A magical taxonomy (cont.)

From: Sergio Mascarenhas <sermasalmeida_at_mail.telepac.pt>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 22:05:31 +0100


 Andrew Barton:
<< Sergio: do we really need power and magic points? IMO be don't. Instead
of Power we should use Constitution and instead of MP we should use Hit Points or Fatigue. Andrew: This doesn't seem to work well in Glorantha. >> I would say: 'this doesn't seem to work well in RQ.' I was very clear when I said I was thinking about a new magic system created from scratch. We don't need to base it in RQ. Of course, RQ is a stable and tested game system that is a great inspiration. But the new Gloranthan game can change things a lot.

<< What about spirits, which have no CON and porbably no fatigue? >>
These are RQ characteristics. In my proposal spirits have VITality this substitutes for CON. But you are right, there is much in my proposal that must be perfected. I didn't sort out yet the fatigue part of the equation.

Beyke, Maurice:
<< BTW, I am not all that enamored with my title of Native magic >>
My proposal is to call it 'traditional magic'. Does this seem right to you?

<< 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. >> I agree with this. I will return to this point in a future GD.

<< 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. >> That's why I call it traditional magic...

<< I don't much care for getting rid of POW (...) but getting rid of it
and basing magic on physical abilities I think is inaccurate and will have unfortunate side effects. >>
I base magic on VIT which I proposed as a combination of POW and CON on a single stat. VIT is not physical. It is the force that makes possible life to steam from physical matter. It's the other way round: physical abilities are based on magic through VIT.

 Trotsky asks lots of interesting questions:  << 'Sergio: When you sacrificed all your CON, you commited yourself fully to the service of the god.'
Trotsky: So you're putting a limit on the number of divine spells you can learn? Not so bad, I suppose, but I still don't like the idea of that limit being CON. This allows fit, outdoors types with high CON to have a greater range of magic than the more scholastic type. While that has a certain logic to it with many cults (Orlanth, Humakt, Yara Aranis) it still doesn't feel right for cults such as Lhankor Mhy or Malkion. >> Good question. I had to change my approach, so here it goes: First a question I didn't raise before, but it is time to share it: I don't like spells in cults. I mean, worshipers shouldn't learn and use spells. They ask for the grace of the god and its intervention. That intervention is a particular divine deed - a 'miracle'. The so-called 'divine spells' are only the description of the deeds that the god is reported to have done in the past for his followers. You study the miracles of your god AND the holly person that called for it. If you are a good worshiper, you know about these myths of your cult. When asking for the intervention of the god you would do something like this: 'remember oh mighty Humakt what you did for Arkat and fill me with his spirit and grace me with his strengh bla, bla, bla.'. You don't learn spells, you learn the myths of the cult. This doesn't require VIT (maybe INT ?). That way it 'feels right' for the Lhankor Mhy priest: he can have a wider choice of divine magic because a scholar is supposed to have high INT...
If you are a realy good worshiper, you will heroquest, join the hall of heroes and introduce a new myth in the cult.

 << me: 'From the point of view of the cult, what is more important is not how much CON you have but how much you sacrificed since this measures how much you commited yourself to the cult.' Trotsky: But if you have a higher CON to start with, then you can sacrifice more, and thus get a wider range of spells. The person with a CON of 7 is always at a disadvantage compared to the person with a CON of 15, and where magic is concerned, I still don't think they should be.>>
I wasn't clear about this point. What I ment was the relative commitment, not the absolute commitment. A person with 7 VIT that sacrificed 7 to the god made a 100% commitment to the god. A person with 15 VIT that sacrificed 9 to the god made a 60% commitment. From the god's point of view (if gods do have a point of view...) the first reveals that he his a more dedicated worshiper then the second.

<< Trotsky: But it sure as heck *helps* to have a high CON under your
system. Two people with equal commitment, but with widely varying CONs will not succeed equally (...) >>
This is true but there is another point I didn't make before: from the cult's perspective, a priest's contribution is not only his personnal VIT but also the VIT of the cult members he brings to the cult. So, in assessing the contribution of the priest, we must account for the dimension of the community of worshipers he leads and how much dedicated to the god this community is. This as to do with what I call Collective Magic. I will send my musings on this issue in the near future.

<< Me: 'b) The 'power' of the spell should not be based only on the CON you
sacrificed (like it happens in RQ). It should also refflect the god's will and how well the character behaved according to the comandments of the cult (two issues to be dealt by the GM as the result of role-playing, not game mechanics).' Trotsky: But surely we need some kind of mechanic to know how effective the spell is and whether or not it works? There's a limit to how far I'm prepared to wing it... >>
Yes, I agree with this comment. I'm sorting out the answer. All I can say for the time beeing is that it may envolve all or some of the next components: charisma (when RQ 3 was designed someone took the unfortunate decision of substituting charisma with appearance); personnality traits; magic points; a skill like myth lore; a new attribute called 'holiness'; collective magic.

<< Me: 'c) Runes: you don't resist spells that are based on runes you are
connected with.' Trotsky: Surely the runic basis of disruption is 'death' though? This means Humakti can't resist disruption, which puts them at a distinct disadvantage in a fight. >>

The word 'connected' is misleading in this context. What I ment when I spoke about runes you are connected to is the runes that define what you are NOW as a creature. Man is connected to the man rune. Trolls are connected to the darkness and the man rune. Elfs to the plant and man rune. And so on. These runes define what you are. You don't resist magic that involves those runes.
What about your cult runes? These runes don't define what you are but what you are trying to become! A sword lord dedicated his life to the Humakt way; he expects to become one of the heroes of Humakt figting by his god's side for eternity in the afterlife; the sword lord his working hard to achieve that status but he is not there yet; until the moment Humakt calls him to is side (thati is, until he dies) he his not fully connected to death he his not a manifestation of death.

Best,

Sergio Mascarenhas


End of The Glorantha Digest V5 #177


WWW at http://rider.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html

Powered by hypermail