You're right about the nots -- that sentence could stand to lose at least one, and still be mightily badly written. Oh well.
I'll agree it's not a big deal. After all, it's not like it's actually even necessary to use the narrative method of char-gen. I just think it's more satisfactory to have it have more meaningful consequences, rather than the Insidious Slide(TM) to points-based char-gen.
> What did strike me as odd though, when I finally got to look at the
> sample characters in any detail. Some of the characters had extra
> Common Magic abilities writen into their lists/descriptions over and
> above the 5 "free" abilities that all Common Magic using characters
> get. I would have expected these to start at the Common Magic
> Keyword rating of 17, but the generally seem to start at
> the "default" of 13.
The CM 'keyword' is, almost by definition, not necessarily a coherent set of magical practices. So the interpretation is probably that you're limited to only 5 CM abilities for balance/reasonableness, rather than it becoming an all you can eat talent buffet.
Personally, I'll run this as you get the same rating on anything that appears in your decsription that'd be reasonably covered by mention of a keyword, or as previous described enumerated as a 'key phrase'. As in, not just a reference to "common magic" (underline, write down 17...), but some game-world-meaningful tag. (Schengeral clan ancestors, Curbside Society, etc.)
> >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"?
> In the case of Women, if they want to devote to Orlanth, they have to
> do so through Vinga, which might lead you to believe that any other
> route leads to them having to give up innate magic which is necessary
> for their survival.
>
> Obviously if a Troll devotes to a Theist cult, or an Animist
> Practice, or a Sorcery/Wizardry school, he has to give up all the
> innate magic he has from other sources. However, since his innate
> magic all comes from the underworld, where such distinctions are not
> made - he doesn't have a problem ;)
When I say innate magic of trolls and women, I'm thinking of things like darksense, and childbirth. Do you have to lose those to "become more like Orlanth"? (Maybe so, at some very deep level, but I doubt it "merely" to become a devotee. Disciple, or far-gone HQer, now...)
I can almost hear about a dozen listers reach for their keyboards to say "but those aren't magic!" -- just as FGS has already done for the PP, of course. But I submit that that not really very consistent with the ethos of Glorantha at all -- there are countless examples of something being characterised as magical in some deep sense, that would be to us, in our world, quite mundane. I think that's almost the nature of mythology, or if you want to be schmystical about it, the nature of the world as a magical creation.
Potted summary: genuinely innate magical abilities should be treated no differently from 'mundane', non-magical abilities (if there's even such a thing).
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail