> Tragically, here I must take issue with Colin. I believe that
> the use you can make of spirits is NOT part of their binding
> enchantment, and that all binding enchantments are much the same. The
> differences between Intellect, Power, and Magic spirits I believe to
> be part of the spirits themselves, some inherent variation in their
> genus.
I provisionally side with Sandy here, with the caveat that I'm not convinced most Gloranthans would classify spirits on these lines, as he quasi-implies by saying "genus" (and according to the RQ3 status quo). Perhaps Westerners use a system like this, but I suspect most others use a more related to the spirit's perceived origins and associations.
However, the vaguely phyletic division I've seen suggested might not be too interesting in play: Yawn, another Beast Spirit Binding Enchantment, quoth the Eiritha priestess. Perhaps bindings should be taxonomised according to what distinctions are thought locally important; an alryami shaman might have separate enchantments for each genus of tree spirit found in her forest, and only a few "catch-all" enchantments for other, non-native classes of spirit.
> I believe that Power spirits have the ability to drain MPs
> out of the loser in a spirit combat (and the reverse is also probably
> true -- beating a Power spirit in spirit combat allows the victor to
> drain its MPs to restore his own). Now, normally when you beat a
> spirit, its MPs are at 0, so this ability is useless.
Alternatively, if one didn't want to change the criteria for possession, one could enable this to be done _during_ spirit combat, say on a special success, or a success by some given margin.
> I believe that when a person "forgets" a spirit spell (or a
> sorcery spell for that matter), it doesn't just go away -- this would
> violate the Gloranthan law of Conservation of Magic.
Sorcery clearly already breaks this law, as you don't have to learn it from spirits. (And spirit magic may to, if learning a spell from a spirit doesn't call it to forget it.) On the other hand, I this is interesting in that it vaguely suggests something like that when a person dies, part of their spirit may form as some assorted personality-free spirit.
Colin Watson:
> Ok, try: INT/MP use is a peculiar quirk of the spirit itself which only
> manifests when the spirit is bound or in a fetch...
> -------------
Yes, but this is a key point, since it implies that either each type of spirit must be bound to a fetch in some individualised way, or that binding enchantments needn't be.
> Now, I'm prepared to completely reverse my view if Power spirits 'in the wild'
> habitually donate their MP to passers-by; or Intellect spirits occasionally
> latch-on to individuals increasing their INT (for some symbiotic reason?). And
> it would logically follow that they could be forced to do the same if they're
> controlled by a suitable spell (in direct contradiction to the guidelines
> in the creatures' descriptions, but what the hell).
A spell which controls a creature doesn't necessarily force ot allow it into an intimate enough association to enable the use of such abilities, I reckon. One could take the view that the abilities were particular to the spirit, and the communication and/or compulsion to the binding.
Are there other methods of conjoining with a spirit sufficiently to enable this to be done? I would think covert possession would do, if we ignore that they don't seem to be capable of, or motivatited to do this. We can at any rate hypothesise Large Nasty Int spirits who could do this, doubtless with unforeseen deleterious effects.
I can't think of a particularly theist mode of doing this, apart from perhaps Mindlink, or an improved version thereof.
Alex.
End of Glorantha Digest V1 #5
Powered by hypermail