Do spells have a visual component (when they don't obviously have one)?

[Shiningbrow]

14 hours ago, metcalph said:

Yes, two Ernaldan priestesses arguing with each other using magic does present certain theological problems.  

Now in arguing against each other, they are not arguing against the Goddesses' interests.  The Goddess is vast and encompasses multitudes even to the extent of a tiff here and there.  In having the disagreement, they are still acting as Ernaldans do and thus there is no sin against Ernalda.  Ernalda does not have a Great Checklist of what is right and what is wrong for every particular circumstance, She has a wide variety of answers, available to her worshippers through myth and magic, but because of the Compromise her worshippers need to work out which of Ernalda's answers is right for a given circumstance.  And since a common myth of Ernalda in the God Time is arguing with her Sister-Goddesses, in having the argument and using charmisma spells etc, both are being Ernalda.

Most gloranthans being simple folks have long accepted the rule that whoever wins is in the right.  A few are rightly concerned with the conundrums posed - how can both Ernaldans be Right?  What is Right?  What is Ernalda?  The names for these people are God Learners, Philosophers and Illuminates.  

 

 

Ummm.... I'm a God Learner

(Hence this long thread I started...)

[Lordabdul]

14 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

If the players can do it, so too can the NPCs. And, I'd be quite certain that the players would most certainly try to question the (ab)use of magic to influence people (in a way that may be considered "cheating"). Especially if they're told "nope - you totally accept her argument".

I don't think there's any difference in that case compared to a similar situation where the PCs and NPCs just used "mundane" skills like Bargain or Fast-Talk or whatever, no? If the PCs are playing guards and an NPC Fast-Talks their way through them, you end up roleplaying the PCs realizing a few minutes later that they've been had and now that need to catch up, whereas if they had made their rolls, they could have arrested the thieves on the spot.

I think the point is that, for Gloranthans, it's just "abilities" -- stuff you can do well. It might not matter how you're doing it. There might be no big difference whether you're good at talking your way into/out of a situation because you grew up as a orphan in the streets of Boldhome and you learned to use big puppy eyes, or because your parents were wandering merchants and you developed that special smile and way to hold people's shoulder, or because you learned some Illusion Rune Magic from some Eurmal The Trickster worshipper. It's all different ways to achieve the same thing and none is more or less legitimate than the other in a world where magic is part of every day life.

Edited May 13, 2019 by lordabdul

[Shiningbrow]

For all those who are suggesting that using Charisma to get your own way (NB - not the goddesses way!), would you all be quite happy to have that priestess (or even an initiate!) cast Charisma (and, what the hell, the Trickster cast "Lie") to get their own way in a tribal council meeting?

Or, would you expect such a council meeting to have a standard "no spells" policy?

[HreshtIronBorne]

At this point in our game we have sort of put some reasonable pieces together. With spells like Extension and Wyters the High Priestess just HAS CHarisma all the time. Almost any spell she desires to have up is just there whenever she needs it. Especially for a high priestess of Ernalda, she would have access to a large wyter, huge community, piles of resources. We have been playing through about 7 years of game time, just formed the Eleven Lights as part of our campaign. We are at a point where we are basically always walking the World with our Gods. So, in our Glorantha no one has any problem seeing magic done most of the time. Someone casting a spell during a meeting might be trying to divine an answer or encourage harmony in the meeting, not necessarily get their own way, it wouldn't be seen as immediately and unquestionably a hostile act. 

[Lordabdul]

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Or, would you expect such a council meeting to have a standard "no spells" policy?

I was thinking about this earlier, trying to draw parallels to a cyberpunk/futuristic society where you can have physical implants like cybernetic eyes and neural implants and cognitive booster drugs. Depending on how advanced or dystopian you want your setting to be, and how widespread the use of cybernetics is, you might have "no enhancements" zones but frankly, once you get "cyberpunk enough", it's so pervasive that any corporate business meeting or drug sale negotiation or whatever is expected to have everybody around the table using a whole battery of implants to observe, evaluate, and outmatch the people on the other side. I believe that's how Cyberpunk 2020 used to handle it.

So no I don't think it I would do that in my Glorantha, the same way it doesn't make sense (except for special circumstances) to say that a business meeting should have no technology allowed whatsoever (i.e. no laptops or smartphones or internet access). Some actions are frowned upon, like deceiving people, or spying on them in between council meetings, but that's the case whether you're using a spell or not (or technology). Maybe banning some spells, or monitoring spell activity, makes it a bit harder to do those things, so depending on your views about how (in)effective those policies might be, they could be used in your world.

My personal opinion on the matter is that I don't like it when a world gives me a toy, but the story removes the toy from me. "It's a world where you have access to lots of magic spells!" the GM says... but when we want to figure out who killed the innkeeper, we can't interrogate the ghost because the killer used a special weapon that destroys the victim's spirit. If we want to locate the kidnapped innkeeper's child, we can't use a scrying spell because somehow the bad guys are using something to block it... there's no point in having access to magic if it ends up being useless or unusable. But yes, it means it's a lot harder for the GM to design adventures, and that's why I hope there will be lots of well-designed scenario packs and GM advice coming from Chaosium soon

Edited May 13, 2019 by lordabdul

[Austin]

2 hours ago, HreshtIronBorne said:

We have been playing through about 7 years of game time

Sorry to derail the thread, but how long have you been playing that game IRL? Has it all/mostly been RQG? Have you been using the "adventure per season" model?

Just curious.  I'm not familiar with many actual long-running games of RQG.

[HreshtIronBorne]

We started our 11L campaign almost right after RQG core rules came out. Our GM loved the campaign since he got it and we really wanted to try the need rules on. Very little houseruling so far. Absolutely loving the game ane the new power levels. We don't even have a single RuneLord or Priest yet, though some are incredibly close right now. We play weekly, probably taken 3 months or so of sessions off around the holidays, so 12 or so less. I don't wanna do math right now. Lol.

[Shiningbrow]

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

 

So no I don't think it I would do that in my Glorantha, the same way it doesn't make sense (except for special circumstances) to say that a business meeting should have no technology allowed whatsoever (i.e. no laptops or smartphones or internet access). Some actions are frowned upon, like deceiving people, or spying on them in between council meetings, but that's the case whether you're using a spell or not (or technology). Maybe banning some spells, or monitoring spell activity, makes it a bit harder to do those things, so depending on your views about how (in)effective those policies might be, they could be used in your world.

 

I'm not even remotely suggesting that that should be the case.

I'm saying that people would use the magic they've got and the contacts with the deities that they have for mutual benefit and for the forwarding of the deity's goals. Using a spell like Charisma to win over a meeting just because it suits your personal goals is vastly different to casting a DI to figure out where the latest source of attacks is coming from.

Mind altering affect spells should be banned within such types of meetings - and that's basically what the Charisma spell does.

 

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

My personal opinion on the matter is that I don't like it when a world gives me a toy, but the story removes the toy from me. "It's a world where you have access to lots of magic spells!" the GM says... but when we want to figure out who killed the innkeeper, we can't interrogate the ghost because the killer used a special weapon that destroys the victim's spirit. If we want to locate the kidnapped innkeeper's child, we can't use a scrying spell because somehow the bad guys are using something to block it... there's no point in having access to magic if it ends up being useless or unusable. But yes, it means it's a lot harder for the GM to design adventures, and that's why I hope there will be lots of well-designed scenario packs and GM advice coming from Chaosium soon

That's vastly different to what I was suggesting... and the whole thread is about "visual components on spells". So, who cares if everyone can see that you're talking to that ghost? Not overly relevant (unless, of course, that form of necromancy is considered evil in that part of the world). No-one's going to complain about a scrying spell (although, if people have no idea what you're trying to scry, maybe they'll get a bit antsy... but that's merely about the target, not the use).

