Re: Knowing the arts of the Enemy

From: donald_at_...
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:49:52 GMT

In message <d40a19+9a4c_at_...> "John Galloway" writes:
>
>How likely are Heortlings to recognise a piece of (previously
>unknown) magic as a sorcerous spell as opposed to just assuming it
>is, say, some new common magic talent?
>
>I'm not so much concerned with Lhankor Mhy sages, Renval Maldekbane
>followers (Storm Tribe page 241), or people who have had significant
>exposure to sorcery. I'm thinking about the average cottar who has
>hardly ever left his tula in the course of his life.
>
>I suppose another way of putting this is to wonder if Theism,
>Animism, Sorcery, and Common Magic are fundamentally distinct and
>recognisable magics or do they all just boil down to seemling
>arbitrary combinations of (dare I say it) verbal, somantic and
>(possibly) material components?

The way I see it:

Theistic magic is very personal and the caster is seen as identified with the god. This is noticeable at any level but very obvious when feats are used.

Spirit magic is wild and rather disconnected from the user. Indeed a charm may be left somewhere and still work in the absence of the person who created it.

Sorcery is mechanistic and fairly predictable with an emphasis on objects and formal movements.

Common magic appears to incorporate bits of all these.

So yes, I think a cotter would recognise the difference but might well differentiate between familiar styles of magic and foreign magic. The latter being called sorcery not because it's recognised as such but because that's the word they use for foreign magic.

-- 
Donald Oddy
http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/