Probably because in Wizardry there is something about how you *shouldn't* allow wizard spells to be flexible. (No using "boil water" to boil blood.)
I've always seen it as Spirits can do things that make sense for the spirit to do (some good flexibility), Theism can be interpreted broadly as long as it is mythically resonant, and Wizardry is very exact.
No idea if there is real rule support for that, though.
On August 10, 2007 11:17 am, Jane Williams wrote:
> I had a memory that theism was more flexible in this
> regard than other forms of magic, but I can't find a
> page ref for that. If it means anything at all, it
> must be that the "is it acceptable?" criteria aren't
> all that fussy.
>
Powered by hypermail