> Peter Larsen wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 1:41 PM, Peter Metcalfe <
> metcalph_at_3nj0sgQpeXl6CMxBbLp0EMJV7uU7WXhSXvBOpGvjBXbZ1Tesk4IFK3guMYrUpV15qZQOFprzaRFsCuXBG-dkYyIq.yahoo.invalid <metcalph%40quicksilver.net.nz>
> >> wrote:
>
> Me>> I don't see how that follows - [[Buddha]] rejected extreme
> austerity thus no
> >> austerity is required?
>
> > No, austerity is neither required or not required.
>
> Except that mediating under a bo tree without moving is a mystical
> austerity. Just because he rejected the extreme practice, it does not
> follow that no austerity is required.
>
> Some schools of Buddhism probably believe that, but others would say that
the austerity was a side effect, unnecessary to what followed. After all,
sitting under a bo tree is hardly the most uncomfortable place you could sit
-- and the meditation posture is not supposed to be painful, merely rigorous
enough to help you focus your mind on what you are doing and gauge your
success.
>
> >> I'll bite. Why is it a shame? If you are wanting to play monastic type
> >> characters (say Vithelan Sages) you can do so but pretending they are
> >> practicing mysticism in their off-time is rather credibility straining.
>
> > Because, in the real world, the practices that are the equivalent of
> > Gloranthan mysticism take a whole range of forms. Ascetic monasticism
> being
> > one.
>
> Again, what sort of gloranthans (analogous to RW mystics) have to be
> simulated using rules for mysticism and not conventional magic?
>
> Well, now that you bring that up, probably none. I think that the problem
(as much as I have been trying to avoid it) may be conflating mystic
cultural practices or 3-World programs with a mystic intent with "actual
mechanical mysticism."
> >> Except that I had previously argued [[theistic etc monastics]]
> >> _are_ practicing mysticism (I've even discussed Taleo Lumine in the
> >> Tower of Yelm).
>
> > Right, but their practice, to some degree, starts before they wall
> > themselves into the tower, correct?
>
> Their practice is embedded in the religion. You don't need special
> training to stare at the sun for hours while reciting a prayer to
> Yelmalio. Why do we need mysticism rules to simulate these people?
>
> I don't think you need rules as such. However, I think it is worth thinking
about "what comes after" both for players and GMs. In a game set in
Yelmalian country, I would want the players thinking about their spiritual
path, how they want to go to the towers eventually or, at least, do the
right stuff so they can go in a future life. So, yeah, they shouldn't get
mystic powers from Yelmalio worship, but they might develop abilities
"Visualize the Secret Fire" or whatever as color for their future training.
It might even be useful once in a while in-game. It wouldn't be a mystic
power with mystic rules but it would have a mystic intent in the story.
>
> > Um, I don't think it was a case of failing mysticism 101. It was more
> like
> > failing the oral defense of your dissertation and negotating for a lesser
> > terminal degree of some sort. Or, if you prefer, Christ saying to the
> Devil,
> > "OK, I'll take that rulership of the world; screw saving humanity"
>
> I see we are getting sidetracked. I'm only interested in the following
> questions:
>
> 1) How does failing mysticism lead to cool powers which require the
> rules that every mystic walk about with the potential to cast the
> searing eyebolt of doom?
>
It doesn't, except maybe in the case of draconic mysticism where the cool powers seem to be one-use (and self-policing). The closest we get is something like the powers exibilted by Illuminates, who are, at best, badly flawed mystics whose powers should be as dangerous to them as to the people and society around them. And not all that impressive, when you think about it. I think you and I are in agreement that almost any powers gained from mystic practice should be ancillary powers through one of the standard magic practices.
> 1) How does the gloranthan examples of Sheng Seleris and Oorsu Sara
> actually require that mystics have the capacity to be adventurers
> requiring their own rules so they go out and use their powers for good
> and avoid falling into temptation?
>
> Absolutely none. Somewhere upthread I argued that mystics would likely make
extremely uninteresting characters. If you are a "withdrawing from the
world" mystic, that makes games rather difficult. If you are a "We Are All
One" mystic, the sorts of conflicts beloved of RPG sessions would be
failures rather than successes. If you are a "Here and Now is the only Place
and Time" mystic, well, I am not sure what kind of adventures you would
have. Maybe you could strip the soup when you stir the soup, but most
players wouldn't enjoy that. And so on.
Honestly, I think we are in agreement. Actual practicing mystics in a mechanical sense should be left to background color. There is no need to mechanically plot out Master Po's powers, you just need him to silence the storm when the story needs the storm silenced, etc. Now, I think some models (both mechanics and cultural examples) of a mystic group to which players might want to belong would be a good idea, and might need some rules-thinkery to produce, but I don't imagine full-blown mystic characters would be all that fun to play
> If such is not your position then I struggle to see what the argument
> is. My position is that when people want to play mystics, they can
> easily play people with the look and feel of mystics (ie a wandering
> monk) who operate with conventional magic and have to work their way to
> curbing their inner unrest to they become true mystics (using the
> Staffordian defintion). What's your position?
>
Honestly, pretty much the same as yours, I think, with some minor variations that probably don't amount to much. As I say above, I can imagine some fiddling required to model a person who is theoretically preparing for a mystic career ( there are loads of Lunar cults like this, I imagine) and some rules that make sense of Illumination (which has too long a game history to ignore now) -- I think the 2nd Imperial Lunar Handbook made a fair stab at the sort of rules one might want but, if anything, that is "baby mysticism" rather than the "real thing."
There is the classification problem between "people who are culturally inclined toward mysticism," "people who are involved in a mystic school, but who, mechanically, are modeled using mostly standard theism/animism/sorcery with a little mystic color thrown in," and "actual mystics confronting the All." I am as guilty as anyone for mixing them. Does that satisfy?
Peter Larsen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail