Re: Mystics

From: Julian Lord <jlord_at_free.fr>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 16:57:06 +0200


(Resend, & don't blame me if it appears twice ... )

Mr Verbose 15W3 and Greg :

> >I would have thought they would be
> >excellent characters if the rules
> >worked (I may be hopelessly wrong in this, of
> >course).
>
> Begging pardon, but I beleive youare wrong. This is the result of my
> own research, practice and understianding on what mysticism is
> about.

FWIW, I'm on Greg's side here.

There are some *exceptional* cases where a mystic might be playable (almost always, immanent forms of mysticism where material reality is understood as the source), but in general mysticism is simply unplayable (although some forms of practices outwardly resembling mysticism are eminently playable).

> And my understanding is that mysticism is
> confined to the HW description of "Orthodox mysticism."

Hmmm ....

Of course, any written description of what mysticism is and isn't is bound to be too narrow (and there's nothing anyone can do about that),
but there probably are some forms of Gloranthan mysticism centred on engagement in Gloranthan reality. Of course, that dichotomy (immaterial/material) certainly exists in the HW:RiG text, but shouldn't some at least of the ideas about "manifest mysticism" be retained, or some of the flavour anyway ?

> That means
> that kung fu stuff isn't mysticism, samauri isn't mysticism, and
> Jedi knights are not mysticism.

I agree !

Julian Lord

--__--__--

Powered by hypermail