Doyle>>I do happen to believe that all social rituals, in Glorantha, are also
>>magical. Or, at the very least, they all have the capacity to be adapted
>>into formalized 'spells'.
>
>Well, following RQIII it seems that magic is associated with either Magic
>Points or sacrifice of POW. If neither MP or POW are involved it won't
>detect as magic. Hence, merely social rituals aren't magical.
>
>Ignoring RQIII, however, you are spot on. Ceremonies, and certainly of the
>group variety, should have magical effects if performed appropriately.
Consider this: I, Doyle view Glorantha as inherently magical. Let's say that I have a player in my campaign who casts Detect Magic. If we were to marry my view of Glorantha with a strict interpretation of RQ Rules, then the entire radius of the spell would begin to detect as magical.
But in reality, I wouldn't do this to a player, because that would be a screw job beyond compare. Rather, I would take the view that the spell provides information about something that is essential to the scenario or campaign that we were involved in. Which, again IMO, is what the spell is for, anyway.
I have almost always fallen into the practice of modifying the RQ rules to suit my personal conception of Glorantha, so the issue of strict adherence to the rules isn't much of a concern to me.
However, I do want people who have this concern to still use the background. In the revision, I plan to present an 'Option II'. There would be two spells in this approach; the first would be something like 'Become Garangi', which would allow the caster to become voluntarily Chaotic. The spell would also allow them to deceive Storm Bull senses. Accuse Witch would then become a spell of identification, which would reveal the nature of the witch for all to see.
Whatcha think about that?
Getting to the Heart of the Matter
>Are you saying that since praxian culture is strongly opposed to chaos and
>defined by that opposition, a praxian can make a person chaotic by strongly
>opposing that person?
This is close to what I am saying.
There is have the view (or, I believe the view to be prevalent) that chaos and Praxian culture are separate things. I believe differently. I believe that the entirety of the Praxian conception of the Cosmos relies so much on Chaos, that, in the holistic sense, they are, and have always been, Chaotic.
>That chaos creates praxian culture doesn't mean praxian culture can create
>chaos.
I believe the opposite. Because Praxian culture is dependent on the opposition with Chaos, that which they oppose can be made Chaotic.
Why? Well, because it makes sense to me, in a kind of poetic way.
And that is all the defense I can give you.
DWRT
Powered by hypermail