Ideas, Need Comments

[Birthright-L]

Greetings... I am trying to put together, in a way, a cosmology of the Outer
and Inner Planes in relation to Aebrynnis, the Material. I have the
Elemental, Transitive, and Energy Planes, plus have added the Abyss and the
Nine Hells to the grouping (the last two, because every cosmology should
have the demons and devils about to cause trouble).

However, the planes of the deities are a bit more troublesome... Kriesha is
relatively simple, give her a plane where winter is year-round, sort of a
cross between the plane of the demon lord Kotchtchie (sp?) and Fury`s Heart
from the FR cosmology.

I created a plane for Laerme, which has features of the Brightwater plane
for FR, and a direct link to the Elemental Plane of Fire... Of course, in my
idea of a cosmology, every world interconnects in some way, so her plane,
which I named Heartfire, actually connects to Brightwater, so she can wander
in to that pool, and swap stories with the other deities of love...

Currently, I was considering Cuiraecen`s... Now, for him, I was trying to
figure a good outlook. The 2E Para-Elemental Plane of Lightning is of
interest, for sure, but... I needed something else... So I went looking at
other places, things, etc. For storms, Talos is the FR deity, but it is
really on the side of not going there... Tempus is deity of battle, yet he`s
a bit troublesome at times... Anhur, the Mulhorandi deity of battle, with a
touch of storms, seemed the best fit in comparison...

But then I got ahold of something else... Deities and Demigods. Now, there
happens to be a deity in there that fits really well... Problem is, I don`t
want to give Cuiraecen a weapon with HALF the power of that deity`s... The
deity in question is Thor. And quite frankly Mjollnir is so powerful in my
view, it could probably outdo anything wielded by most chief deities! But
the concept of a Valhalla... That seemed to fit Cuiraecen well... Add a bit
of lightning to the air, and you might get something that felt really
comfortable...

Problem is that I have run into one small problem with these deities and the
rest of the BR deities... How to deal with certain of the deceased. Humans
are no trouble at all... It`s those half-elves that worship the human gods
that are troublesome... Do their souls keep their half-elven form after
death? How does one reward those that have gone above and beyond any others?
The ones deserving of forms higher than petitioners?

Now, by far, my favorite race in 2E were the half-elves. The fact that 3E
rules now show that they could advance forever doesn`t hurt my estimation
any... though I now have cambions, half-celestials, half-dragons, and
half-elementals which strike me as cool... But I wondered what would be good
blessings or punishments for serving the deities of BR...

For Kriesha... Well, I was a bit torn... As an evil deity, the faithful that
did not do anything too extraordinary, probably are being tormented forever
(though I do like the FR method of on the plain waiting for your deity to
claim you, the devils coming by and asking those waiting if they want to
become devils... and the faithful of the evil deities, expecting pain for
the rest of time accepting)... But how about those that did extremely well
for her? Those that proved themselves by causing cold spells to destroy
crops, slaying the good, etc.? Well... perhaps they did get a reward of
sorts... Perhaps they became ice para-elementals, or something like that...
That would be a general thing.

Laerme, on the other hand... well, her domain would probably put the worst
Roman orgy to shame... A pleasure palace? Please... That`s putting her
domain down. The human faithful... would probably become some form of
chaotic, love-making celestial, if they did well enough.

Half-elves... well, I had an idea there... I don`t know if it is all that
great, but... it seemed good when I thought it up... On the Elemental Plane
of Fire there are creatures called azer, dwarves native to the Elemental
Plane of Fire... So what if there were also elves native to that plane?
Well, I thought that Laerme might bless those half-elves who did her work
above and beyond all call for it, by making them into such creatures. I gave
them the name, Amael, which I found somewhere as Elven for Beloved... And,
in very special cases, Laerme might send one to accomplish some deed or
other on Aebrynnis. Based on her portfolio... It might be in response to
pleas for someone to love them, or the like... But it was an idea...

As I now have begun working on Cuiraecen... I am a bit troubled as to what
to make the really worthy faithful that end up on his plane... The warriors
waiting in Valhalla are good and all... but there isn`t an actual half-elf
form for those... So I am a bit... torn... I have been thinking of making
creatures based on the lightning para-elemental monster from 2E... But don`t
know if that would be all that wise...

Anyway, sorry for going on and on and on... But I wanted some input, etc.

__________________________________________________ _______________
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Keovar]

One important thing to note about the cosmology of Aebrynnis is that NOTHING can get into the Prime Material part of the world without first passing through the Shadow World that envelops it. The Cold Rider, suspected by many to be the ghost of Azrai, rules that plane now, and it is difficult for anyone of great power to pass through his domain unnoticed by him. This is why Aebrynnis isn't invaded by planar travelers. Most plane-travelling characters are mages and priests, both of which would find themselves with very little power left if they were to get into the Shadow World. The divine spellcasters would find that the strange nature of the plane would keep them from the blessings of their foreign deities, and the mages would find themselves reduced to using only lesser magics. If it's a risky journey for a native Cerilian to enter the Shadow World, imagine the danger a planar visitor would be in!

[Birthright-L]

Keovar wrote:
This is why Aebrynnis isn`t invaded by planar travelers. Most
plane-travelling characters are mages and priests, both of which would find
themselves with very little power left if they were to get into the Shadow
World. The divine spellcasters would find that the strange nature of the
plane would keep them from the blessings of their foreign deities, and the
mages would find themselves reduced to using only lesser magics. If it`s a
risky journey for a native Cerilian to enter the Shadow World, imagine the
danger a planar visitor would be in!
-------
True enough, most times... Problem is there are reports of planar creatures
getting to Aebrynnis... For instance the iron golem orog awnsheghlien (I
forget his name right now, begins with a G...), got his new form and powers
because he freed a baatezu trapped there... Now, that means that said
baatezu (devil) had to have gotten to Aebrynnis somehow...

Also... Many of my campaigns, adventures, etc. have included a minor little
problem called planar rips, or something akin to them... i.e. A person will
be walking along somewhere, and through some unknown process act, he
suddenly (and violently) ends up on some other world/plane or whatever...
And that`s not even counting the times when someone activates a portal
wrong, uses a scroll above their level and gets sent elsewhere by a miscue,
or the retributive strike function of certain staffs sends them elsewhere...

And then there`s that nasty Deismaar event, which sent some NPC`s
everywhere... The past, the future, the Outer Planes, the Realms, et al...
And since I have (in many campaigns) had this penchant for Godswars... Well,
such events happen a bit more often than they should...

Oh... And don`t force me to tell you what I had Laerme do to the humans of
Aebrynnis... Let`s just say if there were no wars the population might be a
bit... high.

__________________________________________________ _______________
Surf the Web without missing calls! Get MSN Broadband.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans...eactivation.asp (http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/freeactivation.asp)

************************************************** **************************
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]

Oh... And another of the reasons I`m asking... is one of my fellow players
got allowed to make a character for BR using the half-fire elemental
template... And now wants an explanation as to how that came about... And
how other half-elementals can come about... As well as other half-planars...
Really troublesome, sometimes... When the DM looks to you to explain some of
the things he put in a campaign...

__________________________________________________ _______________
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp

************************************************** **************************
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: "William Bolitho" <wrb41977@HOTMAIL.COM>
Sent: Saturday, November 02, 2002 4:36 PM


> True enough, most times... Problem is there are reports of planar
> creatures getting to Aebrynnis... Now, that means that said
> baatezu (devil) had to have gotten to Aebrynnis somehow...

Where I ever to use devils and demons, they come from the Shadow World.

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]

Readers of the new 3E Deities and Demigods will notice that each chapter
covering a major pantheon starts with a cosmology, and that there is no
attempt to connect the Pharaonic pantheon with any others in the book.
Likewise with the Greek and Norse cosmologies. They stand alone. There is,
mostly in other materials, discussion of how to connect these worlds. But,
its not an integral part of a cosmology that it can be connected to others.
That`s why they are presented as isolated and free standing. Its a good
thing that both connected and unconnected universes can be imagined. Some
groups will want BR to stand alone and remain permanently free of Elminster,
Thor, and Athena. Others will want to have the possibility of strange
visitors and opportunities to visit other planes.

Were I to devise a cosmological scheme in pictorial form like the ones in
the Deities and Demigods, I`d start with the Material plane. But where many
of the other diagrams show the Ethereal plane overlapping with the material,
I`d show the Shadow World, a twisted mirror image with point to point
contact. Above is the celestial region, which we might name after the Greek
word for star, "astron". It would be in this Astral plane that the heavens
would reside. Hence astrologers would be gazing up at the Astral plane for
insight into the future, the will of the gods, and fate. Up here we have
the palaces of Ruornil and Avani, built by Anduiras for his wife Basaïa and
for his brother Vorynn. These palaces are the sun and the moon. Proper and
obvious astrological phenomena to oberserve. Haelyn is identified by a
constellation, is a sky god, has air powers, and no doubt resides in a part
of the heavens where his constellation is. Nesirie dwells in the sea,
possessing a palace in that domain. Cuiraécen has a cloud palace. Erik has
a domain that touches every forest and is within the earth. Sera occupies
Brenna`s old place in the earth from which she could observe all the riches
of the earth. And so forth and so on.

What else do we need? Nothing really. The idea of the four elements is
strong in BR, and so its possible to imagine the traditional elemental
planes, but where to put them? You could put the elemental plane of fire
in, behind, or through the sun. The depthless ocean could just become the
elemental plane of water. Earth`s elemental plane could just be below the
surface, perhaps hundred of miles. Perhaps the elemental plane of air is
just up, perhaps between the clouds and the celestial sphere that is the
Astral plane. But they strictly aren`t necessary either.

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.

[Talaran]

In regards to the character being a half-elemental, remember that the old gods were forces of nature, some of which having strong ties to certain elements: Anduiras, air; Basaia, fire; Masela, water; and Reynir, earth. Scions of these lines likewise can have similar aptitudes with such. The elemental-nature of the character could very well be a mere reflection of this. After all, if scions with the Elemental Control blood ability, can call and command elementals, there is no reason that such a scion might not be able to develope a deeper bond with bond with the appropriate elemental.

As for planar travel with Birthright, I have always took a strong stand that it just doesn't happen. The barrier is just too strong to cross. Teleportations that go horridly wrong, or the destruction of a Staff of Power/Magi, lends to a similar result in my games: the Shadow World. It's then up to the unfortunate to find their way back, less they become a permanent resident there. Of course, I've never been able to come to an acceptable explanation for the set up of the Sword of Roele adventure, so I have never been able to bring myself to run it.

[Birthright-L]

Hmmm... True... My problem has been more along the lines of someone using
the old (2E) version of Teleport Without Error (called Door of Light in BR,
I think)... And some of those characters have been... shall we say... sent
places where it would be best not to go...

For instance, in one incident... a party was hired by a very powerful
wizard... for something that they did not know much on... That wizard was,
to say the least, insane. One, because he teleported them to the Nine
Hells... And the Ninth plane at that... And two... because he went along
(where either the party was going to kill him, or the devils would)...

In another instance... a shining gate opened in a regent`s throneroom... And
something got pushed through it. Upon examination, the regent found a baby
with golden blond hair... and eyes of the same color. Which led later to
another such event happening, where a baby of the opposite gender was pushed
through... Of course, the campaign ended a bit before they could grow up,
but... it was interesting.

__________________________________________________ _______________
Unlimited Internet access -- and 2 months free! Try MSN.
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans...2monthsfree.asp (http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp)

************************************************** **************************
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 Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> From: "William Bolitho" <wrb41977@HOTMAIL.COM>
>
> > said baatezu (devil) had to have gotten to Aebrynnis somehow...
>
> Were I ever to use devils and demons, they come from the Shadow World.

I do this when I can`t find any other place for them, but I look for
others whenever possible so as not to have every single weird and nasty
thing in the universe reside there. My personal BR cosmology junks the
"outer" (alignment) planes and keeps the "inner" (elemental) ones, so I
assign those outer planar denizens with obvious elemental associations to
the appropriate elemental plane (ice devils to Ice, pit fiends to Fire,
most of the winged celestials to Air, etc.). I`ve also made a couple of
changes in the other direction; for example, standard nightmares would
seem to fit elemental Fire, but for the mounts of the Magian`s Riders,
I preferred to make them Shadow World critters based on extreme cold.


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.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Birthright-L

Currently, I was considering Cuiraecen`s... Now, for him, I was trying to figure a good outlook. The 2E Para-Elemental Plane of Lightning is of interest, for sure, but... I needed something else... So I went looking at other places, things, etc. [...]

Problem is, I don`t want to give Cuiraecen a weapon with HALF the power of that deity`s... The deity in question is Thor. [..]
As I know, an Avatar of a god has only HALF divine ranks, give him the +5 spear (or whatever). Cuiraécen lives on Ysgaard (Cuiraécen's feasthall), the concept of Walhalla that's why isn't this bad, why do you want to change the plane?


As I now have begun working on Cuiraecen... I am a bit troubled as to what
to make the really worthy faithful that end up on his plane... The warriors
waiting in Valhalla are good and all... but there isn`t an actual half-elf
form for those... So I am a bit... torn... I have been thinking of making
creatures based on the lightning para-elemental monster from 2E... But don`t
know if that would be all that wise..

Please post your work (only of Cuiraécen, if you want) here for discussion. Because he is my favourite god, I might help you with him...

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by Ariadne

Because he is my favorite god, I might help you with him...
I don't know your statistics for him, but I would give him the following (based on a combination of Zeus, Ares and Thor [what a pity that Cuiraécen is only a lesser god]):

Domains: Strength, war, storm, chaos, good

HD: 60 (Outsider [medium-sized] 20, Fighter 20, Cleric 20)
Divine Rank: 10
Abilities: Str 45, Dex 26, Con 32, Int 26, Wis 34, Cha 29 (or something alike)

Salient Divine Abilities: Alter Form, Alter Size, Alter Reality, Avatar, Battle Sense, Divine Battle Mastery, Divine Weapon Mastery (Spear or Sword), Divine Weapon Specialization (Spear or Sword), Energy burst (Electricity), Extra Domain (Chaos), Extra Domain (Good), Power of Nature.


May be, this ideas help you a little.
(The 20 Outsider HD's I would only give to Cuiraécen, Eloéle and Laerme, the others are ascended mortals)

[kgauck]

I have been advancing my cosmology from a Rjurik perspective as certain
spellcasters gain the power to travel the planes. I had already fasioned
the idea of a Spirit Plane, and had made reference to it and made it part of
the campaign backround. Ditto the Shadow World, but that was better
supported by materials.

Today I basically have co-opted the ethereal plane (as the wizards of
Khinasi call it) to be the Spirit World. This has provided a set of spells
without any real need for re-writes (aside from nomenclature) for such
travels. I introduced Spirit World adventures by having a wild-shaped druid
(which involves exchanging places with a spirit world creature, not actually
changing form) ambushed by a hostile spirit. I thought a nice follow up to
that would be a traditional Rjurik encounter - the spectral scion. Such
spirits are typically not talkative, so the druid in the party sought to
communicate with the spirit. In the next spirit world adventure, the party,
pursuing agents of the White Witch, sought information from an old dryad
ally, only to be informed by a local brownie friend of the dryad that she
was taken prisoner in the Spirit World. Dryads actually are Spirit World
creatures whose portal into the world of men is through a specific oak tree,
which most men suppose to be her home. Her need to stay close to her tree
has more to do with her imperative to avoid her portal being closed.
Because of oaths, the party suspended their pursuit of the agents of the
White Witch and enter the Spirt World for the first time as a group. At
first the party was mostly waylaid by the seeming and the reverie. The
druid is able to keep his bearings, but has to lead his group through
illusions, tricks, and harrasing attacks from the unseelie court. Neutral
fey know the secrets of the dryad`s capture, but also don`t trust the
humans. The party pass a series of formal challenges and discover that a
wight and a spirit ogre mage have possession of the dryad in an especially
treacherous space in the Spirit World where the barrier to the Shadow is
thin. Dispatching a disease spirit sent to slow them down - the party`s
Anuirean Knight of Cuiraecen (a more or less traditional paladin) combats
him, immune to his primary attack form - the party arrives to combat the
wight and spirit ogre mage only to discover they are allied to a white druid
of Kriesha. Having rescued the dryad, the party find the White Witch has
won the day in the Giantdowns, and the party strongly suspects the whole
capture of the dryad was engineered by the White Witch to delay them long
enough to insure they would too late to complete their mission.

I think the next step involves using the Spirit World as a bridge to other
planes. Most sensibly this would involve the realm of the dead. I am
tempted to suppose that each of the child gods (Cuiraecen, Laerme, Eleole,
and my own Denikin) preside over a resting place of particular character.
Death in battle, peaceful death, treacherous death, and undeath. This will
be, in Rjurik conception, a great hall in the domains of these gods. What I
am thinkinig is that the party will seek contact with a dead person`s spirit
in Laerme`s realm only to find that their target is not there, and ultimatly
is in Eleole`s domain, leaving them to not only accomplish the business that
sends them to seek information from the spirit of a former friend, but also
to unravel the mystery of their betrayal and murder.

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]

Actually... this thought occurred to me... Perhaps the Shadow World is the
Plane of Shadow... and because of what is said in Manual of the Planes and
the like... perhaps that is the way someone from another cosmology would
arrive...

In Manual of the Planes there is a blurb about the Plane of Shadow possibly
leading to other cosmologies... And that it would take quite some time to
get from one to another... and that in between you`d be cut off from all
other planes... Real bad idea in most cases...

__________________________________________________ _______________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Azazel]

Birthright-L wrote:

>Actually... this thought occurred to me... Perhaps the Shadow World is the
>Plane of Shadow... and because of what is said in Manual of the Planes and
>the like... perhaps that is the way someone from another cosmology would
>arrive...

>In Manual of the Planes there is a blurb about the Plane of Shadow possibly
>leading to other cosmologies... And that it would take quite some time to
>get from one to another... and that in between you`d be cut off from all
>other planes... Real bad idea in most cases...


The Ethereal plane is host to a very large number of "Islands" of prime
material matter. Over the millenias the largests of these "Islands" have
become demi-planes in there own rights. The 2 most commonly known are
the Demi-Plane of Shadow and the Demi-Plane of the Dread.

I have always considered the Shadow World to be one such demi-plane.
Most likely intersecting both the Ethereal Plane and the Material Plane
of Aebrynis. It does have several similarities with the Demi-Plane of Shadows
but also too many differences to be the same demi-plane.

Azazel

[Green Knight]

If you want to use things right out of the Manual of the Planes, but
isn`t quite satisfied with any single plane:

Combine the traits of the Plane of Shadow, Spirit World, and Plane of
Faerie (you could even throw in elements of the Plane of Dreams), you
get a sort of Shadow World.

- In places where the faeire hold sway the Plane of Faerie is dominant.
- In places where the Shadow (the Cold Rider`s corruption) is strong the
Plane of Shadow traits are dominant.
- The "neutral ground" (home of dragons, halflings etc.?) that remain is
more like the Spirit World.

Otherwise just use the rules from MoP to dreat your own Shadow World
that most closely resembles your idea of what it looks like.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[DanMcSorley]

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003, Azazel wrote:
> >Actually... this thought occurred to me... Perhaps the Shadow World is the
> >Plane of Shadow... and because of what is said in Manual of the Planes and
> >the like... perhaps that is the way someone from another cosmology would
> >arrive...
>
> >In Manual of the Planes there is a blurb about the Plane of Shadow possibly
> >leading to other cosmologies... And that it would take quite some time to
> >get from one to another... and that in between you`d be cut off from all
> >other planes... Real bad idea in most cases...
>
> The Ethereal plane is host to a very large number of "Islands" of prime
> material matter. Over the millenias the largests of these "Islands" have
> become demi-planes in there own rights. The 2 most commonly known are
> the Demi-Plane of Shadow and the Demi-Plane of the Dread.

In 3e, shadow is no longer a demiplane, but is more like the ethereal
plane, it coexists with the prime material plane. Which makes it perfect
for BR, really, if you tweak it and make it kind of a shadow/faerie kind
of plane.
--
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.

[zukie51262]

Wow this one makes us all really think but back to basics. First the Gods, remember they are unique to Birthright, they were created by birthright history so trying to find them a plane well i feel the BR gods have there own plane here. Kinda like Mount olympus and all the greek gods.

As for planners well there have been some or at least one visitor that I know of and that is the Monkey King in the Sword of Roloe. He was a Outsider that had come to this world to get his laughs. Yes there is the Shadow world and the Shadow rider but I don't beleive that the shawdow world is encircled around Birthright, but more a mirror image of this land (seeking Bloodsilver Dungeon Magazine).

I beleive there is a thread to the other planes but because of the shadow world (It mirror effect) really hinders any telportation or traveling to this realm unless an outsider knows what they are doing or are extreamly lucky.

As far as running Half Elementals, the PC has been infected with Azari Bloodline and has bloodform then the elemental powers become blooded powers, or as was suggested that the old gods did represent the four elements. (I had a PC run a half derialian dragon once be has infected with the Azari bloodling, his transformation took over 2 years to complete. Alos what made this eaiser for the PC was he was in the Vos lands).

being king is good, but being dungeon master is better

[kgauck]

Had and interesting turn of events today. During a diplomatic meeting with
the new king of Rjuvik, two agents of the war faction in Rjuvik were
invisible. The party`s druid was accompanying them in the Spirit World.
What dawned on me next was a happy inspiration. I ruled that the druid
could see two Rjurik warriors who were also in the court room in the Spirit
World. The druid began to take defensive preperations when I advised him
that the warriors seemed not to be able to see him.

Invisibility is actually just stepping into the Spirit World, but
perceptions remain limited to the material world. Any attempt to attack
will draw you out of the Spirit World, ending the effects of invisibility.

Improved Invisibility allows you to attack without forcing you to
materialize. Perception remains limited to the material world.

As the encounter played out, the druid trapped the warriors in the Spirit
World with a dimentional anchor until the PC`s mission was accomplished.

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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by kgauck


Had and interesting turn of events today. During a diplomatic meeting with
the new king of Rjuvik, two agents of the war faction in Rjuvik were
invisible. The party`s druid was accompanying them in the Spirit World.
What dawned on me next was a happy inspiration. I ruled that the druid
could see two Rjurik warriors who were also in the court room in the Spirit
World. The druid began to take defensive preperations when I advised him
that the warriors seemed not to be able to see him.

Invisibility is actually just stepping into the Spirit World, but
perceptions remain limited to the material world. Any attempt to attack
will draw you out of the Spirit World, ending the effects of invisibility.

Improved Invisibility allows you to attack without forcing you to
materialize. Perception remains limited to the material world.

As the encounter played out, the druid trapped the warriors in the Spirit
World with a dimentional anchor until the PC`s mission was accomplished.

Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com


Sort of like Frodo and the one ring. Very interesting take. Since the Shadow world is a world of illusions and seeming this treatment makes a whole lot of sense from the Birthright reference of course.

Ethereal travel would work slightly different since the character is actually in the other plane and can't affect residents of the prime material when in this form. A different level of how invisibility would work, hmmm I like it a lot.

[Azrai]

Originally posted by kgauck
Had and interesting turn of events today. During a diplomatic meeting with
the new king of Rjuvik, two agents of the war faction in Rjuvik were
invisible. The party`s druid was accompanying them in the Spirit World.
What dawned on me next was a happy inspiration. I ruled that the druid
could see two Rjurik warriors who were also in the court room in the Spirit
World. The druid began to take defensive preperations when I advised him
that the warriors seemed not to be able to see him.

Invisibility is actually just stepping into the Spirit World, but
perceptions remain limited to the material world. Any attempt to attack
will draw you out of the Spirit World, ending the effects of invisibility.

Improved Invisibility allows you to attack without forcing you to
materialize. Perception remains limited to the material world.

As the encounter played out, the druid trapped the warriors in the Spirit
World with a dimentional anchor until the PC`s mission was accomplished.

Kenneth Gauck


This is a wrong interpretation of the invisibility rules and will totally change the spell.

In principal this is not a bad idea, but a new spell should invented, don't use it for Invisibility.

Invisibility is an ILLUSION spell. You don't step in a different world and you are not gone at all. There is just the Illusions that you are not there.

If you change the rule you have a serious problem with all spells connected to the Invisibility spell.

This rule is broken.

[Birthright-L]

My fisrst thought was "nice idea, bit this is not invisibility, because it
is not an illusion".

But then again, the Swahdow World is the world of illusions. Why should not
an invisibility spell create such an effect? Of course, it is very limited
(you cannot walk through walls like an ethereal character can), but it
works.

See Invisible sees the invisible and those on coexisting planes - which is
now the same thing!

Cool!

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Mon, 5 May 2003, Azrai wrote:

> This is a wrong interpretation of the invisibility rules and will
> totally change the spell.

IMO, it`s a relatively minor mechanics change, relative to the major story
benefit which is gained from making it. Good work, Kenneth!


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.

[Azrai]

Originally posted by ryancaveney
IMO, it`s a relatively minor mechanics change, relative to the major story
benefit which is gained from making it. Good work, Kenneth!


Minor mechanics change? It is a DRAMATIC mechanics change.

Consider for example the possibility to see into the shadow world. Or the possibility that one could be attacked from shadow world undead. What if the landscape is slighly different (a complete tower and a ruined tower). Will the caster became stuck somewhere?

This one will only work with a complete new spell.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Azrai" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 5:22 PM


> Consider for example the possibility to see into the shadow
> world. Or the possibility that one could be attacked from shadow
> world undead. What if the landscape is slighly different (a complete
> tower and a ruined tower). Will the caster became stuck somewhere?

The description of invisibility I gave specifically limited perception to
the material world. Only if one had the ability to see into the shadow
world already would you be able to see into the shadow world. As for the
possibility that one could be attacked by shadow world creatures, that`s
entirely in the control of the DM. Presumably people use invisibility
without much fear of such attacks. Given the short period of time most
characters spend invisible, normal wandering monsters are not a serious
issue.

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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by zukie51262

Wow this one makes us all really think but back to basics. First the Gods, remember they are unique to Birthright, they were created by birthright history so trying to find them a plane well i feel the BR gods have there own plane here. Kinda like Mount olympus and all the greek gods.

As for planners well there have been some or at least one visitor that I know of and that is the Monkey King in the Sword of Roloe. He was a Outsider that had come to this world to get his laughs. Yes there is the Shadow world and the Shadow rider but I don't beleive that the shawdow world is encircled around Birthright, but more a mirror image of this land (seeking Bloodsilver Dungeon Magazine).

I beleive there is a thread to the other planes but because of the shadow world (It mirror effect) really hinders any telportation or traveling to this realm unless an outsider knows what they are doing or are extreamly lucky.

As far as running Half Elementals, the PC has been infected with Azari Bloodline and has bloodform then the elemental powers become blooded powers, or as was suggested that the old gods did represent the four elements. (I had a PC run a half derialian dragon once be has infected with the Azari bloodling, his transformation took over 2 years to complete. Alos what made this eaiser for the PC was he was in the Vos lands).

being king is good, but being dungeon master is better

Actually the Sword of Roele is probably the worst written Birthright adventure and is pretty much a Forgotten Realms adventure with some (minor) aspects of Birthright laid over it.

Birthright has never been very planer in structure and the introduction of the portals to other planes in the adventure is just sort of way out of wack with the campaign setting information. The Dark Sun campaign has a similar planer structure in how Athas is surrounded by the plane of shadow and then entries into the "other planes" are allowed.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Azrai


Originally posted by ryancaveney
IMO, it`s a relatively minor mechanics change, relative to the major story
benefit which is gained from making it. Good work, Kenneth!


Minor mechanics change? It is a DRAMATIC mechanics change.

Consider for example the possibility to see into the shadow world. Or the possibility that one could be attacked from shadow world undead. What if the landscape is slighly different (a complete tower and a ruined tower). Will the caster became stuck somewhere?

This one will only work with a complete new spell.

Perhaps a slightly different take on the interface of the Shadow World and invisibility. How about the shadow world is molded around the invisible creature such that he fades from sight in the "real world". Because of this envelopment he is able to see more clearly into the Shadow World than into the "real world". Most everything else would work rather well. This would still allow most (if not all) of the other effects and relationships with Invisibility to remain intact.

I don't understand why the character would be attacked by shadow world undead under the original proposal anyway. Invisibility makes the character invisible to all creatures. Hmm having said that the druid wouldn't really be able to see the invisible character either, but probably should get a bonus to his disbelief check and maybe even some reason to make it in the first place due to "changes in the mists".:)

[ConjurerDragon]

irdeggman wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1075
>
> irdeggman wrote:
>
Originally posted by Azrai
>
>
Originally posted by ryancaveney
>IMO, it`s a relatively minor mechanics change, relative to the major story
>benefit which is gained from making it. Good work, Kenneth!
>
>Minor mechanics change? It is a DRAMATIC mechanics change.
>Consider for example the possibility to see into the shadow world. Or the possibility that one could be attacked from shadow world undead. What if the landscape is slighly different (a complete tower and a ruined tower). Will the caster became stuck somewhere?
>This one will only work with a complete new spell.
>
>...
>I don`t understand why the character would be attacked by shadow world undead under the original proposal anyway. Invisibility makes the character invisible to all creatures. Hmm having said that the druid wouldn`t really be able to see the invisible character either, but probably should get a bonus to his disbelief check and maybe even some reason to make it in the first place due to "changes in the mists".:)
>
Invisibility is split up in several versions of the spell, one
Invisibility and another Invisibility to Undead - I assume that because
of a seperate "to Undead" spell, the normal spell will not work on
Undead, so if he is invisible to "normal" creatures/humans, he would be
in the Spirit/Shadow World but visible to Undead...
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
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]

I don`t really foresee any functional problems with interpreting
invisibility as shifting someone into the Shadow/Spirit World (or other
plane of existence) while keeping their perception on the material
world. That doesn`t mean, however, that something might not come up at
some point or another since players have a nasty tendency to extrapolate
beyond the ken of the lowly DM. The question then is, how might such an
interpretation affect other spells and/or magic items? If there aren`t
actual changes to other spells or the way magic works or those changes are
relatively slight then it`s merely an interpretation of the "science"
behind the magic.

Functionally, I think there are only two major influences of such an
interpretation. First, it implies is that the plane that the character
shifts into is EXACTLY like the material plane; not only are the analogs
the same, right down to the shifting sands on the beach and the leaves
dropping from the trees, but the events are as well. Otherwise the terrain
could be different for the character when he is "shifted" into the plane
that grants invisibility. Imagine a fireball that levelled a few trees in
the material plane. If that event is not duplicated on the spiritual plane
then an invisible character walking through that area with his perceptions
still in the material plane will inexplicable bang into trees that exist on
the spirit plane, but not on the material one. Similarly, a trap set in
the spirit world must similarly be set in the material world (and both must
spring at the same time) if activated by an invisible character. The
Spirit World in this interpretation then becomes a mirror of the material
world and thus differs a bit from the Spirit World description in the MotP.

Second, such an interpretation could be extended to include the effects of
divinatory spells. A divination could similarly be interpreted as giving
the character a glimpse into events in the Spirit World while keeping his
material self anchored in the material plane. Other divinations might work
a similar way, linking or viewing events in the Spirit World that are
analogous to the material world. That could be used as an explanation for
the the difference between low and high magic. Low magic in such an
interpretation is allowed to non-blooded characters and non-elves because
of the greater "proximity" or more direct relationship of the Aebrynian
version of the Spirit World in the BR planar cosmology.

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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon

irdeggman wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1075
>
> irdeggman wrote:
>
Originally posted by Azrai
>
>
Originally posted by ryancaveney
>IMO, it`s a relatively minor mechanics change, relative to the major story
>benefit which is gained from making it. Good work, Kenneth!
>
>Minor mechanics change? It is a DRAMATIC mechanics change.
>Consider for example the possibility to see into the shadow world. Or the possibility that one could be attacked from shadow world undead. What if the landscape is slighly different (a complete tower and a ruined tower). Will the caster became stuck somewhere?
>This one will only work with a complete new spell.
>
>...
>I don`t understand why the character would be attacked by shadow world undead under the original proposal anyway. Invisibility makes the character invisible to all creatures. Hmm having said that the druid wouldn`t really be able to see the invisible character either, but probably should get a bonus to his disbelief check and maybe even some reason to make it in the first place due to "changes in the mists".:)
>
Invisibility is split up in several versions of the spell, one
Invisibility and another Invisibility to Undead - I assume that because
of a seperate "to Undead" spell, the normal spell will not work on
Undead, so if he is invisible to "normal" creatures/humans, he would be
in the Spirit/Shadow World but visible to Undead...
bye
Michael Romes


Actually the 2 spells function quite differently. Invisibility to Undead is a 1st level Cleric spell (abjuration) and Invisibility is a 2nd level spell (Illusion) with only limited use by clerics (must have Trickery Domain).

There was at one time write ups that specified that invisibility worked on all creatures with the ability to see (i.e., had sight) (I just can't find it now).

A wizard can't cast Invisibility to Undead so it would seem kind of an insult to say that a wizard couldn't become invisible to undead.

Invisibility to Undead is more of a minor version of Invisibility except that it is an abjuration and hence makes the recipient normally undetectable to any non-magical senses that an undead creature uses for detection.:)

[Azrai]

Originally posted by irdeggman


There was at one time write ups that specified that invisibility worked on all creatures with the ability to see (i.e., had sight) (I just can't find it now).


irdeggman is right. Invisibility is an Illusions, but not a MIND AFFECTING Illusion. For that reason it also works against golems, undead etc.

But the possibility for an undead attack exists anyway.

[zukie51262]

Wow such a big discussion over a small spell lets keeps this simple huh.

First Invisibility works as a mind influencing spells thus illusion, but its saves to the enemy is completely different (i.e. disbelief).

Illusions do not affect Golems or Intelligent Undead (Thus the spell Invisibility to Undead). As far as Golems well in each type of Golem Under the Paragraph Magic Immunity states “A (Type of Golem) is immune to all spells, spell like abilities and supernatural effects except as follows”. (Which in my opinion include bloodline abilities).

When dealing with the shadow world remember this is a different plane thus magic will work differently here, if it works at all, basically a 15 level magic user would be a 1 level mage in the shadow world. This is the only way I can describe this and thus having Cerilia being invaded by lich kings in the shadow world, because there magic would work differently here then in the shadow world.

[Azrai]

Originally posted by zukie51262

First Invisibility works as a mind influencing spells thus illusion, but its saves to the enemy is completely different

Illusions do not affect Golems or Intelligent Undead (Thus the spell Invisibility to Undead). As far as Golems well in each type of Golem Under the Paragraph Magic Immunity states “A (Type of Golem) is immune to all spells, spell like abilities and supernatural effects except as follows”. (Which in my opinion include bloodline abilities).

As I pointed already out you have to differ between Illusions and mind affecting spells.
Undead are immune to mind-affecting spells, and a lot of Enchantment and some Illusion spells are Mind Affecting - but apart from that undead doesn't have any special immunity to illusions. (For example, Invisibility should work just fine, unless the undead in question also have blindsight, or something like that.)



When dealing with the shadow world remember this is a different plane thus magic will work differently here, if it works at all, basically a 15 level magic user would be a 1 level mage in the shadow world. This is the only way I can describe this and thus having Cerilia being invaded by lich kings in the shadow world, because there magic would work differently here then in the shadow world.


This is rule is totally off and I see no reason for it.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by zukie51262


Wow such a big discussion over a small spell lets keeps this simple huh.

First Invisibility works as a mind influencing spells thus illusion, but its saves to the enemy is completely different (i.e. disbelief).

Illusions do not affect Golems or Intelligent Undead (Thus the spell Invisibility to Undead). As far as Golems well in each type of Golem Under the Paragraph Magic Immunity states “A (Type of Golem) is immune to all spells, spell like abilities and supernatural effects except as follows”. (Which in my opinion include bloodline abilities).

When dealing with the shadow world remember this is a different plane thus magic will work differently here, if it works at all, basically a 15 level magic user would be a 1 level mage in the shadow world. This is the only way I can describe this and thus having Cerilia being invaded by lich kings in the shadow world, because there magic would work differently here then in the shadow world.


Per 3rd ed PHB:
Invisibility is an Illusion (glamer) spell.

Illusion spells deceive the senses or minds of others.

Glamer - A glamer spell changes the subjest's sensory qualities, makes it look, feel, taste, smell, or sound like something else or even seem to disappear.

Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behaviour.

So invisibility is not really a mind-affecting spell in the D&D sense. In common sense approach it is, but in D&D what illusion spells are doing is "fooling" the affecting individuals. Sort of like a misdirection when used by magicians in Las Vegas vice hypnotism.

[Birthright-L]

From: "zukie51262" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>

> Illusions do not affect Golems or Intelligent Undead (Thus the spell
Invisibility to Undead). As far as Golems well in each type of Golem Under
the Paragraph Magic Immunity states "A (Type of Golem) is immune to all
spells, spell like abilities and supernatural effects except as follows".
(Which in my opinion include bloodline abilities).


Wow, a lot of replies to this sentence!

My line is to say that being "immune" to spells works just as if you had
passed a Spell Resistance test against that spell. See the Spell immunity
spell description. Many illusion spells, like Invisibility, allow spell
resistance only in special cases or not at all. The same can be said on
conjuration (summoning) spells and buffs like Bull`s Strength and Greater
Magic Weapon.

In general, spell immunity only confers immunity to the direct effects of
spells, not the indirect effects. Thus, a golem could not be rendered
invisible through an invisibility spell, nor could it`s hands be affected by
"Magic Fang" or it`s strength by "Bull`s Strength". That does not make it
invulnerable to the effect of such spells cast on others.

Another interesting issue is if an intelligent golem could voluntarily
neglect to use it`s invulnerability to spells in order to accept such
enhancements. A creature with SR can do so. But I have no good answer to
that.

/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.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 7 May 2003, Stephen Starfox wrote:

> In general, spell immunity only confers immunity to the direct effects
> of spells, not the indirect effects. Thus, a golem could not be
> rendered invisible through an invisibility spell [...] That does not
> make it invulnerable to the effect of such spells cast on others.

Whoa! That strikes me as just too strange to be what the rule is intended
to mean. If somehow that really is what the rule is intended to mean, I
think it is a terrible rule, since it clearly has it backwards in this case.


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]

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

> On Wed, 7 May 2003, Stephen Starfox wrote:
>
> > In general, spell immunity only confers immunity to the direct effects
> > of spells, not the indirect effects. Thus, a golem could not be
> > rendered invisible through an invisibility spell [...] That does not
> > make it invulnerable to the effect of such spells cast on others.
>
> Whoa! That strikes me as just too strange to be what the rule is intended
> to mean. If somehow that really is what the rule is intended to mean, I
> think it is a terrible rule, since it clearly has it backwards in this
case.
>

When you think of it, this is the only natural way for effects like these to
work. How would you otherwise play out the following situations?

If a magic weapon (which is based on the Magic Weapon spell) cannot not
affect a golem, how is anyone supposed to penetrate it`s damage resistance?

What happens to a fighter whose Strength is enhanced with Bull`s Strength
(or any of it`s derrivates) when he attacks a golem? Invisibility is in this
case no different from Bull`s Strength.

And what happens to a summoned creature that attacks a golem?

************************************************** **************************
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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Birthright-L

From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>

> On Wed, 7 May 2003, Stephen Starfox wrote:
>
> > In general, spell immunity only confers immunity to the direct effects
> > of spells, not the indirect effects. Thus, a golem could not be
> > rendered invisible through an invisibility spell [...] That does not
> > make it invulnerable to the effect of such spells cast on others.
>
> Whoa! That strikes me as just too strange to be what the rule is intended
> to mean. If somehow that really is what the rule is intended to mean, I
> think it is a terrible rule, since it clearly has it backwards in this
case.
>

When you think of it, this is the only natural way for effects like these to
work. How would you otherwise play out the following situations?

If a magic weapon (which is based on the Magic Weapon spell) cannot not
affect a golem, how is anyone supposed to penetrate it`s damage resistance?

What happens to a fighter whose Strength is enhanced with Bull`s Strength
(or any of it`s derrivates) when he attacks a golem? Invisibility is in this
case no different from Bull`s Strength.

And what happens to a summoned creature that attacks a golem?

************************************************** **************************
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.


I don't think Ryan is disagreeing with spell resistance/immunity as it applies when a spell is cast on someone or something else, like Bull's Strength but more on the effects of Invisibility which while cast on an object have a direct effect on other creatures. It masks the object/creature's appearance. A creature who is immune to magic of some sort is not immune to being struck by a magic weapon unless it has a specific damage reduction or property associated with it (the creature that is).

Magic resistance/immunity would negate the immediate effect of a fireball but not the damage that may be caused by the secondary fires that it caused.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 7 May 2003, irdeggman wrote:

> the effects of Invisibility which while cast on an object have a
> direct effect on other creatures.

Right. I think the fundamental difference between Bull`s Strength and
Invisibility is that the "verbs" of the spells have different "direct
objects". That is to say, the direct effect of Bulls` Strength is to
increase the strength of the recipient, but ISTM the direct effect of
Invisibility is to alter the perceptions of everyone *except* the
recipient. In this case, I see Invisibility almost as an abjuration: a
circle of protection generally tests itself against the SR of anything
which tries to break it, not against the SR of the person it`s cast upon.

It makes much more sense to me to see "immune to the Invisibility spell"
as meaning "cannot be *fooled* by the spell" rather than "cannot be
*hidden* by the spell", especially as spell immunities are more often
presented as useful defenses rather than illogical weaknesses. Starfox, I
can see how you arrived at the conclusion you did, but given that I think
where you ended up is an undesirable place to be, I conclude that the best
response is to reinterpret what "direct" means in terms of this particular
spell. It works the same as all of your other examples if only we
interpret the verb "affect" to mean "delude others" instead of "hide me",
just as for defensive spells and SR the direct effect which resistance is
tested against is really "keep others out" rather than "protect me".


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.

[ryancaveney]

On Wed, 7 May 2003, Stephen Starfox wrote:

> a golem could not be rendered invisible through an invisibility spell

Oddly enough, given how we got into this discussion, the only way I have
yet convinced myself this would make sense is precisely with the alternate
implementation of invisibility which Kenneth suggested! If it is in fact
a very minor form of planar travel, then I can see three main options:

1) Making a golem invisible is impossible because the spells which bind
into it its animating spirit prevent planar travel of all kinds, or at
least all kinds below some fairly high power level.

2) Making a golem invisible is possible but a bad idea because the spells
which bind into it its animating spirit will be broken by travel to the
spirit world, causing your golem to dis-animate. You will be able to
re-enchant the body, but you will be out hundreds of XP and tens of
thousands of gp.

3) Making a golem invisible is possible but a bad idea because the spells
which bind into it its animating spirit will be altered by travel to the
spirit world, causing your golem to become free-willed or uncontrollably
insane. It will probably be very mad at you....


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.

[Mark_Aurel]

Well, the Invisibility spell has been a traditional headache in D&D rules, to which this is a testament, I suppose. I remember that Sean K Reynolds had a rant or an article about this on his site a while ago. It was an interesting read, and I think I'd recommend it.

Anyway, Invisibility is not in any way mind-affecting, and does not in any way affect the senses of those who would normally see the invisible creature - it can't be disbelieved or negated by anything short of special sensory abilities or spells. It doesn't bend or distort light, or whatever other pseudo-scientific explanations people have concocted in the past - it simply makes the person subject to the spell completely invisible, transparent - whatever - impossible to perceive with normal sight (and darkvision and low-light vision, AFAIK), anyway. He can still be perceived by smell, hearing, touch, taste, and most of the extraordinary senses such as blindsight, tremorsense, etc.

Golems and undead are as much subject to the Invisibility spell as anyone else in the sense that they can't see the invisible creature. They are also similarly "vulnerable" to silence - they cannot hear when there is no sound.

I'd say golems can be turned invisible - if they are willing. The magic immunity of golems is essentially equivalent to infinite or infallible spell resistance. However, spell resistance can be voluntarily lowered to receive beneficial effects. I'd consider it pretty likely that this'd be the case with creators and the Repair Damage spells from Tome & Blood for instance - "hey, golem, hold still and don't try to resist while I repair your damage here..." or "I'm gonna turn you invisible now, and it won't hurt, k?" A golem couldn't be involuntarily turned invisible, however (i.e. generally, invisibility will only work if the golem's creator/master wants it to).

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> Well, the Invisibility spell has been a traditional headache in D&D

Oh yeah!

> Anyway, Invisibility is not in any way mind-affecting, and does not in
> any way affect the senses of those who would normally see the
> invisible creature - it can`t be disbelieved or negated by anything
> short of special sensory abilities or spells.

OK, this may be the best way to see it. However, that would means it is
*not* an illusion spell, but rather an alteration spell, because it makes
a real, physical change which has nothing to do with fooling minds! I
could accept that, except that then it no longer makes sense for the
effect to cease as soon as you attack someone -- if you *really are*
transparent, then you ought to continue to be even after thwacking someone
with a sword. Only if your nonappearance is illusionary (i.e., you are
only fooling people into somehow not realizing that you`re actually
visible) does the "fades after the first offensive action" think make
sense.

> It doesn`t bend or distort light, or whatever other pseudo-scientific
> explanations people have concocted in the past - it simply makes the
> person subject to the spell completely invisible, transparent -
> whatever - impossible to perceive with normal sight (and darkvision
> and low-light vision, AFAIK),

IMO, "it makes you transparent" is no less "pseudoscientific" than "it
bends light". The in-game science of this fantasy world *includes* magic,
because magic exists and acts in predictable fashions. But that`s a
different debate. In any case, if it acts on the recipient, it is
alteration, not illusion -- if it`s illusion, it acts either on the senses
of the viewers (in which case it might be better to call it
enchantment/charm) or on the light in between (because there just ins`t
anything left to change).

> anyway. He can still be perceived by smell, hearing, touch, taste, and
> most of the extraordinary senses such as blindsight, tremorsense, etc.

Yes, that`s clear independent of the rest of the description / rules.

> Golems and undead are as much subject to the Invisibility spell as
> anyone else in the sense that they can`t see the invisible creature.
> They are also similarly "vulnerable" to silence - they cannot hear
> when there is no sound.

Which again requires invisibility to be alteration magic, not illusion
magic. Which is fine by me, but is also a change. I`d in fact prefer to
say that the two main existing invisibility spells (Invis and Improved
Invis) are of two different schools -- the 2nd level Invis is illusion,
because it goes away when you force yourself on people`s attention
(therefore all it does is help you pretend not to be visible) and the 4th
level ImpInvis is alteration, because it doesn`t (so you really do become
completely transparent); this might mean that golems, undead, and other
"mindless" creatures can see things affected by Invis(2) because they
cannot be fooled, but cannot see things affected by ImpInvis(4) because
the subject really is transparent.


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.

[Mark_Aurel]

OK, this may be the best way to see it. However, that would means it is
*not* an illusion spell, but rather an alteration spell, because it makes
a real, physical change which has nothing to do with fooling minds!

'Illusion' doesn't necessarily mean fooling the mind directly - it's really enough to fool the eyes, right? Like, a stage magician doesn't go and mess with your mind - he just makes things appear different than they are. Anyway, I agree to an extent that there's a mix-up here about how the schools work - but, if you view magic a certain, pretty much every spell should belong to the alteration school. Good thing they renamed it transmutation, which generally has more narrow connotations. Anyway, the definition of an illusion (glamer) on page 158 in the PHB is pretty specific about what a glamer does - and invisibility neatly falls under it.

Just to quickly sum up, and to use some more pseudoscientific slang along the way (seems most apt anyway):

Figment - basically a hologram in the Star Trek sense if it's visual
Glamer - makes something look different, or not appear at all
Pattern - a hologram that makes people go dizzy and start saying and thinking groovy stuff - sort of like insta-hypnotism or a drug trip
Phantasm - this is the mental image that most seem to associate with illusions
Shadow - a semi-real effect

To go back to the stage magician example again, invisibility simply makes things not appear visible - it doesn't intrude on anyone's minds - though once found out, the illusion fades, which is pretty much the only thing separating it from what a transmutation version does. A lot of illusion spells never really dealt with the mind directly anyway, and they don't know - the thing is, once you know it's not real, you can ignore it - though, realistically, if it looked like a dragon before, I'd still say it'd be scary, even if you know it isn't real (even though the text says it just appears as a thine outline then).

[Birthright-L]

Ryan, what makes you beleive that illusions MUST have something to do
fooling the mind?

The general school description in the PH (p 158 my edition), stars with the
words "Illusions spells deceive the senses" - but I do not read that to
indicate that they have to affect the senes directly. As I read it, they can
affect the stimuli that senses react to.

In the description of figments, it clearly states that they do not affect
the mind. It goes on to say that they cannot create real thigs, like light.
I`d say that they can still bounce and alter exisiting light - much like
light reflecting off an object/creature is bent and altered in order to
produce the visual images that we see. Thus, an illusion is invisible in
absolute darkness, since it cannot illuminate itself, but the alteration to
light is otherwise real - and still an illuson spell.

Don`t ask me how this interacts with darkvision, which is supposed to be
able to see in the total absense of light - as long as that darkness is not
magically created. I suppose that whatever pseudo-light darkvision uses is
also affected by illusions.

/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.

[Green Knight]

Spells from the Illusion school only work on the mind if they are [mind-affecting].

Darkvision allows you to see normally in the dark (up the the indicated distance) incuding any illusions affected by sight.

>
> Fra: Stephen Starfox <stephen_starfox@YAHOO.SE>
> Dato: 2003/05/08 Thu AM 08:24:13 CEST
> Til: BIRTHRIGHT-L@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
> Emne: Re: Ideas, Need Comments [2#1075]
>
> Ryan, what makes you beleive that illusions MUST have something to do
> fooling the mind?
>
> The general school description in the PH (p 158 my edition), stars with the
> words "Illusions spells deceive the senses" - but I do not read that to
> indicate that they have to affect the senes directly. As I read it, they can
> affect the stimuli that senses react to.
>
> In the description of figments, it clearly states that they do not affect
> the mind. It goes on to say that they cannot create real thigs, like light.
> I`d say that they can still bounce and alter exisiting light - much like
> light reflecting off an object/creature is bent and altered in order to
> produce the visual images that we see. Thus, an illusion is invisible in
> absolute darkness, since it cannot illuminate itself, but the alteration to
> light is otherwise real - and still an illuson spell.
>
> Don`t ask me how this interacts with darkvision, which is supposed to be
> able to see in the total absense of light - as long as that darkness is not
> magically created. I suppose that whatever pseudo-light darkvision uses is
> also affected by illusions.
>
> /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.
>

Cheers
Bjørn

-------------------------------------------------
WebMail fra Tele2 http://www.tele2.no
-------------------------------------------------

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 09:48, Mark_Aurel wrote:
> This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1075
>
> Mark_Aurel wrote:
> Well, the Invisibility spell has been a traditional headache in D&D rules, to
which this is a testament, I suppose. I remember that Sean K Reynolds had a rant
or an article about this on his site a while ago. It was an interesting read, and
I think I`d recommend it.

Not just invisibility but all illusion/phantasm spells. But, go on.

>
> Anyway, Invisibility is not in any way mind-affecting, and does not in any way
affect the senses of those who would normally see the invisible creature - it
can`t be disbelieved or negated by anything short of special sensory abilities
or spells. It doesn`t bend or distort light, or whatever other pseudo-scientific
explanations people have concocted in the past - it simply makes the person
subject to the spell completely invisible, transparent - whatever - impossible
to perceive with normal sight (and darkvision and low-light vision, AFAIK),
anyway. He can still be perceived by smell, hearing, touch, taste, and most
of the extraordinary senses such as blindsight, tremorsense, etc.

There was an interesting article in one of the Dragon Magazine issues
many many moons past regarding the various forms of invisibility, from
illusionary, to alteration to innate forms and so on.


>
> Golems and undead are as much subject to the Invisibility spell as anyone
else in the sense that they can`t see the invisible creature. They are also
similarly "vulnerable" to silence - they cannot hear when there is no sound.

Then why the spell "invisibility to undead"? Such a spell implies at
least some point of view where invisibility did not apply equally to
undead. Of course there`s good argument that non-corporeal undead don`t
even have eyes (or skin or noses or ...) so their "senses" as such are
different.


>
> I`d say golems can be turned invisible - if they are willing. The magic
immunity of golems is essentially equivalent to infinite or infallible spell
resistance. However, spell resistance can be voluntarily lowered to receive
beneficial effects. I`d consider it pretty likely that this`d be the case
with creators and the Repair Damage spells from Tome & Blood for instance -
"hey, golem, hold still and don`t try to resist while I repair your damage
here..." or "I`m gonna turn you invisible now, and it won`t hurt, k?" A
golem couldn`t be involuntarily turned invisible, however (i.e. generally,
invisibility will only work if the golem`s creator/master wants it to).



Okay, Golems "willing" I find a little hard to take. "Free Will" and
golems .... ???, but leaving the willing part aside, yes, I`ll accept an
invisible anything (even a rock for example). But how much intelligence
and reasoning ability does a golem have? - all descriptions usually
limit such to the performance of its actual "duty", and even then
golems are subject to being tricked.

But for magic resistance, and its cousin spell resistance. Resisting a
spell voluntarily is one thing, it`s obvious that if you can actively
resist that passive acceptance is also possible. But magic resistance,
the innate and possibly unconscious use of an ability is another
entirely.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Mark_Aurel wrote:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.
> You can view the entire thread at: http://www.birthright.net/read.php?TID=1075
>
> Mark_Aurel wrote:
> Well, the Invisibility spell has been a traditional headache in D&D rules, to which this is a testament, I suppose. I remember that Sean K Reynolds had a rant or an article about this on his site a while ago. It was an interesting read, and I think I`d recommend it.
>
>Anyway, Invisibility is not in any way mind-affecting, and does not in any way affect the senses of those who would normally see the invisible creature - it can`t be disbelieved or negated by anything short of special sensory abilities or spells. It doesn`t bend or distort light, or whatever other pseudo-scientific explanations people have concocted in the past - it simply makes the person subject to the spell completely invisible, transparent - whatever - impossible to perceive with normal sight (and darkvision and low-light vision, AFAIK), anyway. He can still be perceived by smell, hearing, touch, taste, and most of the extraordinary senses such as blindsight, tremorsense, etc.
>
Which would make the rule that Invisibility transfers you to the Spirit
World that has been used by Ryan? in his campaign impossible - how could
one smell and hear a creature in the Spirit or Shadow World from
Aebrynnis? Would then each time a shadow passes near you in the Shadow
World you make a Listen and Spot check to detect him? Would every being
on Aebrynnis get the Shadow Senses of Halflings in this way? And even
worse: Invisibilty makes you invisible but does not make you incorporeal
- but if you actually travel to the Spirit/Shadow World, could then
others pass through you without noticing you?
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Mark_Aurel]

Then why the spell "invisibility to undead"? Such a spell implies at
least some point of view where invisibility did not apply equally to
undead. Of course there`s good argument that non-corporeal undead don`t
even have eyes (or skin or noses or ...) so their "senses" as such are
different.

I have no idea why there's an Invisibilty to Undead or an Invisibility to Animals spell - it might have some obscure literary or movie origin. That said, those spells are Abjuration, not Illusion, which suggests a different modus operandi. This one's a bit trickier to peg than the regular Invisibility, though - but regular invisibility still affects undead, animals, constructs, whatever, the same as anyone else.

Regarding the eyesight of undead - as far as I'm aware, most undead are assumed to have the same basic senses as an ordinary human (basic assumption for all monsters, unless blurb or stats says otherwise) - at least for game purposes. Sure, they don't have eyes and ears, but in the real world, skeletons don't generally move about on their own without some muscle assistance either. They might not perceive things quite the same as humans, but they would seem to have the same range of senses simply for lack of evidence of anything else (otherwise, being undead would be a real weird experience - but, hey, they have to moan about something, right?).


Okay, Golems "willing" I find a little hard to take. "Free Will" and
golems .... ???, but leaving the willing part aside, yes, I`ll accept an
invisible anything (even a rock for example). But how much intelligence
and reasoning ability does a golem have? - all descriptions usually
limit such to the performance of its actual "duty", and even then
golems are subject to being tricked.

Depends. Savage Species introduced the concept of awakened constructs. My point was more that I'd say it's likely that the maker/master of a golem can order it to lower its resistance and be subject to a spell like invisibility or repair damage - or even awaken construct. They'd do it when ordered to by those who can, not under any other circumstance. Of course, with constructs who aren't equipped with an edition throwback ability have it somewhat easier.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 1:24 PM


> Which would make the rule that Invisibility transfers you to the
> Spirit World that has been used by Ryan? in his campaign impossible
> - how could one smell and hear a creature in the Spirit or Shadow
> World from Aebrynnis?

Events in the Spirit or Shadow worlds need not be a binary situation, where
one is either in or out of a single plane. We are acustomed to the idea of
a being which can materialize (take solid form) or just manifest (we can see
it, but not touch it). Why not a being which you could touch, but not see.
In a sense they are present in the material world, but manifesting in the
Spirit World.

There is no reason to change how invisibility works, just what it means.
Admittedly there is some change in terms of its application in the Spirit
World, but there is none in the material world.

And, BTW, I am the one who decided that Invisibility involves the Spirit
World. :-)

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.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> I have no idea why there`s an Invisibilty to Undead or an Invisibility
> to Animals spell - it might have some obscure literary or movie
> origin. That said, those spells are Abjuration, not Illusion,

I think the reason they exist is to give restricted invisibility powers to
those spellcasters who frequently deal with undead or animals but do not
normally have access to the more general invisibility spells (like clerics
and druids).


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.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Events in the Spirit or Shadow worlds need not be a binary situation,
> where one is either in or out of a single plane. Why not a being
> which you could touch, but not see.

Yes, exactly. As irdeggman said earlier in this thread,

> the shadow world is molded around the invisible creature such that he
> fades from sight in the "real world". Because of this envelopment
> [...] most (if not all) of the other effects and relationships with
> Invisibility to remain intact.

In this kind of invisibility, the caster wraps himself in a portion of the
spirit world, without leaving the material plane. Thus he can still be
touched, smelled, etc., but is sort of wearing a light-deflecting cloak,
which he has fashioned from the local spirit world. The reason this kind
of invisibility is dispelled by attacking when cast as a 2nd-level spell
but not a 4th-level spell is that holding on to your little envelope of
the spirit world takes concentration; then the in-game reason the
higher-level version is higher level is that it takes more magical energy
and spellcasting skill to form a spirit cloak which "sticks" to you well
enough that you don`t need to avoid making sudden, violent movements.
This works just fine. No mechanics changed, just color text.

Kenneth`s full system, though, is a rules change. I have no problem at
all with that, because it allows vastly greater adventure potential: note
the example of the druid fighting a parallel battle in the spirit world.
That kind of thing is really neat! It is a rules change, and not a tiny
one considered purely as a rule change; but what I said originally was

> it`s a *relatively* minor mechanics change, *relative to* the major
> story benefit which is gained from making it.

I added emphasis this time to make my point more clear: it is a change to
the rules, possibly a big one. However, the size of the mechanics change
is much smaller than the immense story gains made possible! The rule is
not "broken" -- it is made different, but it`s a very worthwhile change.
Any costs of altering the mechanics are more than repaid by the vastly
expanded storytelling options it provides.

> And, BTW, I am the one who decided that Invisibility involves the
> Spirit World. :-)

I think it`s a neat idea, and I`d be interested to play in a campaign
using Kenneth`s version of the spirit world. OTOH, it`s a big enough step
that to work out the full implications requires more effort than I can
afford at the moment, so I`m not planning to make this change IMC any time
soon. I think I may decide to eventually, but not just yet. =)


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.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:

> `Illusion` doesn`t necessarily mean fooling the mind directly - it`s
> really enough to fool the eyes, right? Like, a stage magician doesn`t
> go and mess with your mind - he just makes things appear different
> than they are.

OK, yes. But even if you *know* it`s a trick, you often *still* can`t see
how it`s done. I don`t have a problem with interpreting many illusion
spells this way, but that would mean we have to jettison all notion of
"disbelieving" such illusions (which I really never liked anyway, but ISTM
that`s what the rulebooks have always said; OTOH, if that`s changed in the
new edition, I`d be quite happy). If an illusion is not mind-affecting,
no amount of knowing it`s not real will make it look any different. Even
if you walk through an illusion of a solid wall, and thereby prove to
yourself that it isn`t really there, then according to this interpretation
(which I like, but I thought was not standard in the D&D rules), you still
see the wall as looking just as solid as before, because your eyes are
still just as fooled as before -- only your conscious conclusions about
the sense-data have changed, not the sense-data themselves.

> if you view magic a certain, pretty much every spell should belong to
> the alteration school.

OK, granted. To avoid this, consider the following. Taken broadly,
"Illusion" is the school of magic which creates sense impressions of
things which are not physically present; or perhaps which create *part,
but not all* of the physical presence of a thing. The question then
becomes whether those are created by means of manipulating the senses
themselves, in which case it counts as mind-affecting; or by means of
creating actual stimuli which are then sensed normally, in which case it
is impossible to be literally "immune" to the effect. You can have people
who are never *fooled* by it, but you can`t really have people who don`t
sense *anything* there at all (unless they *lack* a sense entirely).

Now, personally, my pedantic tendencies incline me to say that only the
first kind is actually "illusionary". That is, for example, a picture of
a dagger is not a dagger, and cannot be wielded like one; however, a
picture is an actual object with a real, physical existence that cannot be
denied, and might in certain circumstances be mistaken for a dagger.
"C`est ne pas un pipe," as Rene Magritte would say. This distinction,
Starfox, is why I have said I thought "illusion" was restricted to just
mind-affecting spells: if it`s not mind-affecting, it creates a perfectly
real thing, which cannot be made to disappear by disbelief. A mirage is
not a hallucination: it is an actual physical phenomenon which really is
present; it`s just not the thing you thought it was. I was construing
"illusion" to apply only to hallucinations; I`m happy to add mirages, so
long as we explore which other consequent changes need to be made.

> Anyway, the definition of an illusion (glamer) on page 158 in the PHB
> is pretty specific about what a glamer does - and invisibility neatly
> falls under it.

I`m still a lot more used to previous editions, in which such distinctions
were vastly less clear. It`s nice to see this problem is being addressed.

> Figment - basically a hologram in the Star Trek sense if it`s visual
> Glamer - makes something look different, or not appear at all

These are the ones I was thinking of as being alteration rather than
illusion, in part because of the old rule about a high enough Int giving
you immunity to illusions of a certain spell level and below. Nothing can
be immune to such an illusion, unless it lacks that sense entirely; if you
have other senses, or can watch closely enough to detect inconsistencies
in the magically created sense-data, you can figure out that they aren`t
what they pretend to be -- but the illusionary sense-data themselves will
continue to be experienced just as before.

> Pattern - a hologram that makes people go dizzy and start saying and
> thinking groovy stuff - sort of like insta-hypnotism or a drug trip

=) This one is sort of an indirect mind effect: you don`t muck with the
brain directly (the trigger itself is not a hallucination, although the
resulting effect often is), you just make a real image which causes the
brain to zot itself (fun with natural neuropharmacology!)

> Phantasm - this is the mental image that most seem to associate with
> illusions

By "mental image", you mean "an image that exists only in the mind of the
subject," rather than "what people think illusion spells mean," yes? ;)
My mental image was indeed of a mental image. My definition for the
category I had in mind would be that such spells do not cause new
phenomena which are then perceived normally (as is the case for figments
and perhaps glamers); rather they change the way existing phenomena are
perceived. This is what I meant by my "strict construction" of illusion.
The target of the spell here is the observer, not the observed.

> Shadow - a semi-real effect

The whole "does 40% of the normal damage" thing seems really, really weird
to me. I like the idea of using shadow stuff to create conjuration and
evocation effects by other means, but the mechanics bother me. Can anyone
suggest a good justification for how this works, or offer an alternate
rule which is more sensibly interpretable?

> To go back to the stage magician example again, [...]
> once found out, the illusion fades

Except that it doesn`t! Here the word "illusion" is being used in two
different senses. Once you know it`s just a trick, you are no longer
deceived into thinking that the trickster is really doing what he seems to
be; but if the sleight of hand is good enough, many or most people won`t
be able to see it being done, even if they watch for it. If the stage
magician is really good, even other professional magicians who know how
to do it themselves can`t see it being done without special equipment or
standing right on top of him.

The part of the illusion that fades is only the deception, which affects
the *behavior* of those seeing it. The part of the illusion that is the
sensory impression itself does not fade. It`s still there, and you`ll
keep seeing it just the same every time you look at it, but you can learn
to change your behavior towards it.

> which is pretty much the only thing separating it from what a
> transmutation version does.

Which is why I said I thought this sort of spell really was a
transmutation; just a transmutation of light, rather than of matter.
Part of my reason for thinking this is precisely the sci-fi analogues
you`ve suggested: knowing it`s a hologram doesn`t make it go away.

> even though the text says it just appears as a thin outline then.

This is the part of the rule that I think needs to be thrown away for all
illusions that are not *directly* mind-affecting.


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, May 09, 2003 1:02 PM


> I think it`s a neat idea, and I`d be interested to play in a campaign
> using Kenneth`s version of the spirit world. OTOH, it`s a big enough step
> that to work out the full implications requires more effort than I can
> afford at the moment, so I`m not planning to make this change IMC any time
> soon. I think I may decide to eventually, but not just yet. =)

I will add by way of caution, that having invested more fully in a spirit
world (I take a trinitarian approach to their being a seperate plane of
spirit, shadow, and farie so that the three are both seperate and united
both at the same time) with spells, powers, feats, and the like, its easier
for me to create limits to player action, because a player who lacks
Spiritsense can`t detect spirits, even in the spirit world without the
sprits intent, or some other magic. The boy from "The Sixth Sense" had such
a feat. Its not a rule I would add with some additional investment in how
the shadow world, or the spirit world works, how one interacts with it, what
spells, feats, or abilities are required to interact so. I am currently
intrigued by the idea that halflings can see all that is invisible. If I
thought everyone was going to have a token halfling to prevent such a thing,
I`d have some work to do to plug that breach. For the time being there are
no halflings running about the Taelshore, showing off their ability to see
invisible people, so I have time to figure out where I will go with that.

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: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 5:52 PM


> If we stick to the idea that darkvision must be resolutely agnostic
> on the topic of what spectrum of radiation it is you are seeing by,
> [...] Consider also the possibility that darkvision may be an
> active, rather than a passive, process

I tend (I`ll confess to lapses) to prefer the idea that dark is not the
absense of light (nor cold the absence of heat) but that dark is a distinct
thing with its own properties. So dark vision is the ability to utilize the
properties of dark for seeing. Spells that block all seeing, therefore,
produce a vaccum of media that permits seeing. In modern physics, sound
requires a medium, light does not. But I actually prefer a fantastic
physics.

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.

[ryancaveney]

On Thu, 8 May 2003, Stephen Starfox wrote:

> Ryan, what makes you beleive that illusions MUST have something to do
> fooling the mind?

The mechanic irdeggman called "get a bonus to his disbelief check," as
I hope I`ve made clear in the other post I just sent in this thread.

> they cannot create real things, like light. I`d say that they can
> still bounce and alter exisiting light - much like light reflecting
> off an object/creature is bent and altered in order to produce the
> visual images that we see.

Well, if they don`t create light, and they don`t affect the mind
directly, they have to alter existing light or they couldn`t be seen.
Those are the only three choices.

> Thus, an illusion is invisible in absolute darkness, since it cannot
> illuminate itself, but the alteration to light is otherwise real - and
> still an illuson spell.

So to create an illusionary fire in total darkness (on a bigger scale than
just the new-fangled continual "flame"), you`d have to create a source of
real light by some other spell, and then glamer it to look like a roaring
bonfire. OK, that seems reasonable.

> Don`t ask me how this interacts with darkvision, which is supposed to
> be able to see in the total absense of light - as long as that
> darkness is not magically created. I suppose that whatever
> pseudo-light darkvision uses is also affected by illusions.

In the old days, when it was called "infravision", you could have argued
either way from the "can`t create light" rule. Since the source of
infrared light in darkness is thermal emission, not reflection, then you
could say that you couldn`t create IR illusions because that would require
making new photons. OTOH, you could instead say that the illusion affects
a larger area -- it takes a whole region of space and subtly redirects and
color-shifts the existing photons into an arrangement which makes
something new seem to appear. I lean towards the second sort of
interpretation. Actually, I always liked that the "pseudo-light" was IR,
because then you could use it for all sorts of other interesting things,
such as rough diagnosis of health, tracking, and detection of undead
pretending to be humans.

If we stick to the idea that darkvision must be resolutely agnostic on the
topic of what spectrum of radiation it is you are seeing by, then I`d say
sure, illusions and darkness spells alter it in an exactly analogous way
to they way they affect normal light (via redirection, recoloration and
absorption). Consider also the possibility that darkvision may be an
active, rather than a passive, process: as in bat/dolphin echolocation and
Basaia`s major version of Enhanced Sense, perhaps creatures with dark
vision emit some sort of radiation, which is then reflected by their
surroundings. Variation in the range to which this is useful can be
explained by a combination of variation in the strength of the emission
and in the sensitivity of the detector. Note, however, that this would
mean creatures would be detectable by darkvision at ranges greater than
those to which they could see with it, since they (or at least some part
of them) would be glowing like (rather, exactly as) darklight torches!


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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sat, 2003-05-10 at 08:52, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:

> absorption). Consider also the possibility that darkvision may be an
> active, rather than a passive, process: as in bat/dolphin echolocation and
> Basaia`s major version of Enhanced Sense, perhaps creatures with dark
> vision emit some sort of radiation, which is then reflected by their
> surroundings. Variation in the range to which this is useful can be
> explained by a combination of variation in the strength of the emission
> and in the sensitivity of the detector. Note, however, that this would
> mean creatures would be detectable by darkvision at ranges greater than
> those to which they could see with it, since they (or at least some part
> of them) would be glowing like (rather, exactly as) darklight torches!
>
>
> Ryan Caveney

Depending also on the tightness of the beam. c.f. Bullseye lantern,
lasers etc -- it may be that while you can see them further than they
can see you, they at least have to be looking at you.

************************************************** **************************
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.

[Peter Lubke]

On Sat, 2003-05-10 at 07:45, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
> On Thu, 8 May 2003, Mark_Aurel wrote:
>
> > `Illusion` doesn`t necessarily mean fooling the mind directly - it`s
> > really enough to fool the eyes, right? Like, a stage magician doesn`t
> > go and mess with your mind - he just makes things appear different
> > than they are.
>
> OK, yes. But even if you *know* it`s a trick, you often *still* can`t see
> how it`s done. I don`t have a problem with interpreting many illusion
> spells this way, but that would mean we have to jettison all notion of
> "disbelieving" such illusions (which I really never liked anyway, but ISTM
> that`s what the rulebooks have always said; OTOH, if that`s changed in the
> new edition, I`d be quite happy). If an illusion is not mind-affecting,
> no amount of knowing it`s not real will make it look any different. Even
> if you walk through an illusion of a solid wall, and thereby prove to
> yourself that it isn`t really there, then according to this interpretation
> (which I like, but I thought was not standard in the D&D rules), you still
> see the wall as looking just as solid as before, because your eyes are
> still just as fooled as before -- only your conscious conclusions about
> the sense-data have changed, not the sense-data themselves.

Curious. Where have you seen otherwise described in D&D? I thought and
played similarly, successful disbelief rolls mitigating effects rather
than perception.


>
> > if you view magic a certain, pretty much every spell should belong to
> > the alteration school.
>
> OK, granted. To avoid this, consider the following. Taken broadly,
> "Illusion" is the school of magic which creates sense impressions of
> things which are not physically present; or perhaps which create *part,
> but not all* of the physical presence of a thing. The question then
> becomes whether those are created by means of manipulating the senses
> themselves, in which case it counts as mind-affecting; or by means of
> creating actual stimuli which are then sensed normally, in which case it
> is impossible to be literally "immune" to the effect. You can have people
> who are never *fooled* by it, but you can`t really have people who don`t
> sense *anything* there at all (unless they *lack* a sense entirely).
>
> Now, personally, my pedantic tendencies incline me to say that only the
> first kind is actually "illusionary". That is, for example, a picture of
> a dagger is not a dagger, and cannot be wielded like one; however, a
> picture is an actual object with a real, physical existence that cannot be
> denied, and might in certain circumstances be mistaken for a dagger.
> "C`est ne pas un pipe," as Rene Magritte would say. This distinction,
> Starfox, is why I have said I thought "illusion" was restricted to just
> mind-affecting spells: if it`s not mind-affecting, it creates a perfectly
> real thing, which cannot be made to disappear by disbelief. A mirage is
> not a hallucination: it is an actual physical phenomenon which really is
> present; it`s just not the thing you thought it was. I was construing
> "illusion" to apply only to hallucinations; I`m happy to add mirages, so
> long as we explore which other consequent changes need to be made.

/"Mind affecting/" extended to fooling the senses (input) to the mind,
right? Rather than directly affecting the mind itself. Willpower has no
effect on the senses, and thus no justification for any bonus to saving
throw -- but perception, the noting of details that less than perfectly
mimic reality, will. (fortunately both are associated with Wisdom)



>
> > Anyway, the definition of an illusion (glamer) on page 158 in the PHB
> > is pretty specific about what a glamer does - and invisibility neatly
> > falls under it.
>
> I`m still a lot more used to previous editions, in which such distinctions
> were vastly less clear. It`s nice to see this problem is being addressed.
>
> > Figment - basically a hologram in the Star Trek sense if it`s visual
> > Glamer - makes something look different, or not appear at all
>
> These are the ones I was thinking of as being alteration rather than
> illusion, in part because of the old rule about a high enough Int giving
> you immunity to illusions of a certain spell level and below. Nothing can
> be immune to such an illusion, unless it lacks that sense entirely; if you
> have other senses, or can watch closely enough to detect inconsistencies
> in the magically created sense-data, you can figure out that they aren`t
> what they pretend to be -- but the illusionary sense-data themselves will
> continue to be experienced just as before.
>
> > Pattern - a hologram that makes people go dizzy and start saying and
> > thinking groovy stuff - sort of like insta-hypnotism or a drug trip
>
> =) This one is sort of an indirect mind effect: you don`t muck with the
> brain directly (the trigger itself is not a hallucination, although the
> resulting effect often is), you just make a real image which causes the
> brain to zot itself (fun with natural neuropharmacology!)
>
> > Phantasm - this is the mental image that most seem to associate with
> > illusions
>
> By "mental image", you mean "an image that exists only in the mind of the
> subject," rather than "what people think illusion spells mean," yes? ;)
> My mental image was indeed of a mental image. My definition for the
> category I had in mind would be that such spells do not cause new
> phenomena which are then perceived normally (as is the case for figments
> and perhaps glamers); rather they change the way existing phenomena are
> perceived. This is what I meant by my "strict construction" of illusion.
> The target of the spell here is the observer, not the observed.

Phantasms are then directly affecting the mind, willpower comes into
play. c.f. Illusions fooling the mind through sensory distortion.


>
> > Shadow - a semi-real effect
>
> The whole "does 40% of the normal damage" thing seems really, really weird
> to me. I like the idea of using shadow stuff to create conjuration and
> evocation effects by other means, but the mechanics bother me. Can anyone
> suggest a good justification for how this works, or offer an alternate
> rule which is more sensibly interpretable?

Mechanics, schemanics .. suspend your disbelief, and believe! :-)
Okay, (first) how does evocation work? (mechanics - not description)

>
> > To go back to the stage magician example again, [...]
> > once found out, the illusion fades
>
> Except that it doesn`t! Here the word "illusion" is being used in two
> different senses. Once you know it`s just a trick, you are no longer
> deceived into thinking that the trickster is really doing what he seems to
> be; but if the sleight of hand is good enough, many or most people won`t
> be able to see it being done, even if they watch for it. If the stage
> magician is really good, even other professional magicians who know how
> to do it themselves can`t see it being done without special equipment or
> standing right on top of him.

Yeah, here I totally agree. It doesn`t stop other people being fooled so
the illusion does not fade, but for those that "see through" the
illusion, they are no longer affected (fooled) and can`t be re-fooled
(by the same instance).

>
> The part of the illusion that fades is only the deception, which affects
> the *behavior* of those seeing it. The part of the illusion that is the
> sensory impression itself does not fade. It`s still there, and you`ll
> keep seeing it just the same every time you look at it, but you can learn
> to change your behavior towards it.
>
> > which is pretty much the only thing separating it from what a
> > transmutation version does.
>
> Which is why I said I thought this sort of spell really was a
> transmutation; just a transmutation of light, rather than of matter.
> Part of my reason for thinking this is precisely the sci-fi analogues
> you`ve suggested: knowing it`s a hologram doesn`t make it go away.
>
> > even though the text says it just appears as a thin outline then.
>
> This is the part of the rule that I think needs to be thrown away for all
> illusions that are not *directly* mind-affecting.

But this (*directly* mind-affecting) would appear to be (from what I`ve
read so far) just the Phantasm and Shadow spells. A blind man cannot be
fooled by Phantasmal Force.


>
> 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.

[irdeggman]

Originally posted by Peter Lubke
But this (*directly* mind-affecting) would appear to be (from what I`ve
read so far) just the Phantasm and Shadow spells. A blind man cannot be
fooled by Phantasmal Force.

>
> Ryan Caveney
>



We need to stick with either 2nd ed or 3rd ed terminology or we will be endlessly be confused. In 3rd ed there is no longer a Phantasmal Force spell, there is a 1st level Illlusion spell Silent Image (much more descriptive than Phantasmal Force) and 3rd level Illusion Major Image (as silent image plus sound, smell, and thermal effects).

I was under the impression we were discussing 3rd ed invisibility here. Under 3rd ed the mechanics are a whole lot more improved than they were under the 2nd ed rules, although invisibility still causes some problems (not as many as it used to though). 3.5 is supposed to do some major rewriting of the magic system so maybe it will help clarify methodis of ejudiacting Illusions (and the subtypes). :)

[Azrai]

Take also a look at

http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rant...daffecting.html (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/invismindaffecting.html)

for the Illusion problem. These are pretty old problems which were discussed 3 years ago.

[Birthright-L]

>Then why the spell "invisibility to undead"? Such a spell implies at
least some point of view where invisibility did not apply equally to
undead. Of course there`s good argument that non-corporeal undead don`t
even have eyes (or skin or noses or ...) so their "senses" as such are
different.

Tet me quote from the FAQ:

"It.s a fairly common error to assume that the existence of a specialty
spell such as invisibility to undead means that undead aren.t affected by
other forms of invisibility. But it.s an error nevertheless. Invisibility to
undead is in the Abjuration school not because undead have any special
immunity to invisibility or other glamers, but because the game.s designers
looked at the rules for specialist wizards and concluded that more
Necromancer specialists would have access to abjuration spells than to
illusion spells."

************************************************** **************************
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.

[ryancaveney]

On Fri, 9 May 2003, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

> Spells that block all seeing, therefore, produce a vaccum of media
> that permits seeing. In modern physics, sound requires a medium,
> light does not. But I actually prefer a fantastic physics.

Fantastic physics is fine (and lots of fun!) -- just so long as you
realize (as you seem to) that it *is* a physics, and has its own rules
which may be deduced from experiment and applied consistently given
sufficient knowledge. Clearly, since in D&D games phenomena regularly
occur which would be considered impossible by modern real-world
understanding, their physics *must* be at least a little different.
In this case, I have no objection to reintroducing the idea of the
luminiferous aether (or, indeed, two similar but distinct ones), which
was only relatively recently dropped from real-world physical theories.

I tend to stick closely to RW physics because I happen to know it really
well, I especially enjoy the really strange bits, and the less I invent
the less work I need to do to figure out its subsequent effects. To me,
magic is just another quantum field, complete with vector gauge bosons,
etc., because that`s just the way my mind works, and I think it`s fun.
I freely admit this approach is definitely not for everyone. =) When I do
insist that a game world acknowledge "physics", all I really mean is that
nature (any nature) plays by certain rules (even "there are no rules" is a
kind of rule, with measurably distinct effects), and a careful observer
can learn quite a lot about what they are. I just want the worlds people
make to be self-consistent, or at least have good and explicit reasons
(especially *in-game* ones) for any apparent inconsistencies.

My advice to DMs is this: implement any kind of alternate physical reality
you like -- but be careful to consider the full ramifications on the rest
of your game, and expect players to ask questions you don`t yet have
answers to. For example, if you use the "light needs a medium" idea, if
Cerilian magic/technology ever advances to the point at which they can
perform the Michaelson-Morley experiment, their answer will be different
from ours: they will find that there really is an aether, which has
certain specific, observable consequences. Sure, this is an unlikely
example, but I am confident there are more pressing ones out there to be
tripped over -- brainstorm as much as you can in advance, to be prepared.


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.

[ryancaveney]

On Sat, 10 May 2003, Peter Lubke wrote:

> On Sat, 2003-05-10 at 08:52, Ryan B. Caveney wrote:
>
> > this would mean creatures would be detectable by darkvision at
> > ranges greater than those to which they could see with it, since
> > they (or at least some part of them) would be glowing like (rather,
> > exactly as) darklight torches!
>
> Depending also on the tightness of the beam. c.f. Bullseye lantern,
> lasers etc -- it may be that while you can see them further than they
> can see you, they at least have to be looking at you.

Yes, that could help -- but at the price of vastly decreased peripheral
vision, leading to penalties on spot and search checks / surprise rolls.
Hmmm -- this could be considered good or bad. =)


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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>When a Rjurik dies, he is buried with those goods he may need on his journey
>to the afterworld and in the afterworld itself. A ritual must be performed
>which summons a spirit guide to lead the spirit of the recently deceased to
>his new home in the afterworld. Rjurik typically think of the afterworld as
>being a a forest surrounding a great wik, where Erik has his great hall. It
>is variously known as Nature`s Rest, the Happy Hunting Grounds, the
>Perpetual Forest, and the Eternal Village. Note that a few in Rjurik lands
>look to other kinds of afterlives.
>
Like for example setting the dead body on a ship and leaving it float to
the sea burning? e.g. in Rjuvik where the raiders resemble most the
vikings.
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
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.

[blitzmacher]

>When a Rjurik dies, he is buried with those goods he may need on his journey
>to the afterworld and in the afterworld itself. A ritual must be performed
>which summons a spirit guide to lead the spirit of the recently deceased to
>his new home in the afterworld. Rjurik typically think of the afterworld as
>being a a forest surrounding a great wik, where Erik has his great hall. It
>is variously known as Nature`s Rest, the Happy Hunting Grounds, the
>Perpetual Forest, and the Eternal Village. Note that a few in Rjurik lands
>look to other kinds of afterlives.
>
Like for example setting the dead body on a ship and leaving it float to
the sea burning? e.g. in Rjuvik where the raiders resemble most the
vikings.
bye
Michael



Or like Sutton Hoo.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 8:41 AM


> Like for example setting the dead body on a ship and leaving it float to
> the sea burning? e.g. in Rjuvik where the raiders resemble most the
> vikings.

That would describe the ritual of burial rather than the nature of the
afterlife.

The problem that looking for direct analogs of historical cultures is that
they change over time. Blitzmacher identifies Sutton Hoo, the famous viking
burial. In a fantasy campaign, both can be used simultaneously, but I would
suggest that creamation would be associated with Avani or Laerme (wife and
daughter of Erik, BTW). Burial at sea suggests Nesirie. While I like to
draw on historical sources, I am keen to put the priority on setting and
adapt or reject anything that doesn`t match the setting. In the cases of
creamation or burial at sea, I`d say they are rare and associated with the
cults of these allied dieties. Fishermen who sought a spirit guide sent by
Nesirie to take them to the Elysian Shoals might wish for a burial at sea
rather than the burial in the fertile and life-giving earth.

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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
>Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 8:41 AM
>
>>Like for example setting the dead body on a ship and leaving it float to
>>the sea burning? e.g. in Rjuvik where the raiders resemble most the
>>vikings.
>>
>That would describe the ritual of burial rather than the nature of the
>afterlife.
>
Yes, as did your example of being buried

>with those goods he may need on his journey
>to the afterworld and in the afterworld itself.
>
>The problem that looking for direct analogs of historical cultures is that
>they change over time. Blitzmacher identifies Sutton Hoo, the famous viking
>burial.
>
And I first thought on something in China... After using Lycos search I
have found the burial site in East Anglia where a ship has been buried.

> In a fantasy campaign, both can be used simultaneously, but I would
>suggest that creamation would be associated with Avani or Laerme (wife and
>daughter of Erik, BTW). Burial at sea suggests Nesirie. While I like to
>draw on historical sources, I am keen to put the priority on setting and
>adapt or reject anything that doesn`t match the setting. In the cases of
>creamation or burial at sea, I`d say they are rare and associated with the
>cults of these allied dieties. Fishermen who sought a spirit guide sent by
>Nesirie to take them to the Elysian Shoals might wish for a burial at sea
>rather than the burial in the fertile and life-giving earth.
>
Giving each god his own burial ceremony sounded only at first thought
good to me.
Then I remembered that each culture has it´s own leader of the pantheon,
which is in the case of Rjuven people Erik.
Just like in Anuire people may pray also to other gods, they primarily
direct their prayers to Haelyn as the patron of Anuire, as far as I
understand it.

Using your example, which spirit guide would come if the rjuvik raider
is burned (FIRE - Lara/Vani) on a ship (SEA- Narikja) that is not in the
water but on dry land (Erik)? ;-)

Would a believer of Erik, who is frozen in the wilderness be captured by
a spirit guide of Karesha, or a believer of Erik slain violently without
any legal reason be captured by Belinik (who does not even have a rjurik
name listed in the Book of Priestcraft)? A Rjurik who dies while his
house burns to the ground - would he be guided to the spirit world by a
guide of Fire/Lara even when he believes in Erik only? Or by Belinik
because it was an act of terror that his house has been burned down by
raiders?
bye
Michael

************************************************** **************************
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: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 4:13 AM

> Giving each god his own burial ceremony sounded only at first thought
> good to me.
> Then I remembered that each culture has it´s own leader of the pantheon,
> which is in the case of Rjuven people Erik.
> Just like in Anuire people may pray also to other gods, they primarily
> direct their prayers to Haelyn as the patron of Anuire, as far as I
> understand it.

But always there will be specialists whose particular interest with an area
controlled by some other god will cause the individual to prefer an
afterlife more associated with his, say, profession than his broad culture.
A rjurik fisherman may acknowledge the power of Erik over broad things, but
he knows that his success in fishing amd his avoidance of dangers on the
seas is better achieved through Nesirie than it is through Erik. If he
cannot imagine an eternity away from the waves, living in a dark forest, he
might wish his soul to reside in the more familiar realms of Nesirie, where
he can sail on a heavenly ocean and fish for ever, until the end of time.
Other rjurik fishermen might well identify themselves more closely with Erik
than they do with Nesirie.

> Using your example, which spirit guide would come if the rjuvik raider
> is burned (FIRE - Lara/Vani) on a ship (SEA- Narikja) that is not in the
> water but on dry land (Erik)? ;-)

I would attempt to avoid such an occurance because it conflates rituals.

> Would a believer of Erik, who is frozen in the wilderness be captured by
> a spirit guide of Karesha, or a believer of Erik slain violently without
> any legal reason be captured by Belinik (who does not even have a rjurik
> name listed in the Book of Priestcraft)? A Rjurik who dies while his
> house burns to the ground - would he be guided to the spirit world by a
> guide of Fire/Lara even when he believes in Erik only? Or by Belinik
> because it was an act of terror that his house has been burned down by
> raiders?

A rjurik frozen in the wilderness, burned to death in a home fire, or slain
by brigands would risk being unable to make it to any divine resting place.
He might stay close to the place of his death, producing what we would
recognize as a haunting. Some hunter passing by might claim he saw the
image of a hunter standing in a cave. When he approached, the man withdrew
into the cave. When the hunter entered the cave, no one was there. He
could feel like he was being watched (or he has a chill, or some other such
thing people associate with encountering ghosts). He left never to know
what happened. A spirit might wander the spirit world looking for refuge,
but most of them either end up captive to some greater spirit, often some
shadow world power. A particularly well loved individual might have been
watched over by an ancestor who sees the death and comes for him.

