Really? you can demonstrate that the word thug is being used as an anti-indian racist slur in the united states today? Or did you just not read the entirety of what wrote, because I didn't claim that it was never used in a racist way in America today, simply that the usage today would not reflect it's origins with the thugee sect in terms of racist usage.
1 Like
This topic was automatically opened after 2 days.
There was, for a time at least, a sentiment on these boards that Houses themselves ought to be done away with. The primary advantage cited with offering a clean break with the WoD, but being rid of houses wouldn't actually accomplish that unless we also ditch (or at least rename) the Order of Hermes itself...
1 Like
As for the names, do they really have to have meaning? Some of them were just supposed to be names of those who started the Houses. "Ex Miscellanea" is a clear exception, but the reasoning has been provided. (It was more explicit in earlier editions.) Some of those names were clearly chosen to link to things, but that was not necessary. At some point I think you just have to let designers have some freedom to come up with random names. Do we object tons to "Boccob" and the like? Meanwhile D&D also used names from the real world, such as "Baphomet."
1 Like
@chuangdangjianghu didn't say it was being used as anti-Indian in the United States. Rather, he disagreed with your statement that the American usage is "completely unrelated" to the origin. Consider one of the main ways it entered American usage. In 1852 the New York Times said "We have never seen the comparison made, but it is so obvious that it must have suggested itself to some reader or writer," when talking about "the rowdies of New York." What was it considering "thug" to mean in that comparison? "A terrible sect of religionists, whose worship is the most hideous in the whole record of false ideologies." And now it is being used in the same sort of way as the NYT chose to use it, but racially, in parts of America rather than to the rowdies of New York. Experts on the subject have even explicitly stated "thug" is now being used in the same way as it had been by the British in India.
Meanwhile, I wouldn't be so sure about your statement about the Kali worshippers. That may have been the case, but it may not have been. It's not very hard to find experts who say that was not the case, that that was a misinterpretation by the British of the time.
1 Like
I would never want to entirely do away with the houses (both because I'm rather fond of most of them and as you say it would require completely rewriting the order in general) I do think there could be a diversification of the order if you were doing a new edition - take the Ex Miscellanea model and apply it to the whole order.
By which I mean have the order be made up not of just a select number of houses but of a larger number of "traditions". The old houses would be the most senior traditions but you could write it so there was more of an ebb and flow of fortunes with some traditions growing and others stagnating or splitting off from older traditions. In this model, for example, Trianomae and Bonisagi would be two separate traditions with their own internal structures, groups like the Hnutresses in the Woods would be their own tradition not beholden to any original house etc.
Keep the houses as the historical original traditions of the order but allow newer ones to rival or even eclipse them with an overall larger number of traditions but each smaller than a house in 5e.
1 Like
I get the idea of doing away with the Houses, but consider the Houses from another viewpoint: it makes it easier for beginners to try to develop a character. Compare GURPS and D&D. D&D is so much easier for the beginner making a character. You just choose the appropriate class to the type of character the player wants and make a few choices from there. In GURPS you have all sorts of things to consider so there is no clear starting point. While Ars Magica leans more toward GURPS in this regard, at least the Houses give a good starting point. Then you pair those with the suggested minimum values and some recommended things for both the first 5 years and for apprenticeship, and you're well on your way. You could alter them such as in ways @Argentius said, but I wouldn't do away with them entirely, especially when others are arguing about the difficulty of getting new players into the game.
1 Like
I didn't say it was completely unrelated to the origin, I said it was completely unrelated to the racist component of its origin, in response to the claim that it is racist in both modern usage and at "it's roots".
I think it would be useful to have better separation in the setting from the mechanics- so the storyteller can better customize a setting that they want. The idea of a house as a guideline for characters is good, but it needs to be something that can be flexible for a storyteller for multiple settings. The one thing D&D and GURPs both have going for them that Ars Magica lacks is the ability of the GM/DM to make their own world.
There is a much stronger sentiment against such an idea. It leaves me baffled why some people are still bitter about the "divorce" of over 25 years ago. White Wolf is all but dead. Different companies license and print those games. And they no longer claim any trademark over the names Tremere or Order of Hermes.
What is ironic is that, over on the Onyx Path forums (the current publisher of the oWoD games), there is a discussion of a theoretical Mage 5 and who they would like to see as the new publisher (the games are getting divided up it seems). Several commenters have mentioned they would love to see Atlas have a go at it.
Kim A. Wagner wrote "Thuggee: Banditry and the British in Early Nineteenth-Century India" and "Stranglers and Bandits: A Historical Anthology of Thuggee" among other works. About the former and current use of "thug" he said, "It allowed them to criminalize any kind of indigenous activity as being something that was inherently irrational and politically illegitimate, not different from the way it's used today." So, do I go with your statement or Kim A. Wagner's statement to the opposite? I have a tendency to go with the PhD with books on the subject, including at least one short-listed for a history award.
I can see having them less setting-focused for that reason. I've certainly felt that way about a number of games, where I love so many aspects and would like to use them in a different setting. At the same time, I played in a game set in Harnworld using the same Houses, and it wasn't an issue.
The opposition only exists because you misread my statement. my point was that in the origin of the word "thug" the element of racism was anti-Indian racism, which is not an aspect of its current usage in America. Given that the thread has already been shut down once for continuing this argument, given that this thread was shut down once for continuing this topic I suggest we leave it at that and drop it.
Admittedly the houses are one of the lesser elements that are setting dependent, but I would include them on the list. Aside from miscellanea they amount to "the storyteller should assign a free virtue to the house" if made generic. Of course if we are going to make the setting more generic then I would suggest that the question of how virtues and flaws be balanced may well be a setting related issue as well.
It's not so much I feel we need to get rid of them as I feel the argument in favour of retaining them is weaker. In most cases, the choice of 'House' amounts to a measly free minor Virtue since most character concepts can be worked into multiple houses and Covenants, Tribunals, and Cults typically work better as factions for political stories than the Houses themselves - in any case, I myself don't strongly favour either position, but if we are to rename/rewrite the houses it does seem worth considering whether they're worth keeping.
Interesting, I've not been the OP fora in a few months, I may have to go check them out...
I would also keep them, but being societates. A few true lineages would still remain inside each house. Buy bonusagus would contain lots of people from other sources. Same for the rest of them.
But well, I would rewrite the magic system to make it less superhero and more medieval, because hermetic magic is the thing that breaks the great setting, so hey
1 Like
Reread what I wrote again and you will quite clearly see your statement is untrue. I spoke to that very point explicitly.
OK. I'm done now. I wouldn't even have written this reply except to call out the obviously false statement about what I've said/done.
I feel like these points are at odds. As most concepts can be worked into multiple Houses, the free Minor Virtue is not at all what the House amounts to, is it? Looking at my own, many of my characters could fit into several Houses without changing the Virtues at all. So the House choice there must be something different from the Virtue. What I was saying above is that it for beginners it sets guidelines on how to approach things to make creating a character easier. For the more experienced players it can be more subtle, about how you want your character to fit into the game world. And then there are the Mystery Cults, which are notably different from the others, and by much more than a single Minor Virtue since there are many Initiations beyond those. But, again, this is useful for the beginner.
1 Like
I did reread it, and you did not the fact that the line "not different from the way it's used today." does not address specifically the racial component, but rather explicitly is described as applying to the political and social components, especially in that "It allowed them to criminalize any kind of indigenous activity as being something that was inherently irrational and politically illegitimate" refers to an indigenous population being dominated by an invader, where todays racial component specifically is not referring to an indigenous population, nor is it referring to the specific population which it was applied to by the British.
So no, my statement was not "obviously false", and ending with a personal attack and a "mike drop" of claiming to be dropping the subject is not really dropping the subject.