|
31 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Wed May 28, 2003 0:13pm
Subject:
ATTN: Rauchert (Re: The Golden Rule(s): A god's influence)
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com, John Rauchert
<john.rauchert@s...> wrote:
> Here are a listing of Aspects, Archetypes, Domains,
Spheres of
Influence,
> Dominions (whatever you want to call them) from
various sources.
>
Well, I'm a jackass. I just today saw this post. Okay,
I'm gonna
print this out pdq and take a good long look at it.
Sorry I didn't get to this earlier. I appreciate you
going to the
trouble to get all that info down. Thanks much!
Later,
R.
|
|
|
32 |
From: John Rauchert <john.rauchert@s...>
Date: Wed May 28, 2003 0:20pm
Subject:
RE: ATTN: Rauchert (Re: The Golden Rule(s) : A god's influence)
|
|
|
No problem Richard.
I think you also asked at one point what
"The Primal Order" was.
You can find a review here:
http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_2459.html
-----Original Message-----
From:
Richard [mailto:demon_star2002@yahoo.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, May 28, 2003 12:13 PM
To:
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[DragonQuestCathedral] ATTN: Rauchert (Re:
The Golden Rule(s): A god's influence)
Sorry I didn't
get to this earlier. I appreciate you going
to the
trouble to get
all that info down. Thanks much!
|
|
|
|
33 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Wed May 28, 2003 7:35pm
Subject:
ATTN: Rauchert (Re: The Golden Rule(s) : A god's influence)
|
|
|
Okay, now, I gotta ask- if you have all this info
compiled and you're
the crack DQ whiz you seem to be...
Well, where the heck's the freakin' Religion write up?
Just curious,
R.
|
|
|
34 |
From: John Rauchert <john.rauchert@s...>
Date: Thu May 29, 2003 8:17am
Subject:
RE: ATTN: Rauchert (Re: The Golden Rule(s) : A god's influence)
|
|
|
Hmm, I very rarely play clerics in RPGs and
most of my energy during the 1990's was
poured into a game system I co-authored with
a friend of mine called "The Infinite Shades
of Grey" and most recently the Neverwinter
Nights CRPG (I even had lunch with some of
the designers a couple of times).
However I do have a vast amount of source
material (20+ years of RPG game collecting,
three bookcases and 12 storage boxes) and I
am a Library and Information Technologist by
training so I am able to bring a lot of
information together fairly quickly
(depending on my work schedule).
Give me a couple of days.
J
JohnR
-----Original Message-----
From:
Richard [mailto:demon_star2002@yahoo.com]
Sent:
Wednesday, May 28, 2003 7:35 PM
To:
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[DragonQuestCathedral]ATTN: Rauchert (Re:
The Golden Rule(s) : A god's influence)
Okay, now, I
gotta ask- if you have all this info
compiled and you're
the crack DQ
whiz you seem to be...
Well, where the
heck's the freakin' Religion write up?
Just curious,
R.
|
|
|
|
35 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Thu May 29, 2003 7:55am
Subject:
Spells in Religion
|
|
|
Richard - why do you object to spells in religion?
I have always assumed that his was how magical religions
worked
This is from hints:-
In Thieves World already posted:-
"...it is suggested that these priests be granted
quasi-clerical
abilities (as in pagan and early Catholic legend). These
rely heavily
on ritual-- in both senses of the word-- and personal
magic, which is
intended to directly affect an individual (the Healer
skill [55] and
curses [84.3 et seq.] are good examples of this).
Presumably, spells
which are scaled-down versions of the liege god's
special powers are
part of the priest's repertoire".
Spells are explicitly mentioned.
The Earth Magics college has two forms Pacific (as in
peaceful not
the ocean) and druidic. Although the connection with the
druid's
religion is not explicitly mentioned it is surely what
the designers
had in mind.
The College of Black magics itself is clearly based on
Witchcraft �
believed to incorporate elements of Anglo-Saxon (and
maybe a bit of
Celtic) pagan cults This college also contains many
features I would
expect a religion to have (eg blessings and curses).
Most of the magic users in legend are described as
Priest(esses) and
they seem to cast things that would be best modelled as
spells.
Feel free to object to my sweeping statements :--)
Yes the most powerful of the abilities should be Ritual
based but
spells are defiantly in as far as I can see (and they
add fun)
I think basing Religious spells, rituals and talents on
those already
existing is consistent with the designer's views
(impossible to tell
now), fun (the DQ spells are one of its great features)
and easier
(any magic abilities can use existing spells much of the
time or use
these as a starting point for new ones).
I do have some sympathy with your views, this is why I
split religion
into two: magical and non-magical (There are other hints
in the book
eg ground consecrated to the Powers of Light inhibiting
magic that
suggest this split).
David
|
|
|
36 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Thu May 29, 2003 8:54am
Subject:
Re: Piety ala mode
|
|
|
Sorry If Two replies appear, I posted one but after
several hours it
didn't appear, so I'm reposting, I didn't save the
previous attempt
so this is new.
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
<demon_star2002@y...> wrote:
> --- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
> <david.barrass@e...> wrote:
>
> > It could cost Ft, one point (or 2 pts for "Special
Knowledge") to
> > open a pathway to the god and or an Offering to the
God for the
> > service. In this way it would be indistiquishable
from a spell
no
> > other ballances are needed
>
> I don't know about you, but one of the things I'm
trying to do is
get
> as far away from "spells" as possible. I'm looking at
the D&D
Cleric
> as a model for what *not* to do. I also don't think a
person should
> be taxed physically for enacting their god's will.
Making
sacrifices,
> sure- and if that includes the occasional blood
sacrifice, then so
be
> it. Just depends on the religion.
See new thread
> > There will always be grey areas where the GMs and
the priests
views
> > differ on the interpretation of a religion. This
will lead to
>
> My point was that there won't be any grey areas if the
GM has done
> his job in creating a religion. If all the information
is available
> to the player, then there shouldn't be a problem.
>
> > friction, especially if the GM has to make a snap
decision (who's
> to
> > say a player who has become a priest dosn't know the
religion
> > better).
>
> I do. If I created a religion for my game or presented
one already
> created, then those are the rules they'd have to
follow. A good
> priest follows the rules of his religion- it's his
job. There
should
> be no room for interpretation on the priest's (or
player's) part.
To
> do otherwise would risk loss of that link with his
deity. Am I
wrong
> about this?
A difference in styles. There are only a few of us here
who use DQ
so it was a case of "if you want to do something write
up the skill
and I'll GM it in my campain" so it was always more of a
co-operative
thing.
Also religion is full of morral dilemmas, for example do
the ends
justify the means?
> > OK I'm a long way from being convinced by a piety
stat, but if we
>
> Like I said- I'm not married to it. But I don't think
it's entirely
> out of line with the DQ rules, it has worked in other
games, and
you,
> yourself have pointed up at least one possible use for
it. :)
> And I have yet to be completely convinced that it
*isn't* necessary.
>
> > were going to use it lets have a look
> > There are 4 types of stat
> > The MAIN Stats: (PS MD etc): this will be tricky and
your average
> > fighter will say "hmm 5 piety and 5 MA great 10
points to spend
on
> MD
> > AG etc" This is what I ment by game balance.
>
> Yeah, that makes sense. Keep in mind that I'm just
trying to slog
my
> way through all the possibilities. I don't want to
overlook
anything,
> if possible.
>
> > DERIVED Stats: such as Ft What would you base it on,
it could be
> > derived from WP and MA I suppose - (I see religion
as imposing
your
> > will on followers / enemies and powering a diety by
the power of
> > belief as well as how well you can act as a conduit
for devine
> > purpose). Increases in stats can be bought fairly
cheeply also
its
> > not too painfull to remove it so a GM needn't feel
too meen.
> > (alternatively if its used like MA in spell casting
then the cost
>
> If you go back a few posts you'll find arguments both
for and
against
> a couple of points you make here. I was toying with
using WP as the
> stat to use, which was shot down, and the idea of
being a conduit
for
> your god's power was something I strognly disagreed
with (at least
in
> the context presented). You may want to them out.
Got the post - I *can* see someone being "Genetically
predisposed to
being a better vessle of divine power than someone else"
but them I'm
a geneticist. There is some evidence of that the
propensity for
strongly held beleif (such a religion) does have a
genetic
component. Who's a god going to choose for a vessle,
someone who
really belives or someone who could't give a monkeys
:--) ?
We may have to agree to dissagree on that
> > Personally if we do have a Piety stat I see it as
either a PC
type
> > stat or derived from WP and MA
>
> And I would agree with that. *If* a new stat is deemed
neccesary.
> Would you define "classical religions" for me? Do you
mean in the
> Greco-Roman sense?
Yes. It does have advantages: There's a large body of
mythology out
there (too much if anything), its generally well known,
anyone can
get the books out of any library and we know there was
an organised
religion based on it
> > I'm still to be convinced by its need
>
> Hey, that's why we're here, Daddy-o.
David
|
|
|
37 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Thu May 29, 2003 6:24pm
Subject:
ATTN: Rauchert (Re: The Golden Rule(s) : A god's influence)
|
|
|
>
> Give me a couple of days. :-)
Excellent! lol
Later,
R.
|
|
|
38 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Fri May 30, 2003 1:45am
Subject:
Re: The Golden Rule(s)
|
|
|
All of this prompted me to try to find the reference
that started me
off on DQ religion 20ish years ago, and found it in the
first page of
the magic section. As this appears in the rule book (2nd
and 3rd
editions) this must be a very important clue to what the
designers
were thinking about religion
2nd SPI edition, Section 25. last part. (Page 30)
Consecrated Ground: Any ground that has been consecrated
to the
service of the "Powers of Light" as defined by the GM is
consecrated
ground and affects the abilities of all characters to
resist magic.
There is no College specifically dedicated to the Powers
of Light,
because it is assumed that they are nonmagical in nature
and are, in
effect, opposed to magic. Most temples and monasteries
and some
graveyards will be consecrated ground. Barrows, pagan
temples (those
in which magic forms part of the ritual) and the
dwellings of magical
beings can never be consecrated ground.
We can get several things from this (ordered from
concrete to
speculation)
1) There are two forms of religion a) Powers of
light "nonmagical in nature and are, in effect, opposed
to magic."
And b) "Barrows, pagan temples (those in which magic
forms part of
the ritual)"
2) Pagan religion involves the use of magic
3) Pagan religion involves ritual. Spells and talents
are not
mentioned, either for or against, and the section does
not rule out
the spell and talent use as part of the religious
rituals
4) The use of the word pagan to describe magical
religions is
interesting; this implies that the opposite, Powers of
Light, non-
pagan did the designers have Christianity in mind when
hey wrote this?
5) The implied separation of magical beings from the
Powers of
Light. Is this religion for the non inherently magical
races such as
humans?
For my next trick I shall use this section to find out
how many
angels can dance on the head of a pin :--)
I doubt I have read it in the past 15 years and forgot
the source,
but it obviously made an impression. Sub-consciously
this is the line
on religion I have taken. Its up to you to judge how
successful I've
been and how much of the more speculative points we want
to
incorporate.
David
|
|
|
39 |
From: John Rauchert <john.rauchert@s...>
Date: Fri May 30, 2003 7:57am
Subject:
RE: Re: The Golden Rule(s)
|
|
|
I have a text file at home that outlines all
the references that I can find in the core
rules set. I will post that tonight. Then
I will move on to Arcane Wisdom.
-----Original Message-----
From:
dbarrass_2000
[mailto:david.barrass@ed.ac.uk]
Sent:
Friday, May 30, 2003 1:45 AM
To:
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[DragonQuestCathedral] Re: The Golden
Rule(s)
All of this
prompted me to try to find the reference
that started me
off on DQ
religion 20ish years ago, and found it in
the first page of
the magic
section. As this appears in the rule book
(2nd and 3rd
editions) this
must be a very important clue to what the
designers
were thinking
about religion
2nd SPI
edition, Section 25. last part. (Page 30)
Consecrated
Ground: Any ground that has been consecrated
to the
service of the
"Powers of Light" as defined by the GM is
consecrated
ground and
affects the abilities of all characters to
resist magic.
There is no
College specifically dedicated to the Powers
of Light,
because it is
assumed that they are nonmagical in nature
and are, in
effect, opposed
to magic. Most temples and monasteries and
some
graveyards will
be consecrated ground. Barrows, pagan
temples (those
in which magic
forms part of the ritual) and the dwellings
of magical
beings can
never be consecrated ground.
We can get
several things from this (ordered from
concrete to
speculation)
1) There
are two forms of religion a) Powers of
light
"nonmagical in nature and are, in effect,
opposed to magic."
And b)
"Barrows, pagan temples (those in which
magic forms part of
the ritual)"
2) Pagan
religion involves the use of magic
3) Pagan
religion involves ritual. Spells and
talents are not
mentioned,
either for or against, and the section does
not rule out
the spell and
talent use as part of the religious rituals
4) The use
of the word pagan to describe magical
religions is
interesting;
this implies that the opposite, Powers of
Light, non-
pagan did the
designers have Christianity in mind when hey
wrote this?
5) The
implied separation of magical beings from
the Powers of
Light. Is this
religion for the non inherently magical
races such as
humans?
For my next
trick I shall use this section to find out
how many
angels can
dance on the head of a pin :--)
I doubt I have
read it in the past 15 years and forgot the
source,
but it
obviously made an impression.
Sub-consciously this is the line
on religion I
have taken. Its up to you to judge how
successful I've
been and how
much of the more speculative points we want
to
incorporate.
David
|
|
|
|
40 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Fri May 30, 2003 6:01pm
Subject:
Re: Piety ala mode
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
<david.barrass@e...> wrote:
> > do otherwise would risk loss of that link with his
deity. Am I
> wrong
> > about this?
>
> A difference in styles. There are only a few of us
here who use DQ
> so it was a case of "if you want to do something write
up the skill
> and I'll GM it in my campain" so it was always more of
a co-
operative
> thing.
> Also religion is full of morral dilemmas, for example
do the ends
> justify the means?
Again, I'm looking at this project as if it we the real,
honest-to-
god DragonQuest Book 5. So that means we have to come up
with at
least one reasonably well-realized religion (maybe one
"real" one and
one "fake one") and that would include, as far as I'm
concerned,
a "Code of Hammurabi" for every religion. Am I still
wrong about this?
> Got the post - I *can* see someone being "Genetically
predisposed
to
> being a better vessle of divine power than someone
else" but them
I'm
> a geneticist. There is some evidence of that the
propensity for
> strongly held beleif (such a religion) does have a
genetic
> component. Who's a god going to choose for a vessle,
someone who
> really belives or someone who could't give a monkeys
:--) ?
And to paraphrase Pat Robertson- "Science and Religion
don't mix!"
I guess I'm looking more at this from a Judeo-Christian
point of view
more than a Greco-Roman one. I just like the idea of
someone being
rewarded with "power" by their devotion to their
religion. Maybe it's
that "forged on the anvil of life" aspect that I like-
you get
rewarded through your stuggles to be a devout
follower/servant/proponent/whatever. Sure, they can be
born a
favorite of a particular god as part of that god's plan,
but it seems
a bit much for a simple priest.
If that ends up being the case, however (with
considerable protest on
my part ;)), where does the famous DQ balancing factor
come in? If
your god just decides to give you a bunch of spells
because you
happen to be packing a D-cell divine battery instead of
a lowly AAA-
cell, where do you put the limitations? That's where I
was limiting
their spells in favor of not having the limitations of a
magic user
(cold iron, mana, FT loss, etc).
I see a priest as asking for their god's assistance, and
their god
fulfilling their request by acting *through* them, not
giving them
the power to do it themselves. Yes, the end result may
be the same as
spell casting (I guess), but it, godammit, it should
work differently
than magic! Woo!
> We may have to agree to dissagree on that
Actually, we can't- the reason for this whole thing is
so we can,
finally, come to a reasonable conclusion as to how this
whole thing
should work. I've already come to terms with giving up
on some of my
ideas in favor of others. And, as you may have noticed,
I'm ardently
hanging on to others. lol
Later,
R.
|
|
|
41 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Fri May 30, 2003 6:19pm
Subject:
Re: Spells in Religion
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
<david.barrass@e...> wrote:
> Richard - why do you object to spells in religion?
Partly as a knee-jerk reaction against the D&D Cleric
and partly
because of the POL/consecrated ground thing. The D&D
Cleric is just
too clunky and convenient. Too "gamey".
> I have always assumed that his was how magical
religions worked
And you're right. I keep viewing the DQ priest in a
Judeo-Christian
light, but I think, from reading between the lines, that
this is
where they were going. But, again, I really liked the
way you handled
both sides in your Religion write up.
> This is from hints:-
>
> The College of Black magics itself is clearly based on
Witchcraft �
> believed to incorporate elements of Anglo-Saxon (and
maybe a bit of
> Celtic) pagan cults This college also contains many
features I
would
> expect a religion to have (eg blessings and curses).
Keep in mind, though, that this is clearly from the
Middle Ages
Christian point of view, so I can see POL/Christian
religion being
opposed to that. Also, forgive me if I get my "Ages"
mixed up. No
historian, I.
> Most of the magic users in legend are described as
Priest(esses)
and
> they seem to cast things that would be best modelled
as spells.
>
> Feel free to object to my sweeping statements :--)
I don't dissagree, but if that's the case, then just let
them be
magic users who pray to a god and be done with it. Oh,
wait... you
kinda did that already, didn't you? lol
> Yes the most powerful of the abilities should be
Ritual based but
> spells are defiantly in as far as I can see (and they
add fun)
>
> I think basing Religious spells, rituals and talents
on those
already
> existing is consistent with the designer's views
(impossible to
tell
> now), fun (the DQ spells are one of its great
features) and easier
> (any magic abilities can use existing spells much of
the time or
use
> these as a starting point for new ones).
Consistent with their views? Yes, impossible to tell.
Fun? Sure!
Easier? Yes, but nothing truely good is ever easy, is
it? I just
don't want a DQ Religion book to be the "White" version
of Black
Magic. It has to be more, and better, than that. Yeah, I
talk big- so
what? :P
More later,
R.
|
|
|
42 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Fri May 30, 2003 6:36pm
Subject:
Eric Goldberg on DQ religion
|
|
|
From Fantasy Modeling, 1980-
"I had some religious and magic items systems that I
wanted to
include".
THAT'S IT! ARGH!!!
Later,
R.
|
|
|
43 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 2:12am
Subject:
Re: Piety ala mode
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
<demon_star2002@y...> wrote:
> --- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
> <david.barrass@e...> wrote:
Snip .. this is getting very long
>
> Again, I'm looking at this project as if it we the
real, honest-to-
> god DragonQuest Book 5. So that means we have to come
up with at
> least one reasonably well-realized religion (maybe one
"real" one
and
> one "fake one") and that would include, as far as I'm
concerned,
> a "Code of Hammurabi" for every religion. Am I still
wrong about
this?
All religions are real to their followers - To
paraphrase Orwell "but
some are more real than others"
I don't know about the code of Hammurabi - please
explain
By this paragraph do you mean one using magic and the
other a powers
of Light?
>
> > Got the post - I *can* see someone being
"Genetically predisposed
> to
> > being a better vessle of divine power than someone
else" but them
> I'm
> > a geneticist. There is some evidence of that the
propensity for
> > strongly held beleif (such a religion) does have a
genetic
> > component. Who's a god going to choose for a vessle,
someone who
> > really belives or someone who could't give a monkeys
:--) ?
>
> And to paraphrase Pat Robertson- "Science and Religion
don't mix!"
:--)
> I guess I'm looking more at this from a
Judeo-Christian point of
view
> more than a Greco-Roman one. I just like the idea of
someone being
> rewarded with "power" by their devotion to their
religion. Maybe
it's
> that "forged on the anvil of life" aspect that I like-
you get
> rewarded through your stuggles to be a devout
> follower/servant/proponent/whatever. Sure, they can be
born a
> favorite of a particular god as part of that god's
plan, but it
seems
> a bit much for a simple priest.
This is the way I see it
I have two forms of Religion:- non-magical and magical.
non-magical is a real Religion worshipping divine beings
(the PoL).
this does not use magic and is based in WP. It uses
various rituals
and divinely inspired abillities. I think this is what
more the way
you see a religion working - correct me if I'm wrong
Magical - is based on giving a powerfull spirit
something, In return
he lets you use your own power in his name. He will
provide you with
training, a brotherhood of fellow believers and some
power from
worship. But the least he has to do with it the better
from his
point of view. The spirit is not omniscient and if you
do sothing
wrong he'll find out about it, but, unless its something
particularly
important to him he will not be looking all the time.
Eventually
people realised that the magic was self powered and some
could be
taken from the religious context and used by anyone with
the MA
The rewarding with power can be handled by the existing
rules of the
game. Experience points. If the priest sticks to the
morals of his
religion he gets an EP bonus. If be breaks them its a
minus
> If that ends up being the case, however (with
considerable protest
on
> my part ;)), where does the famous DQ balancing factor
come in? If
> your god just decides to give you a bunch of spells
because you
> happen to be packing a D-cell divine battery instead
of a lowly AAA-
> cell, where do you put the limitations? That's where I
was limiting
> their spells in favor of not having the limitations of
a magic user
> (cold iron, mana, FT loss, etc).
>
> I see a priest as asking for their god's assistance,
and their god
> fulfilling their request by acting *through* them, not
giving them
> the power to do it themselves. Yes, the end result may
be the same
as
> spell casting (I guess), but it, godammit, it should
work
differently
> than magic! Woo!
Lots of points here.
For a magical Religion I see it as spell casting in a
gods name not
by divine favour
You pay EPs for the magical abillities and, as this is
magic, cold
iron disrupts and you pay FT
For a non-magical religion I entirely agree that things
"should work
differently than magic! Woo!"
> > We may have to agree to dissagree on that
>
> Actually, we can't- the reason for this whole thing is
so we can,
> finally, come to a reasonable conclusion as to how
this whole thing
> should work. I've already come to terms with giving up
on some of
my
> ideas in favor of others. And, as you may have
noticed, I'm
ardently
> hanging on to others. lol
We can agree to dissagree on the philosophy as long as
we agree on
the mechanics
What is your philosophy?
Do you see the split into two forms of religion as being
there?
This is getting rather mudled - shall we start another
thread?
David
|
|
|
44 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 2:25am
Subject:
Re: Spells in Religion
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
<demon_star2002@y...> wrote:
> --- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
> <david.barrass@e...> wrote:
> > Richard - why do you object to spells in religion?
>
> Partly as a knee-jerk reaction against the D&D Cleric
and partly
> because of the POL/consecrated ground thing. The D&D
Cleric is just
> too clunky and convenient. Too "gamey".
>
> > I have always assumed that his was how magical
religions worked
>
> And you're right. I keep viewing the DQ priest in a
Judeo-Christian
> light, but I think, from reading between the lines,
that this is
> where they were going. But, again, I really liked the
way you
handled
> both sides in your Religion write up.
> > This is from hints:-
> >
> > The College of Black magics itself is clearly based
on
Witchcraft �
> > believed to incorporate elements of Anglo-Saxon (and
maybe a bit
of
> > Celtic) pagan cults This college also contains many
features I
> would
> > expect a religion to have (eg blessings and curses).
>
> Keep in mind, though, that this is clearly from the
Middle Ages
> Christian point of view, so I can see POL/Christian
religion being
> opposed to that. Also, forgive me if I get my "Ages"
mixed up. No
> historian, I.
I also see it this way. I was using this as an example
of a magical
(dare I say Pagan) Religion as opposed to a non-magical
PoL religion
> > Most of the magic users in legend are described as
Priest(esses)
> and
> > they seem to cast things that would be best modelled
as spells.
> >
> > Feel free to object to my sweeping statements :--)
>
> I don't dissagree, but if that's the case, then just
let them be
> magic users who pray to a god and be done with it. Oh,
wait... you
> kinda did that already, didn't you? lol
I guess I did
> > Yes the most powerful of the abilities should be
Ritual based but
> > spells are defiantly in as far as I can see (and
they add fun)
> >
> > I think basing Religious spells, rituals and talents
on those
> already
> > existing is consistent with the designer's views
(impossible to
> tell
> > now), fun (the DQ spells are one of its great
features) and
easier
> > (any magic abilities can use existing spells much of
the time or
> use
> > these as a starting point for new ones).
>
> Consistent with their views? Yes, impossible to tell.
Fun? Sure!
> Easier? Yes, but nothing truely good is ever easy, is
it? I just
> don't want a DQ Religion book to be the "White"
version of Black
> Magic. It has to be more, and better, than that. Yeah,
I talk big-
so
> what? :P
Part of the reason I'm taking this line for non PoL
magical Religions
is laziness I confess. The spells and rituals are there
ready to be
used. I would interested in having a new system, but the
practical
problems are huge, inventing all thise new powers and
abillities,
getting it to work and getting it in balance with the
rest of the
game gives me the screaming heebee-geebies. I have been
trying to
write up the Graeco-Roman Pantheon as a magical non-PoL
religion,
some gods work fine others are proving troublesome.
David
|
|
|
45 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 2:28am
Subject:
Re: Eric Goldberg on DQ religion
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
<demon_star2002@y...> wrote:
> From Fantasy Modeling, 1980-
>
> "I had some religious and magic items systems that I
wanted to
> include".
>
> THAT'S IT! ARGH!!!
Oh if only...
There are some religious artefacts in the Unearthed
Arcana - the
sword of Roland for one.
David
|
|
|
46 |
From: Bruce Probst <bprobst@n...>
Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 8:00am
Subject:
Re: Re: Eric Goldberg on DQ religion
|
|
|
On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 08:28:14 -0000, "dbarrass_2000"
<david.barrass@e...>
wrote:
>There are some religious artefacts in the Unearthed
Arcana - the
>sword of Roland for one.
I do hope you mean "Arcane Wisdom" ... "Unearthed
Arcana" was a 1st ed. AD&D
book!
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Probst
bprobst@n... ICQ 6563830
Canberra, Australia MSTie #72759 SCA #80160
"You're not my real father!"
ASL FAQ
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mantis/ASLFAQ
|
|
|
47 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 8:51am
Subject:
Re: Eric Goldberg on DQ religion
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Probst
<bprobst@n...> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 08:28:14 -0000, "dbarrass_2000"
<david.barrass@e...>
> wrote:
>
> >There are some religious artefacts in the Unearthed
Arcana - the
> >sword of Roland for one.
>
> I do hope you mean "Arcane Wisdom" ... "Unearthed
Arcana" was a 1st
ed. AD&D
> book!
OOPS - yes I mean Arcane Wisdom. I often get confused
between the
names of those two - I really have no idea why
david
|
|
|
48 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 5:03pm
Subject:
Re: Piety ala mode
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
<david.barrass@e...> wrote:
> All religions are real to their followers - To
paraphrase
Orwell "but
> some are more real than others"
I just meant a real world religion and a fabricated one,
just to see
how they can be reproduced using your rules.
> I don't know about the code of Hammurabi - please
explain
> By this paragraph do you mean one using magic and the
other a
powers
> of Light?
The Code of Hammurabi was the Ten Commandments way
before the was a
Ten Commandments. In other words, a set of rules handed
down from a
god to his followers.
> This is the way I see it
> I have two forms of Religion:- non-magical and
magical.
>
> non-magical is a real Religion worshipping divine
beings (the PoL).
> this does not use magic and is based in WP. It uses
various
rituals
> and divinely inspired abillities. I think this is what
more the
way
> you see a religion working - correct me if I'm wrong
You are correct, sir.
> Magical - is based on giving a powerfull spirit
something, In
return
> he lets you use your own power in his name. He will
provide you
with
I just needed to process what you'd written a little
longer. It holds
up very well, to my eyes. I think I would have come
around quicker if
there's been a model, an example, for me to see. But I
think I got it
now.
>
> Lots of points here.
> For a magical Religion I see it as spell casting in a
gods name not
> by divine favour
> You pay EPs for the magical abillities and, as this is
magic, cold
> iron disrupts and you pay FT
>
> For a non-magical religion I entirely agree that
things "should
work
> differently than magic! Woo!"
Yup, I'm with ya on both points now. I just needed to
kick it a few
times to see if anything fell off. So far, nothing's
fallen off. :)
> We can agree to dissagree on the philosophy as long as
we agree on
> the mechanics
I'm pretty sure I'm in sync with your philosophy now.
The mechanics,
however, are not my forte- I can only kibbitz where
that's concerned.
> What is your philosophy?
> Do you see the split into two forms of religion as
being there?
I think you might have thrown me a bit with your Spirit
World rules
which, by the way, kick ass. In two places you make a
distinction
between "gods" and the POL. This is a bit confusing to
me as I'd
viewed the POL as gods. I still do. I'm not sure what
else they'd be
if they're not.
> This is getting rather mudled - shall we start another
thread?
10-4, good buddy! I think we should just start
dissecting the work
you've already done to see if anything needs tweaking or
expanding.
What do you say?
Later,
R.
|
|
|
49 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Mon Jun 2, 2003 5:17pm
Subject:
Re: Spells in Religion
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
<david.barrass@e...> wrote:
> Part of the reason I'm taking this line for non PoL
magical
Religions
> is laziness I confess. The spells and rituals are
there ready to
be
> used. I would interested in having a new system, but
the practical
> problems are huge, inventing all thise new powers and
abillities,
> getting it to work and getting it in balance with the
rest of the
> game gives me the screaming heebee-geebies. I have
been trying to
> write up the Graeco-Roman Pantheon as a magical
non-PoL religion,
> some gods work fine others are proving troublesome.
Yeah, you're right- I don't suppose there's any reason
we should be
killing ourselves at this point coming up with new
spells. Once the
structure is there, new ones'll probably pop up to fill
in the blanks
as needed.
First we need to just come up with a rounded out
religion. As I said
in my previous post, I'll try to post an outline, at
least, on the
Mithraism thing. Keep in mind that this isn't based
directly on the
real thing (most of it is), it's tailored to the fantasy
setting I
plugged it in to.
Later,
R.
|
|
|
50 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 6:08am
Subject:
David's Draft Rules
|
|
|
OK here is my latest version of the rules. I've
posted it into the
files section of this news group. I differs a only a bit
from the
previous rules. I've added sections about what a god
gets out of
this relationship and a section on the Graeco-Roman
pantheon as an
example of how I see it working.
Tell me how it goes.
I'll start off the critisism
1) I don't like Ego combat, there needs to be some way
to
interact "robustly" with spirits, but I'm not sure this
is the best
way to do it
2) The magical Diety's priests need more magic
abillities, some have
lots some have hardly any (for some, such as Ares, this
is deliberate)
3) the PoL priest could do with some more powers
relevant to a
campain, he's great when an adept fires a spell at him
as his MR is
potentially huge, but he can't do anything in return
immediatly other
than hit him - this may be fine I'd like feed-back
4) It *needs* play testing. Some of the older bits have
been tested,
but who knows what I've missed or got wrong 'cos I know
what I ment
5) The Pantheon is not complete I know this - I will get
to them all
eventually.
6) My spelling is horrendous (some of the spelling is UK
vs US
spelling and not my fault)
I've password protected it, not because I'm mean and
don't want
anyone to change it, rather I'd prefer to keep track of
any changes
that are needed myself, so none get lost. If you want
the word doc I
can post it too.
Finally thanks to Andrew South (where ever you are) for
the College
of Fay Magics which I've nicked wholesale (I've changed
the format,
not the text)
David
|
|
|
51 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 6:10am
Subject:
Re: Spells in Religion
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
<demon_star2002@y...> wrote:
> --- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
> <david.barrass@e...> wrote:
>
> > Part of the reason I'm taking this line for non PoL
magical
> Religions
> > is laziness I confess. The spells and rituals are
there ready to
> be
> > used. I would interested in having a new system, but
the
practical
> > problems are huge, inventing all thise new powers
and
abillities,
> > getting it to work and getting it in balance with
the rest of the
> > game gives me the screaming heebee-geebies. I have
been trying
to
> > write up the Graeco-Roman Pantheon as a magical
non-PoL religion,
> > some gods work fine others are proving troublesome.
>
> Yeah, you're right- I don't suppose there's any reason
we should be
> killing ourselves at this point coming up with new
spells. Once the
> structure is there, new ones'll probably pop up to
fill in the
blanks
> as needed.
Agreed
> First we need to just come up with a rounded out
religion. As I
said
> in my previous post, I'll try to post an outline, at
least, on the
> Mithraism thing. Keep in mind that this isn't based
directly on the
> real thing (most of it is), it's tailored to the
fantasy setting I
> plugged it in to.
>
Great, I think we have to accept that compromises have
to be made in
order to make this an interesting and practical
Role-playing system
in any GM's campain
David
|
|
|
52 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Tue Jun 3, 2003 6:14am
Subject:
Re: Piety ala mode
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
<demon_star2002@y...> wrote:
> --- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
> <david.barrass@e...> wrote:
> > All religions are real to their followers - To
paraphrase
> Orwell "but
> > some are more real than others"
>
> I just meant a real world religion and a fabricated
one, just to
see
> how they can be reproduced using your rules.
Oh I see, check out the files section
> > I don't know about the code of Hammurabi - please
explain
> > By this paragraph do you mean one using magic and
the other a
> powers
> > of Light?
>
> The Code of Hammurabi was the Ten Commandments way
before the was a
> Ten Commandments. In other words, a set of rules
handed down from a
> god to his followers.
>
>
> > This is the way I see it
> > I have two forms of Religion:- non-magical and
magical.
> >
> > non-magical is a real Religion worshipping divine
beings (the
PoL).
> > this does not use magic and is based in WP. It uses
various
> rituals
> > and divinely inspired abillities. I think this is
what more the
> way
> > you see a religion working - correct me if I'm wrong
>
> You are correct, sir.
>
> > Magical - is based on giving a powerfull spirit
something, In
> return
> > he lets you use your own power in his name. He will
provide you
> with
>
> I just needed to process what you'd written a little
longer. It
holds
> up very well, to my eyes. I think I would have come
around quicker
if
> there's been a model, an example, for me to see. But I
think I got
it
> now.
>
> >
> > Lots of points here.
> > For a magical Religion I see it as spell casting in
a gods name
not
> > by divine favour
> > You pay EPs for the magical abillities and, as this
is magic,
cold
> > iron disrupts and you pay FT
> >
> > For a non-magical religion I entirely agree that
things "should
> work
> > differently than magic! Woo!"
>
> Yup, I'm with ya on both points now. I just needed to
kick it a few
> times to see if anything fell off. So far, nothing's
fallen off. :)
>
> > We can agree to dissagree on the philosophy as long
as we agree
on
> > the mechanics
>
> I'm pretty sure I'm in sync with your philosophy now.
The
mechanics,
> however, are not my forte- I can only kibbitz where
that's
concerned.
>
> > What is your philosophy?
> > Do you see the split into two forms of religion as
being there?
>
> I think you might have thrown me a bit with your
Spirit World rules
> which, by the way, kick ass. In two places you make a
distinction
> between "gods" and the POL. This is a bit confusing to
me as I'd
> viewed the POL as gods. I still do. I'm not sure what
else they'd
be
> if they're not.
Aw shucks
Yes I too see the PoL as Gods, I just needed a way to
differentiate
them from the "other Gods" - a point that needs to be
clarified in
the rules thank you.
> > This is getting rather mudled - shall we start
another thread?
>
> 10-4, good buddy! I think we should just start
dissecting the work
> you've already done to see if anything needs tweaking
or expanding.
> What do you say?
see new post
(damn - still haven't started a new thread)
David
|
|
|
53 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 3:01pm
Subject:
Re: David's Draft Rules
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
<david.barrass@e...> wrote:
> 1) I don't like Ego combat, there needs to be some way
to
> interact "robustly" with spirits, but I'm not sure
this is the best
> way to do it
Unfortunately this sort of thing is not my forte, but I
do like that
it's actually there. Too bad nobody else seems to want
to comment on
any of this.
> 2) The magical Diety's priests need more magic
abillities, some
have
> lots some have hardly any (for some, such as Ares,
this is
deliberate)
Not exactly sure what you mean by "abilities" here. Do
you mean the
non-spell/ritual/talent side of it? In any case, you
don't want to
give them too much power (not more than mages, at
least). What do you
see as the balancing out factor here?
> 3) the PoL priest could do with some more powers
relevant to a
> campain, he's great when an adept fires a spell at him
as his MR is
> potentially huge, but he can't do anything in return
immediatly
other
> than hit him - this may be fine I'd like feed-back
Again, I'm for keeping their list of powers on the short
side, as
they don't have Mana, etc. to deal with. I think just
that fact that
they *can* strike back physically before they're able to
do
so "magically" is a pretty good advantage. If a priest
can attack
with a sword (for example) then attack with a "spell"
makes them a
worthy opponent. On paper, anyway.
> 4) It *needs* play testing. Some of the older bits
have been
tested,
> but who knows what I've missed or got wrong 'cos I
know what I ment
I'll cover some points here in a bit.
> 5) The Pantheon is not complete I know this - I will
get to them
all
> eventually.
Likewise.
> 6) My spelling is horrendous (some of the spelling is
UK vs US
> spelling and not my fault)
I can take care of some of that. But not until we've
worked out the
mechanical bugs.
Okay, I'm going to comment of the version I printed out
a couple of
weeks ago, since that's the one I've been looking at all
this time.
Just let me know if you've already taken care of that
stuff.
94. BOUNDARY SPIRITS
[94.1]
"Skills
Language of all it's believers"
{need a clarification here}
"Some believe that this is how the Gods (but not the
Powers of Light)
were created".
{I'd brought this up before- what is the difference
between the two?
Why are the POL not considered Gods? How are you
defining Gods here?}
[94.4] Greater Sentients
{I understand what you're getting at (I'm good with
a-f), but you're
wording is little confusing.}
[94.5]
{Any instance of "un-dead" should be changed to "undead"
(no hyphen)
to maintain syntax with the rest of the book. Also, does
this
contradict Arcane Wisdom[89.4], specifically (G-9) Spell
of Summoning
Undead? Under the first paragraph of [89.] it states
"...and binding
of the *same plane* as the Adept..." (emphasis mine)}
"The un-dead are neither in or out of this world..."
{I would suggest "The undead are neither of or apart
from this
world..."}
[95.1]
{relates to note on [94.5] above}
[95.2]
{as [95.1]}
"Particularly strong family communities that have been
can trace
their origins..."
{would suggest striking "that have been"}
[95.3]
{Would like to see something a little more in-depth
here, if possible}
[95.4]
{Did you leave some information out here?}
[95.5]
{This should also be expanded upon. Also, there's a
problem
concerning the nature of Demons, the POD, and the POL
(not yours, but
relating to this), that I'll examine in another post.
stay tuned.}
In general, typos, etc. aside, you should try to stick
to the DQ
syntax as best you can. For instance where you have "Ft"
for
Fatigue, "FT" would be better. Also, I noticed you have
a lot of
strange notation throughout 97. ("3xWPvictim", for
example).
This is just me nit picking, but it goes to maintaining
that anal-
retentive quality to DQ that we all have come to know
and love. :)
No disrespect intended in any of this. Just trying to
help where I
can.
Later,
R.
|
|
|
54 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Sun Jun 8, 2003 3:08pm
Subject:
Re: Piety ala mode
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
<david.barrass@e...> wrote:
>
> Yes I too see the PoL as Gods, I just needed a way to
differentiate
> them from the "other Gods" - a point that needs to be
clarified in
> the rules thank you.
Oops. Ignore the question in my last post. Heh heh.
Later,
R.
|
|
|
55 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Mon Jun 9, 2003 6:24am
Subject:
Re: David's Draft Rules
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
<demon_star2002@y...> wrote:
> --- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
> <david.barrass@e...> wrote:
>
> > 1) I don't like Ego combat, there needs to be some
way to
> > interact "robustly" with spirits, but I'm not sure
this is the
best
> > way to do it
>
> Unfortunately this sort of thing is not my forte, but
I do like
that
> it's actually there. Too bad nobody else seems to want
to comment
on
> any of this.
I couldn't agree more
> > 2) The magical Diety's priests need more magic
abillities, some
> have
> > lots some have hardly any (for some, such as Ares,
this is
> deliberate)
>
> Not exactly sure what you mean by "abilities" here. Do
you mean the
> non-spell/ritual/talent side of it? In any case, you
don't want to
> give them too much power (not more than mages, at
least). What do
you
> see as the balancing out factor here?
I mean the tallents spels and Rituals. The cheif
balancing factor
should be the role-playing of the PC perhaps I should
add a note to
this effect saying that a GM should heavilly punish
priests who do
not live up to the religion's standards
> > 3) the PoL priest could do with some more powers
relevant to a
> > campain, he's great when an adept fires a spell at
him as his MR
is
> > potentially huge, but he can't do anything in return
immediatly
> other
> > than hit him - this may be fine I'd like feed-back
>
> Again, I'm for keeping their list of powers on the
short side, as
> they don't have Mana, etc. to deal with. I think just
that fact
that
> they *can* strike back physically before they're able
to do
> so "magically" is a pretty good advantage. If a priest
can attack
> with a sword (for example) then attack with a "spell"
makes them a
> worthy opponent. On paper, anyway.
OK, I'm releived to hear you say that - any other
comments anyone?
> > 4) It *needs* play testing. Some of the older bits
have been
> tested,
> > but who knows what I've missed or got wrong 'cos I
know what I
ment
>
> I'll cover some points here in a bit.
>
> > 5) The Pantheon is not complete I know this - I will
get to them
> all
> > eventually.
>
> Likewise.
>
> > 6) My spelling is horrendous (some of the spelling
is UK vs US
> > spelling and not my fault)
>
> I can take care of some of that. But not until we've
worked out the
> mechanical bugs.
>
>
> Okay, I'm going to comment of the version I printed
out a couple of
> weeks ago, since that's the one I've been looking at
all this time.
> Just let me know if you've already taken care of that
stuff.
>
>
> 94. BOUNDARY SPIRITS
> [94.1]
> "Skills
> Language of all it's believers"
> {need a clarification here}
Changed to:-
They understand the spoken language of all their
believers. They are
not equipped to talk, but may communicate telepathically
if someone
else opens up a channel to them.
> "Some believe that this is how the Gods (but not the
Powers of
Light)
> were created".
> {I'd brought this up before- what is the difference
between the
two?
> Why are the POL not considered Gods? How are you
defining Gods
here?}
I suppose that I feel a God is what is worshipped as a
god. Yes I
know that's woolly, but its the only deffinition I can
come up with
that's entirly consistant with anyone's world, and does
imply a large
amount of power from worship
Changed to:-
Some believe that this is how the Gods (but not the
Powers of Light)
were created. The Powers of Light are non-magical, very
powerful
spirits that are worshipped by some societies as Gods
> [94.4] Greater Sentients
> {I understand what you're getting at (I'm good with
a-f), but
you're
> wording is little confusing.}
OK Try
In these states the entity's spirit exists on the
boundary between
the physical and the spirit world. This is rather like a
shadow
falling on to a thin sheet, the shadow can be seen from
both sides of
the sheet. Their spirits therefore exist in and are
accessible from
both the physical and spirit worlds
> [94.5]
> {Any instance of "un-dead" should be changed to
"undead" (no
hyphen)
> to maintain syntax with the rest of the book.
Changed in all of the document
> Also, does this
> contradict Arcane Wisdom[89.4], specifically (G-9)
Spell of
Summoning
> Undead? Under the first paragraph of [89.] it states
"...and
binding
> of the *same plane* as the Adept..." (emphasis mine)}
> "The un-dead are neither in or out of this world..."
> {I would suggest "The undead are neither of or apart
from this
> world..."}
Revised wording accepted. The section you quoted kind of
answers
your first question, they are a part of this plane as
well as the
spirit plane. I've changed the intro section of Boundary
spirts to
hopefull clear this up to :-
The boundary between the worlds pervades all objects
except cold
iron. The spirits of the boundary exist on the boundary
of the
physical world and the spirit plane and are a part of,
and accessible
from both sides, without being wholly part of either.
Therefore
Spells Rituals and Talents can treat these spirits as
members of the
community naturally found on both planes.
> [95.1]
> {relates to note on [94.5] above}
>
> [95.2]
> {as [95.1]}
>
> "Particularly strong family communities that have been
can trace
> their origins..."
> {would suggest striking "that have been"}
Changed this section totally. I realise they should be
boundary
spirits, and I've tightened the rules for these.
Try this:-
[94.7] Spirits of the Ancestors
Particularly strong family communities can have strong
ancestor
spirits. These can aid, guide and punish members of
their community
and combat other ancestor spirits. They are similar to
the Spirits
of abstract ideas ([94.1]), except:-
They are intelligent as they were when alive and may
retain up to MA
spells and WP skill ranks at or below the levels they
had when alive.
Their points and characteristics are generated at the
rate of 1 per
20 believing descendents over the space of 10 years.
They do not need a spirit home while their descendents
revere their
remains (either mortal or items strongly associated with
them) and do
not move their homes more than 50 miles per generation.
Nomadic
communities may not move the centre of their home range
by more than
50 miles in a generation.
I've also tightend up the Geni rules, one bit of which
I've already
posted. The're quite long so I'll wait until draft 0.1
unless you
want them now.
> [95.3]
> {Would like to see something a little more in-depth
here, if
possible}
>
> [95.4]
> {Did you leave some information out here?}
>
> [95.5]
> {This should also be expanded upon. Also, there's a
problem
> concerning the nature of Demons, the POD, and the POL
(not yours,
but
> relating to this), that I'll examine in another post.
stay tuned.}
This was deliberatly left vaque. Partly I did not want
to dictate
how a GM should implement planes, but mainly it was
lazyness.
Designing a "Plane System" was too much work, with
little in the way
of clues in the DQ books. I could have just ripped of
the Manual of
Planes, but when it comes right down to it I did not
need it in my
campain half as much as I wanted Religion and I suspect
most campains
are the same. Being a Celtic Campain I did need Fairy,
so wrote some
rules for that.
I'd love to hear your ideas on the POL/POD - you seem
far more
knowledgeable on this than me.
> In general, typos, etc. aside, you should try to stick
to the DQ
> syntax as best you can. For instance where you have
"Ft" for
> Fatigue, "FT" would be better. Also, I noticed you
have a lot of
> strange notation throughout 97. ("3xWPvictim", for
example).
Ft and strange subscripts gone - replaced by FT and more
text
explaining what I ment (the 3xWPvictim means 3 x the WP
of the
victim)
> This is just me nit picking, but it goes to
maintaining that anal-
> retentive quality to DQ that we all have come to know
and love. :)
>
> No disrespect intended in any of this. Just trying to
help where I
> can.
None taken
I't just good to have some feed back
Thanks
David
|
|
|
56 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 1:35pm
Subject:
The Light and Darkness War II
|
|
|
Okay, I'm just gonna do this as a stream of
conscienceness kinda
thing. Forgive me if it goes astray. ;)
POWERS OF LIGHT:
We can assume that in a fantasy setting most people are
aligned with,
but not necessarily *allied* with, the POL. In other
words Joe Farmer
(who is preoccupied with farming, but otherwise a decent
fellow) is
aligned with the POL, while Joe Priest (who is
preoccupied with his
religion and is likewise a decent fellow) is allied with
the POL.
Both worship their god/s to a lesser or greater extent,
respectively.
As we know, the POL are *effectively* (this point must
be stressed)
opposed to magic because it is assumed that they are
non-magical in
nature. We can extrapolate from this that the actual
presence of a god
would be devastating to magic and mana flow and that a
priest would,
at the least, be very problematic to the average mage.
POWERS OF DARKNESS:
We can assume that only Creatures of Darkness and Black
Magicians are
allied with the POD, while "evil" people and races (i.e.
Orcs), and
Greater Summoners are aligned with the POD. It's in the
relationship
between Black Magicians and their masters that things
start to get
sticky.
Why are the Powers of Darkness able to control mana,
while the Powers
of Light are not? Are they a completely different set of
beings? In
other words (the Barras Religion stuff aside) is Odin of
the POL while
Loki is of the POD?
DEMONS:
Beings of the 7th Plane are summonable by Greater
Summoners (duh) and
so are creatures that can alter mana flow (as is also
evidenced by
their use of magic. Again, duh.) Even though it is never
stated that
they are of the Powers of Darkness, we can make the
assumption that
they are since the familiars gifted to Black Magicians
are, in fact,
Devils (I'm thinking this should have been Imps instead)
and while,
again, not explicitly stated, both Imps and Devils are
assumed to be
of the 7th Plane.
It is stated explicitly that Succubi (and it follows,
Incubi) are of
the 7th Plane. No question there.
I say that Black Magicians are allied with the POD while
Greater
Summoners are mearly aligned with them since a BM makes
a pact with
them, while a GS forces them to do his bidding. People
of questionable
character, yes, but not necessarily evil.
I realize this is probably all getting a little muddle.
Bear with me.
The College of Greater Summoning is based very closely
on The
Lemegeton (aka The Lesser Key of Solomon). King Solomon,
it is
written, summoned (I think) a demon or a bunch of demons
and sealed
them up in bottles (some kind of container, at any
rate). He also, I
believe, summoned Angels to his aid.
It is a combination of this, Kaballistic riuals, and
some stuff Moses
pulled off in the Biblical Apocrypha (and probably some
other stuff)
that most people get their idea of "Magic".
According to the Kaballa, everything is an aspect of
YHVH/Yahweh/Jehova/God. Through prayer (or whatever you
want to call
it) a practitioner of the Kaballa can effect changes
utilizing the
power of God. Keep in mind that Man is the creation of
God, and so is
an aspect, a fragment, of God.
In The Lemegeton demons are nothing more or less than
angels fallen
from the grace of God. Fallen Angels=Demons.
In DragonQuest terms we get this:
God (the Creator), Angels=Powers of Light. Opposed to
magic.
Demons (Fallen Angels), Devils, Imps, Succubi &
Incubi=Powers of
Darkness. Magic is a-ok with them. We can draw from this
that the POD
in toto come exclusively from the seventh plane. Is the
7th Plane,
then, Hell?
Okay, I lost my point somewhere in there, but you can
draw your
conclusions, agree and disagree, and tell me why. That
aside, while
writing this, something else occured to me. Read on.
Pagan temples do not effect mana. Unfortunately "pagan"
went undefined
in the DQ book, but we can assume that these temples are
dedicated to
pagan gods. This, of course doesn't mean that "pagan
gods" are related
in any way with the POD.
I might suggest that the "Greater Powers" mentioned in
the Astrologer
skill are, in fact, pagan or "magical" gods. Waddaya
think o' that?
Hm? Eh?
Okay, that's it from me for now- my ass hurts.
Later, R.
(and who, who ,who wrote the Book of Toth?)
|
|
|
57 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Thu Jun 12, 2003 3:16pm
Subject:
Re: David's Draft Rules
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
<david.barrass@e...> wrote:
> > give them too much power (not more than mages, at
least). What do
> you
> > see as the balancing out factor here?
>
> I mean the tallents spels and Rituals. The cheif
balancing factor
> should be the role-playing of the PC perhaps I should
add a note to
> this effect saying that a GM should heavilly punish
priests who do
> not live up to the religion's standards
Do you mean the GM should have the priests god punish
the priest or
do you mean suggest that the GM punish the player (I
assume through
exp)?
> > 94. BOUNDARY SPIRITS
> > [94.1]
> > "Skills
> > Language of all it's believers"
> > {need a clarification here}
>
> Changed to:-
> They understand the spoken language of all their
believers. They
are
> not equipped to talk, but may communicate
telepathically if someone
> else opens up a channel to them.
How do you feel about opening that up to other forms of
communication? Like in the form of signs, visions, etc.
That sort of
thing is something I'd always felt was missing from
fantasy rpgs.
> > "Some believe that this is how the Gods (but not the
Powers of
> Light)
> > were created".
> > {I'd brought this up before- what is the difference
between the
> two?
> > Why are the POL not considered Gods? How are you
defining Gods
> here?}
>
> I suppose that I feel a God is what is worshipped as a
god. Yes I
> know that's woolly, but its the only deffinition I can
come up with
> that's entirly consistant with anyone's world, and
does imply a
large
> amount of power from worship
>
> Changed to:-
> Some believe that this is how the Gods (but not the
Powers of
Light)
> were created. The Powers of Light are non-magical,
very powerful
> spirits that are worshipped by some societies as Gods
I think the reader would be better served if you were to
clarify by
saying what Gods *are* instead of what they *are not*.
Since the POL
have nothing to do with this section, no need to mention
them here.
To wit:
"Some believe that this is how the Magical (or Pagan or
Polytheistic)
Gods were created."
> > [94.4] Greater Sentients
> > {I understand what you're getting at (I'm good with
a-f), but
> you're
> > wording is little confusing.}
>
> OK Try
> In these states the entity's spirit exists on the
boundary between
> the physical and the spirit world. This is rather like
a shadow
> falling on to a thin sheet, the shadow can be seen
from both sides
of
> the sheet. Their spirits therefore exist in and are
accessible
from
> both the physical and spirit worlds
Would that preceed or follow the table? Also, you made
your point
nicely without the "shadow" analogy. Again, for
clarity's sake, you
might want to leave that bit out.
> > Also, does this
> > contradict Arcane Wisdom[89.4], specifically (G-9)
Spell of
> Summoning
> > Undead? Under the first paragraph of [89.] it states
"...and
> binding
> > of the *same plane* as the Adept..." (emphasis
mine)}
>
> > "The un-dead are neither in or out of this world..."
> > {I would suggest "The undead are neither of or apart
from this
> > world..."}
>
> Revised wording accepted. The section you quoted kind
of answers
> your first question, they are a part of this plane as
well as the
> spirit plane. I've changed the intro section of
Boundary spirts to
> hopefull clear this up to :-
>
> The boundary between the worlds pervades all objects
except cold
> iron. The spirits of the boundary exist on the
boundary of the
> physical world and the spirit plane and are a part of,
and
accessible
> from both sides, without being wholly part of either.
Therefore
> Spells Rituals and Talents can treat these spirits as
members of
the
> community naturally found on both planes.
This actually brings up some thoughts on the undead that
I'll address
in another post.
> [94.7] Spirits of the Ancestors
> Particularly strong family communities can have strong
ancestor
> spirits. These can aid, guide and punish members of
their
community
> and combat other ancestor spirits. They are similar to
the Spirits
> of abstract ideas ([94.1]), except:-
> They are intelligent as they were when alive and may
retain up to
MA
> spells and WP skill ranks at or below the levels they
had when
alive.
Watch that syntax, my good man! While the folks on the
DQ groups
might know what you mean, not everyone will. I've got a
friend who
I'm teaching to play the game and that last bit there
might leave her
scratching her head. Actually, I'm not really sure what
"WP skill
ranks" means, myself.
> Their points and characteristics are generated at the
rate of 1 per
> 20 believing descendents over the space of 10 years.
I had something like this in my old Priest skill write
up and
strongly reccomend it's inclusion in the Religion rules.
More on this
in another post.
> They do not need a spirit home while their descendents
revere their
> remains (either mortal or items strongly associated
with them) and
do
> not move their homes more than 50 miles per
generation. Nomadic
> communities may not move the centre of their home
range by more
than
> 50 miles in a generation.
The Devil's Advocate must ask- is an ancestor spirit
considered
undead? And if not, why not? Could they not be
considered a
revenant?
> I've also tightend up the Geni rules, one bit of which
I've already
> posted. The're quite long so I'll wait until draft 0.1
unless you
> want them now.
Baby step, my friend, baby steps. lol
>
> This was deliberatly left vaque. Partly I did not want
to dictate
> how a GM should implement planes, but mainly it was
lazyness.
> Designing a "Plane System" was too much work, with
little in the
way
> of clues in the DQ books.
I'd be willing to work on this with you, at no extra
charge.
I could have just ripped of the Manual of
> Planes,
Good thing you didn't! I honestly think that any
inclusion of planes,
dimensions and the like should be left vague at best. A
lot of what
makes a good fantasy story (to me, anyway) is a sense of
mystery and
wonder (corny but true!). As much as I like Tolkien, he
just went and
took a big poop on all that with LOTR. I actually prefer
the
term "land" or something along those lines when
describing planes,
etc. "Land of Faerie", for instance, has a nice ring to
it.
>
> I'd love to hear your ideas on the POL/POD - you seem
far more
> knowledgeable on this than me.
Should be the post right before this one. As far as my
being more
knowledgeable... I just happen to have some good
resources handy.
More later,
R.
|
|
|
58 |
From: dbarrass_2000 <david.barrass@e...>
Date: Fri Jun 13, 2003 2:43am
Subject:
Re: David's Draft Rules
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
<demon_star2002@y...> wrote:
> --- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"dbarrass_2000"
> <david.barrass@e...> wrote:
> > > give them too much power (not more than mages, at
least). What
do
> > you
> > > see as the balancing out factor here?
> >
> > I mean the tallents spels and Rituals. The cheif
balancing
factor
> > should be the role-playing of the PC perhaps I
should add a note
to
> > this effect saying that a GM should heavilly punish
priests who
do
> > not live up to the religion's standards
>
> Do you mean the GM should have the priests god punish
the priest or
> do you mean suggest that the GM punish the player (I
assume through
> exp)?
Why not both? Try:-
[101.2] Priests must at all times be acting in
accordance with the
principles of the Religion
Priests who fail to live up to he high standards of a
religion or
break its rules will be heavily punished. The
punishments (in order
of severity) will include, but is not limited to:-
Reduced EXP awards by the GM
Loss of status within the religious organisation
Prevented from advancing in ranks
Loss of ranks in religious abilities
Loss of all ranks of religious abilities
Loss of all ranks of religious abilities and initiate
status
Curses from the Religious organisation and/or the deity
Some of these can be restored by the performance of an
act of penance
or heroic act that is commensurate with the original
offence
> > > 94. BOUNDARY SPIRITS
> > > [94.1]
> > > "Skills
> > > Language of all it's believers"
> > > {need a clarification here}
> >
> > Changed to:-
> > They understand the spoken language of all their
believers. They
> are
> > not equipped to talk, but may communicate
telepathically if
someone
> > else opens up a channel to them.
>
> How do you feel about opening that up to other forms
of
> communication? Like in the form of signs, visions,
etc. That sort
of
> thing is something I'd always felt was missing from
fantasy rpgs.
Yes that's a good idea
> > > "Some believe that this is how the Gods (but not
the Powers of
> > Light)
> > > were created".
> > > {I'd brought this up before- what is the
difference between the
> > two?
> > > Why are the POL not considered Gods? How are you
defining Gods
> > here?}
> >
> > I suppose that I feel a God is what is worshipped as
a god. Yes
I
> > know that's woolly, but its the only deffinition I
can come up
with
> > that's entirly consistant with anyone's world, and
does imply a
> large
> > amount of power from worship
> >
> > Changed to:-
> > Some believe that this is how the Gods (but not the
Powers of
> Light)
> > were created. The Powers of Light are non-magical,
very powerful
> > spirits that are worshipped by some societies as
Gods
>
>
> I think the reader would be better served if you were
to clarify by
> saying what Gods *are* instead of what they *are not*.
Since the
POL
> have nothing to do with this section, no need to
mention them here.
>
> To wit:
> "Some believe that this is how the Magical (or Pagan
or
Polytheistic)
> Gods were created."
Change accepted
> > > [94.4] Greater Sentients
> > > {I understand what you're getting at (I'm good
with a-f), but
> > you're
> > > wording is little confusing.}
> >
> > OK Try
> > In these states the entity's spirit exists on the
boundary
between
> > the physical and the spirit world. This is rather
like a shadow
> > falling on to a thin sheet, the shadow can be seen
from both
sides
> of
> > the sheet. Their spirits therefore exist in and are
accessible
> from
> > both the physical and spirit worlds
>
> Would that preceed or follow the table? Also, you made
your point
> nicely without the "shadow" analogy. Again, for
clarity's sake, you
> might want to leave that bit out.
It follows the table
Ok I'll remove the shaddow bit
> > > Also, does this
> > > contradict Arcane Wisdom[89.4], specifically (G-9)
Spell of
> > Summoning
> > > Undead? Under the first paragraph of [89.] it
states "...and
> > binding
> > > of the *same plane* as the Adept..." (emphasis
mine)}
> >
> > > "The un-dead are neither in or out of this
world..."
> > > {I would suggest "The undead are neither of or
apart from this
> > > world..."}
> >
> > Revised wording accepted. The section you quoted
kind of answers
> > your first question, they are a part of this plane
as well as the
> > spirit plane. I've changed the intro section of
Boundary spirts
to
> > hopefull clear this up to :-
> >
> > The boundary between the worlds pervades all objects
except cold
> > iron. The spirits of the boundary exist on the
boundary of the
> > physical world and the spirit plane and are a part
of, and
> accessible
> > from both sides, without being wholly part of
either. Therefore
> > Spells Rituals and Talents can treat these spirits
as members of
> the
> > community naturally found on both planes.
>
> This actually brings up some thoughts on the undead
that I'll
address
> in another post.
>
> > [94.7] Spirits of the Ancestors
> > Particularly strong family communities can have
strong ancestor
> > spirits. These can aid, guide and punish members of
their
> community
> > and combat other ancestor spirits. They are similar
to the
Spirits
> > of abstract ideas ([94.1]), except:-
> > They are intelligent as they were when alive and may
retain up to
> MA
> > spells and WP skill ranks at or below the levels
they had when
> alive.
>
> Watch that syntax, my good man! While the folks on the
DQ groups
> might know what you mean, not everyone will. I've got
a friend who
> I'm teaching to play the game and that last bit there
might leave
her
> scratching her head. Actually, I'm not really sure
what "WP skill
> ranks" means, myself.
err - yes what DID I mean?
Ok try
They are intelligent as they were when alive and may
retain a number
of spells up to their current MA. They may only have a
total number
of ranks in all of their skills equivalent to their
current WP. They
may not improve skill or spell ranks.
> > Their points and characteristics are generated at
the rate of 1
per
> > 20 believing descendents over the space of 10 years.
>
> I had something like this in my old Priest skill write
up and
> strongly reccomend it's inclusion in the Religion
rules. More on
this
> in another post.
I've been debating with myself the need for a Pagan
priest skill and
tying it into the magical abilities, and I'm currently
on the side of
having one
> > They do not need a spirit home while their
descendents revere
their
> > remains (either mortal or items strongly associated
with them)
and
> do
> > not move their homes more than 50 miles per
generation. Nomadic
> > communities may not move the centre of their home
range by more
> than
> > 50 miles in a generation.
>
> The Devil's Advocate must ask- is an ancestor spirit
considered
> undead? And if not, why not? Could they not be
considered a
> revenant?
I feel it should be separate. It is powered by the
beleif and
reverence of believers as a spirit, not like an undead.
It is
therefore far more influenced by what people believe of
it than an
undead.
> > I've also tightend up the Geni rules, one bit of
which I've
already
> > posted. The're quite long so I'll wait until draft
0.1 unless
you
> > want them now.
>
> Baby step, my friend, baby steps. lol
>
> >
> > This was deliberatly left vaque. Partly I did not
want to
dictate
> > how a GM should implement planes, but mainly it was
lazyness.
> > Designing a "Plane System" was too much work, with
little in the
> way
> > of clues in the DQ books.
>
> I'd be willing to work on this with you, at no extra
charge.
OK - but one thing at a time
> I could have just ripped of the Manual of
> > Planes,
>
> Good thing you didn't! I honestly think that any
inclusion of
planes,
> dimensions and the like should be left vague at best.
A lot of what
> makes a good fantasy story (to me, anyway) is a sense
of mystery
and
> wonder (corny but true!). As much as I like Tolkien,
he just went
and
> took a big poop on all that with LOTR. I actually
prefer the
> term "land" or something along those lines when
describing planes,
> etc. "Land of Faerie", for instance, has a nice ring
to it.
Yes I've noticed that I started out I called them Worlds
- Physical,
Spirit World etc. When I've come back to it I've started
to use
plains. I think I'll move away from planes
> > I'd love to hear your ideas on the POL/POD - you
seem far more
> > knowledgeable on this than me.
>
> Should be the post right before this one. As far as my
being more
> knowledgeable... I just happen to have some good
resources handy.
Its not what you know its what books you have :--)
David
|
|
|
59 |
From: Richard <demon_star2002@y...>
Date: Fri Jun 13, 2003 3:06pm
Subject:
Re: The Light and Darkness War II
|
|
|
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com, "Richard"
<demon_star2002@y...> wrote:
> I might suggest that the "Greater Powers" mentioned in
the
Astrologer
> skill are, in fact, pagan or "magical" gods. Waddaya
think o' that?
> Hm? Eh?
This is utter shit and you are clearly an idiot. If
you'd have
actually read the book, you would know that they are
speaking of
celestial bodies and nothing more, you retard.
>
> Okay, that's it from me for now- my ass hurts.
My ass would hurt, too, if that's where *my* brains
were.
Later,
R.
|
|
|
60 |
From: John Rauchert <john.rauchert@s...>
Date: Fri Jun 13, 2003 3:16pm
Subject:
RE: Re: The Light and Darkness War II
|
|
|
Hey Richard,
We are trying to run a family friendly
"satanic" roleplaying game forum here.
If this public self abuse continues we may
have to take stiffer action.
J
JohnR.
-----Original Message-----
From:
Richard [mailto:demon_star2002@yahoo.com]
Sent:
Friday, June 13, 2003 3:06 PM
To:
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[DragonQuestCathedral] Re: The Light and
Darkness War II
--- In
DragonQuestCathedral@yahoogroups.com,
"Richard"
wrote:
> I might
suggest that the "Greater Powers" mentioned
in the
Astrologer
> skill are, in
fact, pagan or "magical" gods. Waddaya think
o' that?
> Hm? Eh?
This is utter
shit and you are clearly an idiot. If you'd
have
actually read
the book, you would know that they are
speaking of
celestial
bodies and nothing more, you retard.
>
> Okay, that's
it from me for now- my ass hurts.
My ass would
hurt, too, if that's where *my* brains were.
Later,
R.
|
|
|
|