Wrong runes in Gurps Magic?

[Valkyrja]

Hello!
I was just reading Gurps Magic, at page 208 - the Runes section. I noticed that in the box at the bottom left of page 208 (the Futhark rune box with the Latin alphabet spelling) the Eihwaz rune is associated with the word "Earth", but if you check the other box (the one with the actual runes), the rune Berkano is associated with that meaning. Problem is, Berkano, in the bottom left box, means "create, growth". I think there might be other runes put in the wrong order? I'm not entirely sure, I think that it needs to be checked. Also, in my opinion, both boxes should be in the correct order (Fehu, Uruz, Thurisaz, Ansuz, Raido, Kenaz). It just seems tidier.

[Not another shrubbery]

Yeah, there are several discrepancies between the tables giving the names/meanings and the pictures of the runes. I think I've caught them all below.

1. The Ansuz rune is next to Sound/Signals.
2. The Raidho rune is next to Necromancy/Soul.
3. The Nauthiz rune is next to Mind.
4. Isa is next to Control/Bind.
5. Eihwaz is next to Warn.
6. Sowilo is next to Create.
7. Tiwaz is next to Knowledge/Naming.
8. Berkano is next to Earth.
9. The Othala rune is next to Communication/Separation.

Note that "Warn" does not correspond directly to a meaning from the first table, and the meaning given for Isa, "Image/Deceit", is not shown in the second table.

[Anaraxes]

Obviously they need to offer Þorkell a job as proofreader.

(Oh, and bonus points for Google search, which had no trouble turning up his posts when I searched for "thorkell" :)

[Bicorn]

I'm guessing the discrepancies are there because the 4th ed book collates material from several different 3rd ed books, sometimes without checking for consistency. The box with the pictures of runes is copied over unmodified from 3rd ed Magic; the other table was probably written by a different author.

(Real world occult folks are not in agreement on what each rune represents; Ralph Blum, the author of The Book of Runes, in particular has been accused of essentially pulling the meanings out of his backside instead of using any historical source.)

[Valkyrja]

Originally Posted by Bicorn

I'm guessing the discrepancies are there because the 4th ed book collates material from several different 3rd ed books, sometimes without checking for consistency. The box with the pictures of runes is copied over unmodified from 3rd ed Magic; the other table was probably written by a different author.

(Real world occult folks are not in agreement on what each rune represents; Ralph Blum, the author of The Book of Runes, in particular has been accused of essentially pulling the meanings out of his backside instead of using any historical source.)

Ah, this explains a lot. It is kind of weird tho, usually GURPS manuals (in my experience, but bear in mind that I've been a player for a little more than two years) don't have such glaring errors (or maybe I haven't noticed because I don't usually know the source material). Regarding Ralph Blum, well, let's just say that they could've used a better source, lol.

[Bicorn]

With the use of Blum, I'm presuming the GURPS author was following Ken Hite's principle of "poor historical research makes good gaming". Blum's rune meanings may be largely made-up, but they're much easier to match with the words of GURPS' syntactic magic than the concepts historians associate with them, which tend to be either much more vague, or much too specific to use as basis for a magic category.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Valkyrja

Regarding Ralph Blum, well, let's just say that they could've used a better source, lol.

Well, to be honest, Ralph Blum is the best source on ancient runic divination because he invented it. There's pretty much zero evidence for runes being used like that before Blum published his book in 1982.

[Alden Loveshade]

If there are indeed errors, has anyone reported this? I would be happy to do so if no one has, but I'm not the one who caught the apparent errors. If someone wants to do it, please go here and then post in this thread that you did so. That way we won't end up duplicating each other's efforts.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Valkyrja

Ah, this explains a lot. It is kind of weird tho, usually GURPS manuals (in my experience, but bear in mind that I've been a player for a little more than two years) don't have such glaring errors (or maybe I haven't noticed because I don't usually know the source material).

GURPS Magic for 4e is an uncharacteristically hasty piece of work.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

GURPS Magic for 4e is an uncharacteristically hasty piece of work.

I agree. GURPS 4e Magic has always felt like a rush job not measuring up to even its 3e version.

When you get right down to it Magic is more a spell list book then anything else which is why IMHO it would have been better if Fantasy and Thaumaturgy had come out first so more work could have been put into Magic and ideas form those book integrated into it.