>>Heroforming does not perform the same function as Integration, unless
>>you keep the ancestor around permanently.
>
>So? Why do you want to integrate your ancestors considering that
>it takes away their individuality permanently and is extremely
>wasteful?
I don't. My entire point was to avoid doing so. Did you read my original mail?
>>In RQ you learn spells that you may use as often as your available
>>POW/Magic Points allow, from then onwards. Whatever the source, that
>>sounds like Integration to me, given the difference in game
>>mechanics.
>
>The RQ3 method of learning spirit spells could only be performed
>with special spell spirits, _not_ ancestors or ghosts.
No, but this was the ONLY method of learning Spirit spells in RQ, so it's the only past example either of us has as a basis.
>>and anyway Integrating an ancestor
>>into a fetish doesn't sound too polite either!
>
>You are not integrating the ancestor into a fetish. He merely
>inhabits the fetish, medicine bundle etc until he's needed.
You are if you get a Complete Success. Unless you have another suggestion?
>You are redefining the very concept of Integration. As a result,
>the reasons for most traditions not to integrate their ancestores
>cease to exist.
So? They decide not to, or do not know the techniques. I am trying to find a specific method, you are applying it universally.
>>Exactly. But a Complete Victory WILL happen, regularly, with existing
>>Animists, so if you're in a game with an Ancestor Worshipping Shaman
>>(as I am), it's a good idea to consider the possibilities beforehand.
>
>Or you could simply consider the consequences of integration. To
>suggest that a complete victory gives the moral legitimacy to
>integrate ancestors is like saying that a complete victory in a
>battle of wills between sorcerers gives one the moral right to
>devour the other for one spell. Possible? Certainly. Morally
>correct? I have my doubts.
Which is, of course, no answer at all to my question. How else to deal with Complete Success in aquiring a spirit ability from an ancestor? You have provided a very strong argument against my ideas, albeit by ignoring my stated purpose in presenting them, but no alternatives at all.
Wulf
Powered by hypermail