> I am not sure if a shaman could even capture a daimon in a fetish, much less
> integrate it.
> On the other hand, if a stead was haunted by a ghost I suppose a shaman would
> be the one to call, even if the ghost is the ghost of a theist.
>
> Or do dead theists never become ghosts? (Of course that happens!)
In my games I plan to ignore all this, unless it happens to be dramatically useful. We've heard several times in the past that the Heortlings are sort of a mixed tradition, combining theism and animism, so I'm going to mix them too.
Unless I were to restart my Jrusteli game, since both practices are alien to the good Malkioni. (And when they do start doing their god learning, it won't be at a minus either, since they would simply be learning it as an ability, rather than being steeped in it as a world view.)
Wulf answered
> This is akin to my problem about Theistic Ancestor Worship. All those
> poor old ignored, uncontactable, non-Heroic theistic ancestors...
The whole thing really boils down to national origin, as it were. Theistic ancestors go to the same place their gods live, so they are daimones by definition. Animist ancestors go to the same place their great spirits live, so they are spirits by definition. Is there really a difference between the two? I suspect not, other than that one speak daimonish and the other spiritish.
Mikko
> > > I like to see weaponthanes who are good with, "Windborne jump", or
> > > "Throw Lightning", without them having the whole affinity at the same
> > > high level.
>
> Rather elegant David. But I still like it better if they can develop
> each feat separately. Well... if one can work on those bonuses (Raising
> that +x to lighting, instead of the affinity, and at a lower cost, then
> it solves the problem nicely)
It would depend on how the bonus were phrased. If it were to one feat (or to a narrow subset of improvised feats), sure. If it were situational in nature, I wouldn't let it be raised.
> This was in use with spesific weaponskills at some point, wasn't it?
It was in the original draft and could apply to anything (including across abilities -- one character had a bonus if he could look his opponent in the eyes; he had a corresponding penalty if he couldn't).
Andy
> On a related note: Is the Kolat keyword restricted to male worshippers and,
> if so, when and why did that happen?
Presumably before publication, unless there are Gift Carriers in the real world... I assume it's because other nearby cultures also have male & female traditions. Kolat is a male great spirit, so it's probably easier for men to deal with him. I don't think it's intended to mean that Heortling women don't become shamans, and until we get something with details for them, I'd either let a female shaman be a kolating, or an Earth Witch (defined as taking the kolating keyword and writing "earth" in crayon every time it says "air").
BTW, some of my reading on real world shamans suggests that many people are called to become shamans because of some illness they have; I think epilepsy is a common one. This might vary from culture to culture, depending on how shamans are regarded.
(And once again everyone: the plural in English is "shamans," same as with plurals from any foreign word we use.)
David Dunham <mailto:dunham_at_...>
Glorantha/HW/RQ page: <http://www.pensee.com/dunham/glorantha.html>
Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein
Powered by hypermail