> >IMO the classical illuminate abilities are obtainable from the
> >illumination 'strike' rather than from any counter.
> I don't think so - I think most of them must be taught, or
>are acquired by particular methods of teaching.
Which is not how it was. These things should be learned through the riddles and the illumination, not through ex post facto trauma counselling.
>So someone who is
>illuminated after long discussions with a Lunar philosopher might
>know them
Lunar Philosophers do not illuminate through riddles. The Order of Day does, but they are not Lunars and IMO only teach a neutered version of Riddles to hook people into their philosophy.
> Yes. By classic illuminate abilities, I mean things like
>being able to detect other illuminates, or hide from detect chaos,
>which I don't think every illuminate has, and I don't think can be
>learned other than by learning more about illumination.
I do not believe that the classical illuminate abilities are learnable through instruction or through learning more about illumination.
Rather the illuminate would wonder "Is my fear of chaos/the other legitimate or false as everything else?", apply his insight to that question and find it wanting. As a result of this process, he will arrive at realizations equivalent to the classical illuminate abilities.
There shouldn't be any way of teaching or study as the original insight could only be imparted through paradoxes. A Riddler might start another illuminate on the process into discovering certain abilities but he is most likely to phrase it as a riddle.
> >>And something that should be left as a moral issue, not a
> >>game mechanical one, IMO.
> >I don't think so. We can treat vampirism as a game mechanical issue
> >and becoming a dark master should be just as profound.
>YMMV. I think being a 'dark master' is both less of an
>all-or-nothing thing, and less irreversible.
Why not go the whole hog and make Vampirism less of an all-or-nothing thing and less irreversible? I don't see why we should somehow excuse the actions of ShangHsa or Sheng Seleris while we don't blink an eyelid at the concept of an irreversible chaos taint or the thought of Thed being evil.
>Also depends on how much
>you think Patanjali is one and only version of mysticism, too, I
>guess.
Even Buddhists have demons so it's hardly a Patanjali thing.
--Peter Metcalfe
Powered by hypermail