > say it smacks somewhat of reverse-engineering the culture to
> > the 'rules': they're animist, therefore, they _must_ integrate
> > spirits, QED.
>
> I don't see a statement anywhere saying that they _must_
> integrate.
I meant as a collective, not that they _each_ must do so.
> Before you were saying that they weren't classical animists
> because they didn't integrate. Now when it turns out that
> they can, you do an arkat and claim it smacks of reverse
> engineering.
All the time, I've been saying that they're not classical animists for the simple reason that I don't think they're classical animists. The only change has been in my understanding of what HW says.
> > Throughout, strike 'god' and replace with 'great
> > spirit'.
>
> Schmods, Scheat Schirits. They'll all divinities to me
> regardless of their worship rituals.
;-) I'll agree to that quite happily. Don't think the current HW rules handle this in the most sensible of all possible ways, that's all.
> > I won't pretend to be a font of knowledge on the
> > Grazers, but at the moment it doesn't ring very true.
>
> Considering that the Pentans have been revealed to be
> fetish heavy for quite some time (look at the Pentan
> warrior pic in the Genertela Book), it looks alright
> to me.
My turn to be confused: what's this to do with whether the Grazers integrate or not? (I mean 'bodily' integration: I don't think that fetish-creation is very similar.)
> > Perhaps I'm being somewhat influenced by the old 'RW God Learner
> > theory' of the religious 'progression' that runs animism ->
> > totemism -> theism -> deism -> playing roleplaying games with
> > religious themes.
>
> Well considering that the Mongols were shamanic and lived
> right next to the people who invented the word, calling
> Pentans animist wouldn't even register on my gnat-straining
> instincts.
I'd call Pentans and Mongols _shamanic_, too. Whether I'd call them animist or not would rely on heavy qualification of the sense I was using the word in. (For preference, I would not, as I think it confuses more than it clarifies.)
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail