[Sorcerer] Hyborian Age as a S&S setting
Ron Edwards:
Here's something that might help: in the canonical fiction, particularly the Conan stories, no one casts spells.
?! What?!
Really, they don't. Characters like Tsotha-Lanti, Pelleas, Nabonidus, Xaltotun, and I could go on and on from the Conan stories alone, rely on any or all of the following:
- gadgets and mirrors, whether elaborate like in a house or more personal like explosive powders
- drugs
- mesmerism (so-called)
- martial arts
- artifacts that utilize unfamiliar energy sources
- knowledge about unnatural Things which permits them to call, cage, command, exploit, or serve them
However, they don't memorize incantations, incant them, and point their fingers to unleash magic. That's not a characteristic feature of the pulp fantasy I discuss in the book. "Wizard" means expert and arcane; "sorcerer" means practitioner of forbidden or un-understandable acts. No one casts spells.
Once you move out of Howard's Conan territory and a little forward into the post-WWII fiction, things are a little looser, but I think it's still fair to say that even in Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories, "spells" are hardly the stuff of modern fantasy - I can count them throughout the whole canon of those stories on one hand, and a single spell is so freakily significant as to have a whole story or novel revolve around it. Same goes for Poul Anderson's stories or even Tanith Lee's.
So maybe this isn't about how a character like Taurus or Conan can "be a sorcerer." I think it's more about how no one, including the sorcerers, is a "spell-caster."
Best, Ron
rabindranath72:
Quote from: Ron Edwards on August 23, 2008, 06:47:54 AM
Here's something that might help: in the canonical fiction, particularly the Conan stories, no one casts spells.
?! What?!
Really, they don't. Characters like Tsotha-Lanti, Pelleas, Nabonidus, Xaltotun, and I could go on and on from the Conan stories alone, rely on any or all of the following:
Exactly my thoughts! This is how I figure "spellcasters" should be in Conan; mysterious figures, learned in forbidden and forgotten lore passed down through the ages. Whether "sorcery" allows them to bind demons or know how to wake the Children of Set, all of it reduces to different degrees of Lore, and possibly having demons at their beck and call.
Taurus has this to say about Yara:
Quote
We'll steal down through the top of the tower and strangle old Yara before he can cast any of his accursed spells on us. At least we'll try; it's the chance of being turned into a spider or a toad, against the wealth and power of the world. All good thieves must know how to take risks.
Now, how Yara actually casts "spells" or his reputed abilities are the result of demonic abilities, is not very relevant to the concept that sorcery may actually be a "force" completely external to the sorcerer.
Another example I could add: why Toth-Amon does not free himself from servitude in "Phoenix on the Sword"? If he was such a mighty spellcaster, he could have killed Ascalante without a second thought. Instead, he needs the Ring of Set. I got thinking about this fact since when I saw the stats for Toth-Amon in Conan rpg, and I thought they were completely inappropriate. Therein Toth-Amon is described as knowing tens of spells, yet by the time of the Phoenix on the Sword, we see that he is a Master of the Black Ring, yet he must bow to an outlaw like Ascalante.
But with S&S, such a character becomes definitely possible, and its finding of the Ring a powerful motivation for his actions: the Ring is the thing which gives him power, not his "spellcasting".
Vortigern:
I've noted, rather importantly I think, the reduced occurence of humanity loss in S&S. Does this include the potential for losing humanity when using sorcery?
Even if it doesn't it still opens the door to more frequent use of sacrifices and thus more powerful 'black-hearted' sorcery without fear of losing humanity as long as you are sacrificing your friends. Combine this with rollover victories and a sacrifice at each stage ( contact / summon / bind ) and the potential for accrueing rollover points and a really astounding binding seems much more reachable/possible in this type of setting. But perhaps that is part of the point in this genre?
I'd be curious how anyone else playing in this setting chooses to reflect some of the iconic elements of hyborian age fantasy like 'black lotus' and the like.
Ron Edwards:
Maybe.
Perhaps, also, there's a crucial typo in your post? "as long as you aren't sacrificing your friends"?
I also question the idea that sacrificing or basically being rotten to anyone except a friend is exempt from Humanity checks. That's not quite what I meant by the discussion of Humanity in the book.
When Conan, imprisoned, thinks about the girls in his seraglio being tortured by Tsotha-Lanti and groans aloud in agony, that's a Humanity check. He considers himself responsible for them.
Best, Ron
Vortigern:
Ha. Yes, you are correct on the typo.
And I would be curious about a further discussion of S&S style humanity then. My impression was basically the usual view of humanity only really was applied to people that were 'close' or 'friendly' to a character... and that was intentional in order to encourage the 'life is cheap' atmosphere of S&S style games. If you have/had a different vision with that ruling I'd certainly like to hear it?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page