Jump to content

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


Tywyll

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

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.

Not sure where "just because it suits your personal goals" comes from, if someone is arguing from a position of personal aggrandisement at an important tribal council then they will be treated with suspicion regardless of their use of magic.

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

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

Mind-altering? It's purely self-altering.

3 hours 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??

Not even vaguely close. Those are entirely different kinds of actions to using your powers of persuasion, and Charisma is just another of those powers of persuasion. The fact that it is a magical ability is entirely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/11/2019 at 2:45 PM, gochie said:

Using external powers that only you have access to to convince people to do things they otherwise wouldn't... Yeah that could be seen as a kind of "cheating" in an argument.

I think you might be overstating the issue.

First off, no one argues from pure logic and reason, and even if they did it's a fairly modern idea. Gloranthans wouldn't particularly care about logical fallacies or appeals to authority. It would be about passions and occasionally reason. 

Now, the actual mechanical bonus of the Charisma spell is really only about what, +15%, +20%? That's the same as invoking a passion or a rune. If someone gets the same benefit from arguing about their loves or hates, its hardly a 'cheat'. Granted, these things can stack but you get my drift.

Also, social skills aren't mind control. You might intimidate a broo, but you aren't going to Charm it (probably...hopefully?). The spell doesn't allow you to do things you couldn't normally accomplish.

And people in the world can't see the dice. They have little way of knowing if the speaker rolled a 20% or would have failed without the bonus from Charisma. And they would still only do what was within the scope of the skill. 

That said, yes, I don't necessarily think you'd take on Ernalda's Hero Form everytime you cast the spell. Maybe if you cast it and then rolled a critical I might describe it that way. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tywyll said:

I think you might be overstating the issue.

First off, no one argues from pure logic and reason, and even if they did it's a fairly modern idea. Gloranthans wouldn't particularly care about logical fallacies or appeals to authority. It would be about passions and occasionally reason. 

Now, the actual mechanical bonus of the Charisma spell is really only about what, +15%, +20%? That's the same as invoking a passion or a rune. If someone gets the same benefit from arguing about their loves or hates, its hardly a 'cheat'. Granted, these things can stack but you get my drift.

Also, social skills aren't mind control. You might intimidate a broo, but you aren't going to Charm it (probably...hopefully?). The spell doesn't allow you to do things you couldn't normally accomplish.

And people in the world can't see the dice. They have little way of knowing if the speaker rolled a 20% or would have failed without the bonus from Charisma. And they would still only do what was within the scope of the skill. 

That said, yes, I don't necessarily think you'd take on Ernalda's Hero Form everytime you cast the spell. Maybe if you cast it and then rolled a critical I might describe it that way. 

 

We are mostly in agreement then. 

Again, I agree that visually there could be differences in the caster, but they would be unnoticed.

It would probably look a bit like someone invoking a passion: more invested in their speech, more eloquent  than usual, better choice of words, knowing what drives the majority of the crowd, etc. Much like that incredible speech at the end of a film from that "loser" character who was horrible at speaking to anyone. 

The real misunderstanding stems from the fact that I (and @Shiningbrow I believe) don't agree that people would accept the obvious use of spells for certain reasons, including convincing them to do what you want. 

Anyways, it's clear that we have our logic and the rest of you have yours, and that's fine. I'm okay with laying this to rest with a "let's agree to disagree". 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem people have with the "Lie" spell is that it mis-interpreted as making people believe in something that isn't true.

In my opinion, "Lie" is a specific form of Illusion magic, creating a temporary truth, only it is a memetic truth, tied to the spoken word and gestures of the person using the spell. Pronouncements by somebody using the Lie spell will detect as Truth. If somebody has a spell to detect Illusion, that would register, too, but only on the person under the effect of Lie, not the pronouncements themselves.

That's why there is no resistance roll against Lie. The audience isn't the target of the spell. Reality is.

Edited by Joerg
  • Like 3

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Joerg said:

The problem people have with the "Lie" spell is that it mis-interpreted as making people believe in something that isn't true.

In my opinion, "Lie" is a specific form of Illusion magic, creating a temporary truth, only it is a memetic truth, tied to the spoken word and gestures of the person using the spell. Pronouncements by somebody using the Lie spell will detect as Truth. If somebody has a spell to detect Illusion, that would register, too, but only on the person under the effect of Lie, not the pronouncements themselves.

That's why there is no resistance roll against Lie. The audience isn't the target of the spell. Reality is.

Deep!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, gochie said:

It would probably look a bit like someone invoking a passion: more invested in their speech, more eloquent  than usual, better choice of words, knowing what drives the majority of the crowd, etc. Much like that incredible speech at the end of a film from that "loser" character who was horrible at speaking to anyone. 

Yeah, that's a great interpretation I think. Though I don't know what film you are referencing?

50 minutes ago, gochie said:

The real misunderstanding stems from the fact that I (and @Shiningbrow I believe) don't agree that people would accept the obvious use of spells for certain reasons, including convincing them to do what you want. 

I think that some people might not be too happy with it, the same way that people kick themselves later after they realize that they were bamboozled by someone's arguments, their clothes, their car, etc. But I think the resentment probably lays with the self, just as people resent 'giving in' to someone's line. But we recognize that privileged people (be it wealth, looks, etc) get away with a lot more than others do simply by the nature of their luck/gifts/eloquence. What it doesn't mean is that everyone turns a blind eye to those privileges and evaluates people solely on their arguments. An individual might, after being stung by that person, but society doesn't rise up against pretty people just because they have an easier time of things. 

Rune Magic is just one more gift that separates the haves from the have nots. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this one surely went into a heated discussion. Maybe I'll add my point of view, from a scientific perspective.

Let's take a simple physic law such as Newton's F=ma It's used everywhere, it's the basis of almost every basic calculation done in standard physics, and it is one of the most accepted and verified law. Yet, it is NOT the law of nature : it's a mathematical model we use to reproduce that law and it works extraordinarily well. None of the equations of physics are laws, they are just models reproducing the apparent consequences of those laws we will forever ignore. 

RQ:G is just that to me : a model for us, players, to reproduce what is happening in Glorantha. And, indeed, as for physics, we had several successive ones ...

I don't think there is "magic" in Glorantha. No rune points either, or spells. Gloranthans may not even have a word for "magic". They may classify their own abilities using other criterions, just like ancient greeks called "art" what was related to physical matter (sculpture, medicine, ...) and "science" what was related to spirit and ideas (mathematics, orate, ...). I see Glorantha as a network of runes peoples manipulate through agility, knowledge and will, a single process we have to modelize through the separation of a skill percentage and rune points & spells. 

You know no matter how well you take care of the plant in that pot, there are people with "green hand" and peoples without. We don't say of someone who can make any plant thrive while ours systematically die they're powerful magicians, do we ? I think that's how gloranthans view those priests and rune lords. The "green hand" effect is just really strong in Glorantha, due to the systematic presence of the runes. What we call "magic" in our model is just the regular skill, know-how, or whatever you want to call it. I don't think ernalda's priestess is really casting any spell, that's the process we, terrestrian players, have to go through to reproduce what she is doing. When she really want to convince someone she draws from those specific ressources of Glorantha, the runes and their divine incarnations, so easily available there, what we would just call inspiration on Earth because they don't exist here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is getting less and less a RuneQuest thread and more and more a Gloranthan lore thread. Continue at your own peril.

 

Quote

I don't think there is "magic" in Glorantha. No rune points either, or spells. Gloranthans may not even have a word for "magic".

I am fairly certain that they have a word for it. In fact, they have a rune for it - Magic is one of the fundamental building blocks of Gloranthan reality. (It doesn't matter that it is not used for Rune Magic or sorcery in RQ... there are a few other well-established runes that aren't used that way.)

 

Quote

They may classify their own abilities using other criterions, just like ancient greeks called "art" what was related to physical matter (sculpture, medicine, ...) and "science" what was related to spirit and ideas (mathematics, orate, ...). I see Glorantha as a network of runes peoples manipulate through agility, knowledge and will, a single process we have to modelize through the separation of a skill percentage and rune points & spells. 

Agility= Being (your deity/philosophical ideal)? I.e. divine or rune magic?

Knowledge: sorcery.

Will? mysticism or heroquest effects.

Then there are spirits in charms, things you have. Ok, a little bit of will applies here, too.

 

Quote

You know no matter how well you take care of the plant in that pot, there are people with "green hand" and peoples without. We don't say of someone who can make any plant thrive while ours systematically die they're powerful magicians, do we ?

No, instead we talk about them as knowing what conditions to subject the plant to, and remembering when the plant needs water and when not.

But even in our secular western materialist society, we exchange magical blessings daily -- "Good Morning!" That's a little charm where you expend a little bit of magic to brighten someone else's day. "Bless ya!" One of our many small healing charms. And worst of all, "Good Luck!". Pure witchcraft.

 

Quote

I think that's how gloranthans view those priests and rune lords. The "green hand" effect is just really strong in Glorantha, due to the systematic presence of the runes. What we call "magic" in our model is just the regular skill, know-how, or whatever you want to call it.

IMO Gloranthans are very much aware of magic. Only the Mostali might think of the various magical rites etc. as algorithmic instructions to the World Machine, but then they probably talk about energies rather than magic. Sorcerers talk about and use magical energies, stuff that is generated or perhaps better accumulated in the Inner World, poured down on the worlds of Glorantha from the source, shaped by the runes, and in part returned to entities closer to the source to manifest their runes. (Malkioni sorcerers skip the entities when doing pure sorcery, but are quite willing to engage in demonology summoning and commanding such entities.)

Quote

I don't think ernalda's priestess is really casting any spell, that's the process we, terrestrian players, have to go through to reproduce what she is doing.

Especially the priesthood (less so rune lords or people who heroform) apply well defined ritual activities to invoke feats or abilities or properties of their deities. That's more or less the definition of a spell, and in my opinion recognized as such by the Gloranthans.

Edited by Joerg
turns out the magic rune is used in sorcery context
  • Like 3

Telling how it is excessive verbis

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Joerg said:

This is getting less and less a RuneQuest thread and more and more a Gloranthan lore thread. Continue at your own peril.

The discussion only exists because RuneQuest has a hard line between magic and not-magic, whereas Glorantha and the HeroQuest game system do not, so the RuneQuest forum is the only place where this discussion can happen! It is essentially a discussion of whether game mechanics have a direct effect on the world that they are simulating, and my answer to that is definitively no.

Although I've just had one of those moments where you realise that you've just argued yourself into a corner.

  1. Magic has visible effects
  2. Gloranthans don't consider it cheating, because there's no difference between magic and not-magic
  3. Therefore... how can magic have visible effects if there's no distinction?

I'm not sure how to get out of this particular corner. Help!

Edited by PhilHibbs
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I'm not sure how to get out of this particular corner. Help!

Maybe... there is a distinction, magic does have effects, it's just that Gloranthans think of magic as being just as much part of the world as not-magic. Socially, there is no difference and it isn't considered cheating any more than reading books is cheating. Then again some people might think that reading books is cheating, and those that read cannot be trusted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, PhilHibbs said:

Maybe... there is a distinction, magic does have effects, it's just that Gloranthans think of magic as being just as much part of the world as not-magic. Socially, there is no difference and it isn't considered cheating any more than reading books is cheating. Then again some people might think that reading books is cheating, and those that read cannot be trusted.

BURN 'EM!

... remember, with a TARDIS, one is never late for breakfast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

The discussion only exists because RuneQuest has a hard line between magic and not-magic, whereas Glorantha and the HeroQuest game system do not, so the RuneQuest forum is the only place where this discussion can happen! It is essentially a discussion of whether game mechanics have a direct effect on the world that they are simulating, and my answer to that is definitively no.

Although I've just had one of those moments where you realise that you've just argued yourself into a corner.

  1. Magic has visible effects
  2. Gloranthans don't consider it cheating, because there's no difference between magic and not-magic
  3. Therefore... how can magic have visible effects if there's no distinction?

I'm not sure how to get out of this particular corner. Help!

1. Using a flashlight has a visual effect
2. People on this Earth don't consider it cheating, especially if you use a flashlight for enhancing your sight during dusk or dawn. There is no difference between using a technical device and training your eyes to see better (especially during dusk or dawn).
3. So using a technical device, which has a visual effect, but there is no difference between using it or your own eyes only.

Does that make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Maybe... there is a distinction, magic does have effects, it's just that Gloranthans think of magic as being just as much part of the world as not-magic. Socially, there is no difference and it isn't considered cheating any more than reading books is cheating. Then again some people might think that reading books is cheating, and those that read cannot be trusted.

Yes, but some magic use is fine and dandy, and others definitely not.

Even the 'good' magics can anger people (don't even try to resurrect that Humakti! And, I thought there was a geas about not accepting any magical healing...).

Orlanth and Yelm would argue over the use of Cloudcall/Cloud Clear...

So, yeah, the generic use of magic is socially accepted. The specific uses of it are questionable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

Agility= Being (your deity/philosophical ideal)? I.e. divine or rune magic?

Knowledge: sorcery.

Will? mysticism or heroquest effects.

What I meant is that doing stuff using your physical agility (directing a plough), your experience about the process (when and how to plow a field) or you will (casting a spell on the field) is probably viewed as (and IS) the same thing, a single process to transform the world. Only the degree differs. By channeling the runes through your muscles, it costs you only some endurance and you get a basic result. When you start to spend magic points, the result is more impressive, and by spending POW (or rune points), now you get exceptionnal results. But it really is a continuous scale, where RQ splits it in totally different processes. Yes, there are rituals, there are gestures and incantations, but there are also even when you don't spend magic points. I think no farmer will starts plowing his field without a magic incantation or a prayer, even if he doesn't cast a spell as defined by RQ rules.

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

IMO Gloranthans are very much aware of magic. Only the Mostali might think of the various magical rites etc. as algorithmic instructions to the World Machine, but then they probably talk about energies rather than magic. Sorcerers talk about and use magical energies, stuff that is generated or perhaps better accumulated in the Inner World, poured down on the worlds of Glorantha from the source, shaped by the runes, and in part returned to entities closer to the source to manifest their runes. (Malkioni sorcerers skip the entities when doing pure sorcery, but are quite willing to engage in demonology summoning and commanding such entities.)

Especially the priesthood (less so rune lords or people who heroform) apply well defined ritual activities to invoke feats or abilities or properties of their deities. That's more or less the definition of a spell, and in my opinion recognized as such by the Gloranthans.

Indeed. I didn't say gloranthans aren't aware of magic, I said they don't make the distinction between what is magic and what is not. I think they have a single word for "magic" and "skill". Those powerful feats require a better understanding of the world, additional rituals and efforts, that's all. 

Actually, I was about to write they don't try to separate the natural from the supernatural. But, what exactly would be "supernatural" in Glorantha ? Maybe the god-learners and all those sorcerers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kirinyaga said:

Indeed. I didn't say gloranthans aren't aware of magic, I said they don't make the distinction between what is magic and what is not. I think they have a single word for "magic" and "skill". Those powerful feats require a better understanding of the world, additional rituals and efforts, that's all. 

Actually, I was about to write they don't try to separate the natural from the supernatural. But, what exactly would be "supernatural" in Glorantha ? Maybe the god-learners and all those sorcerers.

I don't understand why you would think this. Societies on Earth certainly distinguished lexically between 'magic' and 'skill', and they fully believed in their gods. The words may well be related or even come from the same root. But the people who use those words have tended to know the difference in meanings (most of the time). There are words which do imply either though, but they tend to be used only in certain occasions, and for certain sets of people (sort of how our Heroquest abilities can be seen as skills/abilities rather than 'magic').

Now, if you want to talk about mysticism, skill and magic, you may be onto something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

I don't understand why you would think this. Societies on Earth certainly distinguished lexically between 'magic' and 'skill', and they fully believed in their gods.

