>As for Peter's views about their digestive tracts being similar to the
>Mistress race's I think he is confusing their eyesight with their stomach
Found the reference: p23 Uz Lore (AH version)
'All trollkin have a primitive digestive system, more akin to an immature Mistress Race tract than the highly developed stomachs of the dark trolls.'
The Enlos' eyes are overdeveloped (making them 'very sensitive to light') compared with the Mistress Races (which are only capable of 'distinguishing the presense of light.')
Mind you, references abound in the book as to their reproductive capability (they mature sexually at the age of 15 on p17 of the same book).
David Cake:
Me>> 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).
But the *emotion* in both cases are the *same*! The difference is that one is *focussed* by the magic and causes harm whereas the other is *not*! Think of it as training a tenor how to sing at such a pitch so as to shatter glass.
> I would be interested in what you mean by that instinctive part.
More likely when someone is extremely angry or excited, the intensity of the emotional state could trigger the Otherworld without conscious voliton (ie seeing the Crimson Bat could trigger off your Mobility 6 spell).
>NB I think it is reasonable that there exist magics that are not associated
>with emotion as well. Anyone disagree?
Sorcery is the main example of magic that is not emotional. There the emphasis is only technique and skill, and Piety according to the Malkioni.
[difference between Berserk and a mortal range]
Me>> 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 disagree and side with Martin in that a angry man could become Beserk via normal mundane exertions. However having the spell on hand is a much more reliable way of achieving the beserk status.
>> 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.
ORLANTHI: 'The Orlanthi are extremely oriented towards interpreting events as of being of divine origin. Even their own personal deeds are commonly attributed to the Gods. [...] and 'Issaries inspired my speech and impaired his vision' Players Book p16-17 G:CotHW.
MALKIONI: 'Only tiny particles [of Krjalk] survived to seed the souls of traitors, parricides, and apostates everywhere' CoT p58 being the Standard God Learner explaination.
That's a sizable portion of gloranthans so far. References for the remaining cultures will be found if David wants me to coz I don't feel like spending more than thirty seconds on reference hunting...
>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).
Only the emotions they see as bad or noteworthy were intended. Lust to the Malkioni would be seen in this matter but a similar intensity of loyalty would not as it is 'most natural to Man' (unless it were of a great magnitude in which it would be seen as divinely inspired). However Passion Spirits are a reality in Glorantha.
>[nature of hoplite spell - trying to be brief as this squabbling over
>definitions can have little general interest]
Me>> 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.
It was not said because all spell descriptions in the roolz are *empiricial*. Is there any rhyme or reason given in the roolz why Glamour gives 3 APP per point of spell whereas Vigor only gives 2 CON per point? No? Then why are you insisting that there be such a thing for the Granite Phalanx Spells? A description would be nice to have but the spell writeup would be ten times as long and be correct for only one culture.
Me>> 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?
Because Spirit Magic is limited magic. Its usuage is almost mundane. IMO A spirit magician would understand his magic as working like this:
_IF_ I chant A and gesticulate B _THEN_ My Sword will burst into Flames.
He would know that if he alters A or B, then his spell will not work. For him to imagine changing the effect to 'So-and-so's Sword will burst into flames' would imply that either A or B would have to be changed. But that would mean that his spell won't work so he can't change the effect. As this is spirit magic, the forces involved are intuitive and personal and not subject to rational analysis.
A Shaman would have a better understanding of the forces involved and would know that there exists a component C which can be changed. She has gotten this knowlege by spending her life working with these forces and has also undergone several transfiguring experiences which have altered her comprehension. Ditto for the Lunar Magician.
OTOH You have been arguing to the effect that Joe Adventurer when he gets his disruption spell gains complete understanding of the spell and so can alter it willy-nilly in the heat of the moment into doing something other than it was intended for (ie disrupt a lock) by nothing other than a flash of inspiration. This does not sound very realistic IMHO.
Neil Smith:
>On the "sketch" maps of Prax in the RQ2 book, CoP and River of
>Cradles, there is a small oval marked "EX" just south of the Erithra
>Hills. Does anyone know what it is? And why is it called "EX"? I
>would hazard a guess that it's a semi-seasonal lake, but I haven't a
>clue about the name.
I recall a Rurik replies about this. It's a depression was created by the Block as it skidded towards the Devil. Another such depression is the oval over the 'D' in Defenders' Shore.
Powered by hypermail