> I may be heretical in this interpretation, but I always read the
> blessings to have an implied "our" or "these" in them. Bless [our]
> warriors, bless [these] plows, and so on.
<snip>
> I see blessings and curses as being mostly very specific, with a
> tight underlying logic (possibly very arcane logic, I'll grant you)
> that has the same rigor as a mathematical proof. A proof that two
> lines are parrelel won't help to show that two lines are almost but
> not quite parrelel. A blessing for your community only works with
> one very specific, magical, definition of community. A "blessing
> upon our swords" won't work on axes, or on a sword that doesn't
> belong to one of us, but will be more potent than a "blessing upon
> these blades."
I like these ideas.
Remember that, while superficially similar, western magic comes in two forms. Blessing and Curses are based in religion whereas Spells are based on intellect. Of course, there is some cross fertilisation between the two forms.
Also in the game mechanics there are three things that show how different sorcery is from the other forms.
1 - the apparently outrageous cost in HPs of spells and grimoires
2 - the more lenient multiple target, range etc. costs, particularly
at the upper ends of the tables
3 - at 1w2+ (if I remember correctly) a sorcerer may research new
spells in a grimoire (sp?). In many cases, the name of the grimoire
allows a greater range of spells than an affinity allows feats (The
Book of Helping Friends and Harming Enemies is one name that I seem
to remember)
regards,
Charles
Powered by hypermail