John Machin wrote:
>
>
> Theism, in the text, is about something that you are - I would probably
> characterise it as something that you are that resembles something that an
> immortal is. It's about that emulation of immortals so it's more like
> something that you *do.*
>
Agreed it seems.
>
> **
> I am attempting to imagine how a given person's Rune might influence their
> magic if they are not participating in theistic magical practices.
> Allowing
> Spiritists to obey a set of personal taboos in order to obtain some
> sense of
> self-identification with a greater power seems very similar to the
> theistic
> approach.
>
It does, doesn't it?
>
> [It may be that the Runes are only of use in the theistic approach (this
> could be The Point, as it were)
>
I suspect this may be.
>
>
> I think it is quite good for that educated scholarly 'wizardly' sort of
> person; however I am at a bit of a loss as to how to describe the class of
> lay people. We can say "theist" or "animist"/"spiritist" but saying
> "wizard"
> and using it to refer to a soldier who knows marching songs, or a martial
> member of a military order, or a peasant who attends regular rites and
> gains
> Fertile Fields Blessings seems weird to me.
>
Yeah, we need something else in some ways. I think there are more
dramatic differences we already know about (it could be Theists are this
complicated as well but we've never seen it) in the way people deal with
their primary Otherworld in this style. We've got the peasants. We've
got Orderlies. We've got Liturgists. We've got Church Wizards/Priests.
We've got Sorcerers. We've got Dwarves.
LC