Western magicians learn their most of their magic from books but when they cast magic, a book's not needed.
In terms of the Law Rune magics that I suggested, a wizard would cast them in the form of spells. Thus he has to learn one spell to bind people to keep the peace, another spell to summon witnesses or accused people to court, a spell for making judgements, another spell for dismissing judgments, a third spell for appealing judgments (if the original judgment was too powerful to dismiss) and so forth.
An Orlanthi Lawspeaker would not have to learn many spells in order to work Law Rune Magic. However his magic is limited compared to the western wizard because his law can only operate with consent (Orlanth's first law "Nobody can make you do anything!"). Western wizards are not subject to this limitation and so their law magic is more pervasive in western society. There is one section of western society which argues that actions are lawful on the basis on innate justice and not because of what some wizard says it is - these people are called knights and the wizards don't like them very much because they tend to back their arguments with swords.
> Also a wizard who uses an individual spell directly vs a rune power that is broad, would the wizard gain a bonus to his effect vs a broad power?
The Wizard would gain a specific ability bonus IMO (HQ2 p51).
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail