For now. I am advocating a change - not that the Tradition gives the character benefits, but ... if the tradition has a more drawbacks than all other traditions do - either in quantity, severity, or frequency of effect - then, it should have a compensating benefit as well. (The converse is also true - if a Tradition has less drawback(s) than all the others, it should ... well, it should have something else unfortunate added to it, so that it's more closely in line with the rest.)

You say Bhuddism should be pacifist, and avoid mental control as well. I say, then, that (assuming that is more of a restriction than other Traditions get) ... it should get some sort of boost in return. Maybe a slight bonus to Composure rolls, for example. Something, to make sure that all else being equal, the Bhuddist mage is neither less nor more powerful than, say, a Chaos Mage. Or a Shaman. Or whatever.

You're not forced to abide under these constraints unless you take geasa or flaws to represent them.
You could be a buddhist who interpret the taboos differently.
Instead of "You shouldn't use manipulation spells" his thinking might be "You shall only use manipulation spells to help guide wicked or lost souls"

When the character is a Full-on "Ordained" Buddhist Monk, I take offense at that. I cannot find any Buddhism Vows that would allow such lattitude. *shrug*

In some cases, yes, there have been Warrior Monks. Not sure how they rationalize the tenets of the warrior with "do no harm to others," but it is an issue. There may be tenets of Buddhism that I am unfamiliar with. The most common forms I tend to use in Gameplay are Vajrayana or Mahayana Buddhism.

Unfortunately, I am unable to locate Monastic Vows for the Warrior Monks that differ from traditional vows of Buddhism. I Will have to look more in depth when I have time. I do understand what you are saying.

I honestly do not think you should be compensated for your Philosophy. If you want to be so, take the attendent philosophy's "Flaws" as NQ's. *shrug*

What if he's not?
What if he quit the order before he took the vows, but kept the practice... or his version of it?
What if he was never part of the faith to begin with, but rather a mainstream practitioner?
What if he simply browsed the net and based his beliefs on the aetherpedia entry?

The thing about magic is that it doesn't work because of tradition, but rather it gives you a certain structure to more easily manipulate mana.
An awakened bum might hold the deep rooted belief that a spoon he keeps on a necklace is grants him wishes. It makes no sense from a logical standpoint, but that structure gives him sufficient ground to manipulate mana in a somewhat predictable manner.

Faith is a very personal thing, the same would be true of traditions.

Problem is when the Player states that he is an ordained monk, of a prominent temple; Then proceeds to play the monk like he is Freddy Krueger.
It is a disconnect, and one that intrudes on game play. *shrug*

If you want to play the combat monkey as a mage, play a Tradition that makes sense to do so. Do not Pick and Choose to get the best combination, and then completely ignore the Tradition's Views. Nothing destroys verisimilitude and immersion faster. *shrug*

All ducks are birds, but not all birds are ducks.
That you're buddhist doesn't mean you're an ordained monk

The "Buddhist Warrior Monk" issue is a major reason why most of the mechanical advantages/disadvantages are not part of the tradition, but instead of part of a mentor spirit, magical group, individual character, etc. Traditions are very broad; the narrow aspects of what earlier editions of Shadowrun called "Hermeticism" and "Shamanism" used to annoy me. There were plenty of historical magical traditions that did not fit well into SR3's Hermeticism or Shamanism. So either you had to develop a new ruleset for them (Voudoun, for example) or you had to do them an injustice by compromising the actual beliefs for something that worked with the existing Hermetic or Shamanic systems.

Buddhism has historically been associated with pacifism. There's a lot of good reason for that. But it also had militaristic movements. It was Buddhists who led the uprising against the Mongols in the 14th century. There have historically been militaristic Buddhist movements (Samurai and Ninja schools of thought have roots in Buddhism).

So if someone wants to make an Awakened Buddhist Ninja, they should be able to. And they can with the existing tradition rules. Any particularly "ninja" characteristics of their magic use can be applied through positive and negative qualities, or a particular mentor spirit, or a crazy spirit pact, or a custom magic group of a secret ninja society.

True... But when proclaiming such ordination, you should be following the tenets. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Indeed... Thanks Demonseed Elite. I may just be having issue with a specific instance. And I apologize if I sounded a bit crazy there. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'll add that all Eastern martial arts trace back to Shaolin, which was a Buddhist temple. Kung Fu traces its roots to Buddhist exercise routines and meditative practices. So, a Buddhist warrior isn't anything out of the question.

There are other ways of modeling the restrictions on traditions. Aspected magic, mentor spirits, and various other edges/flaws can do so quite nicely. The tradition itself doesn't need to carry any mechanical bonuses or penalties, that's up to the character.

Very True... But what about the religion allows this release from the core tenets of Buddhism. I cannot find anything as such, and I am very curious.

I agree with this. I do think it is the Player's/Characters responsibility to model such things, not the Tradition's. *shrug*

This is also going to sound like a bit of Shadowrun heresy, but I also deliberately tried to separate the supernatural/magical trappings of a religion from the moral/ethical beliefs. I know that magic in Shadowrun is shaped by belief and so that seems strange, but again, traditions are meant to be broad, so I leave the moral/ethical beliefs to the character details. For instance, you can have a Christian theurge who is a total pacifist and believes in Jesus' "turn the other cheek." And you can have another Christian theurge who is a serious Old Testament fire-and-brimstone badass. Both have the same supernatural/magical rituals, trappings, and framework (they both follow a Christian tradition), but their moral and ethical beliefs are pretty far apart.

Perhaps what's needed then, is a book that goes into each tradition at greater length - mainly, in the form of some custom-tailored Mentor Spirits?

I mean, for the Christian Theurgy one ... the "big four" Archangels - Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, and Uriel - would be good picks. The Holy Spirit itself, perhaps. Various Saints. The Virgin Mary. Etc.

And, who says "mentor spirit" needs to be a literal, I-can-have-a-conversation-with-it Spirit? What about philosophies within any Tradition ... like, well, the difference between Gardnerian and Goddess Wicca. Or, back to Christian Theurgy, the difference between Lutheranism and Evangelism. I know, I know, it could be tricksy ground to walk on, but ... well, IMO it'd be awesome.

Demonseed:
Pretty much what at least what a few of us are saying.

If the pacifist christian theurge wants to get more mechanical benefit...
There already is a way for him to get a benefit... it's the pacifist negative quality available to all characters.


I've said it before... I'd like to see a little bit more mechanical difference between traditions... but it should be very minor and flavorful... for example.. a shaman gets bonus dice to summon a spirit of the correct type while in it's area just like in earlier editions he could only summon that spirit type on the fly there. The offsetting cost for this is it's harder to summon 'foreign' spirits into this turf.
Example: the shaman might get +1 or +2 dice towards a commonly used summoning skill for summoning a water spirit while in it's old school domain. But he'll take a -1 or -2 for trying to get a fire (or any other spirit) on the fly in that domain.
Example: hermetic might get a +2 to a very uncommonly used skill like arcana.

It's the kind of thing that's minor enough to ignore if people want simple rules... but nice but not making or breaking any tradition if it's ignored and you just run with the very nice and straightforward unified magic rules. It's more of an advanced rule option which adds some flavor with some mechanical backing rather than a mechanical benefit which ends up dominating the choice of tradition.

See, that's where the "advanced tradition" rules can come in. Pick a theme ("Christian") which is packed with "generally this is true" bonuses/drawbacks ABCD. But if that doesn't fit your view, trade B and D for E and F.

Would the advanced tradition rules still allow players to come up with brand new traditions? Or would they be limited to the in-book traditions, with options to customize them?

Of course they'd be able to make new ones. "Options ABCD" are just various thingies that are the mechanical tenents of the tradition.

The idea is to be like advanced lifestyles, with various examples. The whole "swap BD for EF" thing comes from the fact that new traditions are possible, it's just more of a "well that's not how *I* see Christians..."

E.g. "summons spirits"* or "pacifist" or "meditates" or whatever (just as examples).

*I'm pulling this from the old shaman vs. hermetic divide. Most/all traditions would probably have it.

I see. How about something where the player gets to choose PQs/NQs as part of the tradition, using qualities as the ABCDs. "Choose PQs and NQs for this tradition from the following list such that the resultant cost of the qualities is 0. The total cost of PQs (or NQs) cannot exceed 20 (or whatever). These chosen qualities are part of the tradition and don't count against the character limit". For example, taking Pacifist (-10) and Spirit Affinity (+10). Or Geas-prayer every morning (-5), allergy-silver(-5), Heightened Concentration (+10)

That could work.
There'd probably end up being other things that aren't qualities (currently) that would be available too.

But yes. We're on the same page.

(Also, not sure an allergy to silver would qualify. Traditions are more...ways of doing things, thought patterns, and behaviors. An allergy is just kind of something you're either born with...or not)

Cool.

With the allergy thing, I was thinking about how beliefs in SR are one of the things that drive magic. Judaism has a prescription against pork, so maybe a magical tradition based on Judaism causes this to produce actual physical effects like an allergy...and so on.

*edit* besides, you can develop or lose allergies in real life. I was allergic to eggs as a child, not anymore, but to equalize things, I think I'm developing seasonal allergies (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

When I build a character, I do so with a concept in mind. But rarely do I have the willpower to turn down a serious mechanical advantage because it's good role-playing. Most of the people I game with are the same way. If I say I have a pacifist character, but it's not written down mechanically, I will gradually 'forget' and end up knocking people down so my team member can kill them, possibly killing them myself in the process. If the pacifist flaw doesn't give me beaucoup benefits to make up for my taking it, I won't take it, because it's hobbling my character for no good reason. In either case, the result is my pacifist buddhist unicorn monk setting dudes on fire with the rest of the group, because it's the fastest way to clear the hallway of guards. And of course as a player I regret it the next day, but what am I supposed to do then?

I'm glad that you all have the sort of self-control that you can just mention "oh, by the by, my character's tradition prohibits him from taking lives", and you can just play the rest of the campaign and do that without issue. I can't, and most people I know can't (or won't even try).

I also just can't dig this 'whatever you can do, I can do too ... just at a -2 penalty, because I'm a raccoon shaman and you're a Harvard hermetic, and -2 represents how totally wild and divergent our world views are'. It just sets my eyes rolling.

What it comes down to is I, as a GM and as a player, want a 'define by default, exceptions are exceptions' setting. You define 'a shaman of X does this, and here are his strictures'. If my character sees that buddhists are pacifists (because all modern buddhists are pacifists) or that hindus don't eat meat and he wants to change that for his character concept, he comes to me and tells me, and we work through that if it makes sense. The rules *need* to give structure, and by definition, that means restricting options.

What I'm reading is 'permit all, leave it to the GM to do his own research on religions and piece together what is reasonable'. I'm not buying that book. If I'm going to have to research on my own, and deny goofy items as the exception, *why am I buying your book?* The rules do not provide the structure necessary for a coherent world. *I* need to create that structure; the structure I thought I'd get in the book. It's passing your work off on me.

Ultimately, if the rules you wrote permit me to make a character that mechanically contradicts itself or the world, your rules need further refinement.

No problem with that, it's hard to live up to ideals, why should it be easy for a character?

Where on earth do you get pacifism as a core tenet of Buddhism? There's many different sects of Buddhists, and they're not all pacifists by a long shot. Buddha himself was a warrior before he Awakened, and the Ahimsa are guidelines, not rules. There's a suggestion to avoid unnecessary killing of sentient beings, but no requirement to avoid necessary death at all costs.