Category talk:Advent: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
ChrisNichols (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
What it is to be a human in the non-biological sense of the term is a question that has always lurked just beneath the surface of roleplaying worlds filled with "monsters" and this is more so the case in Gothic literature and in Gothic inspired roleplaying. Indeed Shelley's Frankenstein is an answer to the very question. Equally, Lovecraft in the Mountains of Misery offers a quite stunning reply that "S" at the very least would wholly endorse. (Being a human is having a scholar's professional curiosity plus an excessive fondness for vivisection!) The answers below, when completed, will offer something quite different for the Dark Powers and others to chew on.""[[User:Cure|Cure]] 13:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC) | What it is to be a human in the non-biological sense of the term is a question that has always lurked just beneath the surface of roleplaying worlds filled with "monsters" and this is more so the case in Gothic literature and in Gothic inspired roleplaying. Indeed Shelley's Frankenstein is an answer to the very question. Equally, Lovecraft in the Mountains of Misery offers a quite stunning reply that "S" at the very least would wholly endorse. (Being a human is having a scholar's professional curiosity plus an excessive fondness for vivisection!) The answers below, when completed, will offer something quite different for the Dark Powers and others to chew on.""[[User:Cure|Cure]] 13:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Personally, I'd prefer to see more focus on people/places/things/etc. - concrete information, before we get into the speculative and philosophical realms that this page and other seem to be focusing on. Let's get the stuff that's explicitly in the books onto the wiki first. (Of course, that's just my opinion - YMMV.) --[[User:ChrisNichols|ChrisNichols]] 15:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:20, 22 April 2010
OK, Cure. You've officially confused me ... How can the Advent of an Institution be in any way meaningful in a world where most history is false? And if one could be pinned down, why would it be a category and not a singular event? And why would any Ravenloft DM or player care? :) -- Gonzoron 02:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
From what I scribbled on the page as an initial treatment of the matter as well as require to your inquires:
"Advents are the births of organising principles, of fundamental institutions, that make people and things what they are. They are not events, as they are not datable. They do not so much preceed history as they are its birth or advent. Creation myths might address some of these advents, but in evidently theological terms and according to the vision of the deity in question. Any competent cleric of the Law Giver when asked for the basis of law will reply the Law Giver. A different sort of answer is proposed here. This different answer actually has the merit of suggesting overlooked possibilities for the attention of the Dark Powers - tabooes - and of the DM, as well as of anthropologists and other scholars from the more advanced domains.
What it is to be a human in the non-biological sense of the term is a question that has always lurked just beneath the surface of roleplaying worlds filled with "monsters" and this is more so the case in Gothic literature and in Gothic inspired roleplaying. Indeed Shelley's Frankenstein is an answer to the very question. Equally, Lovecraft in the Mountains of Misery offers a quite stunning reply that "S" at the very least would wholly endorse. (Being a human is having a scholar's professional curiosity plus an excessive fondness for vivisection!) The answers below, when completed, will offer something quite different for the Dark Powers and others to chew on.""Cure 13:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd prefer to see more focus on people/places/things/etc. - concrete information, before we get into the speculative and philosophical realms that this page and other seem to be focusing on. Let's get the stuff that's explicitly in the books onto the wiki first. (Of course, that's just my opinion - YMMV.) --ChrisNichols 15:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
