Re: Dealing with Talents (was Re: Three Worlds Headaches)

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_...>
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2003 23:43:18 +0100

On Sun, Oct 12, 2003 at 11:10:28AM -0000, Ian Cooper wrote:
> When converting HW characters to HQ during playtesting one of our
> players did raise the question "I am devotee. What happens to my
> natural magical abilities, because they are now defined as talents,
> which I must have given up". The ability in question was 'sweet
> voice' which the player felt was magical in origin.

This I find _especially_, alarmingly proscriptive. (Well, at least had the answer been in the negative, but that it even arises disturbs me somewhat.) It's one thing to have parts of the 'defined' game world preclude one another, but it seems deeply against the HW/Q idiom to have such a basic part of character conception be rules out in such a manner. (Then again, so does having abilities not referred to in your character description start at a higher rating than ones not, so maybe it's in keeping with a gathering trend...)

> I guess you might extend that to all magic, not just talents, gained
> outside religious practice. Do you have to give up that charm someone
> gave you in an episode, just because you are a devotee?

Fairly clearly yes; the discussion has focused on talents because it's the only case that's controversial. (Or at least, that's caused fresh controversy over the scar tissue of HW on similar topics.)

> I suspect that this is the problem for most people: losing abilities
> that a are part of a character that are not drawn from a religious
> commitment.

I think the problem is: losing abilities that may be an inherent part of the person (in a Gloranthan sense), that are a part of how the character is conceived, and what make the character interesting (in a story-telling sense), and that you've bleedin'-well spend HPs, words, or whatever else on (in a bugger-me-I'm-hosed sense).  

> That includes things you may have been able to do from childhood.

Or birth.

> In fact there is even a dark part of me that would say 'No Mr.Puma
> if you want to devote to Orlanth you will have to give up your
> shapechanging. It is innate magic. It is a talent. If you devote to
> Orlanth, you are trying to be like him, not like a Puma Person. [...]'

First of all, notice that you formulate this choice in the context of a given _religion_, not of the N-worlds/game-mechanical notion of 'concentration'. (In which context it's much better posed, I'd have to agree, but realize the difference.)

Secondly, ask the same question about a troll devoting to Orlanth. Or a human woman, to jump back on an old hobby-horse. Exactly which of their innate magics do they have to give up to become "like Orlanth"?

Cheers,
Alex.