Results 21 to 30 of 58
Thread: Gheallie Sidhe Units
-
09-21-2003, 01:34 PM #21
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Location
- Germany
- Posts
- 883
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Kenneth Gauck schrieb:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Romes" <Archmage@T-ONLINE.DE>
>Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2003 7:08 AM
>
>>If sidhelien become more like fairy being as some here have
>>supposed there is no reason why Cerilian dwarves can´t
>>become somthing like little stone golems ;-)
>>
>>
>Not at all, but the thing to remember about commonly encountered beings
>(especially ones that can be PC`s) is that we need to know how they work.
>Golems are magically animated objects. If someone whet to the trouble of,
>say imagining a creation where Moradin first animated his little stone
>fellows and then he taught them the rituals by which they could animate
>themselves in a way that both ensured their continued animation and gave
>worship to Moradin, and then elaborated what the limits are, mechanized it
>for play, and thought through the implications of such powers as might be
>ascribed to such dwarves I would think it well done. And since I have
>already gotten the ball rolling, we are well on our way if that is what we
>want to do. Let`s just make sure we think through all the implications of
>it.
>Kenneth Gauck
>kgauck@mchsi.com
>
>
Mmh, I do not immediately rememember where, but I read in one of the
books that somewhere in Baruk-Ahzik the original skeleton of one of the
first dwarves, created by Moradin from Mordaskorr were found...
Cerialian dwarves ARE animated stone golems with Mordaskorr skeletons -
similar to Wolverine ;-)
bye
Michael
-
09-21-2003, 02:28 PM #22
Seriously, though, even though BR doesn't use the Elemental Planes as accessible places, there are plenty of elemental creatures in Cerilia. I consider dwarves to be akin to the elemental races (not pure elementals, but more like the Dao, Xorn, etc.), but far more grounded on the Prime and in life. More like an elemental affinity. If humans have the 4 elements balanced within them (by Aristotelian reasoning), dwarves are mainly Earth with lesser amounts of the other elements.
Just some speculation on my part.
Osprey
-
09-22-2003, 08:50 AM #23
-
09-22-2003, 10:21 AM #24
Here`s a bit of support for the elven spirit not leaving Aebrynis in the
entry for the Seelie in Blood Spawn. The Sidhe are immortal only in the
"waking world" and mortal in the SW, while the Sie are mortal only if they
remain in the SW. Presumably, Sidhe or Sie who left their respective
planes for "parts unknown" in the cosmology would similarly lose their
immortality, though that text is carefully uninformative about such a
circumstance. That does not, of course, mean that their spirits remain on
the plane where they are immortal if killed somehow, but it would follow.
At 07:26 AM 9/21/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
>The Shadow World, by the way, is not a biological sphere served by
>ecosystems. It is a spirit world of life energy operating on a different
>set of rules. As long as these rules make sense as they are elaborated,
>all is well. The most difficult part of elaborating the SW is not its
>inhabitants, where they came from or what they do there, its how one
>senses the place
The SW is much closer to Aebrynis than this would indicate. The two worlds
were once one, and they remain in many ways identical, or at least
operating under the same or very similar basic principles. As for the
differing rules between the two worlds, if one posits that the SW operates
on a set of rules that are different from the real world, then it`s just as
plausible that Aebrynis does as well. At least, any rationale for the SW
that divorces it from real world biology and ecosystems is just as apt for
Aebrynis since they are reflections of one another.
The SW does, however, have a biological sphere. At least, animal life and
populations of intelligent creatures exist there very much like those of
Aebrynis, and there`s nothing I recall reading to indicate they are somehow
exempted from the basic requirements of life. When it comes to things like
biology, ecospheres and the requirements of life, I`d suggest that the SW
is more like Aebrynis than any other plane of existence, and maybe even
other prime material planes. It`s hard to really gauge something like that
because when BR was originally written the thinking was that all D&D
campaign worlds fit into the same cosmological structure in a sort of
"infinite worlds" capacity, but I think the "laws of science" for the two
BR worlds are probably more similar than either would be to, say, the "laws
of science" for Ravenloft or Dark Sun where the basic materials and
energies of the worlds are very different.
>My point is the embedded idea of perment subterrarian habitation, such as
>proposed for the pre-conflict, is likewise beneath consideration without
>some plausible explanation of how its possible. It doesn`t have to be
>based on anything that exists in our world (that`s just Gary being obtuse)
>it just has to make sense beyond a reasonable level of scrutiny.
Actually, it`s me pointing out that any plausible explanation for dwarf
communities need not necessarily be any more plausible than a justification
for an entire mirror world with such a fundamental difference as the
absence of a solar energies, but still somehow supports large predator
species and entire communities of high order animal life--including,
presumably, populations equating to the dwarven communities whose farming
and foodstuffs seem so implausible in the light of real life
agriculture. The existence of analogical dwarf communities on the SW is
something that isn`t addressed anywhere in the BR material, but since
dwarves would appear to have been around longer than humans their existence
in the SW at the time of the split would seem likely. (Maybe a Cerilian
halfling is what happens to dwarves after a few generations in the SW?)
The SW communities of halflings, Sie and the animals that that plane is
supposed to support, however, are much more difficult to
rationalize. Dwarves at least live in a world where solar energies are
prominent and even if they can at least harvest or derive benefits
indirectly from that source. SW communities don`t even have
that. Perpetual shadow means no plant life which means no herbivores,
which means no carnivores, which means no higher life forms (that last
step`s a bit debatable, but if we`re using Earth as our example rather than
some speculative sci-fi, I think I`m on pretty safe ground) and the
fractioning of the biosphere into more and more complex forms supported by
ever broader bases of life can`t exist, or would never reach very far past
a single stage.
>People provide all kinds of complex reasons why you can`t heal elves or
>why this or that undead
>could or couldn`t be blooded. Is it really too much to ask that the
>explanation of dwarven agriculture not immediatly offend one`s basic sense
>of arithmatic?
For the majority of folks, yes, it probably is too much to
ask. Personally, I find this kind of thing interesting, but I`m pretty
confident that`s a minority view. It`s certainly not the kind of thing
that attracts people to a campaign setting, which appears to be a concern
of the folks designing updated BR materials. BR fans are probably a bit
more inclined to tracking such things, and I`m certainly interested in
reading other people`s takes on this information, but I don`t think its
really worthwhile to put this kind of information into a campaign text
since the end results of such information can often harm more than help
actual play because most folks will find it weighty and superfluous.
>Since no one seems to really want a totally fantastic explanation of the
>dwarves food, we have two choices. Either they do live permenantly
>underground, but we can explain it, or they don`t really live permanently
>underground, but its commonly supposed that they do by humans.
Dwarf cities are really better described as being "below the surface" to
me, since describing them as "underground" seems to convey that they are
somehow completely self-contained biospherical habitats, which seems
neither plausible nor what was indicated by the text. The easiest
explanation IMO is that the dwarves reside "below the surface" but derive
the majority of their consumables from the surface or very near it (they
could harvest plants from below--as ridiculous as that might seem it`s not
really any different from many arbor methods of farming) and that the
dwarven capacity to live on minerals sources comprises enough of their
intake that they don`t really need as many consumables as would a similarly
sized human population. In fact, if dwarves can survive entirely on eating
rock and dirt, the consumption of other foods is easily interpreted as
luxury items and status symbols--much the way certain animals were only
eaten by those of wealth/social standing for much of history. If dwarves
could get by on, say, a quarter of the consumables that humans do it would
significantly reduce their reliance upon the surface--at least as far as
food is concerned. Air, of course, is an entirely different problem,
particularly with the need for dwarves to smelt and smith so regularly, but
that`s another issue entirely.
Gary
-
09-22-2003, 09:03 PM #25
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary" <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 4:48 AM
> For the majority of folks, yes, it probably is too much to
> ask. Personally, I find this kind of thing interesting, but I`m pretty
> confident that`s a minority view.
The setting materials are the place, the precise location to present,
information that is capable of bearing the sophisticated analysis without
having to impose it on anyone. The designers should think this stuff
through, have answers to potential questions, and then write up a nice
little game writing that is consistent with all the complexities but doesn`t
bore the reader with it. Most gamers have one or two areas that they do in
depth. Some of us have more than two. If we take the position that since
most people don`t take any interest in any of them (all of them are minority
interests) then we produce the BR PS, which were universally condemned
because they were so goofy on so many levels. Any since most players have
one or two areas in which they demand some sophistication, nearly everyone
found them goofy. They didn`t find all the reasons the PS are goofy,
because most people don`t take all the possible issues of a society as their
own areas of specialization. But why should there be any areas? Especially
when all you have to do is think things through ahead of time.
You are dangerously close to the "they aren`t as smart as I am, so give em
garbage, they won`t know the difference" theory of supliment production.
Please, back away from the edge. Lets produce quality products.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
09-22-2003, 10:38 PM #26
Kenneth is right, Gary. If we were taking things down to this level, we should not go on and give out a BRCS, since most of the needed things could easilly be given out as supplementary documents ("Races of Cerillia", "Magic of Cerillia", etc.), which would match the FR so many of you dislike!
I agree that depth can be given to an annoying level in the Atlas, but we must have those extra bits of detail to get over the aforementioned "goofiness".
-
09-23-2003, 05:58 AM #27
I'd settle for a finished product that was well-researched and thought-out without necessarily explaining it all in grueling detail. A way to reference that kind of thing (online here on BR.Net, for example) would be enough for me.
-Osprey
-
09-23-2003, 07:15 AM #28
----- Original Message -----
From: "Osprey" <brnetboard@BIRTHRIGHT.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 12:58 AM
> I`d settle for a finished product that was well-researched and
> thought-out without necessarily explaining it all in grueling detail.
Its not settling, its to be prefered. Documents that are too long are not
read. Documents that are too dry are not read. Of course being able to
pear down a document requires a clear sense of what is important which in
turn requires reflection.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
-
09-24-2003, 04:12 PM #29
At 03:44 PM 9/22/2003 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> > For the majority of folks, yes, it probably is too much to
> > ask. Personally, I find this kind of thing interesting, but I`m pretty
> > confident that`s a minority view.
>
>The setting materials are the place, the precise location to present,
>information that is capable of bearing the sophisticated analysis without
>having to impose it on anyone. The designers should think this stuff
>through, have answers to potential questions, and then write up a nice
>little game writing that is consistent with all the complexities but doesn`t
>bore the reader with it. Most gamers have one or two areas that they do in
>depth. Some of us have more than two.
Let me first reiterate that I personally would like to see this kind of
material, and I can see how it might be used in the development of SBs and
other material. However, I`m still confident that most gamers are content
to leave this stuff anecdotal, and that very little actual "scientific"
basis is required for the development of campaign material.
There is also a problem with the assumption that one has much hope of
satisfying the desires of gamers in this regard. It assumes that people
writing this information are going to have the time, the research skills,
the space in campaign material and the outright prescience to anticipate
the one or two areas that most gamers have a deep interest in and satisfy
that in campaign material. I`d like them to exercise their prognostic
muscles, but I have little anticipation of that being of very little use in
practise for RPGers.
>If we take the position that since
>most people don`t take any interest in any of them (all of them are minority
>interests) then we produce the BR PS, which were universally condemned
>because they were so goofy on so many levels. Any since most players have
>one or two areas in which they demand some sophistication, nearly everyone
>found them goofy. They didn`t find all the reasons the PS are goofy,
>because most people don`t take all the possible issues of a society as their
>own areas of specialization. But why should there be any areas? Especially
>when all you have to do is think things through ahead of time.
The PS texts are not universally condemned, nor were they goofy on many
levels. Some of the goofy things in the PS texts get a lot of attention,
but there`s really a small number of issues in those texts that are
actually contentious, or that have earned the "goofy" descriptor given the
amount of material in them. The majority of the material in those texts is
good, helpful information--or at least it does no harm, even the goofy
bits. There are certainly some things in those texts that have attracted a
lot of ire and often make very little sense, but there are many more goofy
and contentious things in the Rulebook than in all the PS texts
combined. In this case, the issue of BR dwarves eating rock and stone is
something that some people in the past have expressed a strong disklike for
(not me, I kind of like it) but in this thread it seems to be an accepted
fact, so even the "goofy" description itself isn`t so easy to apply.
I`d also suggest that it`s not a logical assumption that any attempts at
rationalizing things like dwarf biology and agriculture will in any way
address the goofy aspects of the PS texts or other supplemental
material. In fact, there`s no connection between the two efforts. If
someone were to list the goofy things in the PS texts, I don`t think any of
them are related to this particular issue, nor any of the issues of basic
"realities" of biology and cultures. Rationales and "scientific"
descriptions of such things are just as likely to lead to strange
interpretations and additions. The dwarf ability to eat rocks is exactly
that kind of rationalization required for an underground city, and such
rationales are exactly the kind of thing that many people find implausible.
In reality, the goofiness of the PS texts and other supplemental materials
are simply some occasional bad writing based on some (strange, out of
character, unusually) bad ideas or some slipshod editing, and none would
have been prevented or even influenced by the kind of thinking on how
campaign material should be developed as has been presented
here. Establishing a basic framework for rationalizing the size and growth
of cities based on a fantastic reality would not influence whether or not a
human is put in charge of Tuarhieval or a dwarf thane turns into a hirsute
rock spirit. It wouldn`t prevent the appearance of a monkey god who
traipses in and out of Kaltharak under the rocky nose of the Gorgon with
Anuirean heirlooms in tow. Such material will not help in dealing with the
vagaries of the PS texts like Holy Avengers for paladins that don`t exist,
or access to metals that can be used to arm entire units with much more
effective weapons. Some more rational and logical thinking in the maps
contained in such materials is certainly welcome, but it`s far from the
panacea that`s being suggested, and something that will in the end have
very little impact on actual play.
That`s not to say no one should bother. I think we should bother. I
_like_ bothering. In the previous post I wrote up substantial points
regarding how this particular issue should be addressed. I`m just not
convinced that it`s the kind of thing that will really make that much of a
difference to any more than a small number of people in the long run.
>You are dangerously close to the "they aren`t as smart as I am, so give em
>garbage, they won`t know the difference" theory of supliment production.
>Please, back away from the edge. Lets produce quality products.
After a brief flirtation with conformity, I`m pleased to report that I
jumped off the "I`m smarter than everyone else" cliff a long, long time
ago. Thanks to the resulting freefall I am thankfully free to write
material that reaches as high as I`m inclined rather than to give anyone
garbage.... However, I would describe the previous post`s text as
recognizing that most people aren`t as interested in the things I`m
interested in, and I realize I shouldn`t try to impose my style and
interests on others not only because it won`t have the results you`re
suggesting, but also because it isn`t what people want in their campaign
material.
There`s a wide gulf between developing this material for the purpose of
designing a campaign world and actually putting such material into the
published materials. I think it`s an admirable effort, but it`s not really
necessary--at least, I`ve never heard of anyone doing so and winding up
with campaign material that was any more successful than any other
material. The impact such things have on the final result is also, at
best, negligible.
Gary
-
09-24-2003, 11:21 PM #30
In the end, it is all a matter of scrutiny... In my (non-cerillian) campaign, I made a table that gives the chance lycanthropes have of having lycanthropic offspring based on biological findings concerning inherent afflictions, like hemorofilia (I am not sure if I spelled that right...) and daltonism (colour-blindness in red and green; other colour-blindnesses are a bit more confusing).
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks