From: Guy_Robinson.sbd-e@rx.xerox.com
Date: Wed 19 Jan 1994 - 18:23:25 EET
Dave Cake writes:
[my comments that Common and Rune Magic could be associated with RQ2 Runes]
>Well, the relationships are pretty damn vague for anything without the
>name of an element [Light, Fire, Dark] in its name. Certain cults have
>certain spells, but apart from the elemental spells they follow no coherent
>Runic line. [...] I mean, what
>Runes do extension, shield, dismiss elemental, and absorbtion come from in
>RQ2? Spirit spells are spells, and the majority of them are associated with
>the Magic Rune and no other, if you insist on Runic associations, and Rune
>magic comes from the nature of the religion - Runes help classify, but by no
>means define.
The fact that there can be no standard classification would not stop a
Gloranthan scholar seeking to draw up a version. Especially if they
are concepts used to learn magic or a means for mortal to translate
magic. Is this what the God Learner concept you_ve mentioned is about?
Anyway to provide examples the Mobility Rune could be associated with
the spells that increase speed or Dexterity and the Stasis Rune could
be associated with Glue or other spells that seek to impede movement
or change. Yes, a lot would be associated with the Magic Rune.
> In short, the Runic underpinnings of RQ2 magic are overstated. This is
>not to say that Runes are not of massive cultural importance - but they have
>damn little to do with the magic rules of RQ2, so lets not try and force them
>on RQ4. A good explanation of the Runes (and the RQ2 explanation is still the
>best, though now a little incomplete) should be in any explanation of
>Gloranthan magic in RQ4 - but I am not in favour of basing the RQ4 magic
>book just around the Runes.
Along with an explanation of the Runes should be their *apparent* effect on
the magic system. Although RQ2 *hinted* that Rune Magic was associated with
certain Runes it did not define any of these associations.
The alternative to the Runes is the kind of God classifications in RQ3
like Trickster, Agricultural and King of the Gods. Not as inspiring as a
God associated with the Runes of Darkness, Fate and Statis in my books.
> BTW, does anyone else think that the term Battle Magic was one of the
>things about RQ2 that we should forget about?
Common Magic is the term that I would prefer Spirit magic to move to. It
defines the essential common nature of Battle Magic that I feel is important
for RuneQuest society. Due to the Rune Cults you could almost claim that
Spirit Magic has been domesticated.
Battle Magic is appropriate to classify the magic used by those who live,
and therefore usually die, by the sword. If magic goes broader than that
purpose it might as well be called something else, although culturally
the term Battle Magic may still linger.
>> The associated between Spirits and Runes is mentioned once but is scantly
>> exploited elsewhere. It is noted that Spirits can percieve Mindlinks and
>> Runic associations (page 40). This tends to support the some what
>> scandalous view that Gods and Rune Cults are merely a phemenomena
>> associated with the nature of Runes.
>
>Maddeningly vague - and compatible with various completely different
>theories as well - personally, I think it supports the 'Runes as classification
>system' theory (I mean, who really thinks that you see little runes hoverin'
>round people, huh :-))
Maddening vague? How about refreshingly flexible :-)
I would see this to reflect that people are marked by the Runes as they
use their concepts to translate, understand and use Magic. Moving away from
what spirit sight actually looks like (local campaign colour issue) I guess
that a spirit could spot that another spirit was marked by the Rune of Death
in the same way us real world types could determine if someone looks like
they have trained as Chartered Accountants.
>Yep. I think we agree to disagree on the Runic point, OK. Obviously both of
>us are absolutely corect in our very different views, and neither one should
>be pushed in the rulesbook for RQ4. The discussions about gloranthan
>metaphysics will come, but eventually. I prefer to see less emphasis on Runes,
>and more on religion in society, and clear rules.
I think we are actually capable of agreeing on the matter of Runes, well
to a reasonable degree.
I feel that readers of RQIV new to RQ should have RQ religion explained to
them by explaining the Runic concept first as means to introduce the
Gloranthan culture, religion and society.
The requirements of clear rules and an ambigious and rich background need to
be balanced. A point of difference between us might be that I would favour
simple, effective and suitable rules over something overly generic.
I may receieve my bone-fide copy of RQIV yet so I can debate these issues
with you in the context of a common reference.
Regards
-- Guy Robinson --
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:31:23 EEST