I'm not so keen as to conflate Kabalt with the Sivoli practice. Kabalt is derived from Mashunasan practice. Sivoli practice is derived from the animist Venform and involves the use of a Venfornic Organ (ie Darkness, Water, Air etc).
> I do not think regarding the Darja Danad/Kabalt tradition as sorcerous, animist, or divine is likely. It is a martial arts school, teaching the combination of physical movements and other physical regimens with mystic practice, derived from the Mashunasen school but combining other (presumably Sivolic) practices.
All magic takes the form of spells, spirits or affinities (also natural magic). There is no such thing as mystical magic. If Kabalt can be used to do magic then its magic will take one or more of those forms. Mystical practice and meditation can only be used to strengthen one's attachment to ultimate concepts (and not-so ultimate).
> I think that is an incorrect interpretation. In fact, directly
> contrary to the intended meaning - when Darja Danad hits the man with
> a stick, and he doesn't die, he is demonstrating that he is not using
> Kabalt magic (as he is explaining as he does it).
That's not what it says.
"No," said Darja Danad, we only act for Kabalt, and he will not kill these sorry things." He hit them with his
stick to prove it, and though the man whimpered, he wasn't killed."
Revealed Mythologies p69.
If he just hit them with the stick without using Kabalt magic, how could he prove that Kabalt wouldn't kill them? All he's showing if that were truly the case is that he can be a dick to his captives.
> The Kabalt magic is that mentioned directly prior - when in combat, Darja Danad and his people are able to kill their attackers with a single touch of their sticks (I think a little poetic licence here - a single blow). Killing with one blow of a stick here (against armed and armoured warriors, such as Heen the Iron Man) is a magical effect.
Given that other gloranthans are known to kill people by looking or even thinking, I'm not so certain that the Kabalti can't kill people with a simple touch of a wooden stick. Placing a restriction on Kabalt that it can only be used against some targets but not others makes them something other than bearers of all purpose killing magic.
> There is no difference in worship between those he kills and those he
> does not, they are members of the exact same group - antigod
> worshippers - the difference is that he kills those who oppose him in
> combat, but only enslaves those who surrender and grants them their lives.
Except that the people who have surrendered were not worshippers but "homeless men [...] misled and hopeless" (RM p68). In addition, when he strikes them after combat, they had just submitted to an agent of the High Gods. There's no reason why Kabalt can't recognize between one who is in defiance of the High Gods and one who has submitted.
> I think their later vow to leave intact the real natives of the
> islands is a political choice, not a magical one.
Given that it's described as "This also meant they left behind pockets where the demons and antigods were supposed to live", I'm inclined to see it as a magical reason and infer that using Kabalt against the inhabitants of those isles would be ineffective. It makes the Kabalti a lot more interesting.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail