Non-Gloranthan Magic

[simon_hibbs]

Supose a character decides to become a worshiper of Humakt the god of death. Everyone knows that Humakti aren't supposed to learn healing magic, and we can assume there are myths that support this point of view. Let's suppose (it's pretty much given) that famous and revered heroes of the cult are on record saying that learning such magic isn't compatible with being a good Humakti, which is to focus on becoming a living weapon. Suppose the player decides his character is going to learn some Healing magic anyway, because it would be realy useful and neat.

How devoted to the principles of Humakt do you think this character is? Does he realy believe in the tenets of his religion? Does he actualy value the moral messages his god's myths teach? When he prays, fasts and conducts sacred rituals to awaken the powers of death within himself is he realy focused on the inner transformation necessery - or is he just pretending, and playing along in the hope that mouthing the words and going through the motions will give him the cool powers he is after? How heroic is this character?

This has nothing to do with whether the healing magic (in this example) is secular or not. For a religious character, nothing is secular. The committed religious world view does not admit to the existence of a reality external to theological analysis. If the world, including magic was all created by god (or gods) then how can any of it be independent of divine purposes or principles?

I think these are the kinds of questions the HQ rules are trying to answer.

Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Are you trying, Simon, to come up with a reason why there should be a limit to learning "secular" magic? I'm not sure precisely what your point is, here. But I'd agree with you that it's certainly plausible to have gods restrict the use of other forms of magic. Heck, they probably have restrictions on what to eat, too. It's not only supernatural things that gods restrict.

That said, what I'm saying is that in a world in which we postulate a "secular" magic that, indeed, this magic may well be incorporated into the myths of the religion in particular. That is, our theist hero from myth may have used a feat one moment, his personal strength the next, and then the secular magic which the myths of his religion say exist as part of the world as part of the creation myth, and not having a source that's a god from another pantheon or such.

Basically positing such magic means that you have to reconsider large parts of your cosmology. While a Gloranthan Sorcerer may tell you that his magic doesn't emanate from any being, there are others who will tell you that it does indeed (though that being doesn't monitor it's use). Hence why Gloranthan gods abhor it. In any case, again, you can give any reason for your gods to abhor it (again like dietary constraints) if you like. But I think that you could also postulate a magic from an otherworld that was inoffensive to the dieties of some particular religion.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

Are you trying, Simon, to come up with a reason why there should be a limit to learning "secular" magic?

As I said, for a character with a religious commitment, there is no such thing as 'Secular' because the entire cosmos and everything that has ever been, or will ever be is the product if divine action. Therefore a religious character will consider secular magic, and whether or not it's ok to use it, in the context of his or her religious beliefs - not in the context of it being completely independent of the beliefs of the religion.

That is, our theist hero from myth may have used a feat one moment, his personal strength the next, and then the secular magic which the myths of his religion say exist as part of the world as part of the creation myth, and not having a source that's a god from another pantheon or such.

Foreigners and distant lands are still part of the creation myth, they're just made wrong or doing things wrong. For example Orlanthi wouldn't deny that Sorcery exists. they would admit that sorcerers do have fearsome magical powers, but they're doing magic wrong and as a result have emptied out their own souls so that they have no afterlife. Therefore copying them means the same will happen to you. To an Orlanthi there is no such thing as 'secular'. They would find the very concept extremely hard to comprehend, and just fundamentaly wrong. The same goes for Lunars, Dara Happans, etc. Therefore I don't think it's sensible to imagine what they would think about secular magic other than to say that they just wouldn't agree that it's secular, or that any such thing exists.

I accept the fact that perhaps this isn't very helpful, and I appologise for that.

Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Foreigners and distant lands are still part of the creation myth, they're just made wrong or doing things wrong. For example Orlanthi wouldn't deny that Sorcery exists. they would admit that sorcerers do have fearsome magical powers, but they're doing magic wrong and as a result have emptied out their own souls so that they have no afterlife. Therefore copying them means the same will happen to you. To an Orlanthi there is no such thing as 'secular'.

I agree with your assessment of the Orlanthi. But we're talking about a hypothetical culture here, one in which sorcery might not be foreign at all. That is, you're assuming it's foreign to make your point. I'm saying that if, in the game world in question, people have been doing sorcery since day one because they're god told them it was fine to do it, then I don't see the problem.

Yeah, it's easy and sensible to put in limitations, too, if that's what you want. But for a hypothetical world, that's just one option.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

If the religion says it's fine to do sorcery, and it's part of the mythology then it isn't secular.

If the religion says nothing about sorcery and it isn't referenced in their mythology then how could it not be foreign? I supose it could be an innovation, but innovating a new magical tradition from scratch is an implicit criticism of the existing religion.

I'm having difficulty understanding the kind of situation you are describing. We are discussing hypotheticals here so there's lots of scope for missinterpretation. Perhaps some concrete examples might help?

Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

If the religion says it's fine to do sorcery, and it's part of the mythology then it isn't secular.

So, if the religion says that it's fine to eat pork, and there's a myth about it, then pork isn't secular?

By secular, I merely mean that it's not considered to be holy in some way. They could consider wizardry to be like physics, and just something "natural." Yes, as such it was part of the creation myth, just like the pigs. But that doesn't mean that nothing is secular. There are, no doubt, Heortling myths about shepherding, but the actual act is a secular one, no? The feats from a god (in this example), are religious because it requires worship to have the abilities work. In the case in question, one could use wizardry with or without worship of the theist gods.

I'm talking about something like D&D magic (I say this just to get the feeling across). Yeah, I pooh-pooh it, too, and prefer the cosmological explanations behind magic (I think they'd evolve likely, even if there were no dieties behind it). But if you think about magic as not being at all related to otherworld being who require worship, but merely as a force to be manipulated, then I can see it being allowable in other religions, in some cases. Much like science.

This is really clear in my mind, and I think the terms are getting in the way of what I'm saying. Try to see where I'm coming from here.

Mike

[Gelasma]

But if you think about magic as not being at all related to otherworld being who require worship, but merely as a force to be manipulated, then I can see it being allowable in other religions, in some cases. Much like science.

That thing you call "force" sounds to me just exactly like the Essence of Wizardry.

[Mike Holmes]

That thing you call "force" sounds to me just exactly like the Essence of Wizardry.

Well, yeah. That's the point I was making. That if you consider essence to be just a force without an agenda (no being behind it), and the gods had created that force, then I think it's plausible for the gods to OK it's use. If that's what you want for your game.

Mike

[Tom B]

Hm.  Missed the original reply from Mike back in July, and just discovered the above responses.

To put it into the context of my setting, there may be deities who object to their followers learning any other type of magic.  There will be others who have no such objection.  (An interesting case is Sythera, Goddess of Magic.  Not sure how to handle her Priests.  Luckily there are no PC Priests of Sythera to worry about.)

It's certainly reasonable to expect that any Priest of a deity that allows magic would be more skilled in using Theistic magic than Secular magic.  Otherwise it's obvious that they're not devoting enough time to their deity.  I can even see a limitation as to how far they might expect to advance with secular magic...(again, except for Priests of Sythera).

A lot of these things I intend to handle in play as (or if) the issues arise.  The answers should be fairly clear in context.

[Mike Holmes]

...Not sure how to handle her Priests.  Luckily there are no PC Priests of Sythera to worry about.)

It's certainly reasonable to expect that any Priest of a deity that allows magic would be more skilled in using Theistic magic than Secular magic.  Otherwise it's obvious that they're not devoting enough time to their deity.  I can even see a limitation as to how far they might expect to advance with secular magic...(again, except for Priests of Sythera).

I think there are two potential ways to handle all of this:
1. Like you wrote, a priest of Sythera would be a Theist (after all, this is what the profession implies - there are other professions, however...). What Affinities and Feats does that suggest...? Depends on what role the priests take. Consider that she might not have any priests. If she does, then maybe they have affinities that have to do with overseeing the use of magic?

In any case, I suggest that there would also have been Wizards who worshipped her who came up with Grimoires, which are the source of orders of adepts. Put it this way, I'm going to guess that in the mythology, Sythera created "magic," or essence (or is synonymous with it somehow)? Well, given her attitude towards it, that it's not about emulating her, but about the essential nature of things, you can treat her like wizardry schools treat the One God in Glorantha. That is, they probably have to be a communal worshipper in her pantheon, essentially (just like wizards are lay worshippers in the monotheistic religion of Glorantha), while also being apprentices and adepts. There might even be orders of orderlies.

Basically you can create a whole set of schools and whatnot just under her. Perhaps in addition to a theistic worship of her. And, yes, in such a case, I'd allow a character who had the time to be able to do both (unless you have some reason not to allow this). In other words, you could have a character who was an initiate in her priesthood, and also an adept of some school - probably not for a "starting" character, but with development. Then the character could be a god talker, priest, apprentice, or wizard as they choose, for occupation.

2. The complex way to go is to amalgamate the methods somehow. That is, the three magic methods suggested in Hero Quest (which we now know are actually four), are actually just the most salient examples to the area of Glorantha that the book focuses on. That is, they are merely samples, and other magical methods do exist, along with, potentially, additional otherworlds, etc. So even in Glorantha, it's OK to come up with new magical methods, to say nothing of the new world.

So, basically, you don't have to fit this cult to one of the three models. In one of my games, I have a cult of "Astrologers" who follow a goddess of knowledge and the stars. What I did was to basically make them a hybrid of theism and wizardry, giving them access to both affinities and grimoires in the same cult (actually with subcults and such it's pretty complicated). I've actually applied this model to more than one religion, and diety, however, essentially making "The Stars" it's own otherworld, through which many dieties partially function (despite being otherwise members of theistic pantheons).

I've also got a whole additional method called mentalism, which is essentially wizardry sans grimoires (all spells must be learned individually, but they don't need talismans). The otherworld for this form of magic is a landscape created by each individuals own mind, and the interactions of all minds on this level. So you can mix and match or just create new forms of magic from the ground up to suit the needs of the religion in question.

A lot of these things I intend to handle in play as (or if) the issues arise.  The answers should be fairly clear in context.

I think that's a good way to handle things. That is, I often just let player creativity take hold, and go with what we all think sounds cool when it comes up. That said, it can't hurt to think about it a bit before that so you can offer some mechanical explanations that fit.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

I appologise for the lateness of this reply, I've been on holiday for 2 weeks. Also this is very terse, and therefore may come across as being rude and that realy isn't my intention. I have enormous respect for Mike.

By secular, I merely mean that it's not considered to be holy in some way. They could consider wizardry to be like physics, and just something "natural." Yes, as such it was part of the creation myth, just like the pigs.

Refusal to eat pork is in order to maintain spiritual purity because everything, even animal meat, does have a spiritual dimension and therefore religious significance. Again you go back to the idea that nature and the physical world is somehow seperate from the divine and not subject to religious interpretation and analysis. Why would a religious person take that view?

But that doesn't mean that nothing is secular. There are, no doubt, Heortling myths about shepherding, but the actual act is a secular one, no?

It is immitation of the first shepherd who was divine, and so is intrinsicaly an act of divine emulation, and hence worship.

The feats from a god (in this example), are religious because it requires worship to have the abilities work. In the case in question, one could use wizardry with or without worship of the theist gods.

But doign so is an implicit denial of your own gods. There is no fence to sit on.

I'm talking about something like D&D magic (I say this just to get the feeling across). Yeah, I pooh-pooh it, too, and prefer the cosmological explanations behind magic (I think they'd evolve likely, even if there were no dieties behind it). But if you think about magic as not being at all related to otherworld being who require worship, but merely as a force to be manipulated, then I can see it being allowable in other religions, in some cases. Much like science.

The concept of 'otherworldly beings' points to the source of the problem. One big probem with Heroquest and Glorantha, and with many RPG worlds is the idea that the gods exist in a sperate dimension, that they are alien beings seperate from the material world but influencing it. I don't think the Heortlings think about their gods and their world in this way at all. It's an external viewpoint, a way to explain things in a culture-neutral way. To Heortlings Orlanth is the actual storm cycle that powers the weather of Glorantha. To the Ancient Greeks the gods didn't live in a paralell dimension but in an actual place at the top of Mount Olympus. You could walk to Hell with your own two feet. In point of fact the same is true in Glorantha. The divine is an intrinsic part of all of the world. "God is cloiser to you than your Jugular Vein", as it says in the Koran. The otherworld is the world around you viewed from a magical state of conciousness. This is why magical beings such as Dragonewts seem so strange - they exist in alternate states of conciousness all the time and so are in a sense heroquesting right here, right now.

This is really clear in my mind, and I think the terms are getting in the way of what I'm saying. Try to see where I'm coming from here.

I do see where you're coming from, and it's not a theist, or generaly a religious viewpoint at all. It's a post-modern re-interpretation of it starting from the assumtion that the world is material and mechanical and that religious belief/analysis is an optional extra. Why would a theist take this view?


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

This has largely become a semantic argument at this point, Simon. You're trying to make my argument something that it is not. So I'm going to try a different tactic, which should have occured to me before.

I don't have to show that this is a reasonable exception, I can give you examples from Glorantha. Even in as heavily a theist religion as the Heortlings, you have Torvald the Alchemist. Now, what I think is being proposed here is a religion that, by definition, is less theist-centric than the Orlanthi religion. So think of a culture like Teshnos (but where it's not common magic, but specialized).

The ultimate example, however, is the Lunars. They don't balk at allowing the use of any sort of magic. Yes, under ILH2 we're going to learn that this is because all Lunar magic comes from a single otherworld separate from the ones already presented. But that doesn't mean that the game mechanics will change, nor the details of the worship. That is, there will still be the Order of Malkiunus teaching folks that it's OK to do wizardry - a magic type that in fact can be used by sorcerers without worshipping anyone.

