Seeking opinions about Gloranthan Rune Magic acquisition...

[Cleombrotus]

This is a query arising from an issue that has arisen in our game. I am interested in other opinions. It’s a Gloranthan topic, but ties into the rules system. The following should be taken into account.
1) This was originally written when we were using RQ3 rules which made a lot less sense than the RQM magic rules.
2) Our Campaign is Third Age, not Second, so we can justify more or less anything that we can rationalise.
3) I have not yet read either of the RQM Cults books and don’t fully know what they have to say on the matter, and obviously there may be something in the Player’s Guide about Gloranthan magic.
4) I use the terms “spirit magic” and “rune magic” interchangeably.
5) Most importantly, we have removed Rune integration as a prerequisite for casting Rune magic. This is a firm decision.

In our game we rationalised that cults teach spirit magic to all comers, within reason. The RQ3 idea that cults only taught certain spirit spells seemed to be an artificial way of making magic more balanced and defined from a rules point of view. However, if anyone can in theory capture and bind a spell spirit, then why can't cultists? It makes sense that cults would prefer to teach spells that better reflect the aims or runic associations of the cult, and further that some spells are forbidden such as Humakt and dullblade, or inaccessible like Yelmalio and fire-based magic. I have read a good idea that characters have access to spirit magic from their own and all associated cults as well, but that seems like I'm going to have to make a list that should have been published somewhere else. Our way is much easier on the memory. However, the big reason I felt that all cults should teach all spells was one of logic and economics. It seems that cults in Glorantha can be very businesslike in their endeavours. This is pretty realistic - just look at the modern church. Aesthetic ideals are one thing, but cold hard cash is another. Magic can be a sellers’ market in terms of Divine spells and the occasional Spirit spell, but by and large it is a competitive one. Since cults are in the business of proselytisation (is that a word?) then they have to be competitive. If you don't sell a spell, then someone else will, and why would the local Orlanth temple want people to get bladesharp from the Yelmalians? They might as well have the money themselves.
There will of course be exceptions. In a one horse town, it might be at the whim of the local priest, but then in a one horse town, opportunities for itinerant income may be sparse. It just makes sense to me that cults wouldn't be too fussy about selling on spirit magic, and the idea that they can only cast a limited array of spirit magic seems very artificial.
It is further stated that cults will only sell rune magic to initiates. For all the reasons above, I don't find this realistic or sensible. They don't have a monopoly on the vast majority of rune magic, so what would be the point of non-proliferation? Enemy cults would of course be denied on principle, if negotiation were even entered into, but what Orlathi Storm Voice wouldn't love to sell rune magic to a desperate Yelmalian?

 

[RosenMcStern]

It has recently been suggested in the World of Glorantha discussion forum that physical runes disappeared after the sinking of Jrustela, as they were in fact a God Learner construct. I think that most experienced Glorantha players will agree with this suggestion, that was neither praised nor blamed by Greg.

The big problem here is that the new Rune system is incompatible with old RQ3 rules, and highly incompatible with the HeroQuest rules, so it cannot be used in the Third Age unless you throw all that was written before out of the window.

What I DEFINITELY dislike about the physical rune system, however, is the fact that you get your foe's runes only if you kill him. This makes ransoming hostages unconvenient and totally disrupts any attempt at stopping all-out killers from slaughtering everyone and everything.

 

[Quire]

The poll and question don't seem to tie in, but whatever! Here's my take on the question.

Economically, it doesn't make sense to sell any and all battle magic to all-comers. Selling it to your enemies would be economic madness, as they are only going to use it to destroy your belongings and property, and capture your comrades for ransom. And neutrals would be similarly suspect.

In terms of the knowledge economy (and dependent upon just how much magic there is in your setting), it doesn't make sense that every site that does teach battle magic knows all of it. Smaller sites (with less bods around) are much more likely to know (and thus be able to teach) spells favoured by a cult (ie, those associated with 'its' runes).

Larger sites will know more spells. They may not wish to sell them all for two reasons. Economically, is it better to sell the knowledge of a spell, or better to sell the services of someone who knows it? Ideologically, you might want to restrict knowledge of certain spells (or even pretend you don't know them).

- Q

 

[Cleombrotus]

No, the poll was an afterthought, but I am very curious about opinions about rune integration/rune magic.

I like your point about cults offering to sell someone who does know the spell rather than the spell itself. However, given the nature of adventurers, they are chasing that self sufficency and confidence of knowing that they have the magic themselves.
I did make the point about not selling to enemies, which of course wouldn't happen, but my overall point is about availability of rune magic.
I should point out that in our version of Glorantha, battle magic has always been totally commonplace and you expect absolutely everyone to have some.
I understand your point about not wanting to sell to neutrals, but the paranoia factor makes me feel that they would. The idea that "if we don't sell it to them, someone else will, so why not take the money?" I don't envisage Gloranthan cults as being a giant guild which maintain strict regulations amongst themselves about who can teach what...
Some spells, i.e cult speciality rune spells certainly wouldn't be sold outside of the cult.

 

[gamesmeister]

I have read a good idea that characters have access to spirit magic from their own and all associated cults as well, but that seems like I'm going to have to make a list that should have been published somewhere else.

The list is here

 

[homerjsinnott]

Some stuff.

I have read most of what you have said with a growing sense of Horror.

You seem to equate a world with a very real afterlife, gods and magic to one without. Cold hard cash would have an impact, but seeing uncle jimmy who disobeyed his cult restrictions actually come back from the dead and tell you to "brush your teeth twice a day or you will go to hell like me" would have a bigger one.

As for the RQ3 system being less logical than MRP, the mind boggles.

Where did you get the idea that people in Glorantha can teach any of the spells they know?

How?

Oh! by that CULT spell, Spell Teaching. Which summons a CULT spirit to teach a CULT spell.
:roll:


Also, even in this world what have logic and economics to with belief?

Read what Quire and Rosen have written, it makes sense.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Well, this is why I posted this thread. Out of interest in opinions. I'm glad I can inspire horror, however.
You make good points, and ones that I often conveniently forget - particularly about the social impact of a demonstrable afterlife. That one deserves a great deal of thought.
I don't have the idea that people can teach the spells they know, I'm not sure where you got that from.
I just don't follow the logic of Cult Rune/Spirit spell availability. What PREVENTS a cult from having the knowledge of and teaching a Rune/Spirit Spell. Do they know them and just don't teach them for spiritual reasons?
Furthermore, I'm after a particular feel for my games and the idea of a world full of religious automatons all trying to be identical just to get into their own version of heaven doesn't really do it for me. I prefer something more ambiguous. That's just personal taste, though.
Thanks for the patronising emoticon, by the way...

 

[Itto]

My House rules around Divine Cults (as apposed to Spirit Cults see CoG2) in regard to getting and casting Runemagic is:

Learning
Runemagic that is listed Cult Spells are available to Initiates up to Mag 4. Acolytes, Priests and Runelords up to Mag 8. Spells may be learned from Associated Cults up to Mag 2. You don't need a Rune as you "gain" the Runic association from being an Initiate of the Cult/Pantheon. You can't learn more than your POW in points of spells.

Casting
Casting these "Divine" Runespells is done using the characters Lore (Specific Theology). Casting spells learned from Associated Cults is done a with a -20%.

(btw I have changed casting Divine Magic to a 96% chance or Lore(Specific Theology) which ever is higher)

I still have Runes and if you integrate with a Rune you get the funky power, plus you can learn the Spells linked to that Rune. So you could access spells that you can't get through your Cult ties. Also these spells don't count against your POW for how many spell points you can learn. So Runes are well worth pursuing for budding Heroes, but most people can get along fine without.

