John Machin wrote:
>
>
>
> *I don't have the...* oh, thanks LC. :)
>
Oh don't mind me. I had to make donuts and that's lots of work. :)
>
> > 2) "So if the Orlanthi can do them then so can everybody else."
> >
> > I'm not sure that follows, although since I can't see the examples I
> > can't say for sure.
> >
>
> Peter's suggestions all sound like crypto-theism to me.
>
Is that like crypto-fascism? Can we get all politically outraged at each
other now? ^__^
>
> I like the idea that all Gloranthan PCs have Runes, and that all of these
> Runes have ratings because otherwise having the runes is not especially
> significant since they are basically just another name or descriptor.
>
*nod* Fair enough. At the same time, something has a rating if you can
use it to solve a problem/overcome an obstacle. (Once again, we are
getting rulesy, which is unfortunate.)
So unless it matters in terms of solving problems, it doesn't need a
rating. For instance, you would only put a number on "Woman" if your
"woman-ness" was going to be used to solve problems. I can see some
people having that, others not. So even if it is a cultural truth that
all Gloranthan adults have runes they are connected to, only the ones
who can use that runic-ness to solve problems should have ability
numbers. If only theists tap their runes as the source of magic, then
that would only be theists. If it isn't a Theist thing, but an Orlanthi
thing, then it is only Orlanthi.
As many have said, I'd love to hear the authors' actual views on the
issue: The choice of it as a game mechanic, how they view it from a
Gloranthan perspective, all of that.
>
> My interpretation is that personal Runes are articulated differently
> depending on the sorts of magic a person uses. Theists use their personal
> Runes as Affinities, relating them to one or more immortals via whatever
> initiation (*not *necessarily Initiation) practices used in their
> homeland.
> Animists might use them to form relationships ("we are alike...") with
> spirit beings. Essentialists (I am sick of writing "wizard")
>
Oh good, you too? I actually find Essentialism the most problematic in
that there seems to be FAR more variety in how Essentialist magics are
accessed than you see in the other two.
>
> might use them
> to resonate with certain ceremonial religious practices or to
> comprehend key
> components of the cosmos.
>
> I say "might" here because we really have only seen detailed rules for
> Orlanthi Theists so far.
> (And when I say "we" I mean "you people with the book".)
>
Well, I am still hoping to have at least a pdf copy by the new year or
shortly after.
LC