> > >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.
That was in a response to a question about an ancestor in a fetish as per HW rules which does treat the fetish as a spirit trap. When you talk about a fetish to a great spirit like Basmol, you are talking about something that is outside the scope of the published rules.
>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.
That's true, but claiming they are fetishes as described in the Animist section of the HW rules is a bad move.
>I am more concerned at this point with the idea's feasibility:
>* First, is there precedent for it?
There's the Axis Mundi for the Daka Fal Cult.
>(I say yes, weakly, the lion skins. Do I understand you correctly to say
>no, because the ancestor in Borderlands was spirit-trapped? >Does this have
>to mean that *all* ancestors must be spirit-trapped?)
All ancestors embodied in a fetish are spirit trapped and cannot be contacted by anybody else. Ancestors contacted via an Axis Mundi or whatever other means are not spirit-trapped.
>* Third, does the idea introduce problems into the game (e.g. by making
>ancestor worshippers more powerful than other animists)?
Well, I do think that shamans to other great spirits (like Oakfed etc) can use similar methods to create their own type of Axis Mundi.
--Peter Metcalfe
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Powered by hypermail