>
> 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.
>
*nod* That's what I thought.
> 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'd love to see it go that way. At the same time, I understand the desire not to reinvent the wheel each time.
> 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 seems reasonable. I'd expect some common themes to appear.
>
>
> 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 ?
>
I'd think it wouldn't be so easy to just hop over.
I also think this is one of the reasons the Provincial Church of the 7
Mothers exists - to make it easier for the "Provincials" to adapt.
I'd further suggest that since not all Orlanthi are the same (even if we
just used a simple Alkoring/Heortling split - there are some differences
there) the fit is better some places than other.
Does the Seven Mothers cult adapt to the local surroundings? Or does it
have a "All those Barbarians are sort of the same anyway" approach that
means as they went further south the models they made based on the
Orlanthi on the border became less effective?
>
>
> > 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.
>
Lovely to hear.
> 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.
>
*nod* I'll certainly be keeping that in mind.
> 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.
>
Not in principle, but I like the idea Sartarites think it is three. (How many souls do they believe in? That would have also been a good number.) In an NPC I am submitting to the Rule One contest, I have someone who acquired a new rune affinity on a HQ. In her case, it replaced the one she already had, though. (Both for rules sake and because I actually think it is more interesting.)
> More importantly, it would clearly be possible to create characters
> using some other system than the Runes to provide focus for their
> magical powers.
>
And, more importantly, still call it Theism.
>
> 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.
>
Which was my thinking exactly.
I actually am very fond of what I have seen so far of the Theism rules
as rules for the Sartari.
>
> > 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.
>
Ahh.. I encountered it in the rulebook and thought it was more in-Gloranthan.
> > 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.
>
Yes. Agreed.
> 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.
>
Which is why I thought it was a less than useful distinction.
>
> 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).
>
*nod* I also remain skeptical of the idea sorcery and saintly/orderly magic being identical, but yes there is a knowledge v action aspect to keep in mind with 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.
>
I actually think Animists go and forge new relationships, not get new things, but otherwise agree.
> 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.
>
And I think those as broad brush help clarify guiding themes that can be
used to construct useful systems.
Interestingly, if one thinks of Lunar as a 4th world/approach - what is
the broad brush unifying theme?
Illusion?
Or is Moon so weird it has no theme?
> > Is what I'm asking clearer now?
>
> Well, yes :)
>
Good. :)
Powered by hypermail