Dara Happa uber alles

From: TTrotsky@aol.com
Date: Sun 25 May 1997 - 22:56:13 EEST


First off, let me just say I was glad to discover it wasn't just a lack of
supplements or the like that lead to me thinking that Dara Happan/Lunar magic
is not superior to Orlanthi. Thanks to all concerned for clearing that up.
    Peter Metcalfe, though, is unconvinced. He objects to my Roman analogy
because the Romans had better technology, a larger population base, better
organisation and so on. This was exactly _my_ point. The Lunars are also
better in these areas, and it has nothing to do with the _quality_ of their
magic. These are the reasons the Romans beat the Celts, and the reason the
Lunars beat the Orlanthi. Their culture gives them a better military, it
doesn't give them better magic.
    Or not in the sense I mean, anyway. I think the problem is that Peter is
talking about something completely different from me. Peter is, I think,
talking about the ability to use magic in a military context. I have never
denied that the Lunars are better at this. Yes, the Lunars do have a more
powerful military, and this is partly due to their ability to coordinate
magic use with their actions. But this has nothing to do with what I was
talking about.
    The point I was making was that the magic of all cultures is inherently
equal. No matter who you are, one point of magic is one point of magic. The

only exception I can think of is the Lunars inside the Glowline, and this is
cancelled out by the detrimental effect on their magic outside the line. Yes,
some cultures make better use of magic for military purposes, just as others
will make better use of it for, say, wilderness survival. This doesn't make
the magic itself any better, just the way it is used.
    My original point was that because all magic is equally potent in
principle, regardless of what culture the caster comes from, you can't use
the 'power' of magic to determine who is 'right' about mythic history. An

analogy: In the RW we use science to guage the nature of the world. I'm a
scientist, of sorts, but this doesn't mean I'd last very long if someone went
rampaging through my lab with a machine-gun. Does this mean that a
machine-gun is a more technologically advanced piece of equipment than any of
the stuff in the lab?

     The ability to kill other people or conquer other lands has nothing to
do with your relative understanding of the universe. It has everything to do
with your cultural background and your ability to utilise that understanding
for military purposes.
     _That_ was the point I was making. Judging from your post, I suspect it
is also your own opinion. So why are we arguing?

All hail the Reaching Moon
    Trotsky

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:59:53 EEST