Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Ritual Magic and who's of the same tradition?
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:58:02 -0700
Hello;

MitS says that you must be of the same tradition to use ritual magic
together...

Yet MitS also blurs things a bit on what is a magical tradition.

In the basic book there are two traditions: Mage and Shaman.

In MitS there are things like Wuxing, Islamic Mages, Witchcraft, and so on.

Now, an Islamic mage is still a mage. So are they in the same tradition as a
basic mage?

And how about two witches one who is a shaman and one who is a mage? In MitS
they would seem to be the same tradition; but in the basic book they would
not be.

So what sort of definition of "Tradition" is being called for in ritual
magic?

Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.
Message no. 2
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Ritual Magic and who's of the same tradition?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 01:30:13 -0400 (EDT)
> MitS says that you must be of the same tradition to use ritual magic
together...
> Yet MitS also blurs things a bit on what is a magical tradition.
> In the basic book there are two traditions: Mage and Shaman.
> In MitS there are things like Wuxing, Islamic Mages, Witchcraft, and
so on.
> Now, an Islamic mage is still a mage. So are they in the same
tradition as a basic mage?

No. I'll elaborate below.

> And how about two witches one who is a shaman and one who is a mage?
In MitS they would seem to be the same tradition;

No, they aren't.

> but in the basic book they would not be.
>
> So what sort of definition of "Tradition" is being called for in
ritual magic?
> Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><

IMNSHO, I think that you have to satisfy BOTH conditions, not one or
the other, to be considered to be of the same tradition. I'm pretty
sure that's what MitS is getting at.

See, in order to do a ritual together, you need to see magic in the
same way. That's why there's the tradition restriction. How a mage and
a shaman view magic clashes, so they just can't work together when
they're trying to do something like a ritual.

Next - how similar do you think a druid's and a wuxing's view of magic
are? Totally bipolar (or very nearly), whether they're both mages or
not. So they don't belong to the same tradition.

And don't tell me you think the English hermetic druids and the Celtic
shamanic druids have anything in common as far as the magic goes.

To belong to the same tradition as someone, your view of magic MUST be
the same. A mage witch and a shamanic witch, although both witches, see
magic very differently. Same for a wuxing mage and an islamic mage -
very different outlook on magic.

So - there are two parts to the magic formula and both must be the same
in order for two magickers to belong to the same tradition. Part one -
mage or shaman. Part two - hermetic, druid, witch, wuxing etc. etc.
etc.

*Doc' thinks there should be a third part to that to allow...Geek Mages!*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 3
From: Bruce gyro@********.co.za
Subject: Ritual Magic and who's of the same tradition?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 09:23:34 +0200
-----Original Message-----
From: Rand Ratinac <docwagon101@*****.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.org <shadowrn@*********.org>
Date: 27 July 1999 07:37
Subject: Re: Ritual Magic and who's of the same tradition?


>> MitS says that you must be of the same tradition to use ritual
magic
>together...

<snip Arcady's problem>

>No. I'll elaborate below.
>
>> And how about two witches one who is a shaman and one who is a
mage?
>In MitS they would seem to be the same tradition;
>
>No, they aren't.
>
>> but in the basic book they would not be.
>>
>> So what sort of definition of "Tradition" is being called for in
>ritual magic?
>> Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
>
>IMNSHO, I think that you have to satisfy BOTH conditions, not one or
>the other, to be considered to be of the same tradition. I'm pretty
>sure that's what MitS is getting at.

While I know that MitS limits ritual magic use to practioners of the
same tradition
and type, I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea.

>See, in order to do a ritual together, you need to see magic in the
>same way. That's why there's the tradition restriction. How a mage
and
>a shaman view magic clashes, so they just can't work together when
>they're trying to do something like a ritual.

Shadowrun magic is pretty much the same for all traditions, when it
comes to spellcasting
How the magic user gathers power may differ, but the ritual leader
should be able to access
all the power that is gathered and use it, regardless of how it was
gathered.

I do however think that the participants in a ritual should all agree
to a common goal and
know each other well. This is one of those roleplaying things they
keep trying to get us to do :)

>Next - how similar do you think a druid's and a wuxing's view of
magic
>are? Totally bipolar (or very nearly), whether they're both mages or
>not. So they don't belong to the same tradition.

Totally bipolar? No. I terms of summoning, sure and their politics
differ, but in ritual spellcasting?

>And don't tell me you think the English hermetic druids and the
Celtic
>shamanic druids have anything in common as far as the magic goes.

Well , I do think so. They share a lot of history for one thing and an
unshakeable
belief in the power of nature for another.

>To belong to the same tradition as someone, your view of magic MUST
be
>the same. A mage witch and a shamanic witch, although both witches,
see
>magic very differently. Same for a wuxing mage and an islamic mage -
>very different outlook on magic.

So all shamans view magic in the same way? Not likely. A Wiccan mage
and a Wiccan shaman
USE magic differently, but probably see it much the same way, as a
tool like any other.

>So - there are two parts to the magic formula and both must be the
same
>in order for two magickers to belong to the same tradition. Part
one -
>mage or shaman. Part two - hermetic, druid, witch, wuxing etc. etc.
>etc.

I think that this is very restrictive and removes ritual magic from
the group dynamic. Bad move by FASA.
The only way the groups maickers are going o get together is if they
are all vanilla mages or shamans.
Thats boring and makes all the choices presented in MitS kinda
pointless. Wheres the teamwork?

Another option is to join a magical group, for the purposes of
initiation and ritual. Then the arguement that the decker takes too
much of the groups time is going to pale in comparison to this.

>*Doc' thinks there should be a third part to that to allow...Geek
Mages!*

/me will not comment.

