[UA] [UA]: various topics

[Matthew Rowan Norwood]

> 30%?  Certainly unwitting avatars are far, far, far 
more common than adepts
> and knowing avatars, but I'd imagine that even 10% of 
the population is a
> big stretch.  Most people just don't have the stamina 
and attention span to
> be one thing for very long.
> 
> -G.

Exactly. I play lots of roles in my daily life, but I 
slip out of character way too often to ever build up any 
"avatar skill" before breaking taboo. Someone who wanted 
to be the Devoted Boyfriend would have to go for months 
without _ever_ forgetting a promise, going out drinking 
with the guys, getting angry with his SO, etc. Some 
people might be able to pull that off, but I imagine 
they're few and far between. In addition to being 
difficult, it's unhealthy. The only archetype you could 
embody and not be classified as Obsessive would be The 
Well-Balanced Guy, which isn't exactly the kind of 
archetype that jumps out of the collective unconscious 
and grabs you by the psychic balls. "Symbols: well, 
different people have different styles. Whatever makes 
you comfortable, or whatever circumstances dictate. 
Sometimes you may feel strongly about something, in 
which case you might want to wear something extreme. 
Taboo: Try not to do anything really bad. I mean, sure, 
sometime extreme action is called for, and then you have 
to do what you have to do. But generally, you should 
try to do what's best for yourself and other people. If 
you screw up, well, it happens to everyone. That's 
life. Make whatever amends you feel you have to." This 
is a kind of Zen perfection which says "People are 
People", in contrast to the Avatar, who declares, "I am 
a God".


> If a boozehound sets up a proxy of himself/herself, 
what happens if that
> proxy drinks from a significant vessel?  I assume the 
boozehound gets the
> sig. chargem but does he also take the drunk penalty?

My take on this:

He gets the charge and _doesn't_ suffer the penalty. 
HOWEVER, if either he OR the proxy ever sobers up, all 
charges are lost. Other school also have interesting 
proxy dynamics: epideromancers can only get charges from 
proxies who hurt THEMSELVES -- no torture chamber in the 
basement full of proxies. Entropomancers making 
monetary bets against their proxies know that there's no 
REAL risk involved (because the money will either go to 
him or to himself in the form of the proxy), so they get 
no charges. Cliomancers drain charges at twice the rate 
(both instantiations of the adept are "leaking" energy), 
and they can't charge twice from the same location in a 
day (visiting a site along with your proxy is just like 
visiting it twice). 

Probably lots more interesting stuff for other schools. 


> I rather like the fact groups aren't
> clearly heroic, and conflict happens because groups 
with opposite goals
> collide. One scenario I had the PCs going against TNI, 
next one I had
> them playing Inquisitors without any problem. It's 
something I miss in
> the more one-sided groups, like TOSG.
> 
> BTW, I'd like to see a TOSG sourcebook, too. There 
should be more about
> these guys than guns and rants. 

TOSG is one of my biggest beefs with UA. I think the 
setting really adheres to the political beliefs of the 
writers -- which is fine, but I disagree with them. TOSG 
as described by Randy Douglass' ideology should be made 
up of the kind of people who were protesting the WTO in 
Seattle last year. Instead, two out of three sample 
members are insane sadists, and the third one is 
borderline. In contrast, TNI sounds like the worst kind 
of megalomanic vigilante enterprise -- Ross Perot with a 
team of thugs trying to take over the world. But Alex 
Abel and Eponymous are represented as Superman and 
Batman instead of an anally-fixated covetous neurotic 
with a God complex and a cold-hearted killer who is so 
disconnected from humanity that he wouldn't think twice 
about smashing an infants' brains out if it were in his 
best interest.

Either group could be portrayed as being staffed with 
deluded psychopaths or savvy realists -- the arbitrary 
choice of TOSG as the losers seems odd. There's nothing 
wrong with having ranting hick militia-men or supercool 
corporate agents in UA, but the core book makes the 
associations sort of inseparable. I think UA GMs would 
do well to provide a little more balance... I was 
thinking of running a story where a character gets 
involved with TOSG because of its noble goals, and who 
fights against Abel, who's trying to become God on 
Earth by consolidating magical power. After a while, 
though, Douglass' strict ideology (toned down in my 
story) would turn the guy off, and he would ironically 
end up working for Abel, a man who he personally 
despised but whose organization was the best bet going 
for changing the world. Working within the system and 
all that. The character was black, and it brought up 
some interesting tensions about Abel selling out the 
downtrodden in his quest for power, the character acting 
as a foil for Abel.

> Now, how much sense does this? I know there are sects 
whose beliefs
> forbid certain types of medical intervention, but can 
somebody provide a
> real world example? It would be easier for me if I 
have a start point. 

Christian Scientists avoid medical care out of the 
belief that humans are immortal, and therefore disease 
is an illusion. Rastafarians are skeptical of modern 
medicine, associating it with a technocratic world they 
view as evil. Both groups have some good points, and 
it's hard not to respect the faith and priciples of some 
of their hard-core members. Different strokes for 
different folks and all that.

-Matt Norwood

_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua