Re: Portraying magic

From: donald_at_75VbXLCxUj8zuP-13BxQl7xkpynhDY7i73R070H9n5nHG8NYO8fYbq6ynrWLqIsRA3rDG
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:12:55 GMT


In message <46D75A2F.5070301_at_V4VQHS-_On1RSVCTJpMbtkFYjAqCc2Y9zOX-zqvUGM0pCxH2CRyJy1-3idMbIpfzyPZl0GAiGXRcKS4UU3x5Fa-NscWrWA.yahoo.invalid> Paolo Guccione writes:
>These subjects have been discussed lately on the MRQ forums. They
>started as a rules discussion, but they involve a lot of debate about
>"How it is in Glorantha", so a considerable part of the subject should
>be discussed here and not on a rules forum.
>
>First of all, there is the subject of the physical runes used by
>Mongoose RuneQuest, the system that is used to depict Glorantha in the
>Second Age. Most theist magic is performed by means of these physical
>items, whereas old-school RQ divine magic is less used. Someone on this
>forum suggested that these items, which have never been mentioned when
>describing the Gloranthan reality of the Third Age, might be a God
>Learner construct, or at least something that ceases to exist with the
>God Learners. I would go as far as stating that these so-called "runes"
>weer in fact a God Learner way of crystallizing your affinity with your
>god in a physical item that allowed you to manipulate his magic, like a
>God Learner manipulates his own sorcery. A clear perversion of the true
>relationship between a believer and his god. Although this idea causes
>no conflict with all published materials for older versions of RQ, or
>HQ, for what it is worth, this theory has not yet been confirmed nor
>rejected. I think a more widespread debate would be both interesting and
>useful. Hoping such a subject does not attract the attention of the Gift
>Carriers...

Sounds a plausable explanation. An alternative is that they are a magic item which has become extremely rare in the third age. In that case most were taken by the God Learners and lost when they disappeared forcing people to relearn to interact directly with their gods.

>Second, there is the subject of whether a practitioner of Theist magic
>should be a priest or not. In the "old way", i.e. in RQ 1-4, you had to
>be a priest or acolyte to performe the most powerful theist magic. This
>is no longer true in HQ: an Initiate is a person who has a deeper degree
>of Affinity with his god and his principles, to the point that he may
>emulate his god with Feats if he is a Devotee, while a priest (godi or
>god-talner), is the one who performs the Holy Rituals, i.e. the boring
>stuff, and teaches others the cult doctrine. He has probably a higher
>Relationship to the Cult, in HQ terms, but he is not closer to his god
>or more capable of invoking him. It turned out that MRQ rules produce a
>similar approach, intentionally or by mistake, by not making any
>difference between Priest and Initiate. This is a bit of a rulesy
>subject, but since most systems currently in use seem to point this out,
>it would be a good idea to clarify this point in a debate that
>supersedes the rules.

Well among the Heortlings all godar will be at least initiates since the vast majority of adults are. Priests are probably also at least initiates in other theistic pantheons. I think you are making a false distinction between performing Holy Rituals and emulating the god. The purpose of those rituals is to invoke the god - i.e. get them to appear in one of the participants. For routine rituals that's usually going to be the priest performing the ritual. To illustrate, Ernalda has a subcult Roitina the Ceremonialist. Many godar of Ernalda but few other women will be initiates of that subcult. I'm not sure why Ernalda has a subcult for godar when Orlanth doesn't. At a guess it's to do with Orlanth being more individualistic and less cooperative than Ernalda.

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

           

Powered by hypermail