Well, I understand and entirely accept that this clearly from the examples wasn't the intent, I was just confused (and remain so, somewhat) about the exact nature of how Issaries might 'fix' this.
> The problem I'm having with it is the assertion that "in Glorantha
> everything's magical even natural phenomena. Puma People shape change is
> natural and therefore (in Glorantha) magical but not magical as they can
> concentrate other magic around it, therefore it's natural which means it's
> magical..." Aaaarrggghhh.
Right. This opens up the vista of having some sort of Unspoken Category of natural magic, ignoring all the existing 4-world generalisations, but immediately creating the issue of what magic gets to be _in_ that category. I assume one might be born with such magics, as per Camo's suggestion; I also think a HQ might 'install' one.
This is a premature worry, as hsunchen for HQ are clearly not out yet, but I can't help but puzzle out how they relate. Clearly for hsunchen, their shapechanging _is_ related to their cultural magic, so it makes sense that a Rathori Wizard (say) would lose that ability. But isn't the 'innate' magic of the Puma People rather like how the hsunchen would have been in earlier/happier/more Green Age conditions? Or perhaps how a 'sufficiently advanced' hsunchen magician is _after_ completing his awakening of dormant "natural magical abilities", by means of using yay-amounts of animist practice? Just trying to puzzle this through in my head.
> Personally I'm not sure that this "four worlds" malarkey is actually that
> useful to man, beast or some combo of both.
Well, I guess after Scotscon I'm out of the closet on this one, if I was ever doing any sort of job of residing in it.
> It seemed like a good idea when
> I first read about it but its' one of those "rules" that seems to need
> exceptions all over the shop. Maybe it's due to the wording of the rules
> rather than something systemic, but it's confusing the hell out of me.**
I think it's a considerable improvement over the HW treatment, but still purports to making crisp distinctions where they're neither fun in play, nor descriptively accurate in (my) Glorantha in too many cases.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail