Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Why I revile Mage [REPOST]

2 views

Skip to first unread message

JenJingu

unread,

Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96

I'm reposting this to get it into a thread of it's own and to avoid
haaving to type it aagain. And again. And again.

1. Mages.

What is a mage?

A mage is someone who's able to do magic. He's got a talent. Like a
scientist who knows all sorts of strange theories, or the mathematician
who's well versed in his field, a mage has a field too. That's it. A
mage is a bloke who knows how to do magic.
But he's human too. Therefore, is it not unreasonable to assume that
mages are people that are as diverse as normal folks. That they'll have
personalities and opinions and all the rest of it? Naturally.
But, to take the example, how many mathematicians are there that you
know who will get into a four-sided war over whether Euclidean space is
a whole pile of whizz or not? Not many. Why? Because they're not stupid.
They'll argue. They'll prove their points and they'll discover new
things. But they won't actively kill each other in the streets.
So why do mages, who's magic opens them up a lot of interesting things
that need study and debate and discovery, suddenly band together in
large groups for purposes of saving the world? Why do the Technocracy
suddenly get it into their bright little heads that collectively they
must save mankind? Don't they have the ability to think? Their magic is
creative which implies they must all have some sort of spontaneous
streak in them. They may study their magic for dozens of reasons ranging
from enlightenment to raw power to excitement and thrills. But suddenly
in the 14th century out of nowhere they all get together behind some
grand unity of vision.
Without questions.

This strikes me as very, very , VERY unrealistic. Religion does this,
but even within religions there are divisions, interpretations and so
on. But religions get their support from the masses who don't really
want to have to think about these things. But mages? mages are actively
involved people. They're dynamic. They question, they re-evaluate, they
have ideas. Unity of purpose and sponataneity in vast quantities are not
two things that fit together.

Even more illogical is the stance of the Nephandi. They are smart too.
And their magic is creative as well. But they all want to destroy things
and corrupt things. Why? What's to be gained? Why do they not have many
different motivations? Why do they behave like bad guys plain and
simple? Is it because they are dense an uncreative? But to be a mage,
you need to be spontaneous. You need creativity.

Traditions are understandable in that they basically can be viewed as
large study groups. But even they all quest for Ascension with a unity
of purpose which again I find to be illogical. As an example of
difference of real world magicians, look at Gaiman's Books of Magic.
They're magicians, just like Mages and they can do magic. yes, there are
those with some nasty ideals in mind, yes there are those who champion
causes, but the majority are just people with personalities and
interests. Like John Constantine. There's little different in the
premise of both works - i.e. that there all basically mages. But Mage
flies off on this weird religious zealotry that really badly doesn't
fit.

And the motivation for all this : Ascension.

2. Ascension.

Why Ascension as a goal for all mages worldwide does not work.

What is Ascension? Good question since not even the game provides an
answer. It's a goal that all mages worldwide inherently aspire to in one
way or another. A means of enlightenment perhaps. Who knows.
But consider the follwing fact : Nobody knows of anyone that's ever
even vaguely made it to Ascension. Even the Oracles in their high and
mighty powers haven't made it. So where does the reasoning for it's very
existence in the first places. Mages, being the aforementioned thinking
creative individuals that all have ideas and theories and a multitude of
different viewpoints (in a manner not too dissimilar to scientists or
philosophers) in my view would not be the sort of people therefore that
accept Ascension wholeheartedly.
Look at Ars Magica. How many Hermetic magi seek to become enlightened
to a better state? very few. And those that do are more often out and
about trying to figure out the ins and outs of these things for
themselves.By contrast, lots of magi are just in the business of
figuring out how magic ticks, or politics or whatever. They are people
with the amazing gift of intelligence.
So, with that in mind, why are all mages, people with the gift of
intelligence and wit, blindly following their paths to Ascension. It is
my belief that logically speaking there would be few mages really
interested in enlightenment. Far fewer than the number of mages that
just study magic for magic's sake, or for power's sake, or just as a
handy tool.
But no, Mages, particularly the Technocracy, follow this precept of
Ascension like some mystic hare on a greyhound track, when they don't
even have the foggiest clue what the hell it is they are after. That's
like fighting tooth and nail for your political ideals when you haven't
a breeze what those ideas actually are. It's illogical. Things just
don't work that way.

3. Reality.

The way that the Technocracy and the Nephandi and the Marauders and
the Traditions are trying to fight this war over so much hot air is by
the manipulation of belief. Change the consensual belief of how things
work and then things will change. BY this reasoning, before the general
acceptance that the world was round happened, the world WAS flat. By the
same token, before there was a Bible, there was no Heaven and Hell, but
aftewards there must be because the majority of Christians believe in
it.
New ideas change the belief structure. But if the world was always
made out of belief at some point or other, then where in Jehannum do any
ideas ever come from? If all the souls/ Avavtars or whatever believed
only in the timeless void before the Umbra happened then there must only
have been timeless void. So where did the impetus for creation come from
and how could one little avatar who somehow comes up with the idea to
start with convince all of the others when what he says is plainly not
so.
It shouts about it's ideas for planets and matter and so on, but the
other Avatars can see this is not true. The consensual belief dictates
it. Thus by this principle, how would anything ever change?
The only way that you can get new ideas to happen is if people don't
actually all believe the same things tobegin with. IN otherwords, if
there is no such thing as a consensual belief in the first place. I
would contend that consensual belief is a convenient myth. BUt people
view the world in different ways. My view of the world is ever so
slightly different from yours, or from Bill Clinton's, or from a
sceintists or from a mage's.
But if everybody doesn't believe the same thing then the world is a
seriosuly strange place and the Technocracy ambitions are blown clean
out of the water. There is a paradox of logic here. Consensual belief
implies everything that everyone sees is the same. But by that token,
nothing would change. There would be no Technomacer who comes up with
the idea that the world needs to change. But go the other rout and
assume that consensual belief is a convenient myth (disproven by such
wondrous things as different religious attitudes and beliefs), then the
presumption that reality is based on belief itself falls apart because it
would be too chaotic. Either way, the Technocratic, Tradition, Nephandic
and Maraudery stance is completely an utterly illogical again.
It simply doesn't follow. The ideas, by their very nature, contradict
each other.

4. Magic.

Munchkin opportunism on the woeful magic system aside, and assuming
that I didn't just point out the plain illogic of the previous three
stances, here is why the attemot to replace magic with science and deny
it's existence doesn't work.

Take a look at the powers that a Mage can throw around. Even at the
lower levels they can be godlike in application. They are really really
badly against what reality says and does according to the consensual
belief. But I would say that the contention that reality doesn't
beelieve in magic and therefore there is Paradox isn't a good enough
explanation for why people don't notice this amount of sheer power being
thrown around here.

There are thousands of mages out there and, in the use of vulgar magic
they can do some pretty spectacular things. magic is a horribly powerful
weapon. yet the Technocracy have managed for five hundred years to keep
a lid on a power that can level nations, turn the sky pink if it chooses
too and generally cause the loudest ruckus you ever heard.

Oh ho, but you say that Paradox will interfere and stop him. But
Paradox doesn't always work. It doesn't always win. It can be a bitch,
but it is survivable. Even if you have a one-in-ten instance of Paradox
leaving the mage alive and where he is after it strikes, that still
leaves thousands of occurences of huge unexplained things.
If you think about it, the Technocracy attempt to forge a scientific
reality would like wise have met with huge Paradox and never gotten off
the ground. Coppernicus effectievly reorders the solar system and yet
for some reason (despite this huge magnitude of magic flying in the face
of commonly held belief) he is fine and dandy. BUt according to the way
Paradox works, he and all his mage buddies trying to change things
should have been fried in the dirt long ago.
But they did survive, oddly enough. So, even iff you then account
that maybe Paradox was weaker back then than it is now (and why not)
your one in ten mage who pulls of his amazing feat of vulgar magic
successfully in front of crowds of people will change beliefs in an
instant. Imagine if a hundred Marauders struck at once in all the major
cities on the planet. The Technocracy would be ruins because some of
them would survive the attempt and change the beliefs of millions in an
instant.
But belief doesn't change that easily, I hear you cry. Really ? How
many people who are victims of UFO abductions believe what has happened?
How many people that have had a religious experience change their view
points? How many people who have seen that they cannot explain by any
means (which is when Paradox comes into play) have their lives changed
as a result? Loads of them. Lots and lots and lots of them. Something
like six out of every ten people believe in extraterrestrial life these days,
from accounts that they have heard, from books they have read, even from
watching the X-Files on a reasonably regular basis.
Belief can be so quicksilveringly changed, and yet for some reason
unexplained, it is not. By these standards, the Technocracy's attempt to
clamp down on changing belief is an illiogical stance again. One event
like that described above can undo the work of a lifetime's odds. Agains
t that sort of ratio, the Technocracy really don't have a hope in hell.
They'd be dead in the dirt long ago, with the dodos.

5. Origins and compatability.

Who runs the cities? Is it the Kindred or is the Technocracy?
I see the origins of the Technocracy in the world of darkness as
illogical, and their stance as illogical for a fifth killer reason. The
Kindred.
The Kindred are old. They are powerful. They have world-spanning
intrigues and so on of their own that are far older than those of the
Technocracy. Or the Nephandi. vampire Methuselahs are masters of tactics
in the field of manipylation beyond anything that most of us could
comprehend.
And yet, for some reason, and to the Kindred's continuous ignorance to
this day, the Technocracy have managed to fundamentally change things
and take over and keep the Camarilla in the dark. The Kindred, some of
whom have huge Auspex, or networks of contacts everywhere, have managed
somehow not to notice this happy little event.
Remember that at the time of the founding of the Camarilla, the
Kindred went into overdrive to hide their existence from the rest of the
world. They became ultra perceptive organised controllers. Yet how, I
ask you, how could they havee managed to do all of this and still not
manage to see the mages at their tricks.
Even if the Elders could not see what was going on, the methuselahs
surely could. And what about the Antediluvians? Auspex 10 is a pretty
useful thing you know. Now, if we follow the reasonable, logical course,
we see that the efforts of the Technocracy would be a short-lived squeak
when the Kindred found out. Or, at the very least, the Technocracy would
find themselves at war on four fronts, with the Camarilla as a very
strong enemy indeed. Neonates and Ancillae may not poe much of an
individual problem for mages, but Elders, Princees, Primogen, their
contact networks, the Tremere, the Methuselahs and so on right the way
up the ladder? They are serious problems that most mages cannot handle.
The sheer disruption that this would cause to the Technocracies
efforts would be huge. They could never get it off the ground in any
serious capacity. Eveen the damn garou would take a piece of ass when
they figured out what the Techs were up to.

6. Isn't this the World of _Darkness_

The World of darkness is supposed to be sinister. A darker version of
the world we live in with much of the trappings intact. With Vampire,
Wraith, Werewolf and Changeling even this is evident to a large degree.
But Mage is not a dark game. mage is about this other place called the
World of Spam. Why? because of the power levels involved.

As previously stated. mages can do anything and with some fear of
reprisal. But where is a mage's personal problems? Where is his
questioning of values and impending depression and so on that makes him
more and more depressed as well as possibly enlightened. In the other
four games, there is an element of questioning. There is the wonderful
concept of doubt. It is the facility to doubt that, in my opinion, makes
a roleplaying game's character section. The World of Darkness is all
about questions and facing up to nasty truths. Or at least it was.
Because you see, mages have no questions. They have no sense of doubt,
of personal horror at what they do or what the world does to their
religion or what the dark side of their personality can do or at the
loss of their very ability to imagine. There is no third dimension to the
character of the game (not individual characters, but character of the
game itself)
What replaces this personal difficulty aspect is the philosophy of
Ascension. But Ascension doesn't work. It's a great gaping hole in fact.
The only realistic thing that is used in this case is, finally, Spheres
and power and foci and all the rest of it. These things are far too
powerful to be meaningful to a character except as a means of happy
SFX. They are too esoteric in many places to have any real applications.
Who cares what the difference between weak and strong nuclear forces
are? Who really gives a toss about creating complex life forms when
simple viruses will do the job much better. They are just plain and
simple too strong as powers for player characters. The level fives of
each Sphere are enormous, godlike powers that for some reason are not
used by the mages to slug it out.
It's like nuclear warfare. Everybody has really big guns but nobody
uses them because they knoiw it's pointless. The difference here is that
the Technocracy use their weapons. Yet by any means of realistic
retaliation, such acts provoke reactions and before you know what's
going on, Armageddon has struck while you're changing your socks. With
Magic of the power level that the mages use, any war between them is not
going to be long and drawn out. It's going to be very very decisive very
very quickly. And it's effects would be long lasting in the extreme.
There's little need for subtlety when you have the power of a God. So
the mages are being illogically subtle.

7. I can't stand the artwork :)

8. Ideas for Traditions.

The ideas for the game are by and large obvious rip-offs of previous
ideas. The Technocracies individual parts are somewhat creative, but the
rest of them can be picked and chosen from entertainment of the last few
years and finger pointed to say .. hey, I know that !!

Akashic Brotherhood- Mystic Monks as seen in all the best martial arts
movies and the really tripey Golden Child flick.

Euthanatos - Thousands of bad voodoo movies

Dreamspeakers- Werewolf The Apocalpyse

Order of Hermes - Guess.

Virtual Adepts - Lawnmower Man

Sons of Ether - Quatermass/Boris Karloff/BladeRunner take your pick.

Cult of Ecstasy - The Toreador. Time really does not fit these guys as
a Sphere.

Verbena - Archetypal druids and witches.

Celestial Chorus - The Catholic Church.

yes, you can do this with any of the games to greater or lesser
degree. Vampire's clans have identities derived from all sorts of
sources. But the difference is that the various Clans are well derived
and re-invented. But the Traditions are merely rehashed and don't fit
well together.
Oh, and conveniently, there's nine of them as opposed to Seven, or
Thirteen. or some other mystical number.

Well, that's the gauntlet laid down. Yet again. It'll be interesting
to see who picks it up this time.

--
--JenJingu-(was once Mithrandir)-(RL: Tadhg Kelly)-jod...@alf2.tcd.ie--

If Mailing me, or replying me, make sure that at least one copy is going
to my full address. Our mailer is screwed up like that. Ciao :-)

nuc...@garlic.com

unread,

Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96

JenJingu wrote:
>
> 1. Mages.
>
> What is a mage?
>
> A mage is someone who's able to do magic. He's got a talent. Like a
> scientist who knows all sorts of strange theories, or the mathematician
> who's well versed in his field, a mage has a field too. That's it. A
> mage is a bloke who knows how to do magic.

> BUt he's human too. Therefore, is it not unreasonable to assume that

> mages are people that are as diverse as normal folks. That they'll have
> personalities and opinions and all the rest of it? Naturally.

> BUt, to take the example, how many mathematicians are there that you

> know who will get into a four-sided war over whether Euclidean space is
> a whole pile of whizz or not? Not many. Why? Because they're not stupid.
> They'll argue. They'll prove their points and they'll discover new

> things. BUt they won't actively kill each other in the streets.

> must save mankind? They have the ability to think? Their magic is

> creative which implies they must all have some sort of spontaneous
> streak in them. They may study their magic for dozens of reasons ranging
> from enlightenment to raw power to excitement and thrills. But suddenly
> in the 14th century out of nowhere they all get together behind some
> grand unity of vision.
> Without questions.

Oh man, I said I wasn't going to do it again. But sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do
= )

<flame>

You're making several assumptions to prove your point here. 1) You're assuming that in the
WoD magick is just a talent, like being able to tie your shoelaces or understand science.
In fact, in the WoD human (non-static) magick is worked through the auspices of one's
Avatar. You know this. You mention it elsewhere in your posts. Why do you assert
otherwise here? 2) You're assuming that magick is just like mathematics, and mages are
just like mathematicians. Sorry, I have to disagree with your analogy here. Mathematics
might be the paradigm through which a mage works his Art (exampli gratia some members of
the Order of Hermes) but there are crucial differences which makes me think perhaps a
better analogy might be religion or politics. Mathematicians might not kill each other
over Euclidean geometry, but people certainly do kill each other over politics, religion,
etc. 3) The history of the different orders didn't, as I recall, happen "overnight" *or*
"without any questions". Some groups joined, some left. Others have only recently
defected from one side to the other. Saying everyone "just got together behind some grand
unity of vision" is akin to saying the French Revolution "just happened".
>
> THis strikes me as very, very , VERY unrealistic. REligion does this,

> but even within religions there are divisions, interpretations and so
> on. But religions get their support from the masses who don't really

> want to have to think about these things. BUt mages? mages are actively

> involved people. They're dynamic. They question, they re-evaluate, they

> have ideas. Unity of purpose and sponataniety in vast quantities are not

> two things that fit together.

Just because people agree on certain points and work together towards a common end does not
mean they are soulless, identical automatons. People in general are active and dynamic,
but we still find ways to work together. Anyway, not all mages are brilliant, innovative
thinkers, and not all of them are born leaders. Have you ever seen engineers working
together on a project? They have a unity of purpose, and they still manage to show large
amounts of spontaneous individuality.
>
> Even more illogical is the stance of the Nephandi. they are smart too.

> And their magic is creative as well. But they all want to destroy things
> and corrupt things. Why? What's to be gained? Why do they not have many
> different motivations? Why do they behave like bad guys plain and
> simple? Is it because they are dense an uncreative? But to be a mage,
> you need to be spontaneous. You need creativity.
>

Every Nephandus has a different goal, and a different means of reaching that goal. You're
focussing exclusively on what they have in common. Think: each Umbrood (or demon, or
whatever) has a different sphere of influence, and a different itinerary. If you ask a
Nephandus, he (or she) will of course insist he's not evil, but that he has a grand and
glorious vision for making the world better. It's just that his vision is radically
different from most people's... I think you're drastically oversimplifying the motivations
and personalities of every party in Mage. One Nephandus might want to corrupt children,
another might get his jollies by causing friends to fight. They're different entities,
just as mages are different people.
>
<snip>

> 2. Ascension.
>
> Why Ascension as a goal for all mages worldwide does not work.

<snip>
>That's like fighting tooth and naiul for your political ideals when you haven't

> a breeze what those ideas actually are. It's illogical. Things just
> don't work that way.

What this argument comes right down to is, simply, you don't like the concept of Ascension.
You don't think people understand it, and it shouldn't be part of the game. You've already
made up your mind about this, and I don't see any point in trying to convince you
otherwise. If you don't like it, ok. We'll agree to disagree.

> acceptance that the world was round happened, the world WAS flat. BY the

> same token, before there was a Bible, there was no Heaven and Hell, but
> aftewards there must be because the majority of Christians believe in
> it.

Ok. You contradicted yourself here. It's not "so much hot air" if changing the consensual
belief of the Sleepers changes the world at large. In fact, it's one of the most important
things in the world.

>
> New ideas change the belief structure. But if the world was always
> made out of belief at some point or other, then where in Jehannum do any
> ideas ever come from? If all the souls/ Avavtars or whatever believed
> only in the timeless void before the Umbra happened then there must only
> have been timeless void. So where did the impetus for creation come from
> and how could one little avatar who somehow comes up with the idea to
> start with convince all of the others when what he says is plainly not
> so.
>

This is a logical fallacy (damn I wish I remembered my Latin a bit better). Because you
can't reason out the beginning of the universe in the WoD you're asserting the whole thing
can't exist. By the same token, our own universe doesn't exist. If there is an accepted &
canonical origin to the WoD I don't know what it is, but in any case I think this argument
is a distraction from your other points. We don't need to explain the beginning of things
back in the dawn of time to understand what is here right now under our noses.

>
> It shouts about it's ideas for planets and matter and so on, but the
> other Avatars can see this is not true. The consensual belief dictates
> it. Thus by this principle, how would anything ever change?

Welllll if you change the consensual reality, reality itself accomodates the changes.
What's not understood here? And why are you asserting what the Avatars believe? This has
little, if anything, to do with the rest of your argument.

>
> The only way that you can get new ideas to happen is if people don't
> actually all believe the same things tobegin with. IN otherwords, if
> there is no such thing as a consensual belief in the first place. I
> would contend that consensual belief is a convenient myth. BUt people
> view the world in different ways. My view of the world is ever so
> slightly different from yours, or from Bill Clinton's, or from a
> sceintists or from a mage's.
> But if everybody doesn't believe the same thing then the world is a
> seriosuly strange place and the Technocracy ambitions are blown clean
> out of the water. There is a paradox of logic here. Consensual belief
> implies everything that everyone sees is the same. But by that token,
> nothing would change. There would be no Technomacer who comes up with
> the idea that the world needs to change. But go the other rout and
> assume that consensual belief is a convenient myth (disproven by such
> wondrous things as different religious attitudes and beliefs), then the

> preumption that reality is based on belief itself falls apart because it

> would be too chaotic. Either way, the Technocratic, Tradition, Nephandic
> and Maraudery stance is completely an utterly illogical again.
> It simply doesn't follow. The ideas, by their very nature, contradict
> each other.

No, you're missing the point. Take Carl Jung's idea of a collective unconsciousness as a
case in point. He postulated that every human being shared certain primordial archetypes,
certain images of primal forces. Now, just because we share certain beliefs or visions of
the world doesn't in any way suggest that we can't also have individual unconsciousnesses
(which Jung also believed) in addition to our consciousnesses. The differences are, as you
stated, what make change possible. But please don't assume that having certain things in
common means we're all identical, or that "consensual belief implies everything that
everyone sees is the same". It just means we see it *similarly*. No contradiction, no
paradox. No harm, no foul. Next argument...

Wellll, if we didn't accept your earlier arguments in and of themselves, using them to
support a new stance is a bit shaky...

I disagree. One dot in any sphere allows a mage to sense the elements of that sphere.
That's hardly godlike, although it *is* outside the realm of possibilities for a normal
human. Two dots allows minor affects. Two dots of Mind allows some basic empathy, two
dots of Entropy allows some manipulation of the forces of chaos and order. The point is,
these abilities are limited. In any case, any rules for magic will allow a mage to do
things that normal humans can't (by definition, huh?) and higher levels of any power will
make a character exceptionally, well, powerful. This is as true for mages as it is for
vampires, garou, wraiths, and changelings. Or, for that matter, good old AD&D wizards,
clerics, thiefs, fighters, etc. You're postulating a fairly powerful character and
complaining that it's too powerful. Sorry, I don't buy that.

> <snip>

> If you think about it, the Technocracy attempt to forge a scientific
> reality would like wise have met with huge Paradox and never gotten off
> the ground. Coppernicus effectievly reorders the solar system and yet
> for some reason (despite this huge magnitude of magic flying in the face
> of commonly held belief) he is fine and dandy. BUt according to the way
> Paradox works, he and all his mage buddies trying to change things
> should have been fried in the dirt long ago.

<snip>

Actually, from my understanding of WoD history, paradox was particularly brutal to the
innovators who tried bringing the scientific paradigm into mainstream consciousness.
Exampli gratia: none of the early flying machines worked, even if they might today. Most
people didn't believe Copernicus or Galileo when they challenged the Church's stance on
cosmology. That took hundreds of years to completely sink in.

OK another point: one in ten mages isn't stupid enough to try something really vulgar in
front of Sleepers, because that can result in a quick and painful death. Besides which,
the Sleepers will probably persist with the beliefs they had before, and explain the
vulgarity away as "coincidence" or even outright deny it. No, this ability not to see
what's right in front of you isn't magickal - people do this every day in our world.

<snip>

> Belief can be so quicksilveringly changed, and yet for some reason
> unexplained, it is not. By these standards, the Technocracy's attempt to
> clamp down on changing belief is an illiogical stance again. One event
> like that described above can undo the work of a lifetime's odds. Agains
> t that sort of ratio, the Technocracy really don't have a hope in hell.
> They'd be dead in the dirt long ago, with the dodos.

NO, I'm afraid not. First, members of the Technocracy do have different ideas from each
other (see the explanation given above). So change isn't that spectacular or surprising.
Second, some Technocrats even go so far as to switch sides (albeit very few) and some
Traditionalists defect to the opposition. It's the *group* that survives. One or two
members may switch sides, but the war will go on regardless. The Technocracy's attempt to
cut out random change and make a world of pure order may well be a pipe dream, but *even if
they don't completely accomplish their goal, they can still change the world*. Have you
ever met a liberal who sincerely believes everybody in the world has an equal right to
food, shelter, clothing, etc.? Not all liberals are like that. Still, the organized
actions of groups of people can still make a difference, even if the end goals *may be*
impossible. In case you've forgotten, we're talking about magick here, so in this case
anything is possible, given time.

> 5. Origins and compatability.
>
> Who runs the cities? Is it the Kindred or is the Technocracy?

Depends on the city, doesn't it? Who runs crime in America? The street gangs or the mob?
Or is it the individual operators? It also depends on your point of view... different
groups run different things in each city.

<snip>

> The sheer disruption that this [Kindred opposition] would cause to the Technocracies

> efforts would be huge. They could never get it off the ground in any
> serious capacity. Eveen the damn garou would take a piece of ass when
> they figured out what the Techs were up to.

Sounds like someone trying to logically prove that the United States would never rebel
against Great Britain, and therefore America can't exist. Why don't you spend your time
trying to imagine ways in which it's possible, instead of writing post after post
asserting that "none of this is really happening, folks"?

> 6. Isn't this the World of _Darkness_
>
> The World of darkness is supposed to be sinister. A darker version of
> the world we live in with much of the trappings intact. With Vampire,
> Wraith, Werewolf and Changeling even this is evident to a large degree.
> But Mage is not a dark game. mage is about this other place called the
> World of Spam. Why? because of the power levels involved.

There's nothing sinister about a Technocracy trying to control the collective belief system
so that magick doesn't work? There's nothing dark about insane marauders wreaking havoc
with impunity, or demon-bound barabbi sacrificing innocent lives to their evil masters? I
must be playing a different game...

> As previously stated. mages can do anything and with sme fear of

> reprisal. But where is a mage's personal problems? Where is his
> questioning of values and impending depression and so on that makes him

> more and more depressed as well as possibly enlightened. In the oyher

> four games, there is an element of questioning. There is the wonderful
> concept of doubt. It is the facility to doubt that, in my opinion, makes
> a roleplaying game's character section. The World of Darkness is all
> about questions and facing up to nasty truths. Or at least it was.
> Because you see, mages have no questions. They have no sense of doubt,
> of personal horror at what they do or what the world does to their
> religion or what the dark side of their personality can do or at the
> loss of their very ability to imagine. There is no third dimension to the
> character of the game (not individual characters, but character of the
> game itself)

"Mages have no questions"? Where the <expletive deleted> did you get this idea? Just
because you can read it in the rulebooks, chummer, doesn't mean everything about the
opposition is common knowledge to the man on the street, or, for that matter, to most
mages. The idea behind a "gothic" campaign world is that the characters do not know what's
going on behind the scenes. And that, my friend, is the job of the Storyteller, not the
game system.

It sounds to me like you're assuming that all mages are ultrapowerful masters of every
sphere with 10 arete who live in beautiful castles without a care in the world. We really
must be playing a different game here, because when I play Mage I don't know what the
Storyteller's thinking, and I (the character) have doubts, fears, and dark desires that run
contrary to my character's beliefs (Come on, we'll just kill him and leave. No one will
know).

> powrerful to be meaningful to a character except as a means of happy

> SFX. They are too esoteric in many places to have any real applications.

I liked this argument - "the only realistic thing... is... Spheres and power and foci and
all the rest of it." Soooo what you're saying is you like the rest of the game system, but
not Ascension. Excuse my ignorance, but isn't part of Ascension the drive to increase
one's Arete, which is necessary for "Spheres and power and foci and all the rest of it"?
I'm still stricken by your complaint that there's too much esotericism in a game about, of
all things, Mages. Huh? How much more esoteric a group of people do you want?

In any case, I don't believe Ascension "replaces" any difficulty because (as I explained
above) I don't agree with your view of mages as superhuman demigods without any personal
problems.

> Who cares what the difference between weak and strong nuclear forces
> are? Who really gives a toss about creating complex life forms when
> simple viruses will do the job much better. They are just plain and
> simple too strong as powers for player characters. The level fives of
> each Sphere are enormous, godlike powers that for some reason are not
> used by the mages to slug it out.

Ok, well, the difference is rather important to those of us who like to play the game.
Your main argument here seems to be that the whole point of magick is to allow us to kill
each other more easily. I'm sorry if I think that's a really lopsided and restrictive view
of one of the most flexible forces around. What's the point of having Life 4? Maybe your
friend has been infected with one of the supervirii you seem to think are such child's play
to create. A higher level of Life magick would, in this case, keep your friend alive. Not
everybody wants to create artificial life, true, but what if you want to shapechange into a
wolf? You can't do that at Life 2.

Anyway, there are always more things possible at higher power levels than are possible at
lower levels, by definition. Your complaint that characters are just too powerful is true
of virtually any game system at higher power levels. "I don't like AD&D, because 40th
level Magic Users are too powerful. I don't like DC Heroes because there's no challenge
for my 20000-point character." Every Storyteller is free to pick a power level that he or
she thinks will be interesting and fun to play. If you don't like higher levels, make them
extremely rare. Simple, huh?

<snip>

> 8. Ideas for Traditions.
>
> The ideas for the game areby and large obvious rip-offs of previous

> ideas. The Technocracies individual parts are somewhat creative, but the
> rest of them can be picked and chosen from entertainment of the last few
> years and finger pointed to say .. hey, I know that !!

I think that was the point. The Traditions are meant (in some cases) to reflect actual,
historical groups of people who worked together in common traditions. The fact that the
Verbena have similarities to Wicca, or the the Order of Hermes draws from the Ordo Templi
Orientis, is not a weakness. The WoD is meant to be an analogue of our world today. Were
you offended that they kept the same city names, or country names? That there are
several different religions from our world in the WoD? Why then would you complain when
the Traditions have similarities to real (and mythical) human groups? It really seems like
you're looking for anything at all to snipe about here.

<snip>

> Every character has a motivation of their own? This describes roughly
> every roleplaying game I've ever heard of. And let's ignore the
> wonderful allusions to the same old Order/Chaos/Good/Evil arguments that
> have been around since AD+D and Mage presents a less than interesting
> rehash of. Nevermind that these organisations of spontaneous individual
> people are managing to defy logic and maintain a cohesive party line.

Yeah that's the wonderful thing about free will. Role-playing in worlds without free will
could be rather boring, I'd imagine... not really role-playing at all. In fact, the "game"
would consist of the Storyteller telling you what you do, what happens, how you respond,
etc. You can feel free to try this, if you like. Let us know how it turns out...

Order/Chaos/Good/Evil have existed as human ideas for thousands of years (perhaps tens or
even hundreds of thousands). I'd be much more surprised if they didn't appear at least
somewhere in most fantasy games.

<snip>

This isn't constructive at all. I see your point, that you dislike the game system, don't
think it's plausible, etc. So don't play. Okay, you've already proven that you have more
free time than the rest of us. But please stop posting the same arguments explaining why
you don't want to play Mage over and over on the WW newsgroup.

</flame>

> --
> --JenJingu-(was once Mithrandir)-(RL: Tadhg Kelly)-jod...@alf2.tcd.ie--
>

- Robin Wise

"Could I revive within me that symphony and song, to such deep delight 'twould win me, that
with music loud and long, I would build that pleasure dome in air. That sunny dome! Those
caves of ice! And all who heard should see them there..."

Daniel B. Holzman

unread,

Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96

In article <Dpppv...@news.tcd.ie>, JenJingu <jodo...@tcd.ie> wrote:
> But he's human too. Therefore, is it not unreasonable to assume that
>mages are people that are as diverse as normal folks. That they'll have
>personalities and opinions and all the rest of it? Naturally.
> But, to take the example, how many mathematicians are there that you
>know who will get into a four-sided war over whether Euclidean space is
>a whole pile of whizz or not? Not many. Why? Because they're not stupid.

That particular theory, no. However, on the things they do agrue about,
they get plenty passionate about it. Physicists, too. And yes, they do
fight wars, but with the tools of their trade -- careers and grant money
-- instead of guns orfireballs.

>They'll argue. They'll prove their points and they'll discover new
>things. But they won't actively kill each other in the streets.

I've no problem believing that they would if they could, given what they
do do to each other.

> So why do mages, who's magic opens them up a lot of interesting things
>that need study and debate and discovery, suddenly band together in
>large groups for purposes of saving the world? Why do the Technocracy
>suddenly get it into their bright little heads that collectively they
>must save mankind? Don't they have the ability to think? Their magic is
>creative which implies they must all have some sort of spontaneous
>streak in them. They may study their magic for dozens of reasons ranging
>from enlightenment to raw power to excitement and thrills. But suddenly
>in the 14th century out of nowhere they all get together behind some
>grand unity of vision.
> Without questions.

There is more diversity within the technocracy than you think. It only
looks monolithic to an outsider who generally spends theirtime avoiding
them -- theviewpoint presented in the Mage rules proper.

> Even more illogical is the stance of the Nephandi. They are smart too.
>And their magic is creative as well. But they all want to destroy things
>and corrupt things. Why? What's to be gained? Why do they not have many
>different motivations? Why do they behave like bad guys plain and
>simple? Is it because they are dense an uncreative? But to be a mage,
>you need to be spontaneous. You need creativity.

The Nephandi are the ultimate in nihlists. Also, they generally have
been heavilyinfluenced by Oblivion, and are not entirely masters of their
own mind. But even there there is somediversity. Check out the Book of
Madness.

Interestingly enough, this is one belief held by a number of real-world
occultists.

> New ideas change the belief structure. But if the world was always
>made out of belief at some point or other, then where in Jehannum do any
>ideas ever come from? If all the souls/ Avavtars or whatever believed
>only in the timeless void before the Umbra happened then there must only
>have been timeless void. So where did the impetus for creation come from
>and how could one little avatar who somehow comes up with the idea to
>start with convince all of the others when what he says is plainly not
>so.

We don't know. Kinda like real life.

> The only way that you can get new ideas to happen is if people don't
>actually all believe the same things tobegin with. IN otherwords, if
>there is no such thing as a consensual belief in the first place. I
>would contend that consensual belief is a convenient myth. BUt people
>view the world in different ways. My view of the world is ever so
>slightly different from yours, or from Bill Clinton's, or from a
>sceintists or from a mage's.

Yes, but your view of the world is extremely close to mine, Bill
Clintons, and scientists. (Not a mages, that's the point.) We all agree
that things fall down, the sun rises in the east, the world is round.
That is consensus.

> But if everybody doesn't believe the same thing then the world is a
>seriosuly strange place and the Technocracy ambitions are blown clean
>out of the water.

That's why they're so down on the traditions. The masses all hold
beliefs close enough to permit for a static reality. A tradition mage
threatens that by making the world a weird place, and worse, showing the
masses that it can be so.

>There is a paradox of logic here.

Hence Paradox. :)

Rather than a condemnation of the game, your thesis seems to be an
exploration of how well thought out the game is.

>Consensual belief
>implies everything that everyone sees is the same.

No. Consensual belief implies that everything that everyone sees is
close enough for them to get along.

>But by that token,
>nothing would change. There would be no Technomacer who comes up with
>the idea that the world needs to change. But go the other rout and
>assume that consensual belief is a convenient myth (disproven by such
>wondrous things as different religious attitudes and beliefs), then the
>presumption that reality is based on belief itself falls apart because it
>would be too chaotic. Either way, the Technocratic, Tradition, Nephandic
>and Maraudery stance is completely an utterly illogical again.
> It simply doesn't follow. The ideas, by their very nature, contradict
>each other.

Actually, in the mage history, the worldwas a chaotic place. The Order
of Reason originally formed the Technocracy precisely because of that
Chaos and the threat it presented to the masses.

People don't noticeit because mages are careful not to show it to them,
because of fear of Paradox. It is not the paradox itself that keeps
people from noticing it. Generally, when a mage doesmagic, it is
coincidental, and themasses are content to play along. Never
underestimate the power of human self-delusion.

> There are thousands of mages out there and, in the use of vulgar magic
>they can do some pretty spectacular things. magic is a horribly powerful
>weapon. yet the Technocracy have managed for five hundred years to keep
>a lid on a power that can level nations, turn the sky pink if it chooses
>too and generally cause the loudest ruckus you ever heard.

They are able to keep a lid on it because they have thecooperation of the
traditions, who really don't like dealing with Paradox -or- HitMARKS.
Most vulgar magick is done in the Umbra orin horizon realms where there
aren't any sleepers.

> If you think about it, the Technocracy attempt to forge a scientific
>reality would like wise have met with huge Paradox and never gotten off
>the ground.

Much as is described in the white wolf history!

>Coppernicus effectievly reorders the solar system and yet
>for some reason (despite this huge magnitude of magic flying in the face
>of commonly held belief) he is fine and dandy. BUt according to the way
>Paradox works, he and all his mage buddies trying to change things
>should have been fried in the dirt long ago.

But, he didn't. It was some time before his theory became accepted,
especially after his treatment at thehands of theCelestial Chorus--Imean
thechurch.

That's why the Void Engineers work sohardto keep that from happenning.

> Belief can be so quicksilveringly changed, and yet for some reason
>unexplained, it is not. By these standards, the Technocracy's attempt to
>clamp down on changing belief is an illiogical stance again. One event
>like that described above can undo the work of a lifetime's odds. Agains
>t that sort of ratio, the Technocracy really don't have a hope in hell.
> They'd be dead in the dirt long ago, with the dodos.

But they're notafter keeping belief from changin at all. They simply want
to pace it anddirect it in a manner they consider safe.

> And yet, for some reason, and to the Kindred's continuous ignorance to
>this day, the Technocracy have managed to fundamentally change things
>and take over and keep the Camarilla in the dark. The Kindred, some of
>whom have huge Auspex, or networks of contacts everywhere, have managed
>somehow not to notice this happy little event.

Or they have noticed, butdon'tmuch care, be it due toapathy or arrogance.

> The World of darkness is supposed to be sinister. A darker version of
>the world we live in with much of the trappings intact. With Vampire,
>Wraith, Werewolf and Changeling even this is evident to a large degree.
>But Mage is not a dark game. mage is about this other place called the
>World of Spam. Why? because of the power levels involved.

You don't find the technos -- at least the NWO, ItX, the Progenitors, and
the Syndicate -- a darker version oftheworld we live in with much of the
trappings intact?

They don't? Are you sure? My Mage players hadn't noticed.

> What replaces this personal difficulty aspect is the philosophy of
>Ascension. But Ascension doesn't work. It's a great gaping hole in fact.
>The only realistic thing that is used in this case is, finally, Spheres
>and power and foci and all the rest of it. These things are far too
>powerful to be meaningful to a character except as a means of happy
>SFX. They are too esoteric in many places to have any real applications.
>Who cares what the difference between weak and strong nuclear forces
>are? Who really gives a toss about creating complex life forms when
>simple viruses will do the job much better. They are just plain and
>simple too strong as powers for player characters. The level fives of
>each Sphere are enormous, godlike powers that for some reason are not
>used by the mages to slug it out.

That's because a mage with a 5 arete is a rare thing. Even an Arete 4 is
uncommon.

> 8. Ideas for Traditions.
>
> The ideas for the game are by and large obvious rip-offs of previous
>ideas. The Technocracies individual parts are somewhat creative, but the
>rest of them can be picked and chosen from entertainment of the last few
>years and finger pointed to say .. hey, I know that !!

ANd didyou think that Hollywood had made those archetypes of magick
outof wholecloth? Not even close. The fact is that they are all
representations of valid andexistent occult traditions.

> Akashic Brotherhood- Mystic Monks as seen in all the best martial arts
>movies and the really tripey Golden Child flick.
>
> Euthanatos - Thousands of bad voodoo movies
>
> Dreamspeakers- Werewolf The Apocalpyse
>
> Order of Hermes - Guess.
>
> Virtual Adepts - Lawnmower Man
>
> Sons of Ether - Quatermass/Boris Karloff/BladeRunner take your pick.
>
> Cult of Ecstasy - The Toreador. Time really does not fit these guys as
>a Sphere.
>
> Verbena - Archetypal druids and witches.
>
> Celestial Chorus - The Catholic Church.
>
>
> yes, you can do this with any of the games to greater or lesser
>degree. Vampire's clans have identities derived from all sorts of
>sources. But the difference is that the various Clans are well derived
>and re-invented. But the Traditions are merely rehashed and don't fit
>well together.
> Oh, and conveniently, there's nine of them as opposed to Seven, or
>Thirteen. or some other mystical number.

In a game about Magick, don't expect coincidence to be coincidental.There
are nine traditions because there are nine spheres.

> Well, that's the gauntlet laid down. Yet again. It'll be interesting
>to see who picks it up this time.

Done.
--
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.

MIT E J

unread,

Apr 11, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/11/96

Why not the church and its 'thinkers did the same back then and as a
mater of fact they formed one of the traditions

> This strikes me as very, very , VERY unrealistic. Religion does this,
> but even within religions there are divisions, interpretations and so
> on. But religions get their support from the masses who don't really
> want to have to think about these things. But mages? mages are actively
> involved people. They're dynamic. They question, they re-evaluate, they
> have ideas. Unity of purpose and sponataneity in vast quantities are not

> two things that fit together. They have to band together for fear of paradox read the stinking book.
The whole damn war is not to truly save all of humanity it is to make
the mortials think the same way they do because that belife is the true
power it is what generateds paradox that all mages fear and what keep
the nafandi lords from destroying all of reality. Also just because they
stand together against reality does not mean that every mage in a
tradition beleaves exactily the same thing. again READ THE DAMN BOOK
before you bitch

> Even more illogical is the stance of the Nephandi. They are smart too.
> And their magic is creative as well. But they all want to destroy things
> and corrupt things. Why? What's to be gained? Why do they not have many
> different motivations? Why do they behave like bad guys plain and
> simple? Is it because they are dense an uncreative? But to be a mage,
> you need to be spontaneous. You need creativity.

Intelagence does not necessarily mean sanity or reason little child
some of the most briliant people in the world are insane. also they have
been warped and reshaped in their creation rites by their daark masters
untill their viewa match their masters wholy. They can start off for any
reason Greed Lust Hate or even the thought that they can trick the dark
ones fbut in the end they become mearly tools of the deamons who hate
our realityu and wish to play with its ashes

> Traditions are understandable in that they basically can be viewed as
> large study groups. But even they all quest for Ascension with a unity
> of purpose which again I find to be illogical. As an example of
> difference of real world magicians, look at Gaiman's Books of Magic.
> They're magicians, just like Mages and they can do magic. yes, there are
> those with some nasty ideals in mind, yes there are those who champion
> causes, but the majority are just people with personalities and
> interests. Like John Constantine. There's little different in the
> premise of both works - i.e. that there all basically mages. But Mage
> flies off on this weird religious zealotry that really badly doesn't

> fit. You oviously read a different book than I did all mages are individuals
even if they align with a tradition they still think for themselves.
They just approach their magic in a simaler manner but even though it is
simalar it is not all identical. that would only be for the
unimaganitive

> And the motivation for all this : Ascension.

Oh and yes this is their goal and can you blame them who would not
desire to eventualy become a living god so yes they seek Ascension some
thimk it personal so they seak alone but others think all must rise or
none can but they all seek it, yes

> 2. Ascension.
>
> Why Ascension as a goal for all mages worldwide does not work.
>
> What is Ascension? Good question since not even the game provides an
> answer. It's a goal that all mages worldwide inherently aspire to in one
> way or another. A means of enlightenment perhaps. Who knows.
> But consider the follwing fact : Nobody knows of anyone that's ever
> even vaguely made it to Ascension. Even the Oracles in their high and
> mighty powers haven't made it. So where does the reasoning for it's very
> existence in the first places. Mages, being the aforementioned thinking
> creative individuals that all have ideas and theories and a multitude of
> different viewpoints (in a manner not too dissimilar to scientists or
> philosophers) in my view would not be the sort of people therefore that
> accept Ascension wholeheartedly.

Not all do look at the hollow ones and nafandi the hollow ones doubt
its existance and the nafandi reject it

Look at Ars Magica. How many Hermetic magi seek to become enlightened
> to a better state? very few. And those that do are more often out and
> about trying to figure out the ins and outs of these things for
> themselves.By contrast, lots of magi are just in the business of
> figuring out how magic ticks, or politics or whatever. They are people
> with the amazing gift of intelligence.

No just pety and short sighted

> So, with that in mind, why are all mages, people with the gift of
> intelligence and wit, blindly following their paths to Ascension. It is
> my belief that logically speaking there would be few mages really
> interested in enlightenment. Far fewer than the number of mages that
> just study magic for magic's sake, or for power's sake, or just as a
> handy tool.

I think you are confused on Ascension all mages are already
enlightened that is what it means to be a mage but Ascension is a step
beyond that were you become at one and in tune with your avatar

> But no, Mages, particularly the Technocracy, follow this precept of
> Ascension like some mystic hare on a greyhound track, when they don't
> even have the foggiest clue what the hell it is they are after. That's
> like fighting tooth and nail for your political ideals when you haven't
> a breeze what those ideas actually are. It's illogical. Things just

> don't work that way. The technarcracy seeks ascension out of fear and a desire for power
they are terified of that which they do not understand or can not
controol and they think to gain power by brining all of humanity under
their thumb for whatever reasons they tell themselves to them their is
no religion in ascension

> 3. Reality.
>
> The way that the Technocracy and the Nephandi and the Marauders and
> the Traditions are trying to fight this war over so much hot air is by
> the manipulation of belief. Change the consensual belief of how things
> work and then things will change. BY this reasoning, before the general
> acceptance that the world was round happened, the world WAS flat. By the
> same token, before there was a Bible, there was no Heaven and Hell, but
> aftewards there must be because the majority of Christians believe in
> it.
> New ideas change the belief structure. But if the world was always
> made out of belief at some point or other, then where in Jehannum do any
> ideas ever come from? If all the souls/ Avavtars or whatever believed
> only in the timeless void before the Umbra happened then there must only
> have been timeless void. So where did the impetus for creation come from
> and how could one little avatar who somehow comes up with the idea to
> start with convince all of the others when what he says is plainly not

> so. Again read the stinking books child before our reality there were
others and chaos. as far as avatars there were none there were only the
pure ones who eventualy split themselves into shards which became the
avatars of mortials. And not every one in the world beleived it was flat
before columbis just the europeians for a part of their history.

> It shouts about it's ideas for planets and matter and so on, but the
> other Avatars can see this is not true. The consensual belief dictates
> it. Thus by this principle, how would anything ever change?
> The only way that you can get new ideas to happen is if people don't
> actually all believe the same things tobegin with. IN otherwords, if
> there is no such thing as a consensual belief in the first place. I
> would contend that consensual belief is a convenient myth. BUt people
> view the world in different ways. My view of the world is ever so
> slightly different from yours, or from Bill Clinton's, or from a
> sceintists or from a mage's.

Is it realy child do you not belive in gravity doo you not beleave in
the air you breath and the ground you walk on in some things we all
belive the same and these things are fixed in bouth worlds

> But if everybody doesn't believe the same thing then the world is a
> seriosuly strange place and the Technocracy ambitions are blown clean
> out of the water. There is a paradox of logic here. Consensual belief
> implies everything that everyone sees is the same. But by that token,
> nothing would change. There would be no Technomacer who comes up with
> the idea that the world needs to change. But go the other rout and
> assume that consensual belief is a convenient myth (disproven by such
> wondrous things as different religious attitudes and beliefs), then the
> presumption that reality is based on belief itself falls apart because it
> would be too chaotic. Either way, the Technocratic, Tradition, Nephandic
> and Maraudery stance is completely an utterly illogical again.
> It simply doesn't follow. The ideas, by their very nature, contradict
> each other.

You are truly unenlightened read the statement I wrote above and then
read this thing you wrote. There are some things that EVERYBODY belives
in and thes no mage can truly change. There is no mage who can make
gravity no longer exist in the entire world, also there are other beings
whos belifes are so strong as to be irrifutable, The celistines they are
the ones who shaped reality to beguin with and they are the ones who
keep it from spiriling into chaos

> 4. Magic.
>
> Munchkin opportunism on the woeful magic system aside, and assuming
> that I didn't just point out the plain illogic of the previous three
> stances, here is why the attemot to replace magic with science and deny
> it's existence doesn't work.
>
> Take a look at the powers that a Mage can throw around. Even at the
> lower levels they can be godlike in application. They are really really
> badly against what reality says and does according to the consensual
> belief. But I would say that the contention that reality doesn't
> beelieve in magic and therefore there is Paradox isn't a good enough
> explanation for why people don't notice this amount of sheer power being
> thrown around here.
>
> There are thousands of mages out there and, in the use of vulgar magic
> they can do some pretty spectacular things. magic is a horribly powerful
> weapon. yet the Technocracy have managed for five hundred years to keep
> a lid on a power that can level nations, turn the sky pink if it chooses
> too and generally cause the loudest ruckus you ever heard.
>
> Oh ho, but you say that Paradox will interfere and stop him. But
> Paradox doesn't always work. It doesn't always win. It can be a bitch,
> but it is survivable. Even if you have a one-in-ten instance of Paradox
> leaving the mage alive and where he is after it strikes, that still
> leaves thousands of occurences of huge unexplained things.

First of all to level a mountian you need far more powere than your
average mage can muster and then the paradox backlash from such an
action CAN NOT BE SURVIVED if you did it in a vulgar way that would be
the equivalent of anywere from 50-100 paradox points and five will
normily kill you if spent all at once. It may possibe to do this effect
coincedently with the help of multiple mages then your argument about
the unexplained goes out the window. Read about coincedential magick
some time fool

He didn't make it that way you idiot he said his theries proved it to
be so all that does is make people think that it might be so that does
not actualy change a damn thing it makes everyone else do that for him

That is a mear 1 in a few million people that does not realy effect
concentuail beleaf. and you are underestimating peoples tendency to
doubt their oun eyes. also rember who controles the media how do you
find out about what happens in china without the Technarcrocy being
involved.

> How many people that have had a religious experience change their view
> points? How many people who have seen that they cannot explain by any
> means (which is when Paradox comes into play) have their lives changed
> as a result? Loads of them. Lots and lots and lots of them. Something
> like six out of every ten people believe in extraterrestrial life these days,
> from accounts that they have heard, from books they have read, even from
> watching the X-Files on a reasonably regular basis.
> Belief can be so quicksilveringly changed, and yet for some reason
> unexplained, it is not. By these standards, the Technocracy's attempt to
> clamp down on changing belief is an illiogical stance again. One event
> like that described above can undo the work of a lifetime's odds. Agains
> t that sort of ratio, the Technocracy really don't have a hope in hell.
> They'd be dead in the dirt long ago, with the dodos.

Rember that ridicule and psycoligey are on the side of the technarcrocy
as a matter of fact some people will belive their shrink before their
oun eyes. And according to the game the E.T. fonomanon is actualy a part
of the Tecknarcery plan

They know about each other but just don't care as long as the vampires
keep themselves secret they pose no thret to the Technarcracey and its
plans. And yes the vampires know about the mages read the book of nod
one of Cains oun comandments was to be wary of the mages. Please before
you post this kind of crapp READ WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT

Neonates and Ancillae may not poe much of an
> individual problem for mages, but Elders, Princees, Primogen, their
> contact networks, the Tremere, the Methuselahs and so on right the way
> up the ladder? They are serious problems that most mages cannot handle.
> The sheer disruption that this would cause to the Technocracies
> efforts would be huge. They could never get it off the ground in any
> serious capacity. Eveen the damn garou would take a piece of ass when
> they figured out what the Techs were up to.
>
> 6. Isn't this the World of _Darkness_
>
> The World of darkness is supposed to be sinister. A darker version of
> the world we live in with much of the trappings intact. With Vampire,
> Wraith, Werewolf and Changeling even this is evident to a large degree.
> But Mage is not a dark game. mage is about this other place called the
> World of Spam. Why? because of the power levels involved.

Again what kind of idiot you are acording to the game the world is
ruled by people you have never met and yet will determine almost every
aspect of your life. Not dark what do you need for darkness

He is trraped in a war regardless of weather he wishes it or not and
even death is not an escape. there is no securitty in mage you are
forever on edge

In the other
> four games, there is an element of questioning. There is the wonderful
> concept of doubt. It is the facility to doubt that, in my opinion, makes
> a roleplaying game's character section. The World of Darkness is all
> about questions and facing up to nasty truths. Or at least it was.
> Because you see, mages have no questions. They have no sense of doubt,
> of personal horror

You try WAR you twit arggh nno horror my ass

at what they do or what the world does to their
> religion or what the dark side of their personality can do or at the
> loss of their very ability to imagine. There is no third dimension to the
> character of the game (not individual characters, but character of the
> game itself)
> What replaces this personal difficulty aspect is the philosophy of
> Ascension. But Ascension doesn't work. It's a great gaping hole in fact.
> The only realistic thing that is used in this case is, finally, Spheres
> and power and foci and all the rest of it. These things are far too
> powerful to be meaningful to a character except as a means of happy
> SFX. They are too esoteric in many places to have any real applications.
> Who cares what the difference between weak and strong nuclear forces
> are? Who really gives a toss about creating complex life forms when
> simple viruses will do the job much better. They are just plain and
> simple too strong as powers for player characters. The level fives of
> each Sphere are enormous, godlike powers that for some reason are not
> used by the mages to slug it out.

That is because unlike you they know subtely you ignorent thug

> It's like nuclear warfare. Everybody has really big guns but nobody
> uses them because they knoiw it's pointless. The difference here is that
> the Technocracy use their weapons. Yet by any means of realistic
> retaliation, such acts provoke reactions and before you know what's
> going on, Armageddon has struck while you're changing your socks. With
> Magic of the power level that the mages use, any war between them is not
> going to be long and drawn out. It's going to be very very decisive very
> very quickly.

If they have the same levels they can blok those devestating effects
you seem so fond of so subtle is the only way. also paradox kills you so
you would lose to ao what would be the point of trying it that way

And it's effects would be long lasting in the extreme.
> There's little need for subtlety when you have the power of a God. So
> the mages are being illogically subtle.

Even gods fear destruction by reality itself which wins if you toss
out subteltey

> 7. I can't stand the artwork :)
>
>
> 8. Ideas for Traditions.
>
> The ideas for the game are by and large obvious rip-offs of previous
> ideas. The Technocracies individual parts are somewhat creative, but the
> rest of them can be picked and chosen from entertainment of the last few
> years and finger pointed to say .. hey, I know that !!
>
> Akashic Brotherhood- Mystic Monks as seen in all the best martial arts
> movies and the really tripey Golden Child flick.
>
> Euthanatos - Thousands of bad voodoo movies

It has nothing to do with vodoo or zombies you twit

> Dreamspeakers- Werewolf The Apocalpyse
>
> Order of Hermes - Guess.
>
> Virtual Adepts - Lawnmower Man
>
> Sons of Ether - Quatermass/Boris Karloff/BladeRunner take your pick.
>
> Cult of Ecstasy - The Toreador. Time really does not fit these guys as
> a Sphere.

They have nothing to do with the toreador some of them are into art
but drugs and enhanced councness and awerness are their thing

> Verbena - Archetypal druids and witches.

That was the point twit

> Celestial Chorus - The Catholic Church.

Again that was the point but they are not the only church represented
in their

> yes, you can do this with any of the games to greater or lesser
> degree. Vampire's clans have identities derived from all sorts of
> sources. But the difference is that the various Clans are well derived
> and re-invented. But the Traditions are merely rehashed and don't fit
> well together.
> Oh, and conveniently, there's nine of them as opposed to Seven, or
> Thirteen. or some other mystical number.

Yes nine of them one for each of the spheres pay attention dumb ass

> Well, that's the gauntlet laid down. Yet again. It'll be interesting
> to see who picks it up this time.
>
> --
> --JenJingu-(was once Mithrandir)-(RL: Tadhg Kelly)-jod...@alf2.tcd.ie--
>
> If Mailing me, or replying me, make sure that at least one copy is going
> to my full address. Our mailer is screwed up like that. Ciao :-)

I don't have anything against you personaly but please reserch your
information before you wright

Nyarlathotep

unread,

Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96

I agree with the illogic of the Ascension War. Therefore I propose a
solution: The Methuselahs of the Camarilla ARE aware of the various
factions of mages and, due to the enormous amount of power the mages can
throw around, They are the ones who have subtlely manipulated the mage
factions into believing this Ascension War nonsense so as to set the mages
against each rather than having them band together were they could
actually wipe out the rest of the supernatural community. There's my
two-cents...

--
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's what your last words are."

Jimmy McKinney

unread,

Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96

On Thu, 11 Apr 1996, JenJingu wrote:

> A mage is someone who's able to do magic. He's got a talent. Like a
> scientist who knows all sorts of strange theories, or the mathematician
> who's well versed in his field, a mage has a field too. That's it. A
> mage is a bloke who knows how to do magic.

err not quite. a mage is someone who understand reality on a deeper level
than most people (/vampires/werewolves/etc) and is therefore able to alter
and warp it to his will.

enlightenment is a bit more than just "a talent"

ps: it's "magick" ;-) magic is david copperfield or hedge magic stuff.

> But, to take the example, how many mathematicians are there that you
> know who will get into a four-sided war over whether Euclidean space is
> a whole pile of whizz or not? Not many. Why? Because they're not stupid.
> They'll argue. They'll prove their points and they'll discover new
> things. But they won't actively kill each other in the streets.

yes, but you fail to understand the deeper issues. it's not about proving
your points (or not JUST that).

when the mathematicians have the ability, as mages do, of making their
beliefs REALITY, things get more complicated. Now instead of
mathematicians who discover new theories (actually create them), you have
mathematicians who get involved with proving to sleepers (and thus making
TRUE) that their theories are the "correct" ones.

because other groups do not share the same views. when one group convinces
the sleepers that their "theory" works, it BECOMES reality. And of course,
those who disagree must combat this...

> suddenly get it into their bright little heads that collectively they
> must save mankind? Don't they have the ability to think? Their magic is

yes of course they do. you seem to see the mechanics (some of them) here,
but you fail to understand the concept of ideaology. You gave the answer
yourself...they are humans. Just like humans, they do what they feel is
right. To the technocracy, doing what is right involves removing all
randomness from reality, and once that is done, everything will be
perfect. The traditions disagree, maintaining that imagination and wonder
are necessary elements.

> creative which implies they must all have some sort of spontaneous
> streak in them. They may study their magic for dozens of reasons ranging

the problem is that the technocracy is aligned with an extreme. the
extreme of order

> from enlightenment to raw power to excitement and thrills. But suddenly
> in the 14th century out of nowhere they all get together behind some
> grand unity of vision.

Not out of nowhere. At the time, reality was under the sway of the Order
of Hermes (who hoarded their power) and the Celestial Chorus (who were
xenophobic). At the time, science and reason were gifts to the masses to
provide them with safe reliable magick and protection and comfort. Once
the technocracy was in control, they got more and more into their vision
of perfect humanity, and somewhere along the line they lost the original
goals (prolly around the time they changed their convention names).

> This strikes me as very, very , VERY unrealistic. Religion does this,
> but even within religions there are divisions, interpretations and so

And you think the technocracy has no division, no unrest, no dissedents?
The Sons of Ether ne Electrodyne Engineers were too bold, and the
Conventions made a prime error in voting away their most prized theories.
The Sons defected to the traditions (who needed to fill the solificati's
place).

The Virtual Adepts were too anarchistic and presumptious and enthusiatic
(and created their net realm against the technocracy's timetable). The
technocracy responded by killing their hero, Turing. The virtual adepts
revolted, stole all the info they could find, and vanished, reforming in
the Traditions.

And now there are rumours of the Void Engineers leaving as well, and also
of nephandic influence within the Syndicate.

So why exactly do you see this as unrealistic? Sounds just like normal
human organizations to me.

> on. But religions get their support from the masses who don't really
> want to have to think about these things. But mages? mages are actively
> involved people. They're dynamic. They question, they re-evaluate, they
> have ideas. Unity of purpose and sponataneity in vast quantities are not
> two things that fit together.

Err, how exactly do you explain the net and associated developments?
people here are about as individualistic and spotaneous as they come, yet
they come together (frequently) to forge new ground at an alarming pace
(hell, half this stuff didnt exist until a few years ago)

> Even more illogical is the stance of the Nephandi. They are smart too.

They are also corrupt. Smart does not preclude evil, history is quite
clear on that point.

> And their magic is creative as well. But they all want to destroy things
> and corrupt things. Why? What's to be gained? Why do they not have many

Whats to be gained? whatever their masters promise. Power beyond most
mages? Sign here please...

> different motivations? Why do they behave like bad guys plain and
> simple? Is it because they are dense an uncreative? But to be a mage,
> you need to be spontaneous. You need creativity.

It is simply because they have fallen to temptation. They gave in to that
little voice inside everyone that craves self destruction (the shadow from
wraith). They were tricked. They see the big picture better.

Perhaps you have the wrong idea of the nephandi. They are not cardboard
cutout villains, they have goals, motivations, histories, and
personalities.

who said it was unity? every tradition persues ascension, IN SOME FORM.
like everything else, this varies from tradition to tradition, from
faction to faction, and even from person to person. Where's the lack of
realism in that?

> those with some nasty ideals in mind, yes there are those who champion
> causes, but the majority are just people with personalities and
> interests. Like John Constantine. There's little different in the
> premise of both works - i.e. that there all basically mages. But Mage
> flies off on this weird religious zealotry that really badly doesn't
> fit.

I think you seriously misunderstand and underestimate the setting. people
as a whole DO go in for religious zealotry and such. again, i wonder where
you found this to be unrealistic.

> Why Ascension as a goal for all mages worldwide does not work.
>
> What is Ascension? Good question since not even the game provides an
> answer. It's a goal that all mages worldwide inherently aspire to in one
> way or another. A means of enlightenment perhaps. Who knows.

Ascension is as clear as it can be for such a subjective concept.

Ascension is not clarified further because it is not the SAME for
everyone. I get the impression that you see it as some prize or treasure
or something. Every mage has his or her own idea of what ascension is, its
just a matter of like opinions forming factions.

basically ascension is perfection or some variation thereof. When you get
as metaphysical as Mage does, this sort of thing gets more important, not
less.

Where do the reasoning for christianity, catholicism, satanism, and all
the rest come from? Where does the reasoning for fighting the cause of
justice come from? Where does reason _EVER_ come into a higher purpose?

> creative individuals that all have ideas and theories and a multitude of
> different viewpoints (in a manner not too dissimilar to scientists or
> philosophers) in my view would not be the sort of people therefore that
> accept Ascension wholeheartedly.

You seem to think Ascension is one thing, the same for everyone, and that
a technocrat accepts it as exactly the same thing an akashic or marauder
does. again, ascension is subjective.

> Look at Ars Magica. How many Hermetic magi seek to become enlightened
> to a better state? very few. And those that do are more often out and
> about trying to figure out the ins and outs of these things for
> themselves.By contrast, lots of magi are just in the business of
> figuring out how magic ticks, or politics or whatever. They are people
> with the amazing gift of intelligence.

And they don't do this in Mage? Are you familiar with the chantry of
doissetep? lots of politics there. Where did you get these ideas of
traditions and conventions as cookie cutter people? Must have been a
ROTTEN game...

> So, with that in mind, why are all mages, people with the gift of
> intelligence and wit, blindly following their paths to Ascension. It is

who said it was blind? acsension is also enlightenment,you did just say
that most magi are out there seeking it...

> my belief that logically speaking there would be few mages really
> interested in enlightenment. Far fewer than the number of mages that

enlightenment is EVERYTHING to a mage. without enlightenment, there can
_BE_ no magick. It is BECAUSE of it that a Mage _CAN_ do magick. Why
should mages ignore it?

> just study magic for magic's sake, or for power's sake, or just as a
> handy tool.

As i say, these are just other forms of the same thing.

Is _ANY_ quest for enlightenment any different?

> like fighting tooth and nail for your political ideals when you haven't
> a breeze what those ideas actually are. It's illogical. Things just
> don't work that way.

Of course they do. happens all the time. especially when people start to
label you with politically correct terms that TELL you what the ideas
are. "Oh, you're a democrat" "but democrats are as bad as republicans"
"Oh, you're an independent" "I am?"

> New ideas change the belief structure. But if the world was always
> made out of belief at some point or other, then where in Jehannum do any

who said it was always made of belief? consensual reality in its present
form is a very recent phenomenon.

> ideas ever come from? If all the souls/ Avavtars or whatever believed

Welcome to metaphysics. Please leave your preconceptions at the door,
thank you.

> only in the timeless void before the Umbra happened then there must only
> have been timeless void. So where did the impetus for creation come from
> and how could one little avatar who somehow comes up with the idea to
> start with convince all of the others when what he says is plainly not
> so.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

How can the universe have had a beginning, if there was nothing for it to
have a beginning IN or FROM, by definition?

As I said, leave your preconceptions at the door.

Because you assume things have always been as they are now.

> would contend that consensual belief is a convenient myth. BUt people
> view the world in different ways. My view of the world is ever so
> slightly different from yours, or from Bill Clinton's, or from a
> sceintists or from a mage's.

is it different from gods? that's pretty much what you are trying to argue
here.

paradox is something mages learn to cope with (hopefully)

and this entire section is seriously flawed. it's far too late for me to
cope with now, but i may later if people don't deem it so obvious theres
no point ;-)

> It simply doesn't follow. The ideas, by their very nature, contradict
> each other.

assuming that things were always so static. actually you are going the
wrong way. If reality keeps to its present course, barring major changes,
it may end up in that sort of conflict and there would be no more mages
(from here)

> 4. Magic.
>
> Munchkin opportunism on the woeful magic system aside, and assuming

works pretty well assuming a mature party and a competent storyteller. If
you don't have either of those, you tend to get the munchkin situation
regardless of system.

> that I didn't just point out the plain illogic of the previous three

you didn't ;-)

> stances, here is why the attemot to replace magic with science and deny
> it's existence doesn't work.
>
> Take a look at the powers that a Mage can throw around. Even at the
> lower levels they can be godlike in application. They are really really
> badly against what reality says and does according to the consensual
> belief. But I would say that the contention that reality doesn't
> beelieve in magic and therefore there is Paradox isn't a good enough
> explanation for why people don't notice this amount of sheer power being
> thrown around here.

err huh? have you even LOOKED at mage? PEOPLE don't believe in magick,
thus consensual reality doesnt. thus you get Paradox. did you ever maybe
happen to perhaps even THINK about glancing at the Coincidental magick
sections, or at least those pages?

People don't see the magick because 9 times out of 10 it is cloaked, and
9 times out of the remaining 10 Paradox deals with offenses. the rest of
the time you get either some freaked out sleepers or a new mage. Not a
problem in either case, reality is pretty freaky on its own, and new mages
tend to be somewhat less of a problem.

> There are thousands of mages out there and, in the use of vulgar magic

did you go count them or something? The only demographics i've seen are on
the net here.

> they can do some pretty spectacular things. magic is a horribly powerful
> weapon. yet the Technocracy have managed for five hundred years to keep
> a lid on a power that can level nations, turn the sky pink if it chooses
> too and generally cause the loudest ruckus you ever heard.

Technocracy + Paradox + general difficulty of successfully warping reality
+ about a zillion other factors including mages reticence to USE vulgar
magick.

Personally i think vampires have a harder time keeping themselves secret.

it also cleans up after itself (and the mage)

> leaving the mage alive and where he is after it strikes, that still
> leaves thousands of occurences of huge unexplained things.

and thousands of occurances of unexplained things don't occur in any given
week even in OUR reality? now who's being unrealistic?

> If you think about it, the Technocracy attempt to forge a scientific
> reality would like wise have met with huge Paradox and never gotten off

A. Paradox wasn't as strong then (because sleeper belief wasn't so
static...there was still more possibility left for them.

B. Subject to a, it did. On large scale, technology and science failed to
function properly. But the technocracy is very subtle and persistent, and
slowly got to the point they are at today.

> the ground. Coppernicus effectievly reorders the solar system and yet
> for some reason (despite this huge magnitude of magic flying in the face

assuming it WAS magick...it may not have been

> of commonly held belief) he is fine and dandy. BUt according to the way
> Paradox works, he and all his mage buddies trying to change things
> should have been fried in the dirt long ago.

This, like consensual reality, you are seeing far too staticly. Let me
clarify things for you:

THINGS WERE NOT ALWAYS AS THEY ARE NOW.

PAradox was far weaker. consensual reality wasnt set. etc.

> that maybe Paradox was weaker back then than it is now (and why not)
> your one in ten mage who pulls of his amazing feat of vulgar magic
> successfully in front of crowds of people will change beliefs in an

sleepers are now far less gullible (they are stuck in "science works,
magic doesnt" mode, they werent then)

> instant. Imagine if a hundred Marauders struck at once in all the major
> cities on the planet. The Technocracy would be ruins because some of
> them would survive the attempt and change the beliefs of millions in an
> instant.

see above.

> But belief doesn't change that easily, I hear you cry. Really ? How
> many people who are victims of UFO abductions believe what has happened?

no, you misunderstand. CONSENSUAL belief doesn't change that rapidly ANY
MORE. A single person's beliefs are no longer able to rapidly convince
others in a chain reaction, as they were back then.

yes

> like six out of every ten people believe in extraterrestrial life these days,
> from accounts that they have heard, from books they have read, even from

mmhmm. and who deals with extraterrestrial life? The Technocracy.

> watching the X-Files on a reasonably regular basis.
> Belief can be so quicksilveringly changed, and yet for some reason
> unexplained, it is not. By these standards, the Technocracy's attempt to

because you are failing to understand the distinctions here.

> clamp down on changing belief is an illiogical stance again. One event
> like that described above can undo the work of a lifetime's odds. Agains

not necessarily. and you also fail to consider technocracy "clean-up"
teams, to prevent it from doing so.

> t that sort of ratio, the Technocracy really don't have a hope in hell.

maybe they do, maybe they don't. they seem to be doing well.

> They'd be dead in the dirt long ago, with the dodos.

on an individual basis, maybe.

> 5. Origins and compatability.
>
> Who runs the cities? Is it the Kindred or is the Technocracy?
> I see the origins of the Technocracy in the world of darkness as
> illogical, and their stance as illogical for a fifth killer reason. The
> Kindred.
> The Kindred are old. They are powerful. They have world-spanning
> intrigues and so on of their own that are far older than those of the
> Technocracy. Or the Nephandi. vampire Methuselahs are masters of tactics
> in the field of manipylation beyond anything that most of us could
> comprehend.

err, so what?

> And yet, for some reason, and to the Kindred's continuous ignorance to
> this day, the Technocracy have managed to fundamentally change things

who said they were ignorant? ever read Chaos Factor?

> and take over and keep the Camarilla in the dark. The Kindred, some of
> whom have huge Auspex, or networks of contacts everywhere, have managed
> somehow not to notice this happy little event.

umm. i believe it was fairly wide knowledge that the manipulations of the
technocracy (who like all mages as you said have godlike powers...which
are a damnsight more flexible than most kindred powers) BENEFITTED the
vampires. "Hmm, my prince, the humans appear to be believeing in this
'science' thing, and forming large cities" "oh goody"

> Remember that at the time of the founding of the Camarilla, the
> Kindred went into overdrive to hide their existence from the rest of the
> world. They became ultra perceptive organised controllers. Yet how, I
> ask you, how could they havee managed to do all of this and still not
> manage to see the mages at their tricks.

A. Who said they didnt
B. Who cares, crossover games are an option, not a requisite.
C. Mages have better powers (especially of hiding, being normal humans)
D. yaaawn

> Even if the Elders could not see what was going on, the methuselahs
> surely could. And what about the Antediluvians? Auspex 10 is a pretty
> useful thing you know. Now, if we follow the reasonable, logical course,

mmmhmm. So are an oracles powers. Who manipulates the manipulators? Plots
within plots within plots.

> we see that the efforts of the Technocracy would be a short-lived squeak
> when the Kindred found out. Or, at the very least, the Technocracy would
> find themselves at war on four fronts, with the Camarilla as a very
> strong enemy indeed. Neonates and Ancillae may not poe much of an

um. why? The technocracy appears to benefit vampires (for awhile).

> individual problem for mages, but Elders, Princees, Primogen, their
> contact networks, the Tremere, the Methuselahs and so on right the way
> up the ladder? They are serious problems that most mages cannot handle.

The Tremere WERE mages. Other than them, why are you assuming that
vampires know/understand everyhting about mages, instantly upon hearing
about them, auspex be damned?

> The sheer disruption that this would cause to the Technocracies
> efforts would be huge. They could never get it off the ground in any
> serious capacity. Eveen the damn garou would take a piece of ass when
> they figured out what the Techs were up to.

uhuhuhuhu. sure. You have apparently ZERO conceptual grasp of scheming,
manipulation, and the value of getting in the first punch.

uhuh. What happened to the all-powerful Auspex-10? what about mummy?

I don't know about you, but i find Big Brother conspiracies and Nephandic
*THINGS* just outside tthe walls of reality to be VERY sinister things. I
dunno, maybe you think sinister means something jumping out and drinking
your blood. I personally find what people do to each other infinitely
worse.

> As previously stated. mages can do anything and with some fear of
> reprisal. But where is a mage's personal problems? Where is his

That's the players responsibility.

> a roleplaying game's character section. The World of Darkness is all
> about questions and facing up to nasty truths. Or at least it was.
> Because you see, mages have no questions. They have no sense of doubt,
> of personal horror at what they do or what the world does to their

uhuh. bah. WTF do you think a quest for enlightenment _IS_, anyway?

> religion or what the dark side of their personality can do or at the
> loss of their very ability to imagine. There is no third dimension to the
> character of the game (not individual characters, but character of the
> game itself)

uhuh. Quiet. Hobgoblins. Technocracy brainwashing. Hubris. Resonance. What
were you saying again?

> What replaces this personal difficulty aspect is the philosophy of
> Ascension. But Ascension doesn't work. It's a great gaping hole in fact.

mainly because you (thinking in fixed terms) fail to understand it. not
because of any flaw in the concept.

> The only realistic thing that is used in this case is, finally, Spheres
> and power and foci and all the rest of it. These things are far too
> powerful to be meaningful to a character except as a means of happy
> SFX. They are too esoteric in many places to have any real applications.
> Who cares what the difference between weak and strong nuclear forces
> are? Who really gives a toss about creating complex life forms when
> simple viruses will do the job much better. They are just plain and
> simple too strong as powers for player characters. The level fives of
> each Sphere are enormous, godlike powers that for some reason are not
> used by the mages to slug it out.

A. Your players must be horrible munchkin-bait
B. Generally by level five, the mages tend to see beyond that sort of
thing
C. Vampiric Disciplines are no less strong (moreso in some cases), just
less flexible

uhuh. The Ascension War != Pogrom. the latter is only one aspect of the
former.

> There's little need for subtlety when you have the power of a God. So
> the mages are being illogically subtle.

Or, perhaps, that IS the reason. And mages are not quite godlike yet.

> 7. I can't stand the artwork :)

I didn't draw it.

> 8. Ideas for Traditions.
>
> The ideas for the game are by and large obvious rip-offs of previous
> ideas. The Technocracies individual parts are somewhat creative, but the
> rest of them can be picked and chosen from entertainment of the last few
> years and finger pointed to say .. hey, I know that !!

yeah, i think you might have this sort of backwards. where the HELL do you
think the ideas came from in the first place? Movies and TV didnt invent
them either.

> Akashic Brotherhood- Mystic Monks as seen in all the best martial arts
> movies and the really tripey Golden Child flick.

And also a rather ANCIENT way of life.

> Euthanatos - Thousands of bad voodoo movies

Wow, what a screwed version of them. Try rereading it more carefully
(along with the entire rest of the RPG)

> Dreamspeakers- Werewolf The Apocalpyse

Native Americans, Native Africans, etc etc.

> Order of Hermes - Guess.

the REAL Order of Hermes types, perhaps?

> Virtual Adepts - Lawnmower Man

yuck. horrid grasp of the tradition. they are NOT all cyberpunk and VR.
where's the anarchy? where's the individualism? try reading my post
sometime "the subjective nature of reality" (it's on anders page now)

Don't you think there might not be the slightest chance that this may
have, oh just possibly, came from US? the internet? all of the changes and
directions it and we are going through??

> Sons of Ether - Quatermass/Boris Karloff/BladeRunner take your pick.

BLADRUNNER? when the hell is that a Son of Ether setting/story?
Try Mary Shelley's FRANKENSTEIN, perhaps?

> Cult of Ecstasy - The Toreador. Time really does not fit these guys as
> a Sphere.

uh, the toreador? when do yuppie effite poseurs = couterculture hedonists?
try the real-life counterculture movement, perhaps.

> Verbena - Archetypal druids and witches.

New Agers, Wiccans, etc. This happens to be alive and well in our world
today. you DID say you wanted it "like our world only darker" right?

> Celestial Chorus - The Catholic Church.

No comment ;-)

> degree. Vampire's clans have identities derived from all sorts of
> sources. But the difference is that the various Clans are well derived
> and re-invented. But the Traditions are merely rehashed and don't fit
> well together.

uhuh, what about the entire freaking genre of vampires and rpg vampires?

> Oh, and conveniently, there's nine of them as opposed to Seven, or
> Thirteen. or some other mystical number.

Nine is a mystical number as well.

> Well, that's the gauntlet laid down. Yet again. It'll be interesting
> to see who picks it up this time.

I did. Then I melted it down and made a sword out of it ;-)

Hopefully the next time you might look more deeply at the game than just
glossing over it with an eye toward complaining about it. It really is far
better than you give it credit (the best of the lot IMHO) for

Jimmy McKinney, better known as Gregor on IRC - vor...@iglou.com
Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5: http://www.hyperion.com
Ander's Mage Page: http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/mage.html
Be, Inc. Homepage: http://www.be.com
Undernet #amiga homepage: http://red-branch.mit.edu/~bawt/
--7 lines. Cope with it.--

Montgomery Box

unread,

Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96

Since you asked, and I like debates, I'll take up the gauntlet. To summarize,
though, you bring up some very good points, but I think that you may have
overlooked certain aspects of mages.

In article <Dpppv...@news.tcd.ie>, JenJingu <jodo...@tcd.ie> wrote:

[snip]

>1. Mages.
>
> What is a mage?
>

[basic definition of a mage. Don't agree, but can't say why right now...:]

> But, to take the example, how many mathematicians are there that you
>know who will get into a four-sided war over whether Euclidean space is
>a whole pile of whizz or not? Not many. Why? Because they're not stupid.
>They'll argue. They'll prove their points and they'll discover new
>things. But they won't actively kill each other in the streets.

Well, technically, the mages aren't either. The primary goal of all the groups
is conversion. Technocracy doesn't kill all tradional mages just because, only
if they start to jepordize the stability of what they are building. Even the
Nephandi aren't out to kill other mages, but to get them to follow what they
believe is the correct method of Descent.

Mages, though, are NOT like that. Most of them aren't even actively pursueing
ascension. The practice politics, seek personal power, and, in every case,
try to survive in a world that wants them gone.

Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but there is nothing that says that being
creative means that you are completly accepting of everyone else's ideas. The
Technocracy(of which I presume you are refering, I dont' hink any of the other
groups is any thing remotely similar to unified) has the Symposiums to attempt
to work out comprimises of all the creative works of the 'Crats. If a
technocrat decides to break out of that, then they are branded as outlaw, and
hunted down(eg. Virtual Adepts)

[snipped some stuff I'm not going to comment on]

>
> Even more illogical is the stance of the Nephandi. They are smart too.
>And their magic is creative as well. But they all want to destroy things
>and corrupt things. Why? What's to be gained? Why do they not have many
>different motivations? Why do they behave like bad guys plain and
>simple? Is it because they are dense an uncreative? But to be a mage,
>you need to be spontaneous. You need creativity.

Look at the poles for Generation X'ers(at least the last set I saw) and most
of us are convinced that there ARE no answers to the problems of the world.
In light of that, why NOT just scrap the whole thing and start again?

[snipping the part on traditions, I'll deal with this under Ascension]

Actually, mages do know what Ascension is. Ask any of them. They'll even
give you the same general answer. But, ask 10 mages for the specifics of it,
and you're likely to get 11 different answers. Ascension is, at its base,
perfection. The traditions tend to take the view of personal ascension(If I
achieve perfection, I will lead others to it by example), the technocracy of
a broader view(Perfect humanity, and we will be perfected with it) and the
Nephandi the broadest of all(start from scratch, we may do it right this time)

[no one knows of anyone making it to ascension]

Taking ascension as perfection, then of course no one has made it. To make it
one must be perfect, and no one is. Ascention is a path, not a place.

> But no, Mages, particularly the Technocracy, follow this precept of
>Ascension like some mystic hare on a greyhound track, when they don't
>even have the foggiest clue what the hell it is they are after. That's
>like fighting tooth and nail for your political ideals when you haven't
>a breeze what those ideas actually are. It's illogical. Things just
>don't work that way.

No one follows something that they dont' understand. But each mage has
his or her own idea of what that is.

>
>3. Reality.

How mages interact with reality is perhaps one of the most difficult to
comprehend. I hope I can do this some justice....

> The way that the Technocracy and the Nephandi and the Marauders and
>the Traditions are trying to fight this war over so much hot air is by
>the manipulation of belief. Change the consensual belief of how things
>work and then things will change. BY this reasoning, before the general
>acceptance that the world was round happened, the world WAS flat. By the
>same token, before there was a Bible, there was no Heaven and Hell, but
>aftewards there must be because the majority of Christians believe in
>it.
> New ideas change the belief structure. But if the world was always
>made out of belief at some point or other, then where in Jehannum do any
>ideas ever come from? If all the souls/ Avavtars or whatever believed
>only in the timeless void before the Umbra happened then there must only
>have been timeless void. So where did the impetus for creation come from
>and how could one little avatar who somehow comes up with the idea to
>start with convince all of the others when what he says is plainly not
>so.

Well, there exists(according to weres anyways) three beings that are beyond
and before the Pure Ones, the shards of which are the Avatars of humans.
These being the Wyrm, Wyld and Weaver. The Pure Ones are were the result of
these three. There is no information, really, on what happened when the Pure
Ones were around. Reality may have been very differnet then. My take is since
there were no pure ones yet, the Wyld created the possibility of a reality, the
Weaver turned the possibility into planets, matter, and life, and the Wyrm has
been trying to destory it ever since.

This is very true. However, consensual belief is not absolute and there are
certain things that all the people you mentioned do believe. A force which
we have called gravity pulls objects together, 2 pieces of crystalized matter
cannot exist in the same space, etc. These are very basic things that are
part of our concensual reality. There are other things that are less universal
but which most people would still hold to be true, one of the most obvious
being God exists. Some think this is true, some not. The consensual reality
that must be dealt with is that of whoever you are around, for the most part.

> But if everybody doesn't believe the same thing then the world is a
>seriosuly strange place and the Technocracy ambitions are blown clean
>out of the water. There is a paradox of logic here. Consensual belief
>implies everything that everyone sees is the same. But by that token,
>nothing would change. There would be no Technomacer who comes up with
>the idea that the world needs to change. But go the other rout and
>assume that consensual belief is a convenient myth (disproven by such
>wondrous things as different religious attitudes and beliefs), then the
>presumption that reality is based on belief itself falls apart because it
>would be too chaotic. Either way, the Technocratic, Tradition, Nephandic
>and Maraudery stance is completely an utterly illogical again.

Well, you are taking consenual belief as an either/or proposition(it is either
absolutly true or false). If you take it as the least common denominator,
however, other things make a bit more sense.

> It simply doesn't follow. The ideas, by their very nature, contradict
>each other.
>
>4. Magic.
>
> Munchkin opportunism on the woeful magic system aside, and assuming
>that I didn't just point out the plain illogic of the previous three
>stances, here is why the attemot to replace magic with science and deny
>it's existence doesn't work.
>
> Take a look at the powers that a Mage can throw around. Even at the
>lower levels they can be godlike in application. They are really really
>badly against what reality says and does according to the consensual
>belief. But I would say that the contention that reality doesn't
>beelieve in magic and therefore there is Paradox isn't a good enough
>explanation for why people don't notice this amount of sheer power being
>thrown around here.

Actually, they are not necessarily against what the technocracy has put
forward. Correspondance, for example. Our world is constantly shrinking,
as faxes, e-mail, voice mail, and planes make it take less and less time(our
true, internal messure of space) to travel between. If you accept the
defination of transformation of forces put forth by M:tA, then even forces
is acceptable(a relecting beam of light is an illusion. The beam hits the wall
which destroys the beam and creates a new one with a new vector).

You wanted to know why no one notices what's going on? Because Paradox will,
eventually, destory all the evidence of any vulgar magic.

The power of mages has leveled nations(well, cities) and there is one major
problem with trying to turn the sky pink: Every technocrat(or any other mage
who doesn't want it pink) can use their knowledge of the spheres to activaly
preserve what the Sleepers see as reality.

Also, how do you know that this ISN'T happening? Would you believe me if I
told you that I have seen a unicorn? Or that someone pulled a rabbit from
thin air? More than likely, you would ask to see evidence...the very evidence
that Paradox eliminates.

> Oh ho, but you say that Paradox will interfere and stop him. But
>Paradox doesn't always work. It doesn't always win. It can be a bitch,
>but it is survivable. Even if you have a one-in-ten instance of Paradox
>leaving the mage alive and where he is after it strikes, that still
>leaves thousands of occurences of huge unexplained things.

The primary goal of paradox is not to punish the mage, but to relive the stress
vulgar magic causes on reality(read: what sleepers believe to be true). Any
change in world-view is painful, and Paradox exists to keep that from happening
to sleepers as much as possible. If the easiest way to remove the stress is
to remove the mage, so be it. Most of the time, htough, simply 'hardening'
reality to prevent the change is suffienct.

> If you think about it, the Technocracy attempt to forge a scientific
>reality would like wise have met with huge Paradox and never gotten off
>the ground. Coppernicus effectievly reorders the solar system and yet
>for some reason (despite this huge magnitude of magic flying in the face
>of commonly held belief) he is fine and dandy. BUt according to the way
>Paradox works, he and all his mage buddies trying to change things
>should have been fried in the dirt long ago.

Before the revolution, it was the technocracy that had problems with paradox.
The technocracy was able to get started because those in power in western
europe(where it started) abused it in the extreme, and the sleepers of the
time were willing to believe anything, just to make it a better place. Quite
a few people in our world and in our time are in a similar state. With the
sleepers in that state, paradox was weakened, since they wanted that state
change. Even then, they could only do it in limited areas at first(one
Covenent), but the word spread, and with it the idea that the Order of Hermes
was not all powerful. The undermining of the church took longer.

> But they did survive, oddly enough. So, even iff you then account
>that maybe Paradox was weaker back then than it is now (and why not)
>your one in ten mage who pulls of his amazing feat of vulgar magic
>successfully in front of crowds of people will change beliefs in an
>instant. Imagine if a hundred Marauders struck at once in all the major
>cities on the planet. The Technocracy would be ruins because some of
>them would survive the attempt and change the beliefs of millions in an
>instant.
> But belief doesn't change that easily, I hear you cry. Really ? How
>many people who are victims of UFO abductions believe what has happened?
>How many people that have had a religious experience change their view
>points? How many people who have seen that they cannot explain by any
>means (which is when Paradox comes into play) have their lives changed
>as a result? Loads of them. Lots and lots and lots of them. Something
>like six out of every ten people believe in extraterrestrial life these days,
>from accounts that they have heard, from books they have read, even from
>watching the X-Files on a reasonably regular basis.

However, consensual belief is not what one person believes, or even a 100. It
deals with the level of cities and countries. It has been quite a few years
since there was a serious revival in the US and perhaps there was a shift in
belief over ET's. Paradigm shifts are very hard to pin down, since they are so
all-encompassing.

One thing to consider on this is the origins of the New World Order(leader of
the technocracy) was the Cabal of Pure Thought, which founded and ran the
Inquisition, which was primarily against vampires and (other) mages. It was
quite effective, and took a long time to die down(and it could be said that
it did die down not from outside, but from the change in policy of the
Order/Cabal and their break from the Chorus)

>
>6. Isn't this the World of _Darkness_
>
> The World of darkness is supposed to be sinister. A darker version of
>the world we live in with much of the trappings intact. With Vampire,
>Wraith, Werewolf and Changeling even this is evident to a large degree.
>But Mage is not a dark game. mage is about this other place called the
>World of Spam. Why? because of the power levels involved.

I don't see how the power levels make the game less dark. True, it is not a
game about *personal* darkness(but then neither is Changeling), but one of
societial darkness. There are very real, and very large problems in mage that
need to be dealt with, but no mage or even group of mages has the power *and*
the desire to make the changes. The fact that mages have so much power
compared to the other groups just makes their inability to make any real
changes all the worse.

Mage, though, is all about doubt and questioning. It is seeking what
reality truly is and that search is both the source of power of the mage and
his own downfall when he fails to see the truth.

>concept of doubt. It is the facility to doubt that, in my opinion, makes
>a roleplaying game's character section. The World of Darkness is all
>about questions and facing up to nasty truths. Or at least it was.
>Because you see, mages have no questions. They have no sense of doubt,
>of personal horror at what they do or what the world does to their
>religion or what the dark side of their personality can do or at the
>loss of their very ability to imagine. There is no third dimension to the
>character of the game (not individual characters, but character of the
>game itself)
> What replaces this personal difficulty aspect is the philosophy of
>Ascension. But Ascension doesn't work. It's a great gaping hole in fact.
>The only realistic thing that is used in this case is, finally, Spheres
>and power and foci and all the rest of it. These things are far too
>powerful to be meaningful to a character except as a means of happy
>SFX. They are too esoteric in many places to have any real applications.
>Who cares what the difference between weak and strong nuclear forces
>are? Who really gives a toss about creating complex life forms when
>simple viruses will do the job much better. They are just plain and
>simple too strong as powers for player characters. The level fives of
>each Sphere are enormous, godlike powers that for some reason are not
>used by the mages to slug it out.

I understand that mage 2nd deals with this admitedly real problem.

> It's like nuclear warfare. Everybody has really big guns but nobody
>uses them because they knoiw it's pointless. The difference here is that
>the Technocracy use their weapons. Yet by any means of realistic
>retaliation, such acts provoke reactions and before you know what's
>going on, Armageddon has struck while you're changing your socks. With
>Magic of the power level that the mages use, any war between them is not
>going to be long and drawn out. It's going to be very very decisive very
>very quickly. And it's effects would be long lasting in the extreme.
> There's little need for subtlety when you have the power of a God. So
>the mages are being illogically subtle.

When everyone that matters has the big guns, when everyone is a god, then
subtlty(sp?) is the only way to do anything. Hopeing that if the others
don't realize what you are doing, they won't counteract it till it's too
late.

>
> 7. I can't stand the artwork :)

Well, that's your opinion.

All the groups, not just hte traditions, spawned off several subgroups that
we are aware of. I liked this about the game, actually. These are the
conspiracies that founded what we see in everyday life

> Akashic Brotherhood- Mystic Monks as seen in all the best martial arts
>movies and the really tripey Golden Child flick.

What the Brothers are supoosed to do, though, is not outside of what I"ve seen
in various old, martial arts texts and doctrines(Book of 5 rings comes to mind)

> Euthanatos - Thousands of bad voodoo movies

Actually, these are based off of Hindu death-cults(Shakti worshipers, if I've
not missed my guess)

> Dreamspeakers- Werewolf The Apocalpyse

Or, the shamanic tradition, which is world wide

> Order of Hermes - Guess.

All the books(currently in fad) on Hermetic Magic. (I think there really
was an Order of Hermes somewhere or other)

> Virtual Adepts - Lawnmower Man

Nah, just compugeeks(of which I am a proud honorary member)

> Sons of Ether - Quatermass/Boris Karloff/BladeRunner take your pick.

Don't know about the first two, but BladeRunner doesn't seem to fit. That's
much too technocratic. Think more of victorian science and 40/50's sci-fi.

> Cult of Ecstasy - The Toreador. Time really does not fit these guys as
>a Sphere.

But, they were originally the Ecstatic Seers(also Sufi's, I believe....). I
do want to see how they became what they are today.

> Verbena - Archetypal druids and witches.
> Celestial Chorus - The Catholic Church.

Yep on both counts.

>
> yes, you can do this with any of the games to greater or lesser
>degree. Vampire's clans have identities derived from all sorts of
>sources. But the difference is that the various Clans are well derived
>and re-invented. But the Traditions are merely rehashed and don't fit
>well together.
> Oh, and conveniently, there's nine of them as opposed to Seven, or
>Thirteen. or some other mystical number.

9 isn't a mystical number? In the Judeo-Christian tradition, this is the
number that refers to the perfection of humanity, directly opposing 6, which
represents mans for bestial nature.

> Well, that's the gauntlet laid down. Yet again. It'll be interesting
>to see who picks it up this time.

This could get fun. :)

>
>--
>--JenJingu-(was once Mithrandir)-(RL: Tadhg Kelly)-jod...@alf2.tcd.ie--
>
>If Mailing me, or replying me, make sure that at least one copy is going
>to my full address. Our mailer is screwed up like that. Ciao :-)

--
--
Monte Box
des...@crl.com

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon

unread,

Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96

Nyarla...@mail.utexas.edu (Nyarlathotep) wrote:

> I agree with the illogic of the Ascension War. Therefore I propose a
>solution: The Methuselahs of the Camarilla ARE aware of the various
>factions of mages and, due to the enormous amount of power the mages can
>throw around, They are the ones who have subtlely manipulated the mage
>factions into believing this Ascension War nonsense so as to set the mages
>against each rather than having them band together were they could
>actually wipe out the rest of the supernatural community. There's my
>two-cents...

<yawn>

We're talking about people who have the potential to know just what
the Methuselahs think, what the Methuselah's can't possibly know, and
what life was like before the Technocracy.

Kestrel
The Fairly Decent Dragon

Michael Brazier

unread,

Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96

to jodo...@alf2.tcd.ie

JenJingu wrote:

> So why do mages, who's magic opens them up a lot of interesting things
> that need study and debate and discovery, suddenly band together in
> large groups for purposes of saving the world? Why do the Technocracy
> suddenly get it into their bright little heads that collectively they
> must save mankind? Don't they have the ability to think? Their magic is
> creative which implies they must all have some sort of spontaneous
> streak in them. They may study their magic for dozens of reasons ranging
> from enlightenment to raw power to excitement and thrills. But suddenly
> in the 14th century out of nowhere they all get together behind some
> grand unity of vision.
> Without questions.

This is not, in fact, what happened. Not in my opinion, at least.
The Technocracy got together because the original Conventions, which
at that time were much like the Traditions, discovered through debate that
they had compatible philosophical positions and magical styles; and they got
to their present position of power because the major powers of Europe and the
Middle East (Christianity, Islam, the feudal system) fell apart in the next
few centuries, leaving a political and philosophical vacuum that the Technos
found themselves able to fill.
The "grand unified vision" of the Technocracy is simple nonsense, put
about by the Traditions as a salve to their pride. The Progenitors and Void
Engineers spend their time in research and exploration, as does about half of
Iteration X; those Technos that do concern themselves with mundane affairs,
the NWO, Syndicate, and some Iterators, are in bitter conflict over what those
affairs ought to look like. Don't assume that, because the Traditions aren't
privy to the divisions in the Technocracy, those divisions aren't present.

> Even more illogical is the stance of the Nephandi. They are smart too.
> And their magic is creative as well. But they all want to destroy things
> and corrupt things. Why? What's to be gained? Why do they not have many
> different motivations? Why do they behave like bad guys plain and
> simple? Is it because they are dense an uncreative? But to be a mage,
> you need to be spontaneous. You need creativity.

I think White Wolf dropped the ball on this one. Nephandi aren't
mages in the sense that the Traditions, Technos, and Marauders are; rather,
they're people who've drawn up bargains with powerful and evil supernatural
beings, exchanging their souls for power. Granting that premise, you can
see why all Nephandi are destructive, corrupting, and generally evil: their
source of power is destructive, corrupting, and generally evil. But I for
one can't see why they're built with the unmodified Mage rules. In every
story about deals with the Devil, the deal itself corrupts the one who makes
it; think of Lovecraft's cultists, or of Faust. How can that be squared with
a system where power stems (in theory) from enlightenment, wisdom, and virtue?

> What is Ascension? Good question since not even the game provides an
> answer. It's a goal that all mages worldwide inherently aspire to in one
> way or another. A means of enlightenment perhaps. Who knows.

Not quite. The Traditions do all agree that Ascension is the perfection
of personal enlightenment. But no two Traditions -- and, probably, no two mages
-- agree about how you're supposed to get there. The word "Ascension" itself is
nothing more than a bloodless abstraction; its basic function in the game is to
give the Traditions an appearance of unity. They oppose the Technocracy; well
and good, but what do they actually want? "Ascension, of course!"
Piffle.

This is indeed the most glaring hole in Mage: the Metaphysic of Magick.
Fortunately, you don't have to keep it, except as the belief system of certain
Traditions. Mage as a game rests on the idea that people can change the world
through sheer force of will. The idea that the world owes its existence to a
collective delusion (that's what the Metaphysic really says) is one possible
explanation for magical power, but it isn't the only one by any means -- and,
as you've noted, the Metaphysic falls apart on other grounds.

> The only way that you can get new ideas to happen is if people don't
> actually all believe the same things tobegin with. IN otherwords, if
> there is no such thing as a consensual belief in the first place. I
> would contend that consensual belief is a convenient myth. BUt people
> view the world in different ways. My view of the world is ever so
> slightly different from yours, or from Bill Clinton's, or from a
> sceintists or from a mage's.
> But if everybody doesn't believe the same thing then the world is a
> seriosuly strange place and the Technocracy ambitions are blown clean
> out of the water.

Actually, it's even worse than that. If everyone sees the world in a
different way, and has different beliefs about the world's nature, and beliefs
are the ultimate support for the world's existence -- there isn't any such
thing as a world. Every person actually lives in a miniscule world of their
own, spun out of their own heads, and without any necessary connection to the
worlds containing other people.
As I said, though, this incoherent metaphysical theory isn't necessary
for mages to exist. Indeed, I don't think you need *any* theory of the world's
origin and basis for existence to explain the powers of mages. You need a
theory of the relations between mind and matter, instead. However, that *is*
a metaphysical question; Mage gives an unsatisfactory answer, but credit the
game at least for raising the question.

> Take a look at the powers that a Mage can throw around. Even at the
> lower levels they can be godlike in application. They are really really
> badly against what reality says and does according to the consensual
> belief. But I would say that the contention that reality doesn't
> beelieve in magic and therefore there is Paradox isn't a good enough
> explanation for why people don't notice this amount of sheer power being
> thrown around here.
>
> There are thousands of mages out there and, in the use of vulgar magic
> they can do some pretty spectacular things. magic is a horribly powerful
> weapon. yet the Technocracy have managed for five hundred years to keep
> a lid on a power that can level nations, turn the sky pink if it chooses
> too and generally cause the loudest ruckus you ever heard.

First problem: check the power levels. A mage has a maximum of 5 successes
on one effect, and only gets that at Master levels. To get more than 5, the mage
has to roll more than once -- which means a higher risk of botching. On a pool of
5 dice, you can realistically expect to get 3 successes. Tell me, how spectacular
an effect can you get with 3 successes?
Second, the first and second levels in the Spheres aren't godlike, though
they *are* considerably better than, say, the first levels of vampire Disciplines.
The truly hideous powers are reserved for Adept and Master ranks. And, since I
brought up the Disciplines, notice that a Sphere's XP cost is almost twice that
of a Discipline at the same rank. Adepts are rare, even among mages; Masters are
even rarer.
Paradox I'll cover later on...

> Who runs the cities? Is it the Kindred or is the Technocracy?
> I see the origins of the Technocracy in the world of darkness as
> illogical, and their stance as illogical for a fifth killer reason. The
> Kindred.
> The Kindred are old. They are powerful. They have world-spanning
> intrigues and so on of their own that are far older than those of the
> Technocracy. Or the Nephandi. vampire Methuselahs are masters of tactics
> in the field of manipylation beyond anything that most of us could
> comprehend.

"World-spanning intrigues?" The impression *I* get from V:tM is that
the intrigues of vampires are mostly limited to the cities they live in.

> And yet, for some reason, and to the Kindred's continuous ignorance to
> this day, the Technocracy have managed to fundamentally change things
> and take over and keep the Camarilla in the dark. The Kindred, some of
> whom have huge Auspex, or networks of contacts everywhere, have managed
> somehow not to notice this happy little event.

There's a reason for that. The Technocracy's "control" of reality isn't
on the same plane as the Camarilla's -- where the Kindred keep track of money
flowing around, political power plays, and each other, the Technocracy works with
inventions, legal theory, and philosophy. The Kindred don't see the Technocracy
because (with very few exceptions) they don't regard kine philosophy as significant
to their concerns; it never occurs to them to *look* for mages' influence in the
places where it's most prevalent.

Paradox. Yes, I'm serious.
Paradox doesn't just produce backlashes; in Mage 1, at least, it also gives
mages Quiet. Quiet is *not* a form of backlash in Mage 1 (I haven't read Mage 2.)
It's a continuous pattern of hallucinations and delusions, increasing in severity
as the Paradox rating rises. Mages can't get rid of the hallucinations except by
getting rid of their Paradox, though they *can* banish one temporarily through a
course of meditation.
As Mage 2 removes the players' ability to burn off Paradox at will by
taking a flaw, mages have to live with their Paradox until it backlashes. Thus,
every point of Paradox gained not only takes a mage closer to backlash, but also
distorts the mage's knowledge of his surroundings. Now of course a mage with
Paradox will know his perceptions are distorted, but knowing that and knowing just
*how* they've been distorted are two different things.
So, every time a mage uses vulgar magic, his perception of the world is
less reliable than before, and *stays* unreliable until a backlash, which hands
him a load of grief. A clear recipe for paranoia...

> 7. I can't stand the artwork :)

Yes, a lot of it *is* pretty bad.

> The ideas for the game are by and large obvious rip-offs of previous
> ideas. The Technocracies individual parts are somewhat creative, but the
> rest of them can be picked and chosen from entertainment of the last few
> years and finger pointed to say .. hey, I know that !!

So they didn't develop the Traditions to any real depth in the basic
rulebook. That doesn't mean the Traditions *can't* be developed in depth. And
they do manage to cover most of the "classic" magicians of legend; a credible
character with magical powers will fit into at least one Tradition.

To sum up: you're at least partly right. Mage has some serious flaws,
mostly in the setting and the underlying logic, and the first edition is plagued
with afterthoughts and gaps in development. But it's not as bad as you've painted
it; and the virtues in my view outshine the flaws.

Michael Brazier

Justine Rogers

unread,

Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96

In article <4klb0n$e...@crl12.crl.com> des...@crl.com "Montgomery Box" writes:

> > Euthanatos - Thousands of bad voodoo movies
>
> Actually, these are based off of Hindu death-cults(Shakti worshipers, if I've
> not missed my guess)

Kali actually I think. If I remember correctly, the Shakti were the female
aspects of the male gods instead of individual divinities. (And not too
important as they don't have an entry in the Larousse World Mythology
encyclopedia)

Sorry about not saying anything in the main discussion, but other people will
say it better, and I personally don't like arguing hopeless cases.
--
"Humans and flowers are having sex." "Poo-tee-wheet?" " ~42 tuesday=39.small
brown carribean lizard" http://www.comp.it.bton.ac.uk/~jcr1/wolves.html WGP page
Meaningless junk brought to you by jus...@pepin.demon.co.uk

Richard Bell

unread,

Apr 12, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/12/96

In article <4kkku6$a...@xochi.tezcat.com>,

Daniel B. Holzman <hol...@tezcat.com> wrote:
>> There are thousands of mages out there and, in the use of vulgar magic
>>they can do some pretty spectacular things. magic is a horribly powerful
>>weapon. yet the Technocracy have managed for five hundred years to keep
>>a lid on a power that can level nations, turn the sky pink if it chooses
>>too and generally cause the loudest ruckus you ever heard.
>
>They are able to keep a lid on it because they have thecooperation of the
>traditions, who really don't like dealing with Paradox -or- HitMARKS.
>Most vulgar magick is done in the Umbra orin horizon realms where there
>aren't any sleepers.
>

They also have the active cooperation of the sleepers, who will try
to ignore a change to their paradigm as long as possible.

In 1453, Avogadro proved that bats had an imaging sonar [my words] by
showing that could navigate in a darkened room, but bumbled about
hopelessly when their ears were stuffed with wax. 500 years later,
Mankind invents the active sonar, and finally accept that Avogadro
was right about the sonar, but we did not believe that bats had an
imaging sonar until the synthetic aperture radar was developed.

For a better idea of how the consenual reality can be changed, watch the
series "The Day the Universe Changed" by James Burke. It addresses
several events where the consensual perception of reality changed.

jbu...@gemini.kent.edu

unread,

Apr 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/13/96

In article <316DA5...@cinti.net>, MIT E J <jan...@cinti.net> writes:

|> > manage to see the mages at their tricks.

|> > Even if the Elders could not see what was going on, the methuselahs
|> > surely could. And what about the Antediluvians? Auspex 10 is a pretty
|> > useful thing you know. Now, if we follow the reasonable, logical course,
|> > we see that the efforts of the Technocracy would be a short-lived squeak
|> > when the Kindred found out. Or, at the very least, the Technocracy would
|> > find themselves at war on four fronts, with the Camarilla as a very
|> > strong enemy indeed.
|>
|> They know about each other but just don't care as long as the vampires
|> keep themselves secret they pose no thret to the Technarcracey and its
|> plans. And yes the vampires know about the mages read the book of nod
|> one of Cains oun comandments was to be wary of the mages. Please before
|> you post this kind of crapp READ WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
|>
|>

After slogging through a post of JenJingu's arrogant and inane rantings I can
understand the desire to call him every variation of "moron" you can think of,
but please try to resist. He'll just say it's an indication of how his arguements
are so solid and Mage players so lame that they have to resort to verbal abuse.
This ignores the four or five other posts that calmly demolished his screed.

--
Jim Burdo
jbu...@scorpio.kent.edu
"We are the Hollow Men. We have always been here."

Timothy Toner

unread,

Apr 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/13/96

I took time out of a fairly sedate spring break to answer these
questions, not only because they're good questions, but also because
many of the questions have been answered, just in very subtle ways.

1. Mages.

What is a mage?

> A mage is someone who's able to do magic. He's got a talent. Like a
>scientist who knows all sorts of strange theories, or the mathematician
>who's well versed in his field, a mage has a field too. That's it. A
>mage is a bloke who knows how to do magic.

Nope. A mage is a fellow who's been taken backstage at life, and shown
how the ropes and such work. Now if he'd been shoved back into the
audience, everyone would consider him insane. Instead, he's invited to
take his part on the stage, and become an actor, or even better, a
stagehand, controlling the parameters of the story. More lights? Boom.
Need a god to appear in act three? There you go. A mage is much more
than a fellow with knowledge. He's a fellow with knowledge with an
Avatar, a backstage pass, and the ability to put that knowledge to work.

> But he's human too. Therefore, is it not unreasonable to assume that
>mages are people that are as diverse as normal folks. That they'll have
>personalities and opinions and all the rest of it? Naturally.

I dunno. Ask Penn and Teller if they were wowed by David Copperfield
making the Statue of Liberty disappear. They're as flesh and blood as
David, but their opinions are much more informed, and so they tend to
think abut such things on an entirly different level, which seperates
them from the rest of us.

> But, to take the example, how many mathematicians are there that you
>know who will get into a four-sided war over whether Euclidean space is
>a whole pile of whizz or not? Not many. Why? Because they're not
>stupid. They'll argue. They'll prove their points and they'll discover
>new things. But they won't actively kill each other in the streets.

Heh. Apparently you haven't heard of the Pythagoreans, who killed those
who messed with them on a regular basis, and proclaimed the Bean an evil
thing. These people had a grasp of the world that the rest of humanity
couldn't touch, and they were just as petty as everyone else.

How many people died in the Cold War? Officially, none, but there are
those who died as a result of decisions we made in a war that didn't
exist. How many _will_ get cancer because of nuclear tests we did 50
years ago, to make "safer" bombs? All those who died and will die as a
result of the cold war have to take solace in the realization that they
were defending an ideology, an idea, a way of viewing reality.

Now Twain said, "Everyone talks about the weather, but no one does
anything about it." If you could, however, do something about the
weather, then control over it would become something of a commodity.
You could, of course, reach a compromise, voting each day on how the
weather should be. You could leave it up to a duly elected committee.
But what if it couldn't rain everywhere? What if, after 24 straight
days of crisp autumn days, it was time to water those crops, and the
slugs in the adjacent town were hogging all the rain? What if they
didn't give a damn about your needs, and that while you were having your
24 days of fun, they were creating a plan that would benefit everyone
equally (but, of course, some people are more equal than others, right?)
What if there was no courts, no governing bodies? And what if there was
only a handful of people who really really really understood the
technology? That's the Ascension War. Everyone talked about reality,
but no one knew how to do anything about it. Until now. And I'm
telling you that beyond the parameters of the game, millions of people
have died this century alone over differences in reality.

Or even better, careers are ruined on a regular basis for those who hold
different theories about how literature should be read and critiqued.
The Universiy of Michigan almost destroyed my sister-in-law, and it's
doubtful that she can get a job teaching college in that region for a
decade or more. Sure, no one dragged her out into the street and put a
bullet in her brain, but career-wise, they killed her. And they'll do
the same to anyone who tries to do the same.

Y'see, it's all a question of resources. The UofM doesn't have enough
to support every radical theory, so it has to make choices. Power plays
result, and inocent people with devotion to pet theories get stepped on.
So too with Mage. There just isn't enough reality to go around.

> So why do mages, who's magic opens them up a lot of interesting things
>that need study and debate and discovery, suddenly band together in
>large groups for purposes of saving the world? Why do the Technocracy
>suddenly get it into their bright little heads that collectively they
>must save mankind? Don't they have the ability to think? Their magic is
>creative which implies they must all have some sort of spontaneous
>streak in them. They may study their magic for dozens of reasons
>ranging from enlightenment to raw power to excitement and thrills. But
>suddenly in the 14th century out of nowhere they all get together
>behind some grand unity of vision.
> Without questions.

The Technocracy banded around a singular vision: that the world could be
reduced into physical laws, that it could be shackled to causality, that
everything "evil" in the world came as a result of unperdictability. If
the world could become more and more predictable, than anything nasty
which came down the pike could be anticipated and prepared for. This
was good news for the peasant whose family was eaten by a dragon.
Besides it tapped into the need that all men had to know the universe.
And to accomplish this feat, the technocracy decided that educating the
masses wasn't enough (in fact, that was too hard). If Mohammed could
not come to the mountain, then the mountain would come to him. The
universe would be "dumbed down" so anyone could comprehend it.

Now anyone can tell you that the person willing to be a bigger asshole
will win 90% of all conflicts. And the technocracy was the biggest
asshole of all. Most importantly, it caught wind of one of the most
powerful memes in human experience, a truly experience-proof story.

Very few stories are experience-proof. If I tell you that wearing an
Ozzy Osbourne shirt will protect you from bullets, you'll believe it
until, of course, you get shot. The best application of experience-proofing
is the old "paint on the bench" trick. Tell a man that there
are a billion stars in the sky, and he'll believe you. Tell him that
the paint on the bench is wet, and he'll have to touch it to be sure.
No one is going to count the stars. So what you need to do is make your
stories (paradigms) so high that no one will bother questioning them.
This is how so many groups survived up until the technocracy rolled into
town.

They came up with a simple story. Everything can be explained.
Anything that can't be explained will be explained with a bit more
study. Just give us time. That's the story under which we currently
operate, and as you can imagine, it's deeply seductive. Anything _true_
in anyone else's paradigm is automatically subsumed into the Technos'
paradigm if it makes sense. Anything that requires a leap of faith is
left into the dust. Thus, this story can tear apart most any
"experience-proof" stories, making them irrelevant.

The fact is that most of your argument operates under this story,
showing just how pervasive it is. However, it has one major flaw, which
forms the achilles heel of the technocracy. We'll look at that in a
bit. Suffice it to say that they grabbed onto a great idea that, like
Christianity, transformed the world, and they played it for all it was
worth.

> This strikes me as very, very , VERY unrealistic. Religion does this,
>but even within religions there are divisions, interpretations and so
>on. But religions get their support from the masses who don't really
>want to have to think about these things. But mages? mages are actively
>involved people. They're dynamic. They question, they re-evaluate, they
>have ideas. Unity of purpose and sponataneity in vast quantities are
>not two things that fit together.

"There are many paths. There is but one destination." That's how the
technocracy would view that conundrum. Or to put it another way, it
doesn't amtter how you get there, only that you do. And that you're
driving the right kind of car. If you're not, then you'll find the
journey much more arduous.

> Even more illogical is the stance of the Nephandi. They are smart
>too. And their magic is creative as well. But they all want to destroy
>things and corrupt things. Why? What's to be gained? Why do they not
>have many different motivations? Why do they behave like bad guys plain
>and simple? Is it because they are dense an uncreative? But to be a
>mage, you need to be spontaneous. You need creativity.

First, smarts doesn't enter into it. There are plenty of smart serial
killers out there. But they all have method to their madness. And in
the case of the Nephandi, it's a bigger picture that they're
considering. They've not only seen backstage, but they've been made
aware of other productions, other scripts, and that this one is fatally
flawed. So do you want to be on the side of the writer or just an
unwilling pawn in someone's powerplay? Why not end this production, and
start a new one in its place? Isn't it _fun_ to watch people scramble
to pick up the pieces? They're damn creative. It's only a fool who
would underestimate a Nephandi in that regard. Check out the movie
"Highway to Hell" for a good reason why a "good" person should turn bad,
and a "bad" person would do good. They've come into contact with forces
of unbelievable power, and frankly, they know that it's all out of their
hands. So why not be on the winning team?

> Traditions are understandable in that they basically can be viewed as
>large study groups. But even they all quest for Ascension with a unity
>of purpose which again I find to be illogical. As an example of
>difference of real world magicians, look at Gaiman's Books of Magic.
>They're magicians, just like Mages and they can do magic. yes, there
>are those with some nasty ideals in mind, yes there are those who
>champion causes, but the majority are just people with personalities
>and interests. Like John Constantine. There's little different in the
>premise of both works - i.e. that there all basically mages. But Mage
>flies off on this weird religious zealotry that really badly doesn't
>fit.

You seem to think that Ascension is some bright shining gate that all
Mages set out towards from day one. Instead, it's not a destination,
but a state of mind, and mages are unconsciously drawn towards it. Why?
Because it fulfills a need deep within them. When a mage starts out, he
realizes that the world's a lethal place, and so he acquires tools to
make it less of a challenge, and then suddenly he comes to realize that
it was _he_ that was the threat, and not the world. He was the one
seeking out challenges (or, more precisely, his avatar was). Had he
simply laid low, the world would have been a very simple, ordered place.
But the first step of going beyond the norm was the first step in the
direction toward Ascension. When he reaches a certain level of power and
Arete, things matter less and less. He comes to understand that the
world is so much clay for him to manipulate, and what's the point of
investing so much energy in a world so easily twisted? When the world
loses its glamor, when a mage realizes that just as all points are one,
all forces are one, all states of matter are one, etc., the business of
protection this one particular place/person/idea seems pretty silly.
Unless, of course, there's something intrinsically valuable in that one
object, something that Magick cannot touch. To seek the answer to that
question, the mage must search beyond this world. He must cast aside
all presumptions, go beyond his traditions, and Ascend. I believe it
was Anders who first pointed out that the quest for Arete is the selling
of Tradition. With each point, you surrender a focus, and in doing so,
unleash yourself from dogma.

> And the motivation for all this : Ascension.

"In the long run, we are all dead." Magi have a choice. Ascend or die.
Release yourself from the operating parameters of this world, or hope to
get a better chance next time. Which would you pick, if you were given
a choice?

>2. Ascension.

> Why Ascension as a goal for all mages worldwide does not work.

> What is Ascension? Good question since not even the game provides an
>answer. It's a goal that all mages worldwide inherently aspire to in
>one way or another. A means of enlightenment perhaps. Who knows.

Actually Ascension is pretty straightforward. Attain a state so
advanced that paradox cannot touch you, that thought and action are one.
Beyond that, we can't perceive ascension, since we have to view it
through our poor filters. Roughly, however, imagine playing without the
book, without rules, where the only thing that matters is Will.

> But consider the follwing fact : Nobody knows of anyone that's ever
>even vaguely made it to Ascension. Even the Oracles in their high and
>mighty powers haven't made it. So where does the reasoning for it's
>very existence in the first places. Mages, being the aforementioned
>thinking creative individuals that all have ideas and theories and a
>multitude of different viewpoints (in a manner not too dissimilar to
>scientists or philosophers) in my view would not be the sort of people
>therefore that accept Ascension wholeheartedly.

How many people believe in existence after life? This is, of course,
the ultimate experience-proof story. Most societies come to some sort
of a conclusion that there is some sort of life, but is there proof?
Sure, people say they come back, and curious cases of reincarnation have
done more for the effect of wishful thinking than hard evidence. But so
many people believe -- how can it not be true?

How many children believe in Santa Claus? Yeah, you can smell where
this one is heading, but the point is valid. How many children believe
in something that all adults know is false? And why do we _lie_ to
children about this essential part of their reality? The best reason
I've heard is that it allows them to figure out something about their
world, and rather than being pissed that a) they've been lied to and
b)there's no omniscient altruistic being guarding their actions, they
feel good about figuring it out all on their own.

Our reality is suffused with experience-proof and not so experience
proof stories that we choose to believe because they fit our moral
structure. But if a prick in NWO trappings points a gun in your face
and asks you if you're a mage, you're going to say, "No," and that's not
going to affect the existence or non-existence of Ascension either way.
Maybe there's no ascension. Maybe there's no afterlife. But while
scrabbling up from the dust, enough people realized that the world was a
better place believing in it that it became a cornerstone of reality.

> Look at Ars Magica. How many Hermetic magi seek to become enlightened
>to a better state? very few. And those that do are more often out and
>about trying to figure out the ins and outs of these things for
>themselves.By contrast, lots of magi are just in the business of
>figuring out how magic ticks, or politics or whatever. They are people
>with the amazing gift of intelligence.

The point of the quest for the philosophers stone was the purification
of the self while purifying a bunch of inert chemicals into this really
whiz material. Those who did politics and magick theory to try to make
the world a better place undoubtably reached the conclusion that too
many cooks spoil the broth, and approached it an entirely different way.
They took politics as an example of some essential part of reality, and
attacked the conundrum of reality from that point of view. I can
imagine very little magi stating that they thought they were improving
themselves through their mundane actions, but the greatest Magi of them
all, Joshua of Nazareth said "There will be poor always," and continued
to help them in their plight. It was an external reflection of an
internal voyage. Did he Ascend? That's another story altogether.

> So, with that in mind, why are all mages, people with the gift of
>intelligence and wit, blindly following their paths to Ascension. It is
>my belief that logically speaking there would be few mages really
>interested in enlightenment. Far fewer than the number of mages that
>just study magic for magic's sake, or for power's sake, or just as a
>handy tool.

Cui bono? For the good of whom? Why study magick at all? What does
magick _do?_ Most magi, I venture, don't know. They have the tool, they
have the owner's manual, and they try to divine the plan of the master
builder, or go at it themselves. But why shoudl they strive and
struggle? You're right. It doesn't make sense. If had Magick, I'd
probably make a horizon realm, stop time relative to the real world, and
read and write my ass off. But ultimately WHY? Just because magi see
thorugh the eyes of their avatar, their primal needs to become something
more than what they are don't change. The quest for ascension must
continue for no other reason that there is no alternative. If there
was, then they'd follow that. And they'd probably call it...ascension.
Not because they're stupid, or ignorant, but because it's a damn good
story.

> But no, Mages, particularly the Technocracy, follow this precept of
>Ascension like some mystic hare on a greyhound track, when they don't
>even have the foggiest clue what the hell it is they are after. That's
>like fighting tooth and nail for your political ideals when you haven't
>a breeze what those ideas actually are. It's illogical. Things just
>don't work that way.

Do you believe in life after death? Why? Why not? To paraphrase a
philosopher, shouldn't you believe in God on the off chance that he
really does exist? As it is, if he doesn't then all you've done is
wasted a bit of your admittedly finite time, and in the bargain, your
selfless acts have made the world a better place.

>3. Reality.

That's the theory. The Technocracy, as I've stated, have created an
experience-proof story for explaining the universe. The problem the
Traditions have yet to face is how to scrub this idea from mankind's
mind, since it is so powerful. Everything can be explained with careful
application of scientific principles. And who controls the scientific
principles? Game, set, and match. Even if they were able to plug
something new in there, it would eventually be explained in terms of the
technocracy's paradigm, and they'd still win. The only thing that still
works are those things that require absolute faith to perceive. And if
I told you that I could give you a shirt that would protect you from
bullets, if you believed hard enough, would you? I didn't think so.

> New ideas change the belief structure. But if the world was always
>made out of belief at some point or other, then where in Jehannum do
>any ideas ever come from? If all the souls/ Avavtars or whatever
>believed only in the timeless void before the Umbra happened then there
>must only have been timeless void. So where did the impetus for
>creation come from and how could one little avatar who somehow comes up
>with the idea to start with convince all of the others when what he
>says is plainly not so.

You're grappling with questions beyond the focus of the game, questions
that philosophers and now biologists have been musing over for
centuries. According to this story, there were the pure ones, who
shattered into avatars, each imparting a separate glimpse of the
totality of reality. Is there any way we can prove this? Or does it
require faith? How good a story is it? It's untestable, and so
probably experience-proof. Maybe as a story, it sucks, but perhaps even
though it sucks, it's true. Maybe it's time to create a new story.

Maybe change was engineered in the universe from the start. Maybe
staticity is the true goal of all things, the ultimate act of rebellion.
Maybe we can't help but to change. Pirsig thought so in _Lila._ I think
you should read it.

I have in a box a puzzle with 100 pieces in it. I give a piece to each
of my 100 friends. Now together, working as one toward a common goal
(the picture) we can bring order to the chaos of the puzzle piece.
Maybe some people in the crowd have no idea what it is they hold in
their hands. Does that make their piece invalid? Hell no! Maybe you
and I have different pictures in mind, each mutually consistent (I'm
thinking of those puzzles with an image on the front and back. Can
either of us be wrong. Sure. The question is whether or not the image
we hold fits the overall shape of the puzzle. Ideally, if we capture
enough people, those who have not decided will agree with our vision,
and spontaneously come to our side. That's the nature of the War. Each
of our pieces is different, and each of our vision of how our piece fits
varies. Maybe I understand how my piece relates to your piece, and
maybe you've anticipated how ten pieces fit. But maybe my two pieces
are the _key_ pieces that make everything come together. That makes my
two more important than your ten. Numbers don't do it, per se.

> But if everybody doesn't believe the same thing then the world is a
>seriosuly strange place and the Technocracy ambitions are blown clean
>out of the water. There is a paradox of logic here. Consensual belief
>implies everything that everyone sees is the same. But by that token,
>nothing would change. There would be no Technomacer who comes up with
>the idea that the world needs to change. But go the other rout and
>assume that consensual belief is a convenient myth (disproven by such
>wondrous things as different religious attitudes and beliefs), then the
>presumption that reality is based on belief itself falls apart because
>it would be too chaotic. Either way, the Technocratic, Tradition,
>Nephandic and Maraudery stance is completely an utterly illogical
>again.

We are human beings. What makes us human? What seperates us from dogs,
cats, stones? 46 chromasomes? What about that corpse on the table?
What about this skin cell I've just removed from my epidermis? Is it
human? We can't grapple with THAT question, much less something as
hairy as the nature of reality. So we set up parables, useful tools
that help us avoid the scary math. We invent stories that help us
translate our world, and some stories are better than others. Some
stories are so powerful, that they transcend culture. The Deluge is a
good example. Does this mean that there was once a Great Flood? Nope.
It's just a good story, a convenient way of handling greater concepts.
So people don't have to know the exact same story to get the jist of
what we're talking about, and why we're talking about it. We all do not
see through the same eyes. We view reality through filters, and it is
these filters that not only blind us but DEFINE us. The technocracy
knows that there are flaws in the plan. Does that mean that they will
always be there? Nope. Xeno's paradox says you can't cross the room,
and yet we all do. Einstein says we can't exceed the speed of light,
and causality says time travel is impossible. Both paradoxes, just like
Xeno's. Will we achieve a state where we will see causality as just
another logical burp on a path to greater understanding, a crossed wire?
Perhaps. The technocracy's job is to distract you from the flaws, and
make you concentrate on the neat stuff, and if they can get everyone's
filters to ignore the same damn thing, they win.
One more thing. Illogical. According to whom? Apparently not to
the fellow who wrote the game, nor to the people who have read the books
that inspired the game. Maybe these concepts are poorly presented, but
I wouldn't go so far as to attack a game on logical bases when logic is
so much warm custard.

> It simply doesn't follow. The ideas, by their very nature, contradict
>each other.

Does a dog have the Buddha nature? Can a dog become Buddha, and if it
is possible, how will we know that Rex has become the Buddha, if we
never listen to him. Buddhist precepts teach that all things are
capable of the Buddha nature, and yet it is obvious that dogs do not
adhere to Buddhist teachings. What if? The answer, of course, is that
the student who mused on this saw the trees, but could not see the
forest. He got caught up in the paradox that he missed the larger
picture. If a dog becomes Buddha, then we will _know._

>4. Magic.

> Munchkin opportunism on the woeful magic system aside, and assuming
>that I didn't just point out the plain illogic of the previous three
>stances, here is why the attemot to replace magic with science and deny
>it's existence doesn't work.

> There are thousands of mages out there and, in the use of vulgar
>magic they can do some pretty spectacular things. magic is a horribly
>powerful weapon. yet the Technocracy have managed for five hundred
>years to keep a lid on a power that can level nations, turn the sky
>pink if it chooses too and generally cause the loudest ruckus you ever
>heard.

First, read Mage 2nd edition. It goes a long way to alleviating your
fears as to why the earth hasn't been destroyed by some ambitious
Nephandi with a pound of plutonium.

And we create stories to justify them. Human beings are insanely good
about that. And if we didn't catch the bastard this time, we'll get him
the next. Or the next. In short, the more you do, the more cocky
you'll become, and the sooner you'll fall.
I have books filled with Fortean phenomena, which cannot currently
be edxplained by modern science, but the charge is there: one day, it
will be. That's what paradox is all about. If it cannot adequately be
believed, then Paradox will get it. If Paradox does not this time, then
perhaps the next. The point of all this is that paradox isn't LOGICAL.
It's _paradox._ It can ignore its own rules. It's special that way.

> If you think about it, the Technocracy attempt to forge a scientific
>reality would like wise have met with huge Paradox and never gotten off
>the ground. Coppernicus effectievly reorders the solar system and yet
>for some reason (despite this huge magnitude of magic flying in the
>face of commonly held belief) he is fine and dandy. BUt according to
>the way Paradox works, he and all his mage buddies trying to change
>things should have been fried in the dirt long ago.

First, in the real world, Copernicus got exactly ONE THING RIGHT. He
saw that the Heliocentric universe told a better story than the
terracentric one. But despite all evidence to the contrary, he believed
planets moved in perfect circles, and ended up with a much more complex
worldview than the Ptolmeic one he left in the dust. It was Kepler,
who, with Copernicus' theories and Tycho's star charts that led to the
current solar system, and even THEN they were not believed. Why not?
Because the old paradigm was stretched but not broken. Everything could
still be explained, with a bit more tinkering, in the old model. Until
Galileo. He did something simple, wholly unrelated to the earth and its
course around the sun (or visa versa). All he did was look at the moons
of Jupiter, and realized that they went around Jupiter.
And everything shattered. If objects orbited other objects, then
there was no way that the terracentric earth, with everything orbiting
around it and it alone, would work. People envisioned micro solar
systems around planets, that there was this grand symmetry. It was a
great way to look at the world. And certain Greek philosophers would be
pissed to note that they had conceived of the same damn thing, except
that they didn't have reproducible results. History is all a matter of
timing.
No single piece of evidence could have transformed the world, but
those four people contributed to turn the physical universe on its ear.
They also worked in realms that the regular man couldn't touch, thus
creating experience proof stories that, when one was properly
indoctrinated with the right knowledge, made perfect sense.
If I told you that a galactic emperor named Xemu took all the
undesirables in the galactic federation, freezed them in glycol, stuffed
them in a volcano on a backwater world called Teegeeack, and bombed them
into oblivion with hydrogen bombs, and that these undesirables buried
their fragments of consciousness in an awakening world, and evolved with
the lifeforms until they came to possess higher level life-forms, and it
was these undesirable spirits, which we will call thetans, which are
responsible for your problems in life, from physical maladies to
emotional dysfunctions, you'd say it was a bad scifi story. But if I
told you that it's what Scientologists believe as their story, and that
people spend upwards of $100,000 for that info alone, you'd think anyone
who would would be insane. So how do they get away with it? Simple.
They don't give it to them all at once. They administer their tenants
in small doses, with things that can be easily verified, yet hard to
directly prove. They provide explainations, and get increasingly
complex. In short, they teach you a new language and tell you a new
story, a new way of looking at the world, and the next thing you know,
it's all you can see. Of course, you can perceive the old way, but it
seems unreal.
The Techocracy created not only a new story but also a new
language. It told everyone, "Come to us if you want answers, and rather
than revealing them to you, we'll give you the tools to find your
answers yourself." An an inevitable part of that story was
collaboration. With the tenet of collaboration, all things had to be
shared to be verified, and that toned down the more unreasonable
theories. Copernicus won by slow and steady pressure. How many people
died in the name of science? Chalk up each and every one to paradox.
Galileo went blind. Paradox. They paid for the benefits we have today.

Once again, Mage 2nd edition addresses this. Maurauders who try this
find themselves back where they started, with a sudden desire to change
their mind. A bauble distracts them, and the universe is saved.

> But belief doesn't change that easily, I hear you cry. Really ? How
>many people who are victims of UFO abductions believe what has
>happened? How many people that have had a religious experience change
>their view points? How many people who have seen that they cannot
>explain by any means (which is when Paradox comes into play) have their
>lives changed as a result? Loads of them. Lots and lots and lots of
>them. Something like six out of every ten people believe in
>extraterrestrial life these days, from accounts that they have heard,
>from books they have read, even from watching the X-Files on a
>reasonably regular basis.

How many people start their abduction stories with, "Now I know you'll
think I'm crazy, but..." Boom. They've just kow-towed to the
Technomancer's paradigm. In that worldview, crap like that just doesn't
happen to sane people, and the victim himself provides a way out. The
technocracy then provides a solution (take a few of these pills...), and
the world is once again bright and happy. Look at how accounts of the
people returning from the afterlife are being challenged. People still
believe them, but how many do so out of reflex, and not firm belief? We
all operate under the eye of public scrutiny, of the need for scientific
veracity. It's the language we speak, and for someone who doesn't speak
it, the world's a very different place.

> Belief can be so quicksilveringly changed, and yet for some reason
>unexplained, it is not. By these standards, the Technocracy's attempt
>to clamp down on changing belief is an illiogical stance again. One
>event like that described above can undo the work of a lifetime's odds.

>Against that sort of ratio, the Technocracy really don't have a hope in

>hell.
> They'd be dead in the dirt long ago, with the dodos.

The technocracy wager that faced with a cruel and harsh world, the human
race will just as quickly run back for cover under their paradigm. It
was difficult at first, but there's an amazing amount of trust out
there. How many people fly every day? Do they know how it works? Hell
no. Will believing that it doesn't work make it crash. That depends on
who is doing the disbelieving. If it's the pilot, hell yes. If every
passenger doesn't, then no, because their filters block that
possibility. The quicksilver nature of belief actually works to their
advantage. In times of crisis, people cling to static, stable forces,
not dynamic ones.

5. Origins and compatability.

[Lots of stuff about vampires deleted]

Look. You chose a story that put Kindred on top. Someone else will
choose a story that shows that the Kindred exist by-th-leave of the
Technocracy, in their shadow. Hell, I could come up with a rote that
would exterminate any vampire anywhere in the world. It would be as
vulgar as hell, but it could be done if the technocracy felt threatened.
Frankly, I don't think the two are as incompatible as you think.
The technocracy has made the world a much nicer, safer place. They've
allowed mankind to create an economy of night, so that the Kindred can
enjoy the finer things in life. Their long term plans for the human
race care little for actual people, and more for movements, trends, etc.
They move in entirely different worlds, and if they clash, it is quite
simple to compromise, since both have things the other wants. Certainly
the downfall of the tecnocracy would mean a return to a time when things
were far less predictable, where a bastard with a cross could make your
blood boil from within. Of course, that's just not possible now.
How...convenient.
Why haven't the Methuselahs done something? Who says they
haven't?
Oh, one more thing. The Technocracy claim that they were born
when man took control of the universe in a natural, predictable way.
This was of course agriculture. Which was Caine first, a Technomancer
or a vampire?

6. Isn't this the World of _Darkness_

Not so. This isn't a matter of game balance, since Mage wasn't designed
to appeal to Vampire fans. Still, with the right amount of preparation,
a vampire can wipe the floor with a Master of just about anything. A
mage doesn't ahve to be creative to be a mage. They just have to be if
they want to live.

> As previously stated. mages can do anything and with some fear of
>reprisal. But where is a mage's personal problems? Where is his
>questioning of values and impending depression and so on that makes him
>more and more depressed as well as possibly enlightened. In the other
>four games, there is an element of questioning. There is the wonderful
>concept of doubt. It is the facility to doubt that, in my opinion,
>makes a roleplaying game's character section. The World of Darkness is
>all about questions and facing up to nasty truths. Or at least it was.
>Because you see, mages have no questions. They have no sense of doubt,
>of personal horror at what they do or what the world does to their
>religion or what the dark side of their personality can do or at the
>loss of their very ability to imagine. There is no third dimension to
>the character of the game (not individual characters, but character of
>the game itself)

What is real? That's what the game asks. That's the five billion soul
question. There's a lot of theories, a lot of templates and blueprints
for how the universe works, but how many really _do_ work? A handful?
One? None? How do you know your Tradition isn't harming the world in
this foolish Ascension War? Look at all the Technocracy has done.
Hell, look at all the NEPHANDI have done for the advancement of the
human race. Temptations exist every day, and the ability to meld
reality don't make obtaining answers any more simple. In fact, there
are no true stories to fall back on. What a horribly depressing notion,
to have everything so relative that nothing at all is true except that
which a vulgar group of dirty men decide is the way things ought to be.
Was there once a real world? Do magi delude themselves, thinking
themselves movers and shakers, while human history conveniently ignores
certain aspects? Will the War go on forever? Has the War created
niches for the monsters now currently preying on the world? What will
happen when the Technocracy is thrown down? Will the world suddenly be
sundered into nine parts? I think so. I think the Traditions are
_that_ selfish, that once they win, the world may not survive the
victory party.

> What replaces this personal difficulty aspect is the philosophy of
>Ascension. But Ascension doesn't work. It's a great gaping hole in
>fact. The only realistic thing that is used in this case is, finally,
>Spheres and power and foci and all the rest of it. These things are far
>too powerful to be meaningful to a character except as a means of happy
>SFX. They are too esoteric in many places to have any real
>applications. Who cares what the difference between weak and strong
>nuclear forces are? Who really gives a toss about creating complex life
>forms when simple viruses will do the job much better. They are just
>plain and simple too strong as powers for player characters. The level
>fives of each Sphere are enormous, godlike powers that for some reason
>are not used by the mages to slug it out.

Sigh. Read second edition.

> It's like nuclear warfare. Everybody has really big guns but nobody
>uses them because they knoiw it's pointless. The difference here is
>that the Technocracy use their weapons. Yet by any means of realistic
>retaliation, such acts provoke reactions and before you know what's
>going on, Armageddon has struck while you're changing your socks. With
>Magic of the power level that the mages use, any war between them is
>not going to be long and drawn out. It's going to be very very decisive
>very very quickly. And it's effects would be long lasting in the
>extreme.
> There's little need for subtlety when you have the power of a God.
>So the mages are being illogically subtle.

Well, this is where the Technocracy's great weakness comes into play.
All things are supposed to be subject to doubt. A theory is invented,
and designed specifically to be torn apart. That which cannot be torn
apart moves to the next level. The strongest ideas thus survive. But
like in the real world, a Technocrat grabs onto a pet theory, and will
not let go, AND MAGICK LETS HIM DO THIS! Ego shouldn't enter into
science, but it does, and the Technos can manipulate the parameters of
the paradigm to allow all sorts of weird crap in. If they were true to
themselves, the world would be a much simpler place, but they don't , so
their lightning fast progress is held back.
Had you read the Book of Shadows, you would have come to another
conclusion: the high muck-a-mucks of the Technocracy HATE HUMANITY!
Their neatest toys are still too advanced for earth, and so they find
their wild imaginations shackled by Paradox. People just aren't ready
for the next big thing. Cold fusion? Riddled with paradox from people
unwilling to take the concept at face value. So what do they do? Theyt
create research installations in the Umbra, where paradox does not exist
They all but ignore humanity, and this alone will cost them the
Ascension War. How many people can't even program the clock on their
VCR? They're not ready for the big push, and they won't be ready for a
long, long time. The Technocracy has simply lost its way, and reality
is currently running on autopilot.
How many people believe that something big will happen 12:00 1
January 2000? Why? it's just a number, right? Who will use that
belief to shove somethign dark and nasty right under the noses of the
technocracy? Who indeed?

8. Ideas for Traditions.

> The ideas for the game are by and large obvious rip-offs of previous
>ideas. The Technocracies individual parts are somewhat creative, but
>the rest of them can be picked and chosen from entertainment of the
>last few years and finger pointed to say .. hey, I know that !!

> Akashic Brotherhood- Mystic Monks as seen in all the best martial
>arts movies and the really tripey Golden Child flick.

Check out the Akashic Record. There's a wealth of stuff in here.

> Euthanatos - Thousands of bad voodoo movies

Not Euthanatos 2nd edition.

> Dreamspeakers- Werewolf The Apocalpyse

You're ignoring 5000 years of Shamanic practice? Ahem.

> Order of Hermes - Guess.

Golden Dawn? What?

> Virtual Adepts - Lawnmower Man

Heh, I never much liked the Inepts, so I won't carry their standard.

> Sons of Ether - Quatermass/Boris Karloff/BladeRunner take your pick.

All of that and more. Do yourself a favor, and read into the Ether
debate, as well as the Phlogiston debate. Hell, check out Parminedes.

> Cult of Ecstasy - The Toreador. Time really does not fit these guys
>as a Sphere.

In art, timing is everything.

> Verbena - Archetypal druids and witches.

> Celestial Chorus - The Catholic Church.

All of these have long traditions based around the creation of stories
to explain reality. Thus, all can qualify as the origin of paradigm.

> yes, you can do this with any of the games to greater or lesser
>degree. Vampire's clans have identities derived from all sorts of
>sources. But the difference is that the various Clans are well derived
>and re-invented. But the Traditions are merely rehashed and don't fit
>well together.
> Oh, and conveniently, there's nine of them as opposed to Seven, or
>Thirteen. or some other mystical number.

What? Nine isn't special? 3^2. nuff said.

Well, that's the gauntlet laid down. Yet again. It'll be interesting
to see who picks it up this time.

Tadhg, once again, the lad doth protest too much. You don't like the
Mage story, so don't let it bother you. To some, however, it is a
compelling story, and it's still being told. I didn't liek it at first,
and now I can't get enough of it, much as I feel about Wraith.

--
Timothy Toner ------ School Librarian ------ thanatos @interaccess.com

Revenimus, MF!

Jason Corley

unread,

Apr 13, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/13/96

Timothy Toner (than...@flowbee.interaccess.com) wrote:

: I dunno. Ask Penn and Teller if they were wowed by David Copperfield

: making the Statue of Liberty disappear. They're as flesh and blood as
: David, but their opinions are much more informed, and so they tend to
: think abut such things on an entirly different level, which seperates
: them from the rest of us.

Also, they're meaner than junkyard dogs about the whole thing.

(doug henning can kiss my fat white ass)
--
************************************************************************
"To die for an idea; it is unquestionably noble. But how much nobler
it would be if men died for ideas that were true!" ---H. L. Mencken
Jason D. "cor...@tau.lpl.arizona.edu" Corley was seen fleeing the scene.

Jonathan Alvear

unread,

Apr 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/14/96

(comprehensive and well thought-out reply to JenJingu deleted)

Tim, thank you.

I was very happy to see someone "take up the gauntlet" w/out getting too
emotional (unlike me). Your rebuttal of JenJingu's tirade was extremely
thorough and quite clear. I only wish Anders would join the fray: I'm
sure he'd be able to help that . . . person "awaken" to his/her own
misconceptions.

Jonathan

Ryan Tuccinardi

unread,

Apr 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/14/96

Someone expressed doubt as to how the universe could have been created in
a consensual reality. I think that the Avatar has always been here and
when the world was a void, the Avatar was the only thing in existence. It
created the universe for whatever reason depending on who you talk to.
Then it created life, but life required something more than raw matter and
forces. Life required a piece of itself. Now, the Avatar's Shards are in
every living thing and to a greater degree in humans. Unfortunately, each
piece of the Avatar is not a sentient being - until the Awakening. I
believe that everybody has an Avatar.

Frank Lazar

unread,

Apr 14, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/14/96

In article
<Pine.OSF.3.92a.96041...@saul7.u.washington.edu>,
Jonathan Alvear <jal...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

I imagine he's got lots better things to do with his time (like
maintianing awsome Web pages and archives) then take up with obvious
flamebait. From the introductory message, it seems it's quite clear that
the author's primary intention is simply to keep a thread of his own alive
or it betrays an inability or unwilligness to examine in depth the
material he criticises so stridently. Responding to inane threads has
been the downfall of many good newsgroups, just as the folks at
rec.arts.babylon5.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| _ |
| We are dreamers, shapers, singers and makers. /_\ |
| We study the mysteries of laser and circuit, // \\ |
| Crystal and scanner, holographic demons, \\ //___\\ |
| And invocations of equations. \\ // \\ |
| \\__// \\ |
| These are the tools we employ. And we know... many things. \\ |
| \\ |
| |Frank Lazar fml...@ritz.mordor.com| \\ |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

Michael Brazier <st33...@tr-riscs.panam.edu> wrote:

> I think White Wolf dropped the ball on this one. Nephandi aren't
>mages in the sense that the Traditions, Technos, and Marauders are; rather,
>they're people who've drawn up bargains with powerful and evil supernatural
>beings, exchanging their souls for power. Granting that premise, you can
>see why all Nephandi are destructive, corrupting, and generally evil: their
>source of power is destructive, corrupting, and generally evil. But I for
>one can't see why they're built with the unmodified Mage rules. In every
>story about deals with the Devil, the deal itself corrupts the one who makes
>it; think of Lovecraft's cultists, or of Faust. How can that be squared with
>a system where power stems (in theory) from enlightenment, wisdom, and virtue?

Enlightenment and wisdom, perhaps. As for virtue, if that were true,
then the Technocracy would have stunted long ago.

>> What is Ascension? Good question since not even the game provides an
>> answer. It's a goal that all mages worldwide inherently aspire to in one
>> way or another. A means of enlightenment perhaps. Who knows.

> Not quite. The Traditions do all agree that Ascension is the perfection
>of personal enlightenment. But no two Traditions -- and, probably, no two mages
>-- agree about how you're supposed to get there. The word "Ascension" itself is
>nothing more than a bloodless abstraction; its basic function in the game is to
>give the Traditions an appearance of unity.

Actually, the Traditions are unified because they'd get their asses
kicked if they weren't. Ascension is the ends most mages want, but it
may come at the expense of their allies.

>They oppose the Technocracy; well and good, but what do they actually want? "Ascension, of course!"
> Piffle.

Not entirely true. They want balance, freedom, and a world with less
paradox.

> Actually, it's even worse than that. If everyone sees the world in a
>different way, and has different beliefs about the world's nature, and beliefs
>are the ultimate support for the world's existence -- there isn't any such
>thing as a world. Every person actually lives in a miniscule world of their
>own, spun out of their own heads, and without any necessary connection to the
>worlds containing other people.

There are, however, beliefs common to much of humanity.

> As I said, though, this incoherent metaphysical theory isn't necessary
>for mages to exist. Indeed, I don't think you need *any* theory of the world's
>origin and basis for existence to explain the powers of mages. You need a
>theory of the relations between mind and matter, instead. However, that *is*
>a metaphysical question; Mage gives an unsatisfactory answer, but credit the
>game at least for raising the question.

Besides, there might be a limit to consensual reality. Are you going
to tell God that He can't do that?

Michael Brazier

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon wrote:

> Michael Brazier <st33...@tr-riscs.panam.edu> wrote:
>
> > I think White Wolf dropped the ball on this one. Nephandi aren't
> >mages in the sense that the Traditions, Technos, and Marauders are; rather,
> >they're people who've drawn up bargains with powerful and evil supernatural
> >beings, exchanging their souls for power. Granting that premise, you can
> >see why all Nephandi are destructive, corrupting, and generally evil: their
> >source of power is destructive, corrupting, and generally evil. But I for
> >one can't see why they're built with the unmodified Mage rules. In every
> >story about deals with the Devil, the deal itself corrupts the one who makes
> >it; think of Lovecraft's cultists, or of Faust. How can that be squared with
> >a system where power stems (in theory) from enlightenment, wisdom, and virtue?
>

> Enlightenment and wisdom, perhaps. As for virtue, if that were true,
> then the Technocracy would have stunted long ago.

Remember that the Technocracy perceives itself as the defenders of the
present reality. I happen to think Technomancers hold the scientific worldview
(reality follows fixed and knowable rules.) They don't, in fact, believe that
they imposed natural laws onto reality, as the Traditions have charged them with
doing; however, being mages, they know those natural laws can be wrecked if mages
choose to make the effort. So, since the Traditions have declared themselves
willing to change reality's basic structure, the Technomancers are forced to
insure that they will never have the ability.
None of that, however, is relevant to my original point. The Nephandi
can't be described as enlightened or wise, much less virtuous; selling your soul
to demons/the Wyrm/aliens in exchange for power is one of the most foolish things
you can do. If "deals with the Devil" are the root of a Nephandus' powers, then
Nephandi *aren't* mages; mages' powers are inherent in them.

> >> What is Ascension? Good question since not even the game provides an
> >> answer. It's a goal that all mages worldwide inherently aspire to in one
> >> way or another. A means of enlightenment perhaps. Who knows.
>
> > Not quite. The Traditions do all agree that Ascension is the perfection
> >of personal enlightenment. But no two Traditions -- and, probably, no two mages
> >-- agree about how you're supposed to get there. The word "Ascension" itself is
> >nothing more than a bloodless abstraction; its basic function in the game is to
> >give the Traditions an appearance of unity.
>

> Actually, the Traditions are unified because they'd get their asses
> kicked if they weren't.

Well, yes, there is that. There's nothing quite like being actively hunted
for getting people to work together. However, the Pogrom didn't start until after
the VAs defected in 1950; before then, while the Technos might go after a single
Tradition if it controlled something they wanted, they weren't actively hunting
*all* the Traditions at once. What reasons, then, would the Traditions have for
working together before 1950? They don't have any common goals to speak of.

> >They oppose the Technocracy; well and good, but what do they actually want? "Ascension, of course!"
> > Piffle.
>

> Not entirely true. They want balance, freedom, and a world with less
> paradox.

Tha's what "opposing the Technocracy" means. The real question is, what
do the Traditions want to do *after* the Technocracy is history? "Ascension" is
about the only thing they can all agree on...and Ascension is a blank slate that
means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

> > Actually, it's even worse than that. If everyone sees the world in a
> >different way, and has different beliefs about the world's nature, and beliefs
> >are the ultimate support for the world's existence -- there isn't any such
> >thing as a world. Every person actually lives in a miniscule world of their
> >own, spun out of their own heads, and without any necessary connection to the
> >worlds containing other people.
>

> There are, however, beliefs common to much of humanity.

Irrelevant. If there's even one difference between two men's beliefs, no matter how
small, they live in different worlds under this theory. To explain why
people with different beliefs live in the same world, you have to introduce some
being that belief doesn't affect as a common reference point.
Mage doesn't do that. Mage doesn't, as far as I can tell, even suggest
some possible options. That's why Mage is, metaphysically, incoherent.

Michael Brazier

Marc17

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

to JenJingu

JenJingu wrote:
>
> I'm reposting this to get it into a thread of it's own and to avoid
> haaving to type it aagain. And again. And again.

What makes you think we want to read it again, and again, and agian.

>
> 1. Mages.
>
> What is a mage?
>

snip. snip. <lots of psuedointelectual drivel>

Let it sufice to say that people who are smart and creative do fight
over things such as you mentioned.

Why are the Nephandi trying to corrupt and/or destroy the world? Maybe
they don't like the color.

>
> 2. Ascension.

>
>
> But no, Mages, particularly the Technocracy, follow this precept of
> Ascension like some mystic hare on a greyhound track, when they don't
> even have the foggiest clue what the hell it is they are after. That's
> like fighting tooth and nail for your political ideals when you haven't
> a breeze what those ideas actually are. It's illogical. Things just
> don't work that way.

Yes they do.

>
> 3. Reality.
>
> The way that the Technocracy and the Nephandi and the Marauders and
> the Traditions are trying to fight this war over so much hot air is by
> the manipulation of belief. Change the consensual belief of how things
> work and then things will change. BY this reasoning, before the general
> acceptance that the world was round happened, the world WAS flat. By the
> same token, before there was a Bible, there was no Heaven and Hell, but
> aftewards there must be because the majority of Christians believe in
> it.
> New ideas change the belief structure.

Now you're catching on.

But if the world was always
> made out of belief at some point or other, then where in Jehannum do any
> ideas ever come from? If all the souls/ Avavtars or whatever believed
> only in the timeless void before the Umbra happened then there must only
> have been timeless void. So where did the impetus for creation come from
> and how could one little avatar who somehow comes up with the idea to
> start with convince all of the others when what he says is plainly not
> so.
> It shouts about it's ideas for planets and matter and so on, but the
> other Avatars can see this is not true. The consensual belief dictates
> it. Thus by this principle, how would anything ever change?

Not only do avatars see what is but they know what can be. Two people
can have the same idea, or ideas close enough that they can't be told
apart. You also assume that all avatars are equal which I doubt.

'GP: Is Eris true?
M2: Everything is true.
GP:Even the false things.
M2: Even the false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

-Principia Discordia'

> It simply doesn't follow. The ideas, by their very nature, contradict
> each other.

One more person whose stuck in a static reality.

>
> 4. Magic.
>

snip. snip.

My comments on this sum up pretty much everything I've got to say. If
you don't like the game or anything about it, simply change it or do
away with it completely. If you're upset because you bought the book
and can't stand it. Tough. Like I don't have a shelf of books like that.
We both should have spent more time looking at what we were buying.

>
> 5. Origins and compatability.
>
First off. They are two different games with two different premesises
that don't nessesarily go together.

Personally, I've got a bet that the elders have a deal with the
Technocracy to keep up the Masquerade and aid them in control for being
written into the Technocracy paradigm or at least ignored by it. This
is why vampires don't get paradox.

>
> 6. Isn't this the World of _Darkness_
>

snip. snip.

Who has time for personal problems when an all powerful organization
which once wanted to help all of humanity but has turned bad, wants you
dead.

>
> 7. I can't stand the artwork :)

See 4.

>
>
> 8. Ideas for Traditions.
>
> The ideas for the game are by and large obvious rip-offs of previous
> ideas. The Technocracies individual parts are somewhat creative, but the
> rest of them can be picked and chosen from entertainment of the last few
> years and finger pointed to say .. hey, I know that !!
>
> Akashic Brotherhood- Mystic Monks as seen in all the best martial arts
> movies and the really tripey Golden Child flick.
>
> Euthanatos - Thousands of bad voodoo movies
>
> Dreamspeakers- Werewolf The Apocalpyse

Shamens?

>
> Order of Hermes - Guess.

The OTO?

The Order of the Golden Dawn?

John Dee?

>
> Virtual Adepts - Lawnmower Man
>
> Sons of Ether - Quatermass/Boris Karloff/BladeRunner take your pick.

Bladerunner?

>
> Cult of Ecstasy - The Toreador. Time really does not fit these guys as
> a Sphere.

You've obviously never droped a couple hits of four-way and smoked some
kind. The basic idea of working magic through a dreamstate caused by
physical sensation and drugs is pretty common. If nothing else, just
tantric rituals themselves would be a good base for the Tradition. Of
course you don't like it when the Traditions are based on real things
either(Dreamspeakers).

>
> Verbena - Archetypal druids and witches.
>
> Celestial Chorus - The Catholic Church.

So waht are you trying to say? You're upset tht a game trying to mimic
reality is based upon preexisting ideas? Maybe they should have just
come up with something completely new, with no historical background so
people could be cofused and won't be able to relate.

nuc...@garlic.com

unread,

Apr 15, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/15/96

Michael Brazier wrote:

>
> Brendan wrote:
> >
> > Michael Brazier <st33...@tr-riscs.panam.edu> wrote:
> > > None of that, however, is relevant to my original point. The Nephandi
> > >can't be described as enlightened or wise, much less virtuous; selling your soul
> > >to demons/the Wyrm/aliens in exchange for power is one of the most foolish things
> > >you can do. If "deals with the Devil" are the root of a Nephandus' powers, then
> > >Nephandi *aren't* mages; mages' powers are inherent in them.
> >

> > The Nephandi are mages. They have personal power to the same degree that
> > any other mage does. A Dreamspeaker thinks his powers come from the spirits,
> > a Hermetic thinks it comes from his or her knowledge of secret words of power, and
> > a Child of Ether thinks it comes from his/her gadgets. What's your point?
> > Nephandi work within a paradigm where serving demons has tangible rewards,
> > so that's how they justify their use of their powers to themselves.
>
> The Nephandi's "demonic masters" are a paradigm for magick? Somehow I don't
> think that fits. In all the other mage groups, the mage is at least an equal to the
> beings granting him power, or else the clear master of those beings. The Nephandi
> are played as _servants_. I can't imagine a mage willing to take a subservient role,
> even if it's imaginary.
> Moreover, there are other mages who believe in the Nephandi's demons; heck,
> there are _Technomancers_ who believe in the demons, though their take is closer to
> Lovecraft's Elder Gods than the traditional Hell-bound demons. By contrast, mages
> outside a Tradition don't usually believe in that Tradition's paradigm for magick.

Hmmmmm I don't agree with your take on the Nephandi demon-lords. They are often (but not
always) extremely powerful entities that gain power from certain atrocities. Some might need
the corruption of innocents to gain power, others might prefer the delicate frisson of fear
and love that comes from family violence. The point is, they need human servants to help
them gain more power.

Some humans (Sleepers) can become agents of the Nephandi. These servants may be granted
certain powers by their masters, but this does not make them Mages. Sometimes an Awakened
Mage becomes the servant of a demon (note: they're probably not *really* demons, but it's a
convenient title) and is called a barabbus. Does a barabbus believe he is the servant of the
demon? Depends on the mage and the demon... sometimes an oath of service makes it very plain
who is in charge. Sometimes the demon allows his servant to believe he's in charge.
Sometimes the servant may outwit the master and escape with his freedom.

As for mages being willing to take a subservient role, they have the same strengths and
weaknesses of character as any Sleeper, so why not? Some will, some won't. I expect many
barabbi are drawn in by a promise of power, unsuspecting that the demon will eventually come
to control them...

<snip>
> Michael Brazier

- Robin Wise
"...from the thunder, and the storm,
and the cloud that took the form
(while the rest of Heav'n was blue)
of a daemon in my view." - E.A. Poe

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

Michael Brazier <st33...@tr-riscs.panam.edu> wrote:

> Remember that the Technocracy perceives itself as the defenders of the
>present reality. I happen to think Technomancers hold the scientific worldview
>(reality follows fixed and knowable rules.) They don't, in fact, believe that
>they imposed natural laws onto reality, as the Traditions have charged them with
>doing; however, being mages, they know those natural laws can be wrecked if mages
>choose to make the effort. So, since the Traditions have declared themselves
>willing to change reality's basic structure, the Technomancers are forced to
>insure that they will never have the ability.

While this is true, look at the means they take to accomplish those
ends: they have done far worse things to humanity than most umbrals
are capable of.

> None of that, however, is relevant to my original point. The Nephandi
>can't be described as enlightened or wise, much less virtuous; selling your soul
>to demons/the Wyrm/aliens in exchange for power is one of the most foolish things
>you can do. If "deals with the Devil" are the root of a Nephandus' powers, then
>Nephandi *aren't* mages; mages' powers are inherent in them.

Actually, from what I've heard, the Nephandi have been tricked: they
sacrifice their potential for power NOW.

>> Actually, the Traditions are unified because they'd get their asses
>> kicked if they weren't.

> Well, yes, there is that. There's nothing quite like being actively hunted
>for getting people to work together. However, the Pogrom didn't start until after
>the VAs defected in 1950; before then, while the Technos might go after a single
>Tradition if it controlled something they wanted, they weren't actively hunting
>*all* the Traditions at once. What reasons, then, would the Traditions have for
>working together before 1950? They don't have any common goals to speak of.

The Pogrom was in effect unofficially before then: if they found a
Traditional, they'd kill him. There are also Traditions with similar
goals (i.e. Verbena and Dreamspeakers).

>> >They oppose the Technocracy; well and good, but what do they actually want? "Ascension, of course!"
>> > Piffle.
>>
>> Not entirely true. They want balance, freedom, and a world with less
>> paradox.

> Tha's what "opposing the Technocracy" means. The real question is, what
>do the Traditions want to do *after* the Technocracy is history? "Ascension" is
>about the only thing they can all agree on...and Ascension is a blank slate that
>means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

Uh-uh. If the Order of Hermes took over, there'd still be paradox and
oppression.

> Irrelevant. If there's even one difference between two men's beliefs, no matter how
>small, they live in different worlds under this theory. To explain why
>people with different beliefs live in the same world, you have to introduce some
>being that belief doesn't affect as a common reference point.

Not irrelevant: these common beliefs are more overpowering than their
different ones, since the different ones cancel each other out. Enough
people believe them for the effect to be global.

> Mage doesn't do that. Mage doesn't, as far as I can tell, even suggest
>some possible options. That's why Mage is, metaphysically, incoherent.

To you. I understand it perfectly fine.

Brendan

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

The Nephandi are mages. They have personal power to the same degree that

any other mage does. A Dreamspeaker thinks his powers come from the spirits,
a Hermetic thinks it comes from his or her knowledge of secret words of power, and
a Child of Ether thinks it comes from his/her gadgets. What's your point?
Nephandi work within a paradigm where serving demons has tangible rewards,
so that's how they justify their use of their powers to themselves.

>> >> What is Ascension? Good question since not even the game provides an
>> >> answer. It's a goal that all mages worldwide inherently aspire to in one
>> >> way or another. A means of enlightenment perhaps. Who knows.
>>
>> > Not quite. The Traditions do all agree that Ascension is the perfection
>> >of personal enlightenment. But no two Traditions -- and, probably, no two mages
>> >-- agree about how you're supposed to get there. The word "Ascension" itself is
>> >nothing more than a bloodless abstraction; its basic function in the game is to
>> >give the Traditions an appearance of unity.
>>

More importantly, no two mages agree on where "there" is. It's the perfect point
of enlightenment, but that means different things to different people. An Adept
might see it as being a visionary programming god, and an Akashic Yogi might
seek to find release from the illusory world of the senses. Different goals.

>> Actually, the Traditions are unified because they'd get their asses
>> kicked if they weren't.
>
> Well, yes, there is that. There's nothing quite like being actively hunted
>for getting people to work together. However, the Pogrom didn't start until after
>the VAs defected in 1950; before then, while the Technos might go after a single
>Tradition if it controlled something they wanted, they weren't actively hunting
>*all* the Traditions at once. What reasons, then, would the Traditions have for
>working together before 1950? They don't have any common goals to speak of.
>
>> >They oppose the Technocracy; well and good, but what do they actually want? "Ascension, of course!"
>> > Piffle.
>>
>> Not entirely true. They want balance, freedom, and a world with less
>> paradox.
>
> Tha's what "opposing the Technocracy" means. The real question is, what
>do the Traditions want to do *after* the Technocracy is history? "Ascension" is
>about the only thing they can all agree on...and Ascension is a blank slate that
>means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
>

Exactly. The Traditions have nothing in common except that they all oppose
the Technocracy. However, at the time being, that's really enough. If and when
the Technocracy falls, there's going to be one hell of a fight, and I think
everybody knows it. However, it's really irrelvant in the grand scheme of things
right now.

>> > Actually, it's even worse than that. If everyone sees the world in a
>> >different way, and has different beliefs about the world's nature, and beliefs
>> >are the ultimate support for the world's existence -- there isn't any such
>> >thing as a world. Every person actually lives in a miniscule world of their
>> >own, spun out of their own heads, and without any necessary connection to the
>> >worlds containing other people.
>>
>> There are, however, beliefs common to much of humanity.
>
> Irrelevant. If there's even one difference between two men's beliefs, no matter how
>small, they live in different worlds under this theory. To explain why
>people with different beliefs live in the same world, you have to introduce some
>being that belief doesn't affect as a common reference point.
> Mage doesn't do that. Mage doesn't, as far as I can tell, even suggest
>some possible options. That's why Mage is, metaphysically, incoherent.
>

Wrong, wrong, wrong. This was the biggest problem I had with Mage for about a year,
until I actually read the theoretical crapola. The differences between two individual's
conscious beliefs is completely and utterly irrelevant. The subconscious beliefs of
the Sleeping Masses dictate the terms under which the different aspects of Reality
(the Spheres) interact. In other words, under what rules Forces manifest, the "normal"
behavior of Matter, etc. However, various objects and people, which are composed
of abstract Patterns made tangible by an infusion of Quintessence, objectively exist
and have Sleeping or Awakened Avatars. Sleeping Avatars are essentially static
and have a sort of inertia. They exist and resist change in the form of that existence.
For example, a rock has Matter and Spirit Patterns filled with Quintessence and a
Sleeping Avatar. Joe the Sleeper doesn't need to believe in the rock; it exists without
him. However, the subconscious beliefs of Joe and the rock (and the whole of existence)
govern any and all interactions between Joe and the rock. That's about the limits of
subjective reality in terms of Sleepers. Awakened entities can bend these laws to their
will, but the laws resist them because the collective subconscious beliefs of all the
Sleeping Avatars resist change.

>Michael Brazier
>

MarcB13

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

In article <316C91...@garlic.com>, nuc...@garlic.com writes:

>This isn't constructive at all. I see your point, that you dislike the
game
>system, don't
>think it's plausible, etc. So don't play. Okay, you've already proven
that
>you have more
>free time than the rest of us. But please stop posting the same
arguments
>explaining why
>you don't want to play Mage over and over on the WW newsgroup.
>

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou.

You just saved me a whole lot of time by expressing very eloquently all
the myriad flaws in JenJingu's post. I was about to tackle the task
myself but decided to read the rest of the thread first. Thank the Gods I
did. Kudos!

Oh, and to JenJingu: What Robin said. ;-)

Marc Bailey <Mar...@aol.com>

"If only I could understand
The reason for my crying
If only I could stop this fear
Of dreaming that I'm dying."
-Laura Palmer

Michael Brazier

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

Brendan wrote:
>
> Michael Brazier <st33...@tr-riscs.panam.edu> wrote:
> > None of that, however, is relevant to my original point. The Nephandi
> >can't be described as enlightened or wise, much less virtuous; selling your soul
> >to demons/the Wyrm/aliens in exchange for power is one of the most foolish things
> >you can do. If "deals with the Devil" are the root of a Nephandus' powers, then
> >Nephandi *aren't* mages; mages' powers are inherent in them.
>
> The Nephandi are mages. They have personal power to the same degree that
> any other mage does. A Dreamspeaker thinks his powers come from the spirits,
> a Hermetic thinks it comes from his or her knowledge of secret words of power, and
> a Child of Ether thinks it comes from his/her gadgets. What's your point?
> Nephandi work within a paradigm where serving demons has tangible rewards,
> so that's how they justify their use of their powers to themselves.

The Nephandi's "demonic masters" are a paradigm for magick? Somehow I don't

think that fits. In all the other mage groups, the mage is at least an equal to the
beings granting him power, or else the clear master of those beings. The Nephandi
are played as _servants_. I can't imagine a mage willing to take a subservient role,
even if it's imaginary.
Moreover, there are other mages who believe in the Nephandi's demons; heck,
there are _Technomancers_ who believe in the demons, though their take is closer to
Lovecraft's Elder Gods than the traditional Hell-bound demons. By contrast, mages
outside a Tradition don't usually believe in that Tradition's paradigm for magick.

[discussion of Ascension snipped]
We're in perfect agreement here...and you made some good points.

> >Irrelevant. If there's even one difference between two men's beliefs, no matter how
> >small, they live in different worlds under this theory. To explain why
> >people with different beliefs live in the same world, you have to introduce some
> >being that belief doesn't affect as a common reference point.
> > Mage doesn't do that. Mage doesn't, as far as I can tell, even suggest
> >some possible options. That's why Mage is, metaphysically, incoherent.
>
> Wrong, wrong, wrong. This was the biggest problem I had with Mage for about a year,
> until I actually read the theoretical crapola. The differences between two individual's
> conscious beliefs is completely and utterly irrelevant. The subconscious beliefs of
> the Sleeping Masses dictate the terms under which the different aspects of Reality
> (the Spheres) interact. In other words, under what rules Forces manifest, the "normal"
> behavior of Matter, etc. However, various objects and people, which are composed
> of abstract Patterns made tangible by an infusion of Quintessence, objectively exist
> and have Sleeping or Awakened Avatars. Sleeping Avatars are essentially static
> and have a sort of inertia. They exist and resist change in the form of that existence.

OK. What you've just done is introduce a common reference point. Quintessence,
and Patterns made concrete with Quintessence, have objective existence outside of beliefs
about them. Personally I boggle at the concept of Awakened boulders, or boulders that
can hold beliefs concerning themselves and other beings; but that doesn't seem to be
essential. More importantly, there are passages in Mage that support you.
But you've still got beliefs generating the rules of interaction, presumably by
"consensus". Just how does this consensus arise in the first place? How is it that
every Sleeper, subconsciously, believes in the same rules of interaction? Or, if they
don't, who or what reconciles inconsistent beliefs? Something has to do it, because
two Sleepers can interact with each other only if both are under the same rules of
interaction.
Is there anything in Mage to explain these points? I haven't found anything yet.
And I must point out that you don't _need_ the assumption "consensus of belief generates
natural laws" to explain mages' powers. The assumption that a mage can create exceptions
to the rules of interaction, by force of will, is quite sufficient.

Michael Brazier

Richard Bell

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

In article <4kpe9f$m...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>,
Jason Corley <cor...@lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
>Timothy Toner (than...@flowbee.interaccess.com) wrote:
>
>: I dunno. Ask Penn and Teller if they were wowed by David Copperfield

>: making the Statue of Liberty disappear. They're as flesh and blood as
>: David, but their opinions are much more informed, and so they tend to
>: think abut such things on an entirly different level, which seperates
>: them from the rest of us.
>
>

>Also, they're meaner than junkyard dogs about the whole thing.

The one explanation of the statue of liberty trick that I read on
sci.skeptic was that the platform was slightly rotated, the lights
of the statue were switched off, and the helicopter with the search
light moved to an empty sopt of sky. all while the curtains were
closed. The reason magicians never reveal their tricks is that
they are so simple (but inobvious and clever), that people would be
embarassed that they were fooled by them.

David Johnston

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

Timothy Toner

Holy cow, have you ever considered breaking up your posts a little more?
This one's like the Energizer Bunny!

-> Oh, one more thing. The Technocracy claim that they were born
-> when man took control of the universe in a natural, predictable way.
-> This was of course agriculture. Which was Caine first, a
-> Technomancer or a vampire?

Well, Caine was the alleged first farmer and was cursed while cutting
someone's throat and spilling the blood into his fields. I'd say
Verbena. Heck of a paradox backlash, though. Of course in those days
the Verbena and the Progenitors would have been the same people.

Kyle Anderson Felker

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

My Lord, the Umbrood Spirit Justine Rogers reports:
: > > Euthanatos - Thousands of bad voodoo movies

Man, am I glad I stocked up on willpower.

: >
: > Actually, these are based off of Hindu death-cults(Shakti worshipers, if I've
: > not missed my guess)
:
: Kali actually I think. If I remember correctly, the Shakti were the female

: aspects of the male gods instead of individual divinities. (And not too
: important as they don't have an entry in the Larousse World Mythology
: encyclopedia)

You're both right. Euthanatos beleifs form the basis for both of those
religions, and more. Shiva more stongly than Kali, since the tradition's
main marabout has always been in calcutta, and the euthanatos paradime
has heavily influenced (and been influenced by) hinduism. There's a
really good article on the Ander's Mage Page that explains The euthanatos
Paradime and it's connection to hinduism more fully, and that's what I
use when playing my own Euthanatos.
By the way, the tradition that has the most links to voodoo are the
verbena (possibly the dreamspeakers), NOT the euthanatos. *sigh* Back to
waiting for Traditionbook: Euthanatos to come out...

:
: Sorry about not saying anything in the main discussion, but other people will

: say it better, and I personally don't like arguing hopeless cases.

Yeah, the original poster seems more interested in antagonizing and name
calling than real discussion, so why bother.

: --

: "Humans and flowers are having sex." "Poo-tee-wheet?" " ~42 tuesday=39.small
: brown carribean lizard" http://www.comp.it.bton.ac.uk/~jcr1/wolves.html WGP page
: Meaningless junk brought to you by jus...@pepin.demon.co.uk

--
---------------------------------------
Kyle Felker (kafe...@ocean.st.usm.edu)

"Boil, boil, toil and trouble
Fire burn and cauldron bubble!"
- Shakespeare, _Macbeth_
---------------------------------------

Mephistopheles

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

interestingly enough, this is probably the best post I've seen
that attempts to deal with problems in the Mage system. But I
still think it overlooks much of what Jen (and I for that matter)
have to say on the matter. Well, I'll have a go at it..

BTW, it's *INCREDIBLY* long, but try to bear with me. I feel I have
a lot to say on the matter and basically all of my argument against
Mage history and philosophy exists below. Good luck on understanding
it and trying to tear it apart. ;)

Timothy Toner (than...@flowbee.interaccess.com) wrote:
: Nope. A mage is a fellow who's been taken backstage at life, and shown

: how the ropes and such work. Now if he'd been shoved back into the
: audience, everyone would consider him insane. Instead, he's invited to
: take his part on the stage, and become an actor, or even better, a
: stagehand, controlling the parameters of the story. More lights? Boom.
: Need a god to appear in act three? There you go. A mage is much more
: than a fellow with knowledge. He's a fellow with knowledge with an
: Avatar, a backstage pass, and the ability to put that knowledge to work.

so you are saying magick is inheritly religious in nature? In
terms of the game, I mean. hmm.. well, I guess that explains a lot
of the ascension war conflict stuff, but I guess it just doesn't
quite makes sense to me. Perhaps because I feel there should be at
least one school of magick that doesn't look at it in a religious
fashion but I don't see one. Maybe the Hollow One's cuz they don't
seem to give a rat's ass about anything... hmm..

: I dunno. Ask Penn and Teller if they were wowed by David Copperfield

granted but does this mean that all mages should have the same basic
theory of magick? I don't think so.

: Heh. Apparently you haven't heard of the Pythagoreans, who killed those

: who messed with them on a regular basis, and proclaimed the Bean an evil
: thing. These people had a grasp of the world that the rest of humanity
: couldn't touch, and they were just as petty as everyone else.

I assume you consider this a TYPICAL example.. well, I don't.

: How many people died in the Cold War? Officially, none, but there are

: those who died as a result of decisions we made in a war that didn't
: exist. How many _will_ get cancer because of nuclear tests we did 50
: years ago, to make "safer" bombs? All those who died and will die as a
: result of the cold war have to take solace in the realization that they
: were defending an ideology, an idea, a way of viewing reality.

how long did the cold war last? How long has the ascension war lasted?
Jen still has a strong point in that all ideological/religious wars
have not been long lasting or very consistent in ideology (i.e. much
of the reasons for those wars were political or socio-economic in
nature). Granted, if the Mage is an inheritly religious being, he is
more likely to become involved in ideological conflicts but eventually
common sense overcomes zealousness. For example, the protestants and
catholics are no longer engaged in a physical war for ideological
reasons. It's true that Muslims still engage in religious wars but
there are other factors involved in those wars (mostly political).
The ascension war is essentially an ideological conflict, a dis-
agreement as to how the universe should be structured. Tradition
mages have not been snuffed out of existence by the techie paradigm.
I still don't see how a conflict like this could span centuries
without more conservative elements taking over such as communist
policy in USSR changing from world revolution to communism in one
country.

: What if there was no courts, no governing bodies? And what if there was

: only a handful of people who really really really understood the
: technology? That's the Ascension War. Everyone talked about reality,
: but no one knew how to do anything about it. Until now. And I'm
: telling you that beyond the parameters of the game, millions of people
: have died this century alone over differences in reality.

I don't think that the war couldn't happen, just that it would be
"solved" by now. some agreement would have been reached, some group
would have been wiped out for good. It's like a fault; when tension
keeps increasing, it has to give sometime, it can't go on forever.
Eventually the weak link will give. That hasn't happened here. If
nothing else the real world has been dynamic in its ideological and
political spheres over the last five centuries, and the Mage world
has not. That doesn't make much sense to me.

: Y'see, it's all a question of resources. The UofM doesn't have enough

: to support every radical theory, so it has to make choices. Power plays
: result, and inocent people with devotion to pet theories get stepped on.
: So too with Mage. There just isn't enough reality to go around.

true, but radical theories DO get through in the real world. There have
been plenty of ground-breaking theories in just the last ten years that
are getting support in academic and intellectual circles. In Mage all
of that is stifled (sp?). The real world is dynamic. Sure, there are
oppressive forces and limits in resources, but change occurs and occurs
all the time. It doesn't occur in Mage, at least not along tradition
lines of thinking.

: The Technocracy banded around a singular vision: that the world could be

: reduced into physical laws, that it could be shackled to causality, that
: everything "evil" in the world came as a result of unperdictability. If
: the world could become more and more predictable, than anything nasty
: which came down the pike could be anticipated and prepared for. This
: was good news for the peasant whose family was eaten by a dragon.
: Besides it tapped into the need that all men had to know the universe.
: And to accomplish this feat, the technocracy decided that educating the
: masses wasn't enough (in fact, that was too hard). If Mohammed could
: not come to the mountain, then the mountain would come to him. The
: universe would be "dumbed down" so anyone could comprehend it.

I have to say that this makes a lot of sense to me and the sleepers'
backing of it even more sense so I'll drop this point until I come
up with somethin.

: Very few stories are experience-proof. If I tell you that wearing an

: Ozzy Osbourne shirt will protect you from bullets, you'll believe it
: until, of course, you get shot. The best application of experience-proofing
: is the old "paint on the bench" trick. Tell a man that there
: are a billion stars in the sky, and he'll believe you. Tell him that
: the paint on the bench is wet, and he'll have to touch it to be sure.
: No one is going to count the stars. So what you need to do is make your
: stories (paradigms) so high that no one will bother questioning them.
: This is how so many groups survived up until the technocracy rolled into
: town.

Yes, but paradigms are more than just whether or not there are a billion
stars in the sky, paradigms also deal with the wet paint, don't they?
Thus, if everyone in the world believes that the paint is not wet, how
do you convince them otherwise? If you tell them it is, they'll check it
and find out that it is not. Sure you can use magick to overcome this
but then that implies that all great discoverers or otherwise shapers of
public opinion and whatnot must be mages. Why didn't Colombus just sail
off the edge of the world if everyone believed it to be flat? How could
he "discover" it to be round (or at least larger than they thought)? This
is a much more concrete example that deals more with experience-proof
instances than the Helio-centric/terra-centric one.

: They came up with a simple story. Everything can be explained.

: Anything that can't be explained will be explained with a bit more
: study. Just give us time. That's the story under which we currently
: operate, and as you can imagine, it's deeply seductive. Anything _true_
: in anyone else's paradigm is automatically subsumed into the Technos'
: paradigm if it makes sense. Anything that requires a leap of faith is
: left into the dust. Thus, this story can tear apart most any
: "experience-proof" stories, making them irrelevant.

hmm.. yes, but I can't say that this way of dealing with reality ("oh,
they just haven't figured that part out yet") is as universal as you'd
suggest. People who encounter unexplained phenomena are constantly having
their lives irrevocably changed by it. Most people who have ever been
"abducted" or seen a ufo show this. They don't suddenly decide that
they must have been seeing things. They think, oh my god, ufo's exist!
By this logic and with the power that mages have to create such
unexplained phenomena, paradigm shifts could be created without too
much hardship and effectively under the nose of the technocracy.

: "There are many paths. There is but one destination." That's how the

: technocracy would view that conundrum. Or to put it another way, it
: doesn't amtter how you get there, only that you do. And that you're
: driving the right kind of car. If you're not, then you'll find the
: journey much more arduous.

sure, but how do all the technocrats agree that this or that type of
transportation will actually work? why would the other technocrats
agree to one or the other? There should be some dissention in any
realistic intellectual body that has to make these kinds of decisions.
And if there is dissention, how can the consenual reality hold? Some
people will see that this or that doesn't work even though the techies
claim that it does and, conversely, that some things work even though
the techies claim that it doesn't. It seems to me that you have little
faith in humankind to put their own experience before that that is
told to them. The point becomes that if one person can see that this
or that doesn't fit in the established paradigm then others can, and
if others can, the general populus (sp?) will begin to doubt the
original claims. We've seen this happen with the existence of ufos.
Enough people have claimed to see them or whatnot that popular opinion
has shifted towards their reality. I don't see why this couldn't happen
in the traditions' favor without too much difficulty. Some limited
vulgar effects over a period of time and people will begin to incorp-
orate them into their view of the universe.

: First, smarts doesn't enter into it. There are plenty of smart serial

: killers out there. But they all have method to their madness. And in
: the case of the Nephandi, it's a bigger picture that they're
: considering. They've not only seen backstage, but they've been made
: aware of other productions, other scripts, and that this one is fatally
: flawed. So do you want to be on the side of the writer or just an
: unwilling pawn in someone's powerplay? Why not end this production, and
: start a new one in its place? Isn't it _fun_ to watch people scramble
: to pick up the pieces? They're damn creative. It's only a fool who
: would underestimate a Nephandi in that regard. Check out the movie
: "Highway to Hell" for a good reason why a "good" person should turn bad,
: and a "bad" person would do good. They've come into contact with forces
: of unbelievable power, and frankly, they know that it's all out of their
: hands. So why not be on the winning team?

hmm.. I guess the point I'd try to make here is that the Nephandi, while
not ununderstandable in their ideologies, are still just evil. They
are all evil! They're still effectively token bad guys. You don't see
any cases of mages "selling their souls" to some umbrood and still being
basically good people. They're all twisted and horrible fiends. and that
doesn't make sense to me. I can understand that an umbrood (I think that
is the right term) would think along different lines than most people,
being alien and all, but why are they all necessarily bad? The Judeo-
Christian overtones here really bother me. Even in Lovecraft, not all
of them are hopelessly insane twisted followers of unholy beings. Sure,
it might be put out that way, but if you look at things, many of these
"nephandi" mages are simply doing what they think is best. They aren't
necessarily out to destroy the world or anything of the sort. It just
seems far too easy for the nephandi to be a catch-all for evil villains
that just want to destroy the world cuz it'll be fun. I can't imagine
that they'd all be so high-minded in their goals or so misanthropic in
their attitudes. Some sure, but not all. That's too much like chaotic-
evil in d&d, a blanket means of creating opponents.

: >premise of both works - i.e. that there all basically mages. But Mage

: >flies off on this weird religious zealotry that really badly doesn't
: >fit.

unless magick is inheritly religious which, in terms of M:tA, I'm
starting to expect. after all, none of the mages in the game are lacking
in a cosmology/world view and what needs to be done about it in order
to make the world a better place. I guess that's where my main problem
lies. I don't see magick as religious in nature so the game always
seems "off" to me.

: You seem to think that Ascension is some bright shining gate that all

: Mages set out towards from day one. Instead, it's not a destination,
: but a state of mind, and mages are unconsciously drawn towards it. Why?
: Because it fulfills a need deep within them. When a mage starts out, he
: realizes that the world's a lethal place, and so he acquires tools to
: make it less of a challenge, and then suddenly he comes to realize that
: it was _he_ that was the threat, and not the world. He was the one
: seeking out challenges (or, more precisely, his avatar was). Had he
: simply laid low, the world would have been a very simple, ordered place.
: But the first step of going beyond the norm was the first step in the
: direction toward Ascension. When he reaches a certain level of power and
: Arete, things matter less and less. He comes to understand that the
: world is so much clay for him to manipulate, and what's the point of
: investing so much energy in a world so easily twisted? When the world
: loses its glamor, when a mage realizes that just as all points are one,
: all forces are one, all states of matter are one, etc., the business of
: protection this one particular place/person/idea seems pretty silly.
: Unless, of course, there's something intrinsically valuable in that one
: object, something that Magick cannot touch. To seek the answer to that
: question, the mage must search beyond this world. He must cast aside
: all presumptions, go beyond his traditions, and Ascend. I believe it
: was Anders who first pointed out that the quest for Arete is the selling
: of Tradition. With each point, you surrender a focus, and in doing so,
: unleash yourself from dogma.

and all mages have this exact same view of ascension (as a path to
perfection et all)? They all believe that reality is a delusion that
is created by consenual beliefs? Shouldn't there be at least a few
who disagree? This is the same problem I had with Werewolf. The inherit
way in which the universe is structured is already laid down for you.
You can't change it or have people believe it to be something else
unless they're daft or ignorant of the facts. Considering real life is
quite the conglomeration of questions about reality, I considered this
to be particularly unrealistic. and religious, which is something that
I'm not and I don't like in my rpg's. Hell, even the concept of avatars
is so universal, it doesn't make sense. They don't even really have
different interpretations of what an avatar is. It's things like this
that seem to blur the lines between the traditions making their differences
basically window-dressing.

: "In the long run, we are all dead." Magi have a choice. Ascend or die.

: Release yourself from the operating parameters of this world, or hope to
: get a better chance next time. Which would you pick, if you were given
: a choice?

true enough, but the fact that they all believe in ascension as opposed
to some other goal seems contrived. If nothing else, real world occult
is at least diverse enough to not agree on anything as fundamental as
that and I don't see why a game like Mage should. of course, mages have
plenty of means to extend their lives in ways that make the whole "ascend
or die" analogy kinda useless.

: How many people believe in existence after life? This is, of course,

: the ultimate experience-proof story. Most societies come to some sort
: of a conclusion that there is some sort of life, but is there proof?
: Sure, people say they come back, and curious cases of reincarnation have
: done more for the effect of wishful thinking than hard evidence. But so
: many people believe -- how can it not be true?

How many people get involved in century long wars over whether or not
there is an afterlife? not many. The point is that mages devote their
lives and activities to an abstract un-experiencable(sp?) goal that,
much like the existence of an afterlife isn't that useful in everday
existence. so what if the mage is gonna come back in another life if
he doesn't ascend? is life here that bad? and if he's gonna be a mage
in the next life, why the hell not? It's a lot better than wasting your
life away in search of an unattainable goal. where are the hedonists?
the nihilists? Everyone in this game is a religious zealot! How many
people do you know in real life who dedicate their lives to enlighten-
ment? It is just as phantasmal a goal in Mage, is it not? so why are
they all lining up to do it there and not here? where are the pragmatists
and realists? I guess I'd never have been a mage.. >:/

: How many children believe in Santa Claus? Yeah, you can smell where

: this one is heading, but the point is valid. How many children believe
: in something that all adults know is false? And why do we _lie_ to
: children about this essential part of their reality? The best reason
: I've heard is that it allows them to figure out something about their
: world, and rather than being pissed that a) they've been lied to and
: b)there's no omniscient altruistic being guarding their actions, they
: feel good about figuring it out all on their own.

I was never led to believe that santa existed when I was young so I
can't really relate to this analogy the way you might want me to. I
still think it's wrong to do.

: Our reality is suffused with experience-proof and not so experience

: proof stories that we choose to believe because they fit our moral
: structure. But if a prick in NWO trappings points a gun in your face
: and asks you if you're a mage, you're going to say, "No," and that's not
: going to affect the existence or non-existence of Ascension either way.
: Maybe there's no ascension. Maybe there's no afterlife. But while
: scrabbling up from the dust, enough people realized that the world was a
: better place believing in it that it became a cornerstone of reality.

how is it a better place believing in ascension? I don't see that.
You can have morals and goals and enjoy life without looking for some
kind of transcendal enlightenment.

: The point of the quest for the philosophers stone was the purification

: of the self while purifying a bunch of inert chemicals into this really
: whiz material. Those who did politics and magick theory to try to make
: the world a better place undoubtably reached the conclusion that too
: many cooks spoil the broth, and approached it an entirely different way.
: They took politics as an example of some essential part of reality, and
: attacked the conundrum of reality from that point of view. I can
: imagine very little magi stating that they thought they were improving
: themselves through their mundane actions, but the greatest Magi of them
: all, Joshua of Nazareth said "There will be poor always," and continued
: to help them in their plight. It was an external reflection of an
: internal voyage. Did he Ascend? That's another story altogether.

It looks like you are trying to say that all of the hermetic mages were
trying to better the world in their own way, even if they pursued the
not so virtuous fields of magic theory and politics. I definitely dis-
agree. All mages are trying to better the world? why?? what happened to
the mage who was content to better himself or just enjoy life with his
cool powers and leave the rest of the world alone? I could be mis-
interpreting your argument but that's what I see here.

: > So, with that in mind, why are all mages, people with the gift of

: >intelligence and wit, blindly following their paths to Ascension. It is
: >my belief that logically speaking there would be few mages really
: >interested in enlightenment. Far fewer than the number of mages that
: >just study magic for magic's sake, or for power's sake, or just as a
: >handy tool.

ah, but remember Jen, in M:tA, magick is a religious experience that
involves a (supposed) insight into the true nature of reality, much as
priests study the Bible in order to better understand what Christians
view as the real world. Considering this, mages would be much more likely
to pursue enlightenment than scientists or any other "mundane" group
of people.

: Cui bono? For the good of whom? Why study magick at all? What does

: magick _do?_ Most magi, I venture, don't know. They have the tool, they
: have the owner's manual, and they try to divine the plan of the master
: builder, or go at it themselves. But why shoudl they strive and
: struggle? You're right. It doesn't make sense. If had Magick, I'd
: probably make a horizon realm, stop time relative to the real world, and
: read and write my ass off. But ultimately WHY? Just because magi see
: thorugh the eyes of their avatar, their primal needs to become something
: more than what they are don't change. The quest for ascension must
: continue for no other reason that there is no alternative. If there
: was, then they'd follow that. And they'd probably call it...ascension.
: Not because they're stupid, or ignorant, but because it's a damn good
: story.

no alternative? what about what you suggest, building a horizon realm
and staying there forever? why not?? it just seems that mages are
far too high-winded and visionary-natured. I'm not saying that some
shouldn't be this way, just that ALL shouldn't be this way. Does that
make sense. The more and more I look at it, Mage: the Ascension seems
like Priest: the Salvation to me.. maybe I'm just getting fustrated,
trying to divine your argument and the reasons being my distaste for
the game..

: > But no, Mages, particularly the Technocracy, follow this precept of

: >Ascension like some mystic hare on a greyhound track, when they don't
: >even have the foggiest clue what the hell it is they are after. That's
: >like fighting tooth and nail for your political ideals when you haven't
: >a breeze what those ideas actually are. It's illogical. Things just
: >don't work that way.

But in Mage, unlike real life, ascension is a reality the way their
avatar is a reality and the umbra is a reality and gaia is reality instead
of the beliefs and philosophies that people toss around today. In Mage
fact replaces the uncertainties of real life. That's why I hate it.

: Do you believe in life after death? Why? Why not? To paraphrase a

: philosopher, shouldn't you believe in God on the off chance that he
: really does exist? As it is, if he doesn't then all you've done is
: wasted a bit of your admittedly finite time, and in the bargain, your
: selfless acts have made the world a better place.

hmm.. well, I don't believe in god, at least not in any deific sense
and mostly cuz I don't see a point to it. In other words, why believe
anything in such an unprovable or useless (in terms of real life
experiences/activities) field? But there is absolutely no reason to
turn this into a religious discussion and I don't plan on it. I just
want to point out that there are just as valid reasons for people to
NOT believe in god or ascension, etc, so why don't they in M:tA?

: That's the theory. The Technocracy, as I've stated, have created an

: experience-proof story for explaining the universe. The problem the
: Traditions have yet to face is how to scrub this idea from mankind's
: mind, since it is so powerful.

why does it have to be scrubbed? couldn't new experiences be substituted
for old ones? I don't see why experinece-proof thinking needs to die in
order for tradition paradigms to work. You are saying that sleepers need
to abandon knowledge in favor of "faith" (according to the trads) for
anything the trads want (like magick being accepted by the publick) to
work? It looks like you're saying that, and that doesn't make sense to
me.

: Everything can be explained with careful

: application of scientific principles. And who controls the scientific
: principles? Game, set, and match. Even if they were able to plug
: something new in there, it would eventually be explained in terms of the
: technocracy's paradigm, and they'd still win.

what is wrong with these things being explained in terms of the tech-
nocracy's paradigm? I don't see how this is such a problem for traditions
and I certainly don't see that the experience-proof thinking was non-
existence in the mythic age. There were rules to existence even then,
just different rules. Read some arthurian romances or celtic mythology
to see what I'm saying. The society wasn't as lawless as you make it out
to be. People weren't afraid that the sky would suddenly turn red or the
world being swallowed up by some giant beast (unless they were scandin-
avian). Sure a dragon might stop by and kill some peasants, but are
things so different now? Instead of a dragon, a terrorist group might
stop by and kill some peasants. a nuclear spill. a swat team looking for
crack houses. The situations are the same, but the names have been
changed. wow, this is really off-topic.. :)

: The only thing that still

: works are those things that require absolute faith to perceive. And if
: I told you that I could give you a shirt that would protect you from
: bullets, if you believed hard enough, would you? I didn't think so.

that's an extreme example because death is concerned. If you told me
that you could give me a shirt that would make me invisible if I bel-
ieved hard enough, I would try it on the off chance that it might work.
Wouldn't you?

: > New ideas change the belief structure. But if the world was always

: >made out of belief at some point or other, then where in Jehannum do
: >any ideas ever come from? If all the souls/ Avavtars or whatever
: >believed only in the timeless void before the Umbra happened then there
: >must only have been timeless void. So where did the impetus for
: >creation come from and how could one little avatar who somehow comes up
: >with the idea to start with convince all of the others when what he
: >says is plainly not so.
: You're grappling with questions beyond the focus of the game, questions
: that philosophers and now biologists have been musing over for
: centuries. According to this story, there were the pure ones, who
: shattered into avatars, each imparting a separate glimpse of the
: totality of reality. Is there any way we can prove this? Or does it
: require faith? How good a story is it? It's untestable, and so
: probably experience-proof. Maybe as a story, it sucks, but perhaps even
: though it sucks, it's true. Maybe it's time to create a new story.

you're missing the point here, thanatos. The avatar/timeless void stuff
is just an analogy. The point is that if consenual reality were to exist,
which the Mage game asserts, how could new ideas and discoveries come about
and how could the general public be convinced of them when consenual
reality and paradox would strike it down. How could anything NEW happen?
By mages, I know. But that implies that only mages are capable of original
though in this society and that's hogwash. How could any explorer or
scientist discover something new or reveal something new about the universe
without being a mage? Consenual reality would say, "nope, that's not
gonna happen" everytime. See my earlier Columbus example for another
instance of this problem, or rather a clarification of this argument.

: > It shouts about it's ideas for planets and matter and so on, but the

: >other Avatars can see this is not true. The consensual belief dictates
: >it. Thus by this principle, how would anything ever change?
: Maybe change was engineered in the universe from the start. Maybe
: staticity is the true goal of all things, the ultimate act of rebellion.
: Maybe we can't help but to change. Pirsig thought so in _Lila._ I think
: you should read it.

If change is inherit in all things, how can consenual reality exist for
any meaningful length of time? Remember we're still talking about the
game here and not real life. According to consenual reality theory,
things tend to stay the same and are "paradoxed" when different from
conventional thought. Thus, how could any real change ever occur in
society or how the world was viewed? I know that mages are capable
of overcoming this, but what about sleeper scientists and explorers?
What purpose could they possibly serve if they are doomed to failure
because they don't have the power to change reality. Do you see what
I'm saying here? consenual reality implies that all change anywhere
ever is made by mages and no-one else. Considering the scope of human
experience and the number of sleepers per mage, that just doesn't make
sense.

: > The only way that you can get new ideas to happen is if people don't

: >actually all believe the same things tobegin with. IN otherwords, if
: >there is no such thing as a consensual belief in the first place. I
: >would contend that consensual belief is a convenient myth. BUt people
: >view the world in different ways. My view of the world is ever so
: >slightly different from yours, or from Bill Clinton's, or from a
: >sceintists or from a mage's.
: I have in a box a puzzle with 100 pieces in it. I give a piece to each
: of my 100 friends. Now together, working as one toward a common goal
: (the picture) we can bring order to the chaos of the puzzle piece.
: Maybe some people in the crowd have no idea what it is they hold in
: their hands. Does that make their piece invalid? Hell no! Maybe you
: and I have different pictures in mind, each mutually consistent (I'm
: thinking of those puzzles with an image on the front and back. Can
: either of us be wrong. Sure. The question is whether or not the image
: we hold fits the overall shape of the puzzle. Ideally, if we capture
: enough people, those who have not decided will agree with our vision,
: and spontaneously come to our side. That's the nature of the War. Each
: of our pieces is different, and each of our vision of how our piece fits
: varies. Maybe I understand how my piece relates to your piece, and
: maybe you've anticipated how ten pieces fit. But maybe my two pieces
: are the _key_ pieces that make everything come together. That makes my
: two more important than your ten. Numbers don't do it, per se.

I really don't think this analogy doesn anything at all for your
argument. We're talking about constants here. Either there are a
billion stars in the sky or there aren't and when you count them you
will come up with a concrete number. If half the people on the earth
believe that there are a billion and one stars and half believe a billion,
what is an astronomer gonna count? a billion and a half stars? assume
that everyone agrees that there are a billion stars and when you look
up there and count, that's what you see. How could you ever convince
someone of something other than that? consenual reality would block
it everytime (unless you're a mage). Thus how could a sleeper ever
accomplish anything new in a consenual reality? everytime, it would say
a billion stars, a new star could never be discovered, etc. all the
sciences would become obsolete. If for no other reason than that one
person would never SEE it any other way and thus could never discover
something different. they'd always see the same thing that consenual
reality told them. Does that make sense?

: > But if everybody doesn't believe the same thing then the world is a

umm.. I really don't know what the hell you are trying to do with
this paragraph. I reread it several times, and feel I understood what
you were saying but had little to no idea about how it related to our
discussion but I'll give it a try anyway.
If people don't agree on what exists after death, then what happens
in reality when someone dies (under consenual reality theory)? What
will they experience? Either they will just die or go to heaven/hell
or be re-incarnated or something, even if we will never no what it
is that happens, you must agree that SOMETHING happens even if it's
nothing. Given that, how can reality be held together by consenual
belief if enough holes/flaws exist through disagreement to not provide
a prevailing belief and therefore an actual experience? I sure as
hell hope that makes sense cuz it seems like a damn good reason to
not believe in consenual reality to me. A more concrete example would
be, if people are divided over whether or not the world is flat, what
will you see if you actually to try sail there?? And if everyone thinks
the world is flat, how could you ever possibly said around the world
like Magellan (and Drake I think) did? How could you ever even have that
experience?? Wouldn't consenual reality stop it from happening? Mage
probably says these guys were all mages but considering the sheer number
of people who have experienced something outside of a paradigm or dis-
covered something new, I seriously doubt they could all be mages. And
if they are, then M:tA is so incredibly unrealistic in it's portrayal
of the sleeper that I could never get into the game without radically
altering it's philosophies.

: One more thing. Illogical. According to whom? Apparently not to

: the fellow who wrote the game, nor to the people who have read the books
: that inspired the game. Maybe these concepts are poorly presented, but
: I wouldn't go so far as to attack a game on logical bases when logic is
: so much warm custard.

logic is so much warm custard? um.. well, logic is the basis of my
evaluation of all my earthly experience (outside of an occasional
irrationality but then they usually make sense in some weird way as
your therapist will show you) so I give it a lot of credit. I'm actually
surpised you'd say that because I firmly believe that if you thought
Mage were illogical (truly illogical) then you wouldn't play it or at
least wouldn't say it was so damn great. It seems to me that the problem
here is that you think it IS logical and I don't, not that you value
logic so much less that I. of course, if that was a flipant comment,
sorry for attacking it. :)

besides, logic is what separates the sane from the insane in realistic
terms. in other words, it would make perfect sense to an insane person
if suddenly a bunch of purple dinosaurs flew by but a sane person would
say "that doesn't make sense" or some variation thereof ("what the F**K
is that?!?"). of course if our reality worked according to different
rules or it was popularly known that dinosaurs frequented your part of
the country then it wouldn't be so illogical and thus a sane person
wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. I'm really not sure where
I'm going with this but if nothing else logic gives meaning to human
experience that can then be utilized by the brain.
why the hell did I just try to justify logic??!?
oh well, I don't feel like erasing it.

: Does a dog have the Buddha nature? Can a dog become Buddha, and if it

: is possible, how will we know that Rex has become the Buddha, if we
: never listen to him. Buddhist precepts teach that all things are
: capable of the Buddha nature, and yet it is obvious that dogs do not
: adhere to Buddhist teachings. What if? The answer, of course, is that
: the student who mused on this saw the trees, but could not see the
: forest. He got caught up in the paradox that he missed the larger
: picture. If a dog becomes Buddha, then we will _know._

saw the trees instead of the forest? hmm.. or perhaps he began to search
for knowledge as opposed to blind faith in a "dog"ma (hehe) that didn't
makes sense (illogical). Personally, I think if philosophical questionings
like that one don't support the belief/philosophy, then it probably
doesn't deserve much credit. saying that he should look at the forest
instead of the trees is like saying "pay no attention to that man behind
the curtain." You think I should be satisfied with the illusion he presents
even though it's deception is evident? I shouldn't pursue the truth?
Well, that's what I believe anyway. Sorry for going off on your faith
like that but I guess it kinda sorta maybe relates to my problems with
the Mage philosophy. Hopefully. :/

: > There are thousands of mages out there and, in the use of vulgar

: >magic they can do some pretty spectacular things. magic is a horribly
: >powerful weapon. yet the Technocracy have managed for five hundred
: >years to keep a lid on a power that can level nations, turn the sky
: >pink if it chooses too and generally cause the loudest ruckus you ever
: >heard.
: First, read Mage 2nd edition. It goes a long way to alleviating your
: fears as to why the earth hasn't been destroyed by some ambitious
: Nephandi with a pound of plutonium.

I must admit that I only have mage 1st edition but at least admit
that it's a big problem in that edition! it seems like we can't get
any support on these problems in this group even though they're there.
But I'll read it someday and get back to you. I don't suppose you
could summarize it to us, could you? I don't want to shell out a large
sum of money just to find out I don't like the new ed. any better.
Is it a change in the way the magic works or just band-aiding symptoms
of the magick system like the whole plutonium or virus thing.
hmm.. well, I hear nephilim is a good game, I guess I've got a
reason to check it out now..

: And we create stories to justify them. Human beings are insanely good

: about that. And if we didn't catch the bastard this time, we'll get him
: the next. Or the next. In short, the more you do, the more cocky
: you'll become, and the sooner you'll fall.
: I have books filled with Fortean phenomena, which cannot currently
: be edxplained by modern science, but the charge is there: one day, it
: will be. That's what paradox is all about. If it cannot adequately be
: believed, then Paradox will get it. If Paradox does not this time, then
: perhaps the next. The point of all this is that paradox isn't LOGICAL.
: It's _paradox._ It can ignore its own rules. It's special that way.

No, the point is that even if we say it will be explained or that paradox
will get 'em, the current paradigm is still being broken and thus changes
in the paradigm can be made. For instance, lets say around 1900, the pre-
vailing attitude said ufos didn't exist. Soon enough, ufos are popping up
everywhere (or vulgar magick is being seen everywhere everyonce in a
while). People may decide it makes sense because ufos are from another
planet but that still means that the paradigm has changed and ufos
become an accepted experience and probably stop gaining paradox (or at
least not as much). Why hasn't that happened with vulgar magick? Enough
mages willing to sacrifice themselves (to paradox or techies, doesn't matter)
in order to complete vulgar effects in front of millions of people (like
populated cities during conventions or nat'l holidays). Sure the guys
fry for it, but it's for the good of ascension or their tradition or
however you want to think it so they'd do it (you guys keep arguing that
the ascension war makes sense so this isn't so improbable). Pretty damn
soon everyone is believe that magick exists and, considering how popular
conspiracy theories are, that the gov't (effectively the techies) are
trying to cover it up. and they'd be right! If these events occured
it is reasonable to say that the paradigm would shift, albeit slowly,
to an attitude that accepted magick in society. Why wouldn't this
happen? It seems perfectly permissable according to Mage rules? These
are some of the reasons why the ascension war DOESN'T make sense to me.

[ a bunch of historical stuff deleted for brevity's sake ]
(I know I'm not really being brief in this post, but I'm
trying, okay? If I gloss over things, people will complain
that my arguments are without base.)

: No single piece of evidence could have transformed the world, but

: those four people contributed to turn the physical universe on its ear.
: They also worked in realms that the regular man couldn't touch, thus
: creating experience proof stories that, when one was properly
: indoctrinated with the right knowledge, made perfect sense.

Sure, multiple people contributed to it, but somewhere along the line,
sleepers looked up through their telescopes/whatevers and saw physical
evidence of a helio-centric solar system where previously they had
seen evidence of a earth-centred solar system. Whoever caused this
massive change in the universe had to have been blown away by paradox
and, I believe, paradox would have corrected the vulgarity of the skies
as well. People would rub their eyes to see if they were seeing things,
and by the time they had looked up again, things would be back the way
they were and galileo or copernicus or kepler or whoever would have
been a pile of dust. Somewhere along the line an actual change in the
universe had to take place so that sleepers could see the difference.
When that happened, the offending mage would be blown away and the
sleepers would remain unconvinced (according to your portrayal of the
system). I know this contradicts my examples of why a pardigm couldn't
be sustained, but that's because I'm trying to show both sides of
the issue. the ascension war doesn't make sense from both sides.

According to consenual reality theory, change of this sort could not
occur effectively enough for a paradigm shift and if it could, which
you guys seem to think, then there's no way the technocracy could stop
the paradigm from shifting again through tradition and marauder use
of vulgar magic. Assuming marauders can actually get to this world
through the gauntlet and still don't get paradox, vulgar magic would
still be available to be seen by most anyway they wanted to see it.

: If I told you that a galactic emperor named Xemu took all the

: undesirables in the galactic federation, freezed them in glycol, stuffed
: them in a volcano on a backwater world called Teegeeack, and bombed them
: into oblivion with hydrogen bombs, and that these undesirables buried
: their fragments of consciousness in an awakening world, and evolved with
: the lifeforms until they came to possess higher level life-forms, and it
: was these undesirable spirits, which we will call thetans, which are
: responsible for your problems in life, from physical maladies to
: emotional dysfunctions, you'd say it was a bad scifi story. But if I
: told you that it's what Scientologists believe as their story, and that
: people spend upwards of $100,000 for that info alone, you'd think anyone
: who would would be insane. So how do they get away with it? Simple.
: They don't give it to them all at once. They administer their tenants
: in small doses, with things that can be easily verified, yet hard to
: directly prove. They provide explainations, and get increasingly
: complex. In short, they teach you a new language and tell you a new
: story, a new way of looking at the world, and the next thing you know,
: it's all you can see. Of course, you can perceive the old way, but it
: seems unreal.

yeah, but you're talking in abstracts. It will never matter whether Xemu
is responsible for all physical maladies or not because we will never
know. Jen and I are talking in concrete experiences (I hope I'm not
mis-representing you Jen)

: The Techocracy created not only a new story but also a new

: language. It told everyone, "Come to us if you want answers, and rather
: than revealing them to you, we'll give you the tools to find your
: answers yourself." An an inevitable part of that story was
: collaboration. With the tenet of collaboration, all things had to be
: shared to be verified, and that toned down the more unreasonable
: theories. Copernicus won by slow and steady pressure. How many people
: died in the name of science? Chalk up each and every one to paradox.
: Galileo went blind. Paradox. They paid for the benefits we have today.

BTW, didn't the changed universe generate paradox and thus eventually
get changed back to the old universe? Isn't that the way paradox
works? and if it changed back, how would sleepers ever see what Galileo
was talking about when he said this or that and be able to believe it
since the evidence in the sky still supported an Earth-centered solar
system?

: > But they did survive, oddly enough. So, even iff you then account

: >that maybe Paradox was weaker back then than it is now (and why not)
: >your one in ten mage who pulls of his amazing feat of vulgar magic
: >successfully in front of crowds of people will change beliefs in an
: >instant. Imagine if a hundred Marauders struck at once in all the major
: >cities on the planet. The Technocracy would be ruins because some of
: >them would survive the attempt and change the beliefs of millions in an
: >instant.
: Once again, Mage 2nd edition addresses this. Maurauders who try this
: find themselves back where they started, with a sudden desire to change
: their mind. A bauble distracts them, and the universe is saved.

if marauders are still capable of reaching Earth I think the
example still applies. After all, they can still perform vulgar
magic without paradox, right? maybe to a lesser extent (isn't that
what you're implying with your cryptic reference to 2nd ed.?) but
they can still get here and maybe turn into a giant teddy-bear in
front of lots of sleepers. They wouldn't need to do it en masse for
the effect on the paradigm to be there.

: How many people start their abduction stories with, "Now I know you'll

: think I'm crazy, but..." Boom. They've just kow-towed to the
: Technomancer's paradigm. In that worldview, crap like that just doesn't
: happen to sane people, and the victim himself provides a way out. The
: technocracy then provides a solution (take a few of these pills...), and
: the world is once again bright and happy. Look at how accounts of the
: people returning from the afterlife are being challenged. People still
: believe them, but how many do so out of reflex, and not firm belief? We
: all operate under the eye of public scrutiny, of the need for scientific
: veracity. It's the language we speak, and for someone who doesn't speak
: it, the world's a very different place.

It doesn't matter that they say "you'll think I'm crazy" because the
original consensus among sleepers was that ufos and aliens didn't exist.
That changed to a consensus (not really but this is an example) that
they do exist. That's a paradigm shift that the technocracy couldn't
control and that was brought about by ufo sitings and abduction exp-
eriences. Sleepers experiences with vulgar magick would work the same
way.

: The technocracy wager that faced with a cruel and harsh world, the human

: race will just as quickly run back for cover under their paradigm. It
: was difficult at first, but there's an amazing amount of trust out
: there. How many people fly every day? Do they know how it works? Hell
: no. Will believing that it doesn't work make it crash. That depends on
: who is doing the disbelieving. If it's the pilot, hell yes. If every
: passenger doesn't, then no, because their filters block that
: possibility. The quicksilver nature of belief actually works to their
: advantage. In times of crisis, people cling to static, stable forces,
: not dynamic ones.

I'm sorry if I disagree with you again, but I think the world as it
stands IS cruel and harsh. Considering what happens in many 3rd world
countries, is it really that much better than the mythic age? There
have been changes, but the harshness and cruelty is still there. Ask
any sleeper who's been attacked by a mugger or a vampire or a werewolf,
etc. if the cruelty of life isn't still there. Thus I don't see anything
inherit that will drive sleepers to stick with the technocracy paradigm
and not sway where the winds take them.

: Frankly, I don't think the two are as incompatible as you think.

: The technocracy has made the world a much nicer, safer place. They've
: allowed mankind to create an economy of night, so that the Kindred can
: enjoy the finer things in life. Their long term plans for the human
: race care little for actual people, and more for movements, trends, etc.
: They move in entirely different worlds, and if they clash, it is quite
: simple to compromise, since both have things the other wants. Certainly
: the downfall of the tecnocracy would mean a return to a time when things
: were far less predictable, where a bastard with a cross could make your
: blood boil from within. Of course, that's just not possible now.
: How...convenient.

at the same time, the technocracy has necessitated the masquerade,
haven't they? Hell, by convincing everyone that vampires don't exist
(that's what the techie pardigm does, doesn't it?), it's logical
to assume that vampires would begin to accumulate paradox isn't it?
I'm not trying to argue as to whether or not they should, just that
vampires would have realized that their very existence in the fabric
of reality was at stake when the technocracy took over.

I still think there are basic conflicts that must come up between
the technocracy and the vampires because of how much they both control.
Doesn't the Syndicate and NWO cover much of the same stuff as say...
the Ventrue and Giovanni? Somewhere along the line a ventrue would
want this or that stock to go down or this or that business closed
and the techies would disagree. I can't believe that massive power
struggles wouldn't result from this considering that they do between
vampires over much the same stuff.

: Not so. This isn't a matter of game balance, since Mage wasn't designed

: to appeal to Vampire fans.

hmm.. well, I guess I keep going back to that paragraph on the last page
of 1st ed. vampire that said that all the games worked together to form
a complete system. Thus, I'd expect the games that followed Vampire to
work smoothly and _make sense_ in terms of the Vampire world. That's
reasonable isn't it? Obviously I was wrong, but these are still reasons
for me to have been put off by Mage, at least initially. and valid
complaints.

: What is real? That's what the game asks. That's the five billion soul

: question. There's a lot of theories, a lot of templates and blueprints
: for how the universe works, but how many really _do_ work? A handful?

That's funny, I thought that that question was already answered. Whatever
the majority of sleepers believe is real. Isn't that what consenual reality
is? How does that leave room for interpretation? Seems pretty fustrating
to someone like me who wanted some leeway with the universe. Consenual
reality is the basic premise for the game and it would be pretty hard to
play without it.

[ stuff about Mage powerfulness deleted ]

: Sigh. Read second edition.

hmm.. don't suppose you could expand do you? I'm also interested
to know if it's worth buying so your input would be useful. Not
to mention the fact that it doesn't help the discussion much, but
then this has been a long response, so I understand.

: Had you read the Book of Shadows, you would have come to another

: conclusion: the high muck-a-mucks of the Technocracy HATE HUMANITY!

well, I have the BoS, and a couple of convention books (progs and X)
and the only conclusion I could come to is that the technocracy is
evil. I saw no room at all for helpful or heroic or in anyway redeemable
technocrats. Both convention books portrayed their group as insane
and twisted and misanthropic and evil. Any and all goodness was squashed
before it could get anywhere in the organization. That's why I think
the technocracy is too one-dimensional and uninteresting as an org-
anization of PEOPLE as opposed to cardboard cut-outs. The player's
guide may change this but so far, it doesn't look it.

[ lots of stuff about trad stereo-types that I didn't
agree with deleted ]

: > Cult of Ecstasy - The Toreador. Time really does not fit these guys

: >as a Sphere.
: In art, timing is everything.

um.. you could say the same about anything couldn't you? no, I agree
with jen, mind makes far more sense as their sphere. afterall they're
exploring what exactly the mind is capable of in terms of pleasure
and pain, right? Maybe time for the SoE since they're such anachronisms
anyway.

: Well, that's the gauntlet laid down. Yet again. It'll be interesting

: to see who picks it up this time.

I can't believe I spent three plus hours responding to this one post.
I sure hope it's helpful and SOMEONE reads it cuz I don't think I'd
have the strength or vivarin to do it again.

: Timothy Toner

- DeViL BeN

Mephistopheles

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

Frank Lazar (fml...@ritz.mordor.com) wrote:
: I imagine he's got lots better things to do with his time (like

: maintianing awsome Web pages and archives) then take up with obvious
: flamebait. From the introductory message, it seems it's quite clear that
: the author's primary intention is simply to keep a thread of his own alive
: or it betrays an inability or unwilligness to examine in depth the

: material he criticises so stridently. Responding to inane threads has

: been the downfall of many good newsgroups, just as the folks at
: rec.arts.babylon5.

oh, come on! you are telling me you can't see ANY merit at all
to the arguments he has? Are you serious? Sure, I'm subjective
because I agree with him, but I can at least understand why
some peope would like Mage. I can't believe that you can't see
anything at all in his problems with the ascension war, technocracy,
consensual reality, magick system, etc. You may disagree with them
or be better at seeing them from a _different_ point of view,
but how could you not see anything in them? Wow, I sure didn't
think he was being that obtuse. I sure hope I wasn't.

- DeViL BeN

Eric E Tolle

unread,

Apr 16, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/16/96

Actually, I could write a hell of a lot on this- but why bother? I
got burned out on ths argument the first time it came around- when
all the same bloody arguments were made when Mage first came out.
B

The basic argument seems to be "mage has certain assumptions and
settings, and therefore is bad and wrong". I'd merely like to
point out that it is a _really_ bad idea to criticize a game merely
because of the background settings.

Mage states that the universe works in a certain way, with a certain
worldview. So does, Kult, Vampire, D&D, and Traveller. Going in and
saying that a certain game is 'wrong' because the assumptions of the
universe behind it is wrong, quickly reaches a point of futile 'I
don't like this, I don't like that'.

I mean 'cmon, criticizing Mage for being 'unrealistic'? Like Vampire
isn't? Or Werewolf or Shadowrun? Basically, the argument _doesen't_
come down to 'reasonable', but to taste. The whole point is that Mage
has a worldview that the original poster doesen't like, and that simply
comes down to taste.

As a matter of fact, as far as 'accuracy' goes, the entire bit about
how mages woulden't form organizations completely ignores _real_
_world_ magic organizations such as the Order of the Golden Dawn and
others. Obviously the guy didn't do his homework. Then again, he
cites as a reference 'Books of Magick, which, though a nice comic, is
_still_ a comic book. Mage was instead based on a number of sources,
ranging from Pirisig, to Bonewitz. As far as confirming to the ideas
of post-modernism, it does a good job- as he would know if he had any
basic knowledge of modern philosophy.

Oh gah, I'm letting myself be drawn into details. Forget it, consider it
a lengthy troll.

Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
"An' then Chi...@little.com, he come scramblin outta the terminal room
screaming "The system's crashing! The system's crashing!"
-Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'

MarcB13

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

Okay, I know I just thanked Robin for saying all I had wanted to, but I
just have to beat this dead horse myself on one point:

In article <Dpppv...@news.tcd.ie>, jodo...@tcd.ie (JenJingu) writes:

> The ideas for the game are by and large obvious rip-offs of previous
>ideas. The Technocracies individual parts are somewhat creative, but the
>rest of them can be picked and chosen from entertainment of the last few
>years and finger pointed to say .. hey, I know that !!

Here we go..

>
> Akashic Brotherhood- Mystic Monks as seen in all the best martial arts
>movies and the really tripey Golden Child flick.
>

Just because Hellywood has come out with a few movies including mystic
monks, they all of a sudden own the concept? Try watching any of the old
Asian theater or reading the legends.

> Euthanatos - Thousands of bad voodoo movies

I have never seen a voodoo (sic) movie which used a concept like this.
Voodoo (the religion Vodoun) has been much maligned, but not in this
particular way. I don't see a conection between evil priests casting
curses and raising the dead and the descriptions of the Euthanatos in
Mage. Call me crazy...

>
> Dreamspeakers- Werewolf The Apocalpyse

Whoa!!! Since when did White Wolf invent Native peoples or their
sprituality? In fact, I applaud WWGS for making the effort to include
these almost unheard from viewpoints at all, especially in two seperate
games. I do not, however, think that Native peoples came into being when
a WW writer said, "What about a Native American Tribe, maybe 'Uktena' or
something." I like WWGS, but I don't ascribe that much power to them.

>
> Order of Hermes - Guess.
>

Won't fight you on this one, but I do fail to see why it's so bad to base
a tradition on a historical group of Mages. Just because they used the
concept already in another game? Geez, that'll limit future projects...

> Virtual Adepts - Lawnmower Man

Of course, the fact that Virtual Reality and related concepts have been
exploding on the public scene for about a decade had nothing to do with
it. I'm beginning to wonder if the accusation of getting all one's ideas
from pop culture was levelled at the wrong folks.

>
> Sons of Ether - Quatermass/Boris Karloff/BladeRunner take your pick.

Well, I never said I liked *all* the traditions. This one is just a
little too goofy for me (that's goofy the adjective, Jen, not a reference
to the Disney character). But even given that, I fail to see any kind of
Blade Runner connection. You'd have been better off choosing examples from
bad 1950's sci-fi movies.

>
> Cult of Ecstasy - The Toreador. Time really does not fit these guys as
>a Sphere.

Once again, I think you're reading way too much in here. Both groups are
somewhat hedonistic, but I doubt the connection even came to mind for the
writers of the game. I would never have concieved a connection here
myself, anyway. A better example would have been any number of books or
movies with Rastafarian type characters, or maybe "Dazed and Confused."
:-)

>
> Verbena - Archetypal druids and witches.

Speaking a a Witch myself, I would have been furious if no nod had been
given to the ancient European forms of Magick. I was very disturbed by
the emphasis on blood, but this was much toned down (though not
eliminated, *&@%) in the 2nd edition. As other posters have mentioned,
WWGS made some effort to make the Traditions echo real Magickal
organizations.

>
> Celestial Chorus - The Catholic Church.

Always was a little bothered by this one myself. Not a particular fan of
that belief structure, so I just don't play 'em. Once again, though, I
think that there is definately a place for Christian mysticism in this
game. (Also, you seem to have gotten away from your original point about
Traditions being "picked and chosen from entertainment of the last few
years." Or has the Catholic Curch sprung up more recently than I
thought?) ;-)
>

In short, I have not got a problem with people expressing dislike of
something. Just don't eat up my mailer with a treatise on the subject,
especially if you can't keep your own logic consistant or your points
relevant. I agree with you on some of your other points, but there was no
need for the verbosity. In fact, I think it tripped you up as you got
caught-up in any number of internal inconsistancies (see just about every
other response on this thread). If you feel you must, try making several
posts each dealing with a different point. I agree with another poster
who said that you had actually proven how well thought-out the Mage
cosmology was by trying so unsuccessfully to attack it. (Wait, this guy
isn't a plant from WWGS is he?)

Ah well, play the games you like, ignore the ones you don't and let the
rest just flow. Toodles!

Jimmy McKinney

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

On Tue, 16 Apr 1996, Richard Bell wrote:

> The one explanation of the statue of liberty trick that I read on
> sci.skeptic was that the platform was slightly rotated, the lights
> of the statue were switched off, and the helicopter with the search
> light moved to an empty sopt of sky. all while the curtains were
> closed. The reason magicians never reveal their tricks is that
> they are so simple (but inobvious and clever), that people would be
> embarassed that they were fooled by them.

or it could possibly be that they wouldn't be "special" and wouldn't make
any money doing magic if everyone knew their tricks, and they would need a
so-called "real" job ;-)

Also there would be less imagination and creativity in the world...

ethompso@janus1

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

> Some humans (Sleepers) can become agents of the Nephandi. These servants may be granted
> certain powers by their masters, but this does not make them Mages. Sometimes an Awakened
> Mage becomes the servant of a demon (note: they're probably not *really* demons, but it's a
> convenient title) and is called a barabbus. Does a barabbus believe he is the servant of the

OK, but what is the difference between a barabbus and a Nephandi mage?

Eric the .5b

Daniel B. Holzman

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

In article <4l1u7f$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, MarcB13 <mar...@aol.com> wrote:
>Okay, I know I just thanked Robin for saying all I had wanted to, but I
>

>> Verbena - Archetypal druids and witches.
>
>Speaking a a Witch myself, I would have been furious if no nod had been
>given to the ancient European forms of Magick. I was very disturbed by
>the emphasis on blood, but this was much toned down (though not
>eliminated, *&@%) in the 2nd edition. As other posters have mentioned,
>WWGS made some effort to make the Traditions echo real Magickal
>organizations.

ALso speaking as a Witch, I'm glad they've got the blood in there. It
belongs there. The Verbena are not the modern, bloodless, 20th centruy
mindset Witches that you and I are. They're the unbroken and unchanged
descendants of our spiritual ancestors who really did believe that Blood
is the source of life and magick, and sacrificed their kings when the
crop was insufficient because his blood would restore the land. We've
got to own the fact that that's what our early predecessors did, along
with Wicker Men and Blood Eagles, and White Wolf got it right.

--
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.

nuc...@garlic.com

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

Oh, you say to-may-to, and I say to-mah-to...

A barabbus is any Awakened mage who subsequently becomes the servant (or cohort, if you prefer)
of a (demon/umbrood/lord). A Nephandi mage is probably a barabbus, but I guess it's possible
that said Nephandi did not have magickal powers before becoming the servant of the demon. Soooo
if, and I'm not sure about this, but if a demon can impart True Magickal ability to a Sleeper (as
opposed to hedge magick, which is certainly possible), then that person becomes a Nephandus, but
*not* a barabbus. I'd say that even if this is possible that most Nephandi mages are barabbi.
But hey, I could be wrong...

- Robin Wise

"Let's call the whole thing off..."

Mephistopheles

unread,

Apr 17, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/17/96

Brendan (brm...@hampshire.edu) wrote:
: The Nephandi are mages. They have personal power to the same degree that

: any other mage does. A Dreamspeaker thinks his powers come from the
:spirits,
: a Hermetic thinks it comes from his or her knowledge of secret words of
:power, and
: a Child of Ether thinks it comes from his/her gadgets. What's your point?
: Nephandi work within a paradigm where serving demons has tangible rewards,
: so that's how they justify their use of their powers to themselves.

that's funny, I thought Dreamspeakers and Hermetics and SoE's all thought
their power came from their avatars and their ability to warp reality
against the opinion of consenual reality. Isn't that the basis for the
game? Doesn't that severely limit the traditions in the diversity of
their beliefs? all the rest seems like window-dressing to me.

: More importantly, no two mages agree on where "there" is. It's the

:perfect point
: of enlightenment, but that means different things to different people.
:An Adept
: might see it as being a visionary programming god, and an Akashic Yogi might
: seek to find release from the illusory world of the senses. Different goals.

but this still means that ALL mages believe in ascension (i.e. enlight-
enment) as being the reason for existence. Doesn't that seem kind of
too encompassing? I mean, according to that, all traditions, techies,
marauders, etc., all have the same view of the meaning of life, all
little differences aside. Doesn't allow for much differences in mages,
does it?

: Wrong, wrong, wrong. This was the biggest problem I had with Mage for

: about a year,
: until I actually read the theoretical crapola. The differences between
: two individual's
: conscious beliefs is completely and utterly irrelevant. The subconscious
: beliefs of
: the Sleeping Masses dictate the terms under which the different aspects of
: Reality
: (the Spheres) interact. In other words, under what rules Forces manifest,
: the "normal"
: behavior of Matter, etc. However, various objects and people, which are
: composed
: of abstract Patterns made tangible by an infusion of Quintessence,
: objectively exist
: and have Sleeping or Awakened Avatars. Sleeping Avatars are essentially
: static
: and have a sort of inertia. They exist and resist change in the form of
: that existence.

: For example, a rock has Matter and Spirit Patterns filled with Quintess-
: ence and a

: Sleeping Avatar. Joe the Sleeper doesn't need to believe in the rock;
: it exists without him.

rocks have Avatars???
doesn't that mean that all matter has an avatar?????
then how could the earth (which has objective existence if
it has an avatar) be shaped by sleeper belief (earth round
or flat)? How could much of the universe (in terms of the
matter existing therein) be completely reformed/created/
destroyed by sleeper belief such as the existence of other
galaxies (previous to discovery, not believed in)? saying
that rocks have avatars is parmount to saying that matter
has objective reality. I certainly didn't get that from
reading Mage, but okay. If the rock is capable of existing
without Joe's belief, then why do dragons and faeries and
monsters start to gain paradox when no-one believes in them
anymore?

: However, the subconscious beliefs of Joe and the rock (and the

: whole of existence)
: govern any and all interactions between Joe and the rock. That's about
: the limits of
: subjective reality in terms of Sleepers. Awakened entities can bend
: these laws to their

: will, but the laws resist them because the collective subconscious beliefs
: of all the Sleeping Avatars resist change.

I'd say the Columbus example works against this nicely.
If consenual reality dictates that the world is flat, then
how could it be possible for someone like Columbus to not
fall off the edge of the earth (and if he was a mage, wouldn't
he have been torn to pieces by paradox)? Too much occurs
in Mage/real history that is outside of the subconscious beliefs
of the sleeper masses. How can this be reconciled? The very fact
that such a discovery as Columbus' could occur seems to go
against the prevailing beliefs of the time (flat earth, fall
off edge). Even if he was a mage, he'd have been destroyed by
the act of reshaping the entire world so that he could land in
the Bahamas. I have yet to see this reconciled with the theory
you assert above.

- DeViL BeN

Brendan

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

>In article <Dpppv...@news.tcd.ie>, jodo...@tcd.ie (JenJingu) writes:
>
>> The ideas for the game are by and large obvious rip-offs of previous
>>ideas. The Technocracies individual parts are somewhat creative, but the
>>rest of them can be picked and chosen from entertainment of the last few
>>years and finger pointed to say .. hey, I know that !!

Well, if your priorites weren't ass-backwards, you might see that as a good trend.
The whole point of Vampire is to create an RPG that allowed people to play
vampires (those being those creatures out of legend, folklore and modern literature
that we all know and love). My biggest gripe with Werewolf was that it tended
too much towards its own little conception of a neat beastie who fights for the
environment rather than the traditional "werewolf" as I understood it. Mage is
at its best when it is not overly "creative," in the sense that it creates all
kinds of neato gimmicky mage powers and such while blatantly ignoring REAL
LIFE BELIEF SYSTEMS. I'd be much happier with an RPG simulation of magick
that allowed a player to find a character concept that reflects a real system of belief
(say Wicca, or Qabala, or Taoist alchemy) than one that has all kinds of silly
but "new and exciting" concepts that have no reference points outside the game.
Such an approach is a hallmark of shitty fantasy novels (like the AD&D Forgotten
Realms series) and ultimately becomes sterile.

DShomshak

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

Michael Brazier wrote:

>
> Brendan wrote:
> >
> > The Nephandi are mages. They have personal power to the same degree
that
> > any other mage does. A Dreamspeaker thinks his powers come from the
spirits,
> > a Hermetic thinks it comes from his or her knowledge of secret words
of
power, and
> > a Child of Ether thinks it comes from his/her gadgets. What's your
point?
> > Nephandi work within a paradigm where serving demons has tangible
rewards,
> > so that's how they justify their use of their powers to themselves.
>

> The Nephandi's "demonic masters" are a paradigm for magick?
>Somehow I don't
> think that fits. In all the other mage groups, the mage is at least an
>equal to the
> beings granting him power, or else the clear master of those beings.
The
>Nephandi
> are played as _servants_. I can't imagine a mage willing to take a
>subservient role,
> even if it's imaginary.

Ah. So Celestial Chorus mages don't take a subservient role to the One?
The Verbena don't take a subservient role to Gaia? These Traditions are
_religions,_ not cold-blooded magickal sciences. For that matter, the RL
shaman (prototype for the game's Dreamspeaker) fulfills a religious role
and must stay on the good side of the spirits. There's at least a third
of all the Traditions whose paradigm is based on worship. So why can't a
Nephandus' paradigm be based on worshipping demons, the Wyrm or Horrors
from Beyond?

Dean Shomshak

David Johnston

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

Michael Brazier:

-> The Nephandi's "demonic masters" are a paradigm for magick? Somehow
-> I don't think that fits. In all the other mage groups, the mage is
-> at least an equal to the
-> beings granting him power, or else the clear master of those beings.
-> The

Wrong. The CC are definitely subservient to their power source, as
least officially.

However, the Nephandi do not normally have a "Nephandi" paradigm. Most
of them use the same approach they did before they Fell. They have
merely become allies and/or servants of unspeakable evil. At the same
time however, the Nephandi do have a kind of enlightenment that others
do not. They know things that Sleepers, or even mages do not know.
It's just that these are things that no one should want to know.

Richard Bell

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

In article <4l1u7f$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, MarcB13 <mar...@aol.com> wrote:

>In article <Dpppv...@news.tcd.ie>, jodo...@tcd.ie (JenJingu) writes:
>
>>
>> Celestial Chorus - The Catholic Church.
>Always was a little bothered by this one myself. Not a particular fan of
>that belief structure, so I just don't play 'em. Once again, though, I
>think that there is definately a place for Christian mysticism in this
>game. (Also, you seem to have gotten away from your original point about
>Traditions being "picked and chosen from entertainment of the last few
>years." Or has the Catholic Curch sprung up more recently than I
>thought?) ;-)
>>
>

The Celestial Chorus is the one tradition that bugs me. The authors of
M:tA did no research, or they would have realised that pantheism (all things
are part of god) is not the same as monotheism (there is only one God, and
He created everything). In fact, pantheism is regarded as heresy by all
western religions with the possible exception of the Ba'Hai.

Calling Rome the holiest city, ignores the existence of Jerusalem
(That Jerusalem is the holiest of cities is the ONLY thing that
jews, christians, and muslims ALL agree on).

Mephistopheles

unread,

Apr 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/18/96

Daniel B. Holzman (hol...@tezcat.com) wrote:
: ALso speaking as a Witch, I'm glad they've got the blood in there. It

: belongs there. The Verbena are not the modern, bloodless, 20th centruy
: mindset Witches that you and I are. They're the unbroken and unchanged
: descendants of our spiritual ancestors who really did believe that Blood
: is the source of life and magick, and sacrificed their kings when the
: crop was insufficient because his blood would restore the land. We've
: got to own the fact that that's what our early predecessors did, along
: with Wicker Men and Blood Eagles, and White Wolf got it right.

Funny you'd say that, because I thought the Verbena were supposed to
represent modern magickal thought just as much as old ideas. If you consider
todays' wicca/pagan traditions to be an evolution of older ideas, and
considering that the Verbena are supposed to represent the ideal witch,
that which all historical examples are either based on or are perversions
of, shouldn't the Verbena be... well, more civilized? You don't see the
Celestial Chorus mass-murdering heretics even thought their historical
predecessors were keen to such things. Personally, the thing I didn't
like was the emphasis on all power/magick coming from the body and not
from the mind and the Verbena's insistence on nature above man, something
that I don't totally agree with. I don't have 2nd ed. so I can't compare
there. I guess my problem is my philosophies have always found their
way somewhere between Verbena, Akashic, and Hermetic schools of thought.

: --

: Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love
: and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
: took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
: word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.

- DeViL BeN

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon

unread,

Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96

ethompso@janus1 wrote:

>> Some humans (Sleepers) can become agents of the Nephandi. These servants may be granted
>> certain powers by their masters, but this does not make them Mages. Sometimes an Awakened
>> Mage becomes the servant of a demon (note: they're probably not *really* demons, but it's a
>> convenient title) and is called a barabbus. Does a barabbus believe he is the servant of the

> OK, but what is the difference between a barabbus and a Nephandi mage?

Just a title for the Nephandi mages, to recognize their former
Tradition, like the Sabbat Clans (i.e. Son of Ether Barrabbi).

g_ri...@husky1.stmarys.ca

unread,

Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96

In article <4kvial$q...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, dark...@wam.umd.edu (Mephistopheles) writes:

>Timothy Toner (than...@flowbee.interaccess.com) wrote:
>: How many people died in the Cold War? Officially, none, but there are
>: those who died as a result of decisions we made in a war that didn't
>: exist. How many _will_ get cancer because of nuclear tests we did 50
>: years ago, to make "safer" bombs? All those who died and will die as a
>: result of the cold war have to take solace in the realization that they
>: were defending an ideology, an idea, a way of viewing reality.
>
>how long did the cold war last? How long has the ascension war lasted?
>Jen still has a strong point in that all ideological/religious wars
>have not been long lasting or very consistent in ideology (i.e. much
>of the reasons for those wars were political or socio-economic in
>nature). Granted, if the Mage is an inheritly religious being, he is
>more likely to become involved in ideological conflicts but eventually
>common sense overcomes zealousness. For example, the protestants and
>catholics are no longer engaged in a physical war for ideological
>reasons. It's true that Muslims still engage in religious wars but
>there are other factors involved in those wars (mostly political).
>The ascension war is essentially an ideological conflict, a dis-
>agreement as to how the universe should be structured. Tradition
>mages have not been snuffed out of existence by the techie paradigm.
>I still don't see how a conflict like this could span centuries
>without more conservative elements taking over such as communist
>policy in USSR changing from world revolution to communism in one
>country.

Consider that if a mage abandons their paradigm for 'common sense', they cease
to become a mage. Your (or JenJingu's) point illustrates what I consider to be
the 'darker' side of Mage, however. That every single paradigm or framework
used by any mage is a lie in the universal sense. In fact, there is no
universal sense to anything, and the mage has a first-hand view of the
fragility inherent in all belief systems. Everytime they encounter another
mage with a differing paradigm, they see that someone else is right. The more
they see that they are all 'right', in the fact that each mage does work
reality through their paradigm, that they realize that their paradigm is a lie.
The struggle boils down to the mage throwing off the preconception of paradigm
and ascending to a higher level of enlightenment, or holding onto their old
ideals and either growing callous or going mad. The conflict spans for
centuries because the war is being carried on by those who have not yet thrown
off the shackles of paradigm and still fight over who is 'right' in the
universal sense. But you are right, it is essentially a religious war.

>: What if there was no courts, no governing bodies? And what if there was
>: only a handful of people who really really really understood the
>: technology? That's the Ascension War. Everyone talked about reality,
>: but no one knew how to do anything about it. Until now. And I'm
>: telling you that beyond the parameters of the game, millions of people
>: have died this century alone over differences in reality.
>
>I don't think that the war couldn't happen, just that it would be
>"solved" by now. some agreement would have been reached, some group
>would have been wiped out for good. It's like a fault; when tension
>keeps increasing, it has to give sometime, it can't go on forever.
>Eventually the weak link will give. That hasn't happened here. If
>nothing else the real world has been dynamic in its ideological and
>political spheres over the last five centuries, and the Mage world
>has not. That doesn't make much sense to me.

Again, for the war to be "solved" and an agreement to be met, the mages
involved would have to look beyond their own noses and vieww reality through
another paradigm, which the unascended still do. if the ascended mages of the
world ran the war, then there would be no war. But then again, if every mage
were ascended, then there'd be no room for growth, and the game would be really
boring ;>

>: Y'see, it's all a question of resources. The UofM doesn't have enough
>: to support every radical theory, so it has to make choices. Power plays
>: result, and inocent people with devotion to pet theories get stepped on.
>: So too with Mage. There just isn't enough reality to go around.
>
>true, but radical theories DO get through in the real world. There have
>been plenty of ground-breaking theories in just the last ten years that
>are getting support in academic and intellectual circles. In Mage all
>of that is stifled (sp?). The real world is dynamic. Sure, there are
>oppressive forces and limits in resources, but change occurs and occurs
>all the time. It doesn't occur in Mage, at least not along tradition
>lines of thinking.

Change within mage, as done by sleepers, does occur, but it occurs within the
constraints of consensual reality. Plenty of ground-breaking theories can be
made within the game system, as long as they are explained in terms of
consensual reality. The game world is dynamic, but that's because the
Technocracy made the paradigm, and does not control the masses in a way to
stifle all change. If that were true, the Technocracy would have already won
the war.

>: Very few stories are experience-proof. If I tell you that wearing an
>: Ozzy Osbourne shirt will protect you from bullets, you'll believe it
>: until, of course, you get shot. The best application of experience-proofing
>: is the old "paint on the bench" trick. Tell a man that there
>: are a billion stars in the sky, and he'll believe you. Tell him that
>: the paint on the bench is wet, and he'll have to touch it to be sure.
>: No one is going to count the stars. So what you need to do is make your
>: stories (paradigms) so high that no one will bother questioning them.
>: This is how so many groups survived up until the technocracy rolled into
>: town.
>
>Yes, but paradigms are more than just whether or not there are a billion
>stars in the sky, paradigms also deal with the wet paint, don't they?
>Thus, if everyone in the world believes that the paint is not wet, how
>do you convince them otherwise? If you tell them it is, they'll check it
>and find out that it is not. Sure you can use magick to overcome this
>but then that implies that all great discoverers or otherwise shapers of
>public opinion and whatnot must be mages. Why didn't Colombus just sail
>off the edge of the world if everyone believed it to be flat? How could
>he "discover" it to be round (or at least larger than they thought)? This
>is a much more concrete example that deals more with experience-proof
>instances than the Helio-centric/terra-centric one.

If a seeper enacts a change that must bring about a change in sconsensual
reality, they need not fear the wrath of paradox because they are a part of the
force that generates paradox. If a mage enacts a change that must bring about
a change in consensual reality, they will suffer from Paradox as they are not a
part of of the consensual reality. They are a part of their own reality as
defined by their paradigm. When Columbus actually went to the ends of the
earth to see if the world was flat, he was the first sleeper of the European
region of the world to go there wondering about the shape of the earth. As
such, when he got there, there was no other opinion to say otherwise, so he got
to form the consensual reality there. If he went to the edge of the world
looking to find the edge, firmly believing that there was en edge, there would
be noone to go against his opinion, so the world (according to consensual
reality) would indeed be flat. The Technocracy's part in the ascension war is
their hatred of change. If Joe Public heads off towards the center of the
earth all bound and determined to find it hollow, he's going to, as long as
noone else has gone there first thinking something else. Such unchecked
dynamism is bad in the eyes of the technocracy, so in order to change
consensual reality to their wishes, they tell the sleepers what to believe when
they get there first. So any miner who heads down a shaft has had it hammered
into his brain that there is no hollow world down there. And when they get
there, they find what they think they will find.

>: They came up with a simple story. Everything can be explained.
>: Anything that can't be explained will be explained with a bit more
>: study. Just give us time. That's the story under which we currently
>: operate, and as you can imagine, it's deeply seductive. Anything _true_
>: in anyone else's paradigm is automatically subsumed into the Technos'
>: paradigm if it makes sense. Anything that requires a leap of faith is
>: left into the dust. Thus, this story can tear apart most any
>: "experience-proof" stories, making them irrelevant.
>
>hmm.. yes, but I can't say that this way of dealing with reality ("oh,
>they just haven't figured that part out yet") is as universal as you'd
>suggest. People who encounter unexplained phenomena are constantly having
>their lives irrevocably changed by it. Most people who have ever been
>"abducted" or seen a ufo show this. They don't suddenly decide that
>they must have been seeing things. They think, oh my god, ufo's exist!
>By this logic and with the power that mages have to create such
>unexplained phenomena, paradigm shifts could be created without too
>much hardship and effectively under the nose of the technocracy.

Again, if the sleeper tries something of their own volition and truly believe
in what they are going to find when they get there, they will. In the case of
UFO abductions, the technocracy (via the Void Engineers) has told the masses
that there may be life out there, but didn't tell them what it was - so the
sleepers made it up on their own. And boy are the VE's in trouble now ;>

>: "There are many paths. There is but one destination." That's how the
>: technocracy would view that conundrum. Or to put it another way, it
>: doesn't amtter how you get there, only that you do. And that you're
>: driving the right kind of car. If you're not, then you'll find the
>: journey much more arduous.
>
>sure, but how do all the technocrats agree that this or that type of
>transportation will actually work? why would the other technocrats
>agree to one or the other? There should be some dissention in any
>realistic intellectual body that has to make these kinds of decisions.
>And if there is dissention, how can the consenual reality hold?

First of all, the techno's do not completely control consensual reality. If
they did, they would have won the war. The assertion that the Technocracy owns
reality is not true.
Second of all, the various conventions may disagree on their individual takes
on the sciewntific paradigm, but they all must agree on the basic structures of
it - science. That gravity pulls stuff together, and makes stuff fall down on
Earth is a constant across the scientific spectrum. Anyone who dissents or
disagrees is labelled a nut.

>hmm.. I guess the point I'd try to make here is that the Nephandi, while
>not ununderstandable in their ideologies, are still just evil.

Evil is still relative to the individual belief structure of the person making
the moral judgement.

>are all evil! They're still effectively token bad guys. You don't see
>any cases of mages "selling their souls" to some umbrood and still being
>basically good people.

Why not? It's possible within the framework of the rules. If you want Larry
the Mage to sell his soul to some Umbrood and still be a basically good person,
you can. It will make as much sense as you want.

>unless magick is inheritly religious which, in terms of M:tA, I'm
>starting to expect. after all, none of the mages in the game are lacking
>in a cosmology/world view and what needs to be done about it in order
>to make the world a better place. I guess that's where my main problem
>lies. I don't see magick as religious in nature so the game always
>seems "off" to me.

So make a group that holds whatever view you want. The game mechanics aren't
known to characters - magick is whatever they believe.

>and all mages have this exact same view of ascension (as a path to
>perfection et all)? They all believe that reality is a delusion that
>is created by consenual beliefs? Shouldn't there be at least a few
>who disagree? This is the same problem I had with Werewolf. The inherit
>way in which the universe is structured is already laid down for you.
>You can't change it or have people believe it to be something else
>unless they're daft or ignorant of the facts. Considering real life is
>quite the conglomeration of questions about reality, I considered this
>to be particularly unrealistic. and religious, which is something that
>I'm not and I don't like in my rpg's. Hell, even the concept of avatars
>is so universal, it doesn't make sense. They don't even really have
>different interpretations of what an avatar is. It's things like this
>that seem to blur the lines between the traditions making their differences
>basically window-dressing.

So make a character that doesn't believe in all that religious claptrap. The
Techno's have a hard time with avatars, and do not share the belief that they
are 'souls'. It wouldn't make scientific sense. The universe is a strcutred
as your character wants to believe. The universal structure wasn't made for
characters, it was made for players as a way to describe their character's
powers in terms of game mechanics. Personally, whenever I see mages from
differing paradigms talking about 'Correspondence', and all using that name, it
really irks me. But it's entirely ignorable.

>: "In the long run, we are all dead." Magi have a choice. Ascend or die.
>: Release yourself from the operating parameters of this world, or hope to
>: get a better chance next time. Which would you pick, if you were given
>: a choice?
>
>true enough, but the fact that they all believe in ascension as opposed
>to some other goal seems contrived.

But all goals can be called Ascension! If my character's entire life's goal
was to sit on his arse and watch TV, that that's his view of Ascension.
Granted that's not much of a goal, but at the final epoch of his existance, he
will have the power to, well, get 500 channels, eat fritos, and be at peace.

>: How many people believe in existence after life? This is, of course,
>: the ultimate experience-proof story. Most societies come to some sort
>: of a conclusion that there is some sort of life, but is there proof?
>: Sure, people say they come back, and curious cases of reincarnation have
>: done more for the effect of wishful thinking than hard evidence. But so
>: many people believe -- how can it not be true?
>
>How many people get involved in century long wars over whether or not
>there is an afterlife? not many. The point is that mages devote their
>lives and activities to an abstract un-experiencable(sp?) goal that,
>much like the existence of an afterlife isn't that useful in everday
>existence. so what if the mage is gonna come back in another life if
>he doesn't ascend? is life here that bad? and if he's gonna be a mage
>in the next life, why the hell not? It's a lot better than wasting your
>life away in search of an unattainable goal. where are the hedonists?
>the nihilists? Everyone in this game is a religious zealot! How many
>people do you know in real life who dedicate their lives to enlighten-
>ment? It is just as phantasmal a goal in Mage, is it not? so why are
>they all lining up to do it there and not here? where are the pragmatists
>and realists? I guess I'd never have been a mage.. >:/

You're implying that all mages take an active part in the Ascension war. This
is not necessarily true. Whose to say that there isn't an entire group of VA's
whose idea of ascension is playing DOOM until their eyes bug out? You're
making assertions that they cannot exist, when they in fact can.

>: Our reality is suffused with experience-proof and not so experience
>: proof stories that we choose to believe because they fit our moral
>: structure. But if a prick in NWO trappings points a gun in your face
>: and asks you if you're a mage, you're going to say, "No," and that's not
>: going to affect the existence or non-existence of Ascension either way.
>: Maybe there's no ascension. Maybe there's no afterlife. But while
>: scrabbling up from the dust, enough people realized that the world was a
>: better place believing in it that it became a cornerstone of reality.
>
>how is it a better place believing in ascension? I don't see that.
>You can have morals and goals and enjoy life without looking for some
>kind of transcendal enlightenment.

And that would be your transcendental enlightenment. A VA sitting in his room
playing DOOM and eating corn ships. Ascension as good as it comes.

>: > But no, Mages, particularly the Technocracy, follow this precept of
>: >Ascension like some mystic hare on a greyhound track, when they don't
>: >even have the foggiest clue what the hell it is they are after. That's
>: >like fighting tooth and nail for your political ideals when you haven't
>: >a breeze what those ideas actually are. It's illogical. Things just
>: >don't work that way.
>
>But in Mage, unlike real life, ascension is a reality the way their
>avatar is a reality and the umbra is a reality and gaia is reality instead
>of the beliefs and philosophies that people toss around today. In Mage
>fact replaces the uncertainties of real life. That's why I hate it.

Ascension is no more real than a 3-dollar bill. If it were a constant reality
and easily defined, there would be no path to ascension. You would just want
to be ascended, and you would be. Mage, in fact, takes away ALL the
certainties in ANYTHING. Everything is defined by belief and perception. That
is all. Anything above or beyond that is another version of the same thing.

>: Everything can be explained with careful
>: application of scientific principles. And who controls the scientific
>: principles? Game, set, and match. Even if they were able to plug
>: something new in there, it would eventually be explained in terms of the
>: technocracy's paradigm, and they'd still win.
>
>what is wrong with these things being explained in terms of the tech-
>nocracy's paradigm? I don't see how this is such a problem for traditions
>and I certainly don't see that the experience-proof thinking was non-
>existence in the mythic age.

Because reality as the Technocracy desribes it allows for no change. Ever.
Great for those in control, and possibly even the sleepers, but it spells death
for all mages not in the technocracy's paradigm.

>I really don't think this analogy doesn anything at all for your
>argument. We're talking about constants here. Either there are a
>billion stars in the sky or there aren't and when you count them you
>will come up with a concrete number. If half the people on the earth
>believe that there are a billion and one stars and half believe a billion,
>what is an astronomer gonna count? a billion and a half stars? assume
>that everyone agrees that there are a billion stars and when you look
>up there and count, that's what you see. How could you ever convince
>someone of something other than that? consenual reality would block
>it everytime (unless you're a mage). Thus how could a sleeper ever
>accomplish anything new in a consenual reality? everytime, it would say
>a billion stars, a new star could never be discovered, etc. all the
>sciences would become obsolete. If for no other reason than that one
>person would never SEE it any other way and thus could never discover
>something different. they'd always see the same thing that consenual
>reality told them. Does that make sense?

The astronomer would count whatever number of stars is thought to exist in his
area, until the Technocracy slips the idea that there are a constant number of
stars in the sky, at which time the sleepers either buy it and consensual
reality is thusly changed, or they don't and continue to bicker. Consensual
reality does not mean that each and every single human on the planet believes
in exactly the same thing. It's cultural. If a mage works an effect that uses
a belief that's not believed by the entirety of consensual reality, then
there's not as great a risk of paradox.

>: One more thing. Illogical. According to whom? Apparently not to
>: the fellow who wrote the game, nor to the people who have read the books
>: that inspired the game. Maybe these concepts are poorly presented, but
>: I wouldn't go so far as to attack a game on logical bases when logic is
>: so much warm custard.
>
>logic is so much warm custard? um.. well, logic is the basis of my
>evaluation of all my earthly experience (outside of an occasional
>irrationality but then they usually make sense in some weird way as
>your therapist will show you) so I give it a lot of credit. I'm actually
>surpised you'd say that because I firmly believe that if you thought
>Mage were illogical (truly illogical) then you wouldn't play it or at
>least wouldn't say it was so damn great. It seems to me that the problem
>here is that you think it IS logical and I don't, not that you value
>logic so much less that I. of course, if that was a flipant comment,
>sorry for attacking it. :)

You use logic because you're speaking from the view of consensual relaity,
which uses logic as a basis for proof. In the game, logic is not the only
valid way of looking at things. it falls back to the 'nothing is real' line.

>besides, logic is what separates the sane from the insane in realistic
>terms.

But then again, we're dealing with a role playing game, which is not realistic.

in other words, it would make perfect sense to an insane person
>if suddenly a bunch of purple dinosaurs flew by but a sane person would
>say "that doesn't make sense" or some variation thereof ("what the F**K
>is that?!?"). of course if our reality worked according to different
>rules or it was popularly known that dinosaurs frequented your part of
>the country then it wouldn't be so illogical and thus a sane person
>wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. I'm really not sure where
>I'm going with this but if nothing else logic gives meaning to human
>experience that can then be utilized by the brain.
>why the hell did I just try to justify logic??!?
>oh well, I don't feel like erasing it.

I'm glad you didn't, because it is exactly the point of mage. The insane
person is right. You are right. Thanatos is right. And you're all wrong,
because nothing is universally true within it the game.

>: Does a dog have the Buddha nature? Can a dog become Buddha, and if it
>: is possible, how will we know that Rex has become the Buddha, if we
>: never listen to him. Buddhist precepts teach that all things are
>: capable of the Buddha nature, and yet it is obvious that dogs do not
>: adhere to Buddhist teachings. What if? The answer, of course, is that
>: the student who mused on this saw the trees, but could not see the
>: forest. He got caught up in the paradox that he missed the larger
>: picture. If a dog becomes Buddha, then we will _know._
>
>saw the trees instead of the forest? hmm.. or perhaps he began to search
>for knowledge as opposed to blind faith in a "dog"ma (hehe) that didn't
>makes sense (illogical). Personally, I think if philosophical questionings
>like that one don't support the belief/philosophy, then it probably
>doesn't deserve much credit. saying that he should look at the forest
>instead of the trees is like saying "pay no attention to that man behind
>the curtain." You think I should be satisfied with the illusion he presents
>even though it's deception is evident? I shouldn't pursue the truth?
>Well, that's what I believe anyway. Sorry for going off on your faith
>like that but I guess it kinda sorta maybe relates to my problems with
>the Mage philosophy. Hopefully. :/

Again, Mage philosophy is inherently nihilistic. You're both right, and you're
both wrong, because ALL belief is just your subjective take on reality.

>: > There are thousands of mages out there and, in the use of vulgar
>: >magic they can do some pretty spectacular things. magic is a horribly
>: >powerful weapon. yet the Technocracy have managed for five hundred
>: >years to keep a lid on a power that can level nations, turn the sky
>: >pink if it chooses too and generally cause the loudest ruckus you ever
>: >heard.
>: First, read Mage 2nd edition. It goes a long way to alleviating your
>: fears as to why the earth hasn't been destroyed by some ambitious
>: Nephandi with a pound of plutonium.
>
>I must admit that I only have mage 1st edition but at least admit
>that it's a big problem in that edition! it seems like we can't get
>any support on these problems in this group even though they're there.

OK, let's say that 20 Nephandus get together and cast a spell that'll nuke the
world into pudding. When it's done, and the world is about to get nuked into
pudding, consensual reality, as formed from the collective opinions of
humanity, tears them all to shreds and cancels the effect as the population, at
large, does not want to die. The Nephandus who wants to destroy the world has
to do it in a subtle way, or consensual reality won't let it happen.

>: > But they did survive, oddly enough. So, even iff you then account
>: >that maybe Paradox was weaker back then than it is now (and why not)
>: >your one in ten mage who pulls of his amazing feat of vulgar magic
>: >successfully in front of crowds of people will change beliefs in an
>: >instant. Imagine if a hundred Marauders struck at once in all the major
>: >cities on the planet. The Technocracy would be ruins because some of
>: >them would survive the attempt and change the beliefs of millions in an
>: >instant.
>: Once again, Mage 2nd edition addresses this. Maurauders who try this
>: find themselves back where they started, with a sudden desire to change
>: their mind. A bauble distracts them, and the universe is saved.
>
>if marauders are still capable of reaching Earth I think the
>example still applies. After all, they can still perform vulgar
>magic without paradox, right? maybe to a lesser extent (isn't that
>what you're implying with your cryptic reference to 2nd ed.?) but
>they can still get here and maybe turn into a giant teddy-bear in
>front of lots of sleepers. They wouldn't need to do it en masse for
>the effect on the paradigm to be there.

I believe what he's referring to is that a marauder is so chaotic that they
wouldn't be able to hold the same line of thought long enough to either a)form
into a cohesive group of 100, or b)all do a vulgar effect at the same time.

>: What is real? That's what the game asks. That's the five billion soul
>: question. There's a lot of theories, a lot of templates and blueprints
>: for how the universe works, but how many really _do_ work? A handful?
>
>That's funny, I thought that that question was already answered. Whatever
>the majority of sleepers believe is real.

No, consensual reality is formed by whatever the majority of the sleepers
thinks. Essentially, nothing is real.

-Gil Richard

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon

unread,

Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96

dsho...@aol.com (DShomshak) wrote:

>The Verbena don't take a subservient role to Gaia?

Not necessarily, no. The Dreamspeakers are the ones who serve Gaia
directly ;>

> These Traditions are
>_religions,_ not cold-blooded magickal sciences. For that matter, the RL
>shaman (prototype for the game's Dreamspeaker) fulfills a religious role
>and must stay on the good side of the spirits. There's at least a third
>of all the Traditions whose paradigm is based on worship. So why can't a
>Nephandus' paradigm be based on worshipping demons, the Wyrm or Horrors
>from Beyond?

Because the major changes in becoming a Nephandus are not paradigma
but power levels and allegiances. A Barrabus Son of Ether still has
all the trappings of his old tradition.

Michael Brazier

unread,

Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96

DShomshak wrote:

>
> Michael Brazier wrote:
> > The Nephandi's "demonic masters" are a paradigm for magick?

> >Somehow I don't think that fits. In all the other mage groups, the mage
> >is at least an equal to the beings granting him power, or else the clear

> >master of those beings. The Nephandi are played as _servants_. I can't
> >imagine a mage willing to take a subservient role, even if it's imaginary.
>

> Ah. So Celestial Chorus mages don't take a subservient role to the One?
> The Verbena don't take a subservient role to Gaia? These Traditions are

> _religions,_ not cold-blooded magickal sciences.

In both cases, no, they don't. In Chorister theology the One has been
broken into innumerable shards, which have become the Avatars; IOW worship of
the One is indirectly worship of a part of yourself. (This may have been toned
down in their Tradition book, which I haven't yet seen, but it's what the main
book says.) The Verbena don't seem to be Gaia-worshippers; they worry a lot
about natural cycles and balances, but judging by the Verbena Tradition book
they don't see Nature or the Earth as a deity. Rather, the Earth is the thing
that has to be kept in balance by human efforts.

> For that matter, the RL
> shaman (prototype for the game's Dreamspeaker) fulfills a religious role
> and must stay on the good side of the spirits.

OK, there you might have a case. The Dreamspeakers do have a religious
view of their powers (the religion being animism.) Still, a Dreamspeaker could
plausibly see himself as the spirits' peer, and his service to them as a payment
for their efforts on his behalf. I don't know enough about RL shamans, or about
animistic belief in general, to say how far this notion of contracts with the
spirit world extends in those beliefs; but it seems a likely notion for an animist.

> There's at least a third
> of all the Traditions whose paradigm is based on worship. So why can't a
> Nephandus' paradigm be based on worshipping demons, the Wyrm or Horrors
> from Beyond?
>

> Dean Shomshak

Well, maybe. But the "worship" involved would have to be on the lines of
payment for services rendered, making the mage a peer to the "demons". Even then,
the demons/Wyrm/Horrors from Beyond would perpetually try to reduce the mage to a
subservient pawn -- while the mage, naturally, tries to do the same to the "demons".
That competition for the place of mastery over the other is the element missing
from other "contractual" paradigms; in other paradigms where the mage is a peer to
the beings powering his magic, neither party is actively threatening the other with
subjugation.
I hope that made sense...the idea is, in a Nephandic paradigm, getting power
requires either dominating someone else, or becoming someone's pawn. Contracts
between two beings involving a transfer of power are in fact the beginning of a
competition between them, which will end in one becoming the slave of the other.
The WW mage just doesn't fit that, as far as I can see; mages are independent by
definition. Losing in a contract/competition with "demons" would destroy their
independence, and thereby destroy their magical powers. Or so it seems to me.

Michael Brazier

Sven Skoog

unread,

Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96

Mephistopheles (dark...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Timothy Toner (than...@flowbee.interaccess.com) wrote:

: : ... the old "paint on the bench" trick. Tell a man that there

: : are a billion stars in the sky, and he'll believe you. Tell him that
: : the paint on the bench is wet, and he'll have to touch it to be sure.
: : No one is going to count the stars. So what you need to do is make your
: : stories (paradigms) so high that no one will bother questioning them.
: : This is how so many groups survived up until the technocracy rolled into
: : town.

:
: ... paradigms also deal with the wet paint, don't they?

: Thus, if everyone in the world believes that the paint is not wet, how
: do you convince them otherwise? If you tell them it is, they'll check it
: and find out that it is not.

This isn't how I understand Magick (and especially the Technocracy) to work.

It isn't a case of someone telling the world 'This paint is wet' and waiting
for someone to walk up and prove them wrong. The Technocracy (and, I
suppose, a couple of the more scientifically-minded Traditions) would
release something more along the lines of 'Acrylic paint, by virtue of its
molecular cohesion and enthalpy of formation, remains wet up to six hours
after application, at which point it dries.' And, once they've sold enough
people on the idea (the unquestioning masses' belief in scientific theory),
well, they've incorporated that ideal into mass reality, and... surprise!
The paint is wet!

Mage Second Edition expounds on the 'subconscious belief' idea, which is
a lot like the Hundredth Monkey syndrome, a parable used by anti-nuclear
demonstrators a couple of decades back. A true story, no less...

A monkey on a tropical island is taught, before eating bananas that have
fallen into the sand and mud, to take them to the waterside and wash them.
Another monkey observes the first monkey and, without being shown, starts
to wash HIS bananas. And so on, and so forth, until more than a hundred
monkeys on the island are washing bananas.

Now for the kicker -- suddenly, spontaneously, unexpectedly, monkeys ON
OTHER ISLANDS, on which no experimentation or instruction has been done,
start washing their bananas in the ocean as well!

This was originally used to support evolutionary theory, but it works
pretty well as an illustration of Technocracy control of the masses' belief
as well, dontcha think?

_________________________

: : But the first step of going beyond the norm was the first step in the

: : direction toward Ascension. When he reaches a certain level of power and
: : Arete, things matter less and less. He comes to understand that the
: : world is so much clay for him to manipulate, and what's the point of
: : investing so much energy in a world so easily twisted? When the world
: : loses its glamor, when a mage realizes that just as all points are one,
: : all forces are one, all states of matter are one, etc., the business of
: : protection this one particular place/person/idea seems pretty silly.
: : Unless, of course, there's something intrinsically valuable in that one
: : object, something that Magick cannot touch. To seek the answer to that
: : question, the mage must search beyond this world. He must cast aside
: : all presumptions, go beyond his traditions, and Ascend. I believe it
: : was Anders who first pointed out that the quest for Arete is the selling
: : of Tradition. With each point, you surrender a focus, and in doing so,
: : unleash yourself from dogma.
:
: and all mages have this exact same view of ascension (as a path to
: perfection et all)? They all believe that reality is a delusion that
: is created by consenual beliefs? Shouldn't there be at least a few
: who disagree?

Well, yes, all mages do agree. When, that is, they reach Arete 10...
complete enlightenment. Unfettering, if you prefer, from _any_ paradigm;
before that point, all mages are at least partially tied to some mechanism,
or gimmick, what have you, to explain away their Magick. You could think
of it (the Tradition-specific beliefs, replete with foci and philosophy) as
something their Master(s) taught them, to aid their understanding
when they were rank Initiates, perhaps to shield their sanities. Over the
course of many centuries, and the quest towards Oraclehood, fewer and fewer
of these beliefs retain their original meaning, and the Mage realizes how,
up until now, he/she has been shackled by his/her individual slant on how
he/she can alter reality. That, as I now understand it, is how Arete works.

Until that hazy, dreamlike point, however (Arete 10), mages sure as hell
DO disagree. Because they can't see the big picture yet. There are probably
only a few (Yoda comes to mind), possessed of large-scale Enlightenment
(Arete 8,9,10, with Spheres to match), who do, and they more than likely
don't come to this world anymore.

_________________________

: ... well, logic is the basis of my evaluation of all my earthly
: evaluation of all my earthly experience so I give it a lot of credit...
: besides, logic is what separates the sane from the insane in realistic
: terms... if nothing else logic gives meaning to human experience that

: can then be utilized by the brain.

Which is kinda the problem we (Sleepers, by White Wolf's definition) have
portraying Enlightened (Awakened) mages. Because, for all we know, logic
may have been an invention of the Technocracy, superimposed on the minds
of mankind, simply because it made future scientific developments easier
to introduce to a skeptical, witch-hunting populace; it's just become
so ingrained into our notion of reality... our collective unconscious
belief, as Mage 2nd ed. would like to put it... that we can't imagine a
world without it anymore.

Here's a sample drama for you, the way Mage 1st AND 2nd ed. would have it --

[a small-to-middling group of young men and women have gathered in
Athens to listen to Socrates, the renowned philosopher, speak.]

SOCRATES: Let us speak in general terms here.
We have agreed that, if X is true, then X is true. Reflexivity.
And, if X is true, and Y is true, then if Y is true, X is true.
Symmetry.

AUDIENCE: (murmurs and nods heads in understanding)

SOCRATES: (kneels and draws an 'X,' 'Y,' and 'Z' in the sand)

SOCRATES: So. If X is true, and X implies Y is true,
And Y is true, and Y implies Z is true,

We can summarize, if X is true, it follows that Z is true.

AUDIENCE: (has never heard anything like this before; members start
frowning, shaking their heads in incomprehension, and
voicing their doubt to one another, and to Socrates...)

SOCRATES: (sighs in frustration)

SOCRATES: Let me back up. This is true because of the previous
identies you have already accepted as being true...

SOCRATES: (restates his initial reflexive/symmetric arguments, and,
this time, tweaks the audience (using Mind 2), implanting
the general response 'Believe.')

AUDIENCE: (much clearer about the whole thing now, nod, smiling.
How obvious it all was! How could they ever have believed
any differently?)

SOCRATES: (smiling) Excellent. We will call this Transitivity.
Through these three precepts, many further steps
in logic are possible.

AUDIENCE: (gathers closer in anticipation)

SOCRATES: (finishes his lecture)

SOCRATES: You have all performed most admirably. Now come with me
and help me to teach all of Athens of this new knowledge.

...

And, before too much longer (a few months, years, perhaps), Socrates,
Adept of what will, in time, become the Technocracy's New World Order,
succeeds in winning over the hearts and minds of many of the early
civilized world's scientists and philosophers. In time, they go on
to instruct others, verbally, then, in several centuries, through the
printed word. Changing the collective unconscious belief each time
with some new scientific theory. People who do not understand, or
who will not accept, these new bodies of knowledge, are now labelled
'ignorant' or 'flat-earthers.'

From time to time, the Technocracy 'pushes' mankind's extensions on
their earliest theories in some new direction... generally so as to
facilitate the introduction of some new construct into static reality.
Rumors of government cybernetic research, for example, aids the
development of the HITmark. Brainwashing and alien abduction stories
come hand in hand with mind control drugs (although pre-Renaissance
alchemy could be used in much the same fashion). Etcetera.

So, no, Mephistopheles, not every great inventor or discovery was
put into motion by a card-carrying member of the Technocracy...

Just enough of them to matter.

emp...@concentric.net

unread,

Apr 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/19/96

> dark...@wam.umd.edu (Mephistopheles) writes:

>
> I'd say the Columbus example works against this nicely.
> If consenual reality dictates that the world is flat, then
> how could it be possible for someone like Columbus to not
> fall off the edge of the earth (and if he was a mage, wouldn't
> he have been torn to pieces by paradox)? Too much occurs
> in Mage/real history that is outside of the subconscious beliefs
> of the sleeper masses. How can this be reconciled? The very fact
> that such a discovery as Columbus' could occur seems to go
> against the prevailing beliefs of the time (flat earth, fall
> off edge). Even if he was a mage, he'd have been destroyed by
> the act of reshaping the entire world so that he could land in
> the Bahamas. I have yet to see this reconciled with the theory
> you assert above.

Actually, this rumor was started by the technocracy to support their accelleration of scientific
redefinition of static reality. As a serious perusal of philosophy/physics history will reveal, the
concept of the world as a sphere has existed for centuries before Coumbus's dramatic proof
of the theory. Study Plato, for example. Since Columbus was in fact wrong about having reached
India by sailing the other way, however, Paradox cannot be discounted...Where did the
AMERICAS come from, anyway?

__________________________________________________________________________

Lance Berg
emp...@concentric.net
LaForge - Weapons and Armor of the finest cut.
http://www.joust.com/LaForge/
__________________________________________________________________________

g_ri...@husky1.stmarys.ca

unread,

Apr 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/20/96

In article <4l34jv$h...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, dark...@wam.umd.edu (Mephistopheles) writes:
>that's funny, I thought Dreamspeakers and Hermetics and SoE's all thought
>their power came from their avatars and their ability to warp reality
>against the opinion of consenual reality. Isn't that the basis for the
>game? Doesn't that severely limit the traditions in the diversity of
>their beliefs? all the rest seems like window-dressing to me.

No, that's what the game mechanics and Oracles think. Those who have not yet
ascended believe their 'window dressing' is what allows them to warp reality.
Reading the rules applying them directly is not the way to run the game, as you
get problems like this. I will agree that there are problems with the way the
game mechanics are worded, but then the first ruel of storytelling applies - if
something isn't kosher with you, change it.

>: More importantly, no two mages agree on where "there" is. It's the
>:perfect point
>: of enlightenment, but that means different things to different people.
>:An Adept
>: might see it as being a visionary programming god, and an Akashic Yogi might
>: seek to find release from the illusory world of the senses. Different goals.
>
>but this still means that ALL mages believe in ascension (i.e. enlight-
>enment) as being the reason for existence. Doesn't that seem kind of
>too encompassing? I mean, according to that, all traditions, techies,
>marauders, etc., all have the same view of the meaning of life, all
>little differences aside. Doesn't allow for much differences in mages,
>does it?

If you look at it from the perspective of game mechanics, yes, but looking at
it from the persepctive of the individual mages who's goals differ from mage to
mage. The commonality that you speak of is that mages who wish to ascend(note
: game mechanic term) have to accomplish their goals. If they have no goals,
then they just won't ascend.

>rocks have Avatars???
>doesn't that mean that all matter has an avatar?????
>then how could the earth (which has objective existence if
>it has an avatar) be shaped by sleeper belief (earth round
>or flat)? How could much of the universe (in terms of the
>matter existing therein) be completely reformed/created/
>destroyed by sleeper belief such as the existence of other
>galaxies (previous to discovery, not believed in)? saying
>that rocks have avatars is parmount to saying that matter
>has objective reality. I certainly didn't get that from
>reading Mage, but okay. If the rock is capable of existing
>without Joe's belief, then why do dragons and faeries and
>monsters start to gain paradox when no-one believes in them
>anymore?

First of all, there is no objective existance, as reality is perception.
Second of all, all things have a spiritual aspect, which in mage is called an
avatar. Something with an avatar can be shaped through magick - consensual
reality is just the collective influence of all the sleeping avatars of humanit
working to keep things within the bounds of consensual reality (which is
malleable, by the way, or else we would still be in a former version of
consensual reality, and not the modern age).

>I'd say the Columbus example works against this nicely.
>If consenual reality dictates that the world is flat, then
>how could it be possible for someone like Columbus to not
>fall off the edge of the earth (and if he was a mage, wouldn't
>he have been torn to pieces by paradox)? Too much occurs
>in Mage/real history that is outside of the subconscious beliefs
>of the sleeper masses. How can this be reconciled? The very fact
>that such a discovery as Columbus' could occur seems to go
>against the prevailing beliefs of the time (flat earth, fall
>off edge). Even if he was a mage, he'd have been destroyed by
>the act of reshaping the entire world so that he could land in
>the Bahamas. I have yet to see this reconciled with the theory
>you assert above.

As I stated in a previous post, Chris Columbus couldn't have been a mage or,
indeed, he would have been torn apart by paradox. It's my belief that he was a
sleeper and, as he was the first sleeper from the European region of the earth
to head that way, he got to dictate what the consensus believed, as everyone
else was told one thing, but had never actually gone there and looked. As
Meester Columbus went there believing he would find a round earth, he did, as
there was noone from his region of consensual reality to contradict him.

-Gil Richard

Sven Skoog

unread,

Apr 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/21/96

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon (r...@airmail.net) wrote:

: Because the major changes in becoming a Nephandus are not paradigma

: but power levels and allegiances. A Barrabus Son of Ether still has
: all the trappings of his old tradition.

Look, I don't buy this at _all_.

What about a Dreamspeaker barrabi? They serve Gaia AND the Wyrm?

To quote Jerry Seinfeld, 'Not bloody likely...'

You might say 'Well, that's what I meant by 'power levels and allegiances,'
but, to that aforementioned Dreamspeaker example, Gaia is EVERYTHING to
his/her paradigm.

I mean, they might have the same foci as before, as holdovers from their
tutors beating them over the heads and shoulders trying to ease them into
the 'you-too-can-bend-reality-with-a-wink-and-a-nod' scheme of things,
but the fundamentals themselves are changed:

That Dreamspeaker mage's Spheres, and magickal effects, look like --

Using Correspondence? 'Gaia opens gateways to other places...'

Using Forces? 'Gaia dreams a lightning bolt into existence...'

Using Spirit? 'Gaia aids me from Her mother realm, the Umbra...'

The same can be rewritten for any Tradition's 'trappings.'
I think maybe you get the picture...

And there's a fairly clearcut scene in _The Book of Shadows_ (the
seduction of a Celestial Chorus mage by a Nephandus mage... a Celestial
Chorus barrabus, to be precise) in which she (the Nephandus) pretty
clearly comments on 'leaving all of the Celestial Chorus drivel behind.'

The Fallen mage has turned his/her back on his/her fellows and teachings,
agreed to serve malefic nether forces, had his/her very Caul ripped from
his/her immortal soul, and been (physically/mentally) disfigured,
permanently, as a mark of his/her servitude. He/she now pursues the
Descent, slavery of sentient beings to his/her demonic overlords, rather
than Ascension, and, in at least one case (Qlithopic Entropy), picks up
an entirely new bent on a Sphere that, one assumes, is previously
inaccessible through his/her original paradigm.

You can't tell me that doesn't change _everything_ about a Mage, and the
way he/she works true Magick, in at least some fashion. Paradigm
notwithstanding.

-- Sven

Brendan

unread,

Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96

nuc...@garlic.com wrote:
>ethompso@janus1 wrote:
>>
>> > Some humans (Sleepers) can become agents of the Nephandi. These servants may be granted
>> > certain powers by their masters, but this does not make them Mages. Sometimes an Awakened
>> > Mage becomes the servant of a demon (note: they're probably not *really* demons, but it's a
>> > convenient title) and is called a barabbus. Does a barabbus believe he is the servant of the
>>
>> OK, but what is the difference between a barabbus and a Nephandi mage?
>>

>> Eric the .5b
>
>Oh, you say to-may-to, and I say to-mah-to...
>
>A barabbus is any Awakened mage who subsequently becomes the servant (or cohort, if you prefer)
>of a (demon/umbrood/lord). A Nephandi mage is probably a barabbus, but I guess it's possible
>that said Nephandi did not have magickal powers before becoming the servant of the demon. Soooo
>if, and I'm not sure about this, but if a demon can impart True Magickal ability to a Sleeper (as
>opposed to hedge magick, which is certainly possible), then that person becomes a Nephandus, but
>*not* a barabbus. I'd say that even if this is possible that most Nephandi mages are barabbi.
>But hey, I could be wrong...
>
> - Robin Wise
>
>"Let's call the whole thing off..."
>

Not true. According to the Book of Madness, there are two types of Nephandi:
barabbi and widderslainte. Barrabbi are Tradition, Convention, Marauder, or
Orphan mages who trun to the Nephandi path. Widderslainte are persons who
are basically reincarnated Nephandi, who Awaken by themselves as Nephandi
in a similar fashion to Orphans. Demons do not "give" the Nephandi magick in
either of these cases.

Brendan

unread,

Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96

dark...@wam.umd.edu (Mephistopheles) wrote:
>Brendan (brm...@hampshire.edu) wrote:
>: The Nephandi are mages. They have personal power to the same degree that
>: any other mage does. A Dreamspeaker thinks his powers come from the
>:spirits,
>: a Hermetic thinks it comes from his or her knowledge of secret words of
>:power, and
>: a Child of Ether thinks it comes from his/her gadgets. What's your point?
>: Nephandi work within a paradigm where serving demons has tangible rewards,
>: so that's how they justify their use of their powers to themselves.
>
>that's funny, I thought Dreamspeakers and Hermetics and SoE's all thought
>their power came from their avatars and their ability to warp reality
>against the opinion of consenual reality. Isn't that the basis for the
>game? Doesn't that severely limit the traditions in the diversity of
>their beliefs? all the rest seems like window-dressing to me.
>

You sort of have a point here, but not entirely. I think WW over-emphasizes
Sphere theory and deemphasizes Foci too much, so that they seem like window-
dressing. They have made changes that tend to work in the other direction, though.
This is especially evident in the Book of Shadows, where suggested rules make
Akashics unable to *ever* get rid of Do (or Meditatation when appropraite) as
a focus, and where it is suggested that Adepts and SoE mages not be able to start
getting rid of Foci until after reaching Arete 5, because their paradigms don't allow
people to do stuff without some kind of tool.

Yes and no. It is somewhat limiting. However, the differences in
philosophy are not little. Try reconciling Dreamspeaker Awakening
(Gaia wakes up, and presumably the Gauntlet is thrown asunder)
with the Void Engineers and the NWO (the Gauntlet is the best defense
against the denizens of the Umbra until those denizens can be exterminated).

>: Wrong, wrong, wrong. This was the biggest problem I had with Mage for
>: about a year,
>: until I actually read the theoretical crapola. The differences between
>: two individual's
>: conscious beliefs is completely and utterly irrelevant. The subconscious
>: beliefs of
>: the Sleeping Masses dictate the terms under which the different aspects of
>: Reality
>: (the Spheres) interact. In other words, under what rules Forces manifest,
>: the "normal"
>: behavior of Matter, etc. However, various objects and people, which are
>: composed
>: of abstract Patterns made tangible by an infusion of Quintessence,
>: objectively exist
>: and have Sleeping or Awakened Avatars. Sleeping Avatars are essentially
>: static
>: and have a sort of inertia. They exist and resist change in the form of
>: that existence.
>: For example, a rock has Matter and Spirit Patterns filled with Quintess-
>: ence and a
>: Sleeping Avatar. Joe the Sleeper doesn't need to believe in the rock;
>: it exists without him.
>
>rocks have Avatars???
>doesn't that mean that all matter has an avatar?????

Yep.

>then how could the earth (which has objective existence if
>it has an avatar) be shaped by sleeper belief (earth round
>or flat)?

Because my Avatar is able to use the predominant belief system
to interact with your Avatar. Most humans would believe that
I _can_ throw a football. The football and its Avatar pretty
much have to deal with that. Consensual reality has more to do with
what I can do than what exists or doesn't exist.

> How could much of the universe (in terms of the
>matter existing therein) be completely reformed/created/
>destroyed by sleeper belief such as the existence of other
>galaxies (previous to discovery, not believed in)?

But people by and large believed in places beyond the Earth (Heaven,
Hell, etc.). The Void Engineers and their allies changed belief in
supernatural locales into more mundane bodies of gas and such. It hasn't
worked as well because the consent of the Sleepers on this side of the Gauntlet
deosn't apply as strongly on the other side, and beings there have Avatars
and beliefs, too. Reality rules don't have to apply everywhere (despite the
belief on the Technocracy). The Technocracy would argue that the laws of
physics apply equally everywhere, but that belief isn't necessarily "true"
in WoD. Because people believe the Umbra is outer space doesn't mean it
"is".

As an aside, how many people have actually been to space? How do you know
it is actually there? Sleepers might believe in galaxies, but their power
diminishes in realms beyond their immediate reach in favor of the power of
other entities.

> saying
>that rocks have avatars is parmount to saying that matter
>has objective reality.

Yes, on the most basic level. But the nature of that reality is open to
the give-and-take of consensual reality.

> I certainly didn't get that from
>reading Mage, but okay.

Most of this is from the Book of Madness section on Paradox, which really
fleshed out Mage metaphysics.

> If the rock is capable of existing
>without Joe's belief, then why do dragons and faeries and
>monsters start to gain paradox when no-one believes in them
>anymore?
>

Because no one questions that rocks _can_ exist, they can exist without paradox.
However, if they start doing things no one else believes they can do, they're
going to get walloped _hard_. Magical creatures start to gain paradox
because the Sleeping Masses refute their basic "right to exist." The fact
that they do exist and aren't snuffed out _instantly_ proves my point.
Their Avatars fight overwhelming odds and slowly start to wear out.
A similar process would occur if people stopped believing in rocks. They'd
fight it, and either force humanity to accept their existence, or lose and fade
away over time.

>: However, the subconscious beliefs of Joe and the rock (and the
>: whole of existence)
>: govern any and all interactions between Joe and the rock. That's about
>: the limits of
>: subjective reality in terms of Sleepers. Awakened entities can bend
>: these laws to their
>: will, but the laws resist them because the collective subconscious beliefs
>: of all the Sleeping Avatars resist change.
>
>I'd say the Columbus example works against this nicely.
>If consenual reality dictates that the world is flat, then
>how could it be possible for someone like Columbus to not
>fall off the edge of the earth (and if he was a mage, wouldn't
>he have been torn to pieces by paradox)? Too much occurs
>in Mage/real history that is outside of the subconscious beliefs
>of the sleeper masses. How can this be reconciled? The very fact
>that such a discovery as Columbus' could occur seems to go
>against the prevailing beliefs of the time (flat earth, fall
>off edge). Even if he was a mage, he'd have been destroyed by
>the act of reshaping the entire world so that he could land in
>the Bahamas. I have yet to see this reconciled with the theory
>you assert above.
>

First of all: the idea that Columbus "proved the world was round"
is crap. No one, even in the darkest times of the so-called "Dark Ages,"
with any amount of education believed that the world was flat. The
Church didn't even believe that, nor did they preach anything remotely
like that. One could make the argument that the peasants didn't have
knowledge of Aristotle and Ptolemy and Plato, but they also would concede
that the Church fathers and the university men would know more about
the subject than they would. They certainly wouldn't offer arguents to the
contrary. Besides, people lived in the Americas and they certainly believed in
their own existence, and had Avatars, and all that (not to mention all the spirits
and all the animals and all the rocks, etc.). Columbus neither proved the world
was round, nor did he "create" the Americas.

>- DeViL BeN
>
>

Brendan

unread,

Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96

des...@twain.oit.umass.edu (Sven Skoog) wrote:
>Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon (r...@airmail.net) wrote:
>
>: Because the major changes in becoming a Nephandus are not paradigma
>: but power levels and allegiances. A Barrabus Son of Ether still has
>: all the trappings of his old tradition.
>
>Look, I don't buy this at _all_.
>
>What about a Dreamspeaker barrabi? They serve Gaia AND the Wyrm?
>

No, but they would worship the Wyrm with drum circles and stuff like that.
And a SoE barabbi would use some kind of Wyrm-tainted gadgets (Balefire
Flash Gordon rayguns! Neat!)

>To quote Jerry Seinfeld, 'Not bloody likely...'
>
>You might say 'Well, that's what I meant by 'power levels and allegiances,'
>but, to that aforementioned Dreamspeaker example, Gaia is EVERYTHING to
>his/her paradigm.
>
>I mean, they might have the same foci as before, as holdovers from their
>tutors beating them over the heads and shoulders trying to ease them into
>the 'you-too-can-bend-reality-with-a-wink-and-a-nod' scheme of things,
>but the fundamentals themselves are changed:
>
>That Dreamspeaker mage's Spheres, and magickal effects, look like --
>
> Using Correspondence? 'Gaia opens gateways to other places...'
>
> Using Forces? 'Gaia dreams a lightning bolt into existence...'
>
> Using Spirit? 'Gaia aids me from Her mother realm, the Umbra...'
>
>The same can be rewritten for any Tradition's 'trappings.'
>I think maybe you get the picture...
>
>And there's a fairly clearcut scene in _The Book of Shadows_ (the
>seduction of a Celestial Chorus mage by a Nephandus mage... a Celestial
>Chorus barrabus, to be precise) in which she (the Nephandus) pretty
>clearly comments on 'leaving all of the Celestial Chorus drivel behind.'
>
>The Fallen mage has turned his/her back on his/her fellows and teachings,
>agreed to serve malefic nether forces, had his/her very Caul ripped from
>his/her immortal soul, and been (physically/mentally) disfigured,
>permanently, as a mark of his/her servitude. He/she now pursues the
>Descent, slavery of sentient beings to his/her demonic overlords, rather
>than Ascension,

Yeah, but the Descent is just one more way of looking at Ascension, which
is a very different concept to different Traditions anyway.

emp...@concentric.net

unread,

Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96

Little clips from massive post

Is there noone who has ever discovered something he did not expect to find, that noone told him
to expect? Gee, I can think of one example: Coumbus discovered the Americas while expecting
to find India, and consensus reality was (prominent theoreticians aside) that he would fall of the edge
of the world. I don't know that thats the way it was in the WoD, but it shoots a barrelful of holes
in both sides of this arguement...

nuc...@garlic.com

unread,

Apr 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/22/96

Brendan wrote:
>
> Not true. According to the Book of Madness, there are two types of Nephandi:
> barabbi and widderslainte. Barrabbi are Tradition, Convention, Marauder, or
> Orphan mages who trun to the Nephandi path. Widderslainte are persons who
> are basically reincarnated Nephandi, who Awaken by themselves as Nephandi
> in a similar fashion to Orphans. Demons do not "give" the Nephandi magick in
> either of these cases.

Okay, but can a demon grant magickal powers to a Sleeper? That was the question I
raised. It seems likely, but I'm not sure. I think we all agree that barabbi
already had magickal powers before joining the legion infernal... You started your
post by saying "not true", and raised several good points, but what exactly wasn't
true? That if (and I'm not sure) a demon could grant true magick to his servant,
said person would be a Nephandus but not a barabbus? That most Nephandi are probably
barabbi? Or was it simply that demons don't ever under any conditions grant any
powers to their followers? I'm not clear on which points you disagreed with me...

Thanks for the clarification re: widderslainte.

- Robin Wise

g_ri...@husky1.stmarys.ca

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

In article <4lh1h8$g...@tribune.concentric.net>, emp...@concentric.net writes:
>Is there noone who has ever discovered something he did not expect to find,
>that noone told him to expect? Gee, I can think of one example: Coumbus
>discovered the Americas while expecting to find India, and consensus reality
>was (prominent theoreticians aside) that he would fall of the edge of the
>world. I don't know that thats the way it was in the WoD, but it shoots a
>barrelful of holes in both sides of this arguement...

Not necessarily, as I purposely left out the fact that he "discovered" North
America. I could give my interpretation of the events in respect to the WOD,
but I'm sure there are hundreds of other explanations, all of which equally
valid. He took off thinking he was going to hit India. Maybe the Euthanatos
didn't want a direct pipeline to europe, so they pointed him at North America
in the hopes of screwing with Consensual reality, and not getting the blame?
Maybe some high-mucky-muck Dreamspeaker wanted to amalgamate the two paradigms,
so he pointed Columbus at North America. maybe this. maybe that. Maybe
trying to apply logic to a system that is not governed by logic, but is
governed by the whim of the ST is a pointless task. The whole point I wanted
to get across was that saying "this couldn't happen because of that" in Mage is
equally pointless, because it is a system greatly undefined, and by saying
"this couldn't happen because of that" means that you are creating the "this"
that can not happen, and then creating the "that" that disproves it.
Essentially arguing with yourself.

-Gil Richard

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

des...@twain.oit.umass.edu (Sven Skoog) wrote:

>Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon (r...@airmail.net) wrote:

>: Because the major changes in becoming a Nephandus are not paradigma
>: but power levels and allegiances. A Barrabus Son of Ether still has
>: all the trappings of his old tradition.

>Look, I don't buy this at _all_.

>What about a Dreamspeaker barrabi? They serve Gaia AND the Wyrm?

They would become one a Dreamspeaker gone bad, just like in many
different myths.

>To quote Jerry Seinfeld, 'Not bloody likely...'

>You might say 'Well, that's what I meant by 'power levels and allegiances,'
>but, to that aforementioned Dreamspeaker example, Gaia is EVERYTHING to
>his/her paradigm.

Yes. Serving her, however, is not.

<snip!>

>And there's a fairly clearcut scene in _The Book of Shadows_ (the
>seduction of a Celestial Chorus mage by a Nephandus mage... a Celestial
>Chorus barrabus, to be precise) in which she (the Nephandus) pretty
>clearly comments on 'leaving all of the Celestial Chorus drivel behind.'

Can easily mean that the mage no longer supports the methods of the
Boy Scout approach to reality, although it may still believe in the
dogma.

>The Fallen mage has turned his/her back on his/her fellows and teachings,
>agreed to serve malefic nether forces, had his/her very Caul ripped from
>his/her immortal soul, and been (physically/mentally) disfigured,
>permanently, as a mark of his/her servitude. He/she now pursues the
>Descent, slavery of sentient beings to his/her demonic overlords, rather

>than Ascension, and, in at least one case (Qlithopic Entropy), picks up

>an entirely new bent on a Sphere that, one assumes, is previously
>inaccessible through his/her original paradigm.

>You can't tell me that doesn't change _everything_ about a Mage, and the
>way he/she works true Magick, in at least some fashion. Paradigm
>notwithstanding.

I didn't, but I was being vague. Sorry.

DShomshak

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

In article <3177B1...@tr-riscs.panam.edu>, Michael Brazier

<st33...@tr-riscs.panam.edu> writes:
>> Ah. So Celestial Chorus mages don't take a subservient role to the
One?
>> The Verbena don't take a subservient role to Gaia? These Traditions
are
>> _religions,_ not cold-blooded magickal sciences.
>
> In both cases, no, they don't. In Chorister theology the One has
been
>broken into innumerable shards, which have become the Avatars; IOW
worship of
>the One is indirectly worship of a part of yourself. (This may have been
>toned down in their Tradition book, which I haven't yet seen, but it's
what the
>main book says.)

Doesn't change a thing. Quote:

"...the Choristers are overtly and unashamedly religiocentric..." (M.tA
2nd, p. 96)
"He fondled the cross at his neck, fingering the small blazing sun in the
center of the cross. Silently, he issued a supplication to the One."
(Book of Shadows, p. 57)

Sounds pretty worshipful to me, at least.

>The Verbena don't seem to be Gaia-worshippers; they worry a lot
>about natural cycles and balances, but judging by the Verbena Tradition
book
>they don't see Nature or the Earth as a deity. Rather, the Earth is the
>thing that has to be kept in balance by human efforts.

It's been a long time since I read the Verbena Tradbook (and I didn't find
it very memorable), so I'll take your word for this. Considering that the
game's Verbena are inspired by the RL Neopagan religious movement, though,
to me it would seem strange for them _not_ to have a strong religious
element.

>> For that matter, the RL
>> shaman (prototype for the game's Dreamspeaker) fulfills a religious
role
>> and must stay on the good side of the spirits.
>
> OK, there you might have a case. The Dreamspeakers do have a
religious
>view of their powers (the religion being animism.) Still, a Dreamspeaker
>could plausibly see himself as the spirits' peer, and his service to them
as a
>payment for their efforts on his behalf. I don't know enough about RL
shamans, or
>about animistic belief in general, to say how far this notion of
contracts with the
>spirit world extends in those beliefs; but it seems a likely notion for
an animist.

Here's another case of dissonance between game and its RL inspiration.
The RL shamanism I've read about does not focus on a universal
Nature-God/Goddess ("Gaia"). How a shaman deals with a spirit depends on
the spirit. Lesser spirits are exploited and controlled, but only in ways
that greater spirits permit. More powerful spirits may be dickered with,
and some gods are straightforwardly worshipped. Among Siberian shamans,
one of the chief duties of a shaman is to carry the spirit of a sacrificed
horse to the supreme sky-god and present it along with a plea for favor --
pretty religious.

>> There's at least a third
>> of all the Traditions whose paradigm is based on worship. So why can't
a
>> Nephandus' paradigm be based on worshipping demons, the Wyrm or Horrors
>> from Beyond?

> Well, maybe. But the "worship" involved would have to be on the

lines of
>payment for services rendered, making the mage a peer to the "demons".
Even
>then, the demons/Wyrm/Horrors from Beyond would perpetually try to reduce
the >mage to a subservient pawn -- while the mage, naturally, tries to do
the same to the

>"demons"...

Snicker. Yes, I dare say that many a Nephandus _started out_ thinking,
"These foolish demons will be easy to manipulate..."

> mages are independent by definition. Losing in a contract/competition
with >"demons" would destroy their independence, and thereby destroy their
magical >powers. Or so it seems to me.

I'd say that a Mage's total independence, being "a law unto oneself," is
something that only develops as they gain in power and enlightenment.
Mages are still human beings, after all, and humans tend to seek something
greater than themselves to serve: a god, an ideology, a government,
whatever. The Technocrats serve their organization and its ideology
(while claiming to serve the Masses). Celestial Choristers serve the One,
even if the One is currently fragmented. And Nephandi _choose_ their
damnation thinking they will become the masters, or at least equal
partners. (I don't recall any published instances of unwilling Nephandi:
they all went into the Caul willingly. Sometimes the alternative was
death, but hey, they still had a choice.) When the Nephandus discovers
it's a slave despite its Awakened Avatar, it's too late.

Dean Shomshak

Mephistopheles

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

Eric E Tolle (unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu) wrote:
: Actually, I could write a hell of a lot on this- but why bother? I
: got burned out on ths argument the first time it came around- when
: all the same bloody arguments were made when Mage first came out.

well, I hope we don't suffer for the lack of your wisdom.. :P

: The basic argument seems to be "mage has certain assumptions and
: settings, and therefore is bad and wrong". I'd merely like to
: point out that it is a _really_ bad idea to criticize a game merely
: because of the background settings.

No, the basic argument is that mage has certain assumptions and
settings that don't make sense to me for this this and this reason.
Thus I don't like it. Remember this thread is called "why _I_ revile
mage, not why mage sucks". that's an important distinction.

: I mean 'cmon, criticizing Mage for being 'unrealistic'? Like Vampire
: isn't? Or Werewolf or Shadowrun? Basically, the argument _doesen't_
: come down to 'reasonable', but to taste. The whole point is that Mage
: has a worldview that the original poster doesen't like, and that simply
: comes down to taste.

still, there's a level of logic involved, a suspension of disbelief in
these games. The argument is that that suspension doesn't hold in mage.
Jen didn't say that he didn't like the worldview so much as that it didn't
make sense because of the various things he mentioned and that these
things should be reconciled for players like him who want to feel the
game is _possible_. I guess it creates that illusion that it could be for
real and you just might be awakened/embraced/etc. someday... kinda makes
it more fun that way.

: As a matter of fact, as far as 'accuracy' goes, the entire bit about
: how mages woulden't form organizations completely ignores _real_
: _world_ magic organizations such as the Order of the Golden Dawn and
: others. Obviously the guy didn't do his homework. Then again, he
: cites as a reference 'Books of Magick, which, though a nice comic, is
: _still_ a comic book. Mage was instead based on a number of sources,
: ranging from Pirisig, to Bonewitz. As far as confirming to the ideas
: of post-modernism, it does a good job- as he would know if he had any
: basic knowledge of modern philosophy.

I don't think a comparison between real world magic organizations and
Mage(tm) orgnizations makes sense beyond basic ideological concerns.
The mage ones are definitely different in various aspects and real world
magic groups don't go around killing each other to enforce their world
view. Not to mention real world magic is incable of destroying the world
or else it would have been done already. The Books of Magick thing was
just something that he related to.. not something that he thought was
more historically accurate than Mage. Another point, mages in real life
don't spontaneously awaken or suddenly realize they can control reality.
You must at least admit that there is a period of indoctrination, medit-
ation, or study that accompanies any real gains in the occult, even if
its only to know what the hell you're talking about.

: Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu
: "An' then Chi...@little.com, he come scramblin outta the terminal room
: screaming "The system's crashing! The system's crashing!"
: -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'

- me

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

emp...@concentric.net wrote:

>Is there noone who has ever discovered something he did not expect to find, that noone told him
>to expect? Gee, I can think of one example: Coumbus discovered the Americas while expecting
>to find India, and consensus reality was (prominent theoreticians aside) that he would fall of the edge
>of the world. I don't know that thats the way it was in the WoD, but it shoots a barrelful of holes
>in both sides of this arguement...

Once again, most people did NOT believe the world was flat, and hadn't
believed such for over a millenium. Furthermore, it's entirely
possible that in the WOD 1492, some early VE found out that a whole
bunch of Dreamspeakers and Garou escaped a malevolent force a million
years earlier, and decided to use Columbus to find them.

Donald Bachman

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

Mephistopheles (dark...@wam.umd.edu) wrote:
: Eric E Tolle (unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu) wrote:

: : The basic argument seems to be "mage has certain assumptions and

: : settings, and therefore is bad and wrong". I'd merely like to
: : point out that it is a _really_ bad idea to criticize a game merely
: : because of the background settings.

: No, the basic argument is that mage has certain assumptions and
: settings that don't make sense to me for this this and this reason.
: Thus I don't like it. Remember this thread is called "why _I_ revile
: mage, not why mage sucks". that's an important distinction.

I suppose then that you revile all of the World of Darkness games? Each
makes assumptions that in certain ways don't hold up. Vampires living
amongst us for thousands of years and somehow managing to successfully
hide themselves over the last few hundred, and so we don't believe in
them? Worse, crazy vampires and sects that don't give a flying flip
about what humanity thinks also hiding themselves? Similarly for
werewolves, some of whom will have been raised as wolf and so
would have little reason not reveal themselves. Sure, the Delerium
may be a factor, but some humans will not react in disbelief.

The point is that none of the backdrops have evolved naturally, so there
are no doubt flaws in the backdrop. Your job, having identified them,
is to handle them by providing extra detail, or removing the source
of the problem.

What annoys me, and no doubt others, is that you single out Mage for
special treatment.

: : I mean 'cmon, criticizing Mage for being 'unrealistic'? Like Vampire

: : isn't? Or Werewolf or Shadowrun? Basically, the argument _doesen't_
: : come down to 'reasonable', but to taste. The whole point is that Mage
: : has a worldview that the original poster doesen't like, and that simply
: : comes down to taste.

: still, there's a level of logic involved, a suspension of disbelief in
: these games. The argument is that that suspension doesn't hold in mage.
: Jen didn't say that he didn't like the worldview so much as that it didn't
: make sense because of the various things he mentioned and that these
: things should be reconciled for players like him who want to feel the
: game is _possible_. I guess it creates that illusion that it could be for
: real and you just might be awakened/embraced/etc. someday... kinda makes
: it more fun that way.

I can't say that the suspension of belief should hold for someone else.
I can say that the person's criteria seems to be based on other
factors than presented because those factors appear in other systems
that weren't the target of being reviled.

: : As a matter of fact, as far as 'accuracy' goes, the entire bit about

: : how mages woulden't form organizations completely ignores _real_
: : _world_ magic organizations such as the Order of the Golden Dawn and
: : others. Obviously the guy didn't do his homework. Then again, he
: : cites as a reference 'Books of Magick, which, though a nice comic, is
: : _still_ a comic book. Mage was instead based on a number of sources,
: : ranging from Pirisig, to Bonewitz. As far as confirming to the ideas
: : of post-modernism, it does a good job- as he would know if he had any
: : basic knowledge of modern philosophy.

: I don't think a comparison between real world magic organizations and
: Mage(tm) orgnizations makes sense beyond basic ideological concerns.
: The mage ones are definitely different in various aspects and real world
: magic groups don't go around killing each other to enforce their world
: view. Not to mention real world magic is incable of destroying the world
: or else it would have been done already. The Books of Magick thing was
: just something that he related to.. not something that he thought was
: more historically accurate than Mage. Another point, mages in real life
: don't spontaneously awaken or suddenly realize they can control reality.
: You must at least admit that there is a period of indoctrination, medit-
: ation, or study that accompanies any real gains in the occult, even if
: its only to know what the hell you're talking about.

Mages in Mage don't generally self-awaken either. Generally they are
recruited. It says this quite clearly in the book. Self-awakening has
in WoD been rare, though it seemingly is happening more often of late
than has been the case.

That being the case, yes, there is a period of indoctrination and explains
why mages tend to group together.

: : Eric Tolle unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu

: : "An' then Chi...@little.com, he come scramblin outta the terminal room
: : screaming "The system's crashing! The system's crashing!"
: : -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'

: - me

Donald

Penn Davies

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

g_ri...@Husky1.StMarys.CA wrote:
: In article <4lh1h8$g...@tribune.concentric.net>, emp...@concentric.net writes:
: >Is there noone who has ever discovered something he did not expect to find,

: >that noone told him to expect? Gee, I can think of one example: Coumbus
: >discovered the Americas while expecting to find India, and consensus reality
: >was (prominent theoreticians aside) that he would fall of the edge of the
: >world. I don't know that thats the way it was in the WoD, but it shoots a
: >barrelful of holes in both sides of this arguement...

Maybe European consensual reality didn't include America, but the Native
Americans sure believed in it.

--Penguin

Mike Mitchell

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

In article <4l34jv$h...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, dark...@wam.umd.edu
(Mephistopheles) wrote:

> Brendan (brm...@hampshire.edu) wrote:
> : The Nephandi are mages. They have personal power to the same degree that
> : any other mage does. A Dreamspeaker thinks his powers come from the
> :spirits,
> : a Hermetic thinks it comes from his or her knowledge of secret words of
> :power, and
> : a Child of Ether thinks it comes from his/her gadgets. What's your point?
> : Nephandi work within a paradigm where serving demons has tangible rewards,
> : so that's how they justify their use of their powers to themselves.
>
> that's funny, I thought Dreamspeakers and Hermetics and SoE's all thought
> their power came from their avatars and their ability to warp reality
> against the opinion of consenual reality. Isn't that the basis for the
> game? Doesn't that severely limit the traditions in the diversity of
> their beliefs? all the rest seems like window-dressing to me.

I always thought that inexperienced mages lack a full understanding of what
is going on. Their paradigms ease them into a world of enlightenment, using
foci as crutches. Then as their understandings improve (arete score goes up)
crutches become less important as they learn to impose their will on
consual reality (the power of the Avatar.)

> : More importantly, no two mages agree on where "there" is. It's the
> :perfect point
> : of enlightenment, but that means different things to different people.
> :An Adept
> : might see it as being a visionary programming god, and an Akashic Yogi might
> : seek to find release from the illusory world of the senses. Different
goals.
>
> but this still means that ALL mages believe in ascension (i.e. enlight-
> enment) as being the reason for existence. Doesn't that seem kind of
> too encompassing? I mean, according to that, all traditions, techies,
> marauders, etc., all have the same view of the meaning of life, all
> little differences aside. Doesn't allow for much differences in mages,
> does it?

Wrong. The technocracy are actively working towards suppressing the avatars
of sleepers. They are waiting for a time when "reality deviants" (tradition
magi, marauders and nephandi) and other supernaturals (that don't exist
anyway) will be wipe out and reality is rigidly defined. Then the masses may
be allowed to ascend. Traditon magi believe in shepharding the sleepers into
ascendance (personal or mass). This is a major difference.

--
Michael Mitchell "Smoke me a kipper,
User Support I'll be back for breakfast."
Molecular Biology Software Ace Rimmer, Test Pilot
+44 (0)171 269 3115 BBC-TV Red Dwarf ENFJ
http://www.biu.icnet.uk/~mike

Mephistopheles

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

Brendan (brm...@hampshire.edu) wrote:
: You sort of have a point here, but not entirely. I think WW over-emphasizes

: Sphere theory and deemphasizes Foci too much, so that they seem like window-
: dressing. They have made changes that tend to work in the other direction, though.
: This is especially evident in the Book of Shadows, where suggested rules make
: Akashics unable to *ever* get rid of Do (or Meditatation when appropraite) as
: a focus, and where it is suggested that Adepts and SoE mages not be able to start
: getting rid of Foci until after reaching Arete 5, because their paradigms don't allow
: people to do stuff without some kind of tool.

I guess that Do part would inspire me if weren't for that fact that I wanted
to play an Akashic that didn't use Do cause it didn't work for me as a
concept. Oh, well. I guess if the tradition books that I've read hadn't
been so woefully lacking in real explanations for foci and depth on
their uses (what exactly does a Verbena do with blood? or an OoH with
his mystic language?). I wouldn't be pushing this point so much if it
didn't really amount to a lot of the reason I don't like Mage.

: Yes and no. It is somewhat limiting. However, the differences in

: philosophy are not little. Try reconciling Dreamspeaker Awakening
: (Gaia wakes up, and presumably the Gauntlet is thrown asunder)
: with the Void Engineers and the NWO (the Gauntlet is the best defense
: against the denizens of the Umbra until those denizens can be exterminated).

good point. but there are still similarities there and I guess I don't
see why there has to be especially when many of these traditions were
born in radically different areas of the world.

: Most of this is from the Book of Madness section on Paradox, which really
: fleshed out Mage metaphysics.

don't have it so I can't say.

: First of all: the idea that Columbus "proved the world was round"

: is crap. No one, even in the darkest times of the so-called "Dark Ages,"
: with any amount of education believed that the world was flat. The
: Church didn't even believe that, nor did they preach anything remotely
: like that. One could make the argument that the peasants didn't have
: knowledge of Aristotle and Ptolemy and Plato, but they also would concede
: that the Church fathers and the university men would know more about
: the subject than they would. They certainly wouldn't offer arguents to the
: contrary. Besides, people lived in the Americas and they certainly believed in
: their own existence, and had Avatars, and all that (not to mention all the spirits
: and all the animals and all the rocks, etc.). Columbus neither proved the world
: was round, nor did he "create" the Americas.

of course, you realize that the Columbus thing is just an example. Someone
on here mentioned how consenual reality didn't create things that sleepers
had never experienced or seen.. thus the americas didn't exist until dis-
covered. In other words, until the native american tribes came over from
asia, the americas didn't exist.. kinda like a big vague part in reality.
He also said that what is found there is what the sleepers would expect
to find. I don't know if you ascribe to his but it kinda sounds like it.
I'm sure there are examples out there of times when a scientist discoverer
found something new that had never been seen before and that it was NOT
what was expected, but I can't think of anything concrete right now. Maybe
the whole radioactive discovery or something but I'm not sure. The point
is, instances like those really shake any belief I might have in consenual
reality. I guess it's possible that all those instances were either mages
doing the deed or technocracy propaganda, but somehow that's just not very
satisfying.

I think I've come to the conclusion that I could ignore consenual reality
theory to play the game and the game wouldn't suffer too horribly, so know
I'm trying to deal with my problems with the traditions themselves and
the fact that the technocracy could be so evil and so tyrannical for so
long. Someone posted on how the technocracy is actually rather benevolent
and mainly concerned about the sleepers well-being. I think this is the way
it SHOULD be but this isn't how I find them portrayed in WW material. I
concede that the scientific paradigm could be supported by multiple convent-
ions if this were the case with the technocracy (thought I'm still not sure
why they'd gain paradox in anything they do if they all support the same
paradigm) but it does not seem to be. The technocracy as portrayed in the
main rulebook and in the progenitors handbook and Iteration X handbook and
the book of shadows and ascensions right hand is pretty damn tyrannical and
(for all effective purposes) evil. It seems like technocracy = wyrm (hey!
there's an interesting chronicle idea! Pentex is really the technocracy!)
and I don't really see anything WW has done to contradict this thought I can
understand people's interpretations of the technocracy considering the theory
that is presented.

I hope this clears up alot of these technicality arguments we're having.

- DeViL BeN

Sean D. Francis

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

Penn Davies eloquently stated...

Bravo! Let us not forget that other cultures believed different things and
Egyptians knew the Earth was round and early Asian tribes just followed the
animals across the landbridge not thinking about roundness or flatness...just
that the land must continue because the animals are going that way.

--
The Apologist
Sean D. Francis
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~sdf742/wofs.htm

DShomshak

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

In article <317C08...@garlic.com>, nuc...@garlic.com writes:

>Okay, but can a demon grant magickal powers to a Sleeper? That was the
>question I

>raised. It seems likely, but I'm not sure...

No, they can't. A demon can only grant limited, Hedge Magic powers to its
servants. This is called "Infernalism" and is detailed in the Book of
Madness. It's a horrible cheat for the minion, because what happens when
he sells his soul is that the demon takes the person's sleeping Avatar to
Hell _right then_ to torture for eternity, and uses the Avatar to power
the piddling little magical "Investments" granted to the Infernalist.
When the Infernalist dies, they discover that their true self has already
been in Hell for years.

Dean Shomshak

jbu...@gemini.kent.edu

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

In article <4157cc$171b3...@news.hampshire.edu>, Brendan <brm...@hampshire.edu> writes:

|>
|> Not true. According to the Book of Madness, there are two types of Nephandi:
|> barabbi and widderslainte. Barrabbi are Tradition, Convention, Marauder, or
|> Orphan mages who trun to the Nephandi path. Widderslainte are persons who
|> are basically reincarnated Nephandi, who Awaken by themselves as Nephandi
|> in a similar fashion to Orphans. Demons do not "give" the Nephandi magick in
|> either of these cases.
|>
|>
|>

According to BoM, there are no Marauder barrabi.

--
Jim Burdo
jbu...@scorpio.kent.edu
"We are the Hollow Men. We have always been here."

jbu...@gemini.kent.edu

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

In article <317C08...@garlic.com>, nuc...@garlic.com writes:

|> Brendan wrote:
|> >
|> > Not true. According to the Book of Madness, there are two types of Nephandi:
|> > barabbi and widderslainte. Barrabbi are Tradition, Convention, Marauder, or
|> > Orphan mages who trun to the Nephandi path. Widderslainte are persons who
|> > are basically reincarnated Nephandi, who Awaken by themselves as Nephandi
|> > in a similar fashion to Orphans. Demons do not "give" the Nephandi magick in
|> > either of these cases.
|>

|> Okay, but can a demon grant magickal powers to a Sleeper? That was the question I

|> raised. It seems likely, but I'm not sure. I think we all agree that barabbi
|> already had magickal powers before joining the legion infernal... You started your
|> post by saying "not true", and raised several good points, but what exactly wasn't
|> true? That if (and I'm not sure) a demon could grant true magick to his servant,
|> said person would be a Nephandus but not a barabbus? That most Nephandi are probably
|> barabbi? Or was it simply that demons don't ever under any conditions grant any
|> powers to their followers? I'm not clear on which points you disagreed with me...
|>
|> Thanks for the clarification re: widderslainte.
|>
|> - Robin Wise

I think demons can Awaken Sleepers, according to BoM, but their Avatars are
chained to the demon's will.

nuc...@garlic.com

unread,

Apr 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/23/96

DShomshak wrote:

> No, they can't. A demon can only grant limited, Hedge Magic powers to its
> servants. This is called "Infernalism" and is detailed in the Book of
> Madness. It's a horrible cheat for the minion, because what happens when
> he sells his soul is that the demon takes the person's sleeping Avatar to
> Hell _right then_ to torture for eternity, and uses the Avatar to power
> the piddling little magical "Investments" granted to the Infernalist.
> When the Infernalist dies, they discover that their true self has already
> been in Hell for years.

> Dean Shomshak

D'oh! Sounds like a baaaaad move, huh? So the moral of our story today is, "Don't
trust the nice demon, dear. He just wants to steal your soul and torture it in his
dark domain for eternity. Anything he gives you is really already yours." Ouch!
Thanks for the clarification. My ST asked all of her players not to read the Book of
Madness, and so far I've made all my willpower rolls...

- Robin Wise

jbu...@gemini.kent.edu

unread,

Apr 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/24/96

Me too. All the arguements that JenJingu and Mephitospheles have presented are
basically nit-picks. They say the Technocracy should have fallen apart - but not
the Sabbat or the Camarilla, both of which are older. Compare this with Tim
Toner. He saw the part in V:tM about the vampire reverting each night to the
appearance it had at the Embrace. Since humans were a lot shorter when the older
vampires were embraced, this would mean a few pale, small men running around,
seriously endangering the Masquerade. However, this isn't mentioned in any
descriptions of NPC Methuselas or older player characters as in Elysium. Tim did
not post that this made Vampire unplayable. Instead, he incorporated it into part
of the Caine Files, making the explanation part of one character's explanation of
vampirism. Toner and I have exchanged harsh words before, but from creative
efforts like this, he has my respect. The anti-mage crowd (all two or three of
them) doesn't.

|>
|>
|> : : I mean 'cmon, criticizing Mage for being 'unrealistic'? Like Vampire
|> : : isn't? Or Werewolf or Shadowrun? Basically, the argument _doesen't_
|> : : come down to 'reasonable', but to taste. The whole point is that Mage
|> : : has a worldview that the original poster doesen't like, and that simply
|> : : comes down to taste.
|>
|> : still, there's a level of logic involved, a suspension of disbelief in
|> : these games. The argument is that that suspension doesn't hold in mage.
|> : Jen didn't say that he didn't like the worldview so much as that it didn't
|> : make sense because of the various things he mentioned and that these
|> : things should be reconciled for players like him who want to feel the
|> : game is _possible_. I guess it creates that illusion that it could be for
|> : real and you just might be awakened/embraced/etc. someday... kinda makes
|> : it more fun that way.
|>
|> I can't say that the suspension of belief should hold for someone else.
|> I can say that the person's criteria seems to be based on other
|> factors than presented because those factors appear in other systems
|> that weren't the target of being reviled.
|>

I've said before that JenJingu's points seem more like rationalizations for
dislike of Mage than actual reasons.

|>
|> Donald

JenJingu

unread,

Apr 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/24/96

In <4l97ue$n...@tribune.concentric.net> emp...@concentric.net writes:

>Actually, this rumor was started by the
technocracy to support their accelleration of scientific
>redefinition of static reality. As a serious
perusal of philosophy/physics history will reveal, the
>concept of the world as a sphere has existed for
centuries before Coumbus's dramatic proof
>of the theory. Study Plato, for example. Since
Columbus was in fact wrong about having reached
>India by sailing the other way, however, Paradox
cannot be discounted...Where did the
> AMERICAS come from, anyway?

Two things: Philosophy may have held that the world was round, but
the common man, who was not read or educated at all in 14th century
europe is more likely to believe what the sailors tell him down the pub
about sea legends, green monsters and flat worlds. Since the educated
were outnumbered by the educated by at least a hundred to one, the
uneducated viewpoint holds sway. Ergo, Plato doesn't matter a toss.

As for the Americas ... Don't you think you're forgetting one thing:
The millions of people that lived there, for example (Europe wasn't the
only place with humans y'know)

>__________________________________________________________________________

> Lance Berg
> emp...@concentric.net
> LaForge - Weapons and Armor of the finest cut.
> http://www.joust.com/LaForge/
>__________________________________________________________________________
--
--JenJingu-(was once Mithrandir)-(RL: Tadhg Kelly)-jod...@alf2.tcd.ie--

If Mailing me, or replying me, make sure that at least one copy is going
to my full address. Our mailer is screwed up like that. Ciao :-)

g_ri...@husky1.stmarys.ca

unread,

Apr 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/24/96

In article <4llf8q$g...@web3.tcd.ie>, jodo...@alf.tcd.ie (JenJingu) writes:
> Two things: Philosophy may have held that the world was round, but
>the common man, who was not read or educated at all in 14th century
>europe is more likely to believe what the sailors tell him down the pub
>about sea legends, green monsters and flat worlds. Since the educated
>were outnumbered by the educated by at least a hundred to one, the
>uneducated viewpoint holds sway. Ergo, Plato doesn't matter a toss.

I would guess that the common man wouldn't give a flying fig about the shape
of the planet, since he had to toil in the fields all day and maybe hit the pub
if he had enough $$$ left over after survival, assuming he actually went to the
pubs.

>--JenJingu-(was once Mithrandir)-(RL: Tadhg Kelly)-jod...@alf2.tcd.ie--

-Gil Richard

Mephistopheles

unread,

Apr 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/24/96

Mike Mitchell (m.mit...@icrf.icnet.uk) wrote:
: I always thought that inexperienced mages lack a full understanding of what

: is going on. Their paradigms ease them into a world of enlightenment, using
: foci as crutches. Then as their understandings improve (arete score goes up)
: crutches become less important as they learn to impose their will on
: consual reality (the power of the Avatar.)

This just leads me again to the fact that all mages have the same basis.
The more they ascend/higher arete, the more they realize it. I just don't
see a shaman and a hermetic mage EVER reaching the same ideas about reality
and eventually (presumably) reaching the same definition of things as their
foci are cast aside. Why even have such different types of traditions if
they're all going the same way?

: Wrong. The technocracy are actively working towards suppressing the avatars

: of sleepers. They are waiting for a time when "reality deviants" (tradition
: magi, marauders and nephandi) and other supernaturals (that don't exist
: anyway) will be wipe out and reality is rigidly defined. Then the masses may
: be allowed to ascend. Traditon magi believe in shepharding the sleepers into
: ascendance (personal or mass). This is a major difference.

But you said it yourself, they technocracy want to bring about the ascension
of mankind. Ascension is their goal. Ascension is also the goal of every
other mage group it seems. And whenever someone reaches ascension or ascends
high enough, the barriers between mages drop even more.

: --

: Michael Mitchell "Smoke me a kipper,
: User Support I'll be back for breakfast."
: Molecular Biology Software Ace Rimmer, Test Pilot
: +44 (0)171 269 3115 BBC-TV Red Dwarf ENFJ
: http://www.biu.icnet.uk/~mike

- DeViL BeN

Eric E Tolle

unread,

Apr 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/24/96

In <4lh7go$b...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> dark...@wam.umd.edu (Mephistopheles) writes:

>concept. Oh, well. I guess if the tradition books that I've read hadn't
>been so woefully lacking in real explanations for foci and depth on
>their uses (what exactly does a Verbena do with blood? or an OoH with
>his mystic language?). I wouldn't be pushing this point so much if it
>didn't really amount to a lot of the reason I don't like Mage.

Mage uses the Bonewitz theory of foci: that they are merely props,
toys used to focus the mind and create the necesarry state of
conciousness. So, there is no inherent meaning in any of the tools,
except what the mage gives them.

Bonewitz incidently is the fellow who received a degree in 'Applied
Thautamurgy' or something like that from Berkley.

Anders Sandberg

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

Jim Burdo wrote:
>According to BoM, there are no Marauder barrabi.

Yes, and that is something I don't like. I actually see the Khlassha
as Nephandi Marauders - there is no strict distinction between
Nephandi, Marauder, Tradition and Technomancer mages. Many mages
are impossible to categorize.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91...@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y

Anders Sandberg

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

Robin Wise wrote:
>D'oh! Sounds like a baaaaad move, huh? So the moral of our story today is, "Don't
>trust the nice demon, dear. He just wants to steal your soul and torture it in his
>dark domain for eternity. Anything he gives you is really already yours." Ouch!

