> 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.
>
Well mystics *used* to be able to do neat things, and given that dragon-newts have a neat "do magic or progress spiritually" concept and that presumably lots of Central Genertelan mysticism is probably influenced, or inspired, by EWF learning so it seemed okay to me.
I have no idea what "playing whoopsies with the dark side" means. apparently I don't speak the Canterbury dialect.
If there's been a change in thinking so that anyone who sits quietly is now a mystic I wasn't especially aware of it. Is there no tantrism in Glorantha? (or is it just that *everyone else is already doing this *and mystics need to be different in some way?)
> 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..."
>
Hmm, so the EWF "mystics" would *not* be considered mystics in the revised definition?
> 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?
>
Great examples Peter, I take your point.
--
John Machin
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
- Athanasius Kircher, 'The Great Art of Knowledge'.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Powered by hypermail