One interesting thing in the ragertwistie would be when basic rager philosophy was discussed. It in fact would (finally?) but a fine point on the eternal debate: is magic itself bad, or is magic in the hands of mortals bad? Ragers routinely claim that magic in the hands of mortals is bad, but that gods can use magic and are not a problem. If that's true, then really there's no reason not to embrace Twist as a magic user. True, there still would be the problem that Twist as a god encourages mortals to use magic, which would be against rager philosophy, but he himself would be fine.

I have always been interested in and paid attention to interviews and imm/mort discussions in the cabal, to see where people stand, or what they advocate. The more recent cabal philosophy, say the last two or three years, has been a more self-sufficiency credo, which to me would invalidate the argument that magic is ok for anyone at all, gods included. If you should stand on your own feet, and not use magic as a crutch so to speak, then why does it matter if you're a god? Gods have power to do whatever they want without magic, and so their use of it is mere convenience or contrivance.

On the other hand, the argument also goes that the reason it's ok for gods to use it but not mortals is that mortals are not wise enough, and gods are, so for mortals to make a determination whether gods should use it or not would be inappropriate.

In any event, a ragertwistie is something I used to contemplate way back in the day, but you left and so it remained entirely hypothetical. Good luck to whoever breaks that barrier.