> I can't say I am all that keen on Glorantha being crammed with
> cannibals. It's a pretty strong taboo in the real world, and, if every
> other culture eats its neighbors that's a) pretty weird and b) not
> very interesting. Is it possible that these are stories told by the
> neighbors of the "cannibals?"
Simply pointing out there are more non-chaotic cannibals than ogres is not cramming glorantha with cannibals nor is it making every other culture cannibalistic.
> So the Survival Covenant, which, in large part, is about deciding what is
> and is not appropriate food, would be all loophole-filled when it came to
> Outlanders? Eating someone is a big deal; doing it idly for random food
> is... really hard to imagine.
It is hard for a human Praxian to consider eating an Outlander. It is not so hard for a Morocanth to do the same because they already eat two-legs and are biased against them for cheating. Doing it idly for random food is your construction, not mine.
>> But I didn't say anything about eating other Praxians, I spoke about >> eating outlanders who are _not_ from other tribes. >>
They could but they are highly unlikely to do so because they are human and their taboo against eating their own extends to the human Outlanders. This taboo does not bind the Morokanth because the human outlanders are not their own.
> I would think Waha's law would be more absolute and less
> loop-hole-filled. "Don't eat this plant; eat that kind of animal."
Waha isn't the writer of Leviticus (which is more absolute and still filled with loopholes). He teaches people a way to survive because life out there on the wastes is absolutely brutal. They don't have the luxury of extensive lists of kosher food. If its edible (and isn't a horse), then Waha says dig in.
> Presumably, Waha laid down some sort of laws that define what separates a
> person from an animal.
So how would Waha consider the Newtlings who are sometimes killed for
their tails?
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail