Re: Monasticism and Mysticism.

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_bT0bXrhpdnJo8vplbj5vtmrtHthpJzvaL6LwvyUvhVgBegO2RxFp83v1m1CNoYGFtl8>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:12:38 +1300

John Machin wrote:
> I think that the idea of a mystic who (for story reasons) *must* use their
> powers is quite interesting.

Except that it requires the mystic to actually have any powers worth using, which to me is a dubious concept. The aim of mysticism is not to acquire k3w1 p0\V/3rz! but to draw closer to the ineffable whether it be Dayzatar, Irensavel or Durapdur. I don't see how a mystic could start casting a killing bolt of doom just because he decides to play whoopsies with the dark side.

> Like the dragon-newts who sacrifice their
> progression for the good of their kind.

I'm not too sure that's what Dragonewts do. They are more likely to die fighting and be reborn again than to use excessive magic. Polluted dragonewts are likely to use magic to avoid the karma that comes with death but they are throwing good karma after bad rather than sacrificing their progression for the good of their kind.

Ingolf did sacrifice his progression for the greater good but that was largely an after the fact rationalization in which he found himself sacrificing his progression in less than noble circumstances. The first time he did it, he only saved two people and one of them was himself. He did have a slightly better batting average as time went on but the circumstances were a tedious feud, troll raids, a victory near Alkoth (which doesn't actually take the city so really was a draw) and the last occasion where he only saved himself.

Look at the other bigwigs of the EWF - Burin, Isangdrang etc. They use draconic powers without a care in the world but their comeuppance only occurs not through their own flaws but at the hands of an Orlanthi or Dara Happan Hero or because the Inhuman King had a sit-down with the Blue Moon Uz and said "somebody needs to whack these guys..."

> Some mystics would reject this ("you
> have no kind, that is an illusion") but a character that mortgages their
> hard-won spiritual enlightenment in order to achieve a goal they haven't
> managed to transcend is a cool character in my mind!

The real error here (IMO) is that is the unspoken assumption that this is an attribute of mysticsm which cannot be duplicated with any other magic system or gloranthan tradition. But it's really the age old question of wrestling with means and ends. For example:

1. A Carmanian Knight has served the Truth all his life. But he finds that the only way to save his house from destruction in a dart war is to use the Lie.
2. A Lunar has awakened his chaotic nature. He uses it to give him an edge in conflict but finds it difficult to keep control of his chaotic urges.
3. A borist is being persecuted even though he has lived a blameless life. Because his life is blameless, he cannot summon up any chaos to defend himself. Does he commit a grievous sin (such as a massacre of innocents) so he can use the resulting chaos to summon a demon to put his persecutors to flight?

--Peter Metcalfe