On Thursday, September 4, 2003, at 11:06 PM, Alex Ferguson wrote:
> > The Puma's shapechanging ability is *not* common magic. There most
> > likely will be something in the FAQ, that will hopefully be up
> shortly,
> > explaining this.
>
> Would you care to produce some basis in the rules for this assertion?
> Which part of my reasoning is either a) wrong as the rules stand, or b)
> is about to be FAQ'd to be false?
Since you don't believe me, Stephen Martin at Issaries says:
Well, in most cases magical abilities of ANY kind are common magic. The _exception_ is innate magical abilities, which are not. The Puma shapechange ability is an innate magical ability, but is not a talent. Is this NOT clear, or just people reading more into the rules than was intended? Regardless, yes, we can add this to the FAQ list. Which we ought to start getting put together soon.
Unless it is supposed to be an innate magical ability, it is indeed a talent, and falls under common magic. It IS up to the player to decide, and the narrator needs to approve any such innate magic. Terminology is a bitch, and that late Steve-mandated change to some of it never got 100% sorted out, I guess. :)
> > > > 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*.
> >
> > Nope, that's not what it's saying. Nowhere in that sentence is it
> > saying anything about religions.
>
> Apart from the first clause of that sentence, which gives it its entire
> context? (The part you didn't quote.)
>
> "Heroes can learn talents from common religions, but this is not
> required; [...]"
Yes, that is before the part I quoted. However, you're using a logical fallacy. Just because all fish live in water doesn't mean that all beings living in water are fish. The part I quoted ("any magical ability whose nature is not specified during character creation is assumed to be a talent", since it's been lost in the shuffle) still stands by itself as a statement. You seem to be assuming that all magic *must* come from one of the four types in the rulebook. This is just plain not so and it's been stated a few times (dragon magic, for instance). Heck, the origami magic that's used in the character creation example: what is it? It's whatever Jane wants it to be!!
> p29 is entirely specific as to this being the intended interpretation:
>
> "Any magical ability written on the character sheet but not defined as
> a
> feat, charm or spell is assumed to be a talent within the common magic
> keyword."
"Within the common magic keyword"
Again, an unclear sentence. If magic listed on your sheet under common magic doesn't specifically say otherwise, it is a talent.
> > The narrator can, if that's the way she wants her Glorantha to be.
> > That's not the official line, though.
>
> The official line seems fairly clear to me that 'magic ability' in this
> sense _is_ innate magic, i.e. _is_ a talent.
Nope (see above from Steve).
> > > If
> > > innate magic isn't common magic in the broad sense, then what pray
> tell
> > > is it?
>
> > Just that: an innate magical ability. There will be an entry in the
> FAQ
> > clarifying this.
>
> Contradicting the rules, glossary entries, etc, that I quoted? That
> would seem an unfortunate (and I hope unlikely) turn of events.
>
> Simplest fix still seems to me to be to rule that talents do not as a
> rule get excluded from 'otherworldly concentration', perhaps with some
> sort of proviso about 'learned' vs. 'inherent' talents, if that can be
> made to stand up, else just a more general one about 'your religion may
> vary'. This does unfortunately contradict one passage, but at least it
> doesn't introduce a whole level of hand-waving about categories of
> magic
> Not Appearing In These Rules.
I can't say I disagree with you here. I'd even suggested something like that for the FAQ/errata. During final editing and review, it seems that innate magic was incorrectly defined and not caught. I can tell you from 2 years of rules refinement, this can easily happen.
Camo
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail