[Torg] Dominick's view on Traditions

[Dominick Riesland]

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 9:05 PM, Jasyn Jones <jasynj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Dominick Riesland wrote:
>
>> Magical Traditions, as far as I understand the concept, refers to the
>> trappings of magic as espoused by a group of magicians.
>
> Depends on what you mean by "trappings." Magic isn't an indivisible whole any more than religion is. Buddhists are not Christians are not Animists. Traditions differ from one another just as much (or as little) as one culture differs from another or one religion differs from another.

Those are distinctions made in the Spiritual Axiom, which derives its
power from beings who provide it. Even those religions that derive
their power from "nature" personify and assign moral judgments to the
use of that power as if it had a controller, so that the idea of
"offending nature" is consistent with a personal relationship.

Magic, on the other hand, uses impersonal forces. The arcane knowledge
of fire doesn't care what you use it for, as long as what you are
doing involves fire. Unlike a deity, AK: fire will never say to you,
"I could create that fireball for you, but I won't."

> Traditions differ from one another as much (or as little) as D&D magic differs from Mage: The Ascension Magic, or Shadowrun magic, or Deadlands magic, or Ars Magica magic.
>
> Those differences aren't small or inconsequential.

I would agree that the mechanics, feel, methodology, and probably even
the Axiom Levels of these are different, yet they are all considered
to be products of the same Axiom, using the same raw materials of
magic, although possibly by means of different skills.

> I understand your assertion. I understand your view. If I could analogize:
>
> "Different traditions are like different sports teams who play the same sport. Sure, the Raiders have different uniforms than the Browns, have different cheerleaders, and even a different playbook, but it's all football and they're all playing the same game by the same rules. Being able to change teams isn't a matter of Axiom advances. You can do it at any time."
>
> This view (and I believe I have restated it correctly) is incorrect, as it pertains to the definition of Tradition that I am using.

That's not what I'm saying. To refine the analogy, different
traditions are like different team sports using balls. Soccer,
American football, the Canadian Football League, rugby, etc. are
primarily interested in the ball, a field, and goal structures.
Baseball and cricket involve hitting a thrown ball with a large club
followed by running to predefined safe zones before the ball can be
recovered from where it was hit and returned to remove the offensive
team member. It is impossible to play cricket with an American
football, nor can one play soccer with baseball bat. But a player of
one sport is not barred from another.

>> In Jasyn's view of the Magic Axiom, these are the impetus by which
>> magic develops.
>
> No. Traditions are an intrinsic and unavoidable consequence of the Fundamental Principle of Magic (symbolic manipulation). They are there because, if I build an axiom off that, they have to be there.
>
> It's a function of what symbols are and where symbols originate and how they function psychologically and socially. Traditions are an inevitable consequence of symbols.
>
> More, they are present in the extant game.
>
>> However, all of these, in theory, can be combined into a single form.
>
> In theory (and practice), all of the fundamental forces of quantum mechanics can be combined into one force (electricity, magnetism, etc.). That doesn't mean that the differences between gravity, magnetism, and the strong nuclear force are meaningless or inconsequential. More, understanding those differences and overcoming them is certainly a function of the Tech axiom.

However, a person who deals with magnetism can (and should) also be
conversant with gravity.

>> That combination leads me to the conclusion that Traditions are merely
>> a self-imposed concept
>
> No more (or less) than culture is. Keep this in mind, for a little bit later.
>
> More, in the game, there are clear differences between the Occult, Engineering, and Ayslish magic. Those differences cannot be easily bridged. Ayslish magicians can't cast engineering spells. That is a real constraint.

Just as you can't play golf with a basketball.

> And isn't lifting that constraint perfectly axiomatic?
>
> Axiom A: Cannot cast engineering spells.
> Axiom B: Can.
>
> More, even if they were just self-imposed constraints, why would that mean they have nothing to do with axioms?
>
> Axiom A: Self imposed constraints matter.
> Axiom B: We've learned enough to overcome self-imposed constraints.
>
> How isn't that a valid progression for an axiom chart, especially one built around the primacy of symbols?

If soccer nets aren't available until Sports Axiom 5, then soccer
requires at least Sports 5 to develop. But to say that a person in a
Sports 5 cosm can't learn soccer because his culture learned hockey
instead is ludicrous.

> Back to culture:
>
> Traditions are an expression of culture (as folklore hints at).  Cultural taboos and mores are not "self-imposed".
>
> One can posit (correctly, given all evidence) that a person raised by the Huns would have different values and behavioral norms than the same person would if raised by the Quakers. They are the same person, but their social environment shaped them differently.

I understand your point, but the philosophical question of whether
those two are the "same person" is not likely to ever be answered.
Identical twins separated at birth have differences and similarities
in personality and behavior.

> Culture imposed differences on them, the differences are real and strong and not easily or lightly changed.
>
> Traditions arise from culture, and cultural differences matter.

Perhaps "self-imposed" is a bit strong for the concept I mean.
Refusing to learn a sport due to cultural sensitivities is a
constraint. Whether that is self-imposed is a matter of debate. But
apart from that, learning another sport is a matter of equipment,
training, and access, and just as the Tech Axiom only determines what
tools can be created, the Magic Axiom only determines what types of
magical connections can be made. Once made, anyone with the equipment,
training, and access can produce them, although some may refuse to
obtain the necessary tools due to cultural restraints.


> In extant Torg, Ayslish magicians cannot use Engineering spells or cast Occult rituals without learning new skills, that is, learning how the other Tradition works. Core Earth theme magics cannot cast spells inconsistent with their theme, even if their axiom otherwise allows for the spell effect.

But once they have the skills, they can use these tools. And while it
is true that Core Earth bards cannot cast voodoo spells as bardic
magic, neither can they play bagpipe music using a tuba.

> Those are game-mechanical constraints, metaphysical truths, they are as real for characters as any other game mechanic, and not self-imposed.
>
> So, either those constraints hold at all Axiom levels, or they don't hold at all, or they hold until more advanced Magical techniques and capability—a higher Axiom—allows those constraints to be overcome.

The list is not exhaustive, and in this case, none of the choices
apply fully. A skill such as engineering may require a certain Axiom
Level to be discovered. But I am viewing a Tradition as a body of
rules, tools, equipment, and approach that exists within an Axiom
Level because all of its components are allowable within it (or are
otherwise introduced, such as by World Law or alternate Axiom) and
that someone from another Tradition in the same Axiom Level could
learn them with access to the same rules, tools, equipment, and
approach.

Dominick Riesland, aka Rabbitball
Creator of the Cosmversal Grimoire
"There are always possibilities, my sergeant told me. But he never had
his possibilities torn away like wings from a fly."