[Glorantha] Familiars

[Peter Metcalfe]

>In the RQ days pretty much everybody had an allied spirit, quite often in
>an animal.

Not quite.  What people did have were bound spirits, often in animals.
Allied spirits were the prerogative of Rune Lords and Priests.  I
recall a Different Worlds article trying to put a leash on the concept
of binding spirits into familiars (by stipulating that the spirit had
to be the right type) before the practice was kiboshed entirely in
RQ3.

>I'm wondering if the magician and his familiar concept is still one that
>Greg likes, especially for the Monotheists of the wes? (I'm going for a
>muslim inspired version myself)

Familiars was a practice of RQ3 sorcerers, not monotheistic churchmen
in general.  I've never actually seen a description of a Malkioni with a
familiar indicating that it's not a major practice among them.

>What is the attitude of the churches to animal familiars and the like, and
>how sentient vs. animalistic are the Gloranthan familiars supposed to be?

Well having a familiar means that you are heterodox and so the church
would be rather negative to you.  As for the sentience of the familiar, I
assume the familiars are sentient.

If you want a gloranthan justification for familiars, then my current feeling
is the following:

         The creation of a familiar is based on the ancient Dadamic
         practices in which the magician shared his soul with demons
         in order to influence them.  However the purpose is different.
         The magician is sharing portions of his imperfect self with
         his chosen familiar in order to spiritually refine himself.

>A Sorcerous Academy I'm working on will have a really exotic white tiger
>on the premises. I'm just trying to work out whether it will be the
>physical form of a guardian entity, a familiar, or just a cool looking
>mascot.

Guardian entities are better because every member of the academy
can use them instead of the creating sorcerer.

--Peter Metcalfe