> >That's because the Busarian's rigor is Theistic (specifically Dara
> >Happan) and moral, while the Zzaburi (at least) pursue a Sorcerorous
> >and mental rigor. I assume the practice of, say a Sheshnegi Wizard
> >would combine the two moral somewhat; not as mental as the Zzaburi
> >but less moral than the Busarian (much closer to the Zzaburi, though).
>
> The veneration of God is not a combination of theism and sorcery
> but an authentic method of interacting with the sorcery-plane.
> The venerators share their personal energy with God or submit
> to his Will (the former is Greg's version, the latter is mine).
Argh. Now you are putting words in my mouth. Veneration is obviously not a mixture of sorcery and theism; If, however, the Zzaburi are mentally rigorous (but not particularly morally so) (especially in respect to astronomy and/or astrology) and the Busarians are morally rigorous (but not particularly mentally so) (especially in respect to astronomy and/or astrology), then the Wizards of the West are, I suppose, somewhere between the two: more rigorous morally than the Zzaburi and more rigorous mentally than the Busarians. Nothing about practice; something (not anything very interesting, mind you) about attitudes measured along one arbitrary axis.
> >OK, fair enough. I just want to make sure the ZZaburi are sorcerors,
> >not mad scientists (to risk reigniting a recent argument).
>
> I don't understand the need to distinguish sorcery from mad
> science.
The look and feel of it. Glorantha doesn't seem like much of a place for cackling guys in white lab coats with beakers chalking fomulae on blackboards and waving slide rules. Now, cackling guys in robes with wands chalking fomulae on floors and waving arcane texts, I can see. It's a matter of which cliche seems best, I suppose.
Peter Larsen
Powered by hypermail