Re: Re: HQ Common Magic question and Augments

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Sun, 11 May 2003 17:38:29 +0100

Jeff, quoting:
> Common magic can includ four types of ablities. First is innate magic,
> often referrred to simply as talents. Talents originate solely in the
> MOrtal World, addionally common magic often includes feats, charms and
> spells.

I think this is the source of much of my confusion; this seems to imply that there are two kinds of Common Magic: on the one hand, innate magic, whose 'source' is the inner world, and miscellaneous others, whose ultimate sources are actually in the Otherworlds. (Or maybe in Short Worlds that are "God World Lite", etc, in their methodology.) It's this latter that I'm finding difficult to conceptualise a 'concentration' in, I think.

> Common magic is a part of the common religion - which is what most
> people do.

I'd have thought rather that in most cultures, people's _religion_ was defined much more by the dominant otherworldly 'method', regardless of any "other" or "folk" magic they also happen to have.

> I suspect the concentration of Common Magic/Talents also is a way to
> head off the 'how come I can't concentrate my talents.' For all I
> know, concentration of Innate/Common magic may be a part of a mystic
> path.

I could see that, yes. (Somewhat congruent with my suggestion that 'martial artist' types might.)

> Can't do much more than that without typing in the entire common magic
> section.

That was plenty enough to be going on with -- thanks for the info.

In witness of this dichotomy, and/or my confusion about it, I cite:-

Ian Cooper:
> It is from various otherworlds or the person themself in origin.

and Dave Camoirano:
> Common magic is a specific type of magic just like theistic or animist.
> Each type of magic has a source. Theistic magic comes from the god
> plane, animist from the spirit plane and common magic from the mundane
> plane.

If I'm putting these nuggets together correctly, that would seem to be only strictly true of _innate_ magic.

> Just as concentrating in theistic magic means giving up all
> non-theistic magic, concentrating in common magic means giving up all
> non-common magic.

It's not clear to me what 'non-common' magic is, though. Is the implication that CM can be _some_ collection of Feats (say), but not _any_ arbitrary Feat? e.g., DX 'donates' a Feat to the 7M, which thereby becomes a CM thingy, as well as an authenticly god-world magic? Or are the Feats available to dedicated DX worshippers, and those to 7Mists, non-overlapping?

> > Are there any previously-known exemplars of such?
>
> Sort of. The Seven Mothers is now a common magic religion.

Surely this only makes sense in the "little of everything" interpretation, rather than the "Inner World only"? And is this a case where it would be reasonable to 'concentrate' on a grab-bag of feats and spells from different sources?

> I believe the main idea was to bring back the RQ experience of varied
> magic. In RQ, you had your god's magic which was very specific and only
> followers of your god received that magic. However, everyone had access
> to healing, bladesharp, protection, etc. This was "common magic".

And also at least implied (and in RQ3 outright stated) to be animist in nature. Not that that wasn't problematic in itself... In a 'gameist' sense I understand what you're saying here, but I was more trying to relate the rules back to the understanding of the world. (Whisper the S-word softly.) Though it rather seems to me that could largely have been done via the existing character generation method, and stand-alone magics -- what I'm trying to get at here is what extra construction the CM system puts on that, and to what end.

Anyhoo, thanks for the replies. I know feel both somewhat better for my mini-rant, and much the better informed.

Cheers,
Alex.

Powered by hypermail