Trotsky wrote:
> The point I was making was that the magic of all cultures is inherently
> equal.
Why inherently equal? As presented in RQ, the magic of all cultures is
_not_ inherently equal. Some cultures have access to _better_ magics than
others, or a better variety.
Is non-resuable resurrection (say, as Daka Fal or Kyger Litor get) equal to Chalanna Arroy reusable resurrection? Bah. Is the vast panoply of magic that a Lunar or an Orlanthi can sacrifice for equal to the crud that a starving band of feral Broo get in the Wastes of Prax? Fooey.
I suppose you could make the argument that there are cultural "intangibles" that make that 1-use KL resurrection equal to CA's resuable. But that seems to be like arguing that a Yugo is equal to a Rolls Royce based on cultural relativism...
> No matter who you are, one point of magic is one point of magic.
But I'd think 1 pt. battle magic /= 1 pt. rune magic (/= 1 pt. sorcery).
I think most people would probably agree that a rune magic is generally
superior to a battle magic of the same type (say, 1 pt. Crush vs.
1 pt. Bludgeon). If Lunar/Dara Happan "mass use" magic is of a greater
order of magnitude, then it's "better" magic. If they have regular access
to it and other cultures don't, then they've got a big advantage.
Yah, 1 mp = 1 mp (or 1 POW = 1 POW). But that doesn't mean that the way the power is used is equal -- a more feul-efficient car goes farther on a liter of gas. A "better" spell goes farther on 1 mp.
And of course RQ assumes that a Orlanthi Bladesharp = a Pentian Bladesharp = a Lunar Bladesharp, etc. But that might just be game convention -- who's to say that there aren't fractional differences that RQ simply ignores (for the sake of simplicity)?
Powered by hypermail