From: owner-rq-rules-digest To: rq-rules-digest@hops.wharton.upenn.edu Subject: RQ Rules Digest: V3 #36 Reply-To: rq-rules Errors-To: owner-rq-rules-digest Precedence: bulk Content-Return: Prohibited Return-Path: owner-rq-rules-digest RQ Rules Digest: Wednesday, 21 August 1996 Volume 03 : Number 036 TABLE OF CONTENTS David Dunham enchanting; shrines Alain RAMEAU Allied Spirit Josh Shaw Something a little different Colin Watson Enchantments and Divine Magic Sandy Petersen gross spells and Sandy's theory of Rune Ma David Weihe Allied Spirit David Weihe Something a little different Jane Williams Enchantments and POW Glenn Glazer enchanting; shrines Glenn Glazer Allied Spirit RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. When paraphrasing you demonstrate exactly how well you understand the point someone was trying to make. 4. There is no number 4. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: David Dunham Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 21:33:06 -0700 Subject: Re: enchanting; shrines Glenn Glazer wondered > This is where we part company. Enchantments generally require the loss of > permanent POW (_Magic Book_, Pg. 55). Where do you think this POW goes? If > the enchantment is done by a priest, my opinion is that the POW goes to the > deity It obviously goes into the object, enchanting it. This is why the object detects as magic. If the POW went to the deity, how would shamans (who don't necessarily worship) or sorcerers enchant anything? > As for shrines, ... "The priest for this holy > place is commonly indistinguishable from the rest of the peasants." (_Magic > Book_, pg. 29). ... it implies there is always a priest for each shrine. Probably it's no longer a shrine if there isn't someone to tend it and conduct worship ceremonies (using the rune spell). So there's a priest (more likely an acolyte, which are junior priests) for each shrine by definition. David Dunham Glorantha/RQ page: Imagination is more important than knowledge. -- Albert Einstein ------------------------------ From: Alain_RAMEAU@total.fr (Alain RAMEAU) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 09:41:55 +0200 Subject: Allied Spirit As I remember the rules, an Allied Spirit is always linked to the Lord, and can cast spell. Is it true whatever the distance between both ? If yes, is it acceptable for a Lord to leave the enchanted item with his bound Allied Spirit somewhere (a temple for exemple), especially when such item is not a very usefull (from a practical point of view, such as an enchanted skull for Zorak Zoran RuneLords), but to benefit always from this link, for having the Allied Spirit casting spells ? As he can see through the Lord's eyes (?), I suppose he can cast not only spells on his Lord, but also on target near his Lords. Any opinions ? Alain ------------------------------ From: Josh Shaw Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 01:42:58 -0700 Subject: Something a little different Steve Perrin wrote > It might also imply that saint's relics (considered very potent >magic indeed in the Middle Ages) would actually be the source of great spirit >magic, perhaps tied to use of the faithful of the One God. Though I would >think the religionists would be torn between taking the saint's bones and >properly sending the saint's spirit onto its just reward and the possibility >of keeping the saint's spirit around to help with magic. Quite a quandary. and Brad Stradley added > >. As to your religious quandry, whether it >is moral to capture the spirit of a saint, this would be excellent for an >evil cult. It occurs to me that "Sainthood" in your world might be equivalent to a Bodhisatva's Vow. In other word, rather than seeking release from the wheel, the Saint voluntarily remains attached to the world to serve his/her coreligionists. This is part of what makes Saints so holy. And therefore, forcing such a thing on an _unwilling_ victim would be equally (or nearly so) powerfull, which is why Necromancy is at once so attractive and so vile. - ------ Josh ------------------------------ From: Colin Watson Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:31:35 +0100 (BST) Subject: Enchantments and Divine Magic ____________ Glenn Glazer: > Enchantments generally require the loss of > permanent POW (_Magic Book_, Pg. 55). Where do you think this POW goes? If > the enchantment is done by a priest, my opinion is that the POW goes to the > deity, hence the similarity between this process and the sacrifice for > divine magic. Like others, I assume that the POW goes into the enchanted object. After all, Second Sight allows one to see the POW of such objects. > >Where do you get the idea that the ceremony for sacrificing for divine > >magic is performed by a priest and not the character? You seem very sure > >of this, what is the source? Nowhere in the rules or any source I know of > >does it say anyone else need be present. > >Consider: priests must use the spell 'spellteaching' in order to summon a >cult spirit to teach a battle magic spell. Now, if that length of ritual is >required for a battle magic spell, certainly some greater ritual is required >for rune magic? You're basically right on this count. It takes a week of study, and you must learn the spell from a priest who knows it already. (Yes folks, this surprised me too when I first read it, but it's there in the Divine Magic rules if you look for it.) In many ways this is more similar to sorcery than to shamanism - you actually have to study with a mentor to get the spell. I'll wager many campaigns don't follow this to the letter. ___ CW. ------------------------------ From: Sandy Petersen Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 09:37:21 -0500 Subject: Re: gross spells and Sandy's theory of Rune Magic Simon sez >any spell which is banned because it COULD be abused is banned >incorrectly ... Poorly written spells etc. should be rewritten, not >banned. Here I stand in total agreement with you. Of course, sometimes a "new" spell is just an idiotic variant of an old one, or it has such exploitative possibilities that when toned down enough for play, it is useless. With respect to vicarious POW sacrifice, I've already said that I've had it happen in my campaigns. More than one. But only as the result of some dire and evil enchantment, or through some huge sacrifice. Making it easily accessible wrecks too many bits of Glorantha for me. >I still prefer not to ban spells, but to have their abuses >restricted by mutual consent rather than by force. This works for me in some cases, but not all, because I like to have the world make sense. My PCs may agree not to abuse Teleport to pop a large rock into an enemy's skull, but I like to have a reason why NPCs don't do this, either. Simple rules fixes stop the problem and I don't suffer from a cognitive dissonance anymore. Glenn Glazer >Ritual magic in RQ3 is an overlay over all three magic systems. What >I disagree with is that the mechanics and philosophy are totally >different. Rather, they are interlocking. When a shaman performs a >binding enchantment to lock a spirit into a fetish object, he is >performing a religious act. So too, if a priest consecrates an altar >(and perhaps armors it as well) this is a religious act. You can see it this way, but you don't have to. I certainly don't. I view the shaman's locking a spirit into a fetish as an act performed by the shaman himself, while a priest's consecration is an act of invocation. In the priest's case, the God produces the magic. The POW spent by the priest merely enables the god to act. >I do not see a functional difference between these two types of >activities. There isn't a _functional_ difference between the two. The proper analogy is found in comparative anatomy. A bird's wing and a human hand are homologous. That is, they are both the same structure, modified for different purposes. In the same way, a Sunspear and an Earthpower are homologous -- they are both means of accessing a deity's personality so that it affects the mundane plane. Different effects result, but the root process for enabling the spell is much the same whether you're a Zorak Zoran Death Lord or an acolyte of Krarsht. Now, a bird's wing and an insect's wing are _analogous_. That is, the two things are _very_ different structures, but they are used for exactly the same purpose, despite their totally separate origins. In the same way, a Protection and a Shield are analogous -- they are both defensive magic. But this doesn't mean that they're related in any way, any more than a turtle's shell and a clam's shell are "the same". You can get similar results from both spirit and Rune magic, but this is only "parallel evolution" if you get my drift. A Shield's casting procedure is more like that of a Sever Spirit than a Protection, despite the disparate results. This view is useful in explaining why shamans, priests, and sorcerers tend not to mix, and why shamans cannot join many religious sects, and ditto for sorcerers. Mental training, Attitude, Experience is all against it. >If an enchantment is done by a priest, my opinion is that the POW >goes to the deity, hence the similarity between this process and the >sacrifice for divine magic. I do not think this. I rather dislike the idea of godly bean-counters, carefully minimaxing their toll of POW and MPs from their host of worshipers. Instead, I view the POW sacrificed by priests and initiates as energy spent to set up links between the god and the world. When an initiate spends his first POW, it does not go to the God (IMO), but rather sets up the link between him and his god, enabling worship and benefits to pass back and forth between the universes. When a Sword spends 3 POW for a Sever Spirit, Humakt's POW doesn't go up by 3. Instead, such a powerful magic requires a large and specific "path" through which the energy can pass. The POW is used to set up this path. This concept works well with Runepower (which I personally do not use), but makes sense in other contexts. In this way of looking at spells and spell systems, ritual magic can be viewed in either of two ways. 1) you can assume that it is another case of analogous spells, and that the shaman's Enchant is utterly different from a priest's Enchant. 2) you can assume that ritual magic, in essence, is a fourth magic system, and that the other magicians simply access it in their own way. I admit to preferring the latter view, but I feel that it requires somewhat of a redesign. Brian T. Forsythe asks >In RQ II is there only one diety which 'rules' each rune? Yes, since this is a Gloranthan concept, not a RQ concept. >Or can Ernalda and some other deity 'rule' the earth rune? Kind of. >If so, does this mean that those deities are actually the same (or >facets of the same) deity? Either that, or they are actually ruling two different Runes (or aspects?). At least, that is the God Learner assumption. Sandy Sandy P. ------------------------------ From: David Weihe Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 12:32:52 EDT Subject: Re: Allied Spirit > As I remember the rules, an Allied Spirit is always linked to the > Lord, and can cast spell. Is it true whatever the distance between > both ? There is a limit, but it is on the order of 5 km, I believe. Of course, the allied spirit couldn't cast spells at that distance, but all other uses would still be available. ------------------------------ From: David Weihe Date: Wed, 21 Aug 96 12:52:57 EDT Subject: Re: Something a little different Steve Perrin wrote > > It might also imply that saint's relics (considered very potent > >magic indeed in the Middle Ages) would actually be the source of great spirit > >magic, perhaps tied to use of the faithful of the One God. Though I would > >think the religionists would be torn between taking the saint's bones and > >properly sending the saint's spirit onto its just reward and the possibility > >of keeping the saint's spirit around to help with magic. Quite a quandary. > > and Brad Stradley added > >. As to your religious quandry, whether it >is moral to capture the spirit of a saint, this would be excellent for an >evil cult. In Catholicism the morality question was answered by whether the saint started to decay. "Real" saint's bodies