[UA] Some Thoughts on Fan-Made Adepts and Avatars

[Jade Hammons]

To be honest, critiquing specific school would probably be helpful to the authors than general statements. but that's just me, I know my schools are the cat's pajamas ;)
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: George Guy 
  To: UA at lists.unknown-armies.com 
  Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 3:54 PM
  Subject: [UA] Some Thoughts on Fan-Made Adepts and Avatars


  Reading through the adept school and archetype submissions on UA.com, I've come up with a few general critiques.  Take them for what you will.

  ~On Avatars~

  Taboos are Central.  An archetype's taboo is its only defining trait.  All you have to do to channel an archetype is observe its taboo.  All the symbols and masks help, but they're ultimately window-dressing.  Make sure that your archetype's taboo isn't too broad, and that someone antithetical to your conception of the archetype couldn't follow it.  On the other hand, don't make it too specific; unexpected thematic variations are always cool, especially if they lead to ascension wars.

  Having your Cake and Eating it Too Should be Hard.  Adept/avatar hybrids are rare for a reason.  Keep it that way.  If your archetype closely resembles an adept school, put a divider between them.  Make your archetype's taboo difficult or impossible to observe at the same time as the school's, or make one's abilities violate the other's taboo.  A good example of the latter is the Entropomancer/Fool combo, which is virtually impossible because the Fool's second channel violates Entropomancy's taboo.

  ~On Adepts~

  No One Expects the Adept Inquisition.  Adept schools should not revolve around things that people expect magicians to do without turning those things on their heads.  This is partially stylistic; Unknown Armies makes a point of being as different from other occult horror games as possible, sometimes to an excessive degree.  However, I think it also has a thematic element; adepts break rules.  Their magick wouldn't work if they didn't.  If an adept is too much in line with the public consensus on what he should be, he loses the hole in the cosmos that gives him power over reality.

  Keep it Postmodern.  I think I've finally come up with a clear definition of what Stolze and Tynes call "postmodern magick".  Postmodern magick relies on personalized, egocentric philosophies.  All of the old schools have selfish principals, but they don't admit it and try to apply those principals universally.  Cryptomancy is dying because it relies on objective truth.  If your magick is based on lies, you need an absolute truth to twist.  Personamancy is in many ways similar to Cryptomancy, but it relies on a fluid or absent personal truth rather than a universal truth.  Mechanomancy used to be about observing and applying an all-encompassing order to the world.  However, mechanomancy received a second wind by petulantly clinging to the past, replacing world-changing idealism with individual hubris.  There's not much info on old school alchemists, but I'll bet they were better at making drugs and medicines that could effect other people than Narcoalchemists are.  I'd also guess that when Plutomancers started out, they were more into obsessing over social Darwinist rhetoric instead of their current raw, honest egotism.  Selfless adepts don't seem to have a place in the postmodern age, no matter how twisted they are.


  All IMHO, YMMV, etc.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  UA mailing list
  UA at lists.unknown-armies.com
  http://lists.unknown-armies.com/mailman/listinfo/ua
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.unknown-armies.com/pipermail/ua-unknown-armies.com/attachments/20060501/956553ff/attachment-0002.htm>