I don't see any need to have spell-stealing vampires as stealing spells is not what being a vampire is about and the power as described in Cults of Terror strikes me as unconvincing and based on RQ rules rather than glorantha. Vivamort in his biography isn't into stealing spells but taking lives. The Dancers of Darkness aren't into stealing magics but are still nasty vampires nevertheless. Given Vivamort spell stealing powers is like giving Lanbrili thieves swiss army gadgets.
> In your Hill of Gold example, the winner confirms a mythical win and loss. With a vampire stealing just any feat, there is just one mythical precedent - the time when all gods died (and presumably lost their power to act). Powers were lost to chaos then.
Except that what actually does Vivamort do during the Great Darkness? What important battles is he involved with? All he's described as doing is picking on Arroin (who being a healing deity is unable to fight back) *but* is unable to kill him! The words "Epic Fail" spring to mind.
> Another idea: the vampire does create a short-lived slave entity from what he drains out of his victim, an undead power. Without means to replenish itself, it fades to chaos - either slowly, unused, or at once in the act using that power. The power is already dead to both the victim and its deity, but still lingers on until the vampire chooses to spend it.
I have a better idea. The vampire drinks the victims blood. Some blood is magically useful being based on the runes of the victim. Rather than metabolize it to feed his undead body, the Vampire keeps it coursing around in his body so that he is able to cast magics based on those runes (the magics he learns from other sources, such as his past life). That fits in far better with the conception of vampires and doesn't involve unnecessary multiplication of essences about how Vampires are able to use divine magic. (I wonder why I didn't mention it before? Oh wait, I did...)
> After all, Vivamort was a participant in the Sword Story.
In the Heortling version, he was so important they didn't mention him.
>> 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.
> I am saying that the Vivamorti forces this subjective relationship onto his victim.
So as well as being a drinker of blood, Vivamort imposes his own ontology upon his victim? Sorry, still not convinced. As I grow older, I'm finding it harder to distinguish fairly between elaborate theoretical justifications and contrived arguments and so prefer to keep things simple.
>
>> An Orlanthi would say that his magic is in his breath, not his blood.
> Yes. He will need to establish that as an objective truth to an opponent of a different origin.
No he won't. His magic _is_ in his breath. That's an objective fact which exists no matter who his opponent is. Metaphysical and heroquest conflicts are over the subjective opinions (to wit, whether the Sun is Yelm or Elmal or whether Orlanth or Tarumath is the True Storm). Trying to initiate magical conflicts over objective facts is a good way to get an arse-kicking.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail