Relics
Relics are items associated with stories which have special significance for a particular covenant. For instance if a member kills an ogre and the story becomes part of the archives of the covenant, the ogre's teeth might become a relic of the covenant. If the story is particularly important to the fulfillment of the oaths, the significance of the relic will be proportional to the significance of the oath with which it was associated.
— Ennaja? - 31 Dec 2003
— --
It seems like this will work better than <b>my</b> idea of tieing the physical Form? of a covenant to areas (especially to buildings like churches and guildhalls). Relics are, by definition, tied to stories relevant to the related covenant. Having enough of them might require a building (a shrine for a religious relic, a Museum of the Clay for a bunch of pots important to the Potters Guild), but a covenant might well progress without an area dedicated to it. (This is not to say that some covenants might not build temples or whatever that might themselves be relics. The Empire State Building is a real-world example of just such a relic.)
— Scotus - 01 Jan 2004
— --
I love this idea; Relics might also be the masterworks of craftsmen that helped define the guild, regular items worn by the deity of a particular religious order before her apotheosis, etc. The combination of stories and items feels like it meshes very well with the way other things work.
— GedTheGreysHain - 01 Jan 2004
— --
Some later notes, after pondering Relics a bit:
I'm wondering if Relics can be any item (or any Locus for that matter), or whether they require the attributes of an artifact to be a relic. It seems to me that a random jumble of ogre teeth wouldn't make a good relic, but a necklace made with them would be.
I also don't think a relic needs to necessarily be associated with a particular covenant. The juxtaposition of an important story with an artifact may be all that's required. Or perhaps a story, an artifact, and a relationship with an animated object, which can be a character, a covenant, etc.
— GedTheGreysHain - 06 Jan 2004
— --
I think the exact paramaters of what would make a good relic depends on the cultural understandings established in the stories surrounding the relic, that is to say, if it is resonable that a simple pile of ogre teeth could be viewed as being sufficient in their current state, there would be little reason that more would need to be done with them. I do agree that a relic need not be associated with a particular covenanant, what springs to mind is the idea of something like a lucky charm. It really has relevance to only one individual in some cases, yet due to the story that the individual has tied to it, it seems to carry the same value as a relic.
— Ennaja? - 23 Jan 2004
— --
Responding to ged's later remarks: I think you're exactly right that relic-hood need not be tied to a particular covenant. It seems to me that being a relic is to have a particularly strong relationship to a story (something that doesn't necessarily mean a covenant is involved at all). For a relic to be important to the Form of a covenant or a cultural object, that story has to be tied closely to the oaths of the covenant (as, for example, when Alvin Maker dedicates his Golden Plough to the creation of his Crystal City).
For much the same reason, I would be very reluctant to require that a relic be an artifact. It should make a difference whether it is an artifact or not (for instance, a covenant created using a dedication to Alvin's Golden Plough, which is an artifact for sure, should have much higher Form statistics than a covenant dedicated to Joe Smith's Purdy Darn Good Plough). But, if Joe wants to start a Smiths Guild, it would be entirely appropriate to dedicate it to the best thing any of its members ever made, even if that falls short of artifact-hood. (note that ged has pointed out that scotus is using an old, deprecated meaning of "artifact" here, so ignore any implication that they are disagreeing)
— Scotus - 24 Jan 2004
— --
I think that the artifact's interaction with a character is necessary, but probably not sufficient, for an item or collection of items to become a Relic. Otherwise every character in the world will leave behind them a wake of Relics. A Relic must have some characteristic which distinguishes it from all of the other items a character touches.
I like Ennaja's idea about Cultures affecting what constitutes a Relic, but a simple pile of Ogre teeth would not be a relic, I think, no matter what. Relics are distinguished from other Items somehow, and I think it's related to that which distinguishes an Item from an Artifact (again, in the anthropological/FaerieMUD sense, not the D&D sense). A pile of bones off in a swamp somewhere are just bones, destined for ignominity, while the same pile of bones, gathered together, preserved, and displayed in a glass case in the inner sanctum of the guild are (possibly) Relics. Carving a telling of the story that led to their making on them, making a sword pommel or a necklace from them, or imbuing them with some magic property or another are all things which would increase their propensity for Relicdom.
— GedTheGreysHain - 27 Jan 2004
— --
Thinking about it I find I have to agree that something has to distinguish an item from a relic... there would need to be some sort of concecration that would in turn bring the object from the realm of the mundane into the realm of the sacred. Some way to tie the story in a solid and perhaps universally recognizable to said item. I may be sort of rambling, but it seems to me that in fact the more distinct the relic became the more powerful it would be... in a weird way relics remind me of celebrities, in truth they have no real power as far as something tangible inside of them, but in their ablility to be tied by others to stories they gain as much influence as the idea carries in the minds of the spectators.
— (Ennaja?)