The closest analogy I can immediately think of to your example above to what I'm referring to would be the Orlanthi decides to wave his sword about and threaten to kill people if they don't agree... or the Daka Fal Shaman possesses one of the other council members.... if people think using Charisma is ok, then what would be the problem with doing that??

[Bill the barbarian]

17 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

The closest analogy I can immediately think of to your example above to what I'm referring to would be the Orlanthi decides to wave his sword about and threaten to kill people if they don't agree... or the Daka Fal Shaman possesses one of the other council members.... if people think using Charisma is ok, then what would be the problem with doing that??

Alas, I just must disagree with you , Don't mean to but...

Watch a little politics and cheating (sorry folks  don't mean to be mean, or start a war so I will tread carefully here)  of a very egregious nature seems to be a topic that comes up very often and many if not all are painted with the accusation at one point or another. And yet, politicians utilize all tools up to and including murder and beyond and some actually get away with it. TelePrompTers, speech writers, paid political ads that baldly lie and bring in actors in place of real people, media hatchet jobs that ruin families and worse, political assassinations, burglaries, planted evidence on opponents and as mentioned actual assassinations. In our world I won't say this happens every day but I'll bet there aren't many where the question doesn't come up that someone is guilty of one or more of the above...  In one country alone, never mind all the nations of out planet.

We are supposedly savvy but  do not know what to believe. Not saying that the Gloranthans are not savvy but it seems to me that a (if I can utilize our poor overworked priestess again, sorry lass) priestess using the skills she has a goddess given gifts is perfectly okay to, the less jaded and more united Theyalans and not that crazily unbelievable/unacceptable to true believers and good Orlanthi, all! (politicking, moi?).

I suppose I shall retreat from the field after this for I can't imagine having more to say on the topic besides YGMV

cheers

[Shiningbrow]

5 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Alas, I just must disagree with you , Don't mean to but...

Watch a little politics and cheating (sorry folks  don't mean to be mean, or start a war so I will tread carefully here)  of a very egregious nature seems to be a topic that comes up very often and many if not all are painted with the accusation at one point or another. And yet, politicians utilize all tools up to and including murder and beyond and some actually get away with it. TelePrompTers, speech writers, paid political ads that baldly lie and bring in actors in place of real people, media hatchet jobs that ruin families and worse, political assassinations, burglaries, planted evidence on opponents and as mentioned actual assassinations. In our world I won't say this happens every day but I'll bet there aren't many where the question doesn't come up that someone is guilty of one or more of the above...  In one country alone, never mind all the nations of out planet.

We are supposedly savvy but  do not know what to believe. Not saying that the Gloranthans are not savvy but it seems to me that a (if I can utilize our poor overworked priestess again, sorry lass) priestess using the skills she has a goddess given gifts is perfectly okay to, the less jaded and more united Theyalans and not that crazily unbelievable/unacceptable to true believers and good Orlanthi, all! (politicking, moi?).

I suppose I shall retreat from the field after this for I can't imagine having more to say on the topic besides YGMV

cheers

So, you are suggesting that the LM Sage who gets fed up with the stupid grunts who want to control everything and decides to Dominate Human(oid) to get the vote to go his (far more intelligent and thought out) way is not a problem?

The Kolati Shaman who possesses the Orlanthi King is well within their rights to do so, as long as it's helpful (or if it's not!) at the request of his mate on the Council Ring, just to swing the majority?

Anything goes, huh?

 

The difference with your example is that the politicians will keep doing those things here as long as they don't get caught! The thread started on whether magic is clearly obvious (some yes, some no, some...??) and then extended into how people might react to those which are obvious/visible. Politician X doesn't order the killing of a political rival on TV (nor, usually, in the middle of their cabinet room)... and neither should the Ernaldan Priestess drop in a Charisma in the middle of the discussion (for sort of similar reasons).

[Bill the barbarian]

 

Well in fairness, I should answer your queries but I am not sure we are covering new material here. (so l am a little reluctant). Hate to chew the same cud twice.

24 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

The thread started on whether magic is clearly obvious (some yes, some no, some...??) and then extended into how people might react to those which are obvious/visible.

Original topic Yes. people can see the charisma effect and note them and maybe even think them a fool if they do not use it. and it should not matter anymore than how people can also see the work the amazing wardrobe, makeup and speechwriters and teleprompter folk do to enhance our politicians (I'm in the business in a way) you have no idea how much money is spent to make our politicians look like common folk, and please, I am not talking an insignificant amount but enough to stagger a small nations's annual budget here for a large 1st world election. ( a little cheating perhaps that we can all see and wave our hands at, nothing to see here, and did you see that power tie Mr X was wearing... Brilliant speech, eh?). 

13 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

The difference with your example is that the politicians will keep doing those things here as long as they don't get caught! .

And with the right spin, long after they get caught too, unfortunatly (and no I will not give examples, I said I would tread carefully and not start a war:).

22 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

So, you are suggesting that the LM Sage who gets fed up with the stupid grunts who want to control everything and decides to Dominate Human(oid) to get the vote to go his (far more intelligent and thought out) way is not a problem?

 

There is actually a great tale in one on the old zines (I believe) that tells a tale of intrigue, espionage and near warfare in a LM temple in, was it Notchet? Wish I could remember the title and where it can be  found. RQ companion maybe? Anyone?

Cheers 

PS I suppose if I must continue I will, but we really need to move on to new material for this debate to matter imo and not become a Monty Python "argument" sketch.

.Cheers

 

[metcalph]

24 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

So, you are suggesting that the LM Sage who gets fed up with the stupid grunts who want to control everything and decides to Dominate Human(oid) to get the vote to go his (far more intelligent and thought out) way is not a problem?

Yup.  No different from bribery and blackmail that many humans indulge in in similar circumstances.  Others may deplore his choice but so long as he does it secret

24 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

The Kolati Shaman who possesses the Orlanthi King is well within their rights to do so, as long as it's helpful (or if it's not!) at the request of his mate on the Council Ring, just to swing the majority?

Possessing involves spirit combat and is not something that can be done undetected.  However getting a lock of the King's hair and using it to whisper advice into the King's ear via whispers and sympathetic magic is completely legit.

 

24 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

The difference with your example is that the politicians will keep doing those things here as long as they don't get caught! The thread started on whether magic is clearly obvious (some yes, some no, some...??) and then extended into how people might react to those which are obvious/visible. Politician X doesn't order the killing of a political rival on TV (nor, usually, in the middle of their cabinet room)... and neither should the Ernaldan Priestess drop in a Charisma in the middle of the discussion (for sort of similar reasons).

There's a great deal of difference between ordering the killing of a political rival and using a charisma spell.  Your problem is that you don't distinguish the two.

 

[Shiningbrow]

1 minute ago, metcalph said:

There's a great deal of difference between ordering the killing of a political rival and using a charisma spell.  Your problem is that you don't distinguish the two.

 

I do... I just need to determine where the lines are before going further.

Your other comments above that do sort of indicate where that line is, and it's not where I'd have mine... YGV.

 

(the possession could be done the night before)

[Bill the barbarian]

4 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Possessing involves spirit combat and is not something that can be done undetected.  However getting a lock of the King's hair and using it to whisper advice into the King's ear via whispers and sympathetic magic is completely legit.

 

and sounds like a great plot device too.

[Shiningbrow]

4 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

There is actually a great tale in one on the old zines (I believe) that tells a tale of intrigue, espionage and near warfare in a LM temple in, was it Notchet? Wish I could remember the title and where it can be  found. RQ companion maybe? Anyone?

Cheers

Please, try to remember!!! I'd love to read it!

