> >You miss my point. There is no Bargain skill whatsoever in any
> HW >shaman's
> >keyword that we've seen so far.
>
> And the problem with them using the default value of 6 is what?
Generally speaking, there are two kinds of spirits for any shaman: spirits inside the tradition, and spirits outside. As I understand it now (and I think I understand it more correctly, thanks to your clarifications), spirit combat is an appropriate method for dealing with hostile spirits outside a tradition, and perhaps "unruly" spirits within a tradition as well. The majority of spirits *within* a tradition might very well be dealt with by bargaining or other "social" means.
I think it sensible to say that most shamans will spend more time dealing with friendly spirits within their tradition than hostile spirits without. That being the case, does it seem odd that a starting shaman has a (basically unskilled) rating of 6 in bargaining, an ability he uses frequently, while having a rating of 17 in spirit combat, an ability he uses more rarely?
To rephrase your question using my Humakti example, imagine that the Heortling warrior and Humakti keywords did not list a Sword Fighting ability. The problem with using a default vaule of 6 for a Humakti's Sword Fighting ability is what? If the character uses the skill regularly as part of his occupation or his worship, he should start with a better rating than the unskilled default of 6.
Again, I have no problem with adding bargaining or another influence ability into the shaman keywords we have. I am just pointing out that although the HW:RiG description of animist practices holds out the possibility of social interaction with spirits, the keywords as currently written don't reflect that well.
> >Obviously if one clan has a Basmol lion skin fetish, other clans
> can still
> >worship and contact Basmol (in whatever ways his death >allows).
>
> These are not ordinary HW fetishes and thus it would be silly
> trying to infer the properties of HW fetishes based on these
> examples.
You originally told me, citing a precedent in Borderlands:
> A fetish is a spirit trap. If a spirit inhabits a fetish
> than it can't be used elsewhere.
The Basmoli example was purely to point out that there are ritual implements identified as fetishes in the RQ literature that do not trap spirits but instead serve as communication channels. No lion skin, no channel to Basmol. Yet each Basmoli clan can possess a skin, and still contact the same spirit. But by no means am I saying that all fetishes work the way the lion skins do. I do not dispute the existence of spirit-trap fetishes.
> The rules are fairly straightforward about the
> what an embodied fetish is so rather than vary its meaning
> to acccomodate myriad gloranthan practices, it would be far
> simpler to stipulate that a tradition can create a special
> type of fetish with the desired properties.
That's all I've been proposing since my first reply to Nils' question: that ancestor worshippers might be able to use ritual items associated with an ancestor as communication channels rather than spirit traps. If a memorial or an item strongly associated with the ancestor could be used in this way, multiple descendants could contact a common ancestor without having to pass a single spirit-trap fetish around.
I don't care whether we call these ritual items "fetishes" or something else entirely. If the idea is worthwhile, then the terminology can be finalized later. I am more concerned at this point with the idea's feasibility:
(BTW, Peter, if it seems like I am drawing this thread out excessively, it is because I have to write a long-format cult description for Praxian ancestor worshippers, and this discussion is proving to be very helpful. I appreciate your patience in sticking with this.)
James
Powered by hypermail