On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Stephen Tempest
<e-g_at_...> wrote:
>
>>I don't know if I would use affinities for the Slayer, but I can't
>>really argue with excellence.
>
> I thought about that... Remember the definitions: wizardry is
> something you know, animism is something you have, and theism is
> something you are. And as Kendra said to Buffy, "You talk about
> Slaying like it's a job. It's not. It's who you are." Point proven, I
> think. :-)
LOL. I *was* actually thinking mechanistically, as you address below, and not of the philosophical aspects of the three worlds. I'm not sure the "you can't use the same affinity twice in a roll" would make sense. From the point of view of Gloranthan philosophy you are - of course - entirely correct. :)
> From a mechanical point of view, you could represent being the Slayer
> as Hidden Possession by a spirit, or even as Heroforming the First
> Slayer.
Or just a slew of abilities - which is heroforming the first slayer to some degree.
> But affinities seemed to work pretty well, since Potentials
> could use them as augments, while the actual Slayer could use active
> Feats to perform superhuman actions.
That's actually a very nice way of thinking about that, actually.
> I broke down the affinities into
> one physical (speed and strength and killing ability), one mystical
> (the Slayer's heritage and instinctive knowledge of the right way to
> win a fight) and one related to sensing or avoiding danger, to allow
> her to use one of each in a contest.
I saw that. :) I was very happy to see you put the whole "Slayer heritage" one in, as I think it tends to get ignored in write ups of her in different systems.
> Unlike in Glorantha, using Slayer
> powers as active feats creates no tangible or visible magical display,
> however.
Of course.
Hang on, was it ever established that non-active magic use *didn't* show any effect? I thought it was just scale. (And, of course, depended not on whether or not it was the primary ability, since very often which was the primary ability had nothing to do with whether or not your magic was "active".)
> Willow's magic would be represented better as a combination of
> Wizardry (when she casts spells directly or creates talismans) and
> Animism (when she summons gods to do her bidding, when she goes into
> an ecstatic trance with Tara, and when she lets the Dark Magic take
> control of her body and act through her).
Magic in Buffyverse is tricky. There certainly seems to be a lot of "anyone with access to the book" magic, which might best be represented by common magic spells. Then there is the instinctive power stuff the "real witches" do. I'd probably go for the "written magic" with Wizardry rules and then the "real magic" with either animism or theism.
Of course, that's all moot in HQ 2 from what I understand.
LC
> Stephen
>
>
Powered by hypermail