>
> Agree that Darwin's own theories were entirely biological, not social.
>
good. we are done with that.
> Whilst I don't imagine Linnaean classification is their strongest suit,
It is utterly unknown
> my understanding of what Hsunchen believe is that there is a level at which
> indivdual Hsunchen tribes do not see themselves as tribes of humans so much
> as animals trapped in human bodies.
Actually, there is a wide variety of ways that hsunchen see themselves. Some ay they are animals cursed with a human form; others say they are not human or animal, but something else; some say they are shape changers; some just say "what the hell are yo alking about?"
> In a way, therefore, they see themselves as species
Nah, that is still you projecting onto them. "In a way" means nothing here.
> (why else the traditional taboo on bestiality applying to non-Hsunchen
> humans?).
Same reason Sartarites marry other Sartarites maybe? Besides, this is not a universal tabu among them
It was not therefore wholly illogical to add them to a list of species that
> may have become extinct since time began.
>
Except that the term "species" doesn't exist, or apply in Glorantha. Saying so is like telling me how many inches my dream was. It just doesn't apply
>
> At the same time, of course, I drew attention to the limitations of this
> classification-- the idea that Hsunchen tribes saw themselves as a species
> is not a wholly biological one. Some Hsunchen (and some whole tribes-- I
> myself gave the example of the Galanini, and of post-Hsunchen animism in
> parts of Wenelia) discarded these social constructs and became part of wider
> human societies. As humans nad Hsunchen can mate with each other and
> (presumably?) produce fertile offspring when they do , maybe there is a
> level at which they are not distinct species?
>
Let's see, Pavis is the offspring of a rock, a plant, a human and some other
stuff.
Broos can knock up anything.
Tin and Copper married and had Bronze as a child.
Species is not a meaningful term here.
However this doesn't mean that the separateness of Hsunchen tribes is a
> wholly social construct-- though as we are talking about otherworlds and
> myths I would hesitate to call it a biological concept either.
>
That is a good start!!
Do not call it biological at all
Do not call it social at all
Call it mythological
call it magical
For if the distinctiveness of Hsunchen tribes was a purely social construct,
> how can we explain the following 'observable' phenomena:
>
> It is almost impossible (possible only after something likie a Heroquest)
> for a non-Hsunchen to find and connect to their 'animal soul' and start to
> work towards integrating their human and animal souls into one;
>
Nonsense. What the heck is "integrating his human soul" mean anyway? Everyone in Glorantha has more than one soul. Only creatures who Know It All or have the One True Way are naive enough to think they have one soul.
A Hsunchen who leaves the tribe and commits themselves too much to another
> faith (Does intiation push it too far, or does the person have to become a
> devotee) becomes as divorced from their animal soul as any other
> non-Hsunchen; and
>
No, not necessarily. Though as a devotee, the requirements of steady concentration still hold.
> Even Hsunchen who do strive to integrate their animal soul
Hm, there it is again. Game term?
> can only do so in relation to their own totem animal-- a Rathori cannot use
> Hsunchen magic to turn parts of his body into the coresponding portions of a
> lion
>
Of course not. You can only do the magic you know, have or are.
Maybe more than aynthing, this shows how hard it is to step outside our
> own RW ways of seeing Gloranthan phenomena.
>
That seems to be so.
It is because we are taught to think, and only to think, but only to think
about what we are told.
But, in the end just only thinking is a pretty bleak appreciation of the
Immaterial world
> On the other hand, why should there be a taboo over certain fictional
> Gloranthan societies having unsavoury beliefs that reflect some of the
> uglier manifestations of 'social Darwinism' rightly condemned in their RW
> form by certain earlier contributors. I wouldn't equate it with the idea of
> not having VD in an RPG-- VD is also a bit of a dead end, whereas this has
> altogether more scope for storytelling.
>
MGF man! Story it out. there are societies and cultures in Glorantha that harbor, nourish and practice the most despicable things we can imagine, performing them as virtues and loathing alternatives. This whole discussion is not about what Gloranthans do, but about the type of language and thinking to use to approach a Glorantha problem.
Whilst others may well disagree (and YGWV), I don't think one endorses
> pernicious ideals by putting them into fiction in the mouths of
> unsympathetic (or outright evil) characters
>
Except maybe broos.
I did for a while run a campaign in which the players were a disprate bunch,
> united largely by their fear of, and hostility towards, neighbouring
> Ramalia. (Not terribly canonical, the campaign drew heavily from the issues
> of Tradetalk about Ramalia, Handra and the New Fens, and I and my
> players made up the rest). Ramalia is a notoriously unsympathetic
> Gloranthan culture-- I would describe it as Rokari Malikionism gone
> horribly wrong, with added brutal feudalism, apartheid (towards the local
> Hsunchen) and demonology. Indeed the classic early 1990s Generetela:
> Crucible of the Hero Wars gave Ramalia and the Kingdom of War the
> distinction of being referred to as "Enemy Kingdoms".
>
Good description
> If in this Ramalian campaign I had started to give quasi-social Darwinist
> views to a villainous Ramalian sorceror or feudal overlord (and whom my
> players' characters opposed with all at their disposal), would that have
> involved taking YGWV into a wholly unacceptable direction?
there is no unacceptable YGWV
> Would it have made me a bad person?
>
Oh come on.
> If you wanted something more subtle, could one not also tell tales of
> tragedy and repentance about people trying to get away from a past in which
> they had held such beliefs but now believe themselves to have been very
> wrong? For example why couldn't someone play a Second Age character who was
> somehow trying to atone for years spent conducting ghastly experiments on
> other sentient beings in Remakerela?
>
I feel like the thread is lost here.
There is no reason why not.
It's your game, and you do what you want.
> Finally, what of the sage in Cults of Terror who argued that people did
> Chaotic creatures themselves (as well as the rest of creation) a favour by
> eradicating them? To many otherwise respectable Gloranthans his viewpoint is
> probably acceptable, if perhaps a bit high-falutin'
>
Again, you are mistaking an in-glorantha thing with an out-of-glorantha
discussion.
Some people think that in Glorantha.
but it is not Darwinian by any stretch of the imagination. Because Darwinism does not exist.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail