| From: | abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [OT] Mysticism |
| Date: | Tue, 14 Sep 1999 18:39:10 -0400 |
> traditions or magical schools in thier games. I thought about it, but I
> don't think MitS does justice to the believe systems in 1-2 paragraphs. If
> I knew more about any of them, I would write an article for NAGEE.
I played a Kabalist of the Alastair Crowley school once. It took all new
spells, virtually all of his ability was with ritual magic, and I had to put
up with saying "Love is the Law. Love under Will" a lot. But it was fun. Of
course, that was a while ago, when Dowd was in, and magic was a wee bit more
flexible, if you know what I mean. [If you don't, just ask. I have a long
explaination and a short one. And neither of them insult MM, in case you
were curious.]
And no, I don't think MitS does justice to the belief systems stated there.
I'd have liked to have as much effort put into each of those that the
Hermetic, Shamanic, and Voudoun schools had put into them. But that's asking
a little too much, I suppose. FASA has a lot on their plates right now.
> I think it would be instesting for any practitioners of the traditions
> mentioned in the MitS (or overlooked for that matter), to write a 'How to
> RP a <foo>' article. I know Steve K has some experience w/ magik, but one
> man surely can't give us a feeling of every tradition. If I had some
> instight into how a, well..., kabalist, for example, thought while he was
> doing his magic, or just living his life, it would be a great RP tool.
Well, start doing some research. If it's going to be anyone doing it, and
getting the warmth and accolades of the Shadowrun public, it might as well
be the guy who thought of the idea in the first place.
> Of course in SR, magik is much more obvious than now. I think that would
> have to be kept in mind as well when writting any article trying to relate
> RL experiences w/ magik to SR RP guides.
That's true. Much more obvious.
But, in Shadowrun, [at least in the olden days] magic was less about what
was possible, and more about what people THOUGHT was possible. [There's the
short explaination. And you didn't even have to ask. :) ]
