[Runequest] The language of sorcery?
styopa1 at gmail.com
Wed Aug 10 12:39:17 EST 2011
In canon Glorantha, the language of sorcery would be Western - I'm not
philologically certain, but I'd guess most of the western tongues are
corruptions of an ur-language from Brithos. Certainly whatever was written
would be Brithini. The closest language to that today would almost surely
be in Arolanit.
So I'd say that each Western language has its sorcerous version, that each
sect probably would itself speak the language (or a corruption) of the
region where it was founded. Mystical writing would probably be much closer
to the Brithini original than the spoken version.
For a fantasy medieval campaign, I'd probably be inclined to use Arabic -
considering the preeminence of Arabs in astronomy/astrology at the time, and
its 'exoticness' for most Euro/Western RPG players, it would fit, I think.
Re your PPS, I think that was the intent; in fact I'd say the effort 'not to
be Tolkien' showed through in some places. However, not with Halflings,
Re the PPPS: it seems a way to make sorcerers more playable more quickly.
The only danger is that that might let them ramp up TOO quickly in the
middle/later stages of development.
Note - normally you only roll once anyway, with the lowest % applicable. So
intensity 54%, range 13%, Viagra Spell 88%, duration 6% would be rolled as
6% to cast.
On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 8:54 PM, <royce at efn.org> wrote:
> Hi, Guys,
> What is the language of sorcery? Or, am I wrong in assuming that
> sorcery is written and cast in a mode that we would call language?
> (That'd be hard to explain.)
> In a Fantasy Medieval Europe settings, what would be the historically
> logical linguistic choices for sorcery? I had a few ideas, mentioned
> below, but I'd be more interested in your opinions -- especially where
> they disagree with my superficial notions.
> A few superficial notions:
> One could argue that sorcery is handed down from the Babylonians and
> Egyptians, and is therefore recorded in one or both of these
> pre-classical tongues. Or one could argue that the classical Greeks
> would've been the ones to systematize sorcery; presumably through the
> Library of Alexandria. And there is Latin, which was the language of
> the Empire, and then of the Church.
> Further, if one were to assume that the Church worships the Greco-Roman
> pantheon (with a dozen altars in every Church), then Latin and Greek
> would be the languages of Church divine magic, as well.
> Anyways, all thoughts are welcome.
> P.S. It just now occurred to me that a GM could go in plenty of other
> interesting directions. Perhaps sorcery could be written in a language
> from fabled Atlantis -- or even from Neanderthals. Talk about a dead
> P.P.S. By the way, did the description of orcs in RQ III (AH edition)
> remind you more of extinct hominids than of Tolkien? Just a thought.
> P.P.P.S. Not that anybody really cares, but I decided to simplify my RQ
> sorcery rules by eliminating the manipulation skills and simply limiting
> the magic points that can be allocated to manipulating a spell (intensity,
> duration, & range) to 20% of the spell skill level. In other words, if my
> wizard has 53% in Erectile Enhancement, then he can spend up to 10.6, or
> 11 magic points to manipulate the spell. He rolls to cast the spell, but
> need not make a roll to manipulate the spell. Sound practical?
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Runequest