Post by cubist on Dec 16, 2008 5:02:37 GMT -5
I was just pondering the evolutionary history of the Enchanters. Here, in no particular order, are some thoughts which might prove edifying, or at least entertaining...
Here on Earth, us humans -- and quite a few other critters -- are tetrapods; that is, all of us/them are built on (variations of) a generic four-limb body plan. This body plan was originally established way the hell many megayears ago (perhaps started by Tiktaalik, ca. 375 mya), and it's been passed along to mass quantities of critters ever since.
The Enchanters, contrariwise, are clearly built around a six-limb body plan. Hexapods having two more limbs to play with than tetrapods, there is at least the potential for a wider range of anatomical variation. For instance, if four of the limbs are specialized for locomotion whilst the remaining pair are manipulatory, you can easily end up with centaur-like anatomy; the formula "four legs, two wings" can yield griffin-like or pegasus-like anatomy; "six arms, no legs" could buy you a naga-like critter out of Hindu myth; and so on.
Dragons fit nicely into the hexapod category. Could Dragons be part of the Enchanter species? It seems possible, especially since Ally, Sheila and Reece are all members thereof. Heck, it may even be possible that Dragons are a deliberately created variety of Enchanter! Maybe the first Dragon was an Enchanter who was tryna figure out a way to enhance his own powers, and his enhancements had the side-effect of grafting Draconic characteristics onto his body? Depending on how long ago this occured, the intervening time may have been enough for Dragons to become a species unto themselves, separate and distinct from the Enchanters that are their forefathers...
Note that it's possible for species to lose limbs, a classic example being those tetrapods known as snakes. If snakes can lose all four of their limbs, it's clearly possible for hexapods to lose some or all of their six limbs. Maybe Trolls are hexapods, too?
Anyway... If evolutionary principles apply to the Enchanters, their homeworld should logically include a variety of nonsentient hexapods, just as tetrapod-heavy Earth includes a variety of nonsentient tetrapods. Lotsa six-limbed animals, that is to say. This probably won't matter until we get a look at the Enchanters' homeworld, alas...
The Enchanters' ability to work magic would seem to be a fairly strong advantage over other critters. Said ability would also seem to be a remarkably improbable sort of thing. Does this mean that the Enchanters were experimented on by some "higher power"? Perhaps. Alternately, we note that producing remarkably improbable features is one of those things that evolution is pretty good at doing; random variation plus natural selection can, and does, yield all sorts of functional solutions, including ones that nobody would ever have thought of implementing on purpose.
So the question is, are the Enchanters the only critters on their homeworld which can use magic? If so, that means "magic use" is a comparatively late development which arose in the lineage which originally produced Enchanters, and only in that lineage. Alternatively, "magic use" could have popped up considerably earlier, in which case there should be a whole bunch of different magic-using critters... and the competition between said magic-using critters could have been a selective pressure which spurred the Enchanters' long-past ancestors to become better mage-types than anything else on the face of their planet. Nonsentient critters with magic would likely fall into the "one-trick pony" category, able to perform maybe one or two Special Tricks and that's it; in this scenario, the Enchanters' development of a heightened level of magic-use is analogous to Homo sapiens' development of a heightened level of intelligence.
Just how far back did "magic use" first pop up, anyway? Could there be bacteria whose metabolism is dependent on magic, for instance? Plants whose fruits inflict [insert magical effect here] on critters who eat them?
Here on Earth, us humans -- and quite a few other critters -- are tetrapods; that is, all of us/them are built on (variations of) a generic four-limb body plan. This body plan was originally established way the hell many megayears ago (perhaps started by Tiktaalik, ca. 375 mya), and it's been passed along to mass quantities of critters ever since.
The Enchanters, contrariwise, are clearly built around a six-limb body plan. Hexapods having two more limbs to play with than tetrapods, there is at least the potential for a wider range of anatomical variation. For instance, if four of the limbs are specialized for locomotion whilst the remaining pair are manipulatory, you can easily end up with centaur-like anatomy; the formula "four legs, two wings" can yield griffin-like or pegasus-like anatomy; "six arms, no legs" could buy you a naga-like critter out of Hindu myth; and so on.
Dragons fit nicely into the hexapod category. Could Dragons be part of the Enchanter species? It seems possible, especially since Ally, Sheila and Reece are all members thereof. Heck, it may even be possible that Dragons are a deliberately created variety of Enchanter! Maybe the first Dragon was an Enchanter who was tryna figure out a way to enhance his own powers, and his enhancements had the side-effect of grafting Draconic characteristics onto his body? Depending on how long ago this occured, the intervening time may have been enough for Dragons to become a species unto themselves, separate and distinct from the Enchanters that are their forefathers...
Note that it's possible for species to lose limbs, a classic example being those tetrapods known as snakes. If snakes can lose all four of their limbs, it's clearly possible for hexapods to lose some or all of their six limbs. Maybe Trolls are hexapods, too?
Anyway... If evolutionary principles apply to the Enchanters, their homeworld should logically include a variety of nonsentient hexapods, just as tetrapod-heavy Earth includes a variety of nonsentient tetrapods. Lotsa six-limbed animals, that is to say. This probably won't matter until we get a look at the Enchanters' homeworld, alas...
The Enchanters' ability to work magic would seem to be a fairly strong advantage over other critters. Said ability would also seem to be a remarkably improbable sort of thing. Does this mean that the Enchanters were experimented on by some "higher power"? Perhaps. Alternately, we note that producing remarkably improbable features is one of those things that evolution is pretty good at doing; random variation plus natural selection can, and does, yield all sorts of functional solutions, including ones that nobody would ever have thought of implementing on purpose.
So the question is, are the Enchanters the only critters on their homeworld which can use magic? If so, that means "magic use" is a comparatively late development which arose in the lineage which originally produced Enchanters, and only in that lineage. Alternatively, "magic use" could have popped up considerably earlier, in which case there should be a whole bunch of different magic-using critters... and the competition between said magic-using critters could have been a selective pressure which spurred the Enchanters' long-past ancestors to become better mage-types than anything else on the face of their planet. Nonsentient critters with magic would likely fall into the "one-trick pony" category, able to perform maybe one or two Special Tricks and that's it; in this scenario, the Enchanters' development of a heightened level of magic-use is analogous to Homo sapiens' development of a heightened level of intelligence.
Just how far back did "magic use" first pop up, anyway? Could there be bacteria whose metabolism is dependent on magic, for instance? Plants whose fruits inflict [insert magical effect here] on critters who eat them?
