[RPG]: Tome of the Mysteries, reviewed by C.W.Richeson (3/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12896.phtml

Christopher W. Richeson's Summary:

<i>Tome of the Mysteries</i> provides new ways to think about magic, roleplay advice, and a detailed new enchantment system to spice up your <i>Mage: The Awakening</i> game!

Go to the full review for more information.

[Wood]

The author has strange ideas about evil intent

Or maybe I was just British. I write on religious and social issues for my proper job, and it's become apparent to me over the five years I've been doing it that there's a serious Atlantic divide as to what makes something moral. Still, people can discuss this all they like; I'm not going to. The last time I tried, I got a tidal wave of bullshit for my trouble.

[C.W.Richeson]

I just completely reread that section. I think you do a fine job discussing intent there. I wish there was more self defense discussion and that hurting other supernaturals had the same moral concerns that hurting humans does, but I am absolutely mistaken in my review that you do a poor job handling intent - you cover all the major crimes and clearly convey the importance of intent to the reader.

Thanks for posting, I wouldn't have gone back through if you hadn't.

[Wood]

I really appreciate that.

[Fhtagn]

Speaking as a Brit who disagrees about the MtAw morality divide being an Atlantic phenomenon, I've got to chime in. The section on Morality in TotM is well written and reasonably well thought out. It does, however, hammer the objective morality and setting of MtAw to the mast.

For those who buy into the setting as written, I'm sure it'll be useful to clarify things. For those like myself who dislike Morality for their various reasons, it's a large chunk of book which just fuels our arguments. Whether you'll get anything out of it, I believe, will depend on where you stand on the matter.

[C.W.Richeson]

Originally Posted by Fhtagn

Speaking as a Brit who disagrees about the MtAw morality divide being an Atlantic phenomenon, I've got to chime in. The section on Morality in TotM is well written and reasonably well thought out. It does, however, hammer the objective morality and setting of MtAw to the mast.

For those who buy into the setting as written, I'm sure it'll be useful to clarify things. For those like myself who dislike Morality for their various reasons, it's a large chunk of book which just fuels our arguments. Whether you'll get anything out of it, I believe, will depend on where you stand on the matter.

I think this is a fair and reasonable way to put it. The section on Ethics is meant to be a guide to Wisdom and Wisdom loss - if you already dislike Wisdom then this wont change that. If you do like Wisdom and want a better feel for how and why a character suffers a Wisdom degeneration check then Wood's write up works very well.

[Black Flag]

Having just reread the section on ethics and magic, I'd say it's pretty clear that the system as presented is intended to represent what is actually true in practice for most mages, not any kind of objective scale. That being the case, it's in keeping with human psychology that most mages would find the harming of non-human beings less of a problem than the harming of other humans. Compassion is intimately correlated with how much you consider the "other" to be "like you." And while the recognition of sentience in the "other" is certainly part of that equation, it's not enough by itself to engender compassion in most people. Many animals are demonstrably sentient and exhibit feelings analogous to ours, but the vast majority of humans feel little compunction against killing and eating them, wearing their skins, etc. Even among those that do find it wrong, very few consider it to be a crime of precisely the same magnitude as if it were done to a human.

The vast majority of spirits in the WoD possess limited sentience of the sort exhibited by animals. Moreover those that are wandering the physical realm are like beasts escaped from the zoo, not to mention potentially dangerous (and people are much less likely to feel compassion for something they consider to be dangerous).

Ghosts, like spirits, typically possess limited or no sentience, and even those that retain some semblance of a personality are still no more than soulless remnants (at least as far as most mages are concerned). And those are even more potentially dangerous than the non-sentient ones.

Vampires are unclean, possibly soulless remnants, too. And they are ultimately parasites, not to mention potential plague-carriers, etc. Even the most compassionate people have trouble empathizing with fleas, mosquitoes, and other parasites, due to an instinctual disgust for such creatures. Add to that the fact that vampires are extremely dangerous, cunning, and manipulative. And even they aren't always sure whether their seemingly human responses are genuine or just memories that help them to hide among the herd. Individual vampires can be sympathetic, but it requires a greater deal of trust and familiarity on both sides than is common. Rare, therefore, is the mage who would consider "wasting a bloodsucker" equivalent to murder. Of course, Wood provided for exceptions based both on familiarity with a particularly noble vampire and/or vampires' general ability to mimic humanity.

As a generalization, mages are still human and therefore exhibit typically human prejudices and moral failings, regardless of (perhaps even exacerbated by) the degree to which they believe themselves to have evolved beyond such limitations. Most human monster-hunters wouldn't bat an eye at killing non-human supernaturals. In this context, the only thing separating mages from the average mortal is that they think they're wiser, and that's not necessarily a good thing...

[Thranduil]

Originally Posted by Wood

Still, people can discuss this all they like; I'm not going to. The last time I tried, I got a tidal wave of bullshit for my trouble.

Speaking as one of the participants in the thread you mentioned, I feel like i owe you somewhat of an apology then. I had the feeling it was a pretty heated discussion, but still clear of personal attacks and whatnot nonetheless. Sorry if you experienced it otherwise.

On the other hand morality is pretty central in both the WoD and real life. It only stands to reason that people are going to have pretty entrenched opinions on it, and are even shocked by some alternative interpretations.
Of course, it's hard to have a realistic interpretation on raising zombies and killing vampires, so it was to be expected that those points would be the ones of most contention.

Even so, it was a solidly written piece. I still don't agree with the points about zombies and vampires, but hey, that's only a few lines out of it. And I'm the storyteller, which means that I can do whatever I want anyway...

[C.W.Richeson]

Originally Posted by Black Flag

Having just reread the section on ethics and magic, I'd say it's pretty clear that the system as presented is intended to represent what is actually true in practice for most mages, not any kind of objective scale.

I read both the core book and this supplement to have an objective scale, even though Wood suggests moral relativism may apply - the rules just don't support that. If it's completely subjective, then that would be great - lets bring back the alternate Paths of Vampire: The Masquerade and apply them to current World of Darkness games. I can so see individual Paths for each of the Orders, with the Guardians losing Wisdom for letting valuable secrets be exposed while the Adamantine Arrows lose Wisdom for failing to defend a charge.

As it stands there's one way to go about it, and all characters are judged by that scale. I doubt most mages feel sinful for retaliating against an attacker using magic, and many Guardians have few problems with altering the minds of others in order to keep their secrets or maintain the Labyrinth. Yet the system will force Wisdom degeneration checks on those characters, whether they feel sin or remorse or not.

[King of Old School]

Originally Posted by C.W.Richeson

As it stands there's one way to go about it, and all characters are judged by that scale. I doubt most mages feel sinful for retaliating against an attacker using magic, and many Guardians have few problems with altering the minds of others in order to keep their secrets or maintain the Labyrinth. Yet the system will force Wisdom degeneration checks on those characters, whether they feel sin or remorse or not.

Actually, the previous material is pretty explicit regarding the Guardians: they fully understand and acknowledge the wrongness of their actions, and accept the burdens of their sins (i.e. Wisdom degeneration) as their role in magical society. Willingness to do something isn't necessarily the same as believing it moral.

OTOH, I'm totally agreed on the "magical self-defence" bit.

KoOS