Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 19:53:37 -0500
Ashelock <Ashelock@*******.NET> wrote:
>I do find it curious that no new traditions make real use of elementals.
>Is there some reason FASA is choosing to introduce one new tradition after
>another that uses nature spirits?

I think that the preponderance of shamanistic traditions over Hermetic in
Shadowrun relates mostly to the larger number of "shamanistic" traditions
over Hermetic ones in the real world.

Keep in mind that the "shamanic" and "Hermetic" division in SR is a
largely
artificial one for game-purposes. Real-life magical trads tend to have some
mixture of both to them in varying degrees. The magical traditions of SR are
also greatly simplified and "boiled-down" versions of RL ones. The generic
"Native American Shamanism" being a prime example. The RL traditions of many
Amerind tribes vary from one another almost as much as they do from shamanic
trads from other continents.

In the same vein, the generic Hermetic tradition in SR is a very simplified
version of the traditions of the Golden Dawn, Thelema, ritual magick, Goetia
and Kabbalah from which it springs, combined with a liberal dose of "fantasy
RPG magic" and many issues of Doctor Strange <grin>.

The prime reason there are more "shamanic" trads is that shamanism has been
around in various forms since the dawn of history, while Hermeticism is a
fairly recent invention, dating back perhaps as far as the ancient Egyptians,
where the roots of the tradition begin. Nearly every native culture has its
shamanic tradition, while modern Hermeticism is pretty much a European thing.

(Anyone who is interested in more babble from me about the Shamanic/Hermetic
thing in SR should read my article "The Many Masks of Magic" which is on the
Web somewhere. I don't recall the URL at the moment).

As a writer and game-person, I try and accomplish certain goals when doing RL
magic in SR: 1) Staying fairly true and respecting the RL traditions (like
with Voudoun, which is a very real religion practiced by lots of people); 2)
Keeping the game systems for it fairly simple and following the SR rule that
magic is magic and everything else is just POV. There's no sense in
re-inventing the magic system all the time or in saying "this tradition is
clearly better than that one." That means that a lot of traditions in SR
really have few or no unique "game benefits" so they are difficult to
describe other than talking about the flavor of the tradition.

In the case of Taoist magic, there are many nuances to the practice that I
don't know (since I am not a practioner). For Underworld and Mobwar! I was
shooting for the general "feel" of Chinese magic that could be summed up in a
thousand words or less, not a sourcebook. For those purposes, the spirits of
Chinese myth fit best into nature spirits as opposed to elementals. Nature
spirits in general tend to be more mythologically common worldwide.
Elementals are tied to the Aristotleian idea of Earth, Air, Fire and Water,
which is a western/European idea. If there is a Hong Kong or China sourcebook
with more detailed info on Chinese magic, then I would push for more detail
on specific Chinese spirits, spells and other practices, still staying within
the basic framework of the SR magic system.

I hope that all of this babble explains some of where I'm coming from. It's
not a flame, just an attempt at clarifying my view. It's definitely not holy
FASA write, so disagree with it at will (like I could stop you <grin>).

Stick to the shadows,
Steve
Message no. 2
From: "James Meiers (Specter)" <james@***.UNM.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 22:17:50 -0700
On Sun, 26 Jan 1997, Steve Kenson wrote:

> (Anyone who is interested in more babble from me about the Shamanic/Hermetic
> thing in SR should read my article "The Many Masks of Magic" which is on
the
> Web somewhere. I don't recall the URL at the moment).
That would be
http://www.arc.unm.edu/~james/shadowrun/projects/traditions.html, or just
go to my Shadowrun page. I also have another file of yours I want to post.
Can I?


James Meiers (Specter) *****http://www.arc.unm.edu/~james*****
"It's all good fun until someone loses an eye. Then it's just fun."-Unknown
Message no. 3
From: Ashelock <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 04:10:59 -0005
On 26 Jan 97 at 19:53, Steve Kenson wrote:

> Ashelock <Ashelock@*******.NET> wrote:
> >I do find it curious that no new traditions make real use of elementals.
> >Is there some reason FASA is choosing to introduce one new tradition
> >after another that uses nature spirits?
>
> I think that the preponderance of shamanistic traditions over Hermetic in
> Shadowrun relates mostly to the larger number of "shamanistic" traditions
> over Hermetic ones in the real world.
Fair enough. I just wasn't thinking in terms of "either/or". For me
personally, I approached each new magical tradition and look at it
without trying to "fit" it into any pre-existing tradition. Then again, I'm
a very detail oriented person, so for me a system where every magical
tradition is treated as being unique would be terrific. Somehow I don't
think that's in FASA's budget. :)

>
> Keep in mind that the "shamanic" and "Hermetic" division in SR is
a
> largely artificial one for game-purposes. Real-life magical trads tend to
> have some mixture of both to them in varying degrees. The magical
> traditions of SR are also greatly simplified and "boiled-down" versions
> of RL ones. The generic "Native American Shamanism" being a prime
> example. The RL traditions of many Amerind tribes vary from one another
> almost as much as they do from shamanic trads from other continents.
Indeed they do. I really do think it's a pity you couldn't do each
tradition on it's own. But then there's those pesky editors talking about
what's practical <grin>

>
> In the same vein, the generic Hermetic tradition in SR is a very
> simplified version of the traditions of the Golden Dawn, Thelema, ritual
> magick, Goetia and Kabbalah from which it springs, combined with a
> liberal dose of "fantasy RPG magic" and many issues of Doctor Strange
> <grin>.
A lot of Dr. Strange I'd say. Off hand I'd make the observation that how
Dr. Strange's magic worked was probably a lot more consistant than any of
these "real" traditions. If FASA doesn't remain true to them, I'm not
going to be particularly bothered by it. Just an overall feel for them
would be nice. If you have to stick to the "either hermetic or shamanic"
tradition formula, I understand and I'll keep that in mind. I did enjoy
the treatment voodoun got however, now if we just had New Orleans
sourcebook to go with it <hint hint, grin>

>
> The prime reason there are more "shamanic" trads is that shamanism has
> been around in various forms since the dawn of history, while Hermeticism
Who's history... real world history or ED history? In the real world,
yes, shamanic traditions are by far older and more diverse. Hermetic
traditions were largely the product of more culturally advanced
civilizations who stopped fearing the universe and started trying to
understand it. That's an interesting dividing line, don't you think?

> is a fairly recent invention, dating back perhaps as far as the ancient
> Egyptians, where the roots of the tradition begin. Nearly every native
> culture has its shamanic tradition, while modern Hermeticism is pretty
> much a European thing.
If your talking "wizard in the tower" kind of hermeticism, then yes it
is largely European/Arabian Nights kind of thing. If you define
hermeticism as "an ordered approach to magic, basing it's understanding
on rigid principles and laws, rather than faith or superstition" then I
think the definition of what would be considered "hermetic" gets
broadened considerably. Which makes for a good question. Does FASA have
a clear definition of what is "hermetic" and what is "shamanic"?

>
> (Anyone who is interested in more babble from me about the
> Shamanic/Hermetic thing in SR should read my article "The Many Masks of
> Magic" which is on the Web somewhere. I don't recall the URL at the
> moment).
It can be found at Paolo's Marcucci's archive.
http://www.interware.it/users/paolo/sr2/

>
> As a writer and game-person, I try and accomplish certain goals when
> doing RL magic in SR: 1) Staying fairly true and respecting the RL
> traditions (like with Voudoun, which is a very real religion practiced by
> lots of people);
I understand that desire, and I admire it. But sometimes I wonder at the
wisdom of it. For example, if you tried to define the Christian God in
game terms you'd likely start a flame war between Christians, and that
doesn't even figure in how Moslems would react. I don't mean that
statement to offend anyone, I merely mean to show that people have such
diverse and strong views regarding religions. To that end I wonder if a
more abstract approach might not be better.

> 2) Keeping the game systems for it fairly simple and
> following the SR rule that magic is magic and everything else is just
> POV. There's no sense in re-inventing the magic system all the time or in
> saying "this tradition is clearly better than that one." That means that
> a lot of traditions in SR really have few or no unique "game benefits" so
> they are difficult to describe other than talking about the flavor of the
> tradition.
True, and I see your point. I guess I just like 64 flavors to choose
from <grin>. Thinking about it, I can see how creating each tradition as
unique would likely be bad for the game. Magic is probably one of the
least well understood aspects of the SR game. Adding a dozen new
traditions, each unique, would most likely just confuse matters more.

>
> In the case of Taoist magic, there are many nuances to the practice that
> I don't know (since I am not a practioner). For Underworld and Mobwar! I
I'm not either, just an academic and an amatuer at that.

> was shooting for the general "feel" of Chinese magic that could be summed
> up in a thousand words or less, not a sourcebook. For those purposes, the
> spirits of Chinese myth fit best into nature spirits as opposed to
> elementals. Nature spirits in general tend to be more mythologically
Hmm... I see your point. As I understand it, the Chinese believed in
certain "elements" but not in elementals per se. But as you said, it
stands somewhere between the two traditions, pity you couldn't have given
it a more detailed treatment.

> common worldwide. Elementals are tied to the Aristotleian idea of Earth,
> Air, Fire and Water, which is a western/European idea. If there is a Hong
So change them... who says Aristotle knew everything. Broaden
hermeticism a bit so it encompasses a larger idea. Add new elementals if
you like. There's long been speculation about a "fifth" elemental, namely
wood. And ED has already introduced metal elementals, so why not do the
same in SR? I realize that expanding magic has to be balanced with doing
sourcebooks for other aspects of SR. However, it might be something worth
considering for the future.

> Kong or China sourcebook with more detailed info on Chinese magic, then I
> would push for more detail on specific Chinese spirits, spells and other
> practices, still staying within the basic framework of the SR magic
> system.
>
> I hope that all of this babble explains some of where I'm coming from.
> It's not a flame, just an attempt at clarifying my view. It's definitely
> not holy FASA write, so disagree with it at will (like I could stop you
> <grin>).
Oh, I didn't take that as a flame at all... quite the contrary. It gave
me some usefull insights on why things are the way the are in SR. And it
also gave me a few clues as to what to expect in the future. All-in-all a
very interesting piece of mail. You very thoroughly answered my question
regarding why so much shamanism. Based on your comments I expect to see a
good deal more shamanism in the future. Not because of any "conspiracy"
on the part of FASA, but simply because of how FASA defines what is
shamanic and what is hermetic. Thanks for the time and the comments.
--

Ashelock
mailto: woneal@*******.net

"They say it's a brave new world we're building. I say they're right,
and we'll all have to be pretty brave to live in it."
Message no. 4
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 18:02:46 EST
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 04:10:59 -0005 Ashelock <woneal@*******.NET> writes:
>On 26 Jan 97 at 19:53, Steve Kenson wrote:
>
>> Ashelock <Ashelock@*******.NET> wrote:
>> >I do find it curious that no new traditions make real use of
elementals.
>> >Is there some reason FASA is choosing to introduce one new tradition
>> >after another that uses nature spirits?
>>
>> I think that the preponderance of shamanistic traditions over Hermetic
in
>> Shadowrun relates mostly to the larger number of "shamanistic"
traditions
>> over Hermetic ones in the real world.
> Fair enough. I just wasn't thinking in terms of "either/or".
>For me personally, I approached each new magical tradition and look at
it
>without trying to "fit" it into any pre-existing tradition. Then again,
I'm
>a very detail oriented person, so for me a system where every magical
>tradition is treated as being unique would be terrific. Somehow I don't
>think that's in FASA's budget. :)

Yeah, but it'd be fun for us, wouldn't it? :))

>
>>
>> Keep in mind that the "shamanic" and "Hermetic" division in
SR is a
>> largely artificial one for game-purposes. Real-life magical trads tend
to
>> have some mixture of both to them in varying degrees. The magical
>> traditions of SR are also greatly simplified and "boiled-down"
versions
>> of RL ones. The generic "Native American Shamanism" being a prime
>> example. The RL traditions of many Amerind tribes vary from one
another
>> almost as much as they do from shamanic trads from other continents.
> Indeed they do. I really do think it's a pity you couldn't do
each
>tradition on it's own. But then there's those pesky editors talking
about
>what's practical <grin>

Silly editors...what do they know:) (jus' kiddin', of course:)

>
>>
>> In the same vein, the generic Hermetic tradition in SR is a very
>> simplified version of the traditions of the Golden Dawn, Thelema,
ritual
>> magick, Goetia and Kabbalah from which it springs, combined with a
>> liberal dose of "fantasy RPG magic" and many issues of Doctor Strange
>> <grin>.
> A lot of Dr. Strange I'd say. Off hand I'd make the
>observation that how
>Dr. Strange's magic worked was probably a lot more consistant than any
of
>these "real" traditions. If FASA doesn't remain true to them, I'm not
>going to be particularly bothered by it. Just an overall feel for them
>would be nice. If you have to stick to the "either hermetic or
shamanic"
>tradition formula, I understand and I'll keep that in mind. I did enjoy
>the treatment voodoun got however, now if we just had New Orleans
>sourcebook to go with it <hint hint, grin>
>
>>
>> The prime reason there are more "shamanic" trads is that shamanism has
>> been around in various forms since the dawn of history, while
Hermeticism
> Who's history... real world history or ED history? In the real
world,
>yes, shamanic traditions are by far older and more diverse. Hermetic
>traditions were largely the product of more culturally advanced
>civilizations who stopped fearing the universe and started trying to
>understand it. That's an interesting dividing line, don't you think?
>
>> is a fairly recent invention, dating back perhaps as far as the
ancient
>> Egyptians, where the roots of the tradition begin. Nearly every native
>> culture has its shamanic tradition, while modern Hermeticism is pretty
>> much a European thing.
> If your talking "wizard in the tower" kind of hermeticism,
>then yes it is largely European/Arabian Nights kind of thing. If you
define
>hermeticism as "an ordered approach to magic, basing it's understanding
>on rigid principles and laws, rather than faith or superstition" then I
>think the definition of what would be considered "hermetic" gets
>broadened considerably. Which makes for a good question. Does FASA
have
>a clear definition of what is "hermetic" and what is "shamanic"?

Actually, I think there's a large section in the Grimoire 2 about Magical
Traditions and the differences between them (discussing hermeticism and
shamanism, of course). Hermeticism is Magic as science, Shamanism is
Magic as Religion. That's a very boiled-down, stereo-typed view, but
that's what it looks like in many ways.

>
>>
>> (Anyone who is interested in more babble from me about the
>> Shamanic/Hermetic thing in SR should read my article "The Many Masks
of
>> Magic" which is on the Web somewhere. I don't recall the URL at the
>> moment).
> It can be found at Paolo's Marcucci's archive.
> http://www.interware.it/users/paolo/sr2/
>
>>
>> As a writer and game-person, I try and accomplish certain goals when
>> doing RL magic in SR: 1) Staying fairly true and respecting the RL
>> traditions (like with Voudoun, which is a very real religion practiced
by
>> lots of people);
> I understand that desire, and I admire it. But sometimes I
>wonder at the
>wisdom of it. For example, if you tried to define the Christian God in
>game terms you'd likely start a flame war between Christians, and that
>doesn't even figure in how Moslems would react. I don't mean that
>statement to offend anyone, I merely mean to show that people have such
>diverse and strong views regarding religions. To that end I wonder if a
>more abstract approach might not be better.

It wouldn't be easy, I've thought about it myself and could never decide
which aspect of God to focus on...He would either give bonuses for
everything or nothing, game-balance wise. OTOH, the character would be
bound by a strict, defined moral code. And yes, then there are the
Moslems and the Jews and any number of other groups with varying opinions
on Who He is. I'll shut up before I start another religion thread:)

>
>> 2) Keeping the game systems for it fairly simple and
>> following the SR rule that magic is magic and everything else is just
>> POV. There's no sense in re-inventing the magic system all the time or
in
>> saying "this tradition is clearly better than that one." That means
that
>> a lot of traditions in SR really have few or no unique "game benefits"
so
>> they are difficult to describe other than talking about the flavor of
the
>> tradition.
> True, and I see your point. I guess I just like 64 flavors to
choose
>from <grin>. Thinking about it, I can see how creating each tradition
as
>unique would likely be bad for the game. Magic is probably one of the
>least well understood aspects of the SR game. Adding a dozen new
>traditions, each unique, would most likely just confuse matters more.

To some extent, shamanism allows for nearly infinite variation. A God
Shaman (for example: a Christian or Jew) might summon angels rather than
nature spirits. The biggest difference is always in the conjuring section
of the tradition. Game stats-wise, that is. Cant forget about the RPing
differences, of course.

>
>>
>> In the case of Taoist magic, there are many nuances to the practice
that
>> I don't know (since I am not a practioner). For Underworld and Mobwar!
I
> I'm not either, just an academic and an amatuer at that.
>
>> was shooting for the general "feel" of Chinese magic that could be
summed
>> up in a thousand words or less, not a sourcebook. For those purposes,
the
>> spirits of Chinese myth fit best into nature spirits as opposed to
>> elementals. Nature spirits in general tend to be more mythologically
> Hmm... I see your point. As I understand it, the Chinese
believed in
>certain "elements" but not in elementals per se. But as you said, it
>stands somewhere between the two traditions, pity you couldn't have
given
>it a more detailed treatment.
>
>> common worldwide. Elementals are tied to the Aristotleian idea of
Earth,
>> Air, Fire and Water, which is a western/European idea. If there is a
Hong
> So change them... who says Aristotle knew everything. Broaden
>hermeticism a bit so it encompasses a larger idea. Add new elementals
if
>you like. There's long been speculation about a "fifth" elemental,
namely
>wood. And ED has already introduced metal elementals, so why not do the
>same in SR? I realize that expanding magic has to be balanced with
doing
>sourcebooks for other aspects of SR. However, it might be something
worth
>considering for the future.

I've heard the metal elemental is simply another form of Earth elemental,
but i cannot back that up as I don't know much of anything about ED in
general:) I'm still planning on buying the Magic Companion for it to do
some conversions for the Wood Elemental:)

>
>> Kong or China sourcebook with more detailed info on Chinese magic,
then I
>> would push for more detail on specific Chinese spirits, spells and
other
>> practices, still staying within the basic framework of the SR magic
system.
>>
>> I hope that all of this babble explains some of where I'm coming from.
>> It's not a flame, just an attempt at clarifying my view. It's
definitely
>> not holy FASA write, so disagree with it at will (like I could stop
you
>> <grin>).
> Oh, I didn't take that as a flame at all... quite the
>contrary. It gave
>me some usefull insights on why things are the way the are in SR. And
it
>also gave me a few clues as to what to expect in the future. All-in-all
a
>very interesting piece of mail. You very thoroughly answered my
question
>regarding why so much shamanism. Based on your comments I expect to see
a
>good deal more shamanism in the future. Not because of any "conspiracy"
>on the part of FASA, but simply because of how FASA defines what is
>shamanic and what is hermetic. Thanks for the time and the comments.
Canthros
--
If any man wishes peace, canthros1@***.com
let him prepare for war. lobo1@****.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 5
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:53:12 -0500
>>a very detail oriented person, so for me a system where every magical
>>tradition is treated as being unique would be terrific. Somehow I don't
>>think that's in FASA's budget. :)
>
>Yeah, but it'd be fun for us, wouldn't it? :))

Not for the GM's who are expected to memorize it all....

>Actually, I think there's a large section in the Grimoire 2 about Magical
>Traditions and the differences between them (discussing hermeticism and
>shamanism, of course). Hermeticism is Magic as science, Shamanism is
>Magic as Religion. That's a very boiled-down, stereo-typed view, but
>that's what it looks like in many ways.

ACtually, it's more of: Hermetic is Magic as Tool, Shamanic is Magic as Life.

You can have very devout, religious people who end up as Shamanic.

>To some extent, shamanism allows for nearly infinite variation. A God
>Shaman (for example: a Christian or Jew) might summon angels rather than
>nature spirits. The biggest difference is always in the conjuring section
>of the tradition. Game stats-wise, that is. Cant forget about the RPing
>differences, of course.

Great, so now Gabriel goes free, gets torqued, and decides to torch the
block....

Or St. Peter gets dispelled by the Ugly Gator shaman...

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 6
From: "James Meiers (Specter)" <james@***.UNM.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 17:25:41 -0700
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Brett Borger wrote:

> >To some extent, shamanism allows for nearly infinite variation. A God
> >Shaman (for example: a Christian or Jew) might summon angels rather than
> >nature spirits. The biggest difference is always in the conjuring section
> >of the tradition. Game stats-wise, that is. Cant forget about the RPing
> >differences, of course.
Actually, in "The Many Masks of Magic" by Steven Kenson

*** At http://www.arc.unm.edu/~james/shadowrun/shadow.html, along with
"That Voodoo You Do"; an expansion on Voudoun. ***

Christianity is listed under Hermeticism. It is a more ritualistic
religion, and it would translate better into Hermeticism, because it
involves more concentration on specific sets of teachings and ideas that
change little, just enough to differentiate between churches (or in this
case, magicians).

> Great, so now Gabriel goes free, gets torqued, and decides to torch the
> block....
Actually, it sounds more like a manifestation of Mike would do that. Or
certain other angels.

> Or St. Peter gets dispelled by the Ugly Gator shaman...
Saints could not manifest like that. They are like the thing guarding the
metaplanes.


James Meiers (Specter) *****http://www.arc.unm.edu/~james*****
"It's all good fun until someone loses an eye. Then it's just fun."-Unknown
Message no. 7
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 15:38:38 EST
On Tue, 28 Jan 1997 21:53:12 -0500 Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU> writes:
>>>a very detail oriented person, so for me a system where every
>magical
>>>tradition is treated as being unique would be terrific. Somehow I
>don't
>>>think that's in FASA's budget. :)
>>
>>Yeah, but it'd be fun for us, wouldn't it? :))
>
>Not for the GM's who are expected to memorize it all....

That's why you only memorize enough to wing it or be able to find it when
you need it:) I understand though, 'cause I'm a GM myself. Rules tend to
become better known with use, the best way to remember something, then is
to use it often:)

>>Actually, I think there's a large section in the Grimoire 2 about
>Magical
>>Traditions and the differences between them (discussing hermeticism
>and
>>shamanism, of course). Hermeticism is Magic as science, Shamanism is
>>Magic as Religion. That's a very boiled-down, stereo-typed view, but
>>that's what it looks like in many ways.
>
>ACtually, it's more of: Hermetic is Magic as Tool, Shamanic is Magic
>as Life.
>
>You can have very devout, religious people who end up as Shamanic.

You're right. I'm wrong. Again <sigh>

>
>>To some extent, shamanism allows for nearly infinite variation. A God
>>Shaman (for example: a Christian or Jew) might summon angels rather
>than
>>nature spirits. The biggest difference is always in the conjuring
>section
>>of the tradition. Game stats-wise, that is. Cant forget about the
>RPing
>>differences, of course.
>
>Great, so now Gabriel goes free, gets torqued, and decides to torch
>the
>block....
>
>Or St. Peter gets dispelled by the Ugly Gator shaman...

Actually I was thinking of something closer to cherubim or seraphim, that
sort of thing. Summoning such Saints and Archangels was not what I was
thinking. (One could reason that such a character could summon an
archangel <note the lack of capital?>, as Scripture never says exactly
how many of them there were, though Jewish tradition holds that there
were 7) So, no I'd say Gabriel, Michael, St. Peter or the other apostles
could not be summoned. OTOH, such a character would have an automatic
antithesis in the Satan shaman:)

Cathros
--
If any man wishes peace, canthros1@***.com
let him prepare for war. lobo1@****.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 8
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:30:09 -0500
"James Meiers (Specter)" <james@***.UNM.EDU> wrote:

[stuff about God shamans, etc. snipped]

>Actually, in "The Many Masks of Magic" by Steven Kenson
>Christianity is listed under Hermeticism. It is a more ritualistic
>religion, and it would translate better into Hermeticism, because it
>involves more concentration on specific sets of teachings and ideas that
>change little, just enough to differentiate between churches (or in this
>case, magicians).

First off, it's Steve or Stephen, not Steven <grin>.

Secondly, I'd like to clarify that statement a bit. Placing Christian
mysticism under the broad game-category of "Hermeticism" that particular
essay is referring to a certain brand of Christian "magic," namely the kind
of stuff associated with medieval grimoires and sorcerers such as John Dee.
This is all of the mystical Qabbalah, Enochian, ritual-and-summoning sort of
stuff that you would find in material about Dr. Dee, some of the 19th century
magical orders and in fiction like Katherine Kurtz's excellent "Adept" or
"Deryni" books.
It is (IMHO) quite possible for there to be a Christian brand of
"shamanism" that involves a more ecstatic, inspired and fervered approach,
such as the Charismatic sects or the snake-dancers who speak in tongues. Ol'
Jeremiah Warren from Awakenings was one such. These spontaneous shamans would
manifest their Talent through the medium of their faith.
Also (again, IMHO) it is highly unlikely for Yaweh (the Christian God)
to be a totem. Far more likely for a figures like Jesus, Mohammed and certain
saints to be "totemized." A totem is the shaman's link with the Infinite
(God, if you will) and these figures, in their history as saviors, teachers
and prophets, more closely fulfill that role.

> Great, so now Gabriel goes free, gets torqued, and decides to torch the
> block....

Some of the spirits summoned by Christian mystics may appear as different
orders of angels (Cherubim, Seraphim, etc.) but it is worth mentioning that
true angels, not the kind that appear on greeting cards, but the type
described in Christian lore, are often terrible beings that are quite
inhuman, appearing as wheels of fire or winged serpents more than cute babies
with wings and haloes. One imagines that these (and other) visitations are a
prime reason the Catholic church is a little green around the gills about
Conjuring. Christian mages probably stick to summoning elementals, which have
no religious meaning attached to them.
The archangels like Gabriel are powerful free spirits at the very least,
probably more akin to Totems in power. In fact, IMHO, angelic beings in
general are probably freebies (each with its own True Name) with the
archangels making up the "totem" level of power (ie. totally unsummonable by
mortals unless the spirit wants to appear for some reason of its own).

Steve (speaking entirely of his own opinion, and not official-FASA-anything)
Message no. 9
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:07:12 -0500
Ashelock <Ashelock@*******.NET> wrote:
>Then again, I'm a very detail oriented person, so for me a system where
every
>magical tradition is treated as being unique would be terrific. Somehow I
>don't think that's in FASA's budget. :)

True, but it is also not in FASA concept of magic in Shadowrun, which states
that "magic" itself is universal and that there really are no "unique"
traditions, just variations on a theme. A spell is a spell is a spell no
matter who casts it.

>I did enjoy the treatment voodoun got however, now if we just had New
Orleans
>sourcebook to go with it <hint hint, grin>

I have a strong desire to do something about New Orleans in the next year or
two, but the magic 8-ball says "details hazy, ask again later."

>Who's history... real world history or ED history? In the real world,
>yes, shamanic traditions are by far older and more diverse. Hermetic
>traditions were largely the product of more culturally advanced
>civilizations who stopped fearing the universe and started trying to
>understand it. That's an interesting dividing line, don't you think?

I was speaking of real world history rather than the "secret history" of the
Fourth World (although who says there's a differrence? <grin>). I'm afraid
that I will have to disagree that Hermetic magic is the result of a more
"advanced" culture than shamanism. To say that (for example) western culture
is "more advanced" than the culture of the Aborigone tribes of Australia is a
value judgement that I don't care to make. More advanced in what way? You're
entitled to your opinion, of course, but I will note that Shadowrun's history
has the "less advanced" shamanistic cultures far more in touch with the power
of Magic when it returns while the Hermetics are all scrambling around trying
to figure out what the hell happened on Solstice 2011.

>Does FASA have a clear definition of what is "hermetic" and what is
"shamanic"?

Oof. That's a definite three-pipe problem. I don't think most REAL
practioners of magick can agree on the difference, honestly. If you means in
game-terms, then I'd say there's a fairly clear rules division between the
two, but in role-playing and real-world terms things become much fuzzier.

>I understand that desire, and I admire it. But sometimes I wonder at the
>wisdom of it ... I merely mean to show that people have such diverse and
strong views
>regarding religions. To that end I wonder if a more abstract approach might
not be better.

I have no problem with bringing Christian symbolism, faith or "magic" into
Shadowrun, but then, I'm not a Christian <grin>. To my mind, if we are going
to treat religions like Native American traditions and Voudoun as part of a
game, why should Christianity be inviolate? I'm not sure what you mean by a
more "abstract" approach. You seem to be advocating more "uniqueness"
and
specificity in magical traditions rather than abstract-ness.

>Thanks for the time and the comments.

My pleasure. I hope the discourse helps.

Steve (speaking entirely of his own opinion, and not official-FASA-anything)
Message no. 10
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:19:42 -0500
>>Not for the GM's who are expected to memorize it all....
>
>That's why you only memorize enough to wing it or be able to find it when
>you need it:) I understand though, 'cause I'm a GM myself. Rules tend to
>become better known with use, the best way to remember something, then is
>to use it often:)

Yes, and with 32 traditions, each with a different set of rules, I'd never
use any often enough to become familiar.

I'm odd about rules...I hate not knowing them. I adjust, break, and bend
all the time...but I hate not KNOWING them...It's weird, I guess.

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 11
From: MC23 <mc23@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 20:40:53 -0500
Steve Kenson wrote,
>I have a strong desire to do something about New Orleans in the next year
>or two, but the magic 8-ball says "details hazy, ask again later."

Wait a minute, My character 8-Ball is in a New Orleans campaign (he
is my back-up/trade character with Waif) and he always checks his 8-Ball
before he decides on any important decision. He always keeps his 8-Ball
(his most prised possesion) in his armored saddlebag that he carries
around with him. Have you been spieing on me???
I didn't expect the Game Police!

- MC23 -
"8-Ball knows all"
Message no. 12
From: Ashelock <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:27:13 -0005
On 29 Jan 97 at 11:30, Steve Kenson wrote:

> Secondly, I'd like to clarify that statement a bit. Placing Christian
> mysticism under the broad game-category of "Hermeticism" that particular
> essay is referring to a certain brand of Christian "magic," namely the
> kind of stuff associated with medieval grimoires and sorcerers such as
> John Dee. This is all of the mystical Qabbalah, Enochian,
John Dee.... christian... ROFLMAO!!!!!! You've got to have one twisted
sense of humor. Dead popes must be spinning in their graves!

> ritual-and-summoning sort of stuff that you would find in material about
> Dr. Dee, some of the 19th century magical orders and in fiction like
> Katherine Kurtz's excellent "Adept" or "Deryni" books.
> It is (IMHO) quite possible for there to be a Christian brand of
> "shamanism" that involves a more ecstatic, inspired and fervered
> approach, such as the Charismatic sects or the snake-dancers who speak in
> tongues.
Well, you just made the drek list of the Pentecostals... hmm... I wonder
what they do to "blasphemers."

> Ol' Jeremiah Warren from Awakenings was one such. These
> spontaneous shamans would manifest their Talent through the medium of
> their faith.
I think that comes closer to describing the bulk of christain beliefs.
Druids follow rituals too, but were given the shamanic treatment. I think
the shamanic approach would be best. The Catholic church with all it's
saints, and certain Babylonian traditions just screams "shamanism" to me.

> Also (again, IMHO) it is highly unlikely for Yaweh (the Christian
> God)
Umm... actually Yaweh is Jewish.

> to be a totem. Far more likely for a figures like Jesus, Mohammed and
> certain saints to be "totemized." A totem is the shaman's link with the
> Infinite (God, if you will) and these figures, in their history as
> saviors, teachers and prophets, more closely fulfill that role.
Just keep in mind that to most Christians, Jesus IS God... they're the
same thing (it's that Trinity thing).

>
> > Great, so now Gabriel goes free, gets torqued, and decides to torch the
> > block....
>
> Some of the spirits summoned by Christian mystics may appear as different
> orders of angels (Cherubim, Seraphim, etc.) but it is worth mentioning
> that true angels, not the kind that appear on greeting cards, but the
> type described in Christian lore, are often terrible beings that are
> quite inhuman, appearing as wheels of fire or winged serpents more than
That wasn't an angel... it was a chariot with wheels of fire driven by
an angel (which some have claimed was actually an alien space ship or
perhaps a comet). Winged serpents is new one to me. And yes, the angel
of death would definitely count as a "terrible being" in my opinion.

> cute babies with wings and haloes. One imagines that these (and other)
Those would be images of Cupid, not an angel at all. Which is ironic
when you think about it.
--

Ashelock
mailto: woneal@*******.net

"They say it's a brave new world we're building. I say they're right,
and we'll all have to be pretty brave to live in it."
Message no. 13
From: Ashelock <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:27:13 -0005
On 29 Jan 97 at 11:07, Steve Kenson wrote:

> Ashelock <Ashelock@*******.NET> wrote:
> >magical tradition is treated as being unique would be terrific. Somehow
> >I don't think that's in FASA's budget. :)
>
> True, but it is also not in FASA concept of magic in Shadowrun, which
> states that "magic" itself is universal and that there really are no
> "unique" traditions, just variations on a theme. A spell is a spell is a
> spell no matter who casts it.
Umm... maybe I'm just foggy headed at the moment (flu medicine ya know),
but that didn't make much sense to me. Are you telling me that
Hermeticism, Shamanism, Druidism and Voodoun are all the same? Yes,
spells used by one tradition can be used by another, but the traditions
themselves are different. Does not that difference qualify as "unique" or
are we mixing terms here? If I sound a little confused, it's because I
am. To hear the man who wrote Awakenings and discussed "unique and self
created traditions" suddenly say there are no such thing as unique
traditions leaves me a tad bit puzzled.

> >Who's history... real world history or ED history? In the real world,
> >yes, shamanic traditions are by far older and more diverse. Hermetic
> >traditions were largely the product of more culturally advanced
> >civilizations who stopped fearing the universe and started trying to
> >understand it. That's an interesting dividing line, don't you think?
>
> I was speaking of real world history rather than the "secret history" of
> the Fourth World (although who says there's a differrence? <grin>). I'm
Take a break Steve, ya been playin the game too long dude! <grin>

> afraid that I will have to disagree that Hermetic magic is the result of
> a more "advanced" culture than shamanism. To say that (for example)
> western culture is "more advanced" than the culture of the Aborigone
> tribes of Australia is a value judgement that I don't care to make. More

Okay, but I don't mind making it and I stand by it. Simply put, I
measure how "culturally advanced" a culture is by several things,
including (among other things) complexity, philosophical endeavour,
artistic endeavour and rational endeavour. So no, by those standards the
Aborigines are not very "advanced". It is interesting to note, that by
those measurements, American culture could be said to be regressing
rather than advancing. I have no problem making value judgements. I try
to be fair and rational in them and I recognize that we all make such
judgements everyday.
The dividing line I referred to, simply put, is that point at which a
culture stops viewing the world they live in as a mysterious,
incomprehensible force and begins to examine and understand it. The point
when they put away superstitions and begin looking for rational
explanations. The point when they stop burning people for being "witches"
and start looking for the real reasons someone is sick. Shamanism,
whether we are discussing it in RL or in SR is largely founded on
superstition. Hermeticism on the other hand is magic as science, reason
over the irrational.

> advanced in what way? You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I
> will note that Shadowrun's history has the "less advanced" shamanistic
> cultures far more in touch with the power of Magic when it returns while
> the Hermetics are all scrambling around trying to figure out what the
> hell happened on Solstice 2011.
Several points I'll make. There is a huge difference between "blind
faith" and "understanding." To quote a passage from the Grimoire,
hermetics talk when a shaman acts. The Grimoire goes on to make it clear
that a hermetic analyzes and studies a thing, while shaman simply accepts
it and goes on, never pondering the why of it. The shaman were "in tune"
because they had simply taken it all on faith. And keep in mind that for
someone to take on faith the existance of "magic" in world where magic
didn't exist brings to question their mental stability. As for your
statement regarding hermetics, seems to me the hermetics a) are doing
quite well in the 6th World and b) are the ONLY magical group seriously
interested in what exactly happened that fine day in December. Again,
I'll refer to the Grimoire which repeatedly points out the scholarly and
scientific approach of hermetics... their "need to know." While shaman
are described repeatedly as simply accepting magic and totems at face
value. A shaman simply isn't inclined to care what precisely happened or
why, it did and that's that as far at they're concerned.
I'll even take this one step farther and say that in my view, I would
expect hermetics to be the most likely to rediscover pattern magic, thread
magic and so forth. Their curiosity and their ordered and rational
approach to magic will demand it. Somewhere there is a hermetic saying
"but why did it work that way?" Hermetics will be the ones to feret out
the laws of magic, just as Newton explored the laws of physics. If a
shaman discovers any of these things, the event will most likely be the
result of one of the following: Luck, the rare exceptional shaman, a
"totem" revealing it.
And here's something for the mailing list to ponder. According to ED,
Magic AMOMS, shamans were the mostly likely to use blood magic. Who were
the first to use it in SR, NA shamans... and then the druids, and now the
Aztlan priests and mages. Am I the only one disturbed by that pattern?

> >I understand that desire, and I admire it. But sometimes I wonder at
> >the wisdom of it ... I merely mean to show that people have such diverse
> >and strong views
> >regarding religions. To that end I wonder if a more abstract approach
> >might not be better.
>
> I have no problem with bringing Christian symbolism, faith or "magic"
> into Shadowrun, but then, I'm not a Christian <grin>. To my mind, if we
Oh, the Catholics wouldn't mind, so long as you followed their "party
line," but then the Baptist and Pentecostals and Jews would be annoyed
with you. Probably the Moslems too.

> are going to treat religions like Native American traditions and Voudoun
> as part of a game, why should Christianity be inviolate? I'm not sure
> what you mean by a more "abstract" approach. You seem to be advocating
> more "uniqueness" and specificity in magical traditions rather than
> abstract-ness.
Not at all... I'm advocating more variety, but at the same time saying
"it's just a game, it doesn't have to be an accurate representation of the
real world. And if using an abstract "model" saves us all the grief of
offending a group of people very sensitive about their beliefs... where's
the harm in that? It's all just make believe anyway."
And no, I'm not saying Christianity shouldn't be included, in fact it's
absence seems conspicuous. However, I'll warn you that unless your
treatment is very fair and very careful you'll quickly find yourself in
the middle of several arguements. You'll also have to deal with it's many
"faces." What a Catholic believes is different from a Baptist, and the
Pentecostals are yet another group. Don't forget the fringe groups and
the out-right lunatics. It's morass of beliefs and conflicting views that
most have chosen just to avoid and there's a reason for it. Does the
phrase "damned if you do and damned if you don't" ring any bells? Hmmm...
going to try your own version of Satanic Verses? Do they still
excommunicate people these days? <chuckle> Does that clarify my point?
--

Ashelock
mailto: woneal@*******.net

"They say it's a brave new world we're building. I say they're right,
and we'll all have to be pretty brave to live in it."
Message no. 14
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:46:27 EST
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:19:42 -0500 Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU> writes:
>>>Not for the GM's who are expected to memorize it all....
>>
>>That's why you only memorize enough to wing it or be able to find it
>when
>>you need it:) I understand though, 'cause I'm a GM myself. Rules tend
>to
>>become better known with use, the best way to remember something,
>then is
>>to use it often:)
>
>Yes, and with 32 traditions, each with a different set of rules, I'd
>never
>use any often enough to become familiar.
>
>I'm odd about rules...I hate not knowing them. I adjust, break, and
>bend
>all the time...but I hate not KNOWING them...It's weird, I guess.
>
>-=SwiftOne=-
>
I can live with not knowing the rules verbatim, but it's nice to at least
know where to find them:)

Canthros
--
If any man wishes peace, canthros1@***.com
let him prepare for war. lobo1@****.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
Message no. 15
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 23:11:58 EST
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997 22:27:13 -0005 Ashelock <woneal@*******.NET> writes:
>On 29 Jan 97 at 11:30, Steve Kenson wrote:
>
<snip>
>> ritual-and-summoning sort of stuff that you would find in material
>about
>> Dr. Dee, some of the 19th century magical orders and in fiction like
>> Katherine Kurtz's excellent "Adept" or "Deryni" books.
>> It is (IMHO) quite possible for there to be a Christian brand
>of
>> "shamanism" that involves a more ecstatic, inspired and fervered
>> approach, such as the Charismatic sects or the snake-dancers who
>speak in
>> tongues.
> Well, you just made the drek list of the Pentecostals...
>hmm... I wonder
>what they do to "blasphemers."
>

Personally, I can see Christians following either tradition, or even a
blend of the two. I know that's where I'd fall, in those circumstances.
The most important aspect would be how they viewed their magickal
abilities. The ability to practice magic would fall in one of three
categories for a Christian, IMO: a) curse/power of Satan, b) a gift from
God, which should be used according to His Will, or c) as miracles, like
in the case of Jeremiah Warren
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv-------------------------------------|
>> Ol' Jeremiah Warren from Awakenings was one such. These
>> spontaneous shamans would manifest their Talent through the medium
>of
>> their faith.
> I think that comes closer to describing the bulk of christain
>beliefs.
>Druids follow rituals too, but were given the shamanic treatment. I
>think
>the shamanic approach would be best. The Catholic church with all
>it's
>saints, and certain Babylonian traditions just screams "shamanism" to
>me.

I don't know about the "Babylonian" traditions, but the Catholic church
would fall in between hermeticism and shamanism, if you ask me. From what
I've heard, it's a very ritualistic religion/sect of Christianity, though
the saints could easily fit the form of totems.

>
>> Also (again, IMHO) it is highly unlikely for Yaweh (the
>Christian
>> God)
> Umm... actually Yaweh is Jewish.
>

Yahweh is used among Christians to refer to God the Father, as opposed to
the Holy Spirit or to Jesus Christ. It is used by us, just as we use
Jehovah, Lord, Father, or any of a million terms. It is of Jewish origin
(they wrote it Yhwh, leaving out the vowels, if they wrote it at all),
but is used among Christians as well.

>> to be a totem. Far more likely for a figures like Jesus, Mohammed
>and
>> certain saints to be "totemized." A totem is the shaman's link with
>the
>> Infinite (God, if you will) and these figures, in their history as
>> saviors, teachers and prophets, more closely fulfill that role.
> Just keep in mind that to most Christians, Jesus IS God...
>they're the
>same thing (it's that Trinity thing).
>

Exactly! God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit can be best
characterized as being different aspects of God, all in one, even though
all three are also separate.

>>
>> > Great, so now Gabriel goes free, gets torqued, and decides to
>torch the
>> > block....
>>
>> Some of the spirits summoned by Christian mystics may appear as
>different
>> orders of angels (Cherubim, Seraphim, etc.) but it is worth
>mentioning
>> that true angels, not the kind that appear on greeting cards, but
>the
>> type described in Christian lore, are often terrible beings that are
>> quite inhuman, appearing as wheels of fire or winged serpents more
>than
> That wasn't an angel... it was a chariot with wheels of fire
>driven by
>an angel (which some have claimed was actually an alien space ship or
>perhaps a comet). Winged serpents is new one to me. And yes, the
>angel
>of death would definitely count as a "terrible being" in my opinion.

Somehow I doubt that any "God shaman" would be able to summon _the_ Angel
of Death...as easily summon Michael the Archangel:)

>
>> cute babies with wings and haloes. One imagines that these (and
>other)
> Those would be images of Cupid, not an angel at all. Which is
>ironic
>when you think about it.

I haven't envisioned cherubim like that in a long time. I read _The Wind
in the Door_ and that kinda destroyed the Cupid-type cherubim idea:)

Canthros
--
If any man wishes peace, canthros1@***.com
let him prepare for war. lobo1@****.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

PS: This thread is already developing into a discussion of the Christian
faith, again. It might be prudent to stop before it gets too far...
Message no. 16
From: Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:51:24 -0500
>> Those would be images of Cupid, not an angel at all. Which is
>I haven't envisioned cherubim like that in a long time. I read _The Wind
>in the Door_ and that kinda destroyed the Cupid-type cherubim idea:)

Wasn't that _Many Waters_? _The Wind In the Door_ was in the series though...

-=SwiftOne=-
Message no. 17
From: Czar Eggbert <czregbrt@*********.EDU>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 02:28:17 -0600
On Sat, 1 Feb 1997, Brett Borger wrote:

> >> Those would be images of Cupid, not an angel at all. Which is
> >I haven't envisioned cherubim like that in a long time. I read _The Wind
> >in the Door_ and that kinda destroyed the Cupid-type cherubim idea:)
>
> Wasn't that _Many Waters_? _The Wind In the Door_ was in the series though...
>
> -=SwiftOne=-
>
NOpe it was _*A* Wind In the Door_. Many waters hade the Seripham, and
Nelapham(misspelled for shure :P ). Madilyn L'Engel is a goddess!!!!! I
LOVE THAT Seres! is there any more after _Many Waters_ and _A Swiftly
Tilting Planet_? I dont care that I'm 18 and they are written for 10 year
olds! THey ARE GREAT! _A Wrincle In Time_ was the first sci-fi book i ever
read, and now I read Sci-fi all the time.
Message no. 18
From: Steve Kenson <TalonMail@***.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 22:30:20 -0500
Ashelock <woneal@*******.NET> wrote:

>>On 29 Jan 97 at 11:07, Steve Kenson wrote:
>> True, but it is also not in FASA concept of magic in Shadowrun, which
>> states that "magic" itself is universal and that there really are no
> >"unique" traditions, just variations on a theme. A spell is a spell is
a
> >spell no matter who casts it.
>Umm... maybe I'm just foggy headed at the moment (flu medicine ya know),
>but that didn't make much sense to me. Are you telling me that
>Hermeticism, Shamanism, Druidism and Voodoun are all the same?
>To hear the man who wrote Awakenings and discussed "unique and self
>created traditions" suddenly say there are no such thing as unique
>traditions leaves me a tad bit puzzled.

I will try to explain "Steve's view of magic in Shadowrun" a bit better:

Let me use the metaphor of music. There are many, many different styles of
music, from rock to punk to jazz to classical. At the very basic level, music
is music. There is a standard set of notes, scales, notation and even
instruments. You can use those basic tools to produce an incredible range of
music. Likewise, magic in Shadowrun all has the same basis: the power of a
magician drawing energy from astral space to cast spells and conjure spirits.
These basic tools of magic can produce an incredible range of magical
traditions: Hermeticism, shamanism, Voudoun, Druidry, drekcetera.

But the differences between magical traditions are largely COSMETIC in
Shadowrun. They all still have similar abilities and talents when it comes
right down to it. This is largely because Game Balance (tm) requires that no
one magical tradition be more powerful than any other. The London Symphony
Orchestra playing Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is very different music from a group
of Aborigines playing digeridoo and drums in the Outback, but they're both
still music. One might call the work of Mozart "more advanced" than that of
some tribal primitives, but both sound equally pleasing to me (and others may
prefer one or the other). But they're both still music, just like a Hermetic
using a collection of books, charts, diagrams and Latin chants and a shaman
dancing and whipping up an emotional storm calling upon the spirits of his
ancestors and the land are both doing magic. Music is music, magic is magic.

>Shamanism, whether we are discussing it in RL or in SR is largely founded on
>superstition. Hermeticism on the other hand is magic as science, reason
>over the irrational.

Magic is both an Art and a Science, even Hermetic magic. Doing magic requires
faith and unshakable belief on the part of the magician, whether it is the
shaman's belief in the spirits, a mage's belief in an ordered universe, a
voudounista's belief in the Loa or a witch's belief in the Goddess and the
God. Magic is not something that can be done by a computer or a non-living
tool. The only tool that can shape magic is the living mind and spirit of a
magician. To be a magician (or any tradition) you need to be a poet as well
as a mathematician (to paraphrase Paul Hume).

>The Grimoire goes on to make it clear that a hermetic analyzes and studies a
thing,
>while shaman simply accepts it and goes on, never pondering the why of it.
The shaman
>were "in tune" because they had simply taken it all on faith. And keep in
mind that for
>someone to take on faith the existence of "magic" in world where magic
didn't exist brings to
>question their mental stability.

Well, faith pretty much means belief in something for which there is no
clear-cut evidence. The same could be said for nearly any religious belief:
there is no clear-cut evidence to the skeptical mind that God or gods exist.
To the religious, all things are a reflection of his or her beliefs. To the
complete solipsist, there's no such thing as "objective evidence" at all.
"I
think, therefore I am" may be the only thing such a person can be convinced
is absolutely true.

Faith is the cornerstone of magic. NO magician (IMHO) can perform the least
spell without a belief in something: whether it is the spirits, the gods or
the power of Reason or Will to command reality to his bidding. The reason
(again, IMHO) that shamans don't question certain aspects about the Universe
is because they believe they KNOW the answers. Just like someone who has
strong faith finds answers to their questions in it. A mage's belief
structure includes the belief that there are answers to the Big Questions out
there in the depths of the metaplanes and the hidden folds of reality
somewhere, if only they become enlightened enough. Who is to say who is
right? Are the Totems real or just imaginary constructs that shamans use to
focus their magic? We'll probably never know (at least not in any Shadowrun
product...)

>Oh, the Catholics wouldn't mind, so long as you followed their "party
>line," but then the Baptist and Pentecostals and Jews would be annoyed
>with you. Probably the Moslems too.

Probably so, but then I believe that all of their beliefs are equally valid
(magically and speaking) and I think that Shadowrun's position should be the
same.

>Not at all... I'm advocating more variety, but at the same time saying
>"it's just a game, it doesn't have to be an accurate representation of the
>real world. And if using an abstract "model" saves us all the grief of
>offending a group of people very sensitive about their beliefs... where's
>the harm in that? It's all just make believe anyway."

Well, since Shadowrun already makes use of real magico-religious beliefs,
that's a decision that's not for me to make. It is perfectly possible not to
bring any (more) real-world beliefs into SR and you can treat magic in your
game any way you want, including adding pure "fantasy" elements a la AD&D,
Earthdawn or your favorite fantasy fiction. But one of the characters of SR
supplements has been describing some of the unique cultural manifestations of
magic in the Sixth World and, as a writer, I would like to do all of them
justice as traditions worthy of respect. Beyond that, I agree that it's just
a game and that none of the great religious debates of the world can (or
should) be settled there.

Steve (speaking for himself and not official-FASA-anything)
Message no. 19
From: Ashelock <woneal@*******.NET>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 07:31:54 -0005
On 2 Feb 97 at 22:30, Steve Kenson wrote:

> I will try to explain "Steve's view of magic in Shadowrun" a bit better:
>
> Let me use the metaphor of music. There are many, many different styles
> of music, from rock to punk to jazz to classical. At the very basic
> level, music is music. There is a standard set of notes, scales, notation
> and even instruments. You can use those basic tools to produce an
> incredible range of music. Likewise, magic in Shadowrun all has the same
> basis: the power of a magician drawing energy from astral space to cast
> spells and conjure spirits. These basic tools of magic can produce an
> incredible range of magical traditions: Hermeticism, shamanism, Voudoun,
> Druidry, drekcetera.
Unquestionably true... magic, so far as I understand it, is an energy form.
Magic itself, that is mana, wasn't what was in question. Now about that
point regarding magic and machines.... nah... let's not start that debate!
<grin>

>
> But the differences between magical traditions are largely COSMETIC in
I'm not sure how cosmetic I'd agree they are... voudoon is quiet a bit
different from hermeticism. And here I go beyond just the numbers and
rules. The way it should be roleplayed, the belief systems, are very
different. So much so one might say each was "unique". This is in part
where my confusion regarding your comments came in. I was speaking of the
unique qualities of each tradition.

> Shadowrun. They all still have similar abilities and talents when it
> comes right down to it. This is largely because Game Balance (tm)
> requires that no one magical tradition be more powerful than any other.
> The London Symphony Orchestra playing Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is very
> different music from a group of Aborigines playing digeridoo and drums in
> the Outback, but they're both still music. One might call the work of
> Mozart "more advanced" than that of some tribal primitives, but both
> sound equally pleasing to me (and others may prefer one or the other).
> But they're both still music, just like a Hermetic using a collection of
> books, charts, diagrams and Latin chants and a shaman dancing and
> whipping up an emotional storm calling upon the spirits of his ancestors
> and the land are both doing magic. Music is music, magic is magic.
Yes... mana is the power all the traditions draw on to do whatever it is
they do. That was never the question, and I'm not sure where the
misunderstanding came in. But the traditions, the "tools" as you put it,
by which that magic is manipulated are very different. Just as a guitar
and violin and drums are all very different. Each kind of instrument is
unique, each kind of tradition is unique... and traditions is the topic at
hand. Are we on the same wavelength now?

>
> >Shamanism, whether we are discussing it in RL or in SR is largely
> >founded on superstition. Hermeticism on the other hand is magic as
> >science, reason over the irrational.
>
> Magic is both an Art and a Science, even Hermetic magic. Doing magic
> requires faith and unshakable belief on the part of the magician, whether
> it is the shaman's belief in the spirits, a mage's belief in an ordered
> universe, a voudounista's belief in the Loa or a witch's belief in the
> Goddess and the God. Magic is not something that can be done by a
> computer or a non-living tool. The only tool that can shape magic is the
> living mind and spirit of a magician. To be a magician (or any tradition)
> you need to be a poet as well as a mathematician (to paraphrase Paul
> Hume).

I'll agree with much of what you said... except for the word "faith"
being applied to a hermetic. Faith, as defined by Webster's 7th
Collegiate is "belief in something for which there is no proof." That
might apply to a shamanic discipline, who definitely do put faith in
their totems. But for a hermetic, faith approaches uselessness. A
hermetic founds their belief in those formula, calculations, known laws
and principles of magic, etc. This is where the hermetic's belief
springs. If such were not the case, if a hermetic did not place such
reliance on empirical knowledge, then we could dispense with hermetic
libraries. It is that reliance on "evidence" that makes such libraries
necessary to the hermetic. Conversely, it could be said that it is the
faith of the shaman that makes such libraries unecessary for them. This
at least is the strong impression I have been given from every SR source
I have read thus far.

>
> >The Grimoire goes on to make it clear that a hermetic analyzes and
> >studies a thing, while shaman simply accepts it and goes on, never
> >pondering the why of it. The shaman were "in tune" because they had
> >simply taken it all on faith. And keep in mind that for someone to
> >take on faith the existence of "magic" in world where magic didn't
> >exist brings to question their mental stability.
>
> Well, faith pretty much means belief in something for which there is no
> clear-cut evidence.
That is in fact the very definition of faith, as I've said.

