[Glorantha]Re: Mysticism

From: Nils Weinander <nils_at_weinander.org>
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:03:54 +0200


Simon Hibbs:
>
> Therefore while learning cool martial arts powers doesn't
> necesserily cause you to stray away from the path, it's not
> realy leading you down it either.

Quite well put.

> I just think
> that the terminology of 'Failed Mysticism' is causing a lot
> of unnecessery problems. Strictly speaking it's accurate,
> but I don't think it's very useful.

In another rule 1 violation: I agree.

Gian:
>
> Maybe a sort of long (game life long) ritual.
> The character who will become a mystic starts with a
> "normal" keyword, values for magic, abilities, wealth,
> relationships, cultural legacies and so on.
> THEN he decides (or is pushed to or is called to) the
> path of mysticism.
> The player and the narrator consider how the various
> abilities clash one against the other in "building" a
> single meta-ability called (ooooh, wonder at my
> creativity) Mystic.
> A sort of augmentation where everything the character
> is/has/has done (as written on his sheet) contributes
> as pro or contra (positive ability or flaw) to a
> Mystic definition which the player and the narrator
> agree upon.
...

A very interesting proposition. I see one difficulty though: how to decide which abilities give a positive contribution and which give a negative.

Chris & Alex:
>
>>Ease up, there, amigo. I never said or implied any
>>such thing. I don't think martial arts are
>>particularly mystical. Common magic seems like the
>>most natural description for it.
>
>
> And if a character with such a practice _does_ think they're on a
> mystical path, are they or are they not "deluded"?

Depends on the actual path doesn't it? Some are deluded, others aren't.

> This is even moreso if Issaries produces a "mystical magical system"
> which describes only the 'orthodox' types,

Very nitpicky, but "orthodox" mysticism is not a magical system at all, is that what the "" are there for?

> and proceeds to describe
> others in terms of theism, animism, etc, _regardless of
> self-perception_. (e.g. we end up with some "Lunar mystics" that are
> "HQ mystics" and some "Lunar mystics" that are "HQ theists", just as
> Greg says (that by his definition) would be the case for Buddhists.)

And how is that a problem? Those who do this do mysticism AND theism/animism/wizardry. It is not their mysticism which is described in terms of magic, but the magic they practice side by side with their actual mystic stuff.



Nils Weinander
We sail on a ship made of dreams

--__--__-- Received on Sat 24 Apr 2004 - 06:26:13 EEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun 04 Feb 2007 - 19:57:48 EET