This is turning into a Digest thread. I'll take it there, but some few points ::
> (Innate magic)
>
> > Have you noticed that we basically share the same definition of this magic ?
>
> Yes, I think we agree on _this_ magic, but not on the other;
Right, well that's half of the problems dealt with.
The other half, involving not MG but how things might work in everyone's Glorantha, is a thornier issue, best dealt with on the GD IMO.
> > When I suggest that "Hedge Wizards" use "Wizardry", and that their
> > "spells" are (implicitly) NOT CM "talents", I am "restricting" CM to
> > "talents" alone.
>
> Rokari peasants (say) are described as having access to CM in the form
> of spells, among others.
IMG Rokari peasants (say) having access to CM would use 'talents'.
I think, here, the distinguishing factor IMG is that if a Rokari peasant learned a spell from a Hedge Wizard, it wouldn't belong to his CM keyword (if he had one).
> That's not just some small specialist minority
> either, it seems fairly clear. If you're saying they IYG have no CM at
> all, then fine, that's an actual restriction. What you seemed to me to
> be saying, however, is that such people would still have CM, and indeed
> for all practical purposes the same CM, but in the form of 'learned
> talents'. Is that correct? If so, then I entirely stand by the above
> characterisation, and indeed don't see how you can object to it.
Because anything in the HQ book listed under CM as anything other than 'talents' is no longer (theoretically at least ; in an actual game I might be a lot less rigorous) part of the CM keyword : in some cases this may mean that the Homeland CM keyword will be ignored entirely.
Soooo, I guess I mostly agree with your position here as well, to wit "IMG they have no CM at all" is _mostly_ accurate, although most probably not in all particulars.
> > IMG : Common magic is from the Inner World.
> > Innate Magic is from the character and/or the player.
> >
> > A World and a character are not the same thing.
>
> A world (in this case) isn't identical with (obviously!), but does
> entirely contain a character; a character and a player aren't the same
> thing at all, and the latter is neither here nor there for this
> discussion.
I'm not sure that lit theory is terribly on-topic here ... ;-)
Digest.
> > > the point is that your terminology and
> > > distinctions are not supportable. Innate magic is from the inner world;
> > > 'learned talents' (if have 'em we must) are from the inner world;
> > > there's no distinction in that sense, contra your earlier implication.
> >
> > Well, there is a distinction IMG, however you might feel about it.
> >
> > Innate magic is from inside, Common magic is from outside.
> >
> > Surely that's a reasonably clear distinction, isn't it ?
>
> Yes, it is, but it's completely different _from the distinction you made
> that I was commenting on_.
My lit-crit informed opinion is that the Hero and Player are themselves a perfectly valid source of magic.
Also particular Species, Places, Items combined with the Will of the Game Designer.
Both of these combinations can provide actual Gloranthan magic outside the basic
rules. I realise this explanation will make you hit the roof : if you want further
discussion,
Digest plaese.
> I'd like to get some clarity on
> issues that that are raised by what you've posted, but that you seem
> less than happy about discussing the details of.
I'm doing nothing but, notwithstanding your unwillingness to accept the details provided.
> Unless innate magic is
> PC-only in your game,
That's the _basic_ idea, yes ! Except that I accept Greg's and others' inherent right to give Innate Magic to certain particular species or individuals described in the literature. Even to members of vast numbers of Martial Arts dojos, if they like !
> I don't
> see how the point even _arises_, in the issue of its place in
> Glorantha-as-a-world.
All I can say is, YGWV. YG will, particularly, be governed by your own opinions of what is basically acceptable and what isn't.
> It seems unlikely to me that you're unaware of
> this distinction (between world, and narrative),
Erm, Alex : I'm a French Lit post-graduate degree holder, so I think that I am, to the contrary, _accutely_ aware of the distinction, and also how each interacts with the other and with the player and the writers.
> so I can't help but be
> deeply unimpressed by your apparent willingness to elide it to make a
> snappy comeback.
Because it's Digest Fodder. <Much similar Digest Fodder snipped>
> So I can't accept "it's all narrative,
> anyway" type assertions, even were they pertinent to the topic at hand.
Well, what's the point explaining my position, then, given that
you'll never accept it ?
...
> Antonio :
>
> > I think the traditional methods (sacrifice, ecstatic worship,
> > veneration) are used to CONTACT THE OTHERWORLD. So, what is/are the
> > method/s of Common Magic?
>
> I'd say there are two aspects; contact the otherworld, as you say, but
> also, correctly 'address' the type of entity encountered.
Yeah, here's the crux of it. Digest.
Julian Lord
Powered by hypermail