| From: | Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Magic and belief - a dissenting voice |
| Date: | Sun, 2 Apr 1995 23:02:05 +1000 |
> This is Jani's opinion, I'd like to emphasise. In my opinion, the beliefs
> of the mage have little to do with what's possible and what's not. And
> before you ask about Shaman vs Hermetic - I see that as resulting from
> some world views opening the mage to existing possibilities. But reality
> itself is not determined by the observer.
Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU> wrote:
> Hey, you know what? I'm in the middle! I think there is some limit,
> somewhere, which controls just what you can and can't do, but up until that
> particular limit the magician can do as much as be beleives he can. Think of
> the shaman, he has some psychological barrier to casting certain spells
> (well, some do), while a hermetic can do the lot. But OTOH, the shaman can
> do some spells better than the hermetic can (he is as good as he beleives he
> is).
I partly agree with this - belief comes into it. But I don't think that
a shaman could be treated to overcome a `psychological barrier', for example.
In my view, the way she views the world, her deep beliefs, is part of her
spirit, and it is with this that she does her magic.
And playing about with beliefs in lesser things is an attempt to deal
with magic as though it was a matter of penny-pinching accountancy, if
you see what I'm trying to get at. It's an attitude thing.
Keith Johnson <jrsnyder@********.WISC.EDU> wrote:
> My perception is much like the guru's (unofficial). I think that there
> are rules of the road(Astral Physics) that explain all phenomena. It
> is my thought that these are 'absolute' rules which are the untimate
> quest of Hermetic mages...
> Then there are the perceptions of each magick practioner. These are
> the mage's/shaman's view of how magick works. These views are
> not absolute, but instead are variable and so allow specialties to
> develop.
Well, sort of. But I see it as an expression of the different spirit
of the mage. What I'm trying to get at is nicely put by Jani, below:
Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE> wrote:
> Aha, I think that you misunderstood my arguments. I do not beleive that
> "the world view" actually changes reality, let me give you a metaphor to
> clarify this. Lets compare the magical world (the astral) with a puddle
> of quicksand (that was a good example Damion), quicksand is shapeless
> and you can mold it any way you like, but you need a hand/foothold to
> keep from drowning in it.
We know that emotions and will and aliveness are tangible and visible
things astrally, right? Think about that. You are working magic, shaping
the energies, achieving your desires, by using something inside yourself.
Something intangible. Something like your will, your emotions. Your
spirit.
In my view, the handhold (and the hand) that you use to work the magic,
comes from the mage. Comes from what he _is_.
> So the way I see it, magicians unconsiously use
> their knowldege of the physical plane to access the astral. By using this
> knowledge they automatically accept all sort of restrictions that come
> with it in the physical plane. I hope this makes it clearer...
It's here that our opinions diverge. (I'm happy to be considered wrong
by the majority, because the above idea explains why you can see through
glass, and see auras im mirrors - as the rules state. To our group, these
rules made so little sense that we changed them!)
For me, the idea that mages are working things by `unconsciously using
their knowledge of the physical plane' just doesn't gel with the feeling
behind Shadowrun's magic system. We're little fish in a deep, dark sea,
seeing and surviving by the fire of our spirit. It's a strange new
place, and few people carry their expectations from the mundane world
over into it.
luke> I think the difference of opinion about this is because Jani is playing
luke> in a campaign where there aren't many PC mages - so mages are usually
luke> the opponents. Interpreting the rules to make them more powerful makes
luke> it tougher on the players.
> I have never thought of our game as magic poor, on the contrary its
> quite magic rich. OTOH we only have one mage in the group (at least at a time)
> that is either me or the other GM and we both play mages when we dont GM.
We had 2 non-mages, 6 mages of one sort or another, by the end of the
campaign. So you're not magic-poor, we were magic-rich. :-)
But as a consequence, we tried to make things harder for mages, when it came
to a point of rules interpretation.
> But my understanding of magic stemms from my desire to have a solid logical
> and consistent base.
Good. We changed some rules simply because we couldn't fit them into our
otherwise logical and consistent understanding of how magic worked. And
sometimes we changed things because we couldn't see how society would
still function, otherwise.
So I agree, a logical understanding is super-important, considering how
rich the magic system is (in other words, how open it is to being used
creatively).
luke
