Re: Question about non-humans and Puma People

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 17:04:16 +0100

On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 09:19:05AM -0400, Dave Camoirano wrote:

> > > Nowhere in the Puma description does it say it's a talent. It is
> > > not a common magic ability and not learned but something that they
> > > can just do.

> > You may want to look up "innate magic" in the rules before making this
> > sort of 'clarification';� see my earlier post on this topic.

> I did. Several times.
> p. 104: "any magical ability *whose nature is not specified during
> character creation* is assumed to be a talent"

p50: "Innate Magical abilities: Shapechange to Puma."

p104(!): "Common magic can include four types of abilities. First is innate magic, often simply referred to as talents."

p104: "Innate Magic", subheading of "Common Magic" section.

p278: "Innate magical abilities are also called talents."

p279: "talent: The spontaneous innate magic of the Mortal World."

If this implication of this isn't that Puma Person shapechanging is a talent, that talents = innate magic, and that innate magic is a subset of common magic, I don't know *what* it is.

> The middle section of that sentence is key. There's *nothing* in the
> rules that say you can't specify that a magic you were born with is not
> common magic.

What it's saying is that they need not arise from the common *religions*. (Personally I'm not entirely clear how meaningful it is to be "taught" innate magic, though; one could rationalise this as being training to use an existing but unknown or "unawakened" capability, in the same sort of sense that being able to run is inherent to an able-bodied human, but you can still be 'taught' to do it better.) If innate magic isn't common magic in the broad sense, then what pray tell is it?


Powered by hypermail