If you were watching an episode of Vikings and there was a duel (or an argument), and someone said "Hey he's cheating, he's got woad on, that's magic!", don't you think that would be rather odd and out-of-place?

Edited by PhilHibbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

If you were watching an episode of Vikings and there was a duel (or an argument), and someone said "Hey he's cheating, he's got woad on, that's magic!", don't you think that would be rather odd and out-of-place?

I really don't. If they agreed to a magic-free duel and one of them obviously used magic, he would be called out.

I understand that my Glorantha also doesn't have magic as engrained into society as yours. Yes, the World and everything in it is made of magic, runes are everywhere, etc., but I don't see magic being a normal, mundane "skill" like you do. 

The vast majority of people in Glorantha are Lay Members with no rune magic and most people in the West don't know sorcery, so sure, spirit magic might be more common, but I don't see all magic as being so normal that people don't even notice it - normalized to the extent you describe. 

Not saying you're wrong in your interpretation, it's just not mine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

If you were watching an episode of Vikings and there was a duel (or an argument), and someone said "Hey he's cheating, he's got woad on, that's magic!", don't you think that would be rather odd and out-of-place?

Depends upon the rules of engagement. If they disallowed the use of magic in combat such as that situation, then yes, I'd expect them to wash it off... "Sorry mate, you're on a Woad to nowhere while you've got that on!"

They'd phrase it differently, just as we should be phrasing our spells differently (as HQ does).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

The discussion only exists because RuneQuest has a hard line between magic and not-magic, whereas Glorantha and the HeroQuest game system do not, so the RuneQuest forum is the only place where this discussion can happen!

It is indeed interesting because if it was a Charisma skill, or, say, a Charisma "advantage" (for systems with advantages/disadvantages or other types of traits that don't say "Magic"), we wouldn't be having this conversation, even if the description for such a trait was along the lines of "your character has the favour of the Gods" or something.

22 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Although I've just had one of those moments where you realise that you've just argued yourself into a corner.

  1. Magic has visible effects 
  2. Gloranthans don't consider it cheating, because there's no difference between magic and not-magic
  3. Therefore... how can magic have visible effects if there's no distinction?

I'm not sure how to get out of this particular corner. Help! 

To add to @Oracle's reply, there's also the very visible (when you know how to look) manipulation techniques that exist on Earth, and that are directly relevant to Charisma. I guess it also relates a bit to what @Bill the barbarian was saying about politicians but, indeed, depending on the situation and the context, someone shaking your hand, holding your shoulder, making eye contact, or asking for small favours first (FITD technique) could be considered acceptable, frowned upon, or unacceptable. How many times have you been to an electronic store and the salesman tells you "oh I've got that same model at home myself, it's a really good choice"? That's definitely visible and (for most people) noticeable, but it still happens.

Depending on how your Gloranthans view these things, in different contexts, a spell may or may not have a visible or noticeable component. I'm pretty sure the form of spells have a bit of an evolutionary component, where the specific form of some spell might have changed across the ages to "survive". Other forms of that spell might have "died" a long time ago (nobody used them anymore) because they were not as effective as other forms. In a Glorantha were noticeable Charisma spells are seen as "wow that person is really impressive, they've got the blessing of the Gods, etc. etc.", the spell might get fancy or even tacky. However, in a Glorantha where Charisma is seen as a sleazy manipulation technique, "cheating", "manipulation", whatever... it might have "evolved" into an invisible spell that requires magical detection to figure out if it's been cast. I think it's fine as long as things are consistent, and as long as players know what to expect -- again, I wouldn't like spending points on Charisma only to be told I can't use it at this important clan meeting my character is going to because NPCs will get mad at me.

Edited by lordabdul
  • Like 1

Ludovic aka Lordabdul -- read and listen to  The God Learners , the Gloranthan podcast, newsletter, & blog !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

I think it's fine as long as things are consistent, and as long as players know what to expect -- again, I wouldn't like spending points on Charisma only to be told I can't use it at this important clan meeting my character is going to because NPCs will get mad at me.

