From: Michael Norrish (norrish@rata.vuw.ac.nz)
Date: Wed 19 Jun 1991 - 09:56:33 EEST
In the latest Digest, Mark Wallace writes:
[...]
>I'm not currently GMing, but the folling are the guidelines I've
>worked up to handle sorcerors when I restart the campaign:
>[...]
>Fourth, worship of the invisible god is a serious business; magi
>should be reluctant to travel more than a weeks travel from a temple
>of the invisible god. Those who ignore their religious duties should
>incur the enmity of their fellows. Magi should be reluctant to take
>potential heretics as students, since it reflects badly on their
>souls. Archmagi are more likely to challenge/depose other Archmagi
>who are agnostic, because they give magi a bad rep, and for other
>reasons.
When I read this, I suddenly didn't know what on earth Mark was
talking about. Is this 'invisible god' some strange metaphor for the
ideals of scientific research, (as much as sorcerous magic could be
said to be 'scientific' :-), or am I missing something else much more
fundamental? Is there some Gloranthan context in which this talk of
sorcerors worshipping something makes sense? I had always thought that
sorcerers were perfect atheists, devoted to prying apart the universe
with no help from any higher power, and refusing moreover to recognise
any such other-worldly beings as superior. Doesn't the introduction to
the Magic Book in the third edition say as much?
[In Glorantha, sorcerers are generally monotheists worshiping the
Invisible (and apparently impotent) God. The society known as the
Malkioni are all worshipers of this being. Check "Gods of Glorantha"
or the Genertela Pack for more info on this practice. -ACB]
Anyway, skipping this invisible god thing, I must say that I am
finding this all quite interesting. I haven't GMed an RQ game before
but I am in the phase of the game whereby I am writing lots of
campaign material for what will be my best effort yet. This talk of
balance destroying sorcerers is a trifle disturbing. Brought up on a
diet of AD&D type MUs I was quite happy with the concept of sorcerers;
they were going to be weak sorts physically but powerful sources of
knowledge and spells.
Is this really that difficult to achieve? I would have thought that
the most important restriction, (restricting access to spells), would
have done the trick every time. If those wizards can't get their hands
on the spells then they are going to have to do a lot of non-magic
related training/research if they are going to make it; (who wants a
one-spell magician in their party?). The magician must be more; s/he
must also have lots of knowledge; literacy itself should be allowed by
the GM to be a powerful advantage. (Though this does mean that the GM
does have to do a lot of work to ensure that there is plenty of extra
knowledge for the mage to have).
Keen to hear responses,
Michael.
Michael Norrish. norrish@rata.vuw.ac.nz
------------Victoria Univeristy of Wellington-----------------
Church-Turing Thesis, (Theodore Roszak version): Computers are
ridiculous. So is science in general.
======================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:19 EEST