Ahhh, yes. That is my reading to. (Of course, a straight reading of the Appendix at the HQ2 book pretty clearly leads to the conclusion that only Theists have runes so it is a moot point.)
> > 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.
>
> This is more of a game mechanical decision than one driven by
> cosmology for
> me.
>
Indeed. And one I think could have been avoided if written from the
ground up instead. As a previous discussion clarified, the "three
mechanics" aspect is a game-mechanic thing far more than an
"in-Gloranthan" thing. The question for me is, given HQ2's flexibility,
which parts of those distinctions are helpful and which aren't? I mean,
if you wanted the simplest system possible, you would go for all magic
by one mechanic and then doing everything else by credibility tests.
>
> If you have a rune that fits you personally integrate with the magic in
> some way - it's a mechanics break for someone who wants to take common
> magic
> that fits their runes, rather than their homeland. It also fits in with my
> general policy of avoiding 'orphan' abilities whereever possible and
> reasonable.
>
Sure. I don't exactly see the first of your issues, mind you. How, if
people don't generally have runes, does having common magic break like that?
Also, as said before, the term common magic has been dropped as
unhelpful. So you would have cultural magic. And right now all the gods
of your culture you might want aren't accessible if you don't have the
runes from what I understand. Hell, magic of the god you're devoted to
is unavailable if you don't have the runes from what I have read so far.
Mind you, some of that may be cleared up in KoH.
>
> 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 imagine that Kolatings either have a high Air rune (with spirits living
> under that) which represents their ability to relate with air entities,
> rather than their capacity to mimic different air entities. The runes are
> presumably beyond (or behind?) the "three worlds".
>
*nod* The runes are. The question is whether people having "runes they
are linked to" is. As presented, it is only a Theist thing. It is
possible S:KoH presents it differently, but I am not sure of that.
A move to make ALL magic a subset of Runes is possible, and possibly
even desirable, but it is not how magic was presented in the appendix in
HQ2.
>
>
> Alternatively a Kolating might have the Spirit rune too and be some
> kind of
> Shaman. I think that wind spirits could probably happily be linked with
> either Air or Spirit - I see no benefit in bring especially prescriptive
> about this in our games.
>
Me neither.
>
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean by "let it live under the appropriate Rune"
> > keyword, though.
>
> Sorry, mechanically take it's rating from the Rune [keyword]. "That lives
> under this" is a common form I use when talking about abilities in our
> games. ;)
> Usually it is "that can live under this, or this, or this, where would you
> like it?"
>
Right. Just to clarify, you are suggesting a system wherein everyone has
runes, and everyone's magic comes from those runes, although how
directly is somewhat mitigated by the "world" the magic comes from.
Thus a Spirit Talker can use their Air Rune to represent/control/influence the Air spirts they know. Maybe, as you say, a Shaman has a Spirit rune that would be their choice for any Spirit interaction. A Wizard with a Spirit Rune would be a good summoner and controller of Spirits, because he could cast spells off of that.
No skill in "use grimoire" or such, just your runes.
Is that what you're talking about when you say "all magic would live
under the appropriate rune"?
>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> It's a ritual, in the fiction of the game.
> When it is a ritual with a weekly duration that is performed on you every
> week for basically every week of your life I think it could be safely
> modelled by abilities. The times where it *isn't* in effect are
> aberrations
> and can be modelled mechanically with penalties to the ratings as they
> "fade" or can just be determined to be beyound credibility by the Narrator
> if they wish.
>
*nod*
>
>
> I actually don't think we need three radically different mechanical
> systems
> to model magic in HQ2 and that cosmology should *mostly* live in the game
> fiction and the credibility tests rather than in the functional
> mechanics of
> the game.
>
Neither do I, as I mentioned before. At the same time, its there now, so
the question is how much it being there represents something real and
how much it doesn't. Hence my question of "does everyone have runes or
not, and if they do, how many?"
>
> It seems clunky to me to allow theistic magicians to consider their best
> rune as their social, mythological, and magical keyword and to require
> wizards and animists to take an *additional* keyword for each magic they
> want to learn. This privileges theists dramatically in terms of the
> mechanics.
