Gheallie Sidhe Units

[ConjurerDragon]

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

[Osprey]

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 ;-)

Maybe more like little earth elementals.

Seriously, though, even though BR doesn&#39;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

[RaspK_FOG]

Say, would that need of us to propose similar compositions for other races as well? Elves, for example, would be more air (-headed; :P )/water (artistic) creatures than anything else.

[geeman]

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

[kgauck]

----- 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

[RaspK_FOG]

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&#33;

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".

[Osprey]

I&#39;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

[kgauck]

----- 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

[geeman]

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

[RaspK_FOG]

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).