Sorcerer occupation

[Kloster]

Completely agree.

[JRE]

Thanks.

Of course, if you subscribe to the theory of the many Argraths, maybe the spiritual helpers are exclusive, and we have four Argraths with different specializations.

It seems elegant to me (and worldbuilding lets you choose elegance over practicality) that all magical approaches have equivalent but different ways to get an otherworld presence, and that in most people they are exclusive. I also like that it means capital Heroes are powergaming munchkins at heart, twisting the rules to squeeze a little extra power, because that is what comes to my mind when I think of Argrath, Ethilrist, Harrek... Possibly Kallyr's failure to Heroine status was caring too much and following the rules...

[French Desperate WindChild]

SORCERER

from my perspective we have to keep in mind that sorcery is a set of technics known and used by different people with different goals

the biggest part, for me, of sorcery users are "spiritual community leaders" (zzaburi, invisible god, etc...) exactly like most shamans and priests

"Sorcerers" - if I understand the term as those who use sorcery for mundane effects only , without any community and religious  purpose - are very few.

I am even not so sure than LM sorcery users are "sorcerers" : they use sorcery (at least the LM spells) to find knowledge and truth, so for religous purpose. If they use other spells.. they may have to be "judge" by their peers

 

Then what could be a "meldek" ? Sorcery user ? not sure, LM are not meldek, Are zzaburi meldek or priests of the strange invisible god ? For me, "meldek" is sorcerer.

From a Orlanthi (maybe a smart one, I agree) Zzaburi prey their god and obtain magic from it as priests prey Orlanth and obtain magic from him. That doesn't mean they are welcomed / trusted / accepted, Lunar priests are priests but priest status is not enough.

 

FAMILIAR

I don't know why there is no rule about familiar. Does that mean the familiar notion will not exist anymore in RQG ?

but if I had to define what is a familiar, I have three assumptions :

 

1) familiars have their own identity (maybe soul ?). They decide by themselves, they have loyalties to their creator of course but they are not their creator. Such familiars are like allied spirits.

Then... how to create them ? Is sorcery, manipulation of runes, able to "create" soul or at least consciousness ?

If yes, easy, learn the "create familiar with identity" spell, and do it. Your familiar is a pure and full creation.. You may feel you are a god now

If no, easy, learn the "create familiar with identity" spell, capture a spirit, and do it. Your familiar is the merge between the physical form you created and the spirit

 

2) familiars are the creators extension. They are like the shaman fetch.

Then... what if the familiar is killed ? Does the creator die ?

• Yes ? familiars and creator share the same soul. Familiars are just "other bodies"

easy, learn the "create familiar sharing my soul" spell, and do it.

• No ? familiars gain a part of creator soul (better then to have 7 souls than 6)

easy, learn the "create familiar sharing my soul" spell, split (sacrifice) your POW and INT to your new familiar

 

3) familiar are the creator's beasts. They are like your dog or your horse (not awakened). Consider it as golem or other automaton obeying your simple orders and that's all

easy, learn the "create a automaton familiar", and do it.

[JRE]

In my use, sorcerer is a magic user whose main magic use is sorcery, even if they use some spirit magic and may have access to Rune magic. That means zzaburi caste sorcerers, no matter whether they have religious duties or not, Hrestoli on the Man-of-all path, no matter whether Old Hrestoli or New Hrestoli, and selected individuals in Malkioni sects that find their role (whether it is Arkati spymaster, Boristi Chaos tamer, Carmanian House vizir, Aeolian Orlanth intercessors, Wolf Pirate ship warlocks, Fonritian slave overseers, Safelster stone master...) requires mastery of some sorcery spells and techniques). Some renegades may be the pure egocentric soul tapping magus that lives in a tower and deals in strange magics, but they will be very rare in the Third Age. Sorcery requires such a time investment that casual magic users are better served by spirit magic.

A Familiar in my current view is quite different from the RQ3 model, as you normally get only one, though it may be possible to create another one if the first one is lost. It requires a formal code of conduct, a kind of framework contract, which fixes what are the duties of the two parts, and it needs to be accepted by both sides, though unintelligent beings will require domination and inanimate objects will resist based on its material and size, to avoid golem abuse. The contract limits will affect the success roll of the Join with Familiar ritual. The familiar mostly gains INT if they do not have it, or 1 point (without loss to the sorcerer) and stops aging while the Familiar link exists. There are two paths. create an automaton, that will not act if it finds a situation not included in its logic, or use a living being, that will act as they see fit in any situation not constrained by the instructions (and if antagonized, will try to twist the instructions to ensure MGF).

This is still a work in progress, but as I expect we will have a magus in our game before sorcery gets a full treatment, we are working on this. The player (a Jrusteli in Second Age Pavis) is thinking of making his Issaries iron bound ironwood staff his familiar, and it seems appropiate for the Middle Sea Empire. Still two spells, two runes / techniques and several skills to master, but I allow improvement rolls after each adventure, not season. 

[metcalph]

5 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

FAMILIAR

I don't know why there is no rule about familiar. Does that mean the familiar notion will not exist anymore in RQG ?

Because RQ2 had spirits bound into animals (as opposed to allied spirits) which were often referred to as familiars.  RQ3 junked this in favour of the sorcerous version but never had the gloranthan reasoning to make it stick.  RQG has gone back to the RQ version.

 

 

[PhilHibbs]

31 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Because RQ2 had spirits bound into animals (as opposed to allied spirits) which were often referred to as familiars.  RQ3 junked this in favour of the sorcerous version but never had the gloranthan reasoning to make it stick.  RQG has gone back to the RQ version.

Sandy seemed quite comfortable with familiars in his entirely Gloranthan sorcery system. If it's good enough for Sandy...

[metcalph]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Sandy seemed quite comfortable with familiars in his entirely Gloranthan sorcery system. If it's good enough for Sandy...

"Sandy likes it" is not what I would call "the glorantha reasoning to make it stick" 

[svensson]

I think we're all waiting for a sourcebook on Sorcery before any of us are willing to jump off that ledge.

As it sits, we have a bare-bones description of Sorcery in RQG, but that description bears little resemblance to any of the previous Sorcery systems in earlier editions.

And for that matter, we don't know how RQG is going to address Sorcery and Malkionism and it's hard to have an informed discussion on the subject without bringing Zzsabur /Malkion up.

[Shiningbrow]

12 hours ago, JRE said:

is thinking of making his Issaries iron bound ironwood staff his familiar,

What's the point/intention here?

We can already store spells in objects, as well as MPs (non-regenerating), and a spirit (both spirit magic spells, and regenerating spells).

So this idea confuses me, as it seems quite impractical.

[Darius West]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

What's the point/intention here?

We can already store spells in objects, as well as MPs (non-regenerating), and a spirit (both spirit magic spells, and regenerating spells).

So this idea confuses me, as it seems quite impractical.

May I direct you to Strangers in Prax (RQ3) in which on pages 66-67 there is a fairly detailed write-up on the sorcerer Arlaten's familiar nail-head.  This was a pretty good model of what was possible regarding familiars using RQ3 sorcery.  The idea was that any "incomplete" creature could become a familiar, and that meant inanimate objects, the undead, animals, elementals etc.  They became a storage for spells so the sorcerer could keep their INT free among other things.  There was a lot of scope to have a dangerous magical pet to do one's bidding.

Edited July 7, 2022 by Darius West

[metcalph]

3 hours ago, svensson said:

As it sits, we have a bare-bones description of Sorcery in RQG, but that description bears little resemblance to any of the previous Sorcery systems in earlier editions.

It bears a lot of resemblence to the RQ3 version and I don't know of any other RQ editions that had sorcery.

3 hours ago, svensson said:

And for that matter, we don't know how RQG is going to address Sorcery and Malkionism and it's hard to have an informed discussion on the subject without bringing Zzsabur /Malkion up.

We do have a fair idea.

The Malkioni have rightness through which they can do caste magic.  Caste magic is probably similar to Shamanic Gifts (or even the gifts from Yelmalio and Humakt) except that the magic are caste specific and sorcerous in nature. What's not known is how many gifts a Malkioni would have.

[metcalph]

37 minutes ago, Darius West said:

May I direct you to Strangers in Prax (RQ3) in which on pages 66-67 there is a fairly detailed write-up on the sorcerer Arlaten's familiar nail-head.  This was a pretty good model of what was possible regarding familiars using RQ3 sorcery. 

I think the question is why do Sorcerers have a need to make a familiar?  It's not so much as the question of whether they can make familiars (Probably) and how to do so (Probably similar to Weapons and Equipment) but the idea that every sorcerer *must* have a familiar to demonstrate mastery of their craft.

There's scope for a particular school to mandate the creation of a familiar for recognition (I once had the Surgeons of Vitality become qualified by making a homunculus which they called a minime...) but I'm really not seeing why every sorceror must have one.

[JRE]

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

What's the point/intention here?

We can already store spells in objects, as well as MPs (non-regenerating), and a spirit (both spirit magic spells, and regenerating spells).

So this idea confuses me, as it seems quite impractical.

The same point as having an ally spirit, or in part a fetch. Potential magic resistance (if the famliar has higher POW), someone that can cast spells on you, or potentially others, without being easy to disrupt (very important with sorcery), that you can trust, and will not be subject to easy Dominate or Command spirit spells. A friend in your lonely tower. A fragment of the Godmind that is proof of your righteousness before God. The test that shows you are a master of your craft. A crutch that unlike you can spend days casting a ritual spell. A weapon that is an extension of your arm, to smite the misguided godless with both brawn and magic. The loyal companion in your quests, the only mount you will ever need any more...

Each Magus (and the requirements for Magus should be steep, so this is not something common, more in the range of rune lords) will have different reasons and different motives behind the familiar. But I would have the magus benefits, which in my case are the possibility to learn more runes and techniques than your INT limit, possibility to store MPs in the other side, increased POW gain chances, and one other benefit linked to their school, require the mind expansion coming from the familiar ritual. 

The mechanical (as this is the Runequest forum) justification is to have sorcerous benefits that are similar but different from shamans and theist rune levels. I realized earlier that we probably will have to do something similar for Mystics, though in that case spell casting will not be the focus.

[Shiningbrow]

3 hours ago, metcalph said:

It bears a lot of resemblence to the RQ3 version and I don't know of any other RQ editions that had sorcery.

Mongoose has almost entire books dedicated to the subject, and it was mentioned (with mechanics etc) in almost every other book they published.

[Shiningbrow]

3 hours ago, Darius West said:

May I direct you to Strangers in Prax (RQ3) in which on pages 66-67 there is a fairly detailed write-up on the sorcerer Arlaten's familiar nail-head.  This was a pretty good model of what was possible regarding familiars using RQ3 sorcery.  The idea was that any "incomplete" creature could become a familiar, and that meant inanimate objects, the undead, animals, elementals etc.  They became a storage for spells so the sorcerer could keep their INT free among other things.  There was a lot of scope to have a dangerous magical pet to do one's bidding.

Not mentioning the spirit bound into the staff was actually rather significant...

so, his " Issaries iron bound ironwood staff his familiar... with a spirit bound into it". Makes a HUUUGGGEEEE difference to understanding.

 

Now then, for RQG, we'll have the question of whether a familiar will be capable of storing sorcery spells, as they don't actually know any Runes or Techniques...

Binding spirits for their MPs is a no-brainer!

 

@JRE My question wasn't about why have a familiar. It was why use an inanimate object like a staff. I just see it as a huge waste of characteristics (in a version where each point of STR, DEX, etc would cost the sorcerer those... esp the INT and POW).

[PhilHibbs]

18 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

My question wasn't about why have a familiar. It was why use an inanimate object like a staff. I just see it as a huge waste of characteristics (in a version where each point of STR, DEX, etc would cost the sorcerer those... esp the INT and POW).

Maybe if you take a spirit that has INT and POW and CHA, bind it into a staff, then give it one of each physical stat, you get a familiar without having to spend the "important" stats. But creating it from nothing providing all the INT... madness.

