Re: Runes for non-theists [was: 'Three Runes']

From: Trotsky <TTrotsky_at_wxdOSErKQJgp8iU_4QILa4MDzRQl_NotocxAuGdpL0xBCJ6pQUnnWtQOKmuN8gnOQRq>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:02:42 +0000

John Machin wrote:
>
> 2009/12/21 L C lightcastle_at_Yl7Ip0LlzeLfjZB4-KN7HSnQOAHisy1QhjHb3GJ5XfdQ8dpcWoICAy2krI0VbSqGXexpaDTsXGq-70Yo.yahoo.invalid <mailto:lightcastle%40gmail.com>
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> Hmm, that wasn't my understanding...
> Grimoires are *associated* with particular runes, but are not linked
> to them
> in the way in which a theists feats might be.
>

Not in the theist sense, no. I think you can just augment them with the appropriate rune if you have it, but lack of a rune doesn't actually stop you using the magic. Although I'd apply a situation modifier to trying to use a Harmony grimoire if you have the Disorder rune, for instance.

>
> > 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.
> >
>
> 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.
>

In the sense of being that which they experience most often, yes. I don't think it's "common magic" in the sense meant by HQ1, though.

-- 
Trotsky
Gamer and Skeptic

------------------------------------------------------
Trotsky's RPG website: http://www.ttrotsky.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Not a Dead Communist: http://jrevell.blogspot.com/