I agree that magic and strong emotion are associated, and it seems right for them to be involved with each other.
> One could say "I'd wish you would
> die" and not cast the spell but one would still be as angry as one who
> does cast the spell. Sometimes the invoking of the OtherWorld requires
> a concious effort, at other times it can be completely instinctive.
>
But this is my point that I have been making that you have said for me precisely. Just because magic and emotion are associated does not mean they should ever be confused or thought of as being the same (unless you are a Jelmre).
I would be interested in what you mean by that instinctive part. NB I think it is reasonable that there exist magics that are not associated with emotion as well. Anyone disagree?
> >Berserk causes you to become crazed with rage (among other things), this
> >does not mean that being crazed with rage is always magical.
>
> No but one becomes crazed with rage *first*. An Uroxi does not stand
> unemotional before the fury hits "hmm, sixty broos...drat...Urox? Could
> I have a Beserk spell please? ARRRAHHHHH!!! DIE HORRIBLY!!!". The
> beserker *becomes* angry so that he can reach Urox to receive the Divine
> Fury. He cannot reach Urox if he is calm.
>
Hmmm. I play Berserk as a spell that can be cast on others, its
just odd to cast it on anyone that isn't a Bullie (or whatever). But
to a Bull it feels like an amplification of their rage, and they feel
powerful, while to someone else it feels more like possession, and they feel
powerless.
>
[difference between Berserk and a mortal range]
> They differ only in degree rather than kind.
While I think a Berserk differs in kind, it being quite distinctly something that a human is capable of only by otherworldly means.
> I do not doubt there is
> a pure pyschological state of anger, one partly infused with magical
> energies (fanaticism) and one infused with Divine energies (Beserk) in
> Gloranthan. I believe that the *Gloranthans* do not draw a distinction
> between the purely mundane emotional states and the OtherWorldly
> Emotional States.
I think for most Gloranthans there is a distinction, though I think for heroes and other otherworldy journeyers it might start to dissolve.
> They see a person who becomes angry normally (from
> our pyschological PoV) as having been possessed by a rage spirit, demon
> or whatever "He banged his head on an unseen branch, and Eurmal the
> Trickster leapt into him and caused him to say several very bad words..."
>
Firstly, I think some Gloranthans might, but I am sure that all don't, and I personally don't think most conceive of it this way.
Secondly, this seems to imply that Gloranthans don't believe that there emotions are a part of themselves, which I think runs counter to many Gloranthan belief systems (but not all).
[nature of hoplite spell - trying to be brief as this squabbling over
definitions can have little general interest]
>
> Well the restriction on casting the Standfast spell does imply this so
> what more do you want?
>
You inferring it does not mean the spell implies it. It mentions being in formation, and casting it on the guy in front, nothing about communal spirits and whatnot. If thats what was meant, it should have been said, and IMHO it was never meant but you assume it to prop up your argument.
>
> >But I do not think spells are the most appropriate way to do this, and I
> >find it more fun if the way magic works is not custom designed for military
> >effectiveness [...] Its more fun if the players are encouraged to think
> >about the options, and even more fun if they surprise you and think of
> >options you hadn't thought of.
>
> But Spirit Magic is _limited_. Only Sorcery is capable of this type
> of flexibility (unless you're an illuminated loonie). One can't cast
> a Bladesharp on a mace or Bludgeon on an arrow but one can cast Boost
> Damage on just about _anything_. And what is to prevent the Lunar
> College of Magic from crafting spells that are custom _designed_ for
> military effectiveness? Spirit spells (as in the spirit magic kept
> in memory as per da rulez) are ritualized gestures to cause a _specific_
> effect rather than multipurpose swiss army knives. To make a spirit
> magic spell do something other than its primary purpose (like make a
> Fireblade appear on a Yelmalion's Weapon with the intent of causing him
> to drop it), I would reserve for capabilities of the Shaman or an
> Illuminated Lunar rather than any ordinary adventurer IMO.
>
Why? I agree that spirit magic should be more restricted than sorcery - but it already is. And as for restricting spells to only appropriate uses - to me it seems like simply sacrificing MGF on the altar of GM enforcement of appropriate stereotyped behaviour. I don't argue that it might not be appropriate for your Gloranthan world view (not mine), I just don't understand why you want it that way.
Tim says some interesting things about regimental spirits - I think they are a bit extreme, but I think something like that does happen - I think the 'Spirit of the Phalanx', if there is such a thing (there is in the Granite Phalanx, of course) does protect his soldiers from many things, including attacking magic, and probably some morale problems. I think that is a good way of using magic to encourage hoplites to stay in formation, too (Granite Phalanx is not going to protect any one who breaks formation, is he?).
Cheers
David
Powered by hypermail