Re: Three Runes

From: Douglas Seay <douglas-seay_at_kxnEx3xogWuSAj4zg2LtxHwhrD_6eUfEX2PNkTCr5CxlUWswEi8TweyGu9zUqUz>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:21:03 -0500

Peter Metcalfe wrote:
> Douglas Seay wrote:
>
>> Isn't having a magic ability without a charm (something you have) or a
>> spell (something you know) implied to be divine? How can you tell the
>> difference between that and the old "innate ability"?
>
> Talents are described in Sartar: Kingdom of Heroes p75. If you have
> that then could you point out the statement which implies they are of
> divine origin because I can't see it.

You are right that a talent is magic you have that isn't dependent upon any otherworldly factor. I was trying to use the "something you X" tests to determine if it is divine, and that test is inadequate. It most certainly passes the "something you are" test, which generally indicates divine origin.

>From a practical point of view, the difference is clear: talents are
active and can only be taken at creation time. True divine magic is passive to the uninitiated, and can be added during play.

Getting back to your observation that it isn't yet possible to know how a Praxian or Westerner will handle the divine part of "the world is made of everything", it seems like an odd question. Does this imply that there are gods who give out magic to non-believers? If some gods bestow gifts to unborn/newborns/kids/whatever, how is that different than a talent? Either way you've got a power and no real strings attached. Since I first posted I've noticed the active/passive difference, but is that something most gloranthans would realize?

• doug