*nod*
> I was actually really tempted to make Grimoires sit under Runes, and
> go back
> to "three tiers" of magic (Rune > Grimoire > Spell) - but I shied away
> from
> this as too complicated and as removing one of wizardry's big advantages.
>
Wait. I'm confused. My reading of the short Sorcery blurb in the HQ2 book has exactly that. Rune > Grimoire > Spell
A grimoire is linked to a rune, spells are linked to a grimoire.
>
> > As it is, Theists can use all the common magic (to use the other term)
> > of the other two systems.
> >
>
> I've thought about letting Animistic common magic (charms I guess) live
> under either an appropriate Rune or the Homeland keyword.
>
Well, personally I think ALL magic should live under a Homeland keyword to some degree. There are no pure Theistic/Animistic/Essentialistic societies from what I understand.
For instance, if all Sartarites have runes when they are initiated into adult hood then all Sartarites have the ability to do lay person Theistic magic, even the ones who have chosen to follow Kolat. (Although as a Shamanic practice, I suppose at some point Kolat people have to abandon that.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "let it live under the appropriate Rune" keyword, though.
> I'd be prepared to
> do the same for Wizardry common magic - but I am unsure how it works
> now...
> one of the big sources of magic for common folks in wizardrous
> societies are
> the blessings of their priests.
>
I've never considered that common magic. That's ritual magic blessings. Common magic is knowing a spell. It's why I've gleefully ignored (even if it seems to be canon) the idea that people in Animist societies can't make charms of their own, other people have to make them for it. Animist "common magic" is also, like the "blessing" view of Essential magic (Church magic, anyway) not something you have yourself but something someone else gives you. I always thought that crazy. For me, if the clan knows that you go to Old Honeysuckle Woman on the hill and sing for her, you wind three flowers into a charm, then you do. No one else has to do it for you.
>
> Perhaps common magic for wizardly types could allow augmentation with the
> Law rune if they are acting within their assigned role and within the
> strictures of their religion? That might represent they layered
> blessings of
> their liturgists easily in-game?
>
Except there is no "common magic" as far as I know. The term has been dropped. Which is fine by me since it was always used in a slapdash manner anyway.
It's one of the reasons I am kicking around whether or not "everyone has three runes" is something Gloranthan or a rule-keeping device or something Orlanthi or Sartarite.
As I've said before, I really wish the system had been designed from the magic everyone can do up, instead of the three worlds down. As it is, the new rules at least make it that if you make runes apply to everyone then at least everyone has the ability to use some magic from each world, which seems to be truer to the Gloranthan state of affairs (as I see it, anyway.) If you allow people to make simple charms, then everyone can actively do it, if they learn how. Since that seems to be the truth of things, I am leaning to make it that way, with clearer cultural distinctions for specialty magic.
The other option that has occurred to me, of course, is that the "binding to a rune" is a Sartarite (or perhaps Orlanthi) thing, and once you do that runes dominate your magic. Thus when using charms or spells later, your rune affects you because it HAS to affect you until you sever your attachment to it. Other cultures simply do not have that problem.
LC
Powered by hypermail