I like this way of looking at it.
I certainly think that it would be daft if the new emphasis on runes only applied to Theists; Wizards just view at them in a different way. To a Theist, runes are incarnated in the persons of their deities, but to a Wizard they are the abstract principles that underpin the universe - thoughts in the mind of the Invisible God.
Perhaps its the appropriation of the word 'affinity' by the Theists that is throwing us off here. In my opinion, having a personal magical connection with a rune doesn't *have* to be the raw, visceral, touchy-feely, "I am the personification of my deity" schtick that the god-botherers indulge in. It might just as easily be a purely intellectual appreciation of a fundamental principle - an intuitive insight into its deeper implications - that informs the way that a Wizard casts a spell or allows them to refine the method or even discover new spells..
Spells may prescribe a rigid method of invoking and applying magic, but that doesn't mean that the effect of that magic is the same for every Wizard. I certainly see Wizardry as much less rigid than that - as players in my Arkat Alumnus game (Bryan being one of them) will attest. Needless to say, we shall be exploring the possibilities of the new rules with enthusiasm :-)
> I would love it if Jeff would blog about the other two forms of magic,
> though. I would be VERY interested to hear how it officially works.
Same here!
p
Powered by hypermail