Trotsky wrote:
>
>
> L C wrote:
> >
> > Hah. :)
> > See, we're getting all Rashomon about it. ^__^
> >
>
> I have absolutely no idea what that means. Something Japanese?
>
Yes. It is the name of a rather famous movie, in which a number of
people gather at the Rahomon gate and each tell their version of series
of events involving a bandit, a samurai, the samurai's wife, and a
woodcutter. The stories are mutually contradictory, and the title has
become shorthand for the subjectivity of perception.
>
> Yes, and it seems to me that it's the gods that should be emphasised.
> (If anyone emphasises the primal powers, its probably
> wizards/sorcerers). As I say, the runic system seems a good one to me,
> but, now that you point it out, some of its implications need reigning
> in a bit.
>
*nod* I happen to like mixing it up a little, but yes, I think the more
direct view of "we are tapping the runes" is something you see commonly
in the West. Of course, here it seems more to be about "we are linking
ourselves to the runes", which is why they affect personality and things
like that. Paul's interpretation that it is more "linking to more than
one god" kind of thing might be the way to hand wave it, despite the
text in the Sartar book. I intend most theistic societies to not use
such a rune-based approach but to rather focus on the gods. (Although
whether one should focus on different aspects of the gods as linked to
specific runes is something I'm still deciding on.)
>
>
> > The implication (I don't think it is explicit) is also that this link to
> > the runes is through the Godworld, even at the "common
> > magic"/non-initiate level (although whether that's true for people who
> > link to the spirit rune is a bit unclear), so there is that as well.
> >
>
> That doesn't strike me as terribly meaningful (although it's undoubtedly
> true). But that's a YGWV area, I suspect.
>
Well, it makes it Theistic magic, I think. Other than naming it that, I
don't think that means a great deal, though.
LC