*nod* It may well be that they are conflatable, but the only Sacred Time ritual I know of is the Orlanthi Lightbringeresque re-enactment. They don't do all the other rits then as far as I know.
>
> > (And you weren't asking about a culture, you're asking about
> > "animists" which - depending on the rule system we are using
> > - may not be a meaningful distinction for purposes of rules.)
>
> True, I'm not asking about a culture, but I think the distinctions
> between the ways of doing magic have been there for a very long time.
> And if someone had said "Here's how it worked in RQ3," I'd have
> figured out what it meant in world and in HQ2.
>
*smile* fair enough.
I remain deeply unsure whether they are single systems like that. (The
question has been asked repeatedly and unanswered.)
I never played the old RQ2 or 3, so I am not sure how it went there, but
my understanding is that the three worlds as strictly distinct wasn't
present. Sorcery was a different system than the divine and spirit
magics, but Malkionism was also viewed as more monolithic than we see it
now.
HW and HQ1 had the worlds each as a separate magical system and one where what system you used determined the mechanics of your magic. Whether that was a limitation put in by the needs of RPG mechanics or not is unclear. We have the appendix implying that is the intent again in HQ2, but we have Sartar:KoH specifically stating its magic system only applies to Orlanthi, so that's unclear again whether we should look at it that way.
Even in the HW/HQ system, though, I don't think there was an intent (although it is never mentioned in the rules) that all Sacred Time rituals of a given world magic system are identical in mechanical intent and effect. (I would be surprised if the Dara Happans do a ritual at Sacred Time that gives the exact same benefit as the Orlanthi one.)
Everyone accessing a world for magic having the same mechanics and powers is a possible truth of Glorantha. Or it could be a choice the design team wants to make for the sake of simplicity and easy gaming. I honestly don't know what their intentions are. Since I don't actually think it makes things easier mechanics-wise in HQ2 to have each world system have its own rules, I am only likely to make it work like that if I find there's a good "in-Glorantha" reason for it. (I can see an argument for all Malkioni magic working largely the same, even over the Rokari-Hrestoli split and other spin offs thereof. I can see the Yelmite/Fire-Sky Tribe and Orlanthi theists having both overlapped to the point they basically look alike. Or maybe everyone from IFWW learned the same way to contact the gods and so they all have the same basic trends. That covers most Theists. The Animists of Prax all have common roots, so they could all work similarly.
At the same time, maybe it is a necessity of the nature of contacting that world that shoves people into the same specific mechanics.
I don't know. I currently lean towards a more diverse view, but maybe someone will convince me otherwise.
>
> > Personally, I don't think it's a useful category
> > except possibly in a "preparing to go to war with
> > an evil spirit" aspect.
>
> You may be right, though I think your exception is pretty much the
> whole category. (Being prepared for war does not mean planning to
> attack. They could simply be prepare to defend vigorously.) When I see
> a possible pattern with a missing piece, I always wonder if there is a
> missing piece or if there's really no pattern. The fact that I was
> having a hard time visualizing it in a way that didn't feel like a
> cheap knock-off of some Orlanthi ritual hinted to me that there was
> nothing there.
>
*nod* Could be the case. As I said, I don't think the Orlanthi do this
in their big annual ritual, do they? I thought they do a recreation of
the world being made/saved and that's it. The "protect this, grow the
crops, etc" are done at other rituals, which I suppose are annual as
well, on different gods high holy days. I don't know of any ritual that
is specifically "arming ourselves against the bad things" in an annual
way, is there? (I'm hardly an expert, mind you.)
>
>
> > I'm not sure how you would get there, but I am sure
> > a story can be constructed where the situation is
> > the spirit isn't manifest and they must go to it for
> > some reason.
>
> Sure, but do animists recognize this as something that must be done
> frequently (annually?), so that they commonly have rituals to do so?
> And is there something distinctly animist about it, which would be
> shared by other animist cultures?
>
I have a lot of trouble with the concept of "distinctly animist". (or distinctly theist, or distinctly essentialist) I suspect this is something we just flat out disagree on.
>
> > I don't think there is anything meaningful about the
> > idea that placation is "active" magic by some sort of
> > definition. Depending on the narrative at the time,
> > any of these can be active or benefit or whatever. The
> > rules don't need classifying of magics that way (as
> > I've argued before) and it is an extremely rules-centered
> > approach to the problem.
>
> I would disagree. I would say that what I am looking for is guidance
> for narrators. "Here's a handy way to" rather than "you must." The
> point in Glorantha is that you do some rituals in advance of the need,
> and it protects you for a long time, while you do other rituals only
> when needed to handle a manifestation of evil.
>
Sure. I think I'm missing something in your explanation about what you're looking for then. You want what, exactly? Rules for if a ritual is done to protect against evil spirits?
>
> > If that's the specific issue (what rules to apply) we should
> > probably move it over to the rules list.
>
> I don't read it.
>
Then never mind. ^_^
This list is supposedly about the world and not the rules, though, isn't it?
>
> > If the question is "what ritual do they do for this kind of
> > thing", I say it depends on the culture in question.
>
> If that is your answer, then -- implicitly -- you are saying that
> there is no commonality, nothing essentially animist about this
> situation. That is, there is no middle point between "it's a game
> rule" and "it's the culture." I think I disagree with that, though I'm
> still having a hard time visualizing it. Peter's comments got me
> closest to what I was trying to see.
>
*nod* Yeah, I suspect we're viewing this from a very different angle, which is why I am having trouble figuring out what you're asking. And yeah, as I said, I am unconvinced there is such a thing as "distinctly animist". The design team may weigh in with "Yes, we are going to be making these sorts of specific mechanics per world" though, so maybe that will help you.
>
> > It sounds like some kind of ritual where you arm yourself
> > with the best weapons against the foe. Something very specific.
>
> Maybe, but what I'm trying to see is whether there is a class of
> particularly animist rituals that happen under similar circumstances,
> result in grossly similar benefits, and can be handled by similar
> applications of game rules, across cultures. (Not the monomyth notion
> that spirit X in culture A is also spirit Y in culture B.)
>
See, this is where I think I lose you. A ritual will either give you an ability, or a lingering benefit, or a plot augment. Any of those are available to any magic system unless the Glorantha designers have decided they want to make certain game mechanics not exist in certain magic systems. (Something I am thoroughly against, because I think it makes no sense in the structure of HQ2.) I can't imagine a way the rules mechanics concerning the bonus would change by being "essentially animist". The closest I can come up with is "an animist ritual would either give you charms, or allied spirits, or propitiate or scare off the bad spirits" - neither of which is a mechanical distinction.
I mean, in HQ2 the bonus you get from raiding an magic armory and arming yourself can be any number of things (new ability, lingering benefit, plot augment). Nothing about it being a "magic armory" tells you anything about the mechanics.
>
> > So if this is for the community it goes to the wyter
> > and maybe goes to the wyter's magic rating.
>
> I hadn't considered that. That's a good thought. In rules terms, I had
> been thinking about the rituals resulting in a lingering benefit. I'll
> have to examine the community spirit approach, too.
>
Most community rituals seem to be focused granting the ability or benefit to the wyter. (For lack of a better term for that in different cultures.)
>
> > Again, I am deeply suspicious that you can say "Theists
> > do this" and "Animists do this" when it comes to ritual
> > in any meaningful way in Glorantha.
>
> There has been a lot of focus on distinguishing theism, animism, and
> sorcery. I can't imagine that, despite those differences, they do
> their rituals the same way. For example, we know that theist ritual
> tend to involve sacrificial worship, where animist rituals tend to
> involve ecstatic worship.
>
But 1) I don't think an Orlanthi ritual looks like a Dara Happan ritual other than it is likely to involve sacrifice and it contacts the God world. 2) Mechanically, those things don't matter in HQ2.
>
> > There are at least two major streams of Theism in Glorantha -
> > the Yelmites and the Orlanthi, and while we can argue they've
> > interacted so often their rituals look the same, I'm not sure
> > that's true. While I suspect all the tribes of Prax share
> > similar structure to their rituals, I have no particular
> > reason to believe other animists have the same exact approach.
>
> Animism and theism are different ways of doing magic. That leads me to
> suspect that a Praxian and a Balazaring ritual for a specific
> circumstance would have points of commonality that they would not
> share with an Orlanthi or Dara Happan ritual.
>
Some, although I am not sure how much or how important they are. Again, perhaps the nature of the worlds means those commonalities ARE stronger than I think. That's an interesting tidbit of knowledge if true. Again, however, I don't see how that results in any mechanical difference between them from an HQ2 rules point of view.
>
> > Thus emphasizing "animists would focus on the bad guy"
> > seems weird to me. And what about things like the Summons of Evil?
> > There's some focusing of the power on the bad guy there.
>
> Theism is about being your god. Your power in a theist ritual comes
> from emulating the god. Animism is about relating to the spirits
> (negotiation and conquest being two common types of interaction).
> Surely, then, your power in an animist ritual comes from the manner in
> which you relate to the spirit. So, where a theist gets power from the
> "X beats" part of the "X beats Y" ritual, the animist gets power from
> the "beats Y" part. (Assuming, of course that the point of the ritual
> is getting power over Y, not getting a charm containing one of X's
> spirits.)
>
*nod* I can see that to some degree. I'm not really sure animists do
focus on the "beats Y" part of it, though. It seems to not really be
focused on your relationship with a spirit in that case. Although if it
is a "You beat Y" ritual, I guess that can be true.
>
>
> > If you want the culture in your game to do a ritual to focus
> > on arming themselves against the evil spirit they know is
> > coming, I see no reason why they wouldn't have one. It seems
> > like one of the standards all cultures would have.
>
> Yes, exactly. So, in animism, what does it do when you beat up on Y
> (or maybe, Y's representative)? Or do you believe that the answer is
> different per ritual or per culture? (I'll admit that I don't like
> that answer because I think it fails to give narrators help in
> visualizing the magic that they have never seen conducted and,
> especially, in visualizing the differences.)
>
One, I think it does vary from culture. Mechanically, it doesn't vary at all. I mean, you could make a distinction like "animists get lingering benefits from rituals, theists get a new power for their wyter, and sorcerers get a new ability" but that seem really weird to me. Even if you say "all animist rituals produce spirits that can help you" this can be represented mechanically in any number of ways (lingering benefit, new charm/ability, spirit sidekick, etc.)
>
> > That's a possibility. I would say that doing the "we beat
> > up your disease spirit, don't mess with us" ritual means
> > you can't propitiate Mallia for a while.
>
> Certainly. Propitiating her is morally blameworthy in most cultures,
> so I would think that people would prefer to do the "beat up" ceremony
> if it could be done with the same cost and risk-reward balance. (And,
> since there is a proptiation ritual, it follows that the two do not
> have the same cost and risk-reward balance in all situations.)
>
Agreed whole-heartedly. I suspect that it changes depending on how much chaos and disease is around. The stronger Mallia is in the area, the more likely you are to go the propitiation route.
LC
Powered by hypermail