Mystery cults can't be too tyrannical

I think wanderers point is more that you can recover/research other scripts from other mystery cults, even extinct ones and reverse engineer them to be usable by you, rather than say you are in this cult you may only use this cults standard script.

It is still up to the storyteller of each saga to approve any script you propose to invent or to decide his own ones for you to find in ancient ruins. If he thinks it is a weak combination of choices then he just says no. And if any script that he approves of as valid in potential but not right for the cult (ie. drinking demon blood for nondectibility to give you the gentle gift would not work for house merinita cult) that you are part of then you don't get any help and they might kick you out of the cult.

That should involve recovering the lost cult's Lore, too, without which the script is just gibberish. Travelling to the pyramids, to steal Erik's example, won't do you much good if you don't understand why you are travelling to there in the first place.

Going back to Wanderer's proposed experimentation bonuses, maybe what's needed is to use the library research bonuses from Covenants.

Wanderer - I find that judgemental far beyond what is called for :exclamation:

What makes you so stubbornly certain as to deem any interpretation or preference different from your own to neccesarily be stories of self-contentness and less free and creative? Who gave you privilege to those virtues? I defy that my saga is in any sense less free or creative even if the characters (and NOT the players) doesn't get the full benefit of the mysteries toolbox!

On a similar notion: Have you ever considered that postmodern relativism, as any other notion, is an absolute if driven to extremes? No different from other absolutes...

:arrow_right:
On a completely, and less provoked, notion the case of Sodom and Gomorrah is a rather interesting one. It's a great example of old testament ideas and inherent contradictions. Besides from the almighty God having to send a runner (angel) to check up on things, it is most interesting that exactly Abraham and Lot are singled out as rightful or just men. Abraham speaks agaist the Lord and strikes a deal with him - in this Abraham allows himself to see him as an equal to God, a measure of Pride being the foremost of the cardinal sins. The Lord has decided to "clean out" the two cities yet the one he lets live (after all the entanglements to find at least a single righteous) is Lot - Lot who offers his own daughters "who had not known men" as a substitute to the men of Sodoma as they demands to see his visitors (the angels) and have their way with them and to satisfy their cravings. Later as Lot loses his wife, as she turns to behold the destruction, his daughters to ensure the survival of their line lay with their father and thusly begets the lines of Moab and the Ammonites. The two cities are indeed cleaned house, but it reveals the Lord as deeming the righteous from the sinful in terms not completely decided by acts alone. This might not be related to the discussion at hand, but I find it quite interesting...

Exactly. Or, more in detail, you could use them as inspiration (using something like the research bonuses to script experimentation I've proposed) to adapt them to your own cult.

And please be mindful of a caveat I thought I'd mentioned in my position: as far as I advocate player's and character's creative freedom in scripts, they should still make decent sense (mythically and sympathetically; as for historically... who gives a £$%& it isn't like historical magic really worked) for the Cult and the Virtue(s). To mention Erik's example, travel to the Pyramids makes excellent sympathetic sense for getting a theurgy virtue, Egypt being the birthplace of Name magic and the seat of one important pagan panthoen. Intellego Ignem, err... it doesn't make much mythic sense, since I can't see a realationship with theurgy, names, and spirits. So I don't think I would use it as a player or accept it as a SG. Intellego Vim might work better (denying yourself other uses of the Form to gain insight in names).

Exactly. To this my interpretation is that the average cult should kick you out if you use a script that is really incompatible with the goals and beliefs of the cult, not just because you refuse to use the cult's default script and try a variant that might still be OK with their beliefs.

Well, maybe I misexpressed my point. I was making a half-jest about the themes that one likes to explore or express in stories. It seemed to me that Timothy made a point as in that he would prefer his histories to highlight the concept that one should be humble before the powers and rules of the universe, and make one's peace with them, instead of trying to twist them to suit your desires. I just replied that he has my sincere blessing to do so, but I generally prefer to hghlight other kinds of themes and values, instead of that. It wasn't about whether one group's stories are more creative than others, but what kinds of themes one prefers. I didn't want to be judgemental about about anyone's stories. I just dislike this theme that Tim advocates, so I remaked that it may vibe with him (good for him) but not for me.

Sorry if I made anyone feel offended. :blush:

In the end, values are just like mathematics. Somewhere, one gets to have and make choices about one's postulates.

Interesting indeed, if not for the fact that exploring the ramifactions would be completely off-topic, except it remarks that things are not so fixed in stone even for the Divine.

Well, no offense taken - only a bit provoked - I guess that's in the nature of forums like this, and I might have missed a beat or a pun.

I still don't see the question of the characters freeform use of the toolbox as such a big issue in terms of theme and values as you seemed to express, and I don't see in it any theme of self-contentness at all. Creativity is an important value of the troupe as players not characters - some even feel more creativity when being confronted with less then evident solutions, as when a cult has less than prefered Ordeals. And humbleness isn't that bad a value if it comes down to that, but that's another story, and frankly I didn't spot any notion of humbleness in Timothy's post - only a statement of fact. A fact which in this regard I find to enhance the mysteries core reason for being interesting: the mysterious. Moreso what was being discussed wasn't, in my optics anyhow, excluding/including themes and notions of morality stories - but quite simply what emphasise of the mysteries was prefered. To me a long shot from the larger picture.

In pratical terms btw I do like the many adaptions like finding old tablets, travelling to the ancient corners of the world specifics-inspired initiations - but there I also note that this still isn't something that leads to "open-negotiation-night" between mystagogoue and probationer. The longer the "dance" prior to the invitation the better suited it will be. And it's here that the interplayer creativity, joy and great story potential is at the best - in relation to whether a given character might feel at home and belonging withing a given cult.

...a point you utterly read in to my statements. I dfon't suggest you should be humble before gravity or the ignition mechanism of your car either. I just suggest you can't tell them how you'd prefer them to work this morning.

...except of course that you just made the theme up, so that you could conveniently put the straw man down. My point is that this business you have about YOUR creativity and YOUR humility and YOUR path is basically modern individualism, and rather New Age. It's fine to have that in your saga, but suggesting that all mages in Medieval Europe should have ideals from the 1960s is a bit of a lark, really.

It's not even humanism, because your character is perfectly willing to sell out to any God, say Hermes, who is cozy enough for you.

Yes, sure...accepted or whatever.

Rant time!

:open_mouth:

Yes, sure...but it's really very irritiating to continually have people bang on about their preconceptions of work they haven't read, when they read into it the opinions of the author. I've received oh, about a half dozen posts of the form "Timothy thinks this..." because of the way I wrote Criamon or some other thing, and frankly I'm sick of people attempting this sort of wacky pop psychology based on what I've written. People who have read my work, who attempt lame impersonations of Jacques Derrida, do the board, and the game's community no favours. For me, and I presume for other authors, it is very tiring.

Just to get this off my chest, at Wanderer's expense, for which I apologise, each author needs to balance the following things, and I may have misseed some:

  • The game setting.
  • The need for fun: that is, the possibility of telling great stories.
  • The need for fun stories for magui and companions.
  • The need for novelty: that is, the non-repetition of stories the audience has bought before.
  • The need for unusual material the author has seen elsewhere that they can reinterpret into the game context, to provide novelty. So, for me, that's "Libraries" in Covenants, for example.
  • The needs of other authors working concurrently: this is particularly vexing in terms of the idea that writers write whatever they like, and as such the writing reflects them, or their opions, or their games. Other people are treading the same path as you and often its best to just hand over big chunks of what you were considering writing, or have already written, to them, and let them just go for it.
  • The spare bits of writing that need doing to finish a book. Some of my writing, indeed some of all of our writing, has been done because a new bit was needed here, or someone wanted some help with something over there.
  • The needs of the editor to partition off some fields of wiritng for planned future releases.
  • Playtester feedback, which is studied line by line and is voluminous.
  • Some authors then add a narrative element over the top that they enjoy. In both the Tremere and Criamon cases I felt that for reasons of playability it was better that I not do that.

And at the end of all of this, I still get people saying "Oh, the Criamons are vegetarians because you are a vegetarian." or "In your game its about humility." and that's just not true. It's almost -never- true, in my case. My game right now is about pirates in (horror!) D&D3. My game is about as far as you can get from "The Mysteries" because Errol Flynn and Ray Harryhausen weren't big on introspection, OK?

I like writing because there's a game-like aspect to negotiating these obstaces, which I enjoy. It's like playing a very complicated, utterly absorbing, completely exhausting strategy game. If you have ever played "Master of Orion" or "Civ" every night for a week, on one huge great campaign, then that's what writing a chapter of an Ars book feels like to me, except it lasts for week, but the finished books aren't anything like what I write when I write strictly for aesthetic pleasure, and it's very, very wearying for people to tell me what my opinion is, or how things must be run in my game (because of course may game must be indentical to what I write).

There is only -one- time I can think of that I sat down to write a chapter and got everything I wanted in it, regardless of all of the factors above. It's the one piece where it would be fair to say "OK...this is what Timothy's game's like, and this is what interests him."

You haven't seen it yet. You may not see it for years. You'll know it if you see it.

Rant over. :smiley:

Please do try to balance the annoyance of being misunderstood with the gratitude of all us players who are happy to devour the fruit of your labours.
Thanks for putting the effort in. :smiley:

I share this opinion and the respect for your creative efforts. Only, if I may add a tiny counter-rant of my own, I wish to remark that I find labeling attempts about putting a healthy dose of individualism in magic as "New Age" as annoying and tiresome as you find jests about Criamon and vegetarianism.

Abot the underlying rules of the universe... Isn't the whole point of using magic to bend, twist and circumvent them?

Thanks for that.

I can see it looks like I ranted for two pages there, but really I tried to edit it down, and the darn board just posted the whole lot again, and when I tried to delete it I just got a blank message posted. 8)

I really should have ranted on the Berklist instead. These formus are so polite in comparison that it probably was unfair to rant here.

I mean the underlying structure of the universe as represented by magic theory. If you think magic is an ill-understood science, and the mysteries are frontier territory in that science, then no, the point is to work out what the underlying principles are. It allows you to ignore superficial things, but not essential things. I don't think that the function of most reasearcher magi is to bend the fundamental laws of magic...just to find ways of using them, much as we use traction and rotation and evaporation and oxidation.

I didn't mean purely natural forces - I mean the sort of fundamanetal insights that can grant power over natural forces.

However, it is highly, exceedingly questionable that the fundamental laws of magic, so to speak, would play a signficant role in mandating a specific type of Initiation. Here, the fundamental laws at play seems to be a kind of conservation of magical energy (Power Requires Sacrifice), and the Law of Sympathy, which allows ample latitude and discretionality in varying the details of things like Quests, Sacrifices and Ordeals.

So it's more to do with the underlying principles of Bonisagus' Magic Theory? Understandable... :slight_smile:

while I & others respect your position as an optional alternative to core ArM, it remains true that the historical core (which ArM sets out to respect) of the Middle Ages does not have a "healthy dose of individualism". It has a (to modern eyes) an unhealthy streak of authority, inherited station, discrimination & prejudice, and is often ruled by supertition and dogma even in the face of visible evidence (at least as seen in modern eyes). Such was ME...
As such, the historical/authenticity side of the line books' writing will tend to go against your player-nature... It is a game which has a degree of authenticity as its goal, an its "Unique Selling Point" against other games.

Note though, that the line does seem, under David Chart, to remember to include your sort of variant as a "common variant" which gets sidebar mentions - so you aren't completely left out.

So, when you jest about Timothy and Vegetarianism, you are actually being personal against Timothy as a RL person (and he has grounds to be riled) [he is not being unathentically ME - there were plenty of ME ascetics who rejected eating meat];
but when others label "a healthy dose of individualism" as New Age, they may not be quite 100% coorect - but if they were to re-phrase it as "not authentically mediaeval" they would be correct.

There are times when your posts seem to drift from acknowledging that the line aims for mediaevalism and you don't, so the two differ - to times when you take it persoanlly and write as though the line is getting at you because it pursues a more authentic mediaeval setting which don't respect your own views.

Point taken. However, what it does specifically annoy about the "New Age" remarks is that it seems to me (of course, it might be wholly biased and oversensible an impression) that the label has (unfortunately) grown to often bear a condescending overtone, as individualistic ethic/spirituality/philosophy were the lazy man's shortcut, less "authentic" than authoritative/dogmatic ones. Label it as "unmedieval" all the way, I don't mind it in a personal sense.

That's because there are two feelings that sometimes overlap: the player dislike for setting and rule bits that conflict with my player preferences, and the disgust for those that would bring me to RP stuff in a positive light which I personally regard as absolutely evil and a plague on mankind, on par of : e.g. many facets of Middle Age religious beliefs. When I rail against authoritarian cults, it's mostly the former case, with just a whiff of the second. When we talk of the setting showing the beliefs of the Middle Ages Church as correct, it's the latter all the way.

It isn't like the Order of Hermes is all that historically accurate, and personally I deem excessive attention to historical authenticity an obstacle to play fun more than anything: as long as the mendane society has a decent degee of accuracy (within limits: who cares if that type of castle or armor or weapon is one century anacronistic: if it enhances the story, let's throw it in!), it is more than enough IMO. Especially, excessive striving for historical accuracy in the magical/fantastical stuff is a burden and hamper more than anything: It is not like authentic middle age magic worked, so who gives a £$%& if the details of the ritual are accurate or not. Magic should insted strive for internal coherency, which is a different thing (and admittedly, 5th ed. is quite on the mark, here).

oh and BTW, about hierarchy/authority in OOH, today I found a quote in Covenants (p. 30) which I find most poignant

"Perhaps the most natural form of covenant governance to members of the Order of Hermes is Democracy, a microcosm of the Order itself. [...] Another natural form of governance is that perpetrated most commonly amongst the mundane inhabitants of Mythic Europe - Authocracy. "

It nicely illustrates my position that a predominance of unbridled authority and hierarchy is something that is much more natural and widespread among mundanes than within the Order, both socially and in terms of magical/mystical practice. Amongst magi, strong elements of individualism, egualitarianism, and democracy have their place as well. And that's about characters and the default setting, not about player preferences. I may sometimes thread away from the default setting, in my enthusiasm for RP individualistic characters. But I get the impression that you may sometimes err on the opposite direction, with your enthusiasm for making the setting authoritarian all the way, including mages and the Order of Hermes.

If this discussion keeps going on could we open a seperate rant forum? Designed for those posters who wish to flame and argue aggresively where it is allowed to be nasty, so that we can keep the other topics relatively clear.

Kind of like Abe's topics, just challenge each other to go off to the rant topic. :smiley:

"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan in accents most forlorn,
Outside the church, ere Mass began one frosty Sunday morn.
The congregation stood about coat-collars to the ears,
And talked of stock, and crops, and drought as it had done for years.
"It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke; "Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke has seasons been so bad."

"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil, with which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel and chewed a piece of bark.
And so around the chorus ran, "It's keepin' dry, no doubt."
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."
"The crops are done; ye'll have your work to save one bag of grain;
From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke they're singin' out for rain.

"They're singin' out for rain," he said, "And all the tanks are dry."
The congregation scratched its head, and gazed around the sky.
"There won't be grass, in any case, enough to feed an ass;
There's not a blade on Casey's place as I came down to Mass."
"If rain don't come this month," said Dan, and cleared his throat to speak -
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If rain don't come this week."

A heavy silence seemed to steal on all at this remark;
And each man squatted on his heel, and chewed a piece of bark.
"We want an inch of rain, we do, "O'Neil observed at last;
But Croke "maintained" we wanted two, to put the danger past.
"If we don't get three inches, man, or four to break this drought,
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."

In God's good time down came the rain; and all the afternoon
On iron roof and window-pane it drummed a homely tune.
And through the night it pattered still, and lightsome, gladsome elves
On dripping spout and window-sill kept talking to themselves.
It pelted, pelted all day long, a-singing at its work,
Till every heart took up the song way out to Back-o'-Bourke.

And every creek a banker ran, and dams filled overtop;
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "If this rain doesn't stop."
And stop it did, in God's good time; and spring came in to fold
A mantle o'er the hills sublime of green and pink and gold.
And days went by on dancing feet, with harvest-hopes immense,
And laughing eyes beheld the wheat nid-nodding o'er the fence.

And, oh, the smiles on every face, as happy lad and lass
Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place went riding down to Mass.
While round the church in clothes genteel discoursed the men of mark,
And each man squatted on his heel, and chewed his piece of bark.
"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man, there will, without a doubt;
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan, "Before the year is out."