(of course, hopefully others can chime in her)

 

5 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

...and not become a Monty Python "argument" sketch.

.Cheers

No it's not...

 

Waaahhhhhhh........

[metcalph]

Just now, Shiningbrow said:

I do... I just need to determine where the lines are before going further.

Other people have given ample reasoning for where the line lies.  What's not to like?

 

Just now, Shiningbrow said:

(the possession could be done the night before)

Possession is still hostile combat with spirits and the Kolati would be in a world of hurt if he did that to a fellow member of his tribe.

 

[Bill the barbarian]

13 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Yup.  No different from bribery and blackmail that many humans indulge in in similar circumstances.  Others may deplore his choice but so long as he does it secret

Quote

Most important to a cult that revers truth. and a little note here. As a very long term player and owner and student of much once canonical material I can think of a few ways a priest of the god of truth could lie! Most important of which is, that the gods are not omnipotent!

[Shiningbrow]

8 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Other people have given ample reasoning for where the line lies.  What's not to like?

 

Possession is still hostile combat with spirits and the Kolati would be in a world of hurt if he did that to a fellow member of his tribe.

 

Some are indicating a "whatever works" attitude.. if Lie is ok, as well as Clever Tongue... then why not Dominate? And if those are all ok if you can get away with it, then Charisma isn't too far down that slippery slope.

I know that Glorantha isn't a perfect world, and humans are still sucky... but as I've tried to indicate, the No Magic policy in council meetings would be appropriate. And, if someone suspects their mind or emotions have been tampered with or unduly influenced, they're not going to be too happy about it - even if using the goddesses' (or others) power to do so.

 

20 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Others may deplore his choice but so long as he does it secret

That's the crux of the argument... what about when it's not?

[metcalph]

2 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Some are indicating a "whatever works" attitude.. if Lie is ok, as well as Clever Tongue... then why not Dominate? And if those are all ok if you can get away with it, then Charisma isn't too far down that slippery slope.

Look at how the spell operates.  Lie, Clever Tongue and Charisma do not require overcoming magic points or POW to work.  Dominate does.  A clear bright line that you for some reason don't use.

2 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I know that Glorantha isn't a perfect world, and humans are still sucky... but as I've tried to indicate, the No Magic policy in council meetings would be appropriate.

Why would it be appropriate?

2 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

And, if someone suspects their mind or emotions have been tampered with or unduly influenced, they're not going to be too happy about it - even if using the goddesses' (or others) power to do so.

They're are not going to be too happy about it if their mind or emotions were influenced by fast talk or bargain.  "Eh, I bought these beans that Gold-gotti assured me were magic".  But nobody adopts a policy of no talking during negotiations as a result.

2 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

That's the crux of the argument... what about when it's not?

Others may try and work counterspells.

[Bill the barbarian]

5 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Some are indicating a "whatever works" attitude.. if Lie is ok, as well as Clever Tongue... then why not Dominate? And if those are all ok if you can get away with it, then Charisma isn't too far down that slippery slope.

 

Okay new territory, alas it is a thread drift but still bendable to topic. If this (using magic which is visible) is a moral issue, how can that bad? RQ does not have alignments that you choose and slavishly follow. Should you run into a moral ambiguity, well, GREAT. this is meat and potatoes to the hero, How does he respond, in kind with another moral ambiguity, righteously and to others confusion/apathy/respect. Hell choose your own morality play here. The story can almost write itself. And need I point out what a great plot angle moral ambiguity provides once again.

cheers

Edited May 13, 2019 by Bill the barbarian
miss spelin

[Jeff]

11 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

So, you are suggesting that the LM Sage who gets fed up with the stupid grunts who want to control everything and decides to Dominate Human(oid) to get the vote to go his (far more intelligent and thought out) way is not a problem?

The Kolati Shaman who possesses the Orlanthi King is well within their rights to do so, as long as it's helpful (or if it's not!) at the request of his mate on the Council Ring, just to swing the majority?

Anything goes, huh?

 

The difference with your example is that the politicians will keep doing those things here as long as they don't get caught! The thread started on whether magic is clearly obvious (some yes, some no, some...??) and then extended into how people might react to those which are obvious/visible. Politician X doesn't order the killing of a political rival on TV (nor, usually, in the middle of their cabinet room)... and neither should the Ernaldan Priestess drop in a Charisma in the middle of the discussion (for sort of similar reasons).

This sort of (mis)use of power happens in Gloranthan stories. The rise of Lokamayadon, and the efforts he took to bring harmony to the warring peoples of the Second Council. Alakoring stripping priests of their power until they submitted to him. Hon-eel beguiled the priestesses of Ernalda and enter the deep womb of the Earth. And so on.  

[Bill the barbarian]

9 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Quote

That's the crux of the argument... what about when it's not?

 

sounds like an adventure to me.... 

[Shiningbrow]

3 minutes ago, metcalph said:

Look at how the spell operates.  Lie, Clever Tongue and Charisma do not require overcoming magic points or POW to work.  Dominate does.  A clear bright line that you for some reason don't use.

 

Lie's lack of resistance has been and is still being discussed.... however, below.

The other obvious distinction is that Charisma and Clever Tongue are cast on Self, while the Dominate isn't.

 

If someone used a spell-traded Lie in the council meeting, and told everyone that X members' had their votes cancelled or didn't count, then I'm pretty sure everyone would be pissed about it - enough to get most removed from said council (and possibly banished)... except, obviously, Trickster. If anyone here is thinking "nah, it's fine... such magic isn't a problem", then I'm gobsmacked!

Charisma isn't so blatant, but I still think that if you wouldn't want people knowing you've cast it (why hide the fact if it's not a problem? And, by "hide", I mean determine that the spell has no obvious visual component). Some spells are considered not to have a visual aspect once cast... if these spells are so innocuous, then they should be fairly obvious, as are others.

[Shiningbrow]

6 minutes ago, Jeff said:

This sort of (mis)use of power happens in Gloranthan stories. The rise of Lokamayadon, and the efforts he took to bring harmony to the warring peoples of the Second Council. Alakoring stripping priests of their power until they submitted to him. Hon-eel beguiled the priestesses of Ernalda and enter the deep womb of the Earth. And so on.  

Cool. I'm happy with that...

I just don't think everyone would like to be on the receiving end... or just shrug their shoulders and accept it.

 

(trying to get through the modern material... most of the way through Sourcebook... next tackle/hurdle is the GoG...)

[metcalph]

 

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

The other obvious distinction is that Charisma and Clever Tongue are cast on Self, while the Dominate isn't.

So they can be cast with no problem in meetings, no?

 

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

If someone used a spell-traded Lie in the council meeting, and told everyone that X members' had their votes cancelled or didn't count, then I'm pretty sure everyone would be pissed about it - enough to get most removed from said council (and possibly banished)... except, obviously, Trickster. If anyone here is thinking "nah, it's fine... such magic isn't a problem", then I'm gobsmacked!

But that's a stupid use of a lie spell because the effect wears off in 15 minutes.  What you need to do is to tell a lie that is plausible and crafted in such a way that makes it difficult to check up on.  Saying that X got into trouble for studying atyari magics in his apprenticeship therefore he shouldn't be trusted with positions of responsibility is a good use of the Lie spell if used outside X's hearing.    It can also be sealed with the statement that you should avoid mentioning this to X because it might trigger a relapse.

 

1 hour ago, Shiningbrow said:

Charisma isn't so blatant, but I still think that if you wouldn't want people knowing you've cast it (why hide the fact if it's not a problem?

Why would I want to hide the fact that I'm casting a Charisma spell to affect people?  I'm drawning upon the power of the goddess to show her strength in my arguments, no?