The best familiar I ever came up with was my troll's hag.

[French Desperate WindChild]

33 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

It was why use an inanimate object like a staff.

because a staff is normal for a Issaries priest ?

a mouse can be eaten by a cat, a rhino will be focused by  ennemy, etc...

hidden power is good when you negociate

[JRE]

But we do not use RQ3 anymore, and you have only one familiar, so there is no need to make familiar creation expensive in terms of stats.

My current prototype has the familiar require normally the expenditure of 2 POW to establish the link (more than an Ally spirit, but less than a fetch). As it is expected to use sorcery, I would give inanimate objects or unintelligent animals the same INT (without Rune bonus, if any) as the Magus, rather than a random roll. Intelligent incomplete beings (usually spirits) would get a +1 INT, but I am not yet sure if I will still allow getting familiars from spirits. As an extension of the Magus, I would give it the same Runes and technique masteries as the Magus, but no spells, as they must be taught and learned the hard way. And that's it.

The big part is succeeding in the ritual and writing up the operating laws for the familiar. It will be bound to the Law rune, after all. Runes will start at 0 or 50/50 for inanimate objects, except for one affinity that would be obvious or can be discussed (an iron sword could start with 75 Death affinity, or a lead staff could have 75 Darkness). A horse would have 75 Beast. 

The advantage of using a book, staff or decorative iron breastplate of the kind many sorcerers wear in the GtG illustrations would be that you can start enchanting matrixes in that object much earlier than becoming a Magus is an option, and they would be useable by both the Magus and the Familiar. Or you can upgrade and permanently link to you that cat bound spirit that has been with you since the apprentice days. 

For inanimate object mobility, rather than articulated parts or robotic golems, I would expect long duration form material and animate material spells, though a well made articulation would avoid the need of Form material.  A good Dismiss magic may immobilize that iron golem that I am sure some people are already considering (not to mention the problem of getting intensity to 20 or so to have a reasonable chance of affecting a man sized block of iron).

The staff was chosen because it is traditional (more often a wand, but as can be seen from the Tarot, wands were originally staff sized), and fits with an errant traveller (he probably would not pass Issaries priesthood tests, but an stranger who is an initiate is usually welcomed everywhere.) The fact that he has an extremely resistent one is a bonus, and he has already started to enchant it up. It is easier to keep your staff in hand than a sword, so you can benefit from the matrixes, and you can put a lot more enchantments than in a ring. 

[radmonger]

4 hours ago, JRE said:

The same point as having an ally spirit, or in part a fetch. Potential magic resistance (if the famliar has higher POW), someone that can cast spells on you, or potentially others, without being easy to disrupt (very important with sorcery), that you can trust, and will not be subject to easy Dominate or Command spirit spells.

Those are argument _from_ the rules to Glorantha. So they are unpersuasive in the context of deciding what the rules _should_ be.  The others are not invalid, but are also not likely to be universal.

What we know from Glorantha is that sorcery can eventually lead to the kind of personal power level that causes the Lunar Empire to negioiate with you as a peer. And also that sorcery is rare enough that 'when 10,000 magicians have walked through this gate' was intended as a way of saying  'never'.

As Gloramthans aren't stupid, this implies that magic is difficult to learn; you don't reach the full extent of that power until your lifetime matches that of Delecti or Zzabur. While has been true of all previous sorcery rules, they have also the downside of making even experienced PC sorcerors mostly unplayably low in capability. Which in turn lead to a cycle of using hacks like familiars to boost sorceror PC power back up to match or exceed that of Rune levels, and then writing that into the game because the rules now imply all effective sorcerors must have familiars.

If I was writing such rules, I would say the one near-universal rules characteristic of powerful magicians is a very high rating in the Magic Rune. Such ratings would grant certain inherent heroquest powers, including improved resistance rolls.

Then I'd probably clean things up a bit by moving the rules about what magically happens when you hit rune priest or  full full shaman status to be tied to the magic runes too. So appointment as a Rune Priest would either grant, or require, such a rating.

That way, different magician archetyoes go upo in power more or less in synchronisation; it is just that the non-sorcerors eventually either die of old age or transcend mortal status.

