>> Isn't this statement slightly mis-leading? Lunars use
>> Theist/Animist/Sorcery/Common Magic. However there are different
>> rules for mixing magic that comes from Lunar adopted beings/
>> entities that subject their magic to the cycles of the goddess.
>
>Lunars do indeed use common magic, but for specialised magic
>use 'Lunar Magic', as Trotsky stated.
There is also Lunar-flavored Common Magic, which is what Lnars get to keep when they concentrate. (like theists get to keep CM Feats when *they* concentrate)
All Lunar magic (common or specialised) is affected by the Lunar Cycle, btw, which makes it easy to spot...
>As I believe Rory has said in a prior e-mail, this approximates
>theism/animism/sorcery in form, method and game mechanics [as much
>for
>ease of description as anything else -- though it has evidently
>raised
>some queries! :)]
Because we haven't published the book yet, mostly. Yes, the HQ rulebook says that there is "Lunar Theism". This is being over-written by ILH2. If we knew then what we know now, the main rulebook would be different (probably...).
The entire world of Glorantha is *not* set in stone. We (the authors, including Greg) are still exploring and discovering new things. Some of these dicoveries are easily integrated into the existing ruleset and/or history. Some, unfortunately, do not. We (the production team, including greg)then have to figure out how we're going to change the basic rules or history. I think we went in the right direction with Lonar magic, as it will allow us to present other magcial systems (Elf, Troll, Chaos) in similar ways.
>but really is a separate system with its origin in
>a
>separate...
>
>> ... Lunar otherworld. Lunars take no otherworld
>> penalty there or in the otherworld that their magic organ is
>attuned
>> to, whether that be theist/animist or sorcerous? Is that right?
>
>Lunars are indeed at home on the Moon; but as to the other
>Otherworlds, in general, I'm afraid not [those Lunars get enough
>breaks as it is! :)]. But there are always exceptions that muddy the
>waters, and a major one is detailed in ILH-2.
There are exceptions to *everything*. :-)
>Stu (who may have made a hash and completely misunderstood things,
>but
>doesn't believe so...).
You're doing fine so far.
RR
Powered by hypermail