> ... So they are fundamentally different things, but does that have to
> be reflected in each having a magic system that is identical across
> cultures? That's what I'm getting at and seem to be explaining badly.
>
> In other words, is the current "Each of these has a magic system that
> works this way - regardless of the specific culture in question" a
> reflection of some Gloranthan reality or just a convenient thing for the
> sake of game? As it is now, all theists get magic the same way and have
> the same capabilities - is that a truth of Glorantha or a useful
> shorthand? This is the World of Glorantha list, not the HQ2 rules list
> nor the MRQ rules list, so I am trying to tease out which part is
> representative of Glorantha vs which is just a game convenience.
Right -- the idea that all sorcery works like X and all divine magic like Y is a remnant of the RuneQuest model and was retained in both HW and HQ1.
HQ2 does things slightly differently, and in a way which is closer to the Gloranthan realities (at least hopefully, pending some future releases detailing local magic).
I think that the truth is that all divine magic will do certain things the same way, but that each pantheon or tradition or whatever will have its own specific methods, and potentially that each local group of practitioners will *also* have its own specific methods.
Which does lead to some interesting secondary questions --- would a Sartarite recently converted to the Lunar religion successfully be able to use Lunar magic using Orlanthi methods ? Or would he be only partially successful ? Or would he be required to learn new magical methods ? Or would there be an adaptation period ?
> Hopefully my actual question is clearer now. Is there any in-Gloranthan
> reason to assume that all theist cultures have three runes they get as
> lay people, rise to initiate status with those specific powers, and then
> progress to devotee in the same way? Do all forms of Sorcery/Wizardry
> have the same grimoire and adept stages of advancement, even dwarves?
No, and no.
Even *if* all future HQ2 products were to retain the 3 Runes system detailed in Sartar, this would quite clearly be mostly but not completely a gaming convention.
Just as an aside, during character creation there is no reason why someone as a player could not say -- "OK, I only have 2 Runes and I am still searching for my third" ; or "I have 4 Runes". The former is quite clearly interesting and acceptable ; the second might require more thought, but it is not in principle wrong given that it is certainly possible to acquire a connection with more than 3 Runes during the course of the game.
More importantly, it would clearly be possible to create characters using some other system than the Runes to provide focus for their magical powers.
Having said that, the magic systems will be illustrative of the cultural transmission from generation to generation of "how we do magic". The Sartari massively have connections to three Runes as adults, and they understand and define themselves and others as a relationship with those Runes. They raise and teach their children to do the same, and the rare children that might spontaneously or deliberately work their magic according to some personal or divergent method instead of the common cultural ones would likely have a very difficult childhood, and initiation would be very problematic.
So the rules are at present illustrative of what is normal for the Sartari. They could at a pinch be used to illustrate Lunar Magic or some other forms of non-Sartari divine magic until details of these became officially available, but this on the other hand would quite *clearly* be a gaming convention.
> Because it occurs to me that the "veneration, sacrifice, ecstatc"
> distinction only seems to apply to rituals, and even then it seems that
> rituals mix elements of all of those very often.
The "veneration, sacrifice, ecstatic" thingamajig has *always* on the other hand been presented as an abstract and ultimately extra-Gloranthan analysis of the relationship between magicians and those 3 Worlds.
> Even the "A feat is something you are, a charm is something you have, a
> spell is something you know" doesn't appear to super useful. A magic
> item is something you have, but could be Theist or Essential.
> You have to know what to sacrifice. You have a relationship to your god
> or saint, not just a spirit. Many minor charms involve leaving an
> offering for a local spirit, which looks a lot like sacrifice. A wizard
> could summon a demon or a underworld spirit and how is that not looking
> just like animism?
I think you have actually somewhat misunderstood this clarification ; I would also point out that Greg only provided this insight *after* HQ1 was published, so that the HQ1 and earlier rules are not derived from it (although they are pointing in the same basic direction).
For starters, one should not confuse magicians and their personal possessions and other attributes with their magic. They are mixed Inner World beings, so that they will all have things, know stuff, and be whatever.
They can all of them have items that are magical without requiring that these possessions must be spirits ; know magic without requiring that this magic be sorcery ; be magical without requiring that the magic be theistic.
The distinctions should apply ONLY when the magic is performed as magic.
The theist will use the magic to be otherwise ; the animist will have some magic that he can unleash ; the sorceror will know what to do (there is a secondary definition of sorcery, that a spell is something that you "do", there is probably a basic knowledge/action dichotomy in sorcery).
The way to look at it is, how do the magicians learn new magic ? Theists try to become more like their gods ; animists go out to try and get more stuff ; sorcerors seek to learn new things. Now, actual magicians will likely undertake all of these actions in the world, simply trying to focus on their specialty but not to the exclusion of the others -- a sorceror will focus on learning new things, but this might involve going to get a book or learning to emulate the lives of the Saints. This is because actual magicians are not perfect, are made of mixed Inner World substances, and must use mixed and compromised methods in their attempts to have access to the more perfect Worlds that their magics come from.
The more powerful they become, the fewer compromises they will need.
> Is what I'm asking clearer now?
Well, yes :)
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail