Christian Totems - Dumpshock Forums

Christian Totems, Could angels be used as such?

Options

Synner

Nov 25 2004, 09:56 AM

Post #51

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185

I don't believe I'm doing this again, but since toturi has (again) chosen not to include the intro leading into those quotes that gives them context, so here goes another quote from that thread:

QUOTE

The Order's view of hermetic magic is slightly different than the norm. It is effectively its own school of magic*, incorporating Christian traditions from a variety of sources, some dating back to the first century. [...] Though the Templars are aware the magic they perform is not miraculous, it is a God-given ability, and so the casting of spells always begins with an admission of "Per Christum Dominum nostrum", roughly translated as "through Christ our Lord".

* Referred to in canon as Theurgy (Grimoires, Germany, MitS and now SOTA64).

The IC reference to this being a Hermetic "school of magic" clearly indicates the Templars are aware it is a form of hermetic magic, and further along it even makes a comparison with "standard hermetics". This is again referred in passing in the Game Info (p.109) actually specifying "Magical characters of all hermetic types fit fairly easily into one of the Patronages [...]".

In SR, the Catholic Church has strict guidelines regarding magic:

a) Magic is not divine manifestation (no more so than any other science or force of nature).
b) Magic is not miracle (miracles are manifestations of God's power, magic can be harnessed by any man).
c) Conjuration is strictly regulated (because the nature of spirits is a serious complication to Catholic cosmology) and requires special Papal dispensation for members of the clergy to practice (Templar Knights are assumed to recieve this).
d) Theurgy is the recognized/accepted magical tradition for members of the clergy (Hermeticism purged of Pagan references and symbols).
e) Like Hermeticism, Theurgy is both a neutral science and an artform, use of specific prayers, Catholic regalia and accruements is an option of individual mages not a mandatory requirement (ie. you don't have to be pious to use Theurgy).

Note - This is the Roman Catholic take on things, Orthodox Christians and Reformist Protestants have similar but slightly different takes on Theurgy (the former particularly features a lot of shamanic aspects). When it comes to Evangelicals all bets are off, but my instinct would be to go Shamanic over Hermetic/Theugist.

toturi View Member Profile	Nov 25 2004, 10:11 AM Post #52
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187	Actually there is no intro to those quotes. The quotes deal with Conjuring, not Sorcery and start right at the top of the paragraph. Perhaps you could have been clearer when writing that section.

Fortune View Member Profile	Nov 25 2004, 10:20 AM Post #53
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486	I do note the presence of the qualifier 'believed' in those quotes though.

Synner

Nov 25 2004, 10:40 AM

Post #54

Runner

Group: Members
Posts: 3,314
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Lisbon, Cidade do Pecado
Member No.: 185

The quotes are part of an overall section dealing with Templar magical practices (there are no formal section divides in the Threats 2 chapter). Templar Conjuring and Sorcery are aspects of a single magical tradition (ie. Theurgy), and as such are inseparable. In fact, I'll add another quote from that text, which I missed the first time round and which underlines the fact that magic use and religious practices are separate:

QUOTE

All knights are magically active in the so-called "hermetic" tradition to some extent[...]. All knights are also ordained priests[...]"

Once again, I'd like to underline the fact that the previous quotes deal with Roman Catholic Theurgy and specifically the Templar understanding thereof. Personally, I see most Catholic Theurgists (which are almost exclusively concentrated in the Sylvestrine -and Templar- orders btw), using Saintly patronages rather than Archangels (ie. a Sylvestrine healer evoking Saint Francis to aid the magic healing of animals, or a Jesuit evoking Saint Dunstan to work an Exorcism).

Finally, you may note I never claimed to have written the Templar material. Which is kind of appropriate, because I didn't. However, I did write the complementary material in SOTA64 and SoE, and crossreferenced my writing with Steve Kenson (Grimoire2, Awakenings) and Dan Grendell (Threats2), as well as doing a fair amount of research on the RL facts of Christian theugy.

Disclaimer - As usual with any canon material, everyone is free to change, tweak or modify anything they dislike or would prefer to work otherwise. The posts above are only intended to clarify the point-of-view behind the recently published material in SOTA64 and how it works in context with previously published material. For anyone interested the canon references to Theurgy are spread out across Grimoire 1 & 2, Awakenings, Germany, MitS, Threats 2 and SOTA64.

