> While I understand this is just rhetorical, I think its worth
>pointing out that its because the whole point of vampires is that you
>become dead in the process - and death is all-or-nothing, and
>irreversible, which seems pretty clearly the issue.
Which is the point with dark mystics. They have destroyed their immortal souls for worldly power.
> >> I don't think so - I think most of them must be taught, or
> >>are acquired by particular methods of teaching.
> >Which is not how it was.
>Actually, it is how it was, or at least could be, not in RQ2
>but in RQ3.
I looked before posting. It only said that certain abilities might be but that most illuminates got 1-5 out of six.
> > These things should be learned
> >through the riddles and the illumination, not through ex post
> >facto trauma counselling.
>I think the essential 'Secret Knowledge' can only be passed
>on directly, but aspects of how to use that knowledge (ie how to
>recognise other illuminates, how to evade Spirits of Retribution,
>etc) might only be understood with guidance and/or reflection.
>Or, alternatively, might be gained at a minimal level and only made
>useful with guidance and/or reflection.
I doubt it very strongly. If a riddler couldn't give a straight answer about how to become illuminated but has to speak in paradoxes, then I find the notion of given instructions on how to recognize other illuminates in the street to be rather ludicrous.
> >I do not believe that the classical illuminate abilities are
> >learnable through instruction or through learning more about
> >illumination.
> Dorastor (still the most recent reference on Illumination,
>really) says that classical Illuminate abilities can be learnable
>through instruction.
But does not state that illuminates have to learn most abilities from others. It went so far as to imply that the opposite was the case.
> > I don't see
> >why we should somehow excuse the actions of ShangHsa or
> >Sheng Seleris while we don't blink an eyelid at the concept
> >of an irreversible chaos taint or the thought of Thed being
> >evil.
>I don't see how 'inexcusable' translates to 'must be modelled
>by a rigid binary game mechanic'.
I don't see how Vampirism or giving into temptation can be modelled in anything other than such. It's like pregnancy, there's no such thing as being partly pregnant.
> >>Also depends on how much
> >>you think Patanjali is one and only version of mysticism, too, I
> >>guess.
> >
> >Even Buddhists have demons so it's hardly a Patanjali thing.
>Buddhists have demons that are converted to buddhism and
>become non-demons as well. And demons that
Thus starting again from scratch.
> The question to me is 'do we think we can best model a
>relatively sophisticated moral and spiritual question as a simple
>game mechanical yes or no status?'.
But it isn't a relatively sophisticated moral and spiritual question. It's as black and white as being chaotic is.
>Its a bit like having a rigid game mechanic for heresy.
Well there are certain propositions if assented to are heretical. The existence of a canon creates this.
--Peter Metcalfe
> And HW is a gaming system capable of a great deal of subtlety
>for this sort of question. Why not use it?
> Cheers
> David
>
>
>
>
>
>To Post a message, send it to: hw-rules_at_...
>
>To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: hw-rules-unsubscribe_at_...
Powered by hypermail