I think it better to work through in terms of mythic examples rather than rules mechanics. The best example would be Yelmalio losing his fire powers to Zorak Zoran. Another example is Kyger Litor losing the Sandals of Darkness to Orlanth. The lost power becomes a slave deity (Amanstan) or artifact (Sandals of Darkness) under the control of the victor.
Now since a Yelmalio going to the Hill of Gold likely does not have any fire magics (or else he wouldn't be a good Yelmalion, wouldn't he?), what he loses to the Zorak Zorani would be something innate like body heat. The Zorak Zorani who already can worship Amanstan to get fire would not get a new ability or artefact but easier access to fire magics or his innate fear of fire (common to Uz) is transformed instead to pyromania. There is no magic exchanged between the deities because the exchange happened long ago. What happens instead is that the worshippers have become marked by the exchange.,
> Same goes with magic drawn into Truestone...
The problem here is that the rules were developed for rune magic and hadn't quite taken into account similar high level magic for sorcery and animism (not to mention the fact that HQ 2 feats are a lot different from RQ Runespells).
> That's what we have had to work with for the past thirty years or so. While it is legitimate to ask whether this is necessary in Gloranthan vampires, there is a load of precedents to carry along or tactfully dispose of.
Except that when _Lords of Terror_ came out, it didn't repeat the information about Vivamort's vampires stealing spells but said that his magic was sorcery. So the thirty years of tradition argument has less weight than you think. Admittedly I'm not enthusiastic about the description in Lords of Terror.
> Much of Glorantha came into being "because it is/sounds cool". This includes scary as well as silly things.
But the vampire sucking magic isn't scary and it has a lot of problems with it.
>> The answer surely is divine magic has nothing to do with the blood bond - it's a property of the victim's soul. That makes it a different than to use of blood to enthrall a victim or to animate a corpse.
> Ok. (I admit I'm just reading "The Name of the Wind", a book which uses sympathetic magic as a main theme, and introduces chains of sympathy.)
>
> Blood is the carrier of life, a thing Vivamort gave up to continue his existence.
Again this only works for Vivamorti magic. When you are applying it to his victims, by saying that it can be drained along with the blood, you are saying that an objective relationship exists between the victim's divine magic and his blood which many gloranthan religions do not recognize. An Orlanthi would say that his magic is in his breath, not his blood.
>
>> If Vivamort were to be a soul vampire (for the sake of argument, I think it's accepted that his vampires drink blood) then my belief is that the victim's divine magic is untouchable as they are the immortal portion of his soul.
> Chaos is well able to destroy also the immortal portion of a soul, so I don't let this argument stand.
Depends on what chaos you are talking about. Kajabor can destroy
immortals but mere vampires can't.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail