A Magic Taxonomy from Beyke, Maurice A on 1997-10-07 (Glorantha Digest Vol 05)

From: Beyke, Maurice A <mabeyke_at_ingr.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 10:01:41 -0500

I went back through some the old RQ rules digests last night, and found an old posting from Bruce Lionel Mason that fits in well with what I would like magic to do (and may have even been the inspiration for what I have). He suggested that each tradition of magic has three divisions, low magic, high magic, and ritual. (If anyone wants the details of his post, it's in vol 1 n236 of the RQ Rules Digest, which I believe is archived on Loren's webpage). He went on to suggest that low magic for all cultures is essentially the same, mechanics wise, and (in the rules) should use the same spell lists, differing mainly in how the casting chance was figured. Note that this is already mostly true, at least for the theistic and shamanic magic traditions; for low magic, they both use Spirit Magic (casting chance is the same for each however), and low magic has never been clearly defined in any official sense for western tradition. I personally think that there should be more differences, (in "color", anyway) but like this basic structure, at least as a basis to build on.

BTW, I am not all that enamored with my title of Native magic, it's just that I really think that the term Spirit Magic brings with it artifacts that I don't much care for. Such as needing some kind of spirit master (either a shaman or a priest) to teach spells. What about the family magics my father teaches me, or the mason's magic I learned the summer I got a job in town with my uncle the builder? Ordinary people should be able to pass on ordinary magic.

One of the main reasons I don't like Spirit magic as is that it's unclear what it's supposed to be. You can't study it or train in it, so it's not like traditional magic spells, or any other skills. Each point of it takes up a point of INT, but that's the only role your intelligence plays in it. I say, stop treating it like spells; these are knacks, minor powers that have been picked up. And as such, there should be more different ways (in addition to the way given in the RQ Magic book, not instead of) of acquiring them. Now, why these would be limited by INT, I don't have a clue, but they need to be limited by something, for game balance if nothing else. Maybe it should be APP; make it useful for something (justification: if all spells are learned by fighting spirits, then you actually get covertly possessed by the spell spirit, who gives you the ability to cast the spell. The more APPealing you are, the more spell spirits are willing to take up residence in your skull). Maybe it's a matter of mental coordination, and INT is how many points of abilities you are able to keep strait without tripping over your mental feet.

In reply to Sergio Mascarenhas, I don't much care for getting rid of POW. I like having a stat showing strength of soul, and think it should be the basis of magic. Now if you prefer the term Willpower, or something along those lines, I don't mind, but getting rid of it and basing magic on physical abilities I think is inaccurate and will have unfortunate side effects. I like your idea of basing (at least some) magic on Personality; the magic described in the PenDragon supplement "Beyond the Wall" does this kind of thing.

Anyway, that's all I have time for now. Thanks to all who sent in stuff about my questions. I have Enclosure on order, I should be receiving it this week (maybe today). - ----
Boris