Put another way, all wizardry as described in HQ fits my definition of it as being just a force that anyone can manipulate. The only question for a religion is whether or not the use of this sort of magic is acceptable. Some accept it along with other types, some do not.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

There is a difference between accepting that a kind of magic is ok for other people to practice, and accepting that it's ok for you yourself to practice. e.g. Humakti agree that it's ok for Chalana Arroy healers to do their thing, but for religious reasons theyrefuse to practice any healing magic themselves. The Lunar approach falls into this category - Seven Mothers acolytes accept the fact that Malakinus sorcery is part of the Lunar Way, but it's not their part of the Lunar Way. Only the Goddess and perhaps some mysticaly transcended heroes can comprehend the Lunar Way in it's entirety. An ordinary mortal trying to follow two different Lunar traditions simultaneously without that transcendent perspective will inevitably become lost, unable to resolve the apparent contradictions.


Simon Hibbs

[Mike Holmes]

Where are you getting that from? I'm not saying that you're incorrect. I'm just wondering what your source is. Or are you saying that this is just how you play it?

I'll be very interested to see what ILH-2 has to say on the subject.

But I went through long rigamarole on the rules list working with Rory and Greg trying to get an answer on this subject. What I got was that, yes, there are in-game limitations on this based on differences like the Chalana Arroy/Humakt differences, but that there are no mechanical restrictions on it. That is, it's not automatically the case that one wizardry cult is automatically inimical to all theist cults.

The example discussed was that of Kolatings and how they fit into society. What was decided that, while it was likely that it was exceeding rare to unheard of, that an initiate could theoretically join a Kolating practice. So, not only is it not mechanically prohibited, there are examples of where it might happen. Without speculating about unwritten cultures.

I haven't read the Torvald material, but does it say anywhere in there (for those who have), that they aren't allowed to join other organizations? Given that it's the only wizardry organization in the Orlanthi religion.

What Greg did say explicitly was that, though there's not a mechanic for it, the intention was that you can't learn any cults outside of your religion. That is, the in-game definition of a religion as pertains to cults is that a religion is that group outside of which one is definitely not allowed to keep their cults and join another. That's not the same as saying that you can't join any cult in the religion, there are further limitations as you point out. Just that the first criteria for what cults you can join after the first, are only the other cults in your religion. And then it gets narrowed from there.

But the implication seems to be that one can join multiple cults in their religion, even if they come from different otherworlds. Though, yes, it's likely rare (and, of course, means that you can't be concentrated).

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

Where are you getting that from? I'm not saying that you're incorrect. I'm just wondering what your source is. Or are you saying that this is just how you play it?

That's my understanding of how it's suposed to work (I assume you're talking about joining more than one lunar 'sub-religion', to coin a phrase). Each of these teaches a word view (e.g. the Theist Seven Mothers cult, the Materialist Malakinus guys, the Animist Jakaleeli) and these world views are ordinarily contradictory. I's only the inspired transcendent revelations of the Goddess that shows that these are actualy all valid. It follows logicaly therefore that if you haven't achioeved the transcendent conciousness of the goddes you're not going to be able to grok them all.

I'll be very interested to see what ILH-2 has to say on the subject.

Yep.

But the implication seems to be that one can join multiple cults in their religion, even if they come from different otherworlds. Though, yes, it's likely rare (and, of course, means that you can't be concentrated).

This is true. Clearly in HQ it is possible to learn some magic from different traditions at a basic level. I have no argument with that, and that's not what I'm talking about. But even that is extremely rare, even for people within a single umbrella religion and they will never advance very far. I don't think that's a result of a game mechanical anomaly (double cost), but because the extra cost genuinely reflects the extreme difficulties of trying to reconcile fundamentaly different ways of thinking about the world.

Roleplaying games routinely generalise and abstract out many of the mundane, day-to-day details of life. HQ does this as much as any game. We don't know exactly what the dietary restrictions, worship rituals, taboos and daily prayers of even the most well known Gloranthan religions are. Can Malkioni eat pork? Do Lunars all pray facing towards the Moon? Are Aeolians required to eat fish on Water Day, or are they barred from doing so? For lay members of a religion such requirements can be pretty comprehensive, and for more advanced members of a religion the restrictions and habits can be ever more exacting. There are bound to be all sorts of clashes and contradictions between the mores of different traditions and being 'secular' doesn't mean a magical tradition will be devoid of any such ritual practices and taboos. The game mechanics and broad sweeping rules are generalisations of course, but they're not without reason.


Simon Hibbs