>
Agree 100% My whole attempt to tackle Alakoring magic is to come up with
another example of people using Theist magic that doesn't follow the
exact same form as the Sartarite situation and to tease out if this
really is the case. Now, Glorantha privileging Theist magic seems to be
an in-Glorantha thing in some ways. That can be an illusion due to the
nature of which stories have been written and which places covered, but
"The Theists are ultimately the most important and basically correct
about how things work" certainly seems to be the case. If so, Theist
magic being clearly superior might be fine.
>
> Arguably the flexibility of animism and wizardry ("want radically
> different magic? read a new book or meet some new spirits!") might
> "balance"
> this, but given how resistances work in HQ2 I don't think this is the
> case.
>
I'm inclined to agree. I also intend to partly balance things in that
Spells are specific and virtually every use of Theist magic is more
broad. Still, I would have preferred a "this is the magic mechanic and
here are credibility tests that apply to different worlds/systems" far
more. (Allowing then for various cultural effects as well.
>
>
> Sorry for getting a bit "system specific" Gloranthaphiles! :(
>
Yeah. The problem is that this is a little world-specific for the HQ2
rules list and a little system-specific for here. That's why I'm trying
to scratch at it from the "Gloranthan truths that should be respected"
side of things here and then hack out what the mechanics might be later.
>
> > 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.wju
> >
>
> I would imagine that for most monotheists, or at least for a lot of them,
> their "commonest" magic is being regularly blessed by their priest in
> worship ceremonies.
>
Mmm... I can see the term being used all kinds of ways. It just no
longer has some kind of mechanical/game-specific meaning like it did in
HQ1. (Augment only, except when it wasn't. Mundane world only, except
when it wasn't. Etc.)
I still think - from an "in-Glorantha" perspective - there might be some use in distinguishing magic that does not require contacting an Otherworld to obtain.
> Sometimes it might be the same kind of folk learning and "wise craft" that
> other kinds of religion have - although the church frowns on this. I would
> like to be able to model some kind of common magic for true believers who
> actually observe the church's strictures though. The idea that
> monotheistic
> tenets are a bit of a joke or something to be flaunted sort of undermines
> their dramatic and narrative power for me.
>
Agreed as well. Mind you, that some culture really thinks anything not
a blessing from the church is inherently an evil act is a fine idea. But
really, a little murmured prayer as you work? I would think that sort of
thing is perfectly common and appropriate.
>
>
> Other religious varieties typically don't involve the distribution
> downwards
> (as well as upwards) of ritual power; the ritual magical ceremonies of
> theists (e.g. the Arming of Orlanth rite) are typical exceptional rather
> than regular, especially when compared to Monotheistic ideas of regular
> ritual...
>
Really? I got the sense from HQ1 and such that prayers for the community
or for a community hero were quite common.
> 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.
> >
>
> Runes are pretty neat, and a part of the Glorantha I enjoy thinking about
> and using in the games I play. That being said, I have some "heretical"
> ideas about how to interpret them and I find the idea that theists
> have some
> special capacity to use this nifty descriptive feature of Glorantha
> "better"
> than other people to be a bit tedious. The Orlanthi are neat, but they are
> not the be-all and end-all of Glorantha - at least not for me.
>
I'm pro-Lunar and pro-West, personally. If I ever feel I understand
enough about Glorantha to write anything it would almost certainly be
the Eastern Janube region.
Western influences, Lunars that have split from Empire as well as the
Empire people reasserting themselves. Orlanthi who are not Sartarites.
Carmanian influences.
The Lunar provinces also appeals as full of contradictory and interesting things.
But then I'm notorious for being on the side of the Lunars, as opposed to the Orlanthi, since I am pro-modern. (Mind you, I'm pro Roman Empire in the real world as well. *grin*)
In other words, I agree with you. :)
>
> I consider the runes to be a Gloranthan thing (after reading things on
> this
> very list); and I think they are able to be represented reasonably
> elegantly
> in the game mechanics of HQ2. I'd just like to understand a bit more about
> the "design philosophy" behind the magic rules in the HQ2 appendix so
> I can
> appreciate the intent of the design before I start messing with it in our
> game (more than I already have.;)).
>
This is, in fact, exactly what I want as well. However, I doubt we're
going to get that, so I'm just trying to get at it sideways .
^__^
LC
Powered by hypermail