>>>[RQ Sorcery is flexible in that it could be manipulated etc. HW sorcery
>>>is not flexible because it cannot be manipulated.]
Me>>That's not a good comparison. No spell could be improvised in
>>RuneQuest. The sorcerous advantage in extending range and
>>duration are still there in HW.
>"Sorcery is the most flexible approach to RuneQuest magic, and its >spells
>potentially are the most powerful. Sorcerors can alter the >basic
>characteristics of their spells" (RQ3, 122)
Yes, and how was this flexibility manifested? As I said, by extending range and duration. Sorcerers still have a major advantage in this over other magicians in HW.
Me>> Where else do you propose sorcerers get their magics
>>from? If it could be done from the mundane world and the simple reading
>>of books, then every gloranthan could do it.
>And, according to Sandy Petersen's sorcery rules, every Gloranthan CAN.
>There are a few exceptions (3, exactly -- Shamans, Priests, and Elves), but
>the reasoning behind them is significant: an >insufficiemt/incompatible
>world-view
If learning sorcery is dependant on the world-view then it patently is not a mundane world thing as I pointed out.
Me>> I really like to see a gloranthan source describing them as
>>individualistic [...].
>"I am a sorceror, wise and experienced in the physical laws of the world
>and in the ways of magic. I have learned and developed my skills myself
>and I depend on no one else to make them work. If you study with me I will
>teach you how to use your innate power to manipulate the laws of the world
>to your
>own ends, making the world your slave" (RQ3, 91).
And where is the alleged individuality of sorcerers? Elsewhere in those rules it states that sorcerers rely on a network of relationships to survive.
>Admittedly, this is not a specifically Gloranthan source, but nothing (that
>I can recall) specifically states that this world-view doesn't exist in
>Glorantha, and therefore I have always assumed that it does.
Since HW does not state that such people do not exist in Glorantha, then I fail to see how it substantiates your claim that HW has changed sorcery utterly.
>[Some theorizing based on Sandy's sorcery], along with veneration of
>deity-like Saints, shows that the Malkioni are by no means a pure or
>exemplary sorcerous society,
Malkioni are not pure sorcerers in that not all of them use sorcery to interact with God. But the spells of their wizards are just as pure as those of Zzabur.
>HW largely collapses the difference
>between Malkioni and "real" sorcerors, and does so by moving "real" sorcery
>closer to Malkionism.
Since real sorcerers do not venerate saints and the like, how is the distinction "largely collapsed"?
Me>>In HW, Sorcerers are still atheists and do not worship any god
>>or thing. God in their PoV is the sum of the physical laws of
>>the Cosmos.
>And, yet: "To get a connection to a spell [...] From [the portal
>of power] he can look out and see the Adept Plane and he node of the spell
>he wants.
And since he can get this spell without contacting the founder, what is the problem?
>Most orders connect to their founder's node on a regular basis to venerate
>the founder, initiate new members, and gain magic" (NB, 30).
Most orders may do so but sorcerous orders (as opposed to wizardrous and low orders) do not venerate their founder.
>This isn't an inherently Bad Thing, as far as it goes, but presenting it as
>The Only Way, to which all sorcerors -- Malkioni or not -- are bound, is,
I note that HW does not present it as "The Only Way". It went so far as to say that the Carmanians, the Pelandan Logicians etc. would have their own ways of doing things.
>The Malkioni view, which I've always considered to be a somewhat of a
>mixed-metaphor, is suddenly a much better approximation of The Truth,
Why is the concept that malkioni have proof for their beliefs are bad thing?
>and once-atheists are forced to become either Platonic ultra->rationalists
>(which is a form of Belief, and thus NO LONGER Atheism!) or be
>philosophically undone.
Atheism has two meanings: a) that God does not exist, or b) that God exists but it is meaningless to worship It. Both viewpoints are still viable under the HW rules and I do not see how by entering the higher worlds to manipulate the laws of the cosmos makes one non-atheist. Is it impossible for a scientist probing quark-gluon space to change the speed of light, say, to be an atheist?
Powered by hypermail