From: TTrotsky@aol.com
Date: Fri 01 Sep 2000 - 00:56:06 EEST
Alex:
<< Trotsky:
> Furthermore, the Teshnan bats are descended from a
> spirit being, whereas Mahaquata is, AFAIK, a goddess (although as an
> underworld deity she *might* be 'defiant' which confuses the issue). IMO,
the
> 'all bats are children of Mahaquata' quote is a statement of Pelorian
belief,
> not of universal Gloranthan truth.
I suspect it's 'magically true', though. Let's say a Pelorian has some sort
of bat magic, based upon the Truth that 'all bats are children of Mahaquata'.
Then she finds herself in Teshnos, for some reason (making a handy example
of herself, mainly), and encounters some bats which _local_ tradition
accounts for as TT. describes. Does that
make her magic completely useless with them? Not by a long chalk, methinks.
(Though precisely how successful it is may well depend on their similarity
to 'her own' bats, how successful she is in 'identifying' them magically as
children of Mahaquata, and such like.) >>
Oh, certainly. If you can prove Oakfed (a Praxian spirit being) is the
son of Lodril (a Pelorian deity) I'm sure you can 'prove' Teshnan bats are
descended from Mahaquata. Even if the Pujaleg mythology is clearly
incompatible. And any Mahaquatan bat-controlling magic would still be fairly
effective in Teshnos, I should think (and vice versa).
Forward the glorious Red Army!
Trotsky
------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 22:49:36 EEST