> Is that like crypto-fascism? Can we get all politically outraged at each
>
> other now? ^__^
>
Not at all, I just see it as another of example "gaining power through personal identification with a power source". I think that there may be other ways to use runes, and personal runic associations, that are not theistic-style contagion ("I look and act like Orlanth, so I can do some of the things that Orlanth can").
*Being* a rune, or at least having a rune as part of one's makeup, should mean something a bit different for people who relate to the Essence or Spirit based systems of magical practice.
Note that this does not imply that they must have radically different mechanics (which I believe Peter may have been criticising earlier). Radically different mechanics actually excessively emphasised the separated nature of the "worlds" in HQ1 which created false understanding on the part of some readers (myself, and many of the people I had talked to in person about this). The systems are supposed to be interacting with each other in the 'Everything World' not isolating themselves hermetically (except when they are being isolated hermetically...).
> *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.)
>
Getting rulesy isn't a problem for me as I am mostly in Glorantha to play a game with others, or to create things that inspire or facilitate game-playing. Glorantha is a lot of things to a lot of people - but I prefer to explore it through roleplaying games.
> 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.
>
This view of runes as something Orlanthi doesn't fit with my understanding of the Gloranthan Runes - which predate Sartari, and probably *Orlanthi*, civilisation. Perhaps the Orlanthi are now the only ones with "true" understanding of them now - but Not In My Glorantha and probably Not In Most Gloranthas I would imagine.
--
John Machin
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, 'The Great Art of Knowledge'.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail