Cerilian Apotheosis

[Trithemius]

Gary:
> I don`t recall it saying anywhere that the Gorgon`s bloodline
> was sufficient for him to become a deity. In fact, I seem to
> recall the opposite. A couple of points:

I believe that it says it somewhere (since I remember it from before
Daniel mentioned it). I can`t for the life of me remember where though.
I still contend that the idea is silly.

> 1. We don`t know that the Gorgon`s bloodline was in the
> triple digits after Deismaar. In fact, it probably wasn`t.
> Other true bloodlines are lower than his, and in certain
> cases (most notably the Serpent) even those characters have
> made strides towards a divine status.

Usurping the Roele line probably gave him a big kick up. I also like to
think that the Serpent`s "divine powers" are due to his powers of
conjuration and probably have more to do with the ability of the
sorcerer-kings of Athas than to do with actual diviity. Don`t get me
wrong here though - I am not saying that the Serpent has a Living Vortex
(or whatever it was called), but I associate his powers with ritual
arcane magic - not true divinity. We have examples of the Serpents great
magical power that, I believe, support this interpretation of mine.

> 2. A bloodline of 100+ is a good place to start in a bid
> towards transcendence. After all, the same energies that
> made the human inheritors of the gods` divine power is what
> created bloodlines. It`s the same stuff, so wouldn`t rising
> one`s bloodline be a way to achieve godhood? A bloodline of
> 100+ seems like a good starting point for certain characters
> who are trying to ascend.

Um. No. I just disagree. I don`t feel that mortals in BR should be able
to become gods through their own works alone. I don`t think that there
is anything in the source that out-and-out supports either of our
positions though, so I guess it comes down to taste.

> 3. A 100+ bloodline, however, should not be the only
> requirement for transcendence. First of all, the Gorgon is
> around as powerful as a few other D&D characters (Iuz,
> Elminister) who are described variously as demi-gods or
> rivalling that sort of power, so character levels aren`t
> really a problem for him, but that should be some sort of
> requirement for a mortal.

See above. High character level might indicate to a god that a person
may be worth elevating, but it is probably not essential. I imagine,
given there self-enforced distancing from terrestrial affairs the gods
only notice the truly "bright stars" though.

> 4. The humans who became gods at Deismaar took on the exact
> same aspects of the gods that perished, so they didn`t have
> any need to find a role/niche/portfolio or whatever. Any
> human who transcends is going to have to define his/er place
> in the pantheon. The Gorgon hasn`t really done this (neither
> has the Serpent) though various interpretations could apply.

Fair enough.

> 5. Tasks. There has to be a series of specific and epic
> tasks on the path to divinity. I`ve always liked the idea
> that Raesene`s task was to sit on the Iron Throne.

This is a nice idea. I am nt sure I`d use it in BR though. I think it
better suits another campaign setting much more. (I do not mean this
badly in anyway, I just don`t think that ascent to godhood needs to be a
feature of the BR campaign).

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 10:30 PM 9/2/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

> > I don`t recall it saying anywhere that the Gorgon`s bloodline
> > was sufficient for him to become a deity. In fact, I seem to
> > recall the opposite. A couple of points:
>
>I believe that it says it somewhere (since I remember it from before
>Daniel mentioned it). I can`t for the life of me remember where though.
>I still contend that the idea is silly.

OK, I think I`ve found the text you guys are talking about. In BE (p30)
the introductory text says that at Deismaar Raesene "gained much as Azrai`s
third Champion, though not as much as Azrai`s other favorites. My anger
against my brothers kept me on Cerilia."

The truth value of that text is, however, very questionable. It`s
described later on the same page as being "peppered with subjective
half-truths, to say the least." I don`t think we`re supposed to believe
that particular bit of text. It isn`t really silly, it`s just NPC
role-playing text.

> > 1. We don`t know that the Gorgon`s bloodline was in the
> > triple digits after Deismaar. In fact, it probably wasn`t.
> > Other true bloodlines are lower than his, and in certain
> > cases (most notably the Serpent) even those characters have
> > made strides towards a divine status.
>
>Usurping the Roele line probably gave him a big kick up. I also like to
>think that the Serpent`s "divine powers" are due to his powers of
>conjuration and probably have more to do with the ability of the
>sorcerer-kings of Athas than to do with actual diviity. Don`t get me
>wrong here though - I am not saying that the Serpent has a Living Vortex
>(or whatever it was called), but I associate his powers with ritual
>arcane magic - not true divinity. We have examples of the Serpents great
>magical power that, I believe, support this interpretation of mine.

If he started off with a bloodline strength score of 90 and raised it 1
point every 10 years he`d have a bloodline strength score of 240 by the
time the campaign setting begins.

> > 2. A bloodline of 100+ is a good place to start in a bid
> > towards transcendence. After all, the same energies that
> > made the human inheritors of the gods` divine power is what
> > created bloodlines. It`s the same stuff, so wouldn`t rising
> > one`s bloodline be a way to achieve godhood? A bloodline of
> > 100+ seems like a good starting point for certain characters
> > who are trying to ascend.
>
>Um. No. I just disagree. I don`t feel that mortals in BR should be able
>to become gods through their own works alone. I don`t think that there
>is anything in the source that out-and-out supports either of our
>positions though, so I guess it comes down to taste.

Why shouldn`t a mortal be able to become a god in BR?

I would take the existence of mortal bloodlines as evidence in support of
the idea that a mortal could improve himself to the level of godhood in
BR. In fact, it`s the kind of thing that doesn`t exist in other campaign
settings (or most fantasy settings, for that matter) so it gives BR mortals
an advantage that doesn`t exist elsewhere in D&D.

Using that bloodline they can collect RP which is described in several
places as having the same sort of effect that the worship, adoration, etc.
of the gods has, and is the energy used to influence events at the domain
level in a way that is easy to extrapolate into the way the gods influence
humanity. They are at a different scale, of course, but they are aspects
of the same process.

> > 3. A 100+ bloodline, however, should not be the only
> > requirement for transcendence. First of all, the Gorgon is
> > around as powerful as a few other D&D characters (Iuz,
> > Elminister) who are described variously as demi-gods or
> > rivalling that sort of power, so character levels aren`t
> > really a problem for him, but that should be some sort of
> > requirement for a mortal.
>
>See above. High character level might indicate to a god that a person
>may be worth elevating, but it is probably not essential. I imagine,
>given there self-enforced distancing from terrestrial affairs the gods
>only notice the truly "bright stars" though.

I can certainly see mythical or "realism" objections to such an event, but
it seems to me that in a level-based game a 36th level character is pretty
impressive and the difference between him and a low level divinity is
pretty slight in relation to similar creatures in various published
materials. Divinity for such a character depends quite a bit on the
campaign setting, of course, but in the supposedly low-level BR setting if
a 36th level character isn`t getting that kind of attention or near the
beginning of taking road to divinity all by himself then what`s it going to
take?

> > 5. Tasks. There has to be a series of specific and epic
> > tasks on the path to divinity. I`ve always liked the idea
> > that Raesene`s task was to sit on the Iron Throne.
>
>This is a nice idea. I am nt sure I`d use it in BR though. I think it
>better suits another campaign setting much more. (I do not mean this
>badly in anyway, I just don`t think that ascent to godhood needs to be a
>feature of the BR campaign).

Well, it really needn`t be the feature of any campaign setting. The point
here is just that it would be possible. Whether one wants to DM that
process or not isn`t really here nor there. BR characters have several
significant advantages over other characters if one wanted to run such a
campaign.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 6:47 AM


> Using that bloodline they can collect RP which is described in several
> places as having the same sort of effect that the worship, adoration, etc.
> of the gods has, and is the energy used to influence events at the domain
> level in a way that is easy to extrapolate into the way the gods influence
> humanity. They are at a different scale, of course, but they are aspects
> of the same process.

Both humans and fires consume air and fuel, we`re both warm, but we`re not
fires, and fires aren`t alive. The similarities between blooded rulers and
gods may have more to do with the fact that both are in the direction of
others business, than it does in the fact that the mechanisisms are of a
single piece.

As you mentioned on July 3rd, 2002:
"It`s debatable how directly the gods can get involved in such situations.
The standard in D&D has been that the gods often take a very active role in
adventures. Some of the 1e materials would even indicate that they are
hovering about adventuring parties, manipulating their events in a way that
smacks more of DM manipulation more of divine participation"

I think this is the result of D&D`s game quality (players are the center of
the action, unlike our actual experience in life where much is beyond our
control and just happens to us) combined with some wishful readings of
mythology to read our PC`s as a bunch of Ajaxes with patron dieties who seem
to pay as much attention to us as two the whole of Beoetia. It reveals how
embeded the power-gaming notions of heroic models are embeded into the
assumptions of D&D. That every character could rise to divinity is one of
these conceits.

But, if BR rejects the heroic power of other campaigns, and we have abandon
the idea that the gods hover above out adventuring party, should we not also
abandon the idea that one day our PC`s will stand next to Haelyn and take
over the portfolio of justice?

Reading the descriptions of Greyhawk gods in the PHB, its full of what are
evidently some old PC`s from the 70`s. St Cuthbert and Vecna especially so.
Do we want our Elminsters performing divine acts this side of the mortal
divide? Or does BR, by introducing no new gods since Deismaar except by
procreation, suggest that hero`s don`t become gods (unless the gods destroy
themselves to transfer their power)? The idea that our characters will
become so epic that we`ll actually ascend and need rules to cover our godly
status, and combat with gods, and so forth implies a seemless march from
first level character to king of the gods. That`s not a neccesary model for
role playing. Its a style of play.

Its not instrinsic to the game and not instrinsic to the setting. As such
its fundamentally optional. Unlike, say the idea that by talking people
will make friends. This effect is built into the concept of role-playing,
as well as specific rules like the Diplomacy skill and the Diplomacy action.
Even the game in which the party kills everyone they meet and never try to
talk their way through an encounter is predecated on the assumption that at
some point the characters in question met, talked, became friends, and have
since been on a killing spree.

It is, therefore, just as appropriate to read all talk of ascension as just
as much in-character talk as Raesene`s "My anger against my brothers kept me
on Cerilia."

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, John Machin wrote:
> > I don`t recall it saying anywhere that the Gorgon`s bloodline
> > was sufficient for him to become a deity. In fact, I seem to
> > recall the opposite. A couple of points:
>
> I believe that it says it somewhere (since I remember it from before
> Daniel mentioned it). I can`t for the life of me remember where though.
> I still contend that the idea is silly.

I found it. Blood Enemies, first paragraph of page 30. It`s part of
Raesene`s in-character diatribe, though, which makes it somewhat suspect.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 10:28 AM 9/2/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > Using that bloodline they can collect RP which is described in several
> > places as having the same sort of effect that the worship, adoration, etc.
> > of the gods has, and is the energy used to influence events at the domain
> > level in a way that is easy to extrapolate into the way the gods influence
> > humanity. They are at a different scale, of course, but they are aspects
> > of the same process.
>
>Both humans and fires consume air and fuel, we`re both warm, but we`re not
>fires, and fires aren`t alive. The similarities between blooded rulers and
>gods may have more to do with the fact that both are in the direction of
>others business, than it does in the fact that the mechanisisms are of a
>single piece.

I don`t think the human/fire analogy is very apt since the similarities
between divinity and bloodline are much more sequential. The gods` actions
directly led to bloodlines and, in fact, it was the essence of their
divinity that created the bloodlines. A bloodline represents a fraction of
what it is to be a divine being. Flamethrower to Bic lighter is probably a
better analogy. Can a mortal Bic lighter lighter analogy eventually grow
to the power and majesty of a flamethrower? Well, not directly. He`d have
to go threw several stages of evolution (Bic to Zippo, Zippo to blowtorch,
blowtorch to... well, whatever comes after blowtorch) but that`s the process.

>I think this is the result of D&D`s game quality (players are the center of
>the action, unlike our actual experience in life where much is beyond our
>control and just happens to us) combined with some wishful readings of
>mythology to read our PC`s as a bunch of Ajaxes with patron dieties who seem
>to pay as much attention to us as two the whole of Beoetia. It reveals how
>embeded the power-gaming notions of heroic models are embeded into the
>assumptions of D&D. That every character could rise to divinity is one of
>these conceits.
>
>But, if BR rejects the heroic power of other campaigns, and we have abandon
>the idea that the gods hover above out adventuring party, should we not also
>abandon the idea that one day our PC`s will stand next to Haelyn and take
>over the portfolio of justice?

I don`t think BR does necessarily reject the heroic power of other
campaigns, I`m afraid. Many aspects of the setting seem very much of the
heroic power ilk right up to an including the basic background of the
setting, Deismaar. It`s an epic, continent-wide (blatantly Tolkienesque)
history with all the necessary heroic power aspects.

In any case, my concern isn`t really that players will eventually take over
for the portfolios of existing gods, but whether or not characters (PC or
NPC) can raise to such heights and perform such tasks that they will
eventually gain access to the "divine level" of events. Several of the BR
characters seem to have this as a goal, and still more could potentially
rise to that level without too much extrapolation. There is even the
occasional non-awnsheghlien/ersheghlien who is of high enough level to
challenge the avatars presented in the Rulebook. (2e avatars were, of
course, ridiculously weak, but let`s ignore that for now.) If characters
have the power to confront gods they should have the power to join them.

BR is really the only published setting I know of that has a system of
domain rules, granting access to a "higher order" of play. It seems
inconsistent for such a campaign setting to preclude what really amounts to
just another "order" of play when it so dramatically illustrates how the
national/political level of play can work in a fantasy setting.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 11:03 AM

> I don`t think the human/fire analogy is very apt since the similarities
> between divinity and bloodline are much more sequential.

Its that sequential quality I am arguing against. Its a qualitative
difference, not just, "powered up" (quantitative) difference.

> The gods` actions directly led to bloodlines and, in fact, it was the
> essence of their divinity that created the bloodlines. A bloodline
> represents a fraction of what it is to be a divine being.
> Flamethrower to Bic lighter is probably a better analogy.

The soul was often described as a divine spark. That, in the minds of
medieval theologians made humans capable of recieving the divine. We could
perform the mysteries of the mass (spellcasting), some of us were capable of
miracles (from OT to stuff the saints did in the early middle ages), and
ultimatly we had the potential to ascend to heaven. This came from God, was
itself a divine spark, but didn`t make us gods. Nor does it make us angels.
Angels were a seperate creation that preceeded the world. The idea that
people die and become angels is a result of not knowing their XP theology.
My point being not that XP theology must dictate BR play. But that its not
a neccesary step to go from a divine essence in some heroic figures (John
Machin mentioned Abraham) to aspiring to divinity.

> [My concern is...] whether or not characters (PC or NPC) can
> raise to such heights and perform such tasks that they will
> eventually gain access to the "divine level" of events.
>
> * Several of the BR characters seem to have this as a goal ...
> * There is even the occasional non-awnsheghlien/ersheghlien
> who is of high enough level to challenge the avatars presented
> in the Rulebook. If characters have the power to confront
> gods they should have the power to join them.

I`ve reformated your points in bullet, and eliminated expositional text. If
that`s not a proper summery of your position, I`m sure you`ll let me know.

Point 1) Some BR characters do seem to aspire to "divinity" whatever they
think that means. This is one of the better arguments for the possibility
that some powerful figure (say, the Gorgon, as initially imagined) could
ascend. However, my addition of the phrase "whatever that means" is there
because I don`t think that even if successful, these abominations would be
gods in the same sence that Haelyn, Avani, & company are. As John suggested
earlier, they are tapping into an alternate power (IMO the Shadow, just like
a witch might). This is closer, from my POV to the employment of 2E forces,
than it is actuall divinities. Its easy to read such aspirations as
evidence for possible ascension. And some will like that flavor. But, its
also possible to read it as something else, and I will put myself under that
banner.

Point 2) I don`t think the defeat of an avatar is meaningful. I think that
avatars have stats because it easier to simulate a divine force by stats
than by descriptions. Haelyn`s avatar would fight longer because, IMO,
Haelyn fights stuff. Not because he has more hit points that Rournil. Both
are indescructable. Ruornil`s avatar will just stick around for a shorter
time under attack than Haelyn`s is, because Ruornil doesn`t fight stuff.
When those avatars are sent back home, its really a reflection of the style
of the gods, not their actual power. AFAIC, its a shorthand, because
actually bothering to write a couple of pages of text would A) take to long,
B) not get read, C) require some serious research. After all, that`s what
stat blocks are fore. Instead of sumarizing the prowess of someone in
prose, we stat it up. Character sheets and NPC descriptions have very
little prose. My own character write ups use prose only for character
history and politics, in part because I have no short hand way of providing
stats for that. In the case of characters, stats represent a reality for
the character. His strength is his ability to be strong. For a diety, its
not a limit, its a matter of style. Ruornil`s avatar shouldn`t lift
bolders, he should appear to use magic to make the bolder move.

> BR is really the only published setting I know of that has a system
> of domain rules, granting access to a "higher order" of play. It
> seems inconsistent for such a campaign setting to preclude what
> really amounts to just another "order" of play when it so
> dramatically illustrates how the national/political level of play can
> work in a fantasy setting.

I`m not saying BR should preclude it. I`m saying I preclude it, because its
not appealing to my sense of play. I play BR, with my own set of
assumptions and preferences, and I just don`t think divine ascension fits.
My post are intended to provide an alternative explation about these things,
because I don`t think there is just one side to the question. BR`s strength
in many places is its maliability. The same is true here.

> I think there are large and fundamental differences that are
> significant enough to differentiate the BR bloodline system
> from that of real life, mythology, or any other campaign
> setting, for that matter. When it gets right down to it, I don`t
> think the BR domain rules or bloodline do a very good job
> at representing the real world beliefs/systems.

That`s because you have no desire to harmonize them to real world models. I
think I can say from experience that if you want to interpret BR rules as a
model for a mixture of real world beliefs, you can do it happily. You have
to start with a certain set of assumptions, because assumptions guide the
interpretive process. Everybody homebrews to a certain extent. Do your
house rules tend toward modeling reality to away from it. When a rule can
be interpreted a dozen ways, do you pick the one that is most like the
explicit POV of hictorical actors, or look for some other method of
interpretation (internal consistancy, tolkienesque, arthurianism, they way
we played some other game/campaign, &c, &c). When I tried to use the BR
rules to model the Hundred Years War, I had no problem what so ever. On the
other hand, that experiment did influence how I interpret rules (what is a
vassal, how do trade routes work) and required some extrapolation for things
that don`t exist in Cerilia (my Anuirean Empire would not reflect the way I
handled the large monarchies of France and England).

Everyone read the BR materials, got some inspirations, made sense of what it
all meant, and then began to interpret BR in light of that understanding.
Sometimes we see something (LoTR) and that adjusts our interpretation of
what BR is. But in the long run, our sense of what BR is will guide our
problem solving through vague rules, home expansions, things that don`t fix
our sense of what is appropriate, and so on. This is why we discuss things
like what province levels represent, or how do trade routes work, and in
this case, can a character aspire to godhood. There are no right or wrong
answers to be sure, or perhaps better stated, there is a capacity for BR to
support a large number of right answers, and very few really wrong answers
are suggested by the documentation.

So, if you want it to, BR domain rules or bloodline can do a very good job
of modeling real life. Anuire doesn`t exist, but you can draw from a
variety of sources. Since the most precious commodity in RPG`s are new
ideas to try out and more ideas to apply, discussing this stuff and hearing
what other people have to say is a good thing (so everyone contribute as
much as you can) even when that point of view differs from your own. And so
I will continue to explore ways that BR could just as easily support a
non-ascension POV as others will explore others POV`s. Hopefully people
will develope their thinking on these questions, some people might
synthesize different ideas, and some people might change their minds
(lurkers I expect, without firm attachment to one POV). Thats` what we`re
here for.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

Hello,

remember that deities have lots of powers not gained by characters by
earning levels... Divine powers are far more powerful than epic feats, and
they have divine rank that gives them some very nice abilities not related
to character level (inmunities, sr/pr, always hitting in combat, extra
ac,...).

And also remember that the numbers given in the Deities and Demigods
book are mere guidelines, not the normal character levels of a deity. Just
examples.

Greetings,

Vicente

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

John Machin wrote

>I also like to
>think that the Serpent`s "divine powers" are due to his powers of
>conjuration and probably have more to do with the ability of the
>sorcerer-kings of Athas than to do with actual diviity. Don`t get me
>wrong here though - I am not saying that the Serpent has a Living Vortex
>(or whatever it was called), but I associate his powers with ritual
>arcane magic - not true divinity. We have examples of the Serpents great
>magical power that, I believe, support this interpretation of mine.


I totally agree with the notion that the >Serpent`s "divine powers"< have nothing to do with divinity. However, I don`t believe that the ability of his followers to cast spells has anything to do with ritual arcane magic on his own part. To my mind, this would be out of the scope of even realm spells. I know jack about the sorcerer-kings though, but the Serpent`s wizard levels seem a bit low for this amount of power.

BE (p. 79) leaves this subject purposely open. quote:

>Has the Serpent made contact with some divine powers other than those previously known to Cerilia? Has he madesome unholy >bargain with them? ... how can logic explain the spells that the Sons of the Serpent, the Serpent`s worshipers, are able to cast? If the >Serpent himself is not divine, what power fuels their magic? <

Well, I can think of a number of possible explanations:

1. The Serpent`s worshipers receive their spells indeed from a new pantheon of (reptilian?) gods the Serpent has bargained with via Contact other plane or a new realm spell. This would be the way to go for those of you who want to introduce new gods to Cerilia.

2. A surviving part of Azrai (residual essence or whatever) supplies the spells. Perhaps that`s a first step on the way towards Azrai`s return to godhood and to Cerilia.

3. Another god of the Cerilian pantheon amuses himself by granting divine powers to the Sons of the Serpent. That seems to be the most boring solution, but I think Belinik would fit the bill nicely. He is chaotic evil and may have decided to do this on a chaotic whim. In addition, the uncertainty that this unknown power generates among the Serpent`s enemies (and potential victims) may alone be enough to instill them with fear and terror, thus furthering Belinik`s cause.

4. This one is a little difficult, but I find it rather intrigueing. When reading John Machin`s post (Thanks to you) I recalled an obscure 2E sourcebook about shamans. The shamans` powers were explained as resulting from the combined power of the belief the shaman and his tribal people have in these very powers. To me that sounds a lot like a combined pool of psychic energy. So, perhaps the Serpent`s priests are no priests at all but psionic characters who only think that their powers derive from the Serpent. This may sound heretical to some of you guys, but I think it has great adventure potential. If you want to introduce psionics to Cerilia, I believe this is the way to go.

Afterthought: With regard to a possible ascension to godhood, having people worship you even before you`re a god should be of paramount importance in my opinion. Has the Gorgon already managed to convince his goblin followers that he is worthy of worship?


Christoph Tiemann

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 05:17 PM 9/2/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > I don`t think the human/fire analogy is very apt since the similarities
> > between divinity and bloodline are much more sequential.
>
>Its that sequential quality I am arguing against. Its a qualitative
>difference, not just, "powered up" (quantitative) difference.

What`s the qualitative difference that blocks the quantitative
progression? If a character could somehow gain a bloodline strength score
that was in the middle triple digits and gain essentially, all the blood
abilities for that derivation plus additional ones that were greater than
great abilities wouldn`t he be for all intents and purposes a divine
being? I`m not saying there shouldn`t or couldn`t be such a qualitative
difference, I`m just curious how you define it.

From my POV, the bloodline strength score system is pretty easily
extrapolated, at least conceptually. If we took a character like the
Gorgon and assumed he was adding 1 point/year to his bloodline strength
score through bloodtheft or spending RP he`d have a bloodline strength over
800. Now, we`d need a system of blood abilities other than Table 12 in the
Rulebook, of course, since that assumes no additional blood abilities after
a bloodline reaches 80 (and it never made any sense anyway.) If we had
such a table, however, and it even included blood abilities more powerful
than "great" abilities standard for characters with a bloodline strength
score from 1-100 (an "epic" level of blood abilities if you will) then what
is the qualitative difference between the Gorgon and a lesser god? Any of
the qualities of a lesser god could be acquired by additional blood
abilities and more powerful ("epic") versions of blood abilities available
to characters with a bloodline strength score well into the triple digits.

I don`t think bloodline strength score should alone determine
divinity. There should be accompanying tasks, requirements, sacrifices,
etc. But the nature of that system can be extrapolated into a system of
divine ascension, and even the quests and tasks associated with becoming
divine that are quantitative are pretty easily conceived to gamers since
they are just an extension of the same process.

> > The gods` actions directly led to bloodlines and, in fact, it was the
> > essence of their divinity that created the bloodlines. A bloodline
> > represents a fraction of what it is to be a divine being.
> > Flamethrower to Bic lighter is probably a better analogy.
>
>The soul was often described as a divine spark. That, in the minds of
>medieval theologians made humans capable of recieving the divine. We could
>perform the mysteries of the mass (spellcasting), some of us were capable of
>miracles (from OT to stuff the saints did in the early middle ages), and
>ultimatly we had the potential to ascend to heaven. This came from God, was
>itself a divine spark, but didn`t make us gods. Nor does it make us angels.
>Angels were a seperate creation that preceeded the world. The idea that
>people die and become angels is a result of not knowing their XP theology.
>My point being not that XP theology must dictate BR play. But that its not
>a neccesary step to go from a divine essence in some heroic figures (John
>Machin mentioned Abraham) to aspiring to divinity.

I feel obliged to contend that real life mass equates to spellcasting. It
strikes me as being more like the adoration that creates RP or whatever the
godly energy the empowers the gods is. Certain real world rituals might
equate to D&D spellcasting, but this is I think the heart of the difference
between these POVs. Even if real life rituals do equate to D&D
spellcasting, I don`t think D&D spellcasting is a particularly accurate
reflection of real life any more than hit points accurately portray
physical damage, the intelligence score accurately reflects intellect or
the domain rules accurately represent the way nations and how they engage
in their politics.

Aside from that I don`t think I`m getting the relevance of the above to the
point that bloodlines are created from the divine essence of the gods and
are, therefore, more closely related to the process of ascension than real
world theological figures. Bloodlines are what makes divinity possible for
BR characters where figures like Abraham remain human. Abraham et al have
no direct aspect of divinity in them, or no more than the rest of us. The
Christian figure who does have a divine spark actually does ascend to godhood.

When it comes to Christian ascension, however, can`t one interpret
beautification as the process by which mortals become immortals? Saints
essentially act as lesser immortal beings in D&D terms. People pray to
them, they (supposedly) grant benefices, they have a portfolio, etc. So
I`d contend even the real life example of Christian doctrine since it has
many features that coincide with the D&D paradigm. Most religions have
some sort of ascension that turns mortals into divine beings.

You`ve suggested that a mortal couldn`t become immortal without some sort
of divine assistance. I don`t really agree, but even using that standard
doesn`t the bloodline system itself represents the kind of jump start
needed to enter into the ranks of divinity?

> > [My concern is...] whether or not characters (PC or NPC) can
> > raise to such heights and perform such tasks that they will
> > eventually gain access to the "divine level" of events.
> >
> > * Several of the BR characters seem to have this as a goal ...
> > * There is even the occasional non-awnsheghlien/ersheghlien
> > who is of high enough level to challenge the avatars presented
> > in the Rulebook. If characters have the power to confront
> > gods they should have the power to join them.
>
>I`ve reformated your points in bullet, and eliminated expositional text. If
>that`s not a proper summery of your position, I`m sure you`ll let me know.
>
>Point 1) Some BR characters do seem to aspire to "divinity" whatever they
>think that means. This is one of the better arguments for the possibility
>that some powerful figure (say, the Gorgon, as initially imagined) could
>ascend. However, my addition of the phrase "whatever that means" is there
>because I don`t think that even if successful, these abominations would be
>gods in the same sence that Haelyn, Avani, & company are. As John suggested
>earlier, they are tapping into an alternate power (IMO the Shadow, just like
>a witch might). This is closer, from my POV to the employment of 2E forces,
>than it is actuall divinities. Its easy to read such aspirations as
>evidence for possible ascension. And some will like that flavor. But, its
>also possible to read it as something else, and I will put myself under that
>banner.
>
>Point 2) I don`t think the defeat of an avatar is meaningful. I think that
>avatars have stats because it easier to simulate a divine force by stats
>than by descriptions. Haelyn`s avatar would fight longer because, IMO,
>Haelyn fights stuff. Not because he has more hit points that Rournil. Both
>are indescructable. Ruornil`s avatar will just stick around for a shorter
>time under attack than Haelyn`s is, because Ruornil doesn`t fight stuff.
>When those avatars are sent back home, its really a reflection of the style
>of the gods, not their actual power. AFAIC, its a shorthand, because
>actually bothering to write a couple of pages of text would A) take to long,
>B) not get read, C) require some serious research. After all, that`s what
>stat blocks are fore. Instead of sumarizing the prowess of someone in
>prose, we stat it up. Character sheets and NPC descriptions have very
>little prose. My own character write ups use prose only for character
>history and politics, in part because I have no short hand way of providing
>stats for that. In the case of characters, stats represent a reality for
>the character. His strength is his ability to be strong. For a diety, its
>not a limit, its a matter of style. Ruornil`s avatar shouldn`t lift
>bolders, he should appear to use magic to make the bolder move.
>
> > BR is really the only published setting I know of that has a system
> > of domain rules, granting access to a "higher order" of play. It
> > seems inconsistent for such a campaign setting to preclude what
> > really amounts to just another "order" of play when it so
> > dramatically illustrates how the national/political level of play can
> > work in a fantasy setting.
>
>I`m not saying BR should preclude it. I`m saying I preclude it, because its
>not appealing to my sense of play. I play BR, with my own set of
>assumptions and preferences, and I just don`t think divine ascension fits.
>My post are intended to provide an alternative explation about these things,
>because I don`t think there is just one side to the question. BR`s strength
>in many places is its maliability. The same is true here.
>
> > I think there are large and fundamental differences that are
> > significant enough to differentiate the BR bloodline system
> > from that of real life, mythology, or any other campaign
> > setting, for that matter. When it gets right down to it, I don`t
> > think the BR domain rules or bloodline do a very good job
> > at representing the real world beliefs/systems.
>
>That`s because you have no desire to harmonize them to real world models. I
>think I can say from experience that if you want to interpret BR rules as a
>model for a mixture of real world beliefs, you can do it happily.

Well, my experience has been happy, I just don`t find a lot of "realism" in
it. The BR domain rules need substantial alteration (or a whole lot of
rationalization) in order to play them under the supposition that they in
any way represent "real life." I enjoy playing them, but I don`t find them
particularly real, but I guess that`s the appeal for me. I don`t much care
for realism in RPGs. If one came up with the most realistic game
conceivable I`d probably not play it. I get enough realism in my real life.

I don`t mind trying to sync up certain game effects with "reality" (though
I find many people more often than not have a "reality" standard that is as
unrealistic as D&D) but I don`t think any game system or mechanic can
really reflect reality accurately. Reality is too complex and much more
significant than is accurately portrayed with a few numbers, dice and
character sheets.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Sir Justine]

Kgauck and Gary talk a lot... ;)

IMC, my players are on 5-6 level, so I still have much time to think about ascension and gods!
And the most high-level pc I ever played (from the 1º level) is now 13º level, so I don't give much thought to Epic level to be sincere!

[Sir Justine]

This is a nice idea. I am nt sure I`d use it in BR though. I think it
better suits another campaign setting much more. (I do not mean this
badly in anyway, I just don`t think that ascent to godhood needs to be a
feature of the BR campaign).

Why not exactly? I'm not saying I would use ascension IMC (I still don't have an opinion), but do you have an argument of why not use?

[Trithemius]

"Sir Justine":
> Why not exactly? I`m not saying I would use ascension IMC (I
> still don`t have an opinion), but do you have an argument of
> why not use?

I don`t think that the BR setting benefits from having this as a
feature. The game is foccussed largely on the terrestrial world and
mortal rulership, I don`t want apotheosis there to distract people and
give them goals that I have no desire to allow them to fulfill.

I run games that feature ascension to the divine as a core motif before
and they have been very enjoyable (and long!). However, I`d rather BR
not have the capacity to allow players to "rise above it all".

I cannot say that any arguments as to why player characters should be
allowed to has convinced me differently.

--
Philip Valois II, styled by some `the Great`,
Prince of Burgundy and of the Empire,
Sovereign of the Order of the Golden Fleece.
-----------------------------------
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

"Sir Justine":
> Kgauck and Gary talk a lot... ;)

They (and the rest of the BR-L population) often have a lot to say that
can`t be expressed in just a few lines.

> IMC, my players are on 5-6 level, so I still have much time
> to think about ascension and gods! And the most high-level pc
> I ever played (from the 1º level) is now 13º level, so I
> don`t give much thought to Epic level to be sincere!

Well, if you don`t, then perhaps some other people do. Since we don`t
have things nicely treeing off of a forum on listserve we tend to
address our replies to "the list population in general".

For us it is more like a debate in a forum that everyoe heres than
conversations in sub-areas like a set of boards.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 9:34 AM


> What`s the qualitative difference that blocks the quantitative
> progression? If a character could somehow gain a bloodline strength score
> that was in the middle triple digits and gain essentially, all the blood
> abilities for that derivation plus additional ones that were greater than
> great abilities wouldn`t he be for all intents and purposes a divine
> being? I`m not saying there shouldn`t or couldn`t be such a qualitative
> difference, I`m just curious how you define it.

Part of it is definitional. Gods are gods, people are people, ducks are
ducks. Ducks don`t become peolpe or gods, and people don`t become ducks or
people. Part of it is the huge gulf between a human with triple digit blood
strength and all the blood ability one the one hand, and gods on the other.
Gods hand out 9th level spells to dozens of priests, if not scores. 8th
level spells to maybe a hundred priests. And so on down. And there is no
reason to believe that this is the limit of their ability. Scions of Reynir
may meld into stone or passwall once per day. Gods can do that an unlimited
amount of time, teleport without error, visit a wounded tuna deep in the
sea, heal it, turn it into a constellation, return to their home plane, and
still hand out all the spells being cast that day. Gods are immeasurably
more powerful than the most powerful mortal. Divine powers are unlimited.

> [...] What is the qualitative difference between the Gorgon [with 800
> points of blood power] and a lesser god? Any of the qualities of a
> lesser god could be acquired by additional blood abilities and more
> powerful ("epic") versions of blood abilities available to characters
> with a bloodline strength score well into the triple digits.

No they couldn`t. Epic bloodstrength characters could present pale
immitations of more limited versions of divine powers. Gods are not x10
more powerful than humans. I couldn`t guess the proper order of magnitude,
but I`ll point out that all of the followers of the tribal gods weren`t
enough to topple Azrai, so 10,000 to 1 is probabaly too small.

> I feel obliged to contend that real life mass equates to spellcasting. It
> strikes me as being more like the adoration that creates RP or whatever
the
> godly energy the empowers the gods is.

> I don`t think D&D spellcasting is a particularly accurate
> reflection of real life any more than hit points accurately
> portray physical damage, the intelligence score accurately
> reflects intellect or the domain rules accurately represent
> the way nations and how they engage in their politics.


> Aside from that I don`t think I`m getting the relevance of the above to
the
> point that bloodlines are created from the divine essence of the gods and
> are, therefore, more closely related to the process of ascension than real
> world theological figures.

Says who? You just don`t want to accord historical figures the divine
element that you happly bestow upon Darien Avan, as though the founding of a
great nation is done by some guy off the street, and Avan is a semi-divine
figure. I`d put more Bloodstrength in a mediocre pharaoh than I would in
any BR character. You couldn`t run Egypt without it.

> Bloodlines are what makes divinity possible for
> BR characters where figures like Abraham remain human. Abraham et al have
> no direct aspect of divinity in them, or no more than the rest of us. The
> Christian figure who does have a divine spark actually does ascend to
godhood.

The common word for the divine spark, is a soul, and the theological system
that posits one argues all people have it. Hence followers are all
potentially granted immortality.

> When it comes to Christian ascension, however, can`t one interpret
> beautification as the process by which mortals become immortals? Saints
> essentially act as lesser immortal beings in D&D terms.

Certainly are, but they`re not gods. Their power comes from a higher
source. They are intermediaries, not divinities.

> People pray to them, they (supposedly) grant benefices, they have
> a portfolio, etc. So I`d contend even the real life example of
> Christian doctrine since it has many features that coincide with the
> D&D paradigm. Most religions have some sort of ascension that
> turns mortals into divine beings.

Immortals, yes. Gods, no.

> You`ve suggested that a mortal couldn`t become immortal without some sort
> of divine assistance. I don`t really agree, but even using that standard
> doesn`t the bloodline system itself represents the kind of jump start
> needed to enter into the ranks of divinity?

Not if I don`t want it to.

> Well, my experience has been happy, I just don`t find a lot of "realism"
in
> it.

So its not a happy realism, its a happy fantasy, or something else. I`m
talking about a happy realism. Not a boring realism, a tedious realism, or
a sad little realism.

> The BR domain rules need substantial alteration (or a whole lot of
> rationalization) in order to play them under the supposition that they in
> any way represent "real life."

Then it only goes to figure that some of us are doing that rationalism, and
like it.

> I don`t much care for realism in RPGs. If one came up with the
> most realistic game conceivable I`d probably not play it. I get
> enough realism in my real life.

No, that`s banality. Realism is what Jackson set about to creat in his
movie of LoTR. Having objects hand crafted with a certain level of
technology, giving thought to how elven tablewhere would differ from hobbit
tablewear. Banality is where I worry about standing in line at the
fishmonger.

> I don`t mind trying to sync up certain game effects with "reality" (though
> I find many people more often than not have a "reality" standard that is
as
> unrealistic as D&D) but I don`t think any game system or mechanic can
> really reflect reality accurately. Reality is too complex and much more
> significant than is accurately portrayed with a few numbers, dice and
> character sheets.

This is, after all, a game. Some concessions to its gameness is allowed.
Simplification`s purpose however, is not to escape realism, but to leave out
the dull parts, and focus on the fun. During our daily lives we have to sit
in waiting rooms, and stand in line, and three weeks of travel time takes
three weeks, not a couple of dice rolls behind a screen. But, being a game,
those who cleave a realistic approach prefer to imagine that while we didn`t
dwell upon the three weeks of walking, it was nonetheless realistic in its
muddy, cold, wet, slow, tiring way. Its the banality we abandon, not the
fact that bold actions might frighten neutrals into an enemy camp.

Playing the game is not supposed to leave you with the sense that, "oh yeah,
that was gritty realism down to the sand in my shoe, and the infection in my
injuries. I`m off now to visit the VA hospital." Its allowable to focus on
the heroic, because that`s an interpretation of the event, not the event
itself. I think its perfectly acceptable to put a heroic motif on the game,
meaning we imagine a realistic course of events transpires, and then reflect
on the most elevating features and ignore the tedium. Were concerned both
with what archeaologists and historians say knighthood was like as well as
with what troubadours and romance writers say it was like. In such a case,
we do knightly things, but we do them very well. As opposed to doing
super-human things and ignoring limitations all together.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Gary says:
> > People pray to them, they (supposedly) grant benefices, they have a
> > portfolio, etc. So I`d contend even the real life example of
> > Christian doctrine since it has many features that coincide
> > with the D&D paradigm. Most religions have some sort of ascension
> > that turns mortals into divine beings.

Kenneth replies:
> Immortals, yes. Gods, no.

If you want to think of this in D&D terminology you could say that a
saint is like a proxy. While they live they can wield more of their
deity`s power than the most powerful priests (note that it is always the
deity`s power, not their own) and when they perish they go to a special
reward in heaven. They aren`t gods themselves though.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 10:41 AM 9/4/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

> > Immortals, yes. Gods, no.
>
>If you want to think of this in D&D terminology you could say that a saint
>is like a proxy. While they live they can wield more of their deity`s
>power than the most powerful priests (note that it is always the deity`s
>power, not their own) and when they perish they go to a special reward in
>heaven. They aren`t gods themselves though.

Proxies actually are mortals. Saints are a step above proxies, often being
beings that were once divinely favored mortals, but are then elevated to a
divine status and able to dole out their own favor to the faithful. For
all intents and purposes they serve the same role that lesser deities do in
polytheistic religions, but aren`t actually described as gods even though
they exist in pretty much the same niche. Proxies have a power granted to
them, but they don`t become an independent figure in the religion the way a
saint does.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Gary:
> Proxies actually are mortals. Saints are a step above
> proxies, often being beings that were once divinely favored
> mortals, but are then elevated to a divine status and able to
> dole out their own favor to the faithful. For all intents
> and purposes they serve the same role that lesser deities do
> in polytheistic religions, but aren`t actually described as
> gods even though they exist in pretty much the same niche.
> Proxies have a power granted to them, but they don`t become
> an independent figure in the religion the way a saint does.

I am afraid that the Deities and Demigods accessory disagrees with you
on this one Gary. Proxies are Rank 1 `demideities` and, as such, also
fall under the description you have given for saints above.

I`d say what you give as a description of a proxy is more like a
description for the role of a priest (i.e. spell-casting cleric).

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 10:19 AM 9/4/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

> > Why not exactly? I`m not saying I would use ascension IMC (I
> > still don`t have an opinion), but do you have an argument of
> > why not use?
>
>I don`t think that the BR setting benefits from having this as a feature.
>The game is foccussed largely on the terrestrial world and mortal
>rulership, I don`t want apotheosis there to distract people and
>give them goals that I have no desire to allow them to fulfill.

Well, it would be an amazingly rare feature.... Really, it would be an
option only for a few characters and those would almost always be NPCs
unless the campaign was specifically designed for PCs to have such a
goal. It`s hard to picture a typical, low level campaign with BR regents
having bloodline strength scores in the 20-35 range getting to the point
where they could ascend.

On the other hand, removing the possibility means one probably needs to
explain what the real goal is behind many of the activities of some of the
major awnsheghlien.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 12:48 PM 9/4/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

>I am afraid that the Deities and Demigods accessory disagrees with you
>on this one Gary. Proxies are Rank 1 `demideities` and, as such, also
>fall under the description you have given for saints above.

Ah, OK, I`m not up on the 3e Deities and Demigods, so I`m working with more
of a pre-3e version of the Planescape accessory. Given that description
wouldn`t BR scions all qualify for the same status?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Gary wrote:
> >I am afraid that the Deities and Demigods accessory disagrees with you
> >on this one Gary. Proxies are Rank 1 `demideities` and, as such, also
> >fall under the description you have given for saints above.
>
> Ah, OK, I`m not up on the 3e Deities and Demigods, so I`m working with more
> of a pre-3e version of the Planescape accessory. Given that description
> wouldn`t BR scions all qualify for the same status?

I don`t think so. At best, powerful scions like the gorgon, serpent, and
maybe the Imperial line in Anuire might qualify as quasi-deities, rank 0.
But by the rules, quasideities are immortal, and tend to be a lot more
powerful than scions.

I am working on a way to use salient abilities, the divine abilities
gained with rank, as blood abilities. Something above minor, major,
great. True, maybe, and salient above that. True long life would be
ageless immortality, that kind of thing. Scions with at least one of
these would definitely qualify as quasideities if not demigods. I don`t
know that I`d let them grant spells, though.
--
Communication is possible only between equals.
Daniel McSorley- mcsorley@cis.ohio-state.edu

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 05:23 PM 9/3/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > [...] What is the qualitative difference between the Gorgon [with 800
> > points of blood power] and a lesser god? Any of the qualities of a
> > lesser god could be acquired by additional blood abilities and more
> > powerful ("epic") versions of blood abilities available to characters
> > with a bloodline strength score well into the triple digits.
>
>No they couldn`t. Epic bloodstrength characters could present pale
>immitations of more limited versions of divine powers. Gods are not x10
>more powerful than humans. I couldn`t guess the proper order of
>magnitude, but I`ll point out that all of the followers of the tribal gods
>weren`t enough to topple Azrai, so 10,000 to 1 is probabaly too small.

First, I don`t think I need to note that we`re talking about ascending into
the lower ranks of divinity, not jumping right up to major god level, so
the Azrai to mortal comparison is a bit misleading. (Azrai was probably a
bit beyond the major god level, actually.) Azrai to Gorgon is probably
100th level character to 1st-3rd level character.

Second, I think if epic blood abilities were to exist they would probably
have to be an exponential power system the same way epic feats are
exponentially more powerful than standard ones. Would 10,000 to 1 be
enough for whatever the first rung of the ladder might be? In the same way
a 5th level character might be x10 (to use your example) more powerful than
a 1st level one, and a 10th level one x10 more powerful than a 5th (as a
rough guide) one could then reach 10,000 at 20th level. One needn`t really
assign a x10/5 levels value to that kind of thing, of course, but since the
Gorgon is 36th level shouldn`t he qualify as being 10,000 times more
powerful than an average mortal? Wouldn`t that qualify him to be a low
level divine being?

> > Aside from that I don`t think I`m getting the relevance of the above to the
> > point that bloodlines are created from the divine essence of the gods and
> > are, therefore, more closely related to the process of ascension than real
> > world theological figures.
>
>Says who? You just don`t want to accord historical figures the divine
>element that you happly bestow upon Darien Avan, as though the founding of
>a great nation is done by some guy off the street, and Avan is a
>semi-divine figure. I`d put more Bloodstrength in a mediocre pharaoh than
>I would in any BR character. You couldn`t run Egypt without it.

No, I don`t want to accord them the same divine element for several
reasons. Real world figures weren`t at Deismaar. There is no real world
historical event that equates to exploding gods and infusing those present
with divine energy that grants them magical powers. Real world historical
figures are often described as having been chosen by God, descended from
gods, or even as the corporeal embodiment of a god, but I`m afraid none of
them actually had such a connection with the divine. They were just people
who sometimes were talented at their jobs and often weren`t. Any
historical figure you could describe as having some sort of actual
connection to the divine would not only get an argument from me but I could
also list dozens of historical figures who occupied the same position who
exemplified that there is no actual relationship between rulers and the
divine. Dozens of pharaohs were mundane, mediocre, even inbred mentally
and physically challenged figures kept in their position of adoration by
the cultural system and the theocracy of Egypt that preserved them like
house plants. Where you see a divine strength in a mediocre pharaoh, I see
the mundane mechanics of real world oligarchy.

Now, I have to mention again that I`m not a particularly religious
person. I have my own set of beliefs that I take seriously, but in general
most organized religion isn`t really for me. I believe it`s important to
respect other`s religious beliefs, but in the same way that stating
something on a public forum opens up those statements to public critique, I
don`t cut anyone slack when they express their views. Public disclosure
equates to public debate. This is relevant for two reasons. First,
because I hope not to offend anyone with these statements (any more than is
necessary.) I want to make it clear that my statements don`t come from a
position of derision, but of embracing free and open discussion. (I`ll
certainly be derisive when engaging in a discussion when that makes a
point, but free talk is the idea.) Second, to make the following point
regarding religion and realism: If I were a religious person I would find
it... I guess, "inaccurate" is the word I`ll use, to think that someone
could portray the might and majesty of a divine connection with some sort
of deity using something like the BR bloodline system. Let`s say that
instead of just naming a few religious figures here and there we decided to
go ahead and write them up using 3e character descriptions. It is
"inaccurate" to think that any real life person, let alone a historical
figure, let alone a religious historical figure could portrayed using D&D
stats.

> > People pray to them, they (supposedly) grant benefices, they have
> > a portfolio, etc. So I`d contend even the real life example of
> > Christian doctrine since it has many features that coincide with the
> > D&D paradigm. Most religions have some sort of ascension that
> > turns mortals into divine beings.
>
>Immortals, yes. Gods, no.

I`m trying to steer clear of the real world Christian stuff, but I`m
curious what exactly you see as the difference here between a saint and
some of the lesser gods of various pagan faiths. Isn`t it possible to see
the Christian system of saints as a parallel to the pantheons of other faiths?

> > You`ve suggested that a mortal couldn`t become immortal without some sort
> > of divine assistance. I don`t really agree, but even using that standard
> > doesn`t the bloodline system itself represents the kind of jump start
> > needed to enter into the ranks of divinity?
>
>Not if I don`t want it to.

No, of course not. You should do whatever makes you comfortable. But
looking at the system objectively, without basing on some sort of other
interpretations of real world religions, and using the game as a whole
doesn`t bloodline represent such a jump start? Using a system in which a
character can reach 36th level and have a bloodline of 500+ it just seems
strange to me that such a character would run into a "glass ceiling" when
it comes to the divinity aspect of the game.

> > The BR domain rules need substantial alteration (or a whole lot of
> > rationalization) in order to play them under the supposition that they in
> > any way represent "real life."
>
>Then it only goes to figure that some of us are doing that rationalism, and
>like it.

Rationalization not rationalism. :-) I actually misspelled beatification
as beautification in a previous post which got me some ribbing off-list
(though IMO much Christian iconagraphy could do with being prettied up a
bit) but my point here is that rationalizing the domain rules is
fine. It`s fair to point out that it`s a rationalization, and as such not
real any more than any other rationalization makes the rationalized
situation the reality.

> > I don`t much care for realism in RPGs. If one came up with the
> > most realistic game conceivable I`d probably not play it. I get
> > enough realism in my real life.
>
>No, that`s banality. Realism is what Jackson set about to creat in his
>movie of LoTR. Having objects hand crafted with a certain level of
>technology, giving thought to how elven tablewhere would differ from
>hobbit tablewear. Banality is where I worry about standing in line at the
>fishmonger.

That`s not quite what I meant. I don`t mean that a realistic RPG would
have to be banal. You could still have fantastic plotlines and events, and
realistic games can still be a lot of fun. Alternity`s Dark*Matter setting
is more realistic than D&D and IMO even more fantastic. What I mean is
that a truly realistic RPG would be so complex as to be unplayable, and the
limitations of real life don`t lend themselves to an epic fantasy
game. Describing a sword strike as doing 1-8 hit points damage, for
example, is so simplistic as to be unreal. Real swords don`t do "points"
of damage, and describing lacerations, contusions, blood loss, internal
injuries, shock, infection, not to mention the effects of pain as hit
points or even vitality/wound points isn`t realistic. There are many more
realistic game systems out there than D&D that use complex systems of
combat and damage. Even those systems fall short of "realism" IMO, but I
don`t play them because "realism" isn`t what I`m after. D&D is a level
based system that ranks just below most super hero games in its "realism"
when lined up with other RPGs, and in several ways surpasses them in being
unrealistic. I don`t mean that as a slam. It`s part of the appeal of the
system. I rarely play more realistic systems just because I don`t want
such realism most of the time. Occasionally it might be entertaining to
play using a system in which a character could suffer a sucking chest
wound, but most often I`m happy to abstract that kind of thing into
unrealistic hit points.

If one looks at the BR domain system, bloodlines, spellcasting, etc. they
are similarly unrealistic, but again that`s not a bad thing. Distilling
the complexities of a trade agreement down to a diplomacy action or trade
route works fine as a game mechanic, but it doesn`t very accurately reflect
the complexities of commerce. The broad point I`m trying to make here is
that D&D (and BR) is a poor fit when trying on the "realism"
jacket. "Realism" arguments are fine, and one can absolutely base one`s
game on what one finds realistic, but in general "realism" doesn`t apply
very well to D&D/BR. To me a realistic 36th level BR character is
oxymoronic, so not allowing the transcendence into divinity for such a
character (or any character) based on "realistic" reasons doesn`t really
add up.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 11:31 AM


> You should do whatever makes you comfortable. But looking at
> the system objectively and using the game as a whole doesn`t
> bloodline represent such a jump start?

It could, but it doesn`t have to. Its not an essential part of
understanding what a bloodline is. I can, and do construct a perfectly
workable game setting where ascension isn`t possible, and hence bloodline
isn`t the first step on that journey. That`s all I`m saying. I think there
are several ways to interpret this stuff. I mean no more than that.

> My point here is that rationalizing the domain rules is fine.
> It`s fair to point out that it`s a rationalization, and as such not
> real any more than any other rationalization makes the
> rationalized situation the reality.

BR, like any model, is just a model. I contend that I can reduce historical
figures to D&D stats. Doing so eliminates hordes of useful data. Some of
it is not gameworthy. Some of it should be role playing description, rather
than stats. All of it is a model, some can be simple, others can be
terribly complex. All are models, none are reality. But, let`s just agree
that a photo of Joseph Stalin is just a representation and not Stalin
himself, and then go on to discuss the representation as a representation
without constantly stumbling over the fact that its really not Joe Stalin.

> What I mean is that a truly realistic RPG would be so complex
> as to be unplayable

No it wouldn`t. Truth and realism can be very simple. Reality itself is
complex, but truth and reality can be expressed in simple five line poems,
or line drawings. What we have to understand, again, is that this is a
repesentation, not the object itself.

Let`s say I make a Vedic CCG. I could reduce all the themes of Hinduism to
five scores. Its a game. Its simple. If you walk away from it thinking,
yeah, that felt like reading Vedic literature. Its true and real. Its true
and real the same way parables are true, or fables. Truth is expressed by
metaphore. The fable of the tortise and hare is not a talisman of all
knowledge, but it does express a does of reality. Over confidence can lead
you to make mistakes. Persistance pays off. The fable is not reality, but
it is real. Its a realistic statement of persistance and overconfidence.
Its extraordinarily simple.

It should be obvious that expressing human action as numerical scores is a
translation. If you have two entities fight, and the end result is that
they are worn down like you feal is realistic, and the one who probabaly
ought to win wins most of the time, then the system is realistic. It
produces results like reality would. Back in the days of DOS, I had a
computer football game that reduced every player to some eight stats. It
played football like real football. The plays that worked for the teams in
question worked for the game. The teams that performed well in reality,
performed well in the game. That`s all that realism asks for. Complexity
is something else. A game can be complex and realistic, or it can be simple
and realistic. Things that are simple tend to have less broad utility. In
role playing, imagination and description can make up for whatever is
lacking in the stats themseleves. I can write up a character for Edward
III, read books on Edward, and then play a game with my Edward PC that will
strike other knowledgable people as Edwardian. Actors do this all the time.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 11:31 AM


> Where you see a divine strength in a mediocre pharaoh, I see
> the mundane mechanics of real world oligarchy.

This last line of the whole paragraph sums things up nicely. If I play a
real world Egyptian campaign I take the assumptions of the Egyptians as
founding principles. I don`t stand off and laught at how stupid the
Egyptians were to invent such a stupid society. I start off by assuming
that the Egyptian pantheon is real. If its real, the cosmology of the
Egyptians is real. Their science and magic operate the way they think it
does. The social order operates they way they thought it did. Its a game
of mentalities and perceptions. Its a role playing game, we get into
character, not rigorously avoid embracing the world view of ancient
Egyptians. What fun is that?

Sure I could send PC`s off into what is supposedly an Egyptian campaign only
to have the players rigorously wedded to a 21st century archeaologists view
of Egypt, their gods a manifestation of animistic and naturalistic forces,
not divine entities. I could punish them for doing things the Egyptian way
by responding with consequences that would satisfy the expectations of our
everyday life. I have a hard time believing that people would have much fun
actually acting Egyptain. They`d be sorely tempted to act like themselves
in archaic dress.

Why impose modern sociology, science, modern view points of every stripe
onto a game whose central premice is to inhabit a different point of view
than your own. Your reality suits you. But that was not the reality of a
12th dynasty Egyptian. Realism for me, means real for that 12th dynasty
Egyptian. If he thinks the earth is a dish sitting on a turtle, the earth
is a dish floating on a giant turtle. Cosmologies change. Star Trek often
makes fun of the 20th century for its backwardness. Why should I privilege
what I think is probably true over what the Egyptians themselves thought was
true, if I`m playing a role playing game based on becoming an Egyptian?

People once belived their rulers had the mandate of heaven. That`s real. I
can use those ideas as a fertile source of ideas for my BR game, vastly
enlarging my pool of ideas, or I can re-invent the wheel because I chose to
think of people who thought in a BR-like fashion to be idiots.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 09:19 PM 9/4/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>People once belived their rulers had the mandate of heaven. That`s
>real. I can use those ideas as a fertile source of ideas for my BR game,
>vastly enlarging my pool of ideas, or I can re-invent the wheel because I
>chose to think of people who thought in a BR-like fashion to be idiots.

Just to clarify my position here... I didn`t say they were idiots, nor do I
think they were idiots. (I don`t really think people ever thought in a
BR-like fashion either, but that`s besides the point.) From what I can
tell the intellectual capacity of humanity hasn`t changed much in 25,000
years or so. Many historical beliefs have a humorous aspect when viewed
from the modern perspective, but I don`t disdain (in the Star Trek fashion)
historical peoples for the thinking of their period.

The belief of historical peoples that their rulers had a mandate from
heaven was real. That belief should be recognized, documented and
analyzed. We should examine its effects on history and how it shaped
subsequent perspectives. It`s the actual mandate from heaven that wasn`t
real. Alexander the Great wasn`t the son of Ra any more than anyone
reading this list is. ("Falcon" might actually be a bit closer than most
since his name relates to the hawk-headed Horus thing.) Nor has any king,
queen, pope or other ruler been "chosen" by anything other than
circumstance and the artifice of man. It`s well and good (not to mention
fun) to base game material on the speculation that such divine conditions
really did exist. It can be the source of endless campaigns. But to
postulate such conditions and then mistake it for accurately portraying the
reality is... well, not valid.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

> It can be the source of endless campaigns. But to postulate
> such conditions and then mistake it for accurately portraying
> the reality is... well, not valid.

But to people of those particular times and societies (dare I say it: of
those settings) it was the reality. Surely we are being invalid when we
try and base our games on how we in the Twenty-First Century see these
sorts of concepts, as opposed to basing it on how the persons who held
them saw them.

I think it is pointless to have a game set in the Middle Ages that is
subject to the natural laws as we understand them. Ars Magica assures us
that the physical laws that prevail are those of the Greeks and not
those of the Einstein, Rutherford and so on. To the people of the time -
it was reality - we cannot pretend that we are them, and do it well,
without assuming the things that they assume.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

I seem to have dropped behind a little, my apologies to those involved
in this discussion.

I wrote a lengthy reply to many of the points that Gary raises, but upon
re-reading it I realised that it was pretty much what Kenneth has said
in his most recent posts, but flitered through my over-tired brain and
fingers. So I deleted it.

I`d just thought that I should let you know that I am still reading and
enjoying this discussion. I`ll refrain from adding to any clutter for a
bit though.

P.S. Kenneth, when I can prove that you are moving forwards in time and
stealing my posts via telepathy you will be in so much trouble ;)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 9:34 AM

> I don`t really think people ever thought in a
> BR-like fashion either, but that`s besides the point.

No, its the central point, You are denying that someone can profitably look
to realistic models for the development of BR. That the use of the real
world ideologies cannot be framed in a BR system, no matter how simplified
for the purposes of play. There was no Cerilia in the human past, its
imaginary. So any comparison to the real world will be a glass less than
completly full. We can either see the glass as half empty, and declare that
noting profitable can be done, or we can see that there is, indeed water in
the glass, and make some use of it, understanding that the glass was not,
indeed, actually full. In fact, I think its better that its not. If there
were pefect correlation between Cerilian and some historical place, if the
Brecht really are the Hanse, then using some influence that`s non-Hanseatic
would raise cries of foul. Instead, I can happily use Rennaisance Italian,
Phonecian, or whatever source material I want. But its worth while to note
that I can use them.

When I said (Friday, June 14, 2002 12:40 PM) that Nature Sense will be
available IMC as a feat to nomadic Rjurik of 4th level, I was directly using
a real world sources to inform my campaign. I was observing that nomadic
Rjurik think like food collecting people in the real world, specifically in
New Guinea.

> I don`t really think people ever thought in a
> BR-like fashion either

Perhaps people never thought in a perfectly Cerialian mode, but I contend
that you cannot tell me that French chivalry doesn`t inform Anuirean
culture. I can go to French chivalry, identify its parts, decide what fits
into Anuirean culture and probabaly has roots in Haelyn`s teachings and then
invent an Anuirean chivalry based on real world models of knighthood.
Historical knights valued courage and duty. Certainly you`re not saying
that Anurian mounted warriors don`t value courage and duty? But that would
mean that they thought alike.

> That belief should be recognized, documented and analyzed.
> We should examine its effects on history and how it shaped
> subsequent perspectives.

That fine, for an academic list, This isn`t one. Its a game list, Those
beliefs should be examined for the purpose of informing our games. Some
will take a cursory look, and reject a real world source. Others will make
the same examination and begin building Cerilian cognates.

> It`s the actual mandate from heaven that wasn`t real.

Who cares? What I am adapting is the attitude, how it works, where the
limits of such regard takes real people. For example, if I think my ruler
is decended from gods and his priests wield magical power, does that mean
that people won`t rebel? History says no. So, in Cerilia, where people
regard their rulers as having bloodline derivations from the old gods, and
their priests cast spells, people will rebel. Living in a materialist age
in which we commonly don`t believe in divine governance, I can either just
sit around and specualte, or I can see how real people dealt with the idea
of divine governance. That`s the pursuit of realism. I don`t just make up
how people react to bloodlines. I look at how people have reacted, and then
think about how that fits into Cerilia. I don`t care that "Alexander the
Great wasn`t the son of Ra any more than anyone reading this list is." My
purpose is not to prove to anyone that he was. Only to examine how the
belief that he (or anyone else) was, and how that effected the governance of
the realm.

> It`s well and good (not to mention fun) to base game material on
> the speculation that such divine conditions really did exist. It can
> be the source of endless campaigns. But to postulate such
> conditions and then mistake it for accurately portraying the
> reality is... well, not valid.

My goal is not accuracy to any specific reality. Its to make use of
similarities as they exist. Similarities to the real world. Further, I
search out real world evidence. Accuratly portraying reality is a goal for
documentarians. I want a believable sense that this could be real, given
the game setting. I don`t confuse myself into thinking that it is real.
That`s your mistake. Not mine.

Role playing should be about authentic people responding to their
enviroments. Characters should be multidimentional, internally motivated,
and believably portrayed. This includes NPC`s whose role is so important in
establishing whether players disbelieve certain Cerilian entities with which
players have no first hand experience. Since more than other settings, BR
deals with politics, economics, and large scale socities, there is vastly
more to develope that will either be viewed as an unsustainable world set
here for the amusement of the characters (the theme park) or as a
sustainable world that real people could inhabit if only it existed.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Machin" <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ>
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 11:46 AM


> We cannot pretend that we are them, and do it well,
> without assuming the things that they assume.

There is someone on the list, who shall remain nameless, who has a problem
understanding the value that this principle has for some of us.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 12:23 PM 9/5/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> > I don`t really think people ever thought in a
> > BR-like fashion either, but that`s besides the point.
>
>No, its the central point, You are denying that someone can profitably
>look to realistic models for the development of BR. That the use of the
>real world ideologies cannot be framed in a BR system, no matter how
>simplified for the purposes of play.

No, no, no. That`s not what I`m saying. Any number of real world
situations could be used to develop BR campaigns and rules. Doing so adds
flavor, fun and depth to a campaign. (I think I`ve said that a couple of
times in this thread, haven`t I?) What I`m denying is that BR--or any
system of rulership based on BR--accurately portrays those real world
models. An example of your position was, "You just don`t want to accord
historical figures the divine element that you happly bestow upon Darien
Avan, as though the founding of a great nation is done by some guy off the
street, and Avan is a semi-divine figure. I`d put more Bloodstrength in a
mediocre pharaoh than I would in any BR character. You couldn`t run Egypt
without it."

Those statements read to me (unless I`m misreading) as if you were saying
that the BR bloodline system accurately models real world historical
figures, which I find unsupportable. Aside from there being no equivalent
event in real world history of the kind fundamental to the background of
the BR setting (Deismaar) real world nations, politics and rulership are
much more complex than is represented by the 96 page Rulebook no matter how
much you add to it. Not only could a mediocre pharaoh run Egypt without a
bloodline, but all of them ran Egypt without a bloodline because _there is
no such thing as a bloodline._

It IS important to put yourself into the mindset of the people of a
medieval period when playing an RPG. It IS important to assume the things
they assumed, because it makes playing the game more enjoyable. However,
to restate the point at the top of this post "I don`t really think people
ever thought in a BR-like fashion." Birthright characters can be modeled
on real world people. Real world people, however, are not constrained by
the limitations inherent to a D&D/BR campaign.

>I don`t confuse myself into thinking that it is real. That`s your
>mistake. Not mine.

OK. I don`t think I`ve ever actually made that mistake, which is the point
in my arguing the issue. You`ve made several statements that appeared to
make that error. (Edward III, mediocre pharaohs had a blood strength,
Abraham has a similar divine connection, etc.)

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 04:46 AM 9/6/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

> > It can be the source of endless campaigns. But to postulate
> > such conditions and then mistake it for accurately portraying
> > the reality is... well, not valid.
>
>But to people of those particular times and societies (dare I say it: of
>those settings) it was the reality. Surely we are being invalid when we
>try and base our games on how we in the Twenty-First Century see these
>sorts of concepts, as opposed to basing it on how the persons who held
>them saw them.

I don`t think we should base our games on how we in the 21st century
conceive these sorts of things either. The point here was not how to run a
particular game, but whether the BR system of bloodlines modeled how real
life rulership worked.

>I think it is pointless to have a game set in the Middle Ages that is
>subject to the natural laws as we understand them. Ars Magica assures us
>that the physical laws that prevail are those of the Greeks and not
>those of the Einstein, Rutherford and so on. To the people of the time -
>it was reality - we cannot pretend that we are them, and do it well,
>without assuming the things that they assume.

I guess I`m just not making my point very well here since there`s been
several responses that are a variation of the above.... All I can tell you
is that I prefer the sort of gaming environment you`re describing. My
point though, is that Daedalus never actually flew, despite the prevailing
physical laws supposed by the Greeks. Oh, he`d fly in a fantasy RPG
version of Greek mythology, but if you tried to build a pair of wings with
discarded feathers and wax you`d have less luck than the gentleman who
wants to make a 15th century hovercraft. We can develop fantasy campaigns
using real world models, but the changes made to reflect "reality" don`t
actually reflect reality.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Gary:
> I don`t think we should base our games on how we in the 21st
> century conceive these sorts of things either. The point
> here was not how to run a particular game, but whether the BR
> system of bloodlines modeled how real life rulership worked.

Well I do not about that exactly. I never planned to claim anything near
that revolutionary. I would say that some elements of bloodlines (some
kind of extra culture-specific `thing` allowing a noble to wield
political and social influence whether it be descent from gods or
heroes, a mandate from heaven, or simply by mimicing the divine
social-structures on earth) might be present in RW, but I`d be more
inclined to say that bloodlines are a mechanic that the BR setting uses
to represent RW examples of rulership. I don`t think that means they
represent it accurately. I could say that this curiously shaped
potato-chip represents the current U.S. president, but I don`t think
that it is very accurate representation (unless GWB is `Ready Salted`).

I`m not sure if modelling is the word I`d use since all the modelling I
have had the misfortune to have anything to do with involved a lot more
math and data-collection than I imagine got used in the creation of BR.

> I guess I`m just not making my point very well here since
> there`s been several responses that are a variation of the
> above.... All I can tell you is that I prefer the sort of
> gaming environment you`re describing. My point though, is
> that Daedalus never actually flew, despite the prevailing
> physical laws supposed by the Greeks. Oh, he`d fly in a
> fantasy RPG version of Greek mythology, but if you tried to
> build a pair of wings with discarded feathers and wax you`d
> have less luck than the gentleman who wants to make a 15th
> century hovercraft. We can develop fantasy campaigns using
> real world models, but the changes made to reflect "reality"
> don`t actually reflect reality.

Who said that they did!?

We have to remember though that often the examples we take from history
do not tesselate exactly with our fantastic worlds. For example you
couldn`t take the Knights Templar entirely into Anuire without some
alterations since the Knights Templar of history had some things that
Anuire religious knightly orders lack and lacked some things that
Anuirean religious knightly orders possess. I personally find that
determining how these differences alter the general historical template
cause most of my arguments about this sort of thing.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Gary:
> OK. I don`t think I`ve ever actually made that mistake,
> which is the point in my arguing the issue. You`ve made
> several statements that appeared to make that error. (Edward
> III, mediocre pharaohs had a blood strength, Abraham has a
> similar divine connection, etc.)

Three large religions disagree with you on that last point though. That
alone indicates to me that thinking about these sorts of ideas from a
accepting-position might be useful and interesting.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 08:12 AM 9/6/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

> > We can develop fantasy campaigns using
> > real world models, but the changes made to reflect "reality"
> > don`t actually reflect reality.
>
>Who said that they did!?

It`s what`s been suggested several times in this thread.... The examples
listed below were all suggested as being possible to accurately portray
using bloodlines.

At 08:12 AM 9/6/2002 +1200, John Machin also wrote:

[I`m including the whole exchange so we can see the context.]

>>>I don`t confuse myself into thinking that it is real. That`s your
>>>mistake. Not mine.
>>
>>OK. I don`t think I`ve ever actually made that mistake, which is the
>>point in my arguing the issue. You`ve made several statements that
>>appeared to make that error. (Edward III, mediocre pharaohs had a blood
>>strength, Abraham has a similar divine connection, etc.)
>
>Three large religions disagree with you on that last point though. That
>alone indicates to me that thinking about these sorts of ideas from a
>accepting-position might be useful and interesting.

I`m not saying that Abraham had NO divine connection but that he did not
have a "similar divine connection" as in similar to the previous listed
example, "pharaohs with a blood strength" which was cited as an example of
how the BR bloodline system would apply to real world rulers. Abraham,
Edward III, or any pharaoh would not be accurately portrayed by describing
him as having a BR bloodline (or by being expressing using D&D stats.)

Is that clear?

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Sorry Gary, I didn`t mention Edward III or the Pharoahs. I DID mention
Abraham though. I believe Kenneth brought up Edward III and the
Pharaohs.

> I`m not saying that Abraham had NO divine connection but that
> he did not have a "similar divine connection" as in similar
> to the previous listed example, "pharaohs with a blood
> strength" which was cited as an example of how the BR
> bloodline system would apply to real world rulers. Abraham,
> Edward III, or any pharaoh would not be accurately portrayed
> by describing him as having a BR bloodline (or by being
> expressing using D&D stats.)
> Is that clear?

This is such an unstartling conclusion that it would be hard for it not
to be clear.

I think you are looking at this backwards though. I don`t think that
giving a Pharoah a bloodline to explain the complex political
relationship would be accurate in an absolute-materialist historical
sense. I think however that you could use a character with a bloodline
to represent a Pharonic-style government in BR. I have never thought of
bloodlines as an alternative to good historical practices. However I was
under the distinct impression that this list was for discussing
game-phenomenon and not the particulars of modern history methods - a
subject which I feel under-qualified and not especially willing to wax
lyrical on.

I believe that Kenneth and I were trying to show that the concept of
divine (or divinely-inspired) kingship is quite broad and has a
historical basis. I also think Pharoahs were brought to to say: "Look we
can translate these guys into BR, and these guys, and these guys.". I
think they can be `reasonably accurately` portrayed for game purposes.
I`m not about to base my essays about Abraham on my BR version of him,
but I think as far as game-playing goes giving him a bloodline-like
feature works. Sure you might call it a "capacity for logos" and say it
is because he is nomos empsychos kai logikos instead of saying he
absorbs energy from the land because his ancestor was close to an
exploding god + mountain but the essential mechanic is functional.
Plainly our examples and counter-examples have only confused rather than
simplfied the whole matter. They are not essential to the discussion
however. Lets try and stop what has become an argument
for/against/who-knowswhat realism in roleplaying-games.

I think that so far people have been focussing on different parts of the
argument. Perhaps we should get back to the original matter. That is to
say: Should (N)PCs in Birthright campaigns be able to become gods under
their own steam.
Kenneth and I say: No.
Other people say: Yes.

I say no because I think that the game doesn`t need it and because I
don`t see that Big Levels + Divine Goo gained through Luck (essentially)
= Ability and Right to Ascend to Godhood. Ascension is a privilege at
best and an impossible dream at worst - in BR at least.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

Modeling is done for a purpose. If you model history to advance the
discipline, it will be complex, and probabaly, as John mentioned, involve a
lot of math. If the purpose is to improve your game, forget accurate
representations. Simplicity and harmony with the game become important.
This was the point of the difference between a picture of Joe Stalin and the
person of Joe Stalin. In gaming, a few stats gives us a rough
representation.

When I say that BR can model history, I mean that "sufficient for the
purposes of an enjoyable evening or a campaign of role playing, in which the
root inspiration is historical."

There was a reason that D&D has historical campaign supplements, and that
Dieties and Demigods has historical mythos. Sometimes people want to play
in historical environs. Who ever wrote these books explored a specific
historical culture, adapted it to D&D conventions, and threw in a few new
rules. I wouldn`t cite these books on your dissertation, but they can
provide fun gaming. This list is not a list for verifying that we`re all
using the most sophisticated academic analysis, but identifying ways we play
our game in hopes that someone else has more fun with their game.

No one thinks that a stat block for Edward III is the person of Edward. But
we can play games with the stat block. You can complain that the D&D
version is not the real thing (discovery!) or its too simplified (why too
simplified for gaming purposes?), but you must know that people do that sort
of thing and that they have fun doing it.

Certainly if I`m attempting to describe history for a serious purpose
(academics, politics, social policy) the standard of reality is much higher
than if I`m attempting to describe history for use in a game. I think we
can achieve a sufficient realism for game purposes with the BR rules set.
That is, its a workable rules set for gaming with an Earth history. Pass
the pretzels.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

John Machin <trithemius@PARADISE.NET.NZ> wrote at 02-09-04 00.19:

> I don`t think that the BR setting benefits from having this [ascension] as a
> feature. The game is foccussed largely on the terrestrial world and
> mortal rulership, I don`t want apotheosis there to distract people and
> give them goals that I have no desire to allow them to fulfill.

I think this subjective "this is not what I want in my game" point of view
is the best argument in this discussion so far. I think there are few really
convincing arguments either way on the question of ascension in Birthright -
that is why I have kept mostly quiet in this debate. IMC, I use ascension as
a motif (not that my players know), but that is strictly in my game.

Not that I`m complaining - the argument has beeen entertaining so far.

/Carl

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 10:22 AM 9/6/2002 +1200, John Machin wrote:

>Sorry Gary, I didn`t mention Edward III or the Pharoahs. I DID mention
>Abraham though. I believe Kenneth brought up Edward III and the Pharaohs.

I remember which person mentioned which figure. I listed them as examples
that had been noted in the thread, not trying to attribute them to
particular contributors. (You actually first mentioned Abraham in "The
Nature of Divinity in BR" thread, and I brought up Jesus once....)

> > I`m not saying that Abraham had NO divine connection but that
> > he did not have a "similar divine connection" as in similar
> > to the previous listed example, "pharaohs with a blood
> > strength" which was cited as an example of how the BR
> > bloodline system would apply to real world rulers. Abraham,
> > Edward III, or any pharaoh would not be accurately portrayed
> > by describing him as having a BR bloodline (or by being
> > expressing using D&D stats.)
> > Is that clear?
>
>This is such an unstartling conclusion that it would be hard for it not to
>be clear.

OK, cool, because this relates to the larger issue that I`ll cover below.

>I don`t think that giving a Pharoah a bloodline to explain the complex
>political relationship would be accurate in an absolute-materialist
>historical sense. I think however that you could use a character with a
>bloodline to represent a Pharonic-style government in BR.

There are two major points here that I think are getting mixed, so let me
try to differentiate them.

1. Modeling the real world can influence how you play BR. (I agree
wholeheartedly with this one.)

2. BR can be used to model the real world. (This one is where I disagree.)

A couple of times in this thread I`ve argued against #2 and gotten
responses that related to #1, sometimes mixing them together in such a way
as to make me think the logic is that if one can use the real world to
model BR then it follows that BR can model the real world. That doesn`t
actually follow.

>However I was under the distinct impression that this list was for
>discussing game-phenomenon and not the particulars of modern history
>methods - a subject which I feel under-qualified and not especially
>willing to wax lyrical on.

This list is actually for discussing anything and everything BR
related. Whenever anyone cites historical figures (or literary ones) to
support an argument about the game we run the danger of heading
off-topic. For all its meandering this particular discussion has remained
on-topic, though. We haven`t actually touched on historiography... at
least not recently.

>I believe that Kenneth and I were trying to show that the concept of
>divine (or divinely-inspired) kingship is quite broad and has a
>historical basis. I also think Pharoahs were brought to to say: "Look we
>can translate these guys into BR, and these guys, and these guys.". I
>think they can be `reasonably accurately` portrayed for game purposes.

This is issue #2. I don`t think BR`s system of bloodline strength and its
domain rules would make for a very good or even reasonably accurate
portrayal of those figures. If I were trying to be reasonably accurate in
translating historical figures into a system of non-BR domain rules that
system would probably look a little like BR but not much. BR`s system of
bloodline and its domain rules are too campaign specific to port straight
into a non-BR system.

When I wrote up my Oriental Adventures BR campaign, for example, I soon
came to the conclusion that I needed to recreate Deismaar on Shanjari (my
BR-OA region.) Why? Because without a similar event you don`t have
bloodlines, and bloodlines are a much more direct and powerful link to the
gods than the concept of divinely inspired kingship of real world myth that
one would use as the basis for most campaign settings. Without bloodlines
it becomes much more difficult to rationalize the domain system. If a
ruler is spending magical energies (RP) garnered from the adoration of the
populace through a direct link to the gods handed down over the millennia
(bloodline) then it`s easier to rationalize domain actions like Rule,
Diplomacy and Contest taking around one month of game time, costing as
little as a few thousand gp, and having the option of the ruler
automatically ensure the success of his action by spending additional
RP. If I wanted BR-OA regents then I had to have a parallel event to
explain bloodlines. Otherwise I felt I would need an entirely different
system of rulership and domain rules.

So from my POV you can`t translate historical or even mythological rulers
into the BR system. At least, you can`t do it with much accuracy. D&D is
a blunt tool when trying to represent "reality" in the first place, but
even using such a blunt tool the BR domain rules are far too campaign
specific and just downright different from how a system of divinely
inspired kingship and the kind of domain rules that would accompany it
would work to be used with reasonable accuracy. If you have the BR rules
in hand then it might seem logical to use them for non-BR characters, but
if you think about how to model divinely inspired kingship without looking
at it from the BR perspective first then it starts making more sense to
come up with an entirely different system. The Hundred Years War was also
cited as an example of how one could use the BR system to reflect real
world history. Using BR it`s hard for me to picture the Hundred Years War
lasting more than about 10-12 years.

The saying goes, "When the only tool you have is a hammer all your problems
begin to look like nails." Similarly, when the only system you have is BR
all rulers begin to look like they have a bloodline strength score. In
fact, to portray non-BR rulers in D&D I think you need an entirely
different system.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Gary wrote:

> There are two major points here that I think are getting mixed, so let me
> try to differentiate them.
>
> 1. Modeling the real world can influence how you play BR. (I agree
> wholeheartedly with this one.)
>
> 2. BR can be used to model the real world. (This one is where I disagree.)

BR can indeed be used to model the real world. It may not do it *well
enough to satisfy you*, but in principle it models politics sufficiently
generically to function to some degree throughout most of history. The
question is how much of what kinds of biases and distortions each
individual user prefers to tolerate in the model`s behavior.

Everything is a model. Which models are "better" than others depends upon
your purposes and preferences. Everyone`s utility function is a bit
different.

To take just one aspect, "realism" is not a binary variable, but a
continuous one. BR is somewhat realistic. Minor rules changes can slide
its realism up or down the spectrum; and, perhaps unfortunately, it is a
general principle of game design that realism usually varies inversely
with playability. Each gamer has a different comfort point.

Also, different parts of the system are more or less realistic than others:
for example, the Contest action bothers me much less than the Rule action.

> John Machin wrote:
> >I believe that Kenneth and I were trying to show that the concept of
> >divine (or divinely-inspired) kingship is quite broad and has a
> >historical basis. I also think Pharoahs were brought to to say: "Look we
> >can translate these guys into BR, and these guys, and these guys.". I
> >think they can be `reasonably accurately` portrayed for game purposes.
>
> This is issue #2. I don`t think BR`s system of bloodline strength and its
> domain rules would make for a very good or even reasonably accurate
> portrayal of those figures. If I were trying to be reasonably accurate in
> translating historical figures into a system of non-BR domain rules that
> system would probably look a little like BR but not much. BR`s system of
> bloodline and its domain rules are too campaign specific to port straight
> into a non-BR system.

What you have pointed out here is simply a disagreement over the
definition of the phrase "reasonably accurate", and not one I think you
are going to be able to resolve. Each of you is right according to his
own idiosyncratic preferences of what constitutes "good enough" to use.

> Why? Because without a similar event you don`t have bloodlines,

I don`t think that`s actually necessary; but again, just a personal
feeling. See below for some other ideas.

> Without bloodlines it becomes much more difficult to rationalize the
> domain system.

With this I concur.

> If a ruler is spending magical energies (RP) garnered from the
> adoration of the populace through a direct link to the gods handed
> down over the millennia (bloodline) then it`s easier to rationalize
> domain actions like Rule, Diplomacy and Contest taking around one
> month of game time, costing as little as a few thousand gp, and having
> the option of the ruler automatically ensure the success of his action
> by spending additional RP.

True. However, it`s also not that hard to muck with the game rules to
change all these behaviors into ones somewhat less difficult to
rationalize into other world-systems.

> If I wanted BR-OA regents then I had to have a parallel event to
> explain bloodlines.

Parallel something, yes, but why need it necessarily be a violent
explosion of the gods? I actually find it easier to see as some sort of
contest/game/experiment of the gods/dragons/whatever, with "teams" or
"families" designed and created with different sets of
animal/elemental/personality characteristics bred into them in the ancient
past and then left to compete to see what happens; Steven Brust`s Jhereg
books have a backstory like this.

Also, why could it not have been a purely human ritual? Some ancient king
wanted a way to rule his holdings up above level 1 (which you can make and
profit from in a GB-only system), and his chief priest / court wizard
found a way to bind some mebhaighl to him in a way that could be passed
down through the years. Perhaps this was done seven times by seven
different leaders of the ancient past, and their personalities live on to
a certain extent in the magical power bound into them and passed along to
their modern successors.

Then there are the elves. They claim to have descended from the pure
elements, and the bloodlines have very strong elemental associations.
Also, one must have either a bloodline or elven blood to cast wizard
magic: why not assume that they are really the same thing? Make it so all
elves have bloodlines, and all humans with them are descended either from
an elf or an unblooded human who somehow succeeded at bloodtheft against one.

There are also less mystical methods. People (including you, IIRC) have
talked about letting unblooded leaders collect RP with their charisma
scores or modifiers. You could then allow them to spend collected RP on
building up a bloodline score. You could bootstrap from zero if you
make it so that the Create Holding action grants the successful regent a
bloodline point; this could even be extended to say that the first time
you would collect an RP if you had a bloodline, but can`t because you`re a
commoner, that RP simply spends itself to raise your bloodline from 0 to 1.

In fact, IMC, I use a combination of all of the above. In my personal
rewrite of the campaign backstory, there was a Deismaar, but it was not
the source of bloodlines.

> Otherwise I felt I would need an entirely different
> system of rulership and domain rules.

Yes, BR as a game system cannot function without a way to collect RP.
But there is great latitude in deciding what RP "really are", and what (if
anything) limits how many you can collect per turn.

> So from my POV you can`t translate historical or even mythological rulers
> into the BR system. At least, you can`t do it with much accuracy.

These are very different statements. If you can do it without much
accuracy, then you can do it, period. Whether it`s worthwhile is a
separate question, but pedantically the pure possibility exists.

> D&D is a blunt tool when trying to represent "reality" in the first place

Granted. But given those limitations, how much worse does the BR domain
system really make things?

> even using such a blunt tool the BR domain rules are far too campaign
> specific and just downright different from how a system of divinely
> inspired kingship and the kind of domain rules that would accompany it
> would work to be used with reasonable accuracy.

I claim this is purely a matter of taste.

> If you have the BR rules in hand then it might seem logical to use
> them for non-BR characters,

As indeed we do, so it`s off the the races.

> but if you think about how to model divinely inspired kingship without
> looking at it from the BR perspective first then it starts making more
> sense to come up with an entirely different system.

Which several people reading this are no doubt also working on. =)

> The Hundred Years War was also cited as an example of how one could
> use the BR system to reflect real world history. Using BR it`s hard
> for me to picture the Hundred Years War lasting more than about 10-12
> years.

It is the case that optimal strategies depend crucially on the specific
properties of the model, so there will always be differences of this
sort. Some of it may be psychological as well -- the BR wars I`ve seen
tend more to resemble World War II, which I think has a lot to do with
what the players have grown up assuming about what wars are.

> The saying goes, "When the only tool you have is a hammer all your
> problems begin to look like nails." Similarly, when the only system
> you have is BR all rulers begin to look like they have a bloodline
> strength score.

Quite. If you are to use BR as written, you must assign all regents
bloodline scores. That`s just how the system works. But it can be done
in different ways.

> In fact, to portray non-BR rulers in D&D I think you need an entirely
> different system.

Entirely different in in-game justification perhaps, but not I think all
that different in player-visible mechanics.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, John Machin wrote:

> > It can be the source of endless campaigns. But to postulate
> > such conditions and then mistake it for accurately portraying
> > the reality is... well, not valid.
>
> But to people of those particular times and societies (dare I say it: of
> those settings) it was the reality. Surely we are being invalid when we
> try and base our games on how we in the Twenty-First Century see these
> sorts of concepts, as opposed to basing it on how the persons who held
> them saw them.

I think "validity" is the wrong concept to be focusing on.

To say "the world really was the way they thought it was, but then
the laws of physics changed when popular opinion about them changed" is
surely incorrect. But to say "it is more fun to play a game in which the
world really is the way they thought it was" is surely true for many people.

We can base our games on any concepts we want. As I`ve said before,
personally I prefer to play in a fantasy game world where quantum
mechanics and general relativity are indeed true, but no one (except the
DM, and maybe some really high-level wizards) knows about them. It`s a
matter only of individual taste.

> I think it is pointless to have a game set in the Middle Ages that is
> subject to the natural laws as we understand them.

Not pointless -- less fun for you. Other people have fun in other ways.
The SCA is in some sense a live-action RPG set in the Middle Ages and
subject to the natural laws as we understand them.

> Ars Magica assures us that the physical laws that prevail are those of
> the Greeks and not those of the Einstein, Rutherford and so on. To the
> people of the time - it was reality - we cannot pretend that we are
> them, and do it well, without assuming the things that they assume.

This is an argument about what constitutes "good roleplaying", and as such
simply a declaration of your preferred style. This is not an argument
that can have a final or factual resolution.


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, John Machin wrote:

> I`m not sure if modelling is the word I`d use since all the modelling I
> have had the misfortune to have anything to do with involved a lot more
> math and data-collection than I imagine got used in the creation of BR.

Modeling is precisely the word I`d use, and it`s my job. I used to make
combat models for the US Navy, and now I make climate models for NASA. A
model in this sense is anything that allows you to predict behavior. Two
people have a swordfight -- who wins? I try to pick a lock -- can I do
it? A king and a priest contend against each other for the hearts and
minds of the people -- whom do the people support?

D&D is a model, just like Newtonian mechanics is a model and the way you
try to guess how people will react to the things you say is a model. Very
different kinds of data went into the creation of these models, and some
have their level of agreement with reality much more closely and
rigorously scrutinized than others, but they`re all models.

The American Heritage Dictionary definition closest to what I mean is "a
schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for
its known or inferred properties and may be used for further study of its
characteristics." The best definition of model in this sense that
dictionary.com has to offer is from "The Free On-line Dictionary of
Computing", which states that a model is "A description of observed
behaviour, simplified by ignoring certain details. Models allow complex
systems to be understood and their behaviour predicted within the scope of
the model, but may give incorrect descriptions and predictions for
situations outside the realm of their intended use. A model may be used
as the basis for simulation."


Ryan Caveney

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:33 PM


> > In fact, to portray non-BR rulers in D&D I think you need an entirely
> > different system.
>
> Entirely different in in-game justification perhaps, but not I think all
> that different in player-visible mechanics.

To illustrate Ryan`s point, we could take 15th century France. The status a
person had, and their ability to collect and store political favors, was
tied to their decent, their marriage, their title, any office they held, and
any special achievments they claimed.

Calculating status through decent is pretty straitforward with the BR system
as it is. For historical Europeans, you`d need to keep tract of something
we might call "native bloodline", which is your unmodified bloodline. This
measures how closely related you are to peolpe who are very great, or have
long pedigrees. Second you`d get a bump from marriage. This could be
handled any number of ways, but it all comes down to either an investure
proceedure (as part of the marriage) or an achievment bonus the reverse of
those described on page 48 pg of the rules. That is, instead of losing 1
point of bloodline strength and 25% of your regency for a failure to respond
to a minor event, you`d get a bloodline point and maybe some regency for
seccuring a marriage alliance. Same rule, novel interpretation. And, I
have mentioned using this system in reverse before. Third, and for
Europeans, this one is one of the larger modifiers, a big chunk of one`s
status comes from your title. This is one of the ways I interpret the
Land`s Choice phenomena, however, so again, nothing alltogether new. People
have mentioned investiture as being the common or only way to transfer
bloodlines, and they are already more or less in this camp. There is no
mention of offices other then Chamberlain in the rules, but one must assume
that there were other Imperial offices that nobles once used to gain status
over their peers. At the level of small nobles, there are the offices of
chancellor, steward, marshal, &c of various realms. These could be a boost
to effective bloodline scores based on the rough size of the realm, the
status of the office, and any other characteristics which are relevant.
Finally, there is the personal achievment of the noble. This involves the
spending RP to build your bloodline, heroic actions that increase your
bloodline, defeating blooded enemies, and so forth.

So without having to start from scratch, by using either already extant
house rules based on printed rules, certain interpretations of existing
rules, and novel uses of rules intended for something else, BR could be
modified to handle late medieval status. It wouldn`t change rulers very
much at all. Their calculation of the effective RP collection is a bit more
complex. But once its worked out, its as stable is it normally is. The
real change is for non-ruling scions.

In a non-magical game, blood powers could be exchanged for normal feats,
reflecting the superior training and education of the titled nobility.

Its not perfect, but its a lot better than systems I`ve seen invented to
explicitly describe late medieval noble status.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[geeman]

At 05:18 PM 9/6/2002 -0400, Ryan Caveney wrote:

> > I`m not sure if modelling is the word I`d use since all the modelling I
> > have had the misfortune to have anything to do with involved a lot more
> > math and data-collection than I imagine got used in the creation of BR.
>
>Modeling is precisely the word I`d use, and it`s my job. I used to make
>combat models for the US Navy, and now I make climate models for NASA. A
>model in this sense is anything that allows you to predict behavior. Two
>people have a swordfight -- who wins? I try to pick a lock -- can I do
>it? A king and a priest contend against each other for the hearts and
>minds of the people -- whom do the people support?

Actually, that`s why I think a different term should be used. In several
posts the term "real world model" has apparently been used to mean "a
fantasy setting based on a real world historical period, but presupposing
the beliefs of the period are objective reality." "Period based fantasy
setting" is probably more accurate. When I read "real world model" it
sounds to me much more like a term using the definitions you provided,
something like "a realistic recreation of a real world historical
period." So there`s been a Who`s on First confusion going on in which
posters have been describing historical figures with a bloodline as
examples for their "real world model" which reads like an oxymoron, and
when I`ve said BR couldn`t be used to model the real world they`ve read
that to mean you couldn`t create a period based fantasy setting on a
similar rules set. "Period based fantasy setting" is a better term.

Gary

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Ryan Caveney:
> We can base our games on any concepts we want. As I`ve said
> before, personally I prefer to play in a fantasy game world
> where quantum mechanics and general relativity are indeed
> true, but no one (except the DM, and maybe some really
> high-level wizards) knows about them. It`s a matter only of
> individual taste.

You`re sneaky Ryan. You and your "magics is physics". ;)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Ryan Caveney:
> Modeling is precisely the word I`d use, and it`s my job. I
> used to make combat models for the US Navy, and now I make
> climate models for NASA. A model in this sense is anything
> that allows you to predict behavior. Two people have a
> swordfight -- who wins? I try to pick a lock -- can I do it?
> A king and a priest contend against each other for the
> hearts and minds of the people -- whom do the people support?

Okay so I guess modelling *is* the right word to use.

Thanks Ryan.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Ryan Caveney:
> This is an argument about what constitutes "good
> roleplaying", and as such simply a declaration of your
> preferred style. This is not an argument that can have a
> final or factual resolution.

You won`t hear any denials from me about this (I recall someone saying
something rather like it at some point). However when people are asking
for opinions I am happy to supply them with mine. I assume that nearly
everything people write on this list has an implied "In My Opinion" in
front of it.

I don`t honestly think there are many topics on this list that have
final factual answers, expect possibly ones about the page a given piece
of information is on in one of the books.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, John Machin wrote:

> You won`t hear any denials from me about this (I recall someone saying
> something rather like it at some point). However when people are asking
> for opinions I am happy to supply them with mine. I assume that nearly
> everything people write on this list has an implied "In My Opinion" in
> front of it.

Well, quite. However, from time to time threads degenerate into an
endless round of "Yes, this is still my opinion" and "No, it`s still not
mine." I felt this one had spent long enough spinning around in this
particular circle that it might be time to point out the invisible IMOs
again. =)


Ryan

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2002, John Machin wrote:

> You`re sneaky Ryan. You and your "magics is physics". ;)

I am constantly struck by the parallels.

Nuclear physics is obviously alchemy -- we turn various elements into
others all the time. In fact, if you have the *right kind* of lead, it
will turn into gold *on its own* over the course of a few hours. =)

And, after all, one of my professors said to me, "As we all know, quantum
mechanics is black magic." (He is a string theorist, so he should know. ;)
Getting to know the workings of the universe at such a fundamental level
is a source of immense power and danger, as the history of the past
century (indeed, the entirety of recorded history, though more
dramatically at some times than others) clearly shows. It also seems to
do something odd to your mind, as I exemplify. =)

For serious modern physics research into things which might reasonably be
called "magic", take a look at http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ :

From their intro page:

> Engineering and Consciousness
>
> The Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) program was
> established at Princeton University in 1979 by Robert G. Jahn, then
> Dean of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, to pursue
> rigorous scientific study of the interaction of human consciousness
> with sensitive physical devices, systems, and processes common to
> contemporary engineering practice. Since that time, an
> interdisciplinary staff of engineers, physicists, psychologists, and
> humanists has been conducting a comprehensive agenda of experiments
> and developing complementary theoretical models to enable better
> understanding of the role of consciousness in the establishment of
> physical reality.

I have not participated in the research myself, but the best DM I ever
gamed with is a theoretical physicist who is one of their investigators.


Ryan

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Ryan:
> I am constantly struck by the parallels.
>
> Nuclear physics is obviously alchemy -- we turn various
> elements into others all the time. In fact, if you have the
> *right kind* of lead, it will turn into gold *on its own*
> over the course of a few hours. =)
>
> And, after all, one of my professors said to me, "As we all
> know, quantum mechanics is black magic." (He is a string
> theorist, so he should know. ;) Getting to know the workings
> of the universe at such a fundamental level is a source of
> immense power and danger, as the history of the past century
> (indeed, the entirety of recorded history, though more
> dramatically at some times than others) clearly shows. It
> also seems to do something odd to your mind, as I exemplify. =)

Believe it or not, I am inclined to agree with you. My readings on
alchemy and my discussions with various physicists all seem to bear a
striking resemblance to each other. We certainly talk about "magic" and
"physics" in the same way... Whether or not they are in any objective
sort of way (assuming you believe in both of them) I am not sure anyone
could say. However, despite this, I`m of the opinion (as you have seen
from the rest of this thread) that what we know *now* may have no place
in the game.

> For serious modern physics research into things which might
> reasonably be called "magic", take a look at
> http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/ :
>
> From their intro page:
> <snip!>

I certainly will have a look at this. Thank`s for pointing it out.

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Trithemius]

Ryan:
> Well, quite. However, from time to time threads degenerate
> into an endless round of "Yes, this is still my opinion" and
> "No, it`s still not mine." I felt this one had spent long
> enough spinning around in this particular circle that it
> might be time to point out the invisible IMOs again. =)

You`re probably right about that Ryan, it`s a lot harder to do it
sometimes. I get the impression that people feel the need to `champion`
their particular views from time to time. Or that could just be me. I
often find myself taking different views to some people on the List and
I sometimes feel that its good to show that there are different opinions
out there.

When a thread like that refuses to die it can certainly deserve being
kicked over by an observer ;)

--
John Machin
(trithemius@paradise.net.nz)
-----------------------------------
"Nothing is more beautiful than to know the All."
Athanasius Kircher, Ars Magna Sciendi.

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

Just to throw in my two cents. The following I am currently doing
ascention to demigodhood in my upcoming epic-level campaign. I might do
it differently in future campaigns.

Only personally powerful individuals can ascend. Bloodline has little to
do with it. These individuals must basically be very high level or epic
level, and must be renowned or feared to many, many people. Not all high
level or epic characters can become demigods. "The Land" chooses who has
the opportunity, not gods and not the character themself. This
opportunity is a once in a lifetime thing, and appears after the
character accomplishes some great task. The character must then do
another great task to sieze that opportunity and actually ascend. This
task to ascend is not automatically known to the character, it must be
researched or divined (although some mystic soul-searching may be
possible, too). The task is always related to the character`s past
deeds, their role in society, or the expectations that the populace
place on them.

For example, one of my PC`s will soon marry the Empress of the reborn
Anuirean Empire. The PC built the new Empire with his own sweat and
blood, but is only now thinking about becoming its Emperor. His
opportunity to become a demigod will appear when he is crowned as
Emperor, even though he won`t know this until much later. He will then
have to intense research, looking for "signs" in his personal history as
well as the history of his position as Emperor of the Anuirean Empire.
It will turn out that to become a demigod, he, as the first Emperor
since Michael Roele, will have to personally defeat and slay the Gorgon,
the being that destroyed the Empire and the last Emperor before.

Another example is another PC. Her opportunity appeared when she slew
her great grandfather, Rhuobhe Manlasyer. Now she will need to do some
soul-searching to realize that she must "cure" the realm of Tuar Annwn
in Vosgaard of its Shaow World taint, and bring it into a united Elven
Empire, in order to ascend.

A Third is the Gorgon himself. His opportunity arose when he slew the
last Emperor and sundered the Empire that his brothers built. He can
ascend when he is crowned as the Emperor of that reborn Empire and sits
on the Iron Throne.

I`m now trying to come up with events and goals for the two new PC`s
that are entering specifically for the epic-level campaign. Perhaps
someone can help with ideas? Here are the new PC descriptions:

* An albino khinasi wizard that is an Elemental Savant of Air from the
T&B. He has become an air elemental from that prestige class. He has a
bloodline of Azrai which he gained in his childhood in Kal-Saithrak from
killing a minor awnshegh. He realized he was blooded and got the hell
out of the Gorgon`s realm. He is an introvert and anti-social, quiet and
thinks of his albino condition as ugly and fears people will hate him
because of it. He therefore wears a mask and is fully clothed at all
times. He now lives on that big, uninhabited island off the north coast
of Vosgaard. I forget the name. He likes sculpting and making works of
art and beauty. He worships Laerme, godess of art and beauty, and hopes
that she will recognize him, and cure his albino affliction so that he
can feel beautiful himself.

* A war priest/paladin of Neserie. I allowed him to be male. He is
Rjurik, and is a temple high priest along the north and west coasts of
Rjurik. He is teaching a dualism of Neserie and Erik at his temple, and
has recently cleared the northern icy seas of an undead menace (for the
past 7 game years, some powerful force of undead has been building ships
and plagueing the northern sea). His personality will likely be
good-natured and forward, even blunt.

There is not much background to these two new PC`s, who are around the
17th level range. So any ideas and suggestions would be very welcome.

--
/ Adam Theo, Age 23, Tallahassee FL USA
// Email & Jabber: theo@theoretic.com
// Pager: (850) 709 7738
=//=====
// || Theoretic Solutions: http://www.theoretic.com
|| "Building Ideas by Bringing them Together"
|| Jabber Protocol: http://www.jabber.org
|| "The Next Generation Communications Protocol"
|| "A Free-Market Socialist Patriotic American Buddhist"

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Birthright-L]

<< *snip*
BE (p. 79) leaves this subject purposely open. quote:
>Has the Serpent made contact with some divine powers other than those
previously known to Cerilia? Has he madesome unholy >bargain with them? ...
how can logic explain the spells that the Sons of the Serpent, the Serpent`s
worshipers, are able to cast? If the >Serpent himself is not divine, what
power fuels their magic? <
Well, I can think of a number of possible explanations:
*snip*
2. A surviving part of Azrai (residual essence or whatever) supplies the
spells. Perhaps that`s a first step on the way towards Azrai`s return to
godhood and to Cerilia.
3. Another god of the Cerilian pantheon amuses himself by granting divine
powers to the Sons of the Serpent. That seems to be the most boring
solution, but I think Belinik would fit the bill nicely. He is chaotic evil
and may have decided to do this on a chaotic whim. In addition, the
uncertainty that this unknown power generates among the Serpent`s enemies
(and potential victims) may alone be enough to instill them with fear and
terror, thus furthering Belinik`s cause.
>>

In my campaign I use both option 3 and 4, in that the Cold Rider is actually
granting the Serpent`s worshippers spells. He`s trying to expand his
powerbase in the Daylight World this way, while keeping a low profile. He is
after all - or at least in my campaign - the God of Secrets.

- the Falcon

************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

[Raesene Andu]

Orginally posted by Birthright-L

3. Another god of the Cerilian pantheon amuses himself by granting divine powers to the Sons of the Serpent. That seems to be the most boring solution, but I think Belinik would fit the bill nicely. He is chaotic evil and may have decided to do this on a chaotic whim. In addition, the uncertainty that this unknown power generates among the Serpent`s enemies (and potential victims) may alone be enough to instill them with fear and terror, thus furthering Belinik`s cause.


I can think of a very simple, and quite logical reason why Belinik would do this (and not boring at all). Belinik is the god of battle and terror, but he is also the patron of the vos people. He would like to see them and their way of life succeed, and to succeed they need to expand. Any expansion would most likely be into Khinasi, so Belinik needs the Khinasi weakened and open for invasion by his followers. Strengthening the serpent by providing spells to his worshippers weakens the khinasi significantly and already the serpent's followers are reaching the khinasi mainland. After a few more years, they will weaken the khinasi heartland, undermine their leaders and corrupt their people, then Belinik will be ready to strike. Belinik will forge a great and powerful leader amoung the scattered vos lands, who will form into an alliance under this champions leadership and they will sweep down into khinasi, driving all before them, including the followers of the serpent who have been their unwitting allies. Belinik will withdraw his divine support from the serpent, whose priests will suddenly lose their power and the vos will conquer the heartland of the khinasi.