On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 06:28:03PM -0000, drpachyderm wrote:
> > As has already been suggested: from the ancestors, from local (not
> > necessarily landscape per se) spirits/daimons/essenses, from your
> > family's, clan's or association's 'this is always the way things
> > around here have worked' magical practices.
> What is a "local daimon" in this sense?
Anything that's a) a daimon, and b) not so widely known as for 'local' not to apply. Are you looking simply for examples of such, or are you wanting specifically things that are exactly-like-landscape-deities-but- different?
> How is it different from the landscape deities and daimons described
> as giving localized feats?
Due to not being associated with specific pieces of topography, and not giving (necessarily) localised feats, I'd have thought.
> This is what's confusing me. Common Magic does come from this world.
> But it's useful. The chapter on daimons that come from this world
> though describes getting magic from them that's not as useful.
Only in the sense of being restricted as to localisation; the other differences you may (or may not) have been implying, see my previous message regarding.
> If I, as a narrator, want to put in a daimon as a source of common
> magic that can be used anywhere, how do I differentiate it from the
> daimons in the chapter that says their feats can only be used in their
> vicinity?
By making it something *other* than a landscape deity, or alternatively by ignoring/finessing those rules, if they seem to you to be Dumb, surely. (Note that even in this passage there's a remark or two that implies a certain 'flexibility' of interpretation, anyway.)
> Is the difference that one is part of a religion and one isn't? That
> one has been used for a long time that way and one hasn't?
I'd think those things could each be true or not true, for either, from case to case.
> I just don't see what the difference is between the two entities
> (aside from the efficacy of their provided magic).
I'm not sure what sort of difference you're looking for; as I understand it, one is an instance of the other. I don't think there's any necessary difference in efficacy: not all feats are equal or interchangeable in utilily, as has already been noted; both may have this or that type of restriction on how they're used, landscape beings merely happen to be (somewhat) more defined in this respect. Possibly over-defined, in the sense that they seem to be waxing somewhat simulationist, and may not be intended to be as narratively proscriptive as they may seem by some readings.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail