[UA] Avatars and Godwalkers

[Gaston Phillips]

[snip]

> One thing about the adept / avatar dichotomy: G. himself (I am unworthy and
> all that) wrote that an adept needs to believe, implying that being an
> avatar is easier. I feel that while believing is one thing, being is quite
> another. Even if you say that you cannot consciously choose to become an
> avatar and then change your life accordingly it will still be quite
> difficult to so completely be something to the practical exclusion of
> everything else.
>
> Robin
>

I explained it (the distinction) as the ancient idea of mimesis, that the
difference was between seeming and being.  Adepts trade in symbols, in
seemings, and structure their lives around ideas - secrecy, wealth, danger,
love, &c - but only inasmuch as these ideas are /shown/.  Their currency is
representation.

Avatars, on the other hand, must embody an idea.  They must become it, and
internalize it.  The seeming part of this (i.e., the symbology of an
Archetype) serves IMUAC to aid the Avatar the way a habit helps a monk.  Not
the way a costume helps an actor.


Gaston

PS - On the seeming/being tip: The consensus on the list was that
entropomancers wouldn't charge off a game of roulette with blanks 'cause
reality would know, right?

Then do entropomancers have an innate 'danger sense'?

e.g.

PLAYER:  "I open the door and shine the light inside."

GM:  "OK.  You feel the tingle of a minor charge mounting the base of your
spine.  Inside, there are bodies mutilated and nasties all over."


Like, if it's based on what reality knows to be dangerous, do they get a
charge by doing something dangerous without knowing it?  (Crossing a
sniper's field of fire, insulting Eponymous, plotting to take down someone
who's actually a Duke, &c...)


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