- - BRUCE <gyro@********.co.za>

<hard@****>
Message no. 4
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Ritual Magic and who's of the same tradition?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 06:06:02 EDT
In a message dated 7/27/1999 12:02:08 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
arcady@***.net writes:

> MitS says that you must be of the same tradition to use ritual magic
> together...
>
> Yet MitS also blurs things a bit on what is a magical tradition.
>
<snip>
>
> In the basic book there are two traditions: Mage and Shaman.
> So what sort of definition of "Tradition" is being called for in
ritual
> magic?

Hmmm..I never noticed this before you mentioned..talk about oversight..here's
a good question..if an Initiate Group allows members of multiple traditions,
are all its' members restricted as well? Talk about incompatibilities in a
working relationship...

-K
Message no. 5
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Ritual Magic and who's of the same tradition?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 06:08:47 EDT
In a message dated 7/27/1999 12:27:30 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
docwagon101@*****.com writes:

> To belong to the same tradition as someone, your view of magic MUST be
> the same. A mage witch and a shamanic witch, although both witches, see
> magic very differently. Same for a wuxing mage and an islamic mage -
> very different outlook on magic.

Doc', just to interupt here ... that first part of *this* paragraph here
isn't coming across correctly... Organizations have a collective "belief"
structure that binds them together... so your analogy isn't *quite* correct.
Now the Islamic Mage and the Wuxing Mage, *that* I can't comment on...

-K
Message no. 6
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Ritual Magic and who's of the same tradition?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
> > To belong to the same tradition as someone, your view of magic MUST
be the same. A mage witch and a shamanic witch, although both witches,
see magic very differently. Same for a wuxing mage and an islamic mage
- very different outlook on magic.
>
> Doc', just to interupt here ... that first part of *this* paragraph
here isn't coming across correctly... Organizations have a collective
"belief" structure that binds them together... so your analogy isn't
*quite* correct. Now the Islamic Mage and the Wuxing Mage, *that* I
can't comment on...
>
> -K


Oops...my mistake. When I said view of magic, I was not referring to a
belief system. I mean how they see magic as working. A wiccan mage and
a wiccan shaman will have the same beliefs and may even view magic in
the same way (to an extent). They will, however, have big differences
going back to how mages see magic working and how shamans see magic
working. That's the big diff in that instance.

I mean, I agree with Gyro (I think it was) in that I'd like to have
different traditions being able to cast ritual spells together (hell, I
might even allow that in my games), but that isn't how it works in the
system.

There are inconsistencies with regards to traditions all over the
place, but for the purposes of ritual magic and other things that
differentiate on traditions (magic groups, for example), I think the
intention is as I described it previously.

Btw, Gyro, do you really think the back-to-nature Celtic Druid shamans
and the scumbag English Druid Mages who helped make England what it is
in SR days have more than a passing similarity in their world views and
how they view magic?

*Doc' draws a blank...and gets paid a million dollars for his
marvellous work of art...*
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 7
From: Rand Ratinac docwagon101@*****.com
Subject: Ritual Magic and who's of the same tradition?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 19:26:37 -0700 (PDT)
> > MitS says that you must be of the same tradition to use ritual
magic together...
> > Yet MitS also blurs things a bit on what is a magical tradition.
> <snip>
> > In the basic book there are two traditions: Mage and Shaman.
> > So what sort of definition of "Tradition" is being called for in
ritual magic?
>
> Hmmm..I never noticed this before you mentioned..talk about
oversight..here's a good question..if an Initiate Group allows members
of multiple traditions, are all its' members restricted as well? Talk
about incompatibilities in a working relationship...
>
> -K

You might want to make sure that your groups that allow multiple
traditions don't include both the exclusive ritual and exclusive
membership strictures, or you'll end up with a group of guys who can't
use ritual magic with anyone, or join another group to use ritual magic
with others, without breaking the group's codes.

Hey, there's a good idea. I think that's how I'll do it. Different
traditions have problems casting ritual magic together. HOWEVER,
joining a group gives you a link to the other group members and allows
you to function together well enough to use ritual magic whatever your
tradition.

Hmmm...think that might work well...
==Doc'
(aka Mr. Freaky Big, Super-Dynamic Troll of Tomorrow)

.sig Sauer
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @*****.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Message no. 8
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Ritual Magic and who's of the same tradition?
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:56:20 EDT
In a message dated 7/27/1999 9:23:46 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
docwagon101@*****.com writes:

>
> Hey, there's a good idea. I think that's how I'll do it. Different
> traditions have problems casting ritual magic together. HOWEVER,
> joining a group gives you a link to the other group members and allows
> you to function together well enough to use ritual magic whatever your
> tradition.
>
> Hmmm...think that might work well...

That is kind of what I was thinking as well...

-K
Message no. 9
From: Arcady arcady@***.net
Subject: Ritual Magic and who's of the same tradition?
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 1999 19:33:21 -0700
Well I had to make a ruling on this last night and what I finally chose to
do was define what they meant when they said 'Tradition' to be the older
definition in the basic book rather than all these new sub traditions. So
for my game I split it along what in MitS is the Paths chapter:

Mage, Voodoo, Wuxing, Shaman, Wheel, Adept, and the others (Psionic,
Madness, Miracle). I further decided that the Psionic, Madness and Miracle
where not the same category but three separate traditions.

It seemed the best balance of playability and proper occult feel.

Arcady http://www.jps.net/arcady/ <0){{{{><
The Revolution will not be televised; it'll be emailed.
/.)\ Stop making sense. Be an Anti Intellectual
\(@/ Be Tao. Live Tao. Feel Tao. But don't do Tao.

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Ritual Magic and who's of the same tradition?, 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.