were supposed to be immune to normal decay for an unnatural time. Thus, if burial is the disposal method of choice for the dead, the body could be exhumed or even left unburied until decay started (noticed by anyone taking a whiff). If nothing decays for a month, the prospective saint is OKing the use of the corpse for reliquaries. Presumably, at this point, embalming could be used to ensure the safety of the body parts. Proper burial rites were also supposed to render the bodies of the ordinary Faithful useless for a witch or wizard's use. Thus, only the suicides, heretics, infidels, and the *worst* criminals could be used. When I was a Necromancer in Chivalry & Sorcery, my Guild used to launch secret raids to steal the enemy's dead from battlefields and executions before the heralds and priests ruined all the lovely raw materials. Now, do we have the "Law of Miraculous Multiplication", which the Church used to explain why you could build Noah's Ark from all the collected pieces of the True Cross? That is, relics emit a field which can turn nearby objects of the same physical type into equivalent relics, themselves. ------------------------------ From: jane@williams.nildram.co.uk (Jane Williams) Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 19:12:45 +0100 Subject: Enchantments and POW I think I've read enough here to convince me that using someone else's POW in an enchantment is something I hadn't thought through carefully enough. Thanks, all of you. Now, how about this one? I want my sword to have a special ability. I want to "spend" a point of POW in doing it. Fortunately, I am an initiate of Humakt (non-Gloranthans, pick relevant war-god) and can convince my priest to let me have an extra gift/geas combination. The possible gifts include various additions to swords: one possible geas is sacrificing POW to Humakt. OK, so the gift/geas don't actually go together in the list, but the concept is there. The main difference I can see between this and getting the priest to do an Enchantment on the sword for me is that the decision on whether I get the gift, and what I give to get it, are made by the God. And Gifts are _rare_: one per initiate is the rule, though Swords can have more. If I was to extend the gift/geas idea to other deities (which I'd planned on doing anyway), can anyone see any obvious problems? Naturally I'll make sure that no-one gets better combat stuff than the Humkati, since they're the specialists, and so on, but are ther any less obvious ways in which this could be abused? - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jane Williams: jane@williams.nildram.co.uk Start of a Web site at: homepages.nildram.co.uk/~janewill/janehome.htm ------------------------------ From: Glenn Glazer Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:39:08 -0700 Subject: Re: enchanting; shrines At 21:33 08/20/96 -0700, David Dunham wrote: >Glenn Glazer wondered > >> This is where we part company. Enchantments generally require the loss of >> permanent POW (_Magic Book_, Pg. 55). Where do you think this POW goes? If >> the enchantment is done by a priest, my opinion is that the POW goes to the >> deity > >It obviously goes into the object, enchanting it. This is why the object >detects as magic. If the POW went to the deity, how would shamans (who >don't necessarily worship) or sorcerers enchant anything? In the case of priests, as I said, the POW goes to the deity who enchants the object, which is why the object detects as magic. Likewise, shamen summon a spirit or an ancestor, trading POW for enchantment. Sorcerors are the only living mortals doing direct enchantment, converting POW into the magical energies needed to enchant the object. In any case, for the average game, this may well be so deep into the fabric as to be invisible to the mechanics. I tend to think differently than some on the subject which means that IMG things will be ever so slightly different. Doesn't bother me. Best, Glenn \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Devils can be driven out of the heart by the touch of hand on hand, or mouth on mouth. -Tennessee Williams /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ From: Glenn Glazer Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 11:39:11 -0700 Subject: Re: Allied Spirit At 09:41 08/21/96 +0200, you wrote: > As I remember the rules, an Allied Spirit is always linked to the > Lord, and can cast spell. Is it true whatever the distance between > both ? Theoretically this is true, however, Allied Spirits and their mortal allies tend to stick pretty close together. After all, if your Humakti's Ally is in his sword and he leaves it alone, anyone could walk off with it... > If yes, is it acceptable for a Lord to leave the enchanted item with > his bound Allied Spirit somewhere (a temple for exemple), especially > when such item is not a very usefull (from a practical point of view, > such as an enchanted skull for Zorak Zoran RuneLords), but to benefit > always from this link, for having the Allied Spirit casting spells ? > As he can see through the Lord's eyes (?), I suppose he can cast not > only spells on his Lord, but also on target near his Lords. In a temple would probably be the only reasonable place to leave it, but again, I think the Allies were designed as _companions_ to their Lords, hence they should travel with them. This is opinion, but I think it is consistent with the flavour of things. Best, Glenn \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Devils can be driven out of the heart by the touch of hand on hand, or mouth on mouth. -Tennessee Williams /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ End of RQ Rules Digest: V3 #36 ****************************** This is the bottom of the RuneQuest Rules Digest. RuneQuest is a trademark of Avalon Hill, and Glorantha is a trademark of Chaosium. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval. Send electronic mail to Majordomo@hops.wharton.upenn.edu with "help" in the body of the message for subscription information on this and other mailing lists. WWW material at http://hops.wharton.upenn.edu/~loren/rolegame.html