Wait...there's a difference? 
1 Like
There can be.
The first is being deliberately confrontational and disagreeable. The second is just being smarmy with no emotional attachment. Admitting I am being pedantic is admitting my point is trivial and simply added for the amusement of contemplation.
Tremere turned up at the early tribunals with a Dacian necromancer army...some of those guys are actually still around in 1220.
You could argue if he was a necromancer, they are doing his stuff. You may argue that this gives the impression he did a lot more necromancery stuff than he actually did. Sauron wasn't an orc.
It's OK for books to contain multitudes.
personally I don't see him as religious, because his brother was doing all that "deal with titans for power" stuff, and he didn't, even when someone doing that Titan stuff destroyed his life, at the Sundering, his response wasn't to go looking for a titan of his own. Instead, IMO, he places his faith in the magus hunters, who are normal, unGifted humans.
So, I see him not as an atheist: I see him as an antitheist. He believes in Gods. He just doesn't -like them- and when he dies he gets carried into Twilight on the shoulders of his army. Sure, they say it's to make sure he's really dead...bu they would say that, wouldn't they?
In fainress it also says that some of them are Christians, but, yes, the intention is that the Tremere don't think gods are worth their time.
Necromancers never die. They just fade away (and become a demilich).
Guys, this is the 13th century we are talking about- don't forget the indulgences! I'm sure any covenant paying the proper indulgences will have no problems with the local clergy, and it gets rid of that pesky "is magic sinfull" question with a "probably, but I paid at the office"
1 Like
You have fundamentally misunderstood how indulgences actually work. That is, you are mistaking the abuse of the indulgence system for the common use.
Also, the "sinfulness of magic" question isn't pesky since we have a post-Aquinas church in Mythic Europe, for reasons I'm not clear on, and he breaks it down in Summa Theologica.
1 Like
That's not quite how indulgences work (in theory). However, as long as the covenant pays tithes and the magi don't create a nuisance of themselves, then it's quite plausible for the local clergy to not worry too much (if the troupe doesn't want them to).
Although the effect of the Gift means that if the magi do draw attention to themselves, then any apparent heresies will be seen in the worst possible light --- so they're probably better off being quiet rather than cynically attempting to collect indulgences.
in the 13th century, at least by reputation, abuse was the common use.
This was the era when large numbers of people backed Fredrick II in his war against the pope on moral grounds, believing the church had grown too corrupt and involved in worldly affairs.
1 Like
It's really not that simple: you are, perhaps, overstating for dramatic effect?
overgeneralizing more than overstating- few things are ever simple in any way shape or form. Indulgences only began in the 11th century but by 1215 the fourth Lateran was already having to suppress abuses, but the abuses continued to spread until it led to the 95 Theses in 1517. Fredrick II however was also a significant part of this, as he had acquired a legend similar to that of King Arthur, excepting that in the legends of the German people he would return to save the church from its own corruption.
So whether it was a majority of use or not, abuse of indulgences was factually common in the 13th century.
You're probably thinking of Order of Hermes 2e pg. 28-31, particularly the "Legend of the Old Ones" inset, which describes magic as originating with a being named Tarhutis who "came to be known to the Egyptians as Tahuti, or Thoth, as he is also named. On this god are based the myths of Hermes and Mercury." (pg. 31).
This is taken from, or at least consistent with, actual Hermetic writings. I would say that the early edition designers intended for "Hermetic" to have such connotations. Mysteries 4e goes into a lot more detail, some years later.
While I would be cautions with the "magic is always a religion" argument, the idea that Hermetic Magic would be considered strictly a practical art without religious meaning feels anachronistic. Even strictly mundane arts - stonemasonry being the most famous example - were treated as imbued with mystical secrets and it's hard to believe something as transcendent as magic would be any less so.
That's rather a good supporting point. The guilds of Europe were far from lacking in mystical connotation, particularly in light of a universe where magic is a clear and verifiable fact.
Also I should probably clarify (regarding the transubstantitation point) that I'm not trying to imply that in Ars Magica that Christians et all are totally wrong - just that it is also a matter of verifiable fact in setting that they are partially wrong.
The entire purpose of the real life Hermetic religion was to understand and overcome these inherent contradictions - and that was in a world where magic is a delusion. In a world where I can use investigative magic to verify the divinity of the transubstantiation or the works of a Sufi saint, the imperative becomes clear.
Tremere are an interesting case. I would very much like to know how they regard the Divine in more detail.
Arch-Mage Infamitus' Legend shows, that the authors of ArM2 knew of Hermeticism. It then made sense that there was a magus hectoring it, and it still makes sense in ArM5: AFAICS Seekers and Brothers of Samos are its most likely adherents.
It is a very far jump out of Mythic Europe, to go from there to a universal religion of magic taught to every Hermetic apprentice. It would be like claiming, that since many Church Fathers based their theology in part on neoplatonism, every medieval Christian were a neoplatonist.
Cheers
There's a difference between "every" and "many."
And part of my implication was that it is inherent to the magic theory itself, as the magic contains within it pagan idolatry that must be stripped out and replaced for Holy Magic from RoP: Divine.
And between "many" and "some" as well.
Pagan terminology in magic theory does not imply pagan religion of the magic user. Read for an easy example the invocation of Venus in the introduction of Lucretius' De rerum natura (pick your translation from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_rerum_natura , if needed).
Just like the neoplatonist concepts used by many Church Fathers do not imply, that they weren't Christians.
Cheers
That is in itself a form of magic, you know. It's called an invocation, a very common form of everyday magic. If you're trying to cite that as a lack of religious magical practice, you may want to reconsider. Part and parcel of the magical heritage of the West.
Also, there's a rather broad difference between "Paganism" and "Hermeticism", I'm not sure why you're suddenly conflating the two. Hermeticism contains elements of Paganism, certainly, so perhaps that's the source of confusion.
Ars Magica has Invocation Magic. It's a Mystery, however, and not part of standard Hermetic practice.
Indeed it is and I wouldn't suggest such a thing.
I would, however, expect something mystical to be embedded within the classic texts of magic theory, rather than having them be completely value neutral cookbooks. Hermeticism provides a rich background and, given the name of the Order, is an obvious source for this.
Whatever Hermeticism was at the time when the Corpus was actually composed, it certainly wasn't a pagan religion when it again became popular in the Renaissance. Europeans in that era found it to be completely compatible with Christianity, in part due to a misconception over the age of the Corpus, which was though to anticipate the coming of Christ when in fact it dated considerably later. Medieval Muslims found it compatible with Islam and identified Hermes with the prophet Idris, himself identified with Biblical Enoch.
I would expect a broad spectrum of religious beliefs among Magi. Most would share the Christianity of their neighbors but I would expect it to take a particularly unorthodox form. I would imagine Magi feel themselves to possess mystical instincts far beyond the understanding of the local parish priest, or even the theologians of Paris. One mistake that AM5 makes, IMO, is canonizing standard forms of religion as "truth".
Couldn't hermetic magic be considered equivalent to modern martial arts, where some of them are a way of life? Those also include elements of oriental religions.