The manner of death is not important. What is important in summoning a
spirit guide is the ritual. A priest of Avani will use fire in that ritual,
and creamate a body because fire is part of Avani`s ritual ensemble. Also,
meeting up with a spirit guide doesn`t happen on its own. You don`t want to
miss your spirit guide because you did not recognize one another, or because
you were not in a place or condition that the guide expected. Spirits are
not omnicient. It may well be like being picked up at the airport by a
stranger. Arangements must be made so that the guide knows what to do.
Often accidental deaths leave their spirit stranded because no spirit knew
to come after the deceased. This is why some spirits need to be put to
rest. The spirit may or may not know you. The spirit may have a list of
taboos that will prevent them from approaching you or leading you. If you
violate a taboo, the spirit might abandon you. Priests become knowledgable
about such things and can provide formulas to achieve safe journey to the
afterlife. Hence the neccesity of last rights, proper preperation of the
body, ritualistic practice, and the proper selection of materials to
accompany you in your journey. Its not that people fear dying, what they
fear is dying in such a way that contact with their spirit guide cannot be
made.

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.

[ConjurerDragon]

Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
>Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 4:13 AM
>
>...
>But always there will be specialists whose particular interest with an area
>controlled by some other god will cause the individual to prefer an
>afterlife more associated with his, say, profession than his broad culture.
>A rjurik fisherman may acknowledge the power of Erik over broad things, but
>he knows that his success in fishing amd his avoidance of dangers on the
>seas is better achieved through Nesirie than it is through Erik. If he
>cannot imagine an eternity away from the waves, living in a dark forest, he
>might wish his soul to reside in the more familiar realms of Nesirie, where
>he can sail on a heavenly ocean and fish for ever, until the end of time.
>Other rjurik fishermen might well identify themselves more closely with Erik
>than they do with Nesirie.
>
But how does that fit to the thought of a "pantheon" of gods, ruled by
one king of gods dependant on the region?
Do they all have separate "paradises" and "hells" for each god and his
followers to go to after death, or one for the whole pantheon to which
only different guides bring the spirits of the dead? And if there is a
paradise/hell for the pantheon, is there only one for all of Cerilia or
5 for each culture, e.g. one anuirean pantheon/hell/paradise, one rjurik...?

In the greek mythology for example as far as I know only 1
hell/paradise existed, not one for each god.
bye
Michael Romes

************************************************** **************************
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: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2003 9:47 AM


> Do they all have separate "paradises" and "hells" for each god and his
> followers to go to after death, or one for the whole pantheon to which
> only different guides bring the spirits of the dead?

Space and geography questions are not really things I bother to work out.
Its simultanously both or neither. The physics of the spirit world is
different and not limited to three dimensions (obviously) so things like
this don`t have a definition like they would in the material world.

> And if there is a paradise/hell for the pantheon, is there only one for
all
> of Cerilia or 5 for each culture, e.g. one anuirean
pantheon/hell/paradise,
> one rjurik...?

There is one set of paradises, but paradise is a big place, and so there may
be sections of a god`s domain where people of one culture predominate. For
example, Nesirie will attract souls from all five cultures, and they are
like islands on a vast sea. One could sail from the Rjurik paradise to the
islands of the other cultures.

> In the greek mythology for example as far as I know only 1
> hell/paradise existed, not one for each god.

That`s because cosmologically, the three brothers, Zeus, Posidon, and Hades
each got one domain. Zeues got the celestial sphere that lays above
creation. Hades got the sphere below creation (the underworld), and Posidon
got the domain that surrounds creation, the sea that spreads out in all
directions. This triparte division of spheres was one of the reasons
cosmologically that Greeks have one place for souls.

I took my inspirirations from Viking afterworld cosmology, since it seems
more applicable to a Rjurik setting. There, several gods had halls where
the dead would congregate. In addition to Valhalla there is Bilskinir
(Thor), Briedbalik (Balder), Glitnir (Forseti), Sessrumnir (Freya),
Valaskjalf (Frigga), Himinbjorg (Heimdall), Ydialir (Uller), and others.

Because of the way space and geography works in the realm of the gods, this
might all just be the way Rjurik percieve the experience of the divine
realm.

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.

[Ariadne]

Originally posted by ConjurerDragon

But how does that fit to the thought of a "pantheon" of gods, ruled by one king of gods dependant on the region?
Do they all have separate "paradises" and "hells" for each god and his followers to go to after death, or one for the whole pantheon to which only different guides bring the spirits of the dead? And if there is a paradise/hell for the pantheon, is there only one for all of Cerilia or 5 for each culture, e.g. one anuirean pantheon/hell/paradise, one rjurik...?
IMO there should be a paradise/hell for each god, but not for each region. I'm still influenced by the planescape setting where every god got his own residence on a specific plane (Avani on Mechanus or Cuiraécen on Ysgard for example). If there still exists the "great wheal" is another question (and off-topic I think), but if so, the worshipper of each god naturally goes to the location of his deity after death. A "hell" for an "evil" worshipper of a non-evil deity could be, that his soul is trapped in the shadow-world after death, so he never could reach his "paradise".

[blitzmacher]

I have it set up so the gods all have their paradise's, or halls, all on the same plane. The shadow world is what I use for hell.

[Mark_Aurel]

I think Birthright should be divorced fully from the previous Planescape cosmology - that was actually the Greyhawk cosmology that TSR applied to all their worlds, so they could justify characters crossing over, or whatever.

That said, let's look at what we got - we have the Shadow World, which is a very strong world element, and then there's the brief godly domain descriptions or names in the Book of Priestcraft. I don't think the latter need be taken strictly as is, given that it was written within the context of being forced into an existing system, rather than defining a cosmological system of its own to fit the core game world better.

My view of Birthright cosmology tends to focus on the different natures of the old and new gods. The old gods seem to me to have been more elemental and primal in nature, whereas the new gods are ascended humans, and remain more closely tied to that aspect, yet separate themselves more from human affairs than the old gods did.

The Shadow World currently seems like a natural point to begin - the realm spirits journey through towards their afterlife destinations. Its nature changed after the battle of Deismaar - and prior to the battle of Deismaar, the Shadow World as described then doesn't necessarily strike me as being as much of a world through which the spirits of the dead would journey as much as it seems to be a fairytale land (and I don't tend to equate that with "where the dead journey," but perhaps it could still be used - something like the spirits of the dead would pass through the Shadow World at night, when the fae were hidden).

Beyond the aspect of "the dead pass through the Shadow World," it doesn't necessarily strike me as having been much of a transitive plane as it was before - more like a happy mirror world than anything else. Would it be logical to presume that this changed along with the nature of the plane?

What if the dead in the days of the old gods didn't go on to some heavenly or hellish domain, apart from the greatest heroes and foulest villains, but rather joined with the elemental spirit of the world or whatever, so that their souls would be purified, reincarnated, and born anew or something - something much more similar to what happens to dead elves (which I think was discussed in one of the BR novels - Greatheart or something - not that I hold that as canon at all) and that this changed when the old gods died, and the new gods came into being - the new gods, being closer to men, and less primal in their nature, would open their realms to all dead spirits, and then have them come there, and thus maintain their individuality after their deaths, breaking the old reincarnation cycle - out of pity or sorrow.

In the same vein, the godly realms would seem to logically be tied to some manifestations of the elemental natures of the old gods - that their domains themselves were coexistent or coterminous with Aebrynis at certain points, rather than having to go through the Shadow World to get at them; i.e. in order to cross to Anduiras' domain, you'd have to scale to the top of the highest peaks, in order to get to Masela's domain, you'd have to sail until the ends of the sea. Then, with the coming of the new gods, this was changed, and the gods drew farther from the world, anchoring their domains in the Shadow World instead, and drawing the spirits of the dead through that world. The very nature of the old gods' domains might've been that of pristine, pure nature, while the new gods erected great palaces and cities there, to house the coming of the spirits of the dead. The change in the nature of the Shadow World might thus've been only partially the Cold Rider's doing - perhaps such a cosmological shift is what enabled him to do what he is doing (speculating about speculation, blah).

Finally, angels, devils, demons, and similar outsiders, would be the great heroes and villains of old, those who retained their individuality beyond death while the old gods still lived - each infused with a portion of divine might. They'd have been the greatest servants of the old gods, both in life and in death - this'd set up an interesting niche for these creatures as well, I think - they'd retain knowledge not even the new gods have direct access to. This version of a Cerilian cosmology also seems to lend itself well to an epic campaign - perhaps having spirits live on in the afterlife is weakening the natural world slowly, killing the world itself, and that this must thus come to a tragic end at some point?

I think this is a potentially workable view on the Cerilian cosmology - I definitely don't think the Great Wheel cosmology is appropriate.

[kgauck]

One thing to consider in a cosmology is the seperation between what is true
from the DM`s perspective and what is known to characters. Players may
occupy some middle ground, or they may be as ignorant as their characters
(except they are aware its a game construct). While I appreciate a source
like the Planescape stuff for its potential for mining, I`d rather build the
cosmology around what the charcters know and can do. As much as possible,
I`d like to have the cosmology explain everyday things like turning undead
or resisting the lures of the fey.

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 07:46 PM 5/27/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:

>One thing to consider in a cosmology is the seperation between what is true
>from the DM`s perspective and what is known to characters. Players may
>occupy some middle ground, or they may be as ignorant as their characters
>(except they are aware its a game construct). While I appreciate a source
>like the Planescape stuff for its potential for mining, I`d rather build the
>cosmology around what the charcters know and can do. As much as possible,
>I`d like to have the cosmology explain everyday things like turning undead
>or resisting the lures of the fey.

This is a very good point, and one that I think is amongst the hardest
things for the DM to do. Being the DMing geniuses that we are :) we can
all come up with amazing, fantastic, amusing and entertaining campaign
material... but resisting the urge to reveal that material to the players
until the appropriate moment can mean the difference between a good
campaign and a bad one. I`m going to relate a little anecdote from a
campaign I ran... geez, guess it must have been over a decade ago in order
to illustrate the point.

Unbeknownst to the players the campaign setting was a thickly disguised
version of the real world with NPCs that represented myself, the players,
and several people we knew in common. I`ve done that a couple of times in
campaigns and I would recommend it to everyone as a DM technique to find
"unique" characters for a campaign and as a method of determining the
motivations, attitudes and personalities of NPCs. As DM when one comes
upon those inevitable situations in which one has no idea what an NPC would
do one can ask, "Now what would <insert real person> do in that situation?"
to come up with a behavior. The important thing about that is to keep your
campaign notes secret or in your head--otherwise players get a look behind
the curtain that`s best left unsaid. One particularly poignant way of
doing this is to make a NPC particularly close to a PC (a henchmen or
cohort) the player himself. Not only does that make it very easy to
remember, but it gives the DM plenty of opportunities to "stick it" to the
player without him realizing it.... ;)

That campaign went for two or three years pretty much like any other D&D
campaign, but with probably a more "fantastic" or "fairy tale" theme. Lots
of things like talking dogs and floating cities. Several players came and
went. Eventually, it looked like the campaign was winding down. In the
end there were two players who went on an adventure to find the Primal Pool
which would reveal the origin of all things. Deep in that campaign`s
version of the Underdark (no drow or kuo-toa--it contained things more like
a race of pygmies that lived in the fossilized corpse of a giant,
Godzilla-sized skeleton, and the mystic turtle god whose breathing changed
the seasons) they found the Pool.

"We look into the pool," one player said.

"It shimmers. There is a flash of light. Soon your vision clears to
reveal three figures sitting at a table. All three appear human, but they
wear strange clothes and many of the items in the room are strange to
you. They are surrounded by books and writing implements. Two of them
look pensively at the third...."

There I paused and just looked at them. Several moments went by. It was
an uncomfortable silence. As I recall, I couldn`t quite wipe the smirk
from my face....

"What are they doing?" one player eventually asked.

"One of them is speaking and another has responded. You don`t understand
their language," I replied.

"I have Comprehend Languages permanently on," the other player noted.

"It doesn`t matter. You can`t understand their language. The conversation
continues...." (There was a brief debate about the use of that spell
through crystal balls, which I had to make clear I was over-ruling as a DM
fiat.)

It took a couple of minutes, but as they asked more questions and I
described the appearance of the figures and items in the room in more
detail, they recognized what was going on. The PCs were having a vision of
the players themselves (and myself) sitting at that very table and playing
the campaign.

My point here is that I came up with the denouement of that adventure
somewhat spontaneously, but the "cosmology" of that campaign world--that
the players would eventually find out that the universe was a fiction and
that they themselves (and me) were the primal force that created it--had
been in the back of my mind for a long time. While that wasn`t the plan to
begin with after I still had to keep that secret for years after deciding
that was was how it was going to go! There were hints at it during play,
but nothing to ruin the surprise, and I`ll tell ya` the secret was near
killing me. The temptation to reveal campaign material to players that PCs
would not have access to can be very strong, but it`s important for the DM
to keep mum on that stuff. In the long run it makes for a more
entertaining gaming experience.

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.