Yeah that about says where I would like to be in the final analysis, and I like how you adapt the theory of evolution from our blue marble to magic on the green lozenge to weed out those spells that are no longer applicable to the worlds needs and remembering the meta in order to also suit the tastes of your game, and desires of the  players. Quite logical appreciation of internal consistency.

I will add, of course, the internal consistency in Glorantha is not always immediately apparent. As with anything created with a touch of depth some will be revealed onion skin style—a bit at a time and until revealed will seem paradoxical.  Worth noting as well, as per reality, sometimes the logic will never reveal itself and stuff seems out of sync, a little wrong or just plain odd. Our world has this, Glorantha, broken and off-kilter Glorantha  (assume a real existing Glorantha  for just a second)  has it for sure and Meta Glorantha, that which has been created by humans over decades; ones that make mistakes or change their mind or simply forget some of the 100s of billions of words devoted to Glorantha, will have it in spades.

So internal consistency first, the players like it and then a little shuffle to left to surprise then as well. They will also like this. As a bonus, this is consistent with how great tales resolve, and coincidentally sounds exactly like an old and predominate theory on writing pop songs. The mix of the familiar with the unexpected in the right ratio, and what that ratio is, is what separates the wheat from the chaff and will sell your song.

I like the current management views that the differences in interpretations is where the creativity and originality can creep in. This has been mentioned by various members of the Chaosium Brass as being a feature and not a bug, (and it sounds a hell of a lot more sincere then similar statements from MicroSoft et al) at one time or another—not to universal accliam, unfortunately—so I hope this philosophy still steers the ship.

"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
― Leonard Cohen

  • Like 2

... remember, with a TARDIS, one is never late for breakfast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, lordabdul said:

It is indeed interesting because if it was a Charisma skill, or, say, a Charisma "advantage" (for systems with advantages/disadvantages or other types of traits that don't say "Magic"), we wouldn't be having this conversation, even if the description for such a trait was along the lines of "your character has the favour of the Gods" or something.

To add to @Oracle's reply, there's also the very visible (when you know how to look) manipulation techniques that exist on Earth, and that are directly relevant to Charisma. I guess it also relates a bit to what @Bill the barbarian was saying about politicians but, indeed, depending on the situation and the context, someone shaking your hand, holding your shoulder, making eye contact, or asking for small favours first (FITD technique) could be considered acceptable, frowned upon, or unacceptable. How many times have you been to an electronic store and the salesman tells you "oh I've got that same model at home myself, it's a really good choice"? That's definitely visible and (for most people) noticeable, but it still happens.

Depending on how your Gloranthans view these things, in different contexts, a spell may or may not have a visible or noticeable component. I'm pretty sure the form of spells have a bit of an evolutionary component, where the specific form of some spell might have changed across the ages to "survive". Other forms of that spell might have "died" a long time ago (nobody used them anymore) because they were not as effective as other forms. In a Glorantha were noticeable Charisma spells are seen as "wow that person is really impressive, they've got the blessing of the Gods, etc. etc.", the spell might get fancy or even tacky. However, in a Glorantha where Charisma is seen as a sleazy manipulation technique, "cheating", "manipulation", whatever... it might have "evolved" into an invisible spell that requires magical detection to figure out if it's been cast. I think it's fine as long as things are consistent, and as long as players know what to expect -- again, I wouldn't like spending points on Charisma only to be told I can't use it at this important clan meeting my character is going to because NPCs will get mad at me.

Going back to the OP - if Charisma has an in-game obvious effect, which wouldn't be like the "advantage" or skill or trait.

And, it is specifically calling upon the Goddess to empower the person with a power that they themselves don't actually have (differentiating between the power itself, and the ability to call upon the power - which is closer to your 'advantage' above).

Using the above techniques described about eye contact, etc, is already included in the skills - Charm, Orate and Fast Talk. However, analogising to Earth, we'd be really pissed off if someone was able to hypnotise us into doing things we're not happy with. Or dropping Roofies into drinks.

