No, I'm saying that Draconism is a fourth way to magical power because mysticism isn't a road to magical power.
> You are also using a cultural point of view (Vithelan) to demonstrate that
> objectively, EWF and Kralori traditions are not Mysticism.
Not so. In the specific case of the EWF, I was criticizing the idea that Ingolf was a mystic. I also criticized the idea that the EWF were failed mystics because of the nature of their fall - they weren't eaten by dragons, they were betrayed by the Inhuman King. There were draconist mystics in the EWF but not all EWF draconists are mystics.
As for the Kralori not being mystics, the same statement applies save that there is a tradition of mysticism there which isn't draconist (so there are draconist mystics and non-draconist mystics both outnumbered by the far larger ordinary people.
> To me, that
> is analogous to an Orlanthi saying that Lunar priests can't be Theist
> because they don't follow the Good Gods.
And the Orlanthi is still right and the Vithelan PoV is also right.
> Just as devoting to different pantheons and gods grants a unique
> but predictable suite of powers and traits, I think that these different
> traditions of Mysticism have unique paths, associations and cultural
> attachments that make it easy for one school of achieving transcendence to
> say, "That's not Mysticism" when referring to other schools.
I really can't comment because I simply do not know what _you_ mean by mysticism. I know what I mean and I have said it a number of times and I know that you are using it in a different way but that's as far as I can go.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail