Re: Three-world model

From: L C <lightcastle_at_grOVWiHgxWAa-03O3WTwHMN4cnU2EbmtRwpeUeoIWBHUOyfDiJPdG1JTyMpA_nUG>
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:59:37 -0500

Exactly. Presenting the magic as relevant for a given culture rather than "There are Three Worlds" (except when there aren't) seems way more reasonable, as well as allowing for the interesting differences and unique ways given cultures approach things. All theist magic doesn't appear identical, even if there are strong themes that resonate, and the mix of approaches in various cultures are not the same, rather than being a monolithic Theist or Wizardry/Veneration/Sorcery or Animism culture, with some exceptions.

That HQ2 should make it easier to present the weird and unique aspects of Lunar and what it means by "all three interact with the Underworld" (and how that is different from "all three react with the everything world") seems a plus.

What I've seen/heard of the Sartarite approach - attunment to runes - seems great. (I especially like how it gives a way for people to be "initiated as adults" without making every adult in Sartar equivalent to magic specialist.)

>
> Once you go much further than this, you start getting into
> extra-Gloranthan analysis of Gloranthan magic, something I am not
> terribly interested doing (unless it is a God Learner text describing
> the various magic systems and Otherworlds).
>
> Jeff
>
> _
>