That salesperson says "I've got that exact same model at home" is perfectly ok if they do (or, you believe they do). But, when you hear them say that to every customer about every brand, then you'd be pretty pissed off (mostly at yourself for being gullible)

I don't think anyone has suggested Charisma (and its ilk) can't be used - including in those important clan meetings. I have suggested that perhaps people may not want it

 

On 5/13/2019 at 6:23 PM, PhilHibbs said:

Not sure where "just because it suits your personal goals" comes from, if someone is arguing from a position of personal aggrandisement at an important tribal council then they will be treated with suspicion regardless of their use of magic. 

I'd like to think that, but it's not always clear.  The battle of the queens in Notchet would be an example of this.

 

On 5/13/2019 at 6:23 PM, PhilHibbs said:

Those are entirely different kinds of actions to using your powers of persuasion, and Charisma is just another of those powers of persuasion. The fact that it is a magical ability is entirely irrelevant.

And, here we disagree... especially when we're talking about calling upon the Gods.

 

Q: Do Charisma and Glamour stack? As Shield and Protection/Countermagic do? Or (Weapon)Trance and Bladesharp?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

And, it is specifically calling upon the Goddess to empower the person with a power that they themselves don't actually have (differentiating between the power itself, and the ability to call upon the power - which is closer to your 'advantage' above).

Sure, but that was already addressed previously in this thread... for example with politicians using teleprompters, having a staff of aides talking remotely into their ear or sending them talking points in real-time on their smartphone, etc. These things empower the person with a power that they themselves don't actually have. Interestingly enough, although a lot people know about these things, political debates are still organized in a way that makes it look like the politician is speaking all on their own (for instance you'd never see all the aides standing next to him/her and whispering in their ear! They're always hidden somewhere backstage). So in this sense, I could totally get behind a Charisma skill that doesn't have any obviously noticeable effects but is still somewhat accepted in (some?) Gloranthan societies. At this point, choosing between all those different options is more of a conscious choice for what kind of flavour you want your game to taste like, and what your players might prefer.

 

Edited by lordabdul

Ludovic aka Lordabdul -- read and listen to  The God Learners , the Gloranthan podcast, newsletter, & blog !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

Sure, but that was already addressed previously in this thread...<snip>

 

Perhaps, but I don't agree that the analogy actually fits.

I"m sure all the council members also have 'aides', and can get in lots of information (not quite realtime, but possible... I can see the Lhankor Mhy sorcerer being asked to supply answers to questions using magic).

The examples you (and others) have used like this are more like an Augment than an invocation to the Goddess.

 

Anyway, it seems that our Gloranthas vary in a fundamental way, and none are likely to change views (although, @PhilHibbs did say he painted himself into a corner...). In that, if the magic is obvious, then it's ok. If it's subtle (and needs to remain hidden) then perhaps it's not... However, if it is open and obvious, then people just might wonder why it is that you feel you need to use it (obviously, these would be the people with an opposing viewpoint)

 

(Quck edit - Charisma uses the Illusion, Fertility and Beast Runes.... FWIW)

Edited by Shiningbrow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Shiningbrow said:

Anyway, it seems that our Gloranthas vary in a fundamental way, and none are likely to change views

I could still change my opinion (especially after talking to my players) since my Glorantha technically doesn't exist -- I haven't started playing yet :)  But this is all very interesting because it helps me form a clearer mental picture of what the world should feel like, and also points at any problem that might arise at the table... I can totally see my players arguing at length about this specific topic, so it's nice to be warned in advance so I can establish early what magic is and isn't in my game.

Ludovic aka Lordabdul -- read and listen to  The God Learners , the Gloranthan podcast, newsletter, & blog !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

I could still change my opinion (especially after talking to my players) since my Glorantha technically doesn't exist -- I haven't started playing yet :)  But this is all very interesting because it helps me form a clearer mental picture of what the world should feel like, and also points at any problem that might arise at the table... I can totally see my players arguing at length about this specific topic, so it's nice to be warned in advance so I can establish early what magic is and isn't in my game.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?6216-If-Spells-and-Abilities-Were-Written-How-My-Players-Use-Them

D&D, but still a bit apt...

Perhaps we should try for an RQ version?? 😛

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...