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

From: L C <lightcastle_at_R5v6K8iyOhsOWPFYzCcFgnVHQaPX4ep00SSri8l6wnbf6iUA-3zjYyBy6wmsgNOH>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:56:52 -0500

John Machin wrote:
>
>
> \> Is that like crypto-fascism? Can we get all politically outraged at
> each
> >
> > other now? ^__^
> >
>
> Not at all,
>

Oh, you're no fun anymore. ^_^ (I'm teasing, btw)
>
> 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").
>

See, I'm not even sure that is Theistic-style contagion. I do, however, like the idea of some essentialist magic working on similar lines. You emulate the saints to get their powers. The magic is still Essential, but the mode looks sufficiently Theistic to worry the hell out of the some church authorities.
>
> *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...).
>

HERE HEAR! (I never know which one it is supposed to be.)

But yes, I agree. While I am willing to accept a "certain trends in the three systems seem to show up" approach, I would be really happy (and am likely to take this approach in game) if the "each system has a radically different mechanic which trumps internal cultural differences" was scrapped. Or at least de-emphasized. For instance, I hope (upon seeing KoH) that how spirits and spells are dealt with within the framework of a primarily theistic system will show me something about the way a given culture can be primarily of one form but blend well the others.
>
> > *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.
>

*nod* I just thought this list was specifically dedicated to discussing Glorantha from as a "rules-neutral" view as possible.

There no longer appears to be a "HQ rules as pertains to Glorantha" list.
>
>
> > 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.
>

I mean the "tapping into the runes directly as your power" view. The "You have runes that define your personality and your power". That might be exclusively Orlanthi for all we know. Maybe other theist cultures go after things very differently.

Runes themselves?. Runes are WAY older than the Orlanthi. I think that's not questioned in any version of Glorantha recognizable as such.
>
> 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.
>

Not in mine, either. Only ones with *this* way and prone to telling you ad nauseum that it is the *only true way* -- that might be the case IMG. :)

LC