The French Revolution in the WoD
Confused
> I was just curious... What is the "official" take on the French
> Revolution in the WoD? Esp. as regards Vampires... I seem to rembmer
> hearing something about there being a minor Anarch revolt in France at
> that time, but I think it was from some musty 1st edition sourcebook. =)
Sorry. Dont have any book refrances, but off the top of my head, I belive I
remember something about it being the Brujah revolting against the Toreador
who ruled (and still rule) the country.
HAESSIG Frédéric Pierre Tamatoa
Confused <mark...@erols.com> a écrit dans le message :
82i273$oeb$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
the Brujah against the Toreador, Ventrue and Tremere. Robespierre was an
agent of the Brujah. However, the revolution soon became uncontrolled as
settites, sabat and renegade toreadors ( Madame Guil ) come to the fray.
The toreador marquis tried to fight the Brujah using the Girondins
(Federalism ), and the Brujah replicated with the terror. After the
execution of the king, the Prince of Paris - Beatrix - tries to flee to UK
with her followers, but she is caught and executed by fanatical Brujah in
Calais. Some Toreador - among whom is Villon - manage to escape to scotland.
After more disorders, moderate Brujah take power with the Directoire,
but have to share with toreadors back from exile, which leads to the first
empire.
Anyway, this is just a rough summary.
Samhaine31
Revolution, and I'm really hoping I get to run it for my TC group soon... it
deals mostly with the sabbat presence during the revolution and includes some
of the gehenna material that TC is based around... it's an entirely worthwhile
read.
~S
Adam Horton
the top of our head, so I'll give you what's dribbling out at the moment:
The French Revolution was a massive blow against the status quo; it proved for
the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire that an entire royal caste
could be overthrown. Before this, revolutions, wars, and overthrows had been
orchestrated by other royal lines, and thus maintained the concept of rule by
divine right (Never forget that Kings were nothing without the support of a
church).
As a stroke to the common belief this was an unequaled event of the time. Who
would wish such a thing? Ah, let us list the factions!
The Traditions must have been dancing with joy -- the dreams of the people
bursting through the established paradigm like so much chaff! The people
declaring themselves free to pursue their dreams, and destroying what was once
the greatest and most influential regime of Europe! Surely some of them were
involved; the Seers of Chronos delighting in the French transfusion to "mob
rule" -- control by the passions of the people. The Chakravanti, also, would
surely be involved, turning the wheel past the time of stagnant royalty.
And our personal favorites, the Kindred? They too must have been rolling over
in their graves. The Brujah are the most obvious participants; the revolt of
the bourgeoisie against the professedly immortal rule of the French Kings
couldn't mirror the anarch revolt much more closely. But the Revolution was
not simply a descent into chaos but a revolution in the true sense, a birth of
new ideas, values and art. The Toreador were the ones being overthrown, but
that overthrow itself held the distinct flavor of the degenerates; perhaps a
faction within the clan sought to gain its own superiority? The madness of the
fall of order would certainly appeal to the Malkavians; a bit of insanity
striking the civilized world.
Those are my own ideas. In addition, I would highly recommend Les
Miserables soundtrack if you want some good mood music; the proper era and
country, and also hauntingly appropriate (Look down! look down! you're standing
in your grave!)
I hope that makes you a bit less confused=')
Adam
ebbab...@my-deja.com
Adam Horton <ada...@konnect.net> wrote:
>
> Those are my own ideas. In addition, I would highly recommend Les
> Miserables soundtrack if you want some good mood music; the proper
era and
> country, and also hauntingly appropriate (Look down! look down!
you're standing
> in your grave!)
>
Great Revolution (as the Frenchies call it), but a minor affair in the
1830s. It _is_ good mood music, though! :)
Sara Lundstrom
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jerome Fouletier
> > Those are my own ideas. In addition, I would highly recommend Les
> > Miserables soundtrack if you want some good mood music; the proper era and
> > country, and also hauntingly appropriate (Look down! look down! you're standing
> > in your grave!)
> >
> Just a minor correction: "Les Miz" does _not_ take place during the
> Great Revolution (as the Frenchies call it), but a minor affair in the
> 1830s. It _is_ good mood music, though! :)
Uh, sorry, but we don't call it the Great Revolution, just "la Révolution"...
As for "les misérables", the events in question are referred to as "les trois
Glorieuses" because the riots lasted three days.
J.
Eric Tolle
> the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire that an entire royal caste
> could be overthrown. Before this, revolutions, wars, and overthrows had been
> orchestrated by other royal lines, and thus maintained the concept of rule by
> divine right (Never forget that Kings were nothing without the support of a
(delete)
> The Traditions must have been dancing with joy -- the dreams of the people
> bursting through the established paradigm like so much chaff! The people
You misspelled "Conventions" there.
(The justifications for why the Conventions and not the Traditions
would support the French Revolution I'll lead as an exercise for
the reader. Papers will be due Monday- include bibliography) ;'/
--
Eric Tolle sch...@silcom.com
Information does not want to be free. Information wants to be
folded, spindled, mutilated, and used to make funky children's
party hats.
David Johnston
>
> Adam Horton wrote:
>
> > the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire that an entire royal caste
> > could be overthrown. Before this, revolutions, wars, and overthrows had been
> > orchestrated by other royal lines, and thus maintained the concept of rule by
> > divine right (Never forget that Kings were nothing without the support of a
> (delete)
> > The Traditions must have been dancing with joy -- the dreams of the people
> > bursting through the established paradigm like so much chaff! The people
>
> You misspelled "Conventions" there.
>
> (The justifications for why the Conventions and not the Traditions
> would support the French Revolution I'll lead as an exercise for
> the reader. Papers will be due Monday- include bibliography) ;'/
>
Too easy. The French Revolution was fought in the name of rational purity of
thought and the abandonment of the governmental systems of the so-called
"Mythic Age" Not that, as a Tradition sympathiser, I'd want to claim such
a nasty vicious thing anyway. Supporting the French Revolution would have to
have been one of the Technocracy's biggest oopsies, although the Brujah would
certainly have been happy enough.
Eric Tolle
>
> Eric Tolle wrote:
> > (The justifications for why the Conventions and not the Traditions
> > would support the French Revolution I'll lead as an exercise for
> > the reader. Papers will be due Monday- include bibliography) ;'/
> >
>
> Too easy. The French Revolution was fought in the name of rational purity of
> thought and the abandonment of the governmental systems of the so-called
> "Mythic Age" Not that, as a Tradition sympathiser, I'd want to claim such
Give the man a prize. (But where's the damn biography!)
> a nasty vicious thing anyway. Supporting the French Revolution would have to
> have been one of the Technocracy's biggest oopsies, although the Brujah would
Uh huh. Which is also why I was surprised about the comment on the
Changelings enjoying it. "Romantic and exciting"- shya riiiight.
Maybe a hundred or so years later it would be- at the time, it
would be "get out of town as fast as you can!"
> certainly have been happy enough.
--
Marizhavashti Kali
Eric Tolle wrote:
>
> Uh huh. Which is also why I was surprised about the comment on the
> Changelings enjoying it. "Romantic and exciting"- shya riiiight.
> Maybe a hundred or so years later it would be- at the time, it
> would be "get out of town as fast as you can!"
When the guillotine's in use, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for 52
weeks straight . . . It's not a happy time.
--
Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
Listowner: Fading Suns, Trinity and Aberrant
"Oh my god, they killfiled Kenny!"
http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | http://www.telelists.com
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> An authoritarian NWO, which we have been told in no uncertain terms, is
> The Only NWO There Ever Wuz, would of course be against the Revolution
> even in the terms it was offered in.
The NWO didn't exist during the French and American revolutions - and
the stated ideals fell right in with the Order of Reason's goals at the
time.
This is not to say that the OoR or any other supernatural faction or
race was behind either revolution (my preference is that human beings
were behind them), but they're not incompatible.
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> Sigh. Once again the old 'but they CORRUPTED those ideals' argument comes
> up. Doesn't anyone but me think that democracy's ideals are flawed enough
> to make for an interesting philosophical division /without/ making the
> choice only one of who the Duce is this Age?
Which argument? I didn't see any such argument.
Jason Corley
: David Johnston wrote:
: >
: >
: > Too easy. The French Revolution was fought in the name of rational purity of
: > thought and the abandonment of the governmental systems of the so-called
: > "Mythic Age" Not that, as a Tradition sympathiser, I'd want to claim such
: Give the man a prize. (But where's the damn biography!)
: > a nasty vicious thing anyway. Supporting the French Revolution would have to
: > have been one of the Technocracy's biggest oopsies, although the Brujah would
: Uh huh. Which is also why I was surprised about the comment on the
: Changelings enjoying it. "Romantic and exciting"- shya riiiight.
: Maybe a hundred or so years later it would be- at the time, it
: would be "get out of town as fast as you can!"
It only would be a "terrible mistake" if you assume that the Technocracy
was so stupid (the NWO especially) not to realize that modern democracy
would be the result of the Enlightenment political thinkers. They all
advocated (with a few exceptions) variations on the democratic form.
An authoritarian NWO, which we have been told in no uncertain terms, is
The Only NWO There Ever Wuz, would of course be against the Revolution
even in the terms it was offered in.
--
(1) Ignorance of your profession is best concealed by solemnity and silence,
which pass for profound knowledge upon the generality of mankind.
-------"Advice to Officers of the British Army", 1783
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
David Johnston
>
> Eric Tolle (sch...@silcom.com) wrote:
> : David Johnston wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > Too easy. The French Revolution was fought in the name of rational purity of
> : > thought and the abandonment of the governmental systems of the so-called
> : > "Mythic Age" Not that, as a Tradition sympathiser, I'd want to claim such
>
> : Give the man a prize. (But where's the damn biography!)
>
> : > a nasty vicious thing anyway. Supporting the French Revolution would have to
> : > have been one of the Technocracy's biggest oopsies, although the Brujah would
>
> : Uh huh. Which is also why I was surprised about the comment on the
> : Changelings enjoying it. "Romantic and exciting"- shya riiiight.
> : Maybe a hundred or so years later it would be- at the time, it
> : would be "get out of town as fast as you can!"
>
> It only would be a "terrible mistake" if you assume that the Technocracy
> was so stupid (the NWO especially) not to realize that modern democracy
> would be the result of the Enlightenment political thinkers.
Actually the French Revolution nearly sunk democracy in Europe.
They all
> advocated (with a few exceptions) variations on the democratic form.
> An authoritarian NWO, which we have been told in no uncertain terms, is
> The Only NWO There Ever Wuz, would of course be against the Revolution
> even in the terms it was offered in.
The NWO has no objection to equality and fraternity, and in practice
the French Revolution's version of liberty turned out to be more tyrannical
than monarchy. Unfortunately it also turned out to be insanely random and
unstable and generally just a horrible mess.
The "authoritarian" NWO has no objection to democracy as a political system.
Why should it? With democracy if you control the public, you control the
polity and the NWO's program requires control of the public. Even in the
full NWO dystopia at it's worse, they would still have elections. Why shouldn't
they? After all, all the candidates would selected by the N.W.O. and even after
the election, the real power would still rest with the elite bureaucrats, where it
belongs. It would just be the job of the person elected to sell the decisions
of the Order to the public. Elections being popularity contests, naturally the
more persuasive person would be both the winner, and the person best suited to
sell the official line.
What, haven't you ever watched "Yes, Minister" or "The Prisoner"?
>
Bruce Baugh
>What, haven't you ever watched "Yes, Minister" or "The Prisoner"?
Damn, someone beat me to it.
Democracy is one of the best friends of tyranny.
--
Bruce Baugh / bruce...@sff.net
"Never let it be be said, especially by large men with guns, that
I failed to help." - Dave Weinstein
Ranma Al'Thor
: It only would be a "terrible mistake" if you assume that the Technocracy
: was so stupid (the NWO especially) not to realize that modern democracy
: would be the result of the Enlightenment political thinkers. They all
: advocated (with a few exceptions) variations on the democratic form.
: An authoritarian NWO, which we have been told in no uncertain terms, is
: The Only NWO There Ever Wuz, would of course be against the Revolution
: even in the terms it was offered in.
There was no NWO in 1789. It was still the Cabal of Pure Thought, with
its program of One God, One World, One Government. As part of the Order
of Reason, they would likely have been basically Deists by that point, and
found Enlightenment thought to be quite compatible with their ideas.
It's important to remember that the French Revolution was brought about by
people who weren't interested in spreading democracy; they just wanted a
larger chunk of power for themselves. Even the peasants wanted specific
problems fixed, such as the famine of 1788-89, rather than democracy per
se.
And when 'democracy' did come, it turned out to be the bloodiest tyranny
seen west of Russia to date. It also came with the destruction of the
Catholic Church (goodbye Celestial Chorus), the Masons (goodbye
Hermetics), and various other fun groups who got curb stomped.
And then the French swept across Europe, imposing their rule over
everyone. Indeed, I'd argue the period from about 1792-1799 was probably
the high tide of the Cabal of Pure Thought's power, in which it began to
look like a France under their influence would reshape all of Europe into
the rational society of advancement by merit under one government that the
Order of Reason wanted.
But then the government continued to be unstable, and Napoleon partially
turned back the clock, and then finally, the French were turned back. The
Catholic Church came back into France, and it seemed like much had been
undone of the Cabal's work. This failure was probably the final straw
which led to the Cabal being wiped out as a flop in the 19th century.
--
John Walter Biles : MA-History, ABD, Ph.D Candidate at U. Kansas
ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
rh...@tass.org http://www.tass.org/~rhea/falcon.html
rh...@maison-otaku.net http://www.maison-otaku.net/~rhea/
"Anybody touches my radishes and it's war!"
--KODT #1
Jason Corley
: >What, haven't you ever watched "Yes, Minister" or "The Prisoner"?
: Damn, someone beat me to it.
: Democracy is one of the best friends of tyranny.
Sigh. Once again the old 'but they CORRUPTED those ideals' argument comes
up. Doesn't anyone but me think that democracy's ideals are flawed enough
to make for an interesting philosophical division /without/ making the
choice only one of who the Duce is this Age?
--
Bruce Baugh
>Sigh. Once again the old 'but they CORRUPTED those ideals' argument comes
>up. Doesn't anyone but me think that democracy's ideals are flawed enough
>to make for an interesting philosophical division /without/ making the
>choice only one of who the Duce is this Age?
Hmm? As Deirdre pointed out, the NWO weren't around in the 1780s, and I
subscribe prominently to the theory that supernaturals don't make much
happen. To quote from, as it happens, Deirdre herself in the Vampire
Revised Storyteller's Handbook:
"Historical events, by definition, happened in the real world - this
means (one would hope) that they did not need supernatural backing to
happen. This does not mean that supernatural involvement is absence -
opportunities take advantage of events just as often in the World of
Darkness as in the real world."
As for democracy in the real world, well, from my point of view fascism
won the ideological battle. But then I'm a classical liberal, so I know
my views are unrepresentative. I think that liberty is still an
available choice, just not one often taken.
Mike Shannon
Yet everything that has gone on in the real world as happened in the WoD
with the same outcomes. The same people won the same wars. Throughout
history everything is the same. Of course WoD is a little darker, but
otherwise it is the same. My picture of WoD or more to the point WtA is that
their aren't any suburbs. People have this unconscious fear of the wild and
group together like rats in these sprawling cities that are slowly covering
the earth. I realize it doesn't work this way. WoD is meant to be just like
the real world. I just think sometimes it seems a little bit like a comic
book in its approach to it.
--
Mike
Bruce Baugh <bruce...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:82vj9o$2ag...@enews.newsguy.com...
tar...@imap2.asu.edu
: Jason Corley wrote:
: >
: > An authoritarian NWO, which we have been told in no uncertain terms, is
: > The Only NWO There Ever Wuz, would of course be against the Revolution
: > even in the terms it was offered in.
: The NWO didn't exist during the French and American revolutions - and
: the stated ideals fell right in with the Order of Reason's goals at the
: time.
: This is not to say that the OoR or any other supernatural faction or
: race was behind either revolution (my preference is that human beings
: were behind them), but they're not incompatible.
It was the OWO behind it.
Ben B.
Jason Corley
: In article <82vh44$scb$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
: >Sigh. Once again the old 'but they CORRUPTED those ideals' argument comes
: >up. Doesn't anyone but me think that democracy's ideals are flawed enough
: >to make for an interesting philosophical division /without/ making the
: >choice only one of who the Duce is this Age?
: Hmm? As Deirdre pointed out, the NWO weren't around in the 1780s, and I
: subscribe prominently to the theory that supernaturals don't make much
: happen.
I do too. But the question assumed that one supernatural faction or
another would be happy/upset/involved with the FR.
: As for democracy in the real world, well, from my point of view fascism
: won the ideological battle. But then I'm a classical liberal, so I know
: my views are unrepresentative. I think that liberty is still an
: available choice, just not one often taken.
I do too, but I also think liberty is /frightening/ and /dangerous/, and
the fact that there's no Mage faction which cares for it in even an
offhanded way makes the whole 'political philosophy' end of it truncated
and bleeding.
David Johnston
>
> Jason Corley wrote:
> >
> > An authoritarian NWO, which we have been told in no uncertain terms, is
> > The Only NWO There Ever Wuz, would of course be against the Revolution
> > even in the terms it was offered in.
>
> The NWO didn't exist during the French and American revolutions - and
> the stated ideals fell right in with the Order of Reason's goals at the
> time.
>
> This is not to say that the OoR or any other supernatural faction or
> race was behind either revolution (my preference is that human beings
> were behind them), but they're not incompatible.
What do you mean when you say "were behind"?
And, just as a matter of curiosity, would there be any historical events
that you would be sanguine about having supernaturals be behind them?
David Johnston
>
> : >What, haven't you ever watched "Yes, Minister" or "The Prisoner"?
>
> : Damn, someone beat me to it.
>
> : Democracy is one of the best friends of tyranny.
>
> up. Doesn't anyone but me think that democracy's ideals are flawed enough
> to make for an interesting philosophical division /without/ making the
> choice only one of who the Duce is this Age?
I doubt it. I sure as hell would never dream of fighting for the return of
absolute monarchy. Unless of course the alternative was the French Revolution.
Besides, who says that the NWO's version of democracy is corrupted just because
it consists of electing "leaders" who don't really have the power? "Yes Minister"
did a great job of demonstrating why that isn't entirely a bad idea.
Jason Corley
: >
: > Sigh. Once again the old 'but they CORRUPTED those ideals' argument comes
: > up. Doesn't anyone but me think that democracy's ideals are flawed enough
: > to make for an interesting philosophical division /without/ making the
: > choice only one of who the Duce is this Age?
: I doubt it. I sure as hell would never dream of fighting for the return of
: absolute monarchy. Unless of course the alternative was the French Revolution.
: Besides, who says that the NWO's version of democracy is corrupted just because
: it consists of electing "leaders" who don't really have the power? "Yes Minister"
: did a great job of demonstrating why that isn't entirely a bad idea.
It /isn't/ an entirely bad idea, but it isn't uncorrupted democracy
either, is it?
Marizhavashti Kali
Mike Shannon wrote:
>
> This is a little problem I have with WoD. Magic is real. It can be proven.
> Yet everything that has gone on in the real world as happened in the WoD
> with the same outcomes. The same people won the same wars. Throughout
Not the same, but all the major points are very much the same. The
supernatural does not drive history, it takes advantage of it.
Mike Shannon
many things are the same. Couldn't Hitler have used Hedge Magic? I am not
saying supernaturals would be controlling things, but there are a good many
'magical powers' normal humans could get.
--
Mike
Marizhavashti Kali <xe...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:3853FDDE...@teleport.com...
Marizhavashti Kali
David Johnston wrote:
>
> What do you mean when you say "were behind"?
The usual sense of the phrase.
> And, just as a matter of curiosity, would there be any historical events
> that you would be sanguine about having supernaturals be behind them?
Why is that important?
Mark Jones
Kali <xe...@teleport.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>Mike Shannon wrote:
>>
>> This is a little problem I have with WoD. Magic is real. It can be proven.
>> Yet everything that has gone on in the real world as happened in the WoD
>> with the same outcomes. The same people won the same wars. Throughout
>
>Not the same, but all the major points are very much the same. The
>supernatural does not drive history, it takes advantage of it.
Yep. Vampires, for all their power, work very hard to maintain the
Masquerade. Why? They are few in numbers, though mighty in power
as individuals; if humankind was aware of their existence, they
would be hunted to extinction--or to the next best thing to it, even
if a few slumbering antediluvians remained.
And aside from working to maintain the masquerade, the vast majority
of vampires' manipulative efforts go to improving their status and
power and security amongst the kindred, not to running the world.
Werewolves spend their time fighting a doomed battle to save Gaia
from the ravages of the Wyrm (and of humans enamored of change and
progress). If they can use political action, sabotage and/or direct
violent action to stop the destruction of a nature preserve,
well--so can Greenpeace. But few people would be prepared to claim
that Greenpeace members are the secret masters of history.
And Mages...well, they're fragmented into so many competing groups
and ideologies that they're simply too busy fighting amongst
themselves to run the world. More importantly, if the consensus is
what makes things so, the consensual belief that mankind is alone on
earth (there ain't no mages or vampires or werewolves), and that
they are in charge of their own destiny (for good or ill),
well...six billion sleepers are a powerful force to reckon with.
Mark Jones
<am...@trib.infi.net> spake thusly:
>Right. I guess it is just hard to me to understand how with real magic so
>many things are the same. Couldn't Hitler have used Hedge Magic? I am not
>saying supernaturals would be controlling things, but there are a good many
>'magical powers' normal humans could get.
Well, let's say for the sake of argument, that Hitler _did_ use
hedge magic. Maybe the Germans' amazing success at taking much of
Europe was due to supernatural action on Hitler's part.
So what? His magic only made the conquests easier--he still had to
send troops to fight and die and kill to take those territories.
The Allies still had to fight to fend him off or take back the
conquered lands. And ultimately, Hitler still lost and the world as
we know still came into being.
I tend to think of the supernatural in the WoD as simply another
tool in mankind's toolbox. If Hitler's phenomenal success was
attributable to his possession of the Spear of Longinus, and
Roosevelt's determination to enter the war was due to knowledge on
his part of magical threats most people were unaware of, very little
of history as we know it is changed. Magic may have made it
_easier_ (or harder) for certain events to play out the way they
did, and may have provided different motivations for certain actions
by famous individuals, but they ultimately worked out to create a
world almost indistingushable from the one we live in.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston (rgo...@telusplanet.net) wrote:
> : >
> : > Sigh. Once again the old 'but they CORRUPTED those ideals' argument comes
> : > up. Doesn't anyone but me think that democracy's ideals are flawed enough
> : > to make for an interesting philosophical division /without/ making the
> : > choice only one of who the Duce is this Age?
>
> : I doubt it. I sure as hell would never dream of fighting for the return of
> : absolute monarchy. Unless of course the alternative was the French Revolution.
>
> : Besides, who says that the NWO's version of democracy is corrupted just because
> : it consists of electing "leaders" who don't really have the power? "Yes Minister"
> : did a great job of demonstrating why that isn't entirely a bad idea.
>
> It /isn't/ an entirely bad idea, but it isn't uncorrupted democracy
> either, is it?
Uncorrupted democracy is as much an absurdity as uncorrupted communism.
The Tradition/Technocracy fight isn't about political forms in any case.
David Johnston
>
> Right. I guess it is just hard to me to understand how with real magic so
> many things are the same. Couldn't Hitler have used Hedge Magic? I am not
> saying supernaturals would be controlling things, but there are a good many
> 'magical powers' normal humans could get.
The assumption now appears to be that supernaturals always cancel each other
out and thus never change anything.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > What do you mean when you say "were behind"?
>
> The usual sense of the phrase.
>
> > And, just as a matter of curiosity, would there be any historical events
> > that you would be sanguine about having supernaturals be behind them?
>
> Why is that important?
>
I find it quite unbelievable that there could be beings with that that degree of
power and have them play no significant role in history. It's like claiming that rich
people have never had any influence on historical events. That no general has ever
played a pivotal role. That the decisions of kings and religious leaders have
never had any consequences. That there has never been an influential writer who
has had an impact on the course of human events.
Marizhavashti Kali
Mike Shannon wrote:
>
> Right. I guess it is just hard to me to understand how with real magic so
> many things are the same. Couldn't Hitler have used Hedge Magic? I am not
> saying supernaturals would be controlling things, but there are a good many
> 'magical powers' normal humans could get.
The thing is that supernatural powers are *rare*.
Maybe one in 2,000,000 people is a mage (on Earth), so you have 3,000
mages.
One in 100,000 is a vampire, so you have 60,000 vampires.
Put the werewolves in the middle - say one in a million, for a total of
6,000, with another 2,000 bete (that's a very generous guess).
Wraiths don't really count and Changelings are far too self-absorbed.
That leaves approximately 100 mummies or so.
WoD: Sordcerer makes it clear that "hedge mages" are much less common
than awakened, so say about 500-1000.
Ghouls - given the numbers, say two per vampire (many have more, many
have none), or 120,000. But they serve the vampires' interests.
I don't see why, given those numbers, anyone really *needs* to have
large changes to history because of supernatural stuff.
Yes, the WoD is different, but it's not *that different*. The
differences stem from how the supernatural affects the world, and since
the changes aren't that great, clearly the supernatural doesn't have a
huge impact on the world.
Kish
Jason Corley wrote in message <830t2p$es6$2...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>...
>I do too. But the question assumed that one supernatural faction or
>another would be happy/upset/involved with the FR.
I imagine every supernatural faction was either happy or upset over it. The
same goes for every major event in history.
>: As for democracy in the real world, well, from my point of view fascism
>: won the ideological battle. But then I'm a classical liberal, so I know
>: my views are unrepresentative. I think that liberty is still an
>: available choice, just not one often taken.
>
>I do too, but I also think liberty is /frightening/ and /dangerous/, and
>the fact that there's no Mage faction which cares for it in even an
>offhanded way makes the whole 'political philosophy' end of it truncated
>and bleeding.
That "fact" is only there if you choose to ignore a lot of the stuff about
the Traditions.
Kish
ICQ#: 28085879
AIM: Kish K M
Kis...@mindspring.com
Bruce Baugh
>of history as we know it is changed. Magic may have made it
>_easier_ (or harder) for certain events to play out the way they
>did, and may have provided different motivations for certain actions
>by famous individuals, but they ultimately worked out to create a
>world almost indistingushable from the one we live in.
This is precisely the approach that I think works best for most cases.
The supernatural is behind the scenes, shaping context. Tim Powers pulls
the trick off particularly well.
In some regards I think the WoD actually is divergent from our reality.
For Hunter: The Reckoning, I wiped out the Bauhaus movement prematurely,
and Geoff Grabowski said the US has been in pretty continuous depression
for several decades (thus giving game-level reality to some widely held
myths among gamers). By and large, though, I prefer to explain history
through ahistorical means.
Marizhavashti Kali
David Johnston wrote:
>
> The assumption now appears to be that supernaturals always cancel each other
> out and thus never change anything.
That's not the position I wrote from. Where did you get that idea?
Marizhavashti Kali
David Johnston wrote:
>
> I find it quite unbelievable that there could be beings with that that degree of
> power and have them play no significant role in history. It's like claiming that rich
> people have never had any influence on historical events. That no general has ever
> played a pivotal role. That the decisions of kings and religious leaders have
> never had any consequences. That there has never been an influential writer who
> has had an impact on the course of human events.
This assumes that supernaturals are equivalent to generals and kings,
which they aren't, necessarily.
Bruce Baugh
>Yes, the WoD is different, but it's not *that different*. The
>differences stem from how the supernatural affects the world, and since
>the changes aren't that great, clearly the supernatural doesn't have a
>huge impact on the world.
The changes are often far-reaching, but not in the ways that textbooks
would portray. That is, on a particular day in 1066, William the
Conquerer rode into battle near Hastings whether or not he had Ventrue
backing him. The changes deal with how people look at the world and how
they live - in, for instance, the right and proper fear more people in
the WoD feel for the police, who operate in mainstream white suburbs in
the WoD more like the way they do in recent immigrant communities in the
real world. There's more fear and a lot more sorrow, and reduced
expectations of prospering in some ways. The halls of power are closed
to more people. People draw in. They probably travel less, unless
they're rootless, and more folks are.
That's (for me) the real impact monsters have on the world: they kill
the spirit slowly. They build walls where there should be openness, and
they undermine walls where barriers of privacy and safety are
appropriate. They advance the undeserving and foil the plans of the
good, because of complex agendas that no mortal ever sees. That is, it's
a world in which some emotional states - depression, doubt, fear,
paranoia - are much more valid than in reality.
Marizhavashti Kali
David Johnston wrote:
>
> I find it quite unbelievable that there could be beings with that that degree of
> power and have them play no significant role in history. It's like claiming that rich
Actually, on further thought - they *have* played significant roles in
history - just in vampiric or mage history (for example), not human
history. But what makes history in the shadow societies only serves to
make a few ripples in the rest of the world.
Marizhavashti Kali
Bruce Baugh wrote:
>
> In some regards I think the WoD actually is divergent from our reality.
> For Hunter: The Reckoning, I wiped out the Bauhaus movement prematurely,
> and Geoff Grabowski said the US has been in pretty continuous depression
> for several decades (thus giving game-level reality to some widely held
> myths among gamers). By and large, though, I prefer to explain history
> through ahistorical means.
It has to be divergent in some ways. However, a great many historical
events happened pretty much as they happened in the real world, which
means something significant.
The point of the sidebar you quoted is "Try to be sensible about
mingling history and the supernatural," to be sure. Not "The
supernatural never touched it."
Bruce Baugh
>I do too. But the question assumed that one supernatural faction or
>another would be happy/upset/involved with the FR.
I generally subvert the question to my own ends in cases like that.
>I do too, but I also think liberty is /frightening/ and /dangerous/, and
>the fact that there's no Mage faction which cares for it in even an
>offhanded way makes the whole 'political philosophy' end of it truncated
>and bleeding.
The Cult of Ecstasy comes immediately to mind as a counter-example.
Marizhavashti Kali
David Johnston wrote:
>
> who can whip up a weather system to order. There are supernaturals with the ability to
> turn crowds of people inside out, supernaturals with intelligence and capacity for
> scheming that humans can only dream of, supernaturals with the wealth to buy a king or
> the power to control one.
And all of them are generally focused on dealing within their own
groups, not mucking about with human history.
Marizhavashti Kali
David Johnston wrote:
>
> So nothing important then. The most powerful mages only make a
> difference to a few dozen members of their clique and leave the world
> unchanged.
Whatever. Doesn't matter. No supernaturals ever did anything to affect
humanity. EVER. The impergium never happened, and neither did the
Masquerade.
Argument by extremes simply leads to absurd results. Can you expand your
viewpoint to a spectrum, not a binary?
Mike Shannon
they have a limited influence on what happens why are Hunter's needed?
--
Mike
Marizhavashti Kali <xe...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:385424AE...@teleport.com...
>
>
> Mike Shannon wrote:
> >
> > Right. I guess it is just hard to me to understand how with real magic
so
> > many things are the same. Couldn't Hitler have used Hedge Magic? I am
not
> > saying supernaturals would be controlling things, but there are a good
many
> > 'magical powers' normal humans could get.
>
> The thing is that supernatural powers are *rare*.
>
> Maybe one in 2,000,000 people is a mage (on Earth), so you have 3,000
> mages.
>
> One in 100,000 is a vampire, so you have 60,000 vampires.
>
> Put the werewolves in the middle - say one in a million, for a total of
> 6,000, with another 2,000 bete (that's a very generous guess).
>
> Wraiths don't really count and Changelings are far too self-absorbed.
> That leaves approximately 100 mummies or so.
>
> WoD: Sordcerer makes it clear that "hedge mages" are much less common
> than awakened, so say about 500-1000.
>
> Ghouls - given the numbers, say two per vampire (many have more, many
> have none), or 120,000. But they serve the vampires' interests.
>
> I don't see why, given those numbers, anyone really *needs* to have
> large changes to history because of supernatural stuff.
>
> Yes, the WoD is different, but it's not *that different*. The
> differences stem from how the supernatural affects the world, and since
> the changes aren't that great, clearly the supernatural doesn't have a
> huge impact on the world.
>
Mike Shannon
servants up to stuff like that. I think one of the weaknesses of Garou many
of them don't know how to make use of Human society. Most of them didn't go
the college or a trade school or the military. Their first changed happened
at around 10 to 16 and it isn't like even when they were living around
humans they fit in very well.
--
Mike
Bruce Baugh <bruce...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:831c7n$1vc...@enews.newsguy.com...
> In article <385424AE...@teleport.com>, Marizhavashti Kali
<xe...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes, the WoD is different, but it's not *that different*. The
> >differences stem from how the supernatural affects the world, and since
> >the changes aren't that great, clearly the supernatural doesn't have a
> >huge impact on the world.
>
> The changes are often far-reaching, but not in the ways that textbooks
> would portray. That is, on a particular day in 1066, William the
> Conquerer rode into battle near Hastings whether or not he had Ventrue
> backing him. The changes deal with how people look at the world and how
> they live - in, for instance, the right and proper fear more people in
> the WoD feel for the police, who operate in mainstream white suburbs in
> the WoD more like the way they do in recent immigrant communities in the
> real world. There's more fear and a lot more sorrow, and reduced
> expectations of prospering in some ways. The halls of power are closed
> to more people. People draw in. They probably travel less, unless
> they're rootless, and more folks are.
>
> That's (for me) the real impact monsters have on the world: they kill
> the spirit slowly. They build walls where there should be openness, and
> they undermine walls where barriers of privacy and safety are
> appropriate. They advance the undeserving and foil the plans of the
> good, because of complex agendas that no mortal ever sees. That is, it's
> a world in which some emotional states - depression, doubt, fear,
> paranoia - are much more valid than in reality.
>
>
Marizhavashti Kali
David Johnston wrote:
>
> Yes I can, but I was starting to wonder if you could.
> You see there are two meanings of "were behind".
So you deliberately set out with a different definition than that
implied in my post? Clever. Adversarial and not really respectable, but
clever.
> The way you were talking, it sounded like you were rejecting
> both meanings and actually saying that supernaturals never made
> difference to anything and made no impact on history at any point.
Then you weren't reading carefully.
Mike Shannon
isn't fun to talk about it). WW wants WoD to be like the real world. If they
wanted WoD to be vastly different than the real world it would be and people
would argue why isn't more like RL :)
--
Mike
Angela Christine <aca.Rem...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:3854662d...@news.telus.net...
> Rumor has it that, bruce...@sff.net (Bruce Baugh) wrote:
> >Hmm? As Deirdre pointed out, the NWO weren't around in the 1780s, and I
> >subscribe prominently to the theory that supernaturals don't make much
> >happen. To quote from, as it happens, Deirdre herself in the Vampire
> >Revised Storyteller's Handbook:
> >>"Historical events, by definition, happened in the real world - this
> >means (one would hope) that they did not need supernatural backing to
> >happen. This does not mean that supernatural involvement is absence -
> >opportunities take advantage of events just as often in the World of
> >Darkness as in the real world."
>
> I think the supers tend to cancel eachother out. If there were ONE
> unified group of supernaturals, even if they were wildly outnumbered by
> normal folk, they could control the world. But any "big" event is
> likely to attract the notice of half a dozen supernatural factions all
> working at cross purposes. In the end, things usually work out in the
> same way they would have if there had been no supernatural interference.
>
> After it is over, super X claims that he was behind it all along, and he
> may even believe it, but no matter how it turned out, _someone_ would
> have claimed the credit.
>
> Angela Christine
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aca(at)telus.net~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> In the time it has taken you to read this,
> your personal computer has become obsolete.
Marizhavashti Kali
Mike Shannon wrote:
>
> Ok. I don't disagree with what you said, but then if they are so rare, if
> they have a limited influence on what happens why are Hunter's needed?
Why are you asking me?
Marizhavashti Kali
Mike Shannon wrote:
>
> I don't see a lot of Garou doing that, but I could see the Wyrm and its
> servants up to stuff like that. I think one of the weaknesses of Garou many
You mean no garou ever offered hardship, violence or worse to humans?
Mike, I get a strong feeling that you think Garou are the *good guys*.
Marizhavashti Kali
David Johnston wrote:
>
> the Technocracy was "not behind" the French Revolution while responding.
Or rather, I said they weren't responsible for it. At least, that was my
intent. I'm sure that elements within the Union might find events during
the revolution distasteful, yes.
> Of course no major historical event can ever be ascribed to just a
> single source. Inherently they are all blends of a myriad of different
> elements.
Right. And should you look at my work in the STHandbook, you'll see that
this is discussed in greater detail. :-)
> Revolution, I'd probably have those reports be spawned by something a
> trifle less mundane than grain-fungus.
Go for it.
One part of my discussion indicates that if the link works, then use it.
Not that you need my permission, I'm just noting that what's there does
not disagree with your preference.
Bruce Baugh
>And, just as a matter of curiosity, would there be any historical events
>that you would be sanguine about having supernaturals be behind them?
Deirdre and I both address this point in the Storyteller's Handbook,
coming soon to stores near you. You can pick it up and get, among other
things, something like 7,000 words concerned specifically with the
question of when, how, and how far supernaturals can influence mortal
affairs, along with lots of other goodness.
Yes, this is a plug. But there you get what we did with extended effort
and consultation and development by Justin, rather than what we write on
the fly on our off time.
Bruce Baugh
>The point of the sidebar you quoted is "Try to be sensible about
>mingling history and the supernatural," to be sure. Not "The
>supernatural never touched it."
Right. The supernatural flavors and shades history, rather than either
having no impact or being its primary engine. WW made the latter mistake
a lot early on, and occasionally lapsed into the former from time to
time. I think the right balance point is more toward the former than the
latter...but that's partly a matter of chronicle design, as you
addressed it. :)
Bruce Baugh
>I imagine every supernatural faction was either happy or upset over it. The
>same goes for every major event in history.
*laugh* Change that to "every supernatural _individual_ who heard about
it", and you win the grand sweepstakes prize.
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > I find it quite unbelievable that there could be beings with that that degree of
> > power and have them play no significant role in history. It's like claiming that rich
> > played a pivotal role. That the decisions of kings and religious leaders have
> > never had any consequences. That there has never been an influential writer who
> > has had an impact on the course of human events.
>
> This assumes that supernaturals are equivalent to generals and kings,
> which they aren't, necessarily.
Some are. Some are far more powerful than a general or a king. After all, it's a
fairly recent development that there was a general or a king with the power to blow up a
city or deliberately cause a devastating plague. There _still_ is no general or king
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > I find it quite unbelievable that there could be beings with that that degree of
> > power and have them play no significant role in history. It's like claiming that rich
>
> history - just in vampiric or mage history (for example), not human
> history. But what makes history in the shadow societies only serves to
> make a few ripples in the rest of the world.
So nothing important then. The most powerful mages only make a
Mark Jones
bruce...@sff.net (Bruce Baugh) spake thusly:
>In article <38562223....@news.pacifier.com>, sin...@pacifier.com (Mark Jones) wrote:
>
>>of history as we know it is changed. Magic may have made it
>>_easier_ (or harder) for certain events to play out the way they
>>did, and may have provided different motivations for certain actions
>>by famous individuals, but they ultimately worked out to create a
>>world almost indistingushable from the one we live in.
>
>This is precisely the approach that I think works best for most cases.
>The supernatural is behind the scenes, shaping context. Tim Powers pulls
>the trick off particularly well.
I was thinking of Tim Powers' approach too. My favorite of his
books, On Stranger Tides, tells the historical tale of Blackbeard
and his final battle. All of it occurs essentially as history
records it, but the supernatural elements combine to provide a
completely different and plausible explanation for those events.
David Johnston
> humanity. EVER. The impergium never happened, and neither did the
> Masquerade.
>
> Argument by extremes simply leads to absurd results. Can you expand your
> viewpoint to a spectrum, not a binary?
Yes I can, but I was starting to wonder if you could.
You see there are two meanings of "were behind".
"originated"
"were supporters of"
Angela Christine
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley wrote:
: >
: >
: > It /isn't/ an entirely bad idea, but it isn't uncorrupted democracy
: > either, is it?
: Uncorrupted democracy is as much an absurdity as uncorrupted communism.
Uh, so is Ether, and the Hermetic mysteries, and any number of
Traditional ideas. What's your point?
: The Tradition/Technocracy fight isn't about political forms in any case.
It could be an interesting facet of the conflict. If the conflict were
interesting.
--
(1) Ignorance of your profession is best concealed by solemnity and silence,
which pass for profound knowledge upon the generality of mankind.
-------"Advice to Officers of the British Army", 1783
Jason D. Corley | ICQ 41199011 | le...@aeonsociety.org
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston wrote:
> >
> > Yes I can, but I was starting to wonder if you could.
> > You see there are two meanings of "were behind".
>
> implied in my post?
There is nothing deliberate about it. If you'll recall, I said that
backing the French Revolution would probably be one of the things
that the Technocracy would wince about in retrospect. Backing, or
should I say "supporting" something is one of those meanings of
"were behind", if not the one you were using when you said that
the Technocracy was "not behind" the French Revolution while responding.
Of course no major historical event can ever be ascribed to just a
single source. Inherently they are all blends of a myriad of different
elements.
One notes however that some modern historians have suggested that an
epidemic of ergot poisoning (causing hallucinations and irrational behaviour)
was an important element in touching off the French Revolution, and
the WoD has so many other possible sources for hallucinations and
irrational behaviour that, were I to run a campaign set in the French
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston (rgo...@telusplanet.net) wrote:
> : Jason Corley wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > It /isn't/ an entirely bad idea, but it isn't uncorrupted democracy
> : > either, is it?
>
> : Uncorrupted democracy is as much an absurdity as uncorrupted communism.
>
> Uh, so is Ether, and the Hermetic mysteries, and any number of
> Traditional ideas. What's your point?
Ether is not an absurdity. It just doesn't happen to exist in the real
universe. The Hermetic mysteries are not absurd. They work.
By contrast, uncorrupted democracy and uncorrupted communism do not work.
>
> : The Tradition/Technocracy fight isn't about political forms in any case.
>
> It could be an interesting facet of the conflict. If the conflict were
> interesting.
Since having the Traditions and the Technocracy at odds isn't interesting
to you, what difference does it make whether it has "an interesting facet"?
Jason Corley
: In article <830t2p$es6$2...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
: >I do too, but I also think liberty is /frightening/ and /dangerous/, and
: >the fact that there's no Mage faction which cares for it in even an
: >offhanded way makes the whole 'political philosophy' end of it truncated
: >and bleeding.
: The Cult of Ecstasy comes immediately to mind as a counter-example.
Not really, no. What they are for is a limited kind of freedom that
doesn't allow Sleepers the power to police the insides of each other's
minds, bedrooms, or cars. The NWO (even my "sane" version of the NWO)
would allow Sleepers to use that power if they wanted to.
Jason Corley
: By contrast, uncorrupted democracy and uncorrupted communism do not work.
Plenty of very smart people over the centuries have disagreed with you on
both counts. I feel no shame about saying that I do too and that it could
be a viable point of view for a Mage faction in a game.
: > It could be an interesting facet of the conflict. If the conflict were
: > interesting.
: Since having the Traditions and the Technocracy at odds isn't interesting
: to you, what difference does it make whether it has "an interesting facet"?
If you believe that about what I want the Tradition/Technocracy conflict
to be, you have not read a single post of mine about either, ever.
Ranma Al'Thor
: >
: > Right. I guess it is just hard to me to understand how with real magic so
: > many things are the same. Couldn't Hitler have used Hedge Magic? I am not
: > saying supernaturals would be controlling things, but there are a good many
: > 'magical powers' normal humans could get.
I take the approach that it tends to cancel out. The problem is that both
sides of a conflict will have some people with supernatural abilities, and
they will tend to cancel each other out. This is why WOD history looks
much like our own with some twists. If people of a wide range of
philosophies all have some access to the supernatural, it tends to simply
cancel out.
--
John Walter Biles : MA-History, ABD, Ph.D Candidate at U. Kansas
ra...@falcon.cc.ukans.edu
rh...@tass.org http://www.tass.org/~rhea/falcon.html
rh...@maison-otaku.net http://www.maison-otaku.net/~rhea/
"Anybody touches my radishes and it's war!"
--KODT #1
Ranma Al'Thor
: Bruce Baugh (bruce...@sff.net) wrote:
: : In article <830t2p$es6$2...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
: : >I do too, but I also think liberty is /frightening/ and /dangerous/, and
: : >the fact that there's no Mage faction which cares for it in even an
: : >offhanded way makes the whole 'political philosophy' end of it truncated
: : >and bleeding.
: : The Cult of Ecstasy comes immediately to mind as a counter-example.
: Not really, no. What they are for is a limited kind of freedom that
: doesn't allow Sleepers the power to police the insides of each other's
: minds, bedrooms, or cars. The NWO (even my "sane" version of the NWO)
: would allow Sleepers to use that power if they wanted to.
Umm, I don't see how allowing Sleepers to invade each other's privacy is
'liberty'.
The Cult of Ecstasy is about as big of defenders of liberty as you're
going to find in the WOD or the real world for that matter.
Bruce Baugh
>: The Cult of Ecstasy comes immediately to mind as a counter-example.
>
>Not really, no. What they are for is a limited kind of freedom that
>doesn't allow Sleepers the power to police the insides of each other's
>minds, bedrooms, or cars. The NWO (even my "sane" version of the NWO)
>would allow Sleepers to use that power if they wanted to.
Um, I'll have to ask where you got that impression about the CoX,
because it doesn't jibe with what I've read about them.
Brandon L. Quina
> Um, I'll have to ask where you got that impression about the CoX,
> because it doesn't jibe with what I've read about them.
"One night in Bangkok and the tough guys crumble...."
Brandon,
David Johnston
>
> David Johnston (rgo...@telusplanet.net) wrote:
>
> : By contrast, uncorrupted democracy and uncorrupted communism do not work.
>
> Plenty of very smart people over the centuries have disagreed with you on
> both counts.
But none of them have ever backed up their theory with an example of working
uncorrupted democracy or communism.
I feel no shame about saying that I do too and that it could
> be a viable point of view for a Mage faction in a game.
>
> : > It could be an interesting facet of the conflict. If the conflict were
> : > interesting.
>
> : Since having the Traditions and the Technocracy at odds isn't interesting
> : to you, what difference does it make whether it has "an interesting facet"?
>
> If you believe that about what I want the Tradition/Technocracy conflict
> to be, you have not read a single post of mine about either, ever.
That is not a conflict. It is a gentlemanly debate.
Della
Ranma Al'Thor a écrit dans le message <82vh4b$bkg$2...@news.cc.ukans.edu>...
>Jason Corley (cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu) wrote:
>
>: It only would be a "terrible mistake" if you assume that the Technocracy
>: was so stupid (the NWO especially) not to realize that modern democracy
>: would be the result of the Enlightenment political thinkers. They all
>: advocated (with a few exceptions) variations on the democratic form.
>: An authoritarian NWO, which we have been told in no uncertain terms, is
>: The Only NWO There Ever Wuz, would of course be against the Revolution
>: even in the terms it was offered in.
>
>There was no NWO in 1789. It was still the Cabal of Pure Thought, with
>its program of One God, One World, One Government. As part of the Order
>of Reason, they would likely have been basically Deists by that point, and
>found Enlightenment thought to be quite compatible with their ideas.
i do not think so, i thinck that it was by this point that the Cabal of Pure
Though began to disagree with the rest of the OoR, 'til they were dissolved
under Victoria. Deism even in the Revolution was way to rational and
anti-clerical to please the Cabal.
>It's important to remember that the French Revolution was brought about by
>people who weren't interested in spreading democracy; they just wanted a
>larger chunk of power for themselves.
Yeah , clearly the Guilde (futur Syndicate) was under those things.
Even the peasants wanted specific
>problems fixed, such as the famine of 1788-89, rather than democracy per
>se.
As all the revolutions, people were agree to say there was something wrong.
And as all the Revolutions, they weren't on how to solve those problemes.
And as all, that's why it ended in tyranny and the Terror.
>And when 'democracy' did come, it turned out to be the bloodiest tyranny
>seen west of Russia to date. It also came with the destruction of the
>Catholic Church (goodbye Celestial Chorus), the Masons (goodbye
>Hermetics), and various other fun groups who got curb stomped.
>And then the French swept across Europe, imposing their rule over
>everyone. Indeed, I'd argue the period from about 1792-1799 was probably
>the high tide of the Cabal of Pure Thought's power, in which it began to
>look like a France under their influence would reshape all of Europe into
>the rational society of advancement by merit under one government that the
>Order of Reason wanted.
>
>But then the government continued to be unstable, and Napoleon partially
>turned back the clock, and then finally, the French were turned back. The
>Catholic Church came back into France, and it seemed like much had been
>undone of the Cabal's work. This failure was probably the final straw
>which led to the Cabal being wiped out as a flop in the 19th century.
Maybe they were some disagreement into the OoR that explained the variation
(Republique, Empire, Restauration, Republique, Empire, Republique) during
the XiX century in france whereas clearly the ideals were those of the OoR
(rationnality, science to save Humanity, civilisation etc)
* Della *
"Une autre Voix, dans mon sommeil, s'écrie :
"La Fleur devrait s'ouvrir au ciel chaque Matin."
Mais je m'éveille et un murmure effacé répond :
"La Fleur qui a fleuri une fois meurt à jamais !"
Khayyam, Rubaiyat
Jason Corley
: In article <83216g$uju$5...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
: >: The Cult of Ecstasy comes immediately to mind as a counter-example.
: >
: >Not really, no. What they are for is a limited kind of freedom that
: >doesn't allow Sleepers the power to police the insides of each other's
: >minds, bedrooms, or cars. The NWO (even my "sane" version of the NWO)
: >would allow Sleepers to use that power if they wanted to.
: Um, I'll have to ask where you got that impression about the CoX,
: because it doesn't jibe with what I've read about them.
Main Mage 2ed. book?
Player's Guide?
Admittedly limited background knowledge of dionysian (capital and small-d)
cults?
If you mean, 'did I read the Tradbook', the answer is 'gawd, are you
crazy, hell no.'
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley (cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu) wrote:
: : Not really, no. What they are for is a limited kind of freedom that
: : doesn't allow Sleepers the power to police the insides of each other's
: : minds, bedrooms, or cars. The NWO (even my "sane" version of the NWO)
: : would allow Sleepers to use that power if they wanted to.
: Umm, I don't see how allowing Sleepers to invade each other's privacy is
: 'liberty'.
It's liberty /from mages/ that counts, in the Mage conflict. I should have
been explicit about that.
Jason Corley
: Jason Corley wrote:
: >
: > David Johnston (rgo...@telusplanet.net) wrote:
: >
: > : By contrast, uncorrupted democracy and uncorrupted communism do not work.
: >
: > Plenty of very smart people over the centuries have disagreed with you on
: > both counts.
: But none of them have ever backed up their theory with an example of working
: uncorrupted democracy or communism.
Nor would any reasonable person expect them to. Thanks for ignoring the
other main point, Dave. I can see your grasp of etiquette remains as
stellar as ever.
: > : Since having the Traditions and the Technocracy at odds isn't interesting
: > : to you, what difference does it make whether it has "an interesting facet"?
: >
: > If you believe that about what I want the Tradition/Technocracy conflict
: > to be, you have not read a single post of mine about either, ever.
: That is not a conflict. It is a gentlemanly debate.
You still haven't read anything about it. Just forget it. When you feel
like reading what I've posted, you can go to deja.com and look it up
again.
Eric Christian Berg
On 12 Dec 1999, Ranma Al'Thor wrote:
> And when 'democracy' did come, it turned out to be the bloodiest tyranny
> seen west of Russia to date. It also came with the destruction of the
> Catholic Church (goodbye Celestial Chorus), the Masons (goodbye
> Hermetics), and various other fun groups who got curb stomped.
The Masons were part of the Order of Reason, actually, but had been
betrayed a century earlier by the Cabal of Pure Thought and the High
Guild. Given this, the Revolution could be seen as a vehicle which the
Cabal used to 'clean house' and destroy the last vestiges of groups which
had split off from its agenda since its inception.
> But then the government continued to be unstable, and Napoleon partially
> turned back the clock, and then finally, the French were turned back. The
> Catholic Church came back into France, and it seemed like much had been
> undone of the Cabal's work. This failure was probably the final straw
> which led to the Cabal being wiped out as a flop in the 19th century.
One can easily imagine the focus being moved from France to Britain after
this point, with the latter being the success that the Order needed to
move into the second stage of their plan.
--
Eric Christian Berg
Asst System Administrator, Comptek Amherst Systems
(716) 631-0088 ext. 199
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/S d- s+:+ a- C++(+++)$ ULIOS++++$ P+++$ L+++ E--- W++ N+ o w--- M- V--
PS+ PE++ Y+ t+@ 5+ X- R++ tv+ b++ DI+ D--- G e+*>++++ h r++ y**
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Eric Christian Berg
On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, Bruce Baugh wrote:
> "Historical events, by definition, happened in the real world - this
> means (one would hope) that they did not need supernatural backing to
> happen. This does not mean that supernatural involvement is absence -
> opportunities take advantage of events just as often in the World of
> Darkness as in the real world."
This is also really interesting and fun to play, from a historical game
perspective. One of the absolute best games I was ever involved in was a
Dark Ages games set during the Albigensian Crusade. The campaign spanned
almost fifty years and highlighted how events in the mortal world were
manipulated and used, but not shaped, by supernatural forces. While the
characters and the NPCs struggled to turn the crusade to their own ends,
they could only do so on a (generally) limited basis. The crusade itself
was a force beyond their control and one which they had to be very wary
of, in the end. More often then not, we were all riding the wave of
history rather than precipitating and controlling events.
Eric Christian Berg
On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, Mike Shannon wrote:
> I don't see a lot of Garou doing that, but I could see the Wyrm and its
> servants up to stuff like that. I think one of the weaknesses of Garou many
> of them don't know how to make use of Human society. Most of them didn't go
> the college or a trade school or the military. Their first changed happened
> at around 10 to 16 and it isn't like even when they were living around
> humans they fit in very well.
That's not entirely their fault. They do tend to cause adverse reactions
in humans which they are around. All in all, they just aren't fit to
function in human society, by design. They are big hungry predators whose
purpose in the world is to keep humanity in line. Humans, instinctively,
know this and are unhappy with them around.
Eric Christian Berg
On Sun, 12 Dec 1999, Marizhavashti Kali wrote:
> Mike Shannon wrote:
> > This is a little problem I have with WoD. Magic is real. It can be proven.
> > Yet everything that has gone on in the real world as happened in the WoD
> > with the same outcomes. The same people won the same wars. Throughout
>
> Not the same, but all the major points are very much the same. The
> supernatural does not drive history, it takes advantage of it.
The somewhat superficial differences between the World of Darkness and the
real world reflect the fairly superficial way in which supernatural beings
effect the world. They can't take control of history, they can only subtly
alter it. Even the most powerful beings in the World of Darkness don't
make huge differences. One Methuselah I detailed had a lot of effect on
the city he dwelled in, but it was mostly through high level Presence,
which allowed him to shape the mood of the city, often unconsciously. This
ability is extremely powerful, but also extremely subtle. As another
example, you have archmages, who cannot risk the paradox that hugh
world-spanning use of the spheres would create and, thus, cause massive
effects which are, again, very subtle.
Thus, the differences between the World of Darkness and the real world are
subtle ones. This city may be more somber because of the effect of the
brooding Methuselah in torpor in his haven. This other city might be more
run down and decaying because of the influence of wyrmy spirits in it.
This last city may have more strict and uncorruptable policemen in it
because of the influence of a strong local Technocratic construct. All of
these are notable difference, and important, but aren't the sort of
changes which would sway major historical trends (at least according to
one theory of history).
All in all, I like it. It makes the game more accessible. The more the
World of Darkness becomes different, the more alien it becomes, and you
gain the problem of surrealness that plagues (in my experience) science
fiction games, where the world doesn't seem quite real and, so, it tends
to grow into an exaggeration over time. That is my main problem with the
metaplot, honestly. Dropping nukes in India and so forth pushes that world
further from our own and I don't think that is a good thing.
Eric Christian Berg
There's also another interesting perspective to take. History is full of
bizarre coincidences and inexplicable syncronicity. If you want to find
the influence of the supernatural in history, just assign these odd things
to them. How many wars have been sparked by assassinations where the
motives of the killer were unexplained? Any mystery in history can be
turned into an instance of supernatural tampering. Conspiracy theorists do
it all the time. There is a lot of uncertainty to go around and this is
the best place to work it all in. If you do, the supernatural involvement
becomes an explanation rather than a need to rewrite the actual history to
fit them in. It allows you to keep the familiarity of the modern world
without downplaying the effect of the supernatural on it.
One good example of this was the Albigensian game I mentioned earlier. One
of the interesting plot points was that there was a very powerful vampire
living near the fortress of Montsegur who called himself John (leading to
the real life rumors of the head of St. John being in the region), who
bore a cup which he used to perform rites of transubstantiation (leading
to the real world rumors of the Holy Grail hidden in the south of France).
One of the points of the campaign involved the party sneaking him out of
the fortress just prior to it being sacked by the crusaders (leading to
the real world story of the grail being smuggled out of Montsegur before
the crusaders took it).
So, in this game, the Storyteller didn't change any real world events. The
crusade played out precisely as it did historically. All that he did was
to take rumors, stories, legends, and unexplained events which coincided
with the known history and turned it into the supernatural 'back story'.
All in all, it was very satisfying, even through we couldn't stop the
crusader. :)
Mike Shannon
Hunters 'good guys'? If so why?
I think it is a matter of perspective. Garou are not nice to humans, but the
Wyrm mistreats them a heck of a lot worst. Garou have in there Litany
"Respect for those beneath Ye All are of Gaia." It adds "When all is said
and done, Garou were created to be the world's protectors" You also have "Ye
Shall not eat the flesh of Humans" Grant some tribe only pay lip service to
these laws, but the still exist to be followed. Kitsune have "I forbid you
to exterminate the humans" They chose to end the Impergium.
On the other hand BSD have "Slay those who will not join you" Plus they lack
those two laws the Garou have.
I think we see werewolves from different directions. I see them as basically
creatures created with a good purpose in mind. Who have messed up big time
and can't seem to learn from there own mistakes. I tend to focus more on the
good things about them.
I get the feeling you see them from the perspective of VtM. Evil nasty
monsters out to kill everything. You tend to look more at the bad things
they have done.
Are there Garou who would kill a human rather than look at him? Yes. Are
there Gar who would protect a human? Yes. Overall I don't think Garou care
about humans one way or the other (except for red Talons). If they get in
the way and you have to off a few of them. Well that is to bad, but you did
destroy the pentex plant that have been making thousands of people and
animals sick.
--
Mike
Marizhavashti Kali <xe...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:38548389...@teleport.com...
>
>
> Mike Shannon wrote:
> >
> > I don't see a lot of Garou doing that, but I could see the Wyrm and its
> > servants up to stuff like that. I think one of the weaknesses of Garou
many
>
> You mean no garou ever offered hardship, violence or worse to humans?
>
> Mike, I get a strong feeling that you think Garou are the *good guys*.
>
> --
> Deird'Re M. Brooks | xe...@teleport.com | cam#9309026
> Listowner: Fading Suns, Trinity and Aberrant
> "Oh my god, they killfiled Kenny!"
> http://www.teleport.com/~xenya | http://www.telelists.com
Bruce Baugh
>of, in the end. More often then not, we were all riding the wave of
>history rather than precipitating and controlling events.
I like that kind of thing, myself. Sounds like it worked well for your
game, too.
Bruce Baugh
>There's also another interesting perspective to take. History is full of
>bizarre coincidences and inexplicable syncronicity. If you want to find
>the influence of the supernatural in history, just assign these odd things
>to them.
Charles Fort and Tim Powers are invaluable guides to this sort of thing.
:)
Bruce Baugh
>Are there good guys in the WoD or just not quite as bad as others? Are
>Hunters 'good guys'? If so why?
No group is altogether good. Hunters include some good guys, some
fanatics, and some bad guys. In other news, water remains wet.
Bruce Baugh
>It's liberty /from mages/ that counts, in the Mage conflict. I should have
>been explicit about that.
Funny, when I refer to liberty I refer to individuals' opportunities to
choose their own courses of action and reap the consequences thereof.
Liberty in the classical liberal sense, that is. This may or may not be
compatible with the social and political exclusion of mages, which may
warrant a bunch of other labels.
We had been talking about democracy and the general theme of
self-government, after all.
Marizhavashti Kali
Eric Christian Berg wrote:
>
> This is also really interesting and fun to play, from a historical game
> perspective. One of the absolute best games I was ever involved in was a
> Dark Ages games set during the Albigensian Crusade. The campaign spanned
> almost fifty years and highlighted how events in the mortal world were
This sounds like it would've been much fun to play in. :-)
Marizhavashti Kali
Eric Christian Berg wrote:
>
> to grow into an exaggeration over time. That is my main problem with the
> metaplot, honestly. Dropping nukes in India and so forth pushes that world
> further from our own and I don't think that is a good thing.
I dunno, I already blew up Groom Mountain in my Mage game. What's
another one? :-)
Marizhavashti Kali
Jason Corley wrote:
>
> It's liberty /from mages/ that counts, in the Mage conflict. I should have
> been explicit about that.
So you're just engaging in antinomial praxis again?
Marizhavashti Kali
Eric Christian Berg wrote:
>
> So, in this game, the Storyteller didn't change any real world events. The
> crusade played out precisely as it did historically. All that he did was
> to take rumors, stories, legends, and unexplained events which coincided
> with the known history and turned it into the supernatural 'back story'.
> All in all, it was very satisfying, even through we couldn't stop the
> crusader. :)
This is actually the sort of thing the sidebar Bruce quoted is intended
to encourage - use supernatural influence on history as a tool to make
your game better,
Kish
Jason Corley wrote in message <8338dv$ftc$4...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>...
>It's liberty /from mages/ that counts, in the Mage conflict. I should have
>been explicit about that.
You certainly should have, but then, your posting philosophy has always been
presented as that you can leave out any words you like and expect people to
know what you mean anyway. <shrug>
Kish
ICQ#: 28085879
AIM: Kish K M
Kis...@mindspring.com
Jerome Fouletier
>
> Adam Horton wrote:
>
> > the first time since the fall of the Roman Empire that an entire royal caste
> > could be overthrown. Before this, revolutions, wars, and overthrows had been
> > orchestrated by other royal lines, and thus maintained the concept of rule by
> > divine right (Never forget that Kings were nothing without the support of a
> (delete)
> > The Traditions must have been dancing with joy -- the dreams of the people
> > bursting through the established paradigm like so much chaff! The people
>
> You misspelled "Conventions" there.
>
> (The justifications for why the Conventions and not the Traditions
> would support the French Revolution I'll lead as an exercise for
> the reader. Papers will be due Monday- include bibliography) ;'/
As a funny side note, the name of the governing chamber that was installed after
the King's destitution and execution was "la Convention", taken in its original
meaning of "gathering". It was this Convention that voted the alws on suspects,
which heralded the Terror in 1793-4. It also was the same assembly that ended the
Terror by executing Robespierre and others later the same year (IIRC).
It's just a coincidence, but certainly, there are few such things as
coincidences where mages are concerned, aren't there?
J.
Jerome Fouletier
>
> Mike Shannon wrote:
> >
> > Right. I guess it is just hard to me to understand how with real magic so
> > many things are the same. Couldn't Hitler have used Hedge Magic? I am not
> > saying supernaturals would be controlling things, but there are a good many
> > 'magical powers' normal humans could get.
>
> out and thus never change anything.
I don't think this is even needed to explain the similar history. For the sake
of the common "look and feel" of the games, all supernaturals have some very
pressing reasons to remain in hiding. Those who once tried to use their powers
to lord over humans always ended up on the sharp end of the deal. Hiding is
the norm.
Besides, the various supernatural groups' concerns have nearly nothing to do
with influencing history as a goal. Even Methuselahs steering the history of
whole cities do not do it to order mortals around, but to satisfy their own
means and ends, which is out-manoeuvering their enemies or their sire's.
That's why we're playing the WoD games and not Castle Falkenstein or Shadowrun.
Supernatural groups truly function as separate societies, living side by side
with the mortal societies. They don't *want* to rule the world, even the Union
doesn't want that (well, the Technocracy as I see it, anyhow).
J.
Jerome Fouletier
>
> Bruce Baugh (bruce...@sff.net) wrote:
> : In article <82vh44$scb$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
>
> : >Sigh. Once again the old 'but they CORRUPTED those ideals' argument comes
> : >up. Doesn't anyone but me think that democracy's ideals are flawed enough
> : >to make for an interesting philosophical division /without/ making the
> : >choice only one of who the Duce is this Age?
>
> : Hmm? As Deirdre pointed out, the NWO weren't around in the 1780s, and I
> : subscribe prominently to the theory that supernaturals don't make much
> : happen.
>
> I do too. But the question assumed that one supernatural faction or
> another would be happy/upset/involved with the FR.
Ideed, like with any significant upheval, there were those who were disturbed
in their quiet lives, those who souhgt profit from it, those who took sides
(also the latter part could be very confusing indeed) and those who simply
ran away. I don't think one can subscribe any of those attitudes to a
supernatural group in particular, though, even the Order of Reason, which is,
IMHO, the only one group to take an active interest in politics and human
society for their own sake.