 

[Cleombrotus]

I do really like the idea of Rune integration and I think it will add a really good dimension to any game. I just don't like it as a prerequisite for the casting of Rune magic.
As to the rules, they are fine as rules go. I understand the rules themselves, they just seem arbitrary rather than rationalised. I think that (and I'm aware that we're talking about fantasy magic in a game) they are there as a construct for game balance rather than as a logical structure for magic.
One of the things that always made me love RQ was that it was a logical system that fitted together, rule complementing rule. This was compared to the old AD&D that I used to play which was just a bunch of random and completely different rules for different situations. BTW does anyone remember the old AD&D unarmed combat rules in the DMG? How mad were they? Anyway as the d20 system brings along the consistency to D&D which was always a feature of RQ, then RQ seems to be coming up with completely arbitrary rules about who can do what and why.
I can't see a reason WHY cults (in Glorantha) have access to a limited number of Rune spells. It seems like a rule for its own sake. I don't want to sound like one of those "RQ2 was the best system", because I'm all up for this new version, but I expect a lot from it. So if someone can give me a good explanation of why Cults don't or can't, I'm totally prepared to take it on board.

 

[weasel_fierce]

As far as I figure it, I actually rather like it as written, after a lot of thinking and fence sitting.

With Cults 2, magic now matches up with how it works in Heroquest (the definitive guide to gloranthan "reality" as far as I am concerned), with animisn, sorcery and divine magic.

Rune magic is basically "innate" magic. Its not tied to any of the "big three", and it may well just be a god learner construct


As far as what spells cults teach, those are the ones that the cult is most tightly connected to. I dont think you can take it as a "this spell could never be found with an Orlanthi" as much as a "generally speaking, this is what you'll find and what they'll encourage you to learn"

 

[Cleombrotus]

Yeah, there's a big part of me that thinks that I might just stop kicking and screaming and go with what's in the rules...It does grate though. We used to play a rule that was RQ2 and RQ3. All spells for sale by all cults, with certain exceptions (Humakt and dullblade, etc). These spells were for sale at RQ2 prices (i.e 500 a point.) but cults would sell their own guys the spells listed in the RQ3 cults book for the prices therein, i.e for peanuts, thus encouraging cultists to have a certain spellset. It seemed quite logical to me. Now I have to figure a way to achieve that effect with RQM without resorting to anything overly complex, since I don't want to spend my time writing out new rules and tables...By the way, that spell list knocked up by Gamesmeister is exactly what this place should be about - labour saving resources for us GMs, so cheers for that dude.

 

[soltakss]

Where did you get the idea that people in Glorantha can teach any of the spells they know?

How?

Oh! by that CULT spell, Spell Teaching. Which summons a CULT spirit to teach a CULT spell.
:roll:

RQ2 Spell Teaching allowed you to teach any Battle Magic spell you knew.

RQ3 Spell Teaching summoned a spirit that taught the Spirit Magic spell.

RQM does not actually state the mechanism for learning a spell.

So anyone with only the RQ2 Rules would think that was a perfectly reasonable thing to be able to do.

 

[soltakss]

The way we played it in RQ3 was:
Cults taught spells to Friendly Cultists at Full Price, Associated Cultists as 3/4 Price and Cult Members at Half Price (or Free if the cult specified). Neutral or hostile cultists weren't generally taught spells.

I can't see any problem with the same principles working in any game where spells are for sale.

You could also learn spells through cult service, as payment for a job or from a friendly Priest or Acolyte.

Some spells could not be learnt that way, Sleep is the prime example. But most commonly available spells such as Bladesharp or Protection could be.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Sounds good to me. Service to cults by non-members in return for magic is one of those things that, to me, lies right at the heart of Gloranthan adventuring. The likes of Griselda and Wolfhead working for Fleeter Nemm and the Pavis Temple, for example.

Actually, just checking the RQM rulebook which says that after acquiring the Rune, you simply have to find a teacher who already knows the spell, which seems to imply that you can teach the spells that you know.

 

[homerjsinnott]

It does depend on what flavour of world you want, you seem to want a more logical adventure world (forgive me if Im wrong) Not my type of thing but I can see its attractions. Sol's writings have it spot on, this is what I would use for spell prices except it would start at full and only get worse. With as he has, neutral as a no-no. In my first post I did say that cold hard cash would have an impact and if some bod came along and offered a herd of bison to a Lhama shaman for a spell it's unlikely he would refuse.
As for wanting cookie cutter characters ie same spells and skills I can only say two things. One it's the player that makes a character and not the bit of paper with words and numbers on it, and have look at my posts on Heroquesting to see what I think of generic anything.

However, if anyone can in theory capture and bind a spell spirit, then why can't cultists?

You aren't clear here, had you written cult I would have understood. Otherwise it looks like you think any individual can teach spiritmagic (RQ).

I agree with you on rune integration, I like the idea but just can't make it fit.

You mentioned that cults want to spread the word, well that isn't really true, most cults are like Judaism, they keep themselves to themselves. It is only weird cults like the Redmoon (all praise her!) that are more like christianity and try to spread the word. Most cults believe that they are the chosen few, why have more?


P.S. Anytime you want an annoying smiley, I'm your man.

 

[Cleombrotus]

I guess my campaign is a bit retro. I've kind of come full circle with RQ, from the early eighties to being an awestruck teenager amongst adult roleplayers, through the desert of the nineties living off of Tales of the Reaching Moon. The group I've been playing with for the last five years are so good because they don't know a thing about Glorantha/Runequest. Some of them still don't.
It enabled me to utilise all the old scenarios that were mostly redundant in their original form since everyone I'd ever played with before owned every single supplement. That stuff lends itself to a very mercenary and materialistic style of play which I think helped define the early days of RQ. It's good, for me, to be able to go back to it with adult experience and sensibilities. I really enjoy that, and here's a roleplaying cliche, gritty realism, and I spend my time trying to portray the contradictory mythological nature of Glorantha in a kind of down and dirty way. I love the idea of corruption and moral ambiguity and selfishness and greed in a world because it makes contradictory selfless acts by players, on the rare occasion that they appear, seem more grand. I don't like the idea that Gloranthans all behave according to their cult strictures just because they fear divine retribution. I equally see a bunch of oftimes greedy, ruthless and amoral people who will happily flout rules and regs for personal gain - as per Achilles, Agamemnon, Odysseus, etc. They just deal with the divine consequences afterwards. As an afterthought, I would expect that Gods, highly bored after all the fun of the Godtime and forced to take a back seat to mortals after the Compromise, would find this kind of thing quite interesting, and more likely to follow the antics of such people, either to enjoy their ultimate downfall, or to pat them on the back and say, "Fair one..."
I like to envision the Rune Cults as poor, often materially minded cousins to the devout spiritualism of the deities they represent.
I know that approach is not for everyone, and I'm certainly not advocating a particular world view to others. I just feel a need to ask 'why?' and 'why not?' about certain things.

 

[Cleombrotus]

Oho! Things are starting to fall into place, as per p.80 of the rulebook, under initiate benefits.
Having re-evaluated certain things, I can find myself erring toward the possibility of going full stop with the rules.
My annoyance with Rune integration was based somewhat on the fact that my game is ongoing, and by implementing a new rules system I didn't want to rob players of anything which they had come to rely on in a tactical situation - after all they've earned all that stuff.
I also didn't want to backdate rune integration as I see it as a really important aspect of character development.
Ho hum.
Anyway, there is a consistency in the rules that I haven't as yet acknowledged, and spell will have to be re-evaluated for a changeover anyway, e.g a character took Protection 4 in RQ3 to cancel out an opponents strength bonus. Protection 4 in RQM is more intense because of the reduced damage, so I guess everyone will be re-evaluating their magic requirements anyway...
However, I like the previous point from RosenMcStern about the loss of physical runes. I envisage something far more integral to a character's soul, not just a Thanatari walking round with fluffy dice on his garotte grip marked up with the chaos rune...

 

[soltakss]

Oho! Things are starting to fall into place, as per p.80 of the rulebook, under initiate benefits.
Having re-evaluated certain things, I can find myself erring toward the possibility of going full stop with the rules.

Going with the rules?

We can't have that!

What's the point of having rules if we don;t change everything with house-rules?

Where will it end?

 

[soltakss]

It enabled me to utilise all the old scenarios that were mostly redundant in their original form since everyone I'd ever played with before owned every single supplement. That stuff lends itself to a very mercenary and materialistic style of play which I think helped define the early days of RQ. It's good, for me, to be able to go back to it with adult experience and sensibilities. I really enjoy that, and here's a roleplaying cliche, gritty realism, and I spend my time trying to portray the contradictory mythological nature of Glorantha in a kind of down and dirty way. I love the idea of corruption and moral ambiguity and selfishness and greed in a world because it makes contradictory selfless acts by players, on the rare occasion that they appear, seem more grand.

The mercenary approach of a band of travelling adventurers has a different appeal to the clan-based Orlanthi-farmer approach. Personally. I prefer the wandering band, but there again I started playing in the 80s as well.

I don't like the idea that Gloranthans all behave according to their cult strictures just because they fear divine retribution. I equally see a bunch of oftimes greedy, ruthless and amoral people who will happily flout rules and regs for personal gain - as per Achilles, Agamemnon, Odysseus, etc.

In Glorantha, people generally join a cult because:
1. Everyone else does (Orlanth/Ernalda)
2. It suits my job (Humakt/Gustbran)
3. I can get uselful powers/abilities from it

Most NPCs use reason 1, PCs are generally split between 2 and 3.

Economics come into it - given the choice of joining two similar cults, one of which teaches a spell for free and the other doesn't. you would be drawn towards the free spell cult.

Similarly, given the choice between two similar cults where one has extra spells, people are likely to join the one with extra spells.

Of course, if your father, grandfather and great-grandfather belonged to a cult then the chances are you won't join its rival, even if it gives more benefits.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

There are lots of interesting points raised here, and no univeral "right" or "wrong" answers, as much will depend on how you view the roles of cults and magic in your Glorantha, (or orther campaign world of choice, come to that).

RQ2 was, as befitted its time, a way of giving some justification to PC's being able to have all the skills and spells they "needed" to be adventurers. Also, because it was a reaction to "Level and Class" systems there would have been a leaning not to make the cults into just another way of saying "class".
By the time RQ3 came along, more thought had been given to how Cults might actually work, so more effort was made to differentiate between the magic taught by the cults - HeroQuest takes this even further with deities having (typically) three affinities and only granting magic (Feats) that derive from these, with most deities having unique feats even if they share affinities...

I feel that an individual god, on their own, should probably not be able to provide all the magic a community would ever want. If they could then what would be the "point" of the other gods. On the other hand, a community should be able to get all the magic they need from the pantheon of gods they worship. (so if a community has no deity with fire powers then they should not have fire magic...)

If, as per RQ3, spell teaching works by summoning a Cult spirit, then it seems reasonable to say that a cult can only (safely) teach it's own spells - If you go to Humakt to learn "Bladesharp" the priest will get a spirit that is happy to teach the spell to those deemed worthy by the cult. If you go to Ernalda to learn the same spell the priestess will not necessarily get a friendly spirit and you may be in much more danger .

(If, on the other hand, you learn magic as per HeroQuest by emulating the actions of your God or his Heroes, and learn the spell as a "mini- Heroquest" then there may be no chance at all of learning a non-cult spell).

The network of "associate cults" and the collection of cults into pantheons help to ensure that any individual will be able to source a wider variety of spells than if he was limited to a single priest.

Which leads to the thought that as a GM you could choose to really clamp down on available magic by limiting access to those with Spell-teaching abilities, and listing exactly what spells each can teach. The PC's may want to learn Guided Teleport, but if none of the available NPC priests currently has access to the teaching spirit for this spell then they are stuck (at least short of a Heroquest to discover the power for themselves...