If they are a spiritist, they are by definition animist. They might also be a practitioner or a shaman, but they'd still be animist. Spritist, Practitioner and Shaman are ranks withing the Animist magical system. You wouldn't be an Initiate or an Adept in ther Animist system, because those ranks are from different systems. Neither would you be a Practitioner of a God or Spirit.
Of course, as I wrote in my reply to Mike, a Puma Person raised by some other culture might have a different religion.
Hope that helps.
> > >4. Concentration. Should a char who wants to concentrate their magic
> > >either during gen or in the near future pick appropriate common magic
> > >abilities only (i.e. charms for an animism concentration)? [...]
> >
> > If you want to mini-max, then yes, all those Common Magic abilities
> > should be specified as whatever translates to your magic system.
>
> I don't know what mini-max means, but it sounds like "getting the most
> out of the character" to me. No, that's not my intention.
Mini-maxing is a form or powergaming. Getting the most for the least, regardless of what strangeness it does to the character. For example, ignoring cultural limitations simply in order to get more "power". It's stretching the rules to the maximum, and then a little more, and ignoring the effect it has on the rest of the game.
> But I had the situation where a player said "I want to start at the
> lowest possible level, but my aim is to become a shaman. I'd also like
> to discover concentration in-game." When I told her she'd then lose
> all non-charm common magic, she was not so thrilled about it.
> However, I'm beginning to see my mistake here. I wasn't clear enough
> on the benefits of concentration, and that all she will lose, after
> all, are some +2 augments.
Correct. As an animist, the *character* would know that shamans are wierd people, woityh all sorts of retrictions on what they can and can't do. As a narrator, part of your job is to explain the cultural parts that the player doesn't understand. Of course, if you don't understand it either, that makes it difficult! But that's part of the reason these lists are here, to let us help you...
The question really is "Is it common
> practice to select the 'right' type of common magic abilities during
> character generation or is that considered powergaming?"
It's powergaming. The player has a pre-concieved idea of where he wants the character to go. In Glorantha, a child would have been taught whatever the family/clan/whatever knows, which is much more likely to be a mix of different styles in the common magic. Flesh Man is different in that he only teaches Talents. Most other Common Magic is a mixture of styles.
> However, both the article and your answer don't clarify the problem
> for me. You say "depends where you put those abilities". That's just the
> question. Where DO I put such abilities? Is there any rule governing
> this? Or is it "where you think it belongs"? It seems difficult for me
> to decide whether something is common magic, belongs to a specialized
> magic keyword (at least if it's not very similar to another ability in
> that kw), or is a natural magic ability, which seem the most powerful
> and thus possibly unbalancing.
Most things should either be put in common magic or the Magical keyword. While Glorantha is a strange and magical place, you don't have many people that can br4eahe fire, or shoot lightning bolts out their eyes without some sort of religion/magical system training. Natural magic is meant to be very uncommon, not for everyday. Most people don't have any "Natural Magic" abilities. Of those that do have them, the overwhelmi9ng majority only have one ability. Very few people would have more than one.
> Also not answered is the question whether putting such an ability
> under common magic means the player now has 6 CM abilities to start
> with, or 5 and that narrated ability is one of the 5.
5 CM abilities is only a guideline. If the player wants to "spend" words or list slots on additional abilities, let them.
RR
Powered by hypermail