> : As for democracy in the real world, well, from my point of view fascism
> : won the ideological battle. But then I'm a classical liberal, so I know
> : my views are unrepresentative. I think that liberty is still an
> : available choice, just not one often taken.
Out of curiosity, what is it that you call "classical liberalism" ?
(private reply, as I don't think its remotely on topic)
> I do too, but I also think liberty is /frightening/ and /dangerous/, and
> the fact that there's no Mage faction which cares for it in even an
> offhanded way makes the whole 'political philosophy' end of it truncated
> and bleeding.
If you follow the (somewhat non-canonical) idea of a "benevolent technocracy"
then both the NWO, the Syndicate and, in a more alien way, IT-X, have a finger
in the political pie, because political ideas can make or break the kind of
society they want to see. But it's true they think liberty should be curtailed,
most likely more than what you'd be comfortable with.
J.
Jerome Fouletier
>
> On 12 Dec 1999, Ranma Al'Thor wrote:
>
> > And when 'democracy' did come, it turned out to be the bloodiest tyranny
> > seen west of Russia to date. It also came with the destruction of the
> > Catholic Church (goodbye Celestial Chorus), the Masons (goodbye
> > Hermetics), and various other fun groups who got curb stomped.
>
> The Masons were part of the Order of Reason, actually, but had been
> betrayed a century earlier by the Cabal of Pure Thought and the High
> Guild. Given this, the Revolution could be seen as a vehicle which the
> Cabal used to 'clean house' and destroy the last vestiges of groups which
> had split off from its agenda since its inception.
At least in France... Let's not forget that, at the time, in other countries
soon-to-be dragged in war by Napoleon, it was business as usual.
> > But then the government continued to be unstable, and Napoleon partially
> > turned back the clock, and then finally, the French were turned back. The
> > Catholic Church came back into France, and it seemed like much had been
> > undone of the Cabal's work. This failure was probably the final straw
> > which led to the Cabal being wiped out as a flop in the 19th century.
>
> One can easily imagine the focus being moved from France to Britain after
> this point, with the latter being the success that the Order needed to
> move into the second stage of their plan.
Well, maybe not. I mean, if you're setting a world-wide (OK a Europe-wide)
conspiracy, why not keep several experiments running? Observe political
innovation in France and the US, but at the same time promote industrialization
in Britain and see if the old ways still can work in Russia and Austria?
Besides, if you cheer for the "evil meddling Technocracy", then Europe as a whole
was used to attempt crushing the other paradigms in the rest of the world
via the colonial empires.
J.
Kish
Jason Corley wrote in message <834a9c$uq$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>...
> My "sane"
>Technocracy, being dedicated to Sleeper empowerment at the expense of
>mages, would actually give some teeth to this conflict.
No, it would just switch the moral high ground. The Technocracy would be
Good Guys, the Traditions would be Bad Guys.
Mike Shannon
sound to subtle. But I agree with your last part. A lot of the appeal of the
WoD is that it is a lot like the real world. But then WW keeps adding more
and more supernaturals and more and more 'powers' and they have more and
more 'monsters' blow things up or whatnot and the idea that WoD stays the
same get harder to believe. Also do you think when the Apocalypse/whatever
hits the world won't be effected? I mean they just can't keep putting out
end days books forever it gets stale. Sooner or later they will have to deal
with the things they have set into motion. This reminds me a little of those
TV shows where you have a couple that hate each other but end up falling in
love. The producers drag out the premise for a bunch of years until the
rating start to go done, then the couple gets together and the show flops.
--
Mike
Eric Christian Berg <e...@amherst.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.99121...@adming.amherst.com...
> to grow into an exaggeration over time. That is my main problem with the
> metaplot, honestly. Dropping nukes in India and so forth pushes that world
> further from our own and I don't think that is a good thing.
>
Angela Christine
>Ether is not an absurdity. It just doesn't happen to exist in the real
>universe. The Hermetic mysteries are not absurd. They work.
Uncorrupted democracy and communism are not absurd, they just don't
happen to exist in the real universe. :p
Angela Christine
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~aca(at)telus.net~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the time it has taken you to read this,
your personal computer has become obsolete.
Bruce Baugh
>Ideed, like with any significant upheval, there were those who were disturbed
>in their quiet lives, those who souhgt profit from it, those who took sides
>(also the latter part could be very confusing indeed) and those who simply
>ran away.
I really like that phrasing.
>Out of curiosity, what is it that you call "classical liberalism" ?
>(private reply, as I don't think its remotely on topic)
It's not altogether off-topic, actually. I mean the political philosophy
of Locke, Jefferson, and their heirs - roughly, the notion of strong
individual rights and a state charter imposing strict limits on public
power, together what the political theories call a theory of negative
rights. I won't get into advocating why I like it - that _would_ be
off-topic. But I don't think the definition is.
Jason Corley
: In article <8338dv$ftc$4...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
: >It's liberty /from mages/ that counts, in the Mage conflict. I should have
: >been explicit about that.
: Funny, when I refer to liberty I refer to individuals' opportunities to
: choose their own courses of action and reap the consequences thereof.
: Liberty in the classical liberal sense, that is. This may or may not be
: compatible with the social and political exclusion of mages, which may
: warrant a bunch of other labels.
: We had been talking about democracy and the general theme of
: self-government, after all.
Right. My point is that the picture drawn in Sorcerer's Crusade of
Traditional and Order-of-Reason involvement in mortal politics of the era
and the picture drawn in Mage 2ed. of NWO involvement in mortal politics
in the present day are essentially the same: dominance of the form of
government and possibly even some control of the content (depending on
your view, in both cases). There is just plain no mage group that has
apparently had any other idea about the question in the intervening years,
despite acres of writing about it in the Sleeper population. My "sane"
Technocracy, being dedicated to Sleeper empowerment at the expense of
mages, would actually give some teeth to this conflict.
--
David Johnston
Corley) wrote:
>Bruce Baugh (bruce...@sff.net) wrote:
>: In article <8338dv$ftc$4...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>, cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason Corley) wrote:
>
>: >It's liberty /from mages/ that counts, in the Mage conflict. I should have
>: >been explicit about that.
>
>: Funny, when I refer to liberty I refer to individuals' opportunities to
>: choose their own courses of action and reap the consequences thereof.
>: Liberty in the classical liberal sense, that is. This may or may not be
>: compatible with the social and political exclusion of mages, which may
>: warrant a bunch of other labels.
>
>: We had been talking about democracy and the general theme of
>: self-government, after all.
>
>Right. My point is that the picture drawn in Sorcerer's Crusade of
>Traditional and Order-of-Reason involvement in mortal politics of the era
>and the picture drawn in Mage 2ed. of NWO involvement in mortal politics
>in the present day are essentially the same: dominance of the form of
>government and possibly even some control of the content (depending on
>your view, in both cases). There is just plain no mage group that has
>apparently had any other idea about the question in the intervening years,
Sure there is. The Order of Hermes had the idea of just ignoring the
government and letting it ignore them. They were never interested in
controlling who was in charge because they just weren't all that
interested in Sleeper society in general.
Jason Corley
: On 14 Dec 1999 02:33:16 GMT, cor...@chronic.lpl.arizona.edu (Jason
: Corley) wrote:
: >Right. My point is that the picture drawn in Sorcerer's Crusade of
: >Traditional and Order-of-Reason involvement in mortal politics of the era
: >and the picture drawn in Mage 2ed. of NWO involvement in mortal politics
: >in the present day are essentially the same: dominance of the form of
: >government and possibly even some control of the content (depending on
: >your view, in both cases). There is just plain no mage group that has
: >apparently had any other idea about the question in the intervening years,
: Sure there is. The Order of Hermes had the idea of just ignoring the
: government and letting it ignore them. They were never interested in
: controlling who was in charge because they just weren't all that
: interested in Sleeper society in general.
Mea culpa - and good eyes, David. "Salutory neglect" is certainly a part
of not only OoH (I would say that this is more true of the /modern/ OoH
than the /Renaissance/ OoH, by the way, thereby sustaining my objection,
based on what I know of occult secret societies' actual influence over RL
Renaissance government - not much, but with ambitions. But this is a
slight alteration to Sorcerer's Crusade canon and therefore not really
relevant. End parenthetical, dammit!) but of plenty of individual mages,
especially Tradition mages concerned with individual Ascension rather than
global Ascension. However, I didn't really count the faction into the
conflict because it isn't really "their" conflict. The real conflict in my
book, looking at a political facet, is between those who want to empower
Sleepers and those who want to enlighten Sleepers.
Robin Lim
Bruce Baugh <bruce...@sff.net> wrote in message
news:831bse$1vc...@enews.newsguy.com...
> In article <38562223....@news.pacifier.com>, sin...@pacifier.com
(Mark Jones) wrote:
>
> In some regards I think the WoD actually is divergent from our reality.
> For Hunter: The Reckoning, I wiped out the Bauhaus movement prematurely,
Why? Just so there could be more Gothic revival buildings? :)
But if you wipe out the Bauhaus movement prematurely, that may mean it
doesn't become important enough for a band to name themselves after it and
then... well... that REALLY screws up the game world!
Rob
Bruce Baugh
>> In some regards I think the WoD actually is divergent from our reality.
>> For Hunter: The Reckoning, I wiped out the Bauhaus movement prematurely,
>Why? Just so there could be more Gothic revival buildings? :)
You got it.
>But if you wipe out the Bauhaus movement prematurely, that may mean it
>doesn't become important enough for a band to name themselves after it and
>then... well... that REALLY screws up the game world!
They recorded under another name, like Rococo or Arts & Crafts Movement.
Really.