Actually, I dislike the BoM take on demons a bit. It is simply pointless
for mages to sell out to them, so why do they do it? In my games demons
can give real advantages... makes them much more tempting and dangerous.
And the Nephandi Lords - they make the demons look tame.

(strange enough, it was the weird VA in the chronicle who became barrabbi,
not the demonologist hermetic :-)

JenJingu

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

In <4lhrne$s...@News.Dal.Ca> g_ri...@Husky1.StMarys.CA writes:

> Not necessarily, as I purposely left out the fact that he "discovered" North
>America. I could give my interpretation of the events in respect to the WOD,
>but I'm sure there are hundreds of other explanations, all of which equally
>valid. He took off thinking he was going to hit India. Maybe the Euthanatos
>didn't want a direct pipeline to europe, so they pointed him at North America
>in the hopes of screwing with Consensual reality, and not getting the blame?
>Maybe some high-mucky-muck Dreamspeaker wanted to amalgamate the two paradigms,
>so he pointed Columbus at North America. maybe this. maybe that. Maybe
>trying to apply logic to a system that is not governed by logic, but is
>governed by the whim of the ST is a pointless task. The whole point I wanted
>to get across was that saying "this couldn't happen because of that" in Mage is
>equally pointless, because it is a system greatly undefined, and by saying
>"this couldn't happen because of that" means that you are creating the "this"
>that can not happen, and then creating the "that" that disproves it.
>Essentially arguing with yourself.

Or you are, like me, the sort of person who suddenly sits up after
reading arguments/text of mage and go "hang on a second. That doesn't
work!"
I think it's highly valid to point at the game background and go
"huh?" because in my experience, the best and most playable and balanced
and easily understandable games are the ones that have a background that
does make sense and does not leave _so much_ to the ST that it may as
well have been written on the back of a postcard saying "You lot is
mages. You can do whatever you's like. Them lot is Technos. They Order.
Them lot is Marauders. They chaos. Them lot is Nephs. Them bad. They
makin' your life an 'orrible mess cos they stop you's doin' whatever
you's like. Cos a Pah-rah-docks. Go beat some heads lads. Rah rah!"
Well maybe a postcard would be a little too small. But not much too
small.
I tend to want something that is a little more concrete and can
produce decent, elementary, non-convoluted reasons for why certain
simple things will or will not happen and what the flavor of the game is
supposed to reflect.

--JenJingu-(was once Mithrandir)-(RL: Tadhg Kelly)-jod...@alf2.tcd.ie--

If Mailing me, or replying me, make sure that at least one copy is going

JenJingu

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

In <4lh82k$b...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> dark...@wam.umd.edu (Mephistopheles) writes:

>No, the basic argument is that mage has certain assumptions and
>settings that don't make sense to me for this this and this reason.
>Thus I don't like it. Remember this thread is called "why _I_ revile
>mage, not why mage sucks". that's an important distinction.

Yeah. What he said.

>still, there's a level of logic involved, a suspension of disbelief in
>these games. The argument is that that suspension doesn't hold in mage.
>Jen didn't say that he didn't like the worldview so much as that it didn't
>make sense because of the various things he mentioned and that these
>things should be reconciled for players like him who want to feel the
>game is _possible_. I guess it creates that illusion that it could be for
>real and you just might be awakened/embraced/etc. someday... kinda makes
>it more fun that way.

hey, turn Mage around, change it's name to manga: the roleplaying
game. I probably wouldn't like it still. But I'd understand it a lot
more (I like Manga by the way, but it does contain that wonderfully
cheerful ridiculous element about it)

>: As a matter of fact, as far as 'accuracy' goes, the entire bit about
>: how mages woulden't form organizations completely ignores _real_
>: _world_ magic organizations such as the Order of the Golden Dawn and

Sure Mages would form organisations. I don't think those organisations
would consist of the majority of mages (much like modern magicians as
far as I'm aware) nor would they be in the business of beating each
other up all day long. Too much study requirements. Too much time for
contemplation to consider such things perhaps. Or no unity of need to
ascend more like.

>: others. Obviously the guy didn't do his homework. Then again, he
>: cites as a reference 'Books of Magick, which, though a nice comic, is
>: _still_ a comic book. Mage was instead based on a number of sources,
>: ranging from Pirisig, to Bonewitz. As far as confirming to the ideas
>: of post-modernism, it does a good job- as he would know if he had any
>: basic knowledge of modern philosophy.

What in the insane name of gods has modern philosophy got to do with
a game where guys can conjure pounds of plutonium to destroy continents,
if they wish except in name and the handy device to stick funky quotage
all over the place?
Why should I need to be a postmodernist to play the game? The greater
majority of mage players aren't.

JenJingu

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

In <4livhr$1...@ionews.ionet.net> dbac...@ionet.net (Donald Bachman) writes:

>I suppose then that you revile all of the World of Darkness games? Each
>makes assumptions that in certain ways don't hold up. Vampires living
>amongst us for thousands of years and somehow managing to successfully
>hide themselves over the last few hundred, and so we don't believe in
>them? Worse, crazy vampires and sects that don't give a flying flip
>about what humanity thinks also hiding themselves? Similarly for
>werewolves, some of whom will have been raised as wolf and so
>would have little reason not reveal themselves. Sure, the Delerium
>may be a factor, but some humans will not react in disbelief.

They may each make assumptions, and this is is a fantasy setting
we're talking about, but, as in the case between a shitty fantasy novel
and damn good fantasy novel, it's all a question of believability.
Vampire is a game of myth. But that myth does actually more or less make
sense. It works. You can follow the logic behind it and understand how
it works from first principles. So does Wraith. So (more or less) does
Werewolf. Haven't read Changeling. But the difference with Mage is that
it's background (and it is the background that _makes_ WW games) is
incongruent, contradictory and largely incomprehensible at anything but
face value. Dig any deeper and try and figure things out and you either
begin notice that it falls apart or start making up a whole lot of
explanations to essentially cover the basic flaws.

>The point is that none of the backdrops have evolved naturally, so there
>are no doubt flaws in the backdrop. Your job, having identified them,
>is to handle them by providing extra detail, or removing the source
>of the problem.

>What annoys me, and no doubt others, is that you single out Mage for
>special treatment.

Because it's effectively crap and makes shag all sense in the end of
the day.

JenJingu

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

In <4ljskf$c...@tombstone.kent.edu> jbu...@gemini.kent.edu () writes:

>Me too. All the arguements that JenJingu and Mephitospheles have presented are

>basically nit-picks.They say the Technocracy should have fallen apart - but not

>the Sabbat or the Camarilla, both of which are older. Compare this with Tim
>Toner. He saw the part in V:tM about the vampire reverting each night to the

>appearance it had at the Embrace.Since humans were a lot shorter when the older

>vampires were embraced, this would mean a few pale, small men running around,
>seriously endangering the Masquerade. However, this isn't mentioned in any

>descriptions of NPC Methuselas or older player characters as in Elysium.Tim did
>not post that this made Vampire unplayable.Instead,he incorporated it into part
of the Caine Files,making the explanation part of one character's explanation of

>vampirism. Toner and I have exchanged harsh words before, but from creative
>efforts like this, he has my respect. The anti-mage crowd (all two or three of
>them) doesn't.

Can't say that I didn't guess that already, Jim.

I dunno, the various things that I have been
arguing/lamenting/shouting (take yer pick) seem to be fairly important
parts of the game to me. Things like the background and such. Usually I
consider them to be more important parts of the game. I wouldn't hang
around for nitpicks. Maybe I should be doing something more constructive
with my time than just flinging mud, but I've found some very
interesting things that people have had to say coming out of this
discussion. Admittedly they haven't changed my fundamental dislikes, but
I have gained respect for many Mage players that have been willing to,
as it were, look around the flaws/so-called flaws (take yer pick again)
or piece over them with sticky game to get at the center of the game. I
just see so much wrong with it that the effort seems hardly worth it.
But how and ever.

As regards the Camarilla (not sure about the Sabbat I'll concede
partly on it) not falling apart when the Technocracy does, I think it's
a different example. The Camarilla is a passive organisation for the
most part. It's intrusive, it's got a few laws, but (in theory) if you
stick by what they say (respect your elders, don't mess with us and keep
schtum effectively) they'll leave you alone. It doesn't have some party
goal that all strive towards. It has no ambition other than keeping it
and it's members relatively intact. In that sort of situation,
considering also that most of the original members are still there too,
it's much easier to keep something like that going. It's easier to run a
police force than a militant army, in a sense, because there's less to
take care of and all you need worry about is internals.
Why _would_ the Camarilla have fallen apart?
It's internal strife is borne out in the Anarchs and the various power
plays under it's umbrella. It's beneficial to all vampires in it's
membership. It's relatively peaceful and doesn't go to war on a large
scale. It doesn't like to cause trouble.
On all those counts and many others, the Technocracy is that exact
opposite. It does not have it's original members (and hence it's vision
is going to be more and more misinterpretted or weakened through the
centuries). It is consistently militant all the time and therefore makes
itself far too high profile all the time. It's taking on reality to win
and has been doing it for too long. It has a determined ambition for a
goal that has literally no proof of existing or not. It actively hunts
anything it doesn't like (and there's always more of what it doesn't
like than what it does) and it hasn't won, lost, made peace or
fragmented in the last half a millenium despite it's constant fanatical
standpoint.
I don't think an organisation like that can last in any field if the
members of that organisation are human and not there from the start to
keep the "vision" going. Organisations, be they churches, science
foundations, nations, secret societies or whatever, that maintain a
constant militant stance do not survive in that form. They change, they
break up, they win, or they lose. They don't last in paerpetual
conflict. Find me one organisation of anything that has lasted half a
millenium in constant warfare with it's enemies with no sign of winning
or losing chasing after a goal that is questionable at best.
What about the Crusades you might quote as an example? They weren't
religious wars to begin with. They were largely wars of economics and
politics and they were separate and lastwed only a few years at a time.
What about Nazi's. Yes they chased after an unrealistic (some might even
say insane) goal. KLook where it got them in eight years of peace and
six years of war. What about the Jacobins? same deal, shorter timespan.
What about the Chinese? A Communist movement that was dictatorial and
_won_ in short-ish space of time. They aren't still at war.
There's nothing that I have found in history that is even _close_ to
what the Technocracy supposedly were doing for half a millenium and I've
yet to see you, Jim, prove otherwise (instead of just insulting those of
us with different opinions).

>I've said before that JenJingu's points seem more like rationalizations for
>dislike of Mage than actual reasons.

And yours seem like gut reactions Jim.

We can sit here and trade insults all day if you like ...

The Seeker

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

On 23 Apr 1996 jbu...@gemini.kent.edu wrote:

> According to BoM, there are no Marauder barrabi.

Correctomundo. In fact, BoM is quite clear that the one thing every Wyld
Mage has in common is his/her/its opposition to the Nephandi. Regardless
of Quiet level, ALL marauders instinctively oppose Nephandi. That means
every last psychotic one of them. No exceptions. Period. Deal with it.

Furthermore, going Wyld is a one-way trip. Once a mage wraps his Paradox
around his mind and leaps forward into Madness, it is permanent, fini, no
refund, no return for deposit, forever and ever, world without end, amen.
No exceptions. Period. Deal with it.

"The Path to Ascension runs through the Eye of Madness"
-- Anonymous

Warmest personal regards,
-= The Seeker =-
-= (i/pi)^inf =-

**************************************************************************
* Actually, you're right; I haven't the foggiest idea what I'm doing but *
* I'm having an awfully fun time doing it. Pass the jellybabies, please! *
* ====================================================================== *
* My E-mail -- har...@lurch.winthrop.edu OR zzha...@acad.winthrop.edu *
* My wholly unremarkable Home Page -- http://lurch.winthrop.edu/~harrist *
* My RL Address -- 112 South First Street -- Fort Mill, SC -- 29715-9391 *
* Phone 1 (803) 547 7676 -- Best after 6pm EST -- Collect calls accepted *
**************************************************************************

Donald Bachman

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

JenJingu (jodo...@alf.tcd.ie) wrote:
: In <4livhr$1...@ionews.ionet.net> dbac...@ionet.net (Donald Bachman) writes:

: >I suppose then that you revile all of the World of Darkness games? Each

: >makes assumptions that in certain ways don't hold up. Vampires living
: >amongst us for thousands of years and somehow managing to successfully
: >hide themselves over the last few hundred, and so we don't believe in
: >them? Worse, crazy vampires and sects that don't give a flying flip
: >about what humanity thinks also hiding themselves? Similarly for
: >werewolves, some of whom will have been raised as wolf and so
: >would have little reason not reveal themselves. Sure, the Delerium
: >may be a factor, but some humans will not react in disbelief.

: They may each make assumptions, and this is is a fantasy setting

: we're talking about, but, as in the case between a shitty fantasy novel
: and damn good fantasy novel, it's all a question of believability.
: Vampire is a game of myth. But that myth does actually more or less make
: sense. It works. You can follow the logic behind it and understand how
: it works from first principles. So does Wraith. So (more or less) does
: Werewolf. Haven't read Changeling. But the difference with Mage is that
: it's background (and it is the background that _makes_ WW games) is
: incongruent, contradictory and largely incomprehensible at anything but
: face value. Dig any deeper and try and figure things out and you either
: begin notice that it falls apart or start making up a whole lot of
: explanations to essentially cover the basic flaws.

Bunk! There is logic behind the supposition that that because vampires
started to hide themselves a few centuries back that they have
successfully hidden every shred of evidence that they ever existed
outside of myth? That in this day and age that they continue to do so?
That the Sabbat and Malkavian haven't managed to blow the Masquerade
several times over? That every single vampire actually lives up to
protecting this secret? That not a single vampire sucumbs to the beast
and goes out on a very public rampage?

I could question every game produced by White Wolf. The fact that you
are willing to accept the holes with the other systems but not with Mage
shows that you have a problem with Mage, nothing more.

: >The point is that none of the backdrops have evolved naturally, so there

: >are no doubt flaws in the backdrop. Your job, having identified them,
: >is to handle them by providing extra detail, or removing the source
: >of the problem.

: >What annoys me, and no doubt others, is that you single out Mage for
: >special treatment.

: Because it's effectively crap and makes shag all sense in the end of
: the day.

It is questionable technique to denounce something as 'crap' without
coherent argument as to how you reached that conclusion. I've
yet to see anything that you've said that doesn't apply to the
other systems (which you defend) that isn't extremely vague.

: --

: --JenJingu-(was once Mithrandir)-(RL: Tadhg Kelly)-jod...@alf2.tcd.ie--

: If Mailing me, or replying me, make sure that at least one copy is going
: to my full address. Our mailer is screwed up like that. Ciao :-)

Donald

dcrei...@ivory.trentu.ca

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

In article <4ljbvo$g...@ccshst05.uoguelph.ca>, pda...@uoguelph.ca (Penn Davies) writes:
>g_ri...@Husky1.StMarys.CA wrote:
>: In article <4lh1h8$g...@tribune.concentric.net>, emp...@concentric.net writes:
>: >Is there noone who has ever discovered something he did not expect to find,
>: >that noone told him to expect? Gee, I can think of one example: Coumbus
>: >discovered the Americas while expecting to find India, and consensus reality
>: >was (prominent theoreticians aside) that he would fall of the edge of the
>: >world. I don't know that thats the way it was in the WoD, but it shoots a
>: >barrelful of holes in both sides of this arguement...
>
>Maybe European consensual reality didn't include America, but the Native
>Americans sure believed in it.
>
> --Penguin

Remember that discovery equals mapping.

There was no physical link between Europe and America until the Void
Engineers, with eventual reinforcement by sleeper agents, created one
thereby gradually changing the paradigm.

From the way I read mage there wasn't even physical reality until the
spheres merged. Takre a few moments to really think about what the
fractioning of the One, the developement of the Pure Ones and the existence
of the nine spheres means.

In pre-human existence (henceforth all IMHO) there was no planet Earth.
There were nine spheres of existence. Why is WOD history multiple choice?
Because histories from the various worlds merged when the spheres were
eventually merged. That's why Pangea exists and yet so did the garden of
Eden. Pangea was probably in the Life Sphere, the Garden of Eden seems to
be a myth from the Prime sphere.

Those who say Gravity must always have been a constant are being very
limited in their view. Before gravity there was just up and down, the
world was flat. Before that there may not have even been enough true
reality for gravity to matter (no pun intended).

Humanity created consensus as it developed sentience and overtook the more
powerful beings left as the ultimate arbitrator of reality, eventually
humans with different paridigms merged and those paridigms merged too.

The Void Enginners must have been instrumental in making sure the Western
European paradigm became accepted, essentially they mapped the other free
realms into their world, and henceforth their paridgm before the others
had a chance to do it to them. That explains why Western thought remains
dominant in the WOD>

Of course if there is another Prime source besides the Gaia realm out there
somewhere (or somewhen or perhaps somewhy, our concepts break down once we
leave our paradigms) then the Void Engineers must be looking pretty damn
hard for them because if they don't map them into our paradigm who/whatever
they are could map us into theirs...

Sven Skoog

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

jbu...@gemini.kent.edu wrote:

: I think demons can Awaken Sleepers, according to BoM, but their Avatars are

: chained to the demon's will.

That is to say, they become widderslainte. :)

Remember that 'demon,' even as per the Nephandi definition, doesn't have
to mean a satanic horned evil creature residing on the Nine Hells or Abyss
or whatever.

What you're terming a 'demon' Awakening Sleepers is no different (except
in paradigm), IMHO, than an Adept or Master deciding it was time to Awaken
his/her favorite mortal associate by using some flashy vulgar tricks in
front of them (as does the (female) Mage in the 1st ed. Mage intro
story). The Masters, in this case, are just a lot... er... ickier. ;)

Thus:

Dr. Charles Reid (Master Progenitor), over the course of a series of
biology seminars, turns the topic of discourse from graduate-level cellular
study to experimental G-protein metal interactions, then on to things the
students have never even contemplated before, finally getting around to the
subjective nature of reality and its possible manipulation. Three of his
students Awaken and join the Technocracy that week.

Porthos (near-Oracle Hermetic Mage) sits his soon-to-be apprentice down
in front of him and begins to tell her about the world she's been missing
out on for so many years. How Ascension, and the shaping of realities,
is possible. She, incredulous, gets up to leave this 'madman'... and
poof! There are four of him blocking all the doors. He snaps his fingers
and static electricity begins to gather in the room. He lifts a fist
skyward and lightning dances on it before arcing into the sky.
And, in the nick of time before her mind snaps, she Awakens... and believes.

And a 'demon lord,' named Ashmodei by his cultist worshippers, calls his
two most promising disciples before him on the eve of a lunar eclipse
and begins to teach them 'the great infernal secrets,' sufficient in power
to warp the very fabric of reality itself. The disciples, although they
do not dare to register their disbelief publicly in the face of their
master, are skeptical, and have difficulty grasping what the demigod is
getting at. Ashmodei sighs and invites them to 'his Realm,' opening a
portal into the Dark Umbra, where the horrors they see shred their Cauls
and Awaken their Avatars in a violent, near-maddening surge of
possibilities.

Three different Paradigms; three different Awakenings. With obvious
cosmetic differences.
-- Sven

Lord Tremere

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

Beware, this is one LONG post, but I hope it's worth it...

Michael Brazier wrote:
>
> Remember that the Technocracy perceives itself as the defenders of the
> present reality. I happen to think Technomancers hold the scientific
> worldview (reality follows fixed and knowable rules.)

The Technocracy does NOT defend the present reality... the Technocracy strives
to attain their own vision of ascencion : a world, completely made up of
laws, perfectly predictable and perfectly safe for every human being to
live in. Present reality is not even near this ultimate goal. Actually,
the technocracy is working every day on new laws, new rules of science,
new and stronger "scientific" approaches to beter encapsulate reality. The
word "scientific" is put between quotes because the Technocracy MAKES science.
Science is everything the technocracy makes up and is able to make the general
public believe.

> They don't, in fact, believe that they imposed natural laws onto reality, as
> the Traditions have charged them with doing;

As I stated above, THEY HAVE. In the mythical age, there were no such things as
fixed natural laws. All natural laws, generally accepted by the general public
in the modern age were designed and enforced by the Technocrats to protect
the people of the chaotic and destructive influences that coexist with the free
manipulation of reality, as practiced by the awakened humans.

> None of that, however, is relevant to my original point. The Nephandi
> can't be described as enlightened or wise, much less virtuous; selling your
> soul to demons/the Wyrm/aliens in exchange for power is one of the most
> foolish things you can do. If "deals with the Devil" are the root of a
> Nephandus' powers, then Nephandi *aren't* mages; mages' powers are
> inherent in them.

Magic is not about enlightenment or wisdom... it's about the concious and
subconcious realization that reality does not function within a set paradigm
of laws, but within any paradigm you want if you are powerfull enough to empose
this paradigm on other people. This "realization" is called "awakening",
and the power to use it relates to different factors like Avatar, Arete,
available quintessence, etc. In this context, I don't see why it couldn't be
possible that such knowledge would be granted by demonic beings, as part of
some "blood pact".

My humble opinion :

Ascension is a perfected vision of reality, on a personal or global plane of
perspective, and most common a combination of both. For the Technocracy, it
is a perfectly predictable world based on a set collection of laws (as explained
earlier on), for The sons of Ether, it is very similar, but more dependant
on the personal vision of the scientist, for the Virtual Adepts it is
"Reality 2.0", a virtual plane of existence wherein all manipulation of reality
would be described as "reprogramming" reality, a medium available to all
people, in other words : a paradigm that would allow for near global awakening
etc...
This is the global aspect of ascension, relating to perfection of reality.
There is also a personal aspect of ascension, relating to perfection of the
self in a similar way. Traditions like Virual Adepts, Sons Of Ether an Order
Of Hermes seem to put an emphasis on the global aspect. Traditions like Akashic
Brotherhood, Dreamspeakers and Celestial Chorus seem to put it on the personal
aspect. Perfection, of course, is always an interpretation of individuals. This
explains the difference in visions of ascension. Like-minded individuals flock
together in organizations like the Traditions or the different groups within
the Technocracy or the Nephandi or even the Marauders. These individuals band
together to destroy the folowers of visions, radically opposed to their own.

> Well, yes, there is that. There's nothing quite like being actively hunted
> for getting people to work together. However, the Pogrom didn't start until
> after the VAs defected in 1950; before then, while the Technos might go
> after a single Tradition if it controlled something they wanted, they weren't
> actively hunting *all* the Traditions at once. What reasons, then, would
> the Traditions have for working together before 1950? They don't have
> any common goals to speak of.

This is untrue... the war between the Technocracy and the traditions dates back
to the end of the mythical age, with the creation of the gauntlet by the proto-
technocracy, then still called the order of reason. It has been going on ever
since, and included, among many historical facts, the inquisition. I do not
believe, however, that the traditions have always been as they are now (except
for the sons of Ether and the Virtual Adepts that is). Amongst others, I am
convinced of the fact that the Celestial Chorus, at one point in history, has
actually and actively worked together with the Technocrats.

> That's what "opposing the Technocracy" means. The real question is, what
> do the Traditions want to do *after* the Technocracy is history? "Ascension"
> is about the only thing they can all agree on...and Ascension is a blank
> slate that means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

Many revolutions started out without any image of the future in mind my friend.
Remember the onslaught an confusion after the French Revolution. Or the Russian
Revolution?

> Irrelevant. If there's even one difference between two men's beliefs, no
> matter how small, they live in different worlds under this theory. To
> explain why people with different beliefs live in the same world, you have
> to introduce some being that belief doesn't affect as a common reference
> point.
> Mage doesn't do that. Mage doesn't, as far as I can tell, even suggest
> some possible options. That's why Mage is, metaphysically, incoherent.
>
> Michael Brazier

Reality is not a matter of different worlds... it is a matter of paradigm, and
the power to impose this on other people. The world is a set of laws,
consisting of laws, created by ourselves and laws created by others with the
power to do so (i.e. the Technocracy). Sometimes laws coexist... sometimes they
contradict each other : that is what happens when paradox comes around. The
individual is united with his fellow humans by a common set of laws, and
separated by those made up by himself. These laws coexist in the same reality.
When two contradicting laws clash with each other (i.e., when magick is used),
paradox is generated. The most powerfully enforced law wins, the user of the
other one is loaded with paradox, aimed at his personal destruction. Paradox is
the guardian of the most powerfully enforced paradigm at that moment. There is
only one reality, and an infinity of possibility. What matters, is not WHAT you
want to do, but wether you're powerfull enough to do it.

The Grand Lord Tremere
--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION***
Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED.
Please, report inappropriate use to ab...@anon.penet.fi
For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to he...@anon.penet.fi
If you have any problems, address them to ad...@anon.penet.fi

Mephistopheles

unread,

Apr 25, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/25/96

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon (r...@airmail.net) wrote:
: Once again, most people did NOT believe the world was flat, and hadn't
: believed such for over a millenium. Furthermore, it's entirely
: possible that in the WOD 1492, some early VE found out that a whole
: bunch of Dreamspeakers and Garou escaped a malevolent force a million
: years earlier, and decided to use Columbus to find them.

I actually think that they did, considering the number of uneducated
about in the 15th century. As to your second idea that would only further
my problem that all explorers/discoverers had to be mages if they did
or found anything original.

: Kestrel
: The Fairly Decent Dragon

-DeViL BeN

DShomshak

unread,

Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96

In article <NV91-ASA.96...@melas.nada.kth.se>,
nv91...@melas.nada.kth.se (Anders Sandberg) writes:

>Robin Wise wrote:
>>D'oh! Sounds like a baaaaad move, huh? So the moral of our story today
is,
>"Don't
>>trust the nice demon, dear. He just wants to steal your soul and
torture it
>in his
>>dark domain for eternity. Anything he gives you is really already
yours."
>Ouch!
>
>Actually, I dislike the BoM take on demons a bit. It is simply pointless
>for mages to sell out to them, so why do they do it? In my games demons
>can give real advantages... makes them much more tempting and dangerous.
>And the Nephandi Lords - they make the demons look tame.

I got the impression from BoM that Infernalists were _Sleepers_ who'd sold
their souls for a "mess of pottage" in the form of Investments. The
Sleepers, of course, don't know they would get so much more if they
Awakened. With people who have already Awakened, yes, I expect the demons
offer a bit more and lay their traps more subtly.

Dean Shomshak

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon

unread,

Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96

jodo...@alf.tcd.ie (JenJingu) wrote:

> Sure Mages would form organisations. I don't think those organisations
>would consist of the majority of mages (much like modern magicians as
>far as I'm aware) nor would they be in the business of beating each
>other up all day long. Too much study requirements. Too much time for
>contemplation to consider such things perhaps. Or no unity of need to
>ascend more like.

Studying won't change the world.

> What in the insane name of gods has modern philosophy got to do with
>a game where guys can conjure pounds of plutonium to destroy continents,

Try it, get fried by paradox and have your little rote go poof.

>if they wish except in name and the handy device to stick funky quotage
>all over the place?
> Why should I need to be a postmodernist to play the game? The greater
>majority of mage players aren't.

You don't. You just have to be flexible.

Daniel B. Holzman

unread,

Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96

In article <4lm4ra$4...@ucsbuxb.ucsb.edu>,

Eric E Tolle <unde...@mcl.ucsb.edu> wrote:
>
>Bonewitz incidently is the fellow who received a degree in 'Applied
>Thautamurgy' or something like that from Berkley.

He is alse the Archdruid emeritus of An Droicht Fein (an RE-OCKT-FINE), a
neo-pagan druidic order.
--
Daniel B. Holzman -- Love does not subtract, it multiplies. -- All acts of love
and pleasure are Her rituals. -- An it Harm none, do what you Will. -- They
took my name and stole my heritage, but they didn't get my goat. -- The
word is all of us. -- Remember the Twelth Commandment and keep it Wholly.

g_ri...@husky1.stmarys.ca

unread,

Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96

In article <4lo9lh$m...@web3.tcd.ie>, jodo...@alf.tcd.ie (JenJingu) writes:
>Admittedly they haven't changed my fundamental dislikes, but
>I have gained respect for many Mage players that have been willing to,
>as it were, look around the flaws/so-called flaws (take yer pick again)
>or piece over them with sticky game to get at the center of the game. I
>just see so much wrong with it that the effort seems hardly worth it.

Let's take the example of comparing the ideologies of the rest of the WW
games, which make sense, and the Mage ideology, which (apparently) does not.
On the one hand, you have the Vampire/Werewolf/etc ideologies that have their
take on whatever parts of reality pertain to them. The Kindred's pertain to
Caine killing his brother and getting a curse which turns out to be vamprism,
and how their Beast relates to them. All pretty simple and understandable.
The Werewolves go a little more metaphysical and say there's a cosmological
trinity of the Wyld, the Weaver and the Wyrm, and that when all three of these
ideals are in harmony and synch, then everything is cool. Unfortunately, the
weaver and the wyrm went nuts, and everything is going to hell in a handbasket.
A little more complex, and as a result a few minor metaphysical holes appear
(mostly pertaining to classifying various aspects of things into one of these
three categories (like the High Umbra)), but nothing that tears the whole
framework apart.
Mage, however, makes a titanically huge metaphysical jump and says that there
is no one cosmology to reality, it's whatever you believe to be true. It
reaches a level of abstraction so esoteric that trying to define any one
concept within it so that it makes 'sense' would have to be explained in terms
of each and every worldview that it would encompass, as well as
cross-referencing each one so that the overall picture has no metaphysical
holes in it. This, unfortunately, would result in a 99 volume set akin to the
Encyclopeadia Britannica. Seeing as how that would be a tad on the pricey
side, the developers left the details open and undefined, but concentrated on
the more esoteric concepts and leaving the interpretation of these esoteric
concepts up to the individual player character. The possible number of
interpretations of these concepts, and how they interrelate, is only bounded by
the imagination. It's infinite.
So what it comes down to, again, is that when you take two vague concepts and
piece them together in a way that doesn't make sense, just piece them together
in a different way. This is illustrated from the huge number of differing
interpretations given by various mage players when replying to your message.
Each of them had a different take on the same subject, and each of them was
right, because as this level of abstraction, right and wrong is all in your
perspective.

>--JenJingu-(was once Mithrandir)-(RL: Tadhg Kelly)-jod...@alf2.tcd.ie--

-Gil Richard

Mephistopheles

unread,

Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96

Donald Bachman (dbac...@ionet.net) wrote:
: I suppose then that you revile all of the World of Darkness games? Each
: makes assumptions that in certain ways don't hold up. Vampires living
: amongst us for thousands of years and somehow managing to successfully
: hide themselves over the last few hundred, and so we don't believe in
: them? Worse, crazy vampires and sects that don't give a flying flip
: about what humanity thinks also hiding themselves? Similarly for
: werewolves, some of whom will have been raised as wolf and so
: would have little reason not reveal themselves. Sure, the Delerium
: may be a factor, but some humans will not react in disbelief.

I would venture that the unrealistic portions of Vampire and Werewolf
are not the main focus for the game. I see the ascension war, the
rule of the technocracy, consenual reality, and the traditions as
presented in the rulebook ARE the focus, in fact the very point of
the game. Vampire isn't about whether or not a bunch of vampires have
been able to remain hidden from humans for however long. Vampire is
about personal horror. Mage seems to be about consenual reality and
fighting for your paradigm to exist above others, and fighting the
insufferable tyranny of the techocracy, and becoming more enlightened
on the way. This is why I think my complaints deal directly with
the heart of Mage, not with little technicalities.

: The point is that none of the backdrops have evolved naturally, so there
: are no doubt flaws in the backdrop. Your job, having identified them,
: is to handle them by providing extra detail, or removing the source
: of the problem.

This would be true if the problems I had with the game didn't represent
the core of Mage and the basis for the game. Certainly there are things
that can be tossed aside or modified, but there are also things that
shouldn't be dropped because you're changing the entire game so much
that you might as well play a different one or use all the rules you
made up (because they work better) without any WW material at all.
I think we buy the books to provide a consistent background and game
mechanics system so that we don't have to go through the trouble our-
selves. If it ever gets back to going through the trouble ourselves,
than the books haven't served their purpose, at least to that person.

: What annoys me, and no doubt others, is that you single out Mage for
: special treatment.

As I said above, I think it's because the very concepts at the root of
Mage make it virtually unplayable for me, where I don't see the concepts
behind Vampire (and less so behind Werewolf) presenting a problem for
me.

: I can't say that the suspension of belief should hold for someone else.

: I can say that the person's criteria seems to be based on other
: factors than presented because those factors appear in other systems
: that weren't the target of being reviled.

well, I disagree. See my other posts..

: Mages in Mage don't generally self-awaken either. Generally they are
: recruited. It says this quite clearly in the book. Self-awakening has
: in WoD been rare, though it seemingly is happening more often of late
: than has been the case.

the point was just that it did happen. I still think that overall
such a comparison is unnecessary and fruitless.

: Donald

- Me

Mephistopheles

unread,

Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96

g_ri...@Husky1.StMarys.CA wrote:
: I would guess that the common man wouldn't give a flying fig about the shape

: of the planet, since he had to toil in the fields all day and maybe hit the pub
: if he had enough $$$ left over after survival, assuming he actually went to the
: pubs.

no, but the sailors sure as hell would and the large part of common belief
on the matter will be derived from their accounts and beliefs.

: -Gil Richard

- Em

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon

unread,

Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96

dark...@wam.umd.edu (Mephistopheles) wrote:

>This just leads me again to the fact that all mages have the same basis.
>The more they ascend/higher arete, the more they realize it. I just don't
>see a shaman and a hermetic mage EVER reaching the same ideas about reality
>and eventually (presumably) reaching the same definition of things as their
>foci are cast aside. Why even have such different types of traditions if
>they're all going the same way?

Because there are no rules that say they're going the same way. Mages
abandon their foci because they no longer need them to manipulate
reality, not because they realize their paradigm is wrong.

>But you said it yourself, they technocracy want to bring about the ascension
>of mankind. Ascension is their goal. Ascension is also the goal of every
>other mage group it seems. And whenever someone reaches ascension or ascends
>high enough, the barriers between mages drop even more.

No, they don't. Just what Ascension is is different for every group
(quite possibly every individual, but this would leave only slight
variations). Several Traditions believe in *PERSONAL* Ascension.

Vince Arias

unread,

Apr 26, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/26/96

emp...@concentric.net wrote:

>Little clips from massive post

>> g_ri...@Husky1.StMarys.CA writes:
>> In article <4kvial$q...@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, dark...@wam.umd.edu (Mephistopheles) writes:
>> >Timothy Toner (than...@flowbee.interaccess.com) wrote:

>> >: Very few stories are experience-proof. If I tell you that wearing an
>> >: Ozzy Osbourne shirt will protect you from bullets, you'll believe it
>> >: until, of course, you get shot. The best application of experience-proofing
>> >: is the old "paint on the bench" trick. Tell a man that there
>> >: are a billion stars in the sky, and he'll believe you. Tell him that
>> >: the paint on the bench is wet, and he'll have to touch it to be sure.
>> >: No one is going to count the stars. So what you need to do is make your
>> >: stories (paradigms) so high that no one will bother questioning them.
>> >: This is how so many groups survived up until the technocracy rolled into
>> >: town.
>> >
>> >Yes, but paradigms are more than just whether or not there are a billion
>> >stars in the sky, paradigms also deal with the wet paint, don't they?
>> >Thus, if everyone in the world believes that the paint is not wet, how
>> >do you convince them otherwise? If you tell them it is, they'll check it
>> >and find out that it is not. Sure you can use magick to overcome this
>> >but then that implies that all great discoverers or otherwise shapers of
>> >public opinion and whatnot must be mages. Why didn't Colombus just sail
>> >off the edge of the world if everyone believed it to be flat? How could
>> >he "discover" it to be round (or at least larger than they thought)? This
>> >is a much more concrete example that deals more with experience-proof
>> >instances than the Helio-centric/terra-centric one.
>>
>> If a seeper enacts a change that must bring about a change in sconsensual
>> reality, they need not fear the wrath of paradox because they are a part of the
>> force that generates paradox. If a mage enacts a change that must bring about
>> a change in consensual reality, they will suffer from Paradox as they are not a
>> part of of the consensual reality. They are a part of their own reality as
>> defined by their paradigm. When Columbus actually went to the ends of the
>> earth to see if the world was flat, he was the first sleeper of the European
>> region of the world to go there wondering about the shape of the earth. As
>> such, when he got there, there was no other opinion to say otherwise, so he got
>> to form the consensual reality there. If he went to the edge of the world
>> looking to find the edge, firmly believing that there was en edge, there would
>> be noone to go against his opinion, so the world (according to consensual
>> reality) would indeed be flat. The Technocracy's part in the ascension war is
>> their hatred of change. If Joe Public heads off towards the center of the
>> earth all bound and determined to find it hollow, he's going to, as long as
>> noone else has gone there first thinking something else. Such unchecked
>> dynamism is bad in the eyes of the technocracy, so in order to change
>> consensual reality to their wishes, they tell the sleepers what to believe when
>> they get there first. So any miner who heads down a shaft has had it hammered
>> into his brain that there is no hollow world down there. And when they get
>> there, they find what they think they will find.

>>
>Is there noone who has ever discovered something he did not expect to find, that noone told him
>to expect? Gee, I can think of one example: Coumbus discovered the Americas while expecting
>to find India, and consensus reality was (prominent theoreticians aside) that he would fall of the edge
>of the world. I don't know that thats the way it was in the WoD, but it shoots a barrelful of holes
>in both sides of this arguement...

Okay, okay. I consider myself to be rather adept at the game
mechanics of Mage, so I feel very obligated to put in my two cents
worth. Here goes...:

First of all, as far as the earth being flat because people think it
is flat... Somewhere in every person there is a deep and underlying
logic that people use wheather they realize it or not. The people
back then might have THOUGHT that the Earth is flat, but logically, at
least at a "higher" level, they believe that the world cannot possibly
be flat. They use information that they have collected for as long as
they have been alive shapes itself into the logic that the world
cannot be flat, even though they have been taught otherwise. I guess
you could relate it to a religious experience in a sort of way...
Also, there were other people that were on the planet, too, that were
humans (albeit mostly sleepers) who couldn't just have been WILLED
into existanse by the english. I hope this is all clear...

One thing, though, that I would like to have cleared up, is that if
someone is suffering from the effects of parodox in a very vulgar way
(i.e.: Skin is on fire with no apparent consumption), and is viewed by
a sleeper, does he get parodox or not? Also (and this isn't really a
point that the books aren't clear on), is there isn't a sleeper for
MILES, and a mage does something vulgar, does he still get parodox
because he is in the mundane realm?

Vince Arias
ecl...@netzone.com

Karen Kuhn

unread,

Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96

jbu...@gemini.kent.edu wrote:
<snip>

>
> Me too. All the arguements that JenJingu and Mephitospheles have presented are

> basically nit-picks. They say the Technocracy should have fallen apart - but not

> the Sabbat or the Camarilla, both of which are older. Compare this with Tim
> Toner. He saw the part in V:tM about the vampire reverting each night to the

> appearance it had at the Embrace. Since humans were a lot shorter when the older

> vampires were embraced, this would mean a few pale, small men running around,
> seriously endangering the Masquerade. However, this isn't mentioned in any

> descriptions of NPC Methuselas or older player characters as in Elysium. Tim did
> not post that this made Vampire unplayable. Instead, he incorporated it into part
> of the Caine Files, making the explanation part of one character's explanation of

> vampirism. Toner and I have exchanged harsh words before, but from creative
> efforts like this, he has my respect. The anti-mage crowd (all two or three of
> them) doesn't.

<snip>

Somewhat off the topic, but I was reading a book ("Archaeology of
Disease", Roberts and Manchester, p.27), which listed heights of
ancient populations, estimated from skeletons)
Average British Adult Male Height through time (cm)
Neolithic 171.8
Danish Neolithic 177.6
Bronze Age 176.4
Iron Age 167.8
Anglo-Saxon 173.2
British Medieval 171.8
Swedish Medieval 173.1
British 1979 175.0

Looking at that, it doesn't seem as if the idea that all humans were
shorter on average in ancient times is all that right, considering
that both a Neolithic and Bronze age population had greater average
heights than modern. Does anyone know anything more about this?

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon

unread,

Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96

dbac...@ionet.net (Donald Bachman) wrote:

>Bunk! There is logic behind the supposition that that because vampires
>started to hide themselves a few centuries back that they have
>successfully hidden every shred of evidence that they ever existed
>outside of myth? That in this day and age that they continue to do so?
>That the Sabbat and Malkavian haven't managed to blow the Masquerade
>several times over? That every single vampire actually lives up to
>protecting this secret? That not a single vampire sucumbs to the beast
>and goes out on a very public rampage?

According to that theory, Mages are immune to Paradox because of the
periodic actions of Marauders, and because many mundanes still believe
in magick.

Donald Bachman

unread,

Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96

Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon (r...@airmail.net) wrote:

: dbac...@ionet.net (Donald Bachman) wrote:

I'm not sure exactly what you are responding to. Notice the second
sentence above ends in a question mark--it is a question. No theory was
being put forth. Or did you mean that you were in agreement with JenJingu
in his denunciation of Mage?

: Kestrel
: The Fairly Decent Dragon

Donald

Kyle Anderson Felker

unread,

Apr 27, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/27/96

My Lord, the Umbrood Spirit Sven Skoog reports:
: Kestrel the Fairly Decent Dragon (r...@airmail.net) wrote:
:
: : Because the major changes in becoming a Nephandus are not paradigma
: : but power levels and allegiances. A Barrabus Son of Ether still has
: : all the trappings of his old tradition.
:
: Look, I don't buy this at _all_.

Tough. It's exactly what happens.

:
: What about a Dreamspeaker barrabi? They serve Gaia AND the Wyrm?

Nope. They serve the wyrm. Their ideology would probably be similar to
that of the black spiral dancers: Gaia is just too bursting with life for
her own good, and some of her has to be destroyed in order to swing the
balance back. So to them, they're still serving Gaia, just in a
different way.

:
: To quote Jerry Seinfeld, 'Not bloody likely...'
:
: You might say 'Well, that's what I meant by 'power levels and allegiances,'
: but, to that aforementioned Dreamspeaker example, Gaia is EVERYTHING to
: his/her paradigm.

And she still is. Paradimes *do* have a certain amount of flexibility.
Becoming barrabi means that you've started to see your paradime in the
light of the tainted ones. For instance, Euthanatos beleive that they
serve the cycle of reincarnation, in effect, building the soul by
destroying the body. Euthanatos barrabi beleive that the cycle itself
has to die, the universe has to die, EVERYTHING has to die absolutely so
that an entire new universe can be born.

:
: I mean, they might have the same foci as before, as holdovers from their
: tutors beating them over the heads and shoulders trying to ease them into
: the 'you-too-can-bend-reality-with-a-wink-and-a-nod' scheme of things,
: but the fundamentals themselves are changed:

*One* very fundamental aspect of the paradime shifts. The rest of it
pretty much stays the same. And of course, the mage himself changes.
But their paradimes are still very similar to those non-barrabi mages.

-Kyle

g_ri...@husky1.stmarys.ca

unread,

Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96

But the 'common belief' of the shape of the planet wouldn't relevant to the
average Joe toiling in the fields, so the shape of the planet wouldn't really
factor into the equation of consensual reality, only being the concern of less
than 5% of the planet. It would be there in some small form, just like today's
'controversy' over aliens making circles in farmer's fields. Ask your average
joe on the street and the majority will probably make some joke about it.
>: -Gil Richard
>- Em
-Gil Richard

DeeDee Mao

unread,

Apr 28, 1996, 3:00:00 AM4/28/96

Well. I'm here to say that I don't agree with Mephisto on Mage. The
appearance that he was just saying me too to JenJingu who I do agree
with is a blind to deceive the unitiated.

The avatars being constant and everything else being window dressing
thing. Sure I'll give you that. But the window dressing is important.
The mages have different views because of thier traditions and the
tools a Hermetic mage may use to evoke the feminine of air (athame) may
be used to evoke masculine fire by the Verbena. The mythology they
learn ties different forms of gnosis to different foci. Look at the
occult. The 'avatar' thing is prevelant. The Thelemites have their
HGAs. The coyotes have their inner geniuses. Some trads have their
personal Godesses. But they are different.

Ascension. All mages want to transend and learn the real truth. This
is a massive generalization. There are nihilists and hedonists. Ignore
White Wolf on this point.

Rocks and avatars. Why not? According to Garou all things have their
own spirit. They were around quite a while. Hell, who knows. I don't
wanna get into the five basic paradigms of the existance of spirits
right now, but they're like science's description of light. Each model
works when tested. Any or all have equal validity. Use the one that
works in the setting you choose for the effect you desire.
Changelings are around. Do you see them piling on paradox? No. The
mages are wrong here. The rulebook is wrong. Why shouldn't White Wolf
contradict themselves? Everything is permitted. Mages see dragons and
fae getting paradox because they deal with paradox and it's a convenient
explanation for the mages that believe in it. They don't have all the
answers, so don't expect their rulebook to.

DeeDee Mao.... Diki Dao!

It is loading more messages.

0 new messages