[PhilHibbs]

23 minutes ago, radmonger said:

Those are argument _from_ the rules to Glorantha. So they are unpersuasive in the context of deciding what the rules _should_ be.  The others are not invalid, but are also not likely to be universal.

Any argument from Glorantha to the rules would rest on similarity to other magical systems - the connection via a spiritual entity to the magical world. Fetch, Allied Spirit, Familiar, Inner-Self-Or-Void-Or-Whatever. It makes sense that there should be something there for sorcery. That's probably what was behind the RQ3 mechanic, a desire to fill that gap. I haven't seen anything in Greg's (VERY un-canonical, now) western writings, though I haven't read them all.

[radmonger]

22 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

It makes sense that there should be something there for sorcery.

To me, it doesn't; the presence of such an entity would suggest a impure or hybrid approach.

A Brithini (is the word wizard sitll used?) would perhaps say something like:

Quote

 

Zzabur was tasked with the duty of understanding of the world by it's maker. He did not delegate that duty to any mere spirit or tool. I am similarly tasked by my Talar with understanding the portion of the world he has responsibility for. I cannot provide him with sound advice unless I perform that duty myself.

If a primitive shaman dancing in woad[1] has  a spirit fetch, then I am my Talar's fetch.

 

Orthodox Mostali would say something similar; they do not ask the spirits what the machines they build do, they _know_.

 

[1] Here he is failing at his job, of course, not quite getting the distinction between shaman and priest.

[Kloster]

4 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

My question wasn't about why have a familiar. It was why use an inanimate object like a staff. I just see it as a huge waste of characteristics (in a version where each point of STR, DEX, etc would cost the sorcerer those... esp the INT and POW).

 

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Maybe if you take a spirit that has INT and POW and CHA, bind it into a staff, then give it one of each physical stat, you get a familiar without having to spend the "important" stats. But creating it from nothing providing all the INT... madness.

With a physical object like the staff, SIZ does not have to be created (assuming RQ3 rules). It already had SIZ 1.

 

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

The best familiar I ever came up with was my troll's hag.

I once saw a possessed herdman. You just need to add 1 point to any stat to have a familiar. The player (obviously) choosed 1 POW. The same player wanted to do it again on a Vampire (only POW is to be created), but the GM never let a vampire be captured.

[David Scott]

It would be great to see some of these Create Familiar spells written in RQG format. They should be cult/school specific

They are clearly enchantments so are going to have the form:

Useful name (techniques required, plus runes)

(POW required + mps)

Ritual (Enchantment)

Description (note that the longest is Summon (species) at 6 paragraphs / 1 column. That's not an invite to write that much:-))

There's plenty of different ways to do this, rather than just regurgitate the RQ3 method (up to six different spells that need to be cast together using multispell!). However RQ3 did say Sorcerers learn to summon many types of creatures to do their bidding and act as their familiars. So you don't always need to make one from scratch, you can change something already present. Likewise I'd suggest keeping the concept that familiars don't add to free INT or POW (per Book 2, page 40).

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

It makes sense that there should be something there for sorcery.

 

2 hours ago, radmonger said:

... the presence of such an entity would suggest a impure or hybrid approach.

And I have no problem with that.

[PhilHibbs]

So game mechanically, what would it look like to have a system for creating a familiar, that presented clear advantages (otherwise why bother), but does not tip the balance such that Malkioni aren't the best sorcerers? Which we know that they are. So "best sorcerers" stems from something big enough that "having a familiar" really doesn't register on the scale.

But I think to be truly satisfying it has to be something that is incompatible with having a familiar. They don't have familiars, but they have X, which is incompatible but better.

So some sorcerers create a connection to the otherworld through a single entity. Either a spirit, an animal, an awakened staff or grimoire. It's easy, it's independent, but it's limited.

Malkioni have a connection to the otherworld through what... community support? Does that community support manifest as a quasi-spiritual entity? (If only there was a Gloranthan word for a "community spirit"!) Maybe this pool of power that they can tap into acts in some ways like a familiar, but creating one blocks that spiritual pathway.