> The same could be said for nearly any religious
> belief: there is no clear-cut evidence to the skeptical mind that God or
> gods exist. To the religious, all things are a reflection of his or her
> beliefs.
Agreed, and faith was an attribute I ascribed to shaman. Shamanism is by
it's very nature a religion (I can't think of a single "shamanic" tradition
that isn't a religion). So far so good.

> To the complete solipsist, there's no such thing as "objective
> evidence" at all. "I think, therefore I am" may be the only thing such
a
> person can be convinced is absolutely true.
I'm not sure where solipsism came into this, one can be a skeptic without
going so far philosphically as to believe only in one's self (which might
also easily be construed as pure arrogance, but I'm sure you didn't intend
that :). A hermetic, as I have said, in my view requires some sort of
empirical proof; evidence that a specific action will have a specific
effect. And I agree that hermeticism is part science and part art, but I
don't see how art requires faith either. I paint, when I put a brush to a
canvas I know what will happen. I know that if I mix red and blue I will
get purple. Science does not preclude artistry, art does not forbid
science. Magic is a rare opportunity for a "scientific mind" to express
itself in art, assuming that "scientific mind" isn't busy flinging combat
spells (personally don't think killing can be artistic, though certainly
the method of death could get a bit creative).

>
> Faith is the cornerstone of magic. NO magician (IMHO) can perform the
> least spell without a belief in something: whether it is the spirits, the
Ah... here then is the crux of our disagreement. Correct me if I'm
wrong, but you are stating that faith and belief are the same thing,yes?
Whereas I am stating that one can believe in something without any
necessity for faith. Perhaps we can come to terms, if not the I suppose
we should simply agree to disagree.

> gods or the power of Reason or Will to command reality to his bidding.
> The reason (again, IMHO) that shamans don't question certain aspects
> about the Universe is because they believe they KNOW the answers. Just
> like someone who has strong faith finds answers to their questions in it.
Yes, I very much agree here. Bear, or Dog, or the Great Mother will
provide. This goes to the very heart of my assertation that shaman will
be the least likely to explore the nature and hidden mysteries of magic.
Some few might, true, there are always those exceptions. But generally,
it seems to me their belief system fosters acceptance of the way things are
(if it isn't broke don't fix it). For those answers they do need, there
seems to be a reliance on the totem or intuition to provide the answer.

> A mage's belief structure includes the belief that there are answers to
> the Big Questions out there in the depths of the metaplanes and the
> hidden folds of reality somewhere, if only they become enlightened
> enough.
Agreed, and I think you echo what I've generally been saying about
hermetics. It is also why, if SR were real life, I would expect hermetics
to be responsible for most breakthroughs in new magical techniques,
concepts, etc. I'm not talking spell design here, rather things like new
metamagical techniques and particularly things relating directly to the
"how and why" of magic.

> Who is to say who is right? Are the Totems real or just imaginary
> constructs that shamans use to focus their magic? We'll probably never
> know (at least not in any Shadowrun product...)
Oh I don't know, some of us already have some pretty strong ideas (all
those references to Carl Jung implied much). For me, that short story at
the beginning of Harlequin's Back implied even more about the nature of
totems and Passions. But we could likely go in circles with that topic
from here til eterinity ends (or until FASA publishes cannon on the
matter, whichever comes first).

>
> >Oh, the Catholics wouldn't mind, so long as you followed their "party
> >line," but then the Baptist and Pentecostals and Jews would be annoyed
> >with you. Probably the Moslems too.
>
> Probably so, but then I believe that all of their beliefs are equally
> valid (magically and speaking) and I think that Shadowrun's position
> should be the same.
On a philosphical level I agree with you. Then again I'm an iconoclast
so my opinion on religion might be less than kind. However, I would point
out something FASA must consider, public reaction. Sales ultimately
dictate product content, and a product that offends will likely never make
it past the editor's desk. That may gaul you as it restricts your
artistic license, but such are the hard facts of life we all must live
with.
If you don't mind, I'll interject my thoughts on how I might handle the
Christian religion. First, as I see it there is no single Christian
faith. How a Catholic views and practices their faith is very different
from say the Pentecostals (two very extreme differences, which is why I
chose them as examples). If I were to add the catholic faith, and feeling
creative, I might treat each saint as a totem, with bonus specific to what
the saint was patron of. Instead of the familiar nature spirits, I'd
replace them entirely with angels of various sorts. These angels would
likely not have domains, and their abilities would likely fall somewhere
between nature spirits and elementals. If I were to add the pentecostals,
I would do something different. Pentecostals do venerate saints, so there
would only be a single totem. They also would likely make little use of
their conjuring skill, except where the "holy spirit" were concerned.
This I would treat in a similar fashion to loa mounting houngans.
Baptists would be yet something else... and so on.

>
> >Not at all... I'm advocating more variety, but at the same time saying
> >"it's just a game, it doesn't have to be an accurate representation of
> >the real world. And if using an abstract "model" saves us all the
grief
> >of offending a group of people very sensitive about their beliefs...
> >where's the harm in that? It's all just make believe anyway."
>
> Well, since Shadowrun already makes use of real magico-religious beliefs,
> that's a decision that's not for me to make.
If you are given the task of writing on such topics (and I'd guess that
to have certain likelihood), it most certainly would be your decision to
make.

> It is perfectly possible not
> to bring any (more) real-world beliefs into SR and you can treat magic in
> your game any way you want, including adding pure "fantasy" elements a la
> AD&D, Earthdawn or your favorite fantasy fiction.
I'm not saying more real-world religions shouldn't be done. My original
comment (which I never intended to inspire this much debate), was simply a
caution to be aware that certain religions will likely cause you no end of
problems if not handled *very* carefully. You seem to have had great
difficulty understanding what I meant by giving it an abstract treatment.
Let me rephrase it this way then: just as shamanism as it appears in SR, is a very
abstract version of NA beliefs, so you might consider a similar approach
to the aforementioned "sensitive" religions. Presenting them in a way
that only bears a superficial resemblance to the real thing, and thus is
least likely to cause controversy.
As for adding purely fictional elements, why not? This could be a
wonderful way to expand on the idea of Unique and Self-created Traditions
presented in Awakenings. Why not have a group of Gandalf wanna-be's? As
you've pointed out, magic is endlessly versatile, so why not some new
traditions? Not everything need be based on centuries of beliefs and
traditions. It might be a refreshing change to have something no one is
at all familiar with.

> But one of the
> characters of SR supplements has been describing some of the unique
> cultural manifestations of magic in the Sixth World and, as a writer, I
> would like to do all of them justice as traditions worthy of respect.
Would that FASA would give you the space to do that. It would be
interesting to see, of that I have no doubt. However, somehow I suspect
that few share such esoteric interests, and that brings to question
marketability.

> Beyond that, I agree that it's just a game and that none of the great
> religious debates of the world can (or should) be settled there.
Agreed, although it might be a humorous twist if one or two great
religious debates *were* settled within a game.
--

Ashelock
mailto:woneal@*******.net

"They say it's a brave new world we're building. I say they're right,
and we'll all have to be pretty brave to live in it."
Message no. 20
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Magical Traditions
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1997 21:45:19 EST
On Sat, 1 Feb 1997 23:51:24 -0500 Brett Borger <bxb121@***.EDU> writes:
>>> Those would be images of Cupid, not an angel at all. Which
>is
>>I haven't envisioned cherubim like that in a long time. I read _The
>Wind
>>in the Door_ and that kinda destroyed the Cupid-type cherubim idea:)
>
>Wasn't that _Many Waters_? _The Wind In the Door_ was in the series
>though...
>
>-=SwiftOne=-
>
Close. _Many Waters_ had seraphim (another type of angel and described in
the more traditional mold, as I recall). _The Wind in the Door_ had a
cherubim, which was described as being a flurry of wings and eyes and
breathing fire...it was originally thought by the chracters to be a
dragon:)

Canthros
--
If any man wishes peace, canthros1@***.com
let him prepare for war. lobo1@****.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Magical Traditions, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!