DrJest

Nov 25 2004, 11:03 AM

Post #55

Running Target

Group: Members
Posts: 1,133
Joined: 3-October 04
Member No.: 6,722

QUOTE

Orthodox Christians and Reformist Protestants have similar but slightly different takes on Theurgy (the former particularly features a lot of shamanic aspects)

Once again I am impressed by the depth of research/knowledge exhibited by writers for SR - I was raised in the Serbian Orthodox church, you see, which is incidentally why the character concept that kicked this discussion off was an Orthodox priest.

Johnny Reb

Nov 25 2004, 04:14 PM

Post #56

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 850

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)

So, basically, the bastard Jesus in the last Left Behind novel...

As for the Satanists... Wow, John.... Wow.

Toxics would take two forms, I'd think, akin to the 'Purifier' vs 'Avenger' split from the environmental sorts. One the one hand, you'd have a crazed Fire and Brimestone sort that wanted to cleanse the unbelievers but truly believed that he was righteous and so forth while on the other you'd have someone who was 'crazy' and wanted to spread the evil. That'd be the baby-eatting kind.

The important bits is to recall that toxics are nutjobs in either form, NOT that what culture they spawn from. You can easily have a Marilyn Manson type of pretty much harmless Satanist who is beyond apalled at the Toxics. That's what they're there for. Toxics are just *nasty*. As long as you keep the twisty part seperate from the Toxic part, you should be able to have about any situation come up that could be handled in an adult manner.

-- Johnny Reb

Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_*	Nov 26 2004, 06:52 AM Post #57
Guests	hm. I didn't realize you were painting only toxic Satanists with the brush, which seemed weird to me--in spite of my personal opinions on all religions. The thing is, I read it that way and I find it interest given that if I wrote the same kind of description about Wicca in a post that painted Wiccans similarly I'd have several users and an admin on my ass, and would probably have gotten banned for it. Just saying.

Johnny Reb

Nov 26 2004, 07:44 AM

Post #58

Target

Group: Members
Posts: 80
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 850

QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)

hm. I didn't realize you were painting only toxic Satanists with the brush, which seemed weird to me--in spite of my personal opinions on all religions. The thing is, I read it that way and I find it interest given that if I wrote the same kind of description about Wicca in a post that painted Wiccans similarly I'd have several users and an admin on my ass, and would probably have gotten banned for it.

Just saying.

Yeah, that's why I noted it in what I *thought* was plain and clear terms and such. You have Toxic Televangelist-types who want to clear the world of the unbeliever and whatnot, which certainly don't represent the vast majority of their 'flock'. Similarly, you'd have Toxic Satanists that are way the heck out there and the normal guys are, like, "Dude! You're gonna get us all killed! Are you *insane*?!"

Very important to seperate the loony Toxic types from the normal faithful.

But you start to see why the issue's been danced around in the official cannon. One wrong word and you're in a heap of trouble.

-- Johnny Reb

Ol' Scratch

Nov 26 2004, 07:54 AM

Post #59

Immortal Elf

Group: Validating
Posts: 7,999
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 1,890

QUOTE

Toxics would take two forms, I'd think, akin to the 'Purifier' vs 'Avenger' split from the environmental sorts. One the one hand, you'd have a crazed Fire and Brimestone sort that wanted to cleanse the unbelievers but truly believed that he was righteous and so forth while on the other you'd have someone who was 'crazy' and wanted to spread the evil. That'd be the baby-eatting kind.

Err, your Purifier is about right, but your Avenger is way off. A toxic shaman doesn't switch totems/idols; their view of that totem/idol shifts. A toxic Christian shaman would not spontaneously switch to worshipping Satan -- that would be a Satanist (hello Captain Obvious). In effect it's like saying that a toxic Dog shaman is actually a Cat shaman.

Crusher Bob View Member Profile	Nov 26 2004, 10:57 AM Post #60
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,598 Joined: 15-March 03 From: Hong Kong Member No.: 4,253	You can google some of the 'habbalite' writeups for In Nomine to get some good examples of angels gone bad. They are demons that think they are angels...

« Next Oldest · Shadowrun · Next Newest »