>And the difference between Saints/orderly stuff and Founder/Sorcery
>remains a bit unclear to me as well.
Morality. Church wizards follow the paths of saints to keep them within the strictures of the church. Sorcerers do what they will. Remember there is considerable disagreement between churches about acceptable saints.
>Where "veneration" gets in here is a little vague.
Veneration is a means whereby the magical energy (prayers) of the populace is fed into the church hierarchy. Some is returned directly by blessings but I suspect a lot of it is used by church wizards.
>Again, a little unclear if you have to do it each time to learn it. It
>certainly seems that way as most things are written.
>The HQ1 magic rules made a feat you learned from a cult seem different
>than one you learned by going on a heroquest, but I think it's been
>established that it wasn't the best model.
>One interpretation here is that there is absolutely no difference except
>that you get better instructions, rules, and support for doing the feats
>that are well known and accepted by the cult you are part of.
That's my interpretation. Cults are communities dedicated to performing the magic of their god(dess).
>How this ties in with affinities is also unclear.
>Where "sacrifice" comes in here is a little vague as well.
I think most theistic HQs involve some sort of sacrifice as part of the myth. At the very least there is a sacrifice of time and magical energy.
>It does seem the only one that allows for a HeroQuest in the "follow a
>HeroQuest meaning "go into the other world" seems to allow for all
>Shaman stuff. Of course, that's the spirit world and not the hero plane
>according to HQ1, but who knows if that's what it was supposed to be.
The model has developed somewhat since HQ1 was written. Last I heard the heroplane is a reflection of all three other worlds and in practice most people go to the heroplane to get magic rather than the more dangerous god, spirit and essence planes.
>Cultural blindness? They didn't realize that if they just barreled
>through the original myth they would have the rules to all negotiations
>and could even change those rules to suit themselves?
>Also, I would think there is likely to be a myth of the original
>negotiation for each tradition, maybe even each type of spirit. If you
>go with the "first person does it and then they come back and teach it
>to people" approach, then the God Learners can just learn the given
>negotiation. If you have to cross over and re-enact the myth in order to
>be able to negotiate with a given spirit, that's harder.
I suspect communication difficulties. A theist can explain the myth, indeed they routinely do. So for a GL it was a matter of persuading someone to tell them the whole story. A shaman doesn't teach that way, he or she takes you with them and shows you what they do. You then try and repeat that with their guidance. A spirit tradition is just that - the traditional way of dealing with particular spirits. It may not be the best way but it works pretty well most of the time. If you find a variation which is better you teach it to others. The GLers were flooded with contradictory data from different shamans and gave up in disgust.
>I kind of think they already had binding spells that worked on spirits,
>and thought the animists mostly primitives, and so didn't put as much
>work in it as they could have.
-- Donald Oddy http://www.grove.demon.co.uk/
Powered by hypermail