Richard Hayes wrote:
>Someone said earlier that what MRQ calls 'Rune Magic' --the idea of
doing magic by physically possessing and becoming attuned to Runes in
order to produce particular magical effects-- stopped working >at/near
the end of the Second Age?
That was me.
>What is the source for this? If this is true, presumably it was
something to do with the fall of the God Learners?
No source other than it shows up in 2nd Age and not in 3rd. Some people have written little snippets here or on the other list saying maybe what happened is magic changed and you just couldn't get it that way anymore.
I happen to like that people have had to learn different ways to access magics in different ages. Some stayed the same. Some didn't.
>Malkioinsm is affected by the fall of the Godlearners too, because the
authority of the Abiding Book is diminished (although iirc earlier
discussions about the fate of the Abiding Book after the fall of the
>Godlearners suggested that many churches still used many passages,
rituals and spells from the Abiding Book, but called them something else).
My understanding is that the churches still using something called the Abiding Book are using edited versions. Some don't use the Book at all. But since the Book was based on earlier myths anyway, there are overlaps anyway.
>Secondly didn't Malkionism (Hrestoli or Rokari) often became more
monotheistic after the fall of the Godlearners?
Not sure about that one.
>Was this a reaction against Godlearnerism (that staying away from the
visble gods removed some of the temptations to which the Godlearners had
succumbed) or, more prosaically, a consequence of losing >the
Godlearners' 'road map' (which repackaged a necessity as a virtue)? Or a
bit of both?
I could see both as a reason.
>Thirdly is there still a form of folk magic in the 'Barbarian Belt' in
the Third Age (like what RQ3 called 'spirit magic' and RQ2 called
'battle magic'), which is learned through one's cult without, for the
most >part, being cult-specific?
In MY Glorantha, there is. I've decided that this is much of what common magic is.
>If it still exists (and if it is still standardised like the old RQ
magic was), is this standardisation (like its linguistic counterpart,
Tradetalk?) something of a Godlearner construct (but one that people no
longer >talk about in those terms)?
Mine's not that standardized, probably. IT is more pantheonic in nature.
LC
Powered by hypermail