On Tue, 20 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:

> As I understand the rules, and they are admittedly a pretty poor collection
> of rules as these things go, a Namer cannot dissipate Curses. I believe the
> intention of the game designers was pretty clear, i.e. Curses were designed
> to be Removed by that ritual, not Dissipated.

I find your argument to be persuasive on this point.

> It is a matter of some surprise to me that you might seriously entertain the
> notion that Namers might Dissipate a Curse. I believe it to be an excercise
> in rules law to say that it was a reasonable interpretation of the ruleset,
> however unstated that ruleset is on the matter.

This may be our fundamental difference; it appears that you hold
"rules law" in low esteem. I understand your position, and will
not seek to engage you in discussions of rules in the future.

[snip]

> The concept isn't. Your banal and bleating posts are, however, hard to
> endure with anything like cogeniality.

I apologize for having bothered you. It was not my intention to
annoy you, but simply to engage in a polite and rational debate.
Let this be the last post on the matter. (Right, Todd?)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mason <MasonD@ames.vic.edu.au>


I havn't seen them get to very high level, how come they are so
overwhelming?
Their cast chances don't *seem* too high and the chance to disbelive seems a
balencing force...
It has seemed to be a very flexible collage where creative players can
accomplish a great deal, But a creative player will get more than the
obvious out of any collage.

1) The MA requirement to join the college is 10, the second lowest in the
game (Namers require three). This means that character points can be spent
on other stats.
2) The Special Knowledge of the College is based around learning
combinations of the General Knowledge illusion spells, and the Rank of the
Special Knowledge combination is determined by the average Rank of the
General Knowledge illusions. This means that when a Special Knowledge
illusion is learnt, it starts with some significant Rank.
3) The total cost of the General Knowledge illusion spells, visual through
to tactile, is 900 EM, modifiable down to 450. That means it costs as little
as 94,500 ep to advance from Rank 0, to Rank 20. In all Illusions, not just
General Knowledge. Yes, the Illusionist has to pay 600 ep per combination,
but that's a pretty minor cost in the scheme of things, and you don't need
all the combinations.
4) The Illusionist may get 33 points of bonuses, external to the College
itself, 35 if the character is an Elf. MA (Purified) greater than 15, WP
greater than 15, and Rank in Troubadour. The greatest penalty that can be
applied as a result of a combination is 15, and the lowest base chance is
Tactile illusion, which means that a high stat character might have a cast
chance of 28%-30%....Without including Spell Ranks, or Rituals of
Enchantment.
5) Illusions do not have a passive saving throw, which means that characters
must choose to disbelieve. Although it doesn't seem to take any particular
action to do so, the fact that it isn't passive means that they don't get a
chance against it when they don't realise it's there. Admittedly, they don't
change the game setting in any way, but if a Special Knowledge combination
has a tactile component, and a primary sense component, then it can cause
damage and kill.
6) The size of Illusions rapidly becomes huge. They cover one man-sized
object per Rank, or Rank number of objects of that size or less...If the
illusion is something like a pack of dogs or a small horde of skeletons,
that's pretty nasty.
7) PC is often the lowest stat a character starts with, particularly since
you can't assign it character points. At lower levels, illusions are more
dangerous, even if you successfully work out that you're up against an
illusion.
8) Illusions attack the wrong part of the game. As a GM, you are in the
business of describing the world to your players. They depend on the
information that you give them as being the 'bedrock', if you like, of what
is real. An illusion is an instance of where the GM must lie to the players,
and give them wrong information. It is, in my opinion, an unfair attack
against the players. They cannot know that they're facing an illusion,
unless you give them clues that it is, and then it depends on how clever
they are. Cleverness is not a measure of how good a roleplayer someone is,
nor how entertaining they are. Not that I'd like to have players that are
thick, mind you...
9) An Illusionist can spontaneously come up with more varieties of magic
than any other College. Even Molecular Rearrangement can be limited by the
Mind mages 'character knowledge' ('No, you don't know how to make gunpowder,
methane, cyanide...They haven't been invented, yet'). This can lead to a
major headaches when running the game. Sure, any College, imaginatively
played, can do the same, but none can as cheaply, or with as little effort.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

What do the asterisks mean? Are they comments found in this document, or are
they inserted from elsewhere?

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Cameron King <hacking@ucdavis.edu>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Friday, April 23, 1999 2:18 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: [dqn-list] minor curse removal cost ?

>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 mortdemuerte@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> I've been reading through the section on Greater Summoners, and I can't

find a rule which states that a demon may be generally dismissed by having
the CS47 counterspell cast upon it. There are numerous references to
the -Summoner- of the devil, imp, incubus, etc. being able to dismiss it
with a counterspell, but I couldn't find anything to indicate that those who
didn't summon the demon could do the same thing. Is this just a house rule
you instituted (a good one, I think), or am I missing something in my
skimming? A specific reference would be useful, since I will probably have
a Greater Summoner PC in a party soon, and I'd like to have my ammunition
ready, just in case. :)

>
>In Ares #13, Gerry Klug (one of the game's creators) wrote an
>article in which he attempted to answer some of the questions
>readers had about the College of Greater Summonings. The
>relevant text was: "Counterspells, as they relate to the
>College of Greater Summonings, are used as a form of
>banishment. When a General Knowledge Counterspell is cast
>over an Imp, Devil, Succubi, Incubi, or Hero *by the Adept
>who either was granted the companion or summoned the entity,*
>that entity or companion is banished back to the dimension
>from whence it came. A counterspell cast by anyone else will
>have no effect whatsoever. If a Special Knowledge
>Counterspell is cast over a Summoned Demon by *anyone,* that
>Demon is banished back to the plane from whence it came.
>Thus Namers become important individuals in the control of
>the demon world on this plane. It should be emphasized here
>that counterspells can only be *passively* resisted, and it
>is up to the GM to decide which Demons, once summoned to
>this plane, will resist being sent back."
>
>I hope this clears things up for you.
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
>Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

JMorona:

What you are forgetting is the fact that those who dabble in the black arts
are tainted by them . . . their souls become darker, whether they wish it or
no. The cliche "Good intentions pave the road to hell" is rooted in truth.
When a character grasps the tail of the tiger, he no longer is in complete
control of his destiny, as the powers move him in ways that are not apparent
to him by allowing him to believe that he is in control . . . they use him,
twist him over time. Consider the nature of drug or alcohol addiction . . .
others notice the change long before the individual himself perceives it.

GMs who don't consider this are likely to be wearing rose-colored glasses . .
.

The ability to summon devils and demons to teach characters (and other party
members) skills and special knowledge spells at top ranks is incredibly
powerful, not to mention abusive. It's all relative to the GM's prowess at
controlling the course of events, limiting and balancing . . . but in the
end, still abusive and unbalanced when compared to the other colleges.

I would like to see the "good" Necromancer . . . an oxymoron if ever I have
heard one. In the beginning, such a character may have all the best
intentions, but over time, if one plays it correctly and the GM is skillful,
that character's personality should begin to show signs of strain, cracks
should appear, as he embraces the dark powers and eschews the light.
Anything less would be unrealistic. At the very least, the PC should be in a
constant state of internal struggle as he attempts to maintain his control.

Those who sell their souls to the dark powers should NEVER be considered
good. They represent individuals who would sacrifice their very "humanity"
for an opportunity to master the black arts. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
History has shown that very few tyrants believe themselves to be bad
people----in many cases, they see themselves as only doing what they must,
for the good of all. I would argue that those who hold truck with the forces
of darkness are no less deluded . . .

Just one GM's humble opinion.

M. Andre Vancrown

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999, Kim Chee wrote:

> The main problem is that you have to choose to disbelieve, its not
> automatic.

Does anybody else allow CS38G and/or CS38S to increase the subject's
chance of disbelieving? The way I do it is this: CS38G increases
the subject's chance of *consciously* disbelieving any College of
Illusions magic (except Flash of Light, which it simply increases
the chance of passively resisting). CS38S, however, creates a Base
Chance of 30 (+3 per Rank) of *automatically* disbelieving College
of Illusions magic.

Thus, a character with a PC of 8 and CS38G/5 cast over him (or the
area in which he is standing) has a ([4.0 x 8] + 30 + [3 x 5]) 77%
chance of consciously disbelieving a Rank 0-1 illusion. The same
character with CS38S/2 cast over him would have a (30 + [3 x 2])
36% chance of automatically disbelieving it.

Automatic disbelief does not require a Pass Action, of course,
but may be attempted only once--the first time (after CS38S has
been cast) that the subject perceives the illusion; if it fails
at that time, only conscious disbelief may be attempted by that
particular subject with regard to that particular illusion. If
our hypothetical character (see above) had *both* counterspells
affecting him concurrently, he would have a Base Chance of 36
to automatically detect an illusion; if that failed, he might
still attempt to consciously disbelieve every Pulse until he is
successful.

So what does everybody think of that?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: S Peter Cordner <mean_liar@hotmail.com>

>>The reason I think alignments are a good thing...
>
> I agree
>with you regarding fleshing out characters, but I'd say my biggest
>draw to them (not big enough -- I still don't use them) is that it
>helps to remind the players that they're heroes. This is also the
>biggest drawback -- they should make that decision about their
>character without a rule to guide them.

Well, I don't think that a game has to have an alignment system to make it a
good one. All I really mean is that a stated alignment gives a player a sort
of line in the sand, over which they won't cross. It's just handy.

>As far as
>alignments go, do you prefer DnD over Palladium? I always considered
>the alignments from Palladium their only saving grace, and a little
>more archetypal (and hence more usable, IMO).

Yes, I do like the Palladium alignment system. It gives players a definite
set of ethical and moral guidelines down which they can proceed. The various
TSR products haven't really developed alignments the way it could be done,
and Palladium offers an easy way to look at that kind of characterisation.
It's easy to understand, and concise.

>
><snip description of devils and Succubi/incubi>
>
>>These are pretty powerful abilities, really, and may invalidate some
>types of player character types. Which is sad, really. Players should
>feel they are special in some way, rather than overshadowed by another
>players associates.
>
>This is really the only reason I have a problem with the College, and
>the way I see it, its biggest flaw.

I agree. At the end of the day, the reason we run games is to provide
players with the opportunity to feel special about their character. I think
Summoners attack that part of the game, and I'm not a fan of it.

>As a side topic, does anyone actually ever summon a Hero? Just
>wondering.
>

Yes, this was done a few times. The trouble with summoning Heroes is that
you don't really have any idea what you're dealing with...What should Arthur
Pendragon's stats and skills be, for example...
One of the less appealing things, from a game master's point of view, is
summoning Sherlock Holmes to solve a mystery...
Whodunnit games are some of the hardest games to put together, and here is a
Ritual designed to turn it upside down...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

M. Andre Vancrown.

I would like to see the "good" Necromancer . . . an oxymoron if ever
I have
heard one. In the beginning, such a character may have all the best
intentions, but over time, if one plays it correctly and the GM is
skillful,
that character's personality should begin to show signs of strain,
cracks
should appear, as he embraces the dark powers and eschews the light.

Anything less would be unrealistic. At the very least, the PC should
be in a
constant state of internal struggle as he attempts to maintain his
control.

-Our current group has what can be termed as a ' good' necromancer.
Setting has a sort of Egyptian feel with death, and events after the
body ceases functioning, seen as very important. The character is a
skilled courtesan, but not the loud or brash sort, more a teller of
stories and a revered, perhaps ,unjustly feared, advisor. He is
vehemently opposed to Set ('evil') and his servants. He does
create/summon undead but mostly from the bones of long dead or
criminals and such who pay for their crimes in life by doing things
for the 'good' of the people in their death/undeath. character has
been in existence for 3 years or so. (In slight agreement with what
you said if he starts to summon greater undead, which he has not yet
done, it may be that strains/cracks may appear in his character).
His third major skill is as a ranger (desert) specialist ,as the
harsh terrain and ease of death in such regions seem to fit well with
his necromantic nature. He doesn't carry weapons and has never even
hinted at killing a creature just to be able to create some emergency
undead for example.

This is my first post to the dqn-list having just been a browser for
the few weeks I have been subscribed. hope I didn't do wrong. The
current campaign started off which the Sethotopec DQ module from
Imagine magazine and has kept the same theme/setting since.

regards

John
Nottingham, England
DQ-er since 1983.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: VancrownX@aol.com <VancrownX@aol.com>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Friday, April 23, 1999 11:40 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Greater Summoners

>JMorona:
>
>What you are forgetting is the fact that those who dabble in the black arts
>are tainted by them . . . their souls become darker, whether they wish it

or

>no. The cliche "Good intentions pave the road to hell" is rooted in truth.
>When a character grasps the tail of the tiger, he no longer is in complete
>control of his destiny, as the powers move him in ways that are not

apparent

>to him by allowing him to believe that he is in control . . . they use him,
>twist him over time. Consider the nature of drug or alcohol addiction . .

.

>others notice the change long before the individual himself perceives it.
>
>GMs who don't consider this are likely to be wearing rose-colored glasses .

.

>.
>
>The ability to summon devils and demons to teach characters (and other

party

>members) skills and special knowledge spells at top ranks is incredibly
>powerful, not to mention abusive. It's all relative to the GM's prowess at
>controlling the course of events, limiting and balancing . . . but in the
>end, still abusive and unbalanced when compared to the other colleges.

This is true. If nothing else, a Summoner can have a pretty wide range of
skills at very little ep and time cost. I agree that it is abusive.

>
>I would like to see the "good" Necromancer . . . an oxymoron if ever I have
>heard one. In the beginning, such a character may have all the best
>intentions, but over time, if one plays it correctly and the GM is

skillful,

>that character's personality should begin to show signs of strain, cracks
>should appear, as he embraces the dark powers and eschews the light.
>Anything less would be unrealistic. At the very least, the PC should be in

a

>constant state of internal struggle as he attempts to maintain his control.
>
>Those who sell their souls to the dark powers should NEVER be considered
>good. They represent individuals who would sacrifice their very "humanity"
>for an opportunity to master the black arts. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
>History has shown that very few tyrants believe themselves to be bad
>people----in many cases, they see themselves as only doing what they must,
>for the good of all. I would argue that those who hold truck with the

forces

>of darkness are no less deluded . . .

While in general I agree with Mr VanCrown's view, there are some parts of it
that I take issue with.
If a player want's to take a character that is a Necromancer who is
committed to the idea of protecting the rest of the dead, say, or the
destruction of the undead, then I'd doubt that I'd have an objection. It
sounds like an interesting kind of character.
My issue with the above is that it suggests the game master must take pains
to subvert the stated will of the player, about their chosen character type,
and all I can see that good for is breeding ill will. Where possible, and if
it doesn't interfere with the game, a player should have the kind of
character that they want. If it is important to your campaign that the
entire Entity branch of magic not be available to players, then I suggest
that it is better to say so, right up front.
Offering players temptations is something that game masters must always be
doing, regardless of college. Or, in fact, any other consideration.
Of course, I may have misunderstood this post, entirely.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Cameron King <hacking@ucdavis.edu>

>
>Automatic disbelief does not require a Pass Action, of course,
>but may be attempted only once--the first time (after CS38S has
>been cast) that the subject perceives the illusion; if it fails
>at that time, only conscious disbelief may be attempted by that
>particular subject with regard to that particular illusion. If
>our hypothetical character (see above) had *both* counterspells
>affecting him concurrently, he would have a Base Chance of 36
>to automatically detect an illusion; if that failed, he might
>still attempt to consciously disbelieve every Pulse until he is
>successful.

I like the first part, I.e. the automatic disbelief thingie...And I like the
way a character can consciously disbelieve by taking a pass action. They
seem like good ideas.
I don't know about the counterspells. I'd have to think about it some more,
I suppose.
On the plus side, it gives some value to Illusion college counterspells, on
the downside, it makes Illusionists pretty pathetic toward the top end of
the game. Not that these are necessarily bad things. I think I'll have to
put a bit more effort into thinking about it.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Cameron King <hacking@ucdavis.edu>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Friday, April 23, 1999 11:40 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Greater Summoners

>On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:
>
>> The players that took Summoners never, to my knowledge, summoned Demons

when

>> they were adventuring. They would summon them when they were in a safe
>> place, surrounded by their allies, and ask for servants, like devils.

This

>> is a fairly standard gift that many Demons provide, and the chance is
>> providing such an entity is listed next to their chance of being

summoned.

>> Aside from the range of their immunities and their native abilities as
>> denizens of the Seventh plane, devils have Rank 10 in all magic of their
>> college.
>
>Actually, according to 47.7, they "exercise their Skills at Rank 15
>and magic powers at Rank 20." (I hope you don't construe this
>correction as "rules law," Jim! I'm just trying to help...)

Um, I'm referring to devils, here. Their stats are given in 47.3, after the
entry for imps.

>
>The one problem I see with Demons concerns the Ritual of Investment.
>Assuming that Demons know ALL the magic of their respective Colleges,
>they can (in just one hour) Invest any item of the summoner's choice
>with 20 charges of any spell of that College! The thought of my
>players running around with 20 Spells of Dragon Flames at Rank 20
>(525-foot range, D+81 damage [resist for half])...well, it ain't
>pretty. The only way around the problem I can see is to rule that
>Demons get pretty annoyed being summoned for such petty trifles,
>and will exact an enormous price for such services. (But then,
>that's the solution to pretty much everything they can do.)
>

Agreed. Although, if they're going to be choosing damage spells like that,
consider the effect of Whirlwing Vortex, or Hellfire...After all, you can
only kill them once...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

---Jim Arona <jimarona@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Mason <MasonD@ames.vic.edu.au>
>
>
> I havn't seen them get to very high level, how come they are so
> overwhelming?
> Their cast chances don't *seem* too high and the chance to disbelive

seems a

> balencing force...
> It has seemed to be a very flexible collage where creative players can
> accomplish a great deal, But a creative player will get more than the
> obvious out of any collage.
>
> 1) The MA requirement to join the college is 10, the second lowest

in the

> game (Namers require three). This means that character points can be

spent

> on other stats.

And they better be spent mostly on Willpower, because an illusionist
with low willpower is doomed

> 2) The Special Knowledge of the College is based around learning
> combinations of the General Knowledge illusion spells, and the Rank

of the

> Special Knowledge combination is determined by the average Rank of the
> General Knowledge illusions. This means that when a Special Knowledge
> illusion is learnt, it starts with some significant Rank.
> 3) The total cost of the General Knowledge illusion spells, visual

through

> to tactile, is 900 EM, modifiable down to 450. That means it costs

as little

> as 94,500 ep to advance from Rank 0, to Rank 20. In all Illusions,

not just

> General Knowledge. Yes, the Illusionist has to pay 600 ep per

combination,

> but that's a pretty minor cost in the scheme of things, and you

don't need

> all the combinations.

That must be how I did it, Illusionists in my game had to pay 600 exp
as a *Multiplier* to rank in combined illusions, which could never be
higher than the lowest of the individual combined illusions. So the
illusionist has to rank his basic illusions AND his combinations in
my game. I never considered doing it the other way.

> 5) Illusions do not have a passive saving throw, which means that

characters

> must choose to disbelieve. Although it doesn't seem to take any

particular

> action to do so, the fact that it isn't passive means that they

don't get a

> chance against it when they don't realise it's there. Admittedly,

they don't

> change the game setting in any way, but if a Special Knowledge

combination

> has a tactile component, and a primary sense component, then it can

cause

> damage and kill.

This is also a great drawback, because if a caster gets known to be an
illusionist, the gig is up, noone will believe anything he casts and
he will become effectively useless, magically. It becomes more
important for an illusionist to maintain that secret than anything
else, and the chance that it will be known INCREASES as the character
gets famous. Great source of blackmail against a powerfull, well known
mage who the locals don't know is an illusionist.

> 6) The size of Illusions rapidly becomes huge. They cover one

man-sized

> object per Rank, or Rank number of objects of that size or less...If

the

> illusion is something like a pack of dogs or a small horde of

skeletons,

> that's pretty nasty.

Depends how you define 'illusion' and 'range'. An illusion can either
be a 'real' projection in space or it could be all in the observers
mind. In the case of 'projection' then range would be the size of
the illusion and how far away it could be cast. But anyone who could
normally see/hear/smell/feel a real version of what the illusion is
depicting would be able to percieve the illusion. If its all in the
mind, then range is the limit at which the illusionist can trick
observers minds.
And observers who have mindshields up or have very alien minds should
be immune to it. I have played it both ways in games, and never had a
problem.

> 7) PC is often the lowest stat a character starts with, particularly

since

> you can't assign it character points. At lower levels, illusions are

more

> dangerous, even if you successfully work out that you're up against an
> illusion.

Unless you use a contest of willpower vs willpower as an alternate
chance to disbelieve.

> 8) Illusions attack the wrong part of the game. As a GM, you are in

the

> business of describing the world to your players. They depend on the
> information that you give them as being the 'bedrock', if you like,

of what

> is real. An illusion is an instance of where the GM must lie to the

players,

> and give them wrong information. It is, in my opinion, an unfair

attack

> against the players. They cannot know that they're facing an illusion,
> unless you give them clues that it is, and then it depends on how

clever

> they are. Cleverness is not a measure of how good a roleplayer

someone is,

> nor how entertaining they are. Not that I'd like to have players

that are

> thick, mind you...

The whole game is an illusion, all in the player's minds. The GM
should never tell them what is actually there, just what they
see/hear/smell/taste/feel, which is usually what is actually there,
but not always. They get false or misleading information regularly,
unless your game never includes ambushes; the weird old man who
turns out NOT to be a vampire, just an old kook; or the King's
trusted Steward who is really plotting his overthrow.

> 9) An Illusionist can spontaneously come up with more varieties of

magic

> than any other College. Even Molecular Rearrangement can be limited

by the

> Mind mages 'character knowledge' ('No, you don't know how to make

gunpowder,

> methane, cyanide...They haven't been invented, yet'). This can lead

to a

> major headaches when running the game. Sure, any College,

imaginatively

> played, can do the same, but none can as cheaply, or with as little

effort.
I would argue that illusionists are also limited by this. If they
have never seen a 747 or a Sherman Tank, they certainly cannot
reproduce one.

Also remember that an illusionist's magic has no real effects. The
party cannot be flown to safety by the illusionist making them think
they are flying, as an air mage can do for real. He cannot make an
illusionary fire keep them warm, or make illusionary food that will
actually feed them. His powers are all flash and no substance. A
person can be made to think he is dead and so die, but his body has
taken no damage and so is easy to heal. If you run a game where
noone dies until he goes below 0hp and everyone passes out at 0hp,
then he can't even kill! His powers can also be useless against
things with no mind or insufficient to be able to perceive illusions,
like skeletons, zombies, golems, really stupid animals (Giant
Ambeoba), etc.

It all depends on the GM as does everything in a game.

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:

> What do the asterisks mean? Are they comments found in this document, or are
> they inserted from elsewhere?

I apologize for the confusion; the asterisks are a Usenet convention
indicating emphasis (usually, italic typeface). In this case, the
words between asterisks were italicized in the original document.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Hi john, It seems like you've found a way to make a good necromancer :). Just
as a FYI we are just about to start a new campaign and the Egyptian DQ module
is set (pardon my pun) to be our starting point. BTW do you know where I can
find a copy of the DQ Issue (7 I think) of Imagine for sale.
--Geoff

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Re: jrda@WPO.NERC.AC.UK writes:

John:

Sounds like a wonderful character/campaign. Dabbling in the black arts isn't
the same as giving one's self over to them . . . I think the character is a
fine example of great roleplaying . . . dancing along the gray areas . . .

Thanks for the post!

M. Andre Vancrown



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>
>>As a side topic, does anyone actually ever summon a Hero? Just
>>wondering.

A fun adventure I ran several years back involved the actual party being
the "heros" summoned to help out another group that was in trouble. There
was a summoner in the group at the time so people were aware of the spell
although they had never used it themselves before. Everybody really liked
the idea that they were the hero's being summoned to help someone else.
All in all it went very well.


Jason Winter
Alarian@uswest.net
http://www.darkrealms.com/~alarian/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

FYI:

Anyone looking for the three mini-modules (including Sethotep by Graeme
Davis) published in Imagine magazine can find them in zipped files at:

http://home.att.net/%7Eaescylus/dq/adventures.htm
<http://home.att.net/%7Eaescylus/dq/adventures.htm>


John F. Rauchert, Co-moderator

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:

> 1) The MA requirement to join the college is 10, the second lowest in the
> game (Namers require three). This means that character points can be spent
> on other stats.

I see this a lot, so I'm taking the opportunity to inform the masses.
Section 97 of the Arcane Wisdom supplement (never actually published)
clarified several rules about magic, including the MA requirements.
Ritual Cleansing and Ritual Spell Preparation do *not* count toward
the total number of spells and rituals under Rank 6 a character may
know. The MA requirement is simply (GK Spells + GK Rituals + 2
Counterspells). Hence, Illusionists have an MA requirement of 8,
not 10. Namers have either no MA requirement at all (the literal
interpretation of 34.7) or a mere 1 (probably the more reasonable
interpretation).

In other words:
COLLEGE MA
Ensorcelments & Enchantments 15
Sorceries of the Mind 10
Illusions 8
Naming Incantations 1
Air Magics 12
Water Magics 17
Fire Magics 11
Earth Magics 14
Celestial Magics 13
Necromantic Conjurations 14
Black Magics 17
Greater Summonings 8
Lesser Summonings 18
Rune Magics 17
Shaping Magics 18



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, John Koch wrote:

>> 5) Illusions do not have a passive saving throw, which means that
>> characters must choose to disbelieve. Although it doesn't seem to
>> take any particular action to do so, the fact that it isn't passive
>> means that they don't get a chance against it when they don't
>> realise it's there. Admittedly, they don't change the game setting
>> in any way, but if a Special Knowledge combination has a tactile
>> component, and a primary sense component, then it can cause damage
>> and kill.

> This is also a great drawback, because if a caster gets known to be an
> illusionist, the gig is up, noone will believe anything he casts and
> he will become effectively useless, magically. It becomes more
> important for an illusionist to maintain that secret than anything
> else, and the chance that it will be known INCREASES as the character
> gets famous. Great source of blackmail against a powerfull, well known
> mage who the locals don't know is an illusionist.

It's not much of a drawback, really. Suspecting that what you are
seeing is an illusion only adds 5 to your chance of disbelieving.

[snip]

> Depends how you define 'illusion' and 'range'. An illusion can either
> be a 'real' projection in space or it could be all in the observers
> mind. In the case of 'projection' then range would be the size of
> the illusion and how far away it could be cast. But anyone who could
> normally see/hear/smell/feel a real version of what the illusion is
> depicting would be able to percieve the illusion. If its all in the
> mind, then range is the limit at which the illusionist can trick
> observers minds.

While there is room for disagreement, I think the rules strongly
imply that all Illusions are what you term "projections." Note
that all Illusion spells *create* stimuli (they do not "cause a
target to perceive" stimuli). Further, there is no mention of a
"target" or even that the spells "affect all entities within
range." The spell itself does not affect anyone or anything,
you see--others *react* to it. Lastly, Illusionists gain a bonus
or suffer a penalty based on their Willpower; the victim's WP is
irrelevant, however--unlike the College of Sorceries of the Mind,
which *is* concerned with mental manipulation of sentient beings.

Of course, you should run your game however you like.

[snip]

> The whole game is an illusion, all in the player's minds. The GM
> should never tell them what is actually there, just what they
> see/hear/smell/taste/feel, which is usually what is actually there,
> but not always. They get false or misleading information regularly,
> unless your game never includes ambushes; the weird old man who
> turns out NOT to be a vampire, just an old kook; or the King's
> trusted Steward who is really plotting his overthrow.

I agree whole-heartedly.

> Also remember that an illusionist's magic has no real effects. The
> party cannot be flown to safety by the illusionist making them think
> they are flying, as an air mage can do for real. He cannot make an
> illusionary fire keep them warm, or make illusionary food that will
> actually feed them. His powers are all flash and no substance. A
> person can be made to think he is dead and so die, but his body has
> taken no damage and so is easy to heal. If you run a game where
> noone dies until he goes below 0hp and everyone passes out at 0hp,
> then he can't even kill! His powers can also be useless against
> things with no mind or insufficient to be able to perceive illusions,
> like skeletons, zombies, golems, really stupid animals (Giant
> Ambeoba), etc.

Again, you're right on. But what's a Hit Point? ;)



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

FYI:

Sections 92,93,94,95,and 97 of Arcane Wisdom are also available in PDF
format at:

http://home.att.net/%7Eaescylus/dq/GM.htm

John F. Rauchert, co-moderator

-----Original Message-----
From: D. Cameron King [mailto:hacking@ucdavis.edu]
Sent: April 23, 1999 6:06 PM
To: dqn-list@egroups.com
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Rewritten Illusion College


Section 97 of the Arcane Wisdom supplement (never actually
published)
clarified several rules about magic, including the MA
requirements.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: John Koch <jdkoch@rocketmail.com>
Illusionists:

>They had better be spent mostly on Willpower, because an illusionist
>with low willpower is doomed
>

Well, they don't need to, you know. They don't have terribly low base
chances. If they want good ones, then high WP is a good idea.
And, of course, high WP has other benefits, as well. More Magic Resistance,
better chance of coming out of Stun, much easier to resist fear attacks,
etc...

>> 2) The Special Knowledge of the College is based around learning
>> combinations of the General Knowledge illusion spells, and the Rank
>of the
>> Special Knowledge combination is determined by the average Rank of the
>> General Knowledge illusions. This means that when a Special Knowledge
>> illusion is learnt, it starts with some significant Rank.
>> 3) The total cost of the General Knowledge illusion spells, visual
>through
>> to tactile, is 900 EM, modifiable down to 450. That means it costs
>as little
>> as 94,500 ep to advance from Rank 0, to Rank 20. In all Illusions,
>not just
>> General Knowledge. Yes, the Illusionist has to pay 600 ep per
>combination,
>> but that's a pretty minor cost in the scheme of things, and you
>don't need
>> all the combinations.
>That must be how I did it, Illusionists in my game had to pay 600 exp
>as a *Multiplier* to rank in combined illusions, which could never be
>higher than the lowest of the individual combined illusions. So the
>illusionist has to rank his basic illusions AND his combinations in
>my game. I never considered doing it the other way.

I have never considered this way. Mind you, I don't think it's a bad way.
What lead you to interpret it this way?

>
>> 5) Illusions do not have a passive saving throw, which means that
>characters
>> must choose to disbelieve. Although it doesn't seem to take any
>particular
>> action to do so, the fact that it isn't passive means that they
>don't get a
>> chance against it when they don't realise it's there. Admittedly,
>they don't
>> change the game setting in any way, but if a Special Knowledge
>combination
>> has a tactile component, and a primary sense component, then it can
>cause
>> damage and kill.
>This is also a great drawback, because if a caster gets known to be an
>illusionist, the gig is up, noone will believe anything he casts and
>he will become effectively useless, magically. It becomes more
>important for an illusionist to maintain that secret than anything
>else, and the chance that it will be known INCREASES as the character
>gets famous. Great source of blackmail against a powerfull, well known
>mage who the locals don't know is an illusionist.

It's hardly any kind of drawback at all, really.Knowing something is an
illusion is no source of comfort at all when it's tearing your throat out.

>
>> 6) The size of Illusions rapidly becomes huge. They cover one
>man-sized
>> object per Rank, or Rank number of objects of that size or less...If
>the
>> illusion is something like a pack of dogs or a small horde of
>skeletons,
>> that's pretty nasty.
>Depends how you define 'illusion' and 'range'. An illusion can either
>be a 'real' projection in space or it could be all in the observers
>mind. In the case of 'projection' then range would be the size of
>the illusion and how far away it could be cast. But anyone who could
>normally see/hear/smell/feel a real version of what the illusion is
>depicting would be able to percieve the illusion. If its all in the
>mind, then range is the limit at which the illusionist can trick
>observers minds.

The standard interpretation is that it is a projection. Let's stick with
that, shall we. The other has other pros and cons, and is just as tough. If
you were using it as an argument about a limitation to the player, then the
only way that would apply would be if you kept changing this interpretation
on players.

>And observers who have mindshields up or have very alien minds should
>be immune to it. I have played it both ways in games, and never had a
>problem.

Again, only if you assume it is some kind of mental invasion. And even if it
is, only two colleges get Mind Cloak, and they're self only spells...

>> 7) PC is often the lowest stat a character starts with, particularly
>since
>> you can't assign it character points. At lower levels, illusions are
>more
>> dangerous, even if you successfully work out that you're up against an
>> illusion.
>Unless you use a contest of willpower vs willpower as an alternate
>chance to disbelieve.
>

The point is, you would have to do something like it to balance the college.
What you seem to be saying is that the Illusion College is fine, if you make
a few adjustments to the game. I don't have an objection to doing so, but I
don't see this as a refutation of the initial point. Illusionists, as
written, are not a great college.

>> 8) Illusions attack the wrong part of the game. As a GM, you are in
>the
>> business of describing the world to your players. They depend on the
>> information that you give them as being the 'bedrock', if you like,
>of what
>> is real. An illusion is an instance of where the GM must lie to the
>players,
>> and give them wrong information. It is, in my opinion, an unfair
>attack
>> against the players. They cannot know that they're facing an illusion,
>> unless you give them clues that it is, and then it depends on how
>clever
>> they are. Cleverness is not a measure of how good a roleplayer
>someone is,
>> nor how entertaining they are. Not that I'd like to have players
>that are
>> thick, mind you...

>The whole game is an illusion, all in the player's minds. The GM
>should never tell them what is actually there, just what they
>see/hear/smell/taste/feel, which is usually what is actually there,
>but not always. They get false or misleading information regularly,
>unless your game never includes ambushes; the weird old man who
>turns out NOT to be a vampire, just an old kook; or the King's
>trusted Steward who is really plotting his overthrow.
>

The players must trust the information you give them for over 99% of
occasions, otherwise they spend a lot of time expecting to be decieved.
Sometimes, rarely, you may be forced by the exigencies of your story to give
the players false information, and sometimes they may put a construction on
something you describe that you hadn't intended, and you let it lie.
If you only describe things that you think the players would sense, then
they miss out on the other information that would be an expectable part of
any interaction. Body language, for example, position in the room,
micro-momentary expressions, and other things of that nature.
As a game master, you're in the business of providing information. When you
clamp down on it, and only provide simple, sense based information, then you
distance the players from your game. They have less traction on the game
world, and they start to feel powerless.
Illusionists make people doubt the information the players give them. An
experienced player in our campaign said to me that he had never seen an
Illusionist who wasn't a good fighter, and a poor caster. I took it upon
myself to investigate why, and it turns out that most game masters won't use
high level Illusionists against parties, because they kill them so quickly,
and without much effort. The players believe you when you say the floor is
paved with stone for 50 or 60 paces. They don't know the truth until one or
two of them have stepped into the pit.

>> 9) An Illusionist can spontaneously come up with more varieties of
>magic
>> than any other College. Even Molecular Rearrangement can be limited
>by the
>> Mind mages 'character knowledge' ('No, you don't know how to make
>gunpowder,
>> methane, cyanide...They haven't been invented, yet'). This can lead
>to a
>> major headaches when running the game. Sure, any College,
>imaginatively
>> played, can do the same, but none can as cheaply, or with as little
>effort.
>I would argue that illusionists are also limited by this. If they
>have never seen a 747 or a Sherman Tank, they certainly cannot
>reproduce one.

They don't need to create Sherman tanks. They just need to create something
from their genre. And they can. Are you seriously suggesting that my point
isn't valid?

>
>Also remember that an illusionist's magic has no real effects. The
>party cannot be flown to safety by the illusionist making them think
>they are flying, as an air mage can do for real. He cannot make an
>illusionary fire keep them warm, or make illusionary food that will
>actually feed them.

A Namer can't do either of these things. It's still a usefull College to
have around.

> His powers are all flash and no substance. A
>person can be made to think he is dead and so die, but his body has
>taken no damage and so is easy to heal. If you run a game where
>noone dies until he goes below 0hp and everyone passes out at 0hp,
>then he can't even kill!

That is spurious, and the kind of argument that says that 'Enchanged Sleep'
is a pathetic spell, not the lethal hassle it really is. How much time does
it take to kill an unconscious foe? Bugger all, I would've thought. In
addition, you get to choose whether you want them alive or dead...

>His powers can also be useless against
>things with no mind or insufficient to be able to perceive illusions,
>like skeletons, zombies, golems, really stupid animals (Giant
>Ambeoba), etc.

Every variety of magic has some holes.I don't see these as being
signficantly justifiable ones, though.
I think the idea of the 600 EM for combinations is a good idea, though.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

> I see this a lot, so I'm taking the opportunity to inform the masses.
> Section 97 of the Arcane Wisdom supplement (never actually published)
> clarified several rules about magic, including the MA requirements.

[snip minimum MAs]

I calculate the minimum MA as written, but I also include a caveat. That
the absolute minimum, even for Namers, is 15 (culled from a Judges Guild
item). Sound good? Opinions?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: [DQN-list] Summoning Heros
X-Mailer: www.eGroups.com Message Poster
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <pid5527.1999.April.25.10:58.194534.@egroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 17:58:47 -0000
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.19990423160642.007cc7d0@pop.roch.uswest.net>
From: mortdemuerte@yahoo.com
To: dqn-list@egroups.com

<3.0.5.32.19990423160642.007cc7d-@pop.roch.uswest.net> wrote:
Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/dqn-list/?start=117

> >
> As a side topic, does anyone actually ever summon a Hero? Just
> wondering.

I've only ever seen it used once in the campaigns I've been in, and unfortunately, it was being used by the opposition. Actually, it was a mage duel between two Greater Summoners my party had both fought individually before. Having come to the conclusion that their little vendetta over ownership of a castle wasn't getting either of them anywhere, they apparently decided to settle the matter in a "civilized" manner by having their minions duel it out. Naturally, my party manages to blunder right into the middle of it. Anyway, getting back to the subject, one of the Summoners had summoned up Lancelot. When we realized who the guy in armor actually was, it was a pretty severe Maalox moment.

Now, I actually think the idea of the Summon Hero ritual is kind of cool. I wonder where the game creator's came up with the idea. It seems a strange sort of addition, though. Anyway, although I like the -idea- in principle, I don't know that it makes a lot of sense, really. For me, it usually sort of causes a suspension o'disbelief hiccup in the game world. I was wondering how people could justify Summoners knowing about heroes like, say, Sherlock Holmes, to use somebody's earlier example. Do GM's disallow non-fantasy based heroes? Do they assume that the Summoner's know about these heroes for the same reason they know the names and habits of other "extra-dimensional creatures" like demons, and just leave it at that? What would you do if a player wanted to summon Spider-Man? Or am I the only one who thinks about these thing...? :)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

One shot magic items of hero summoning are an easy way to introduce new PCs. Iknow its a cheap trick but hey - it works.

As a side topic, does anyone actually ever summon a Hero? Just
wondering.



______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

I did find Devil servent with magic too powerful and inconveniant, so I took magic off them. If "Demonologists" want magical servents, they have to settle for Imps.

>>> "D. Cameron King" <hacking@ucdavis.edu> 23/Apr/99 01:25:20 pm >>>
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:

> The players that took Summoners never, to my knowledge, summoned Demons when
> they were adventuring. They would summon them when they were in a safe
> place, surrounded by their allies, and ask for servants, like devils. This
> is a fairly standard gift that many Demons provide, and the chance is
> providing such an entity is listed next to their chance of being summoned.
> Aside from the range of their immunities and their native abilities as
> denizens of the Seventh plane, devils have Rank 10 in all magic of their
> college.

Actually, according to 47.7, they "exercise their Skills at Rank 15
and magic powers at Rank 20." (I hope you don't construe this
correction as "rules law," Jim! I'm just trying to help...)

The one problem I see with Demons concerns the Ritual of Investment.
Assuming that Demons know ALL the magic of their respective Colleges,
they can (in just one hour) Invest any item of the summoner's choice
with 20 charges of any spell of that College! The thought of my
players running around with 20 Spells of Dragon Flames at Rank 20
(525-foot range, D+81 damage [resist for half])...well, it ain't
pretty. The only way around the problem I can see is to rule that
Demons get pretty annoyed being summoned for such petty trifles,
and will exact an enormous price for such services. (But then,
that's the solution to pretty much everything they can do.)



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Rewritten Illusion College
X-Mailer: www.eGroups.com Message Poster
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <pid6513.1999.April.25.12:22.379717.@egroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 19:22:31 -0000
In-Reply-To: <19990423132728.26678.rocketmail@attach1.rocketmail.com>
From: mortdemuerte@yahoo.com
To: dqn-list@egroups.com

> Also remember that an illusionist's magic has no real effects. The
> party cannot be flown to safety by the illusionist making them think
> they are flying, as an air mage can do for real. He cannot make an
> illusionary fire keep them warm, or make illusionary food that will
> actually feed them. His powers are all flash and no substance. A
> person can be made to think he is dead and so die, but his body has
> taken no damage and so is easy to heal. If you run a game where
> noone dies until he goes below 0hp and everyone passes out at 0hp,
> then he can't even kill! His powers can also be useless against
> things with no mind or insufficient to be able to perceive illusions,
> like skeletons, zombies, golems, really stupid animals (Giant
> Ambeoba), etc.

Now this is how I usually understood Illusions to be. However, my GM and I have had a long standing debate on this point, and he used the following statement about the College of Illusions found in the unpublished Arcane Wisdom supplement as his philosophical foundation. On page 62, under Magic System Designer Notes, it says "In answer to the even present theoretical question, the illusions do actually exist; they are -not- simply inside the viewer's mind".

I have actually seen an Illusionist in his campaign use an illusionary Griffin to fly people to and fro. I've seen an illusory Giant used to move boulders. I've seen an illusionary raincloud put out a fire. So although I prefer your interpretation, you should be aware that technically speaking the "illusions" of this college -are- real, at least according to the original game designers.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Good necromancers (was Greater Summoners)
X-Mailer: www.eGroups.com Message Poster
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <pid8420.1999.April.25.12:09.641335.@egroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 1999 19:09:19 -0000
In-Reply-To: <d268efd4.245242af@aol.com>
From: mortdemuerte@yahoo.com
To: dqn-list@egroups.com

There's this debate about whether it's possible for an Entities mage to be good. Well, I'd have to agree that a good Summoner or a good Black mage is pretty much an oxymoron. A Black Mage is, by definition, someone who has sold their soul, the humanity, to a demon in return for power. Now, someone suggested that a character could do this to get power to do good. Well, um, no, I personally don't think so. Number one, you can't pull the wool over the eyes of immortal masters of deception. In a graphic novel "Starman:Wicked Inclination" I read, a demon makes a statement about soul-trading I think applies here pretty well. Demon: "That's a deal I can't accept. No demon can accept a soul tendered for a selfless reason. Think about it. When have you -ever- heard of someone offering their soul for the end of famine, or the end of war? No, people barter away that most precious thing they have... for a gain of some kind. The nearest it gets is when I've been offered a soul in exchange for the health of an ailing loved one, or the resurrection of a dead one. Though a noble gesture, it's still motivated by the selfish longing to be with that person again." Even if a character wanted to play such a selfless Black Mage, I don't think the demon could accept the soul. Perhaps the character's desire for selfless sacrifice could really hide a desire for the glory of martyrdom that the demon (GM) would use to corrupt them. At the very least, the Lesser or Greater Pact would include some injunctions about performing certain... unsavory acts on a regular basis or doing some task for the Master once ever month that would quite quickly stain the Black Mage indelibly evil. "I was just following orders" didn't cut it in Nuremburg, won't cut it anywhere else. The fact you work for Evil makes corruption inevitable. A Black Mage who tried to do good would probably find their Pact invalidated, and they'd loose all their power anyway.

For Greater Summoners, the issue is a little less clear. Ostensibly, the Greater Summoner is in control of the demon in this case, rather than the other way around. But I think a lot of good points have been made about the corrupting nature of dealing with demons which I can't add much to. If demons are played by the GM properly, the only person who can get much out of them is someone corrupted.

But for Necromancer, I don't think corruption is inevitable by any means. The key here is that Necromancers don't regularly deal with the Powers of Darkness, per se. They don't deal with demons. What they deal with is death and the dead. Is death intrinsically evil? No. As the old platitude goes, "Death is just part of life: the end". Are the dead evil? Some are. Some aren't. Kind of like the living, I guess. Is studying death intrinsically corrupting? Well, depends on what you're studying it for. If you're studying it out of a desire to escape death at all costs, or to gain power over the living, then yep, chances are you're evil. But if you're studying it to understand the spiritual aspects of death and the afterlife, to help bridge the gaps between the living and the dead, well, that's a different matter. I think the example of the Egyptian Necromancer given was the best example of a "good" Necromancer I have ever seen.

Now, I certainly believe that it makes sense that most Necromancers are evil. It's a question of what kind of people are attracted to this field of study. But unlike the other two entity colleges, I believe that a person can start good and stay good. Granted, there is some corruption to the college. It's easy to become callous about death, for example. And consorting with Greater Undead would be corrupting. But you don't -have- to consort with Greater Undead if you're a Necromancer.

With a couple of exceptions (Ritual of Becoming Undead, for example), even the spells aren't particularly evil. Is the Fire and Brimstone more evil than, say, Bolt of Energy? Or Spell of Fear worse than Spell of Controlling Person (actually, the latter creeps me out more)? I would argue even Animate Dead isn't really all that "evil", since it doesn't actually directly cause harm. Depends on the cultural stigma attached to the empty "vessel of the soul". Also depends on whether you think the corpse is animated by an "evil spirit", or is just a magical automaton. This would be in contraposition to some example spells of Black Magery, such as Blight, Pestilence, Evil Eye, Damnum Minatum, etc. Not to imply the spells of Necromancy don't have a dark aspect, but there seems to me a definite sense of less -intrinsic- malevolence behind them.

So, I believe Necromancy does present temptations to corruption, but not insurmountable ones, and nothing close to Summoning and Black Magery. Anyway, that's my two cents on the matter. Hmmm... looks more like I wrote at least a nickel here. Ooops. :)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Thanks, I now see the danger. The system does have the advantage of being very flexible - but therin lies the rub.
The ranks for combinations woul redress that balence a lot. Do the rewrites done still leave the great flexibility?
Also I seem to remember any illusion used to cause damage gives the victim an automatic disbelive (and if not perhaps it should?)

>>> "Jim Arona" <jimarona@ihug.co.nz> 23/Apr/99 12:29:32 pm >>>

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mason <MasonD@ames.vic.edu.au>


I havn't seen them get to very high level, how come they are so
overwhelming?
Their cast chances don't *seem* too high and the chance to disbelive seems a
balencing force...
It has seemed to be a very flexible collage where creative players can
accomplish a great deal, But a creative player will get more than the
obvious out of any collage.

1) The MA requirement to join the college is 10, the second lowest in the
game (Namers require three). This means that character points can be spent
on other stats.
2) The Special Knowledge of the College is based around learning
combinations of the General Knowledge illusion spells, and the Rank of the
Special Knowledge combination is determined by the average Rank of the
General Knowledge illusions. This means that when a Special Knowledge
illusion is learnt, it starts with some significant Rank.
3) The total cost of the General Knowledge illusion spells, visual through
to tactile, is 900 EM, modifiable down to 450. That means it costs as little
as 94,500 ep to advance from Rank 0, to Rank 20. In all Illusions, not just
General Knowledge. Yes, the Illusionist has to pay 600 ep per combination,
but that's a pretty minor cost in the scheme of things, and you don't need
all the combinations.
4) The Illusionist may get 33 points of bonuses, external to the College
itself, 35 if the character is an Elf. MA (Purified) greater than 15, WP
greater than 15, and Rank in Troubadour. The greatest penalty that can be
applied as a result of a combination is 15, and the lowest base chance is
Tactile illusion, which means that a high stat character might have a cast
chance of 28%-30%....Without including Spell Ranks, or Rituals of
Enchantment.
5) Illusions do not have a passive saving throw, which means that characters
must choose to disbelieve. Although it doesn't seem to take any particular
action to do so, the fact that it isn't passive means that they don't get a
chance against it when they don't realise it's there. Admittedly, they don't
change the game setting in any way, but if a Special Knowledge combination
has a tactile component, and a primary sense component, then it can cause
damage and kill.
6) The size of Illusions rapidly becomes huge. They cover one man-sized
object per Rank, or Rank number of objects of that size or less...If the
illusion is something like a pack of dogs or a small horde of skeletons,
that's pretty nasty.
7) PC is often the lowest stat a character starts with, particularly since
you can't assign it character points. At lower levels, illusions are more
dangerous, even if you successfully work out that you're up against an
illusion.
8) Illusions attack the wrong part of the game. As a GM, you are in the
business of describing the world to your players. They depend on the
information that you give them as being the 'bedrock', if you like, of what
is real. An illusion is an instance of where the GM must lie to the players,
and give them wrong information. It is, in my opinion, an unfair attack
against the players. They cannot know that they're facing an illusion,
unless you give them clues that it is, and then it depends on how clever
they are. Cleverness is not a measure of how good a roleplayer someone is,
nor how entertaining they are. Not that I'd like to have players that are
thick, mind you...
9) An Illusionist can spontaneously come up with more varieties of magic
than any other College. Even Molecular Rearrangement can be limited by the
Mind mages 'character knowledge' ('No, you don't know how to make gunpowder,
methane, cyanide...They haven't been invented, yet'). This can lead to a
major headaches when running the game. Sure, any College, imaginatively
played, can do the same, but none can as cheaply, or with as little effort.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

(Snip history of thread)

Also remember that an illusionist's magic has no real effects. The
party cannot be flown to safety by the illusionist making them think
they are flying, as an air mage can do for real. He cannot make an
illusionary fire keep them warm, or make illusionary food that will
actually feed them. His powers are all flash and no substance. A
person can be made to think he is dead and so die, but his body has
taken no damage and so is easy to heal. If you run a game where
noone dies until he goes below 0hp and everyone passes out at 0hp,
then he can't even kill! His powers can also be useless against
things with no mind or insufficient to be able to perceive illusions,
like skeletons, zombies, golems, really stupid animals (Giant
Ambeoba), etc.

It all depends on the GM as does everything in a game.

John


In the 3rd ed rule characters are KO'ed at 3 END left, making an illusioary Fire Ball (or whatever) a great "Rubber Bullet"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Perhaps the invested spell dissipates if the demon leaves this plane would also be a useful check? Especialy if a character has paid a high price for it ;-)
The GM lendeth and the GM taketh away...

>>> "D. Cameron King" <hacking@ucdavis.edu> 23/Apr/99 01:25:20 pm >>>
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999, Jim Arona wrote:

> The players that took Summoners never, to my knowledge, summoned Demons when
> they were adventuring. They would summon them when they were in a safe
> place, surrounded by their allies, and ask for servants, like devils. This
> is a fairly standard gift that many Demons provide, and the chance is
> providing such an entity is listed next to their chance of being summoned.
> Aside from the range of their immunities and their native abilities as
> denizens of the Seventh plane, devils have Rank 10 in all magic of their
> college.

Actually, according to 47.7, they "exercise their Skills at Rank 15
and magic powers at Rank 20." (I hope you don't construe this
correction as "rules law," Jim! I'm just trying to help...)

The one problem I see with Demons concerns the Ritual of Investment.
Assuming that Demons know ALL the magic of their respective Colleges,
they can (in just one hour) Invest any item of the summoner's choice
with 20 charges of any spell of that College! The thought of my
players running around with 20 Spells of Dragon Flames at Rank 20
(525-foot range, D+81 damage [resist for half])...well, it ain't
pretty. The only way around the problem I can see is to rule that
Demons get pretty annoyed being summoned for such petty trifles,
and will exact an enormous price for such services. (But then,
that's the solution to pretty much everything they can do.)



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Has anyone ever been enthusiastic enough to enter the different herbs on a database so they could find a herb to suit their pourpose more easily?
Could a copy be made available? (I know I may not have access to that database but one can do one's best.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

"Lead me not into temtation, for I shall find it myself!
Any GM who doesn't dangle bait that the character will find hard to resist and that both player and character know has a hook is missing out.

>>> <VancrownX@aol.com> 23/Apr/99 12:53:30 pm >>>

JMorona:

What you are forgetting is the fact that those who dabble in the black arts
are tainted by them . . . their souls become darker, whether they wish it or
no. The cliche "Good intentions pave the road to hell" is rooted in truth.
When a character grasps the tail of the tiger, he no longer is in complete
control of his destiny, as the powers move him in ways that are not apparent
to him by allowing him to believe that he is in control . . . they use him,
twist him over time. Consider the nature of drug or alcohol addiction . . .
others notice the change long before the individual himself perceives it.

GMs who don't consider this are likely to be wearing rose-colored glasses . .
.

The ability to summon devils and demons to teach characters (and other party
members) skills and special knowledge spells at top ranks is incredibly
powerful, not to mention abusive. It's all relative to the GM's prowess at
controlling the course of events, limiting and balancing . . . but in the
end, still abusive and unbalanced when compared to the other colleges.

I would like to see the "good" Necromancer . . . an oxymoron if ever I have
heard one. In the beginning, such a character may have all the best
intentions, but over time, if one plays it correctly and the GM is skillful,
that character's personality should begin to show signs of strain, cracks
should appear, as he embraces the dark powers and eschews the light.
Anything less would be unrealistic. At the very least, the PC should be in a
constant state of internal struggle as he attempts to maintain his control.

Those who sell their souls to the dark powers should NEVER be considered
good. They represent individuals who would sacrifice their very "humanity"
for an opportunity to master the black arts. Sorry, but I don't buy it.
History has shown that very few tyrants believe themselves to be bad
people----in many cases, they see themselves as only doing what they must,
for the good of all. I would argue that those who hold truck with the forces
of darkness are no less deluded . . .

Just one GM's humble opinion.

M. Andre Vancrown

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>> Also remember that an illusionist's magic has no real effects...

>Now this is how I usually understood Illusions to be. However, my GM

and I have had a long standing debate on this point, and he used the
following statement about the College of Illusions ... "In answer to
the even present theoretical question, the illusions do actually
exist; they are -not- simply inside the viewer's mind".

>
>... So although I prefer your interpretation, you should be aware

that technically speaking the "illusions" of this college -are- real,
at least according to the original game designers.

I think the point here was that the illusions are real in the
sense that they can be percieved by anyone outside or inside the Range
of the spell, but that the illusions themselves appear only within the
Range of the spell. However, the illusions still remain illusions,
and do not exist as actual objects or beings. I believe the best
analogy is to consider a Star Trek-style hologram. The hologram is
real -- it can be seen by anyone looking at it, and can take whatever
form its creator desires. However, it is still just a hologram, and
cannot truly physically interact with the environment. An illusionary
giant could not actually move a boulder, but the illusion could make
it appear as though it did.

Which leads to another point, expressed elsewhere. How encompassing
should illusions be? I allow illusions to affect the entire area
within range, giving the Illusionist carte blanche to determine what
is seen (or felt or heard, etc), as long as the illusion doesn't leave
the range of the spell. This means that an illusionary man can appear
only within range of the spell, but a person a mile away would still
see it (the illusion is real, after all). Too powerful? Or no?

______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>> As a side topic, does anyone actually ever summon a Hero? Just
>> wondering.


>Do GM's disallow non-fantasy based heroes? Do they assume that the

Summoner's know about these heroes for the same reason they know the
names and habits of other "extra-dimensional creatures" like demons,
and just leave it at that? What would you do if a player wanted to
summon Spider-Man? Or am I the only one who thinks about these
thing...? :)


The way I run it, I only allow fantasy heroes, and these heroes must
hail from my fantasy world. The meta-idea I'm going for with a rule
like this is based on the ritual being a call to a higher power for
deliverance, sort of like asking a Demon for a Devil servant, but in a
different and more morally digestable manner. So no Cpt. Kirk,
Sherlock Holmes (or Sam Spade, for that manner), or even Lancelot. Of
course, I might make an exception on a triple effect or something like
that, but that would be the exception that proves the rule.

______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

I think a score less than 15 should be acceptable to join a collage, but any university and perhaps most teachers would hesitate to take on one with such little talent. This could call on a character to roleplay to get taught spells...

The warrior-mage type is difficult to arrange with a 15 MA if the player wants to go heavy on warrior, eg the mind sourcerer "Mystic warrior" style.

>>> S Cordner <scordner@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> 25/Apr/99 07:42:19 am >>>
> I see this a lot, so I'm taking the opportunity to inform the masses.
> Section 97 of the Arcane Wisdom supplement (never actually published)
> clarified several rules about magic, including the MA requirements.

[snip minimum MAs]

I calculate the minimum MA as written, but I also include a caveat. That
the absolute minimum, even for Namers, is 15 (culled from a Judges Guild
item). Sound good? Opinions?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

-----Original Message-----
From: David Mason <MasonD@ames.vic.edu.au>
To: dqn-list@egroups.com <dqn-list@egroups.com>
Date: Monday, April 26, 1999 1:29 PM
Subject: [DQN-list] Re: Rewritten Illusion College


Thanks, I now see the danger. The system does have the advantage of being
very flexible - but therin lies the rub.
The ranks for combinations woul redress that balence a lot. Do the rewrites
done still leave the great flexibility?

It is a College, pretty much like any other. The players are in a similar
position to other characters.

Also I seem to remember any illusion used to cause damage gives the victim
an automatic disbelive (and if not perhaps it should?)

It's a pretty irrelevant roll if the effect of the magic is as persistent as
an Illusion spell. Not that it may not save your life, mind you.
And there are ways around allowing even that much of a 'saving throw'.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

At 11:24 26/04/99 +1000, you wrote:
[snip]

>Anyway, getting back to the subject, one of the Summoners had summoned up
>Lancelot. When we realized who the guy in armor actually was, it was a
>pretty severe Maalox moment.
>
>Now, I actually think the idea of the Summon Hero ritual is kind of cool.

I >wonder where the game creator's came up with the idea. It seems a strange

>sort of addition, though. Anyway, although I like the -idea- in

principle, I

>don't know that it makes a lot of sense, really. For me, it usually sort of
>causes a suspension o'disbelief hiccup in the game world. I was wondering
>how people could justify Summoners knowing about heroes like, say, Sherlock
>Holmes, to use somebody's earlier example. Do GM's disallow non-fantasy
>based heroes? Do they assume that the Summoner's know about these heroes

for

>the same reason they know the names and habits of other "extra-dimensional
>creatures" like demons, and just leave it at that? What would you do if a
>player wanted to summon Spider-Man? Or am I the only one who thinks about
>these thing...? :)

In he campaigns I've played in and run, we've insituted a House rules that
restricts character's to summoning Heroes of Legend from the campaign
world. So rather than summoning a hero from some fantasy work, the Greater
Summoner must research the history of their own world to dicover the
neccessary name of a suitable hero for the task they wish performed. This
overcomes the problem of breaking suspension of disbelief, while also
giving the world a deeper sense of history. Given that both my GM, when I
was playing, and myself, when I was GMing, designed detailed worlds with
detailed hisotries which included references to legends, wars, battles, and
heroic deeds, it wasn't too difficult for the character GSummoner to find
suitable candidates for the Summon Hero Ritual in their own world's history.




Take care,


Phil Keast
(Melbourne, Australia)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: Re: 'Good' Summoners, etc.
X-Mailer: www.eGroups.com Message Poster
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <pid8382.1999.April.25.7:17.311618.@egroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:17:20 -0000
In-Reply-To:
From: dqn@ntsource.com
To: dqn-list@egroups.com

I am really fond of the idea of a character who unintentionally does 'good' despite the fact that his behavior is basically 'evil.' I tried to create a character like this (for a campaign that never got off the ground, unfortunately).

The source of the idea was a movie called 'Brimstone & Treacle' which was notable mostly for being Sting's first leading role. His character was more self-centered and uncaring than deliberately 'evil,' but despite the fact that he was running a minor scam on a family, he ended up causing 'good' results. I must say that the benevolent Necromancer (suggested in an earlier posting) is a fantastic idea (in my opinion) very much along these same lines, though I don't think there needs to be the same level of ambiguity in that character as is in the one I tried to play. (That character was also not a mage, as I recall.)

Polarities are often sources of great similarity as well as great difference. There are two groups of people who are obsessed with crime, for example: the criminals (who perpetrate it) and the law-enforcers. It is not unheard of for police methods to be almost criminal, informants and undercover operatives often live with one foot in each world, and more than a few officers have been discovered to be major criminals (Chicago has a case right now of a narcotics officer who has been arrested and charged with being a major drug gang figure).
In this light, I tend not to see any of the colleges as absolute in one way or another. Even the college of Black Magics (which is explicitly aligned with the Powers of Darkness) has spells of Blessing on Crops (S-4), Blessing on Livestock (S-7), Blessing on Unborn Child (S-11), Virility (S-12), and Creating Restorative (S-13). These spells would tend to suggest (at least at some level) a trade-off wherein the adept might 'sell his soul' in order to gain the power to help rather than to harm.

As for there being 'good' Greater Summoners, the classical character of Faust is an example of a basically 'good' individual who gets involved in the summoning of demons. Getting involved with demons is dicey terrain to explore, but I don't think that it automatically blackens ones soul (though it certainly provides the opportunity). I have a hobbit Greater Summoner NPC in my campaign who I regard as sort of like Robert Oppenheimer. He is a kindly individual who is tasked to work with some very, very dangerous stuff. I haven't fleshed him out all that far, but I'm sure there are many demons that he just doesn't get involved with because they are too dangerous or too difficult to work with. But there are some that he has worked with and that he is able to deal with.

Rodger


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Sat, 24 Apr 1999, S Cordner wrote:

> I calculate the minimum MA as written, but I also include a caveat. That
> the absolute minimum, even for Namers, is 15 (culled from a Judges Guild
> item). Sound good? Opinions?

Well, just on general principles I would have to say that taking
or extrapolating rules from any Judges Guild item is a Bad Idea.
In this particular case, I don't much care for the idea anyway.
It negates the possiblity of playing a not-so-gifted Adept, and
seems D&D-ish vaguely D&D-ish to me (like suggesting that anyone
taking the Thief skill should have to have a minimum MD of 15).
Low MA has its own disadvantages, which should be enough to
discourage players from excessive min-maxing: lower Cast Chances,
fewer spells under Rank 6 available, no discount to XP costs,
etc. And, at least in the Colleges of Sorceries of the Mind and
Illusions, the Adept needs more Willpower than the average PC,
so any points he saves on MA will probably just go to his WP.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

[snip]

Perhaps the strongest force to corrupt necromancers in many campagnes (esp in a medievel Europeon setting) would be the community and authorities treating necromancy as evil. This leaves a necromancer with a dark secret to take extreem measures to protect...


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Content-Type: text/plain
Subject: [DQN-list] Re:Heros (ex Greater summoners)
X-Mailer: www.eGroups.com Message Poster
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <pid23709.1999.April.25.7:23.641335.@egroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 02:23:14 -0000
In-Reply-To: <s7242ba5.014@ames.vic.edu.au>
From: dqn@ntsource.com
To: dqn-list@egroups.com

<s7242ba5.01-@ames.vic.edu.au> wrote:
Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/dqn-list/?start=125

> As a side topic, does anyone actually ever summon a Hero? Just
> wondering.

I, too, have used Summoning Heroes to take my campaign PCs to an adventure on another plane. Once they get to hero level (and these PCs made it there back in the mid-80s) and their names are legend, I think they're fair game. (It also gives the GM a chance to put them in a situation where they are not completely prepared and where they don't have all their best equipment and magical devices.)

Rodger Thorm


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

On Sun, 25 Apr 1999 mortdemuerte@yahoo.com wrote:

> Now this is how I usually understood Illusions to be. However,
> my GM and I have had a long standing debate on this point, and
> he used the following statement about the College of Illusions
> found in the unpublished Arcane Wisdom supplement as his
> philosophical foundation. On page 62, under Magic System
> Designer Notes, it says "In answer to the even present
> theoretical question, the illusions do actually exist; they
> are -not- simply inside the viewer's mind".

While your GM is free to rule on the matter however he likes, he
is misunderstanding what the "ever-present theoretical question"
is. The question is: is there some magical energy manifesting
itself as an illusion at the spot the illusion appears to be, or
is the illusion all in the perceiver's mind? In other words, is
there something there to be sensed, or are you sensing something
that isn't there?

DQ answers the question: there is something there. However, that
thing is still an *illusion* and has no substance except what the
observers give it.

> I have actually seen an Illusionist in his campaign use an
> illusionary Griffin to fly people to and fro. I've seen an
> illusory Giant used to move boulders. I've seen an illusionary
> raincloud put out a fire. So although I prefer your
> interpretation, you should be aware that technically speaking
> the "illusions" of this college -are- real, at least according
> to the original game designers.

Yep, they're real. Really *illusions.* (By the way, does anyone
play anything BUT an Illusionist in this campaign...and if so,
why?)


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

At 03:42 PM 4/24/99 -0600, you wrote:

>I calculate the minimum MA as written, but I also include a caveat. That
>the absolute minimum, even for Namers, is 15 (culled from a Judges Guild
>item). Sound good? Opinions?
>
>

Well, I don't know many mages that DO have one, it's not canon. Otherwise,
why would they bother putting the MA less than fifteen penalty in the magic
section at all?

Phil


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>
>Now this is how I usually understood Illusions to be. However, my GM and I

have had a long standing debate on this point, and he used the following
statement about the College of Illusions found in the unpublished Arcane
Wisdom supplement as his philosophical foundation. On page 62, under Magic
System Designer Notes, it says "In answer to the even present theoretical
question, the illusions do actually exist; they are -not- simply inside the
viewer's mind".

>
>I have actually seen an Illusionist in his campaign use an illusionary

Griffin to fly people to and fro. I've seen an illusory Giant used to move
boulders. I've seen an illusionary raincloud put out a fire. So although I
prefer your interpretation, you should be aware that technically speaking
the "illusions" of this college -are- real, at least according to the
original game designers.

>

That is the worst garbage I have ever heard! Play how you like, and I don't
care how badly your GM interpreted the rules, but an illusion can make
someone think something, but it certainly can't put out a fire. The
definition, from your reference, simply means that the illusion is an actual
visual projection, rather than a projection into the viewer's mind. It
means, that anyone who looks at the illusion will actually see a
manipulation of lights and color, or sound and feel depending on illusion
type. It is up to the viewer to realize determine whether what he sees is
real or not. Therefore even if someone successfully disbelieves an
illusion, he will still see it.


An illusion, by definition, is NOT REAL. You could make someone believe
that a fire was put out by use of illusion, but the building will continue
to burn. An illusory floor will NOT support weight. In fact if you were to
put out a fire with an illusion, it would have to be a visual illusion large
enough to cover the entire area that was on fire and the area being lit by
the fire, not to mention a tactile illusion, so that bystanders no longer
felt the heat from the fire, and an audible illusion to mask the sound of
the fire. What you are saying, is that someone who believes in the illusion
could pass through the burning building unharmed, could perhaps even take a
nap in a burning bed, because he believes it not to be on fire, while all
the while, a real fire rages on. Someone who disbelieves would die if they
entered the fire. The reality is, that an illusion CANNOT put out a real
fire, and even someone who thinks it did will still die if they walk into
it.

Please send me the e-mail address of your GM so I can insult him
appropriately

Thank you


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

I assume that most mythic figurs from our past are told as "fairy stories" by the troubadors of the relm. Kirk is out, Sherlock Holmes may make it into the more outlandish stories and Lancelot is definatly "in". I probaly wouldn't let Shelock in if I thought he would wreck the adventure, but on the other hand, great puzzle solvers will exist in any world's mythos. If you don't want summoned heros solving your mystery - Have Sherlock turn up stoned off his nut, the mythic cop from their world's past will turn up blind drunk crying over their lost lover and if that doesn't stop 'em, they can get kidnaped/enchanted/turned agianst the party.

For extra irritation, the hero should then be given all the credit for solving the mystery.

>>> "S Peter Cordner" <mean_liar@hotmail.com> 26/Apr/99 04:04:59 pm >>>

>> As a side topic, does anyone actually ever summon a Hero? Just
>> wondering.


>Do GM's disallow non-fantasy based heroes? Do they assume that the

Summoner's know about these heroes for the same reason they know the
names and habits of other "extra-dimensional creatures" like demons,
and just leave it at that? What would you do if a player wanted to
summon Spider-Man? Or am I the only one who thinks about these
thing...? :)


The way I run it, I only allow fantasy heroes, and these heroes must
hail from my fantasy world. The meta-idea I'm going for with a rule
like this is based on the ritual being a call to a higher power for
deliverance, sort of like asking a Demon for a Devil servant, but in a
different and more morally digestable manner. So no Cpt. Kirk,
Sherlock Holmes (or Sam Spade, for that manner), or even Lancelot. Of
course, I might make an exception on a triple effect or something like
that, but that would be the exception that proves the rule.

______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com




------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Does anyone happen to know the name of the font that DragonQuest 2nd Edition
uses for the DragonQuest Logo?


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

Hey all,

I thought I would see if I could stir up some trouble. :-)

In the past, I've played with groups that have had wonderful DQ players
as well as the occasional dud. One of the most frustrating problems I
have with these "duds" it their penchance for having characters act on
information that is known by the player, but not the character. This
drives me crazy!

Now that I have "vented" on you good people, I want to ask, "What do you
do about it?" I am sure you folks have come up with some creative ways
to both prevent the problem and deal with it when it happens. I doubt
this problem will ever be eradicated, however, I am looking for fun ways
to deal with it.

I am also going to cross post this message to the WebRPG board in hope
of even more replies. If this topic intrigues you as well, you may want
to look there for additional responses.

Ax'l Adams (aka: John Carcutt)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

---"D. Cameron King" <hacking@ucdavis.edu> wrote:

> It's not much of a drawback, really. Suspecting that what you are
> seeing is an illusion only adds 5 to your chance of disbelieving.

Ah! Another place I differ from the rules. In my game, disbelieving is
all you need to be safe from an illusion, but it must be acted upon to
work. A character who sees an illusion of a 40 ton boulder rolling
toward him can disbelive and take no damage, but he must not act as if
it is real in any way, ie he must ignore it. No dodging. And if it's
not an illusion..... ooops! An illusion does not disappear just
because it is disbelieved, it just ceases to have any real effect on
the disbeliever. NPC's get a wisdom vs caster wisdom role (something I
borrowed from Chaosium's games) to disbelieve. And the more blatantly
ridiculous the illusion, the more bonuses the target gets to disbelieve.
So casters in my game must be subtle.
Of course, then there's that crazy old illusionist in the mountains
(the Rainbow Mage) who is working on 'partially real' illusions. :)

> While there is room for disagreement, I think the rules strongly
> imply that all Illusions are what you term "projections." Note
> that all Illusion spells *create* stimuli (they do not "cause a
> target to perceive" stimuli). Further, there is no mention of a
> "target" or even that the spells "affect all entities within
> range." The spell itself does not affect anyone or anything,
> you see--others *react* to it. Lastly, Illusionists gain a bonus
> or suffer a penalty based on their Willpower; the victim's WP is
> irrelevant, however--unlike the College of Sorceries of the Mind,
> which *is* concerned with mental manipulation of sentient beings.

If they are 'projections' then they are in some ways 'real'. They must
therefor produce real light, which can be a weapon if intense enough,
or used against creatures of darkness. So illusionists would be the
ultimate vampire/wight/etc hunters, blasting them with 'sunlight'.
That would make them WAY too powerfull.

Of course, the victim's willpower should determine nothing if the
illusions are projections, only if they are 'mental effects'.

> Of course, you should run your game however you like.

Of course. I do. :)

> Again, you're right on. But what's a Hit Point? ;)

Sorry, I play so many games, I tend to slip into the terminology of
the others.

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

---Jim Arona <jimarona@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

> I have never considered this way. Mind you, I don't think it's a bad

way.

> What lead you to interpret it this way?

Mostly I inherited it from the GM I started playing DQ with. And it
really makes sense, otherwise Illusionists get way too high level too
fast.
It also makes sense in reality. Knowing how to march and how to play
the trumpet do not make you an instant expert at marching while
playing the trumpet. Granted, you can't do them together until you can
do them separately, but only practicing them together will make you
better at doing them together.

> It's hardly any kind of drawback at all, really.Knowing something is

an

> illusion is no source of comfort at all when it's tearing your

throat out.
Ah, but that means it doesn't require disbelief to resist illusions,
it takes some nebulous 'magic resistance' or 'willpower check' or
whatever.
So then disbelief means nothing and has no reason to even be mentioned.
They way I read the rules, if you disbelieve it cannot affect you, the
only roll being whether you *really* disbelieve. That's why I enforce
the 'ignore it' rule; if its tearing your throat out and you say I
don't believe it and saying you are getting up and ignoring it, if its
an illusion, it ceases to hurt you. BUT if its not, you die.

> Again, only if you assume it is some kind of mental invasion. And

even if it

> is, only two colleges get Mind Cloak, and they're self only spells...

Which can be invested into an object and sold/given to other
characters like any other spell, and would quickly become a valued
commodity.

> The point is, you would have to do something like it to balance the

college.

> What you seem to be saying is that the Illusion College is fine, if

you make

> a few adjustments to the game. I don't have an objection to doing

so, but I

> don't see this as a refutation of the initial point. Illusionists, as
> written, are not a great college.

Dragon Quest as written, is not a perfect game. I have never played
any game that didn't need tweaking. DQ just needs less than most.

> The players must trust the information you give them for over 99% of
> occasions, otherwise they spend a lot of time expecting to be

decieved.

> Sometimes, rarely, you may be forced by the exigencies of your story

to give

> the players false information, and sometimes they may put a

construction on

> something you describe that you hadn't intended, and you let it lie.
> If you only describe things that you think the players would sense,

then

> they miss out on the other information that would be an expectable

part of

> any interaction. Body language, for example, position in the room,
> micro-momentary expressions, and other things of that nature.
> As a game master, you're in the business of providing information.

When you

> clamp down on it, and only provide simple, sense based information,

then you

> distance the players from your game. They have less traction on the

game

> world, and they start to feel powerless.

So you prefer a game where the players get to sleepwalk through the
adventure until the GM announces 'You sense danger' or 'Roll 2 tens,
what's your PC?' at which point they tense up and prepare even if they
fail their rolls? Sorry, sounds like a Disney movie to me. I prefer
the characters on their toes. They should be just as cautious rounding
the 100 bends in the road that contain no ambushes as the 1 that does.
Make them work for it, otherwise you might as well be telling a story
to children.

> Illusionists make people doubt the information the players give

them. An

> experienced player in our campaign said to me that he had never seen

an

> Illusionist who wasn't a good fighter, and a poor caster. I took it

upon

> myself to investigate why, and it turns out that most game masters

won't use

> high level Illusionists against parties, because they kill them so

quickly,

> and without much effort. The players believe you when you say the

floor is

> paved with stone for 50 or 60 paces. They don't know the truth until

one or

> two of them have stepped into the pit.

And the same is true of illusions. Why is it any different because its
magic instead of camoflage? Why should players be told the 'truth'?
They don't get it in reality, just what their senses tell them.

> They don't need to create Sherman tanks. They just need to create

something

> from their genre. And they can. Are you seriously suggesting that my

point

> isn't valid?
>Ok, then: how many characters in your game have actually seen a dragon?

In mine its very few. Yet if the illusionist who tries to 'create' a
dragon from their description in a book, anyone who sees his illusion
will not be fooled by it.

> >
> >Also remember that an illusionist's magic has no real effects. The
> >party cannot be flown to safety by the illusionist making them think
> >they are flying, as an air mage can do for real. He cannot make an
> >illusionary fire keep them warm, or make illusionary food that will
> >actually feed them.
>
> A Namer can't do either of these things. It's still a usefull

College to

> have around.

I never said it wasn't. Those were just examples. Actually, a namer
is a pretty good defense against illusionists. They can see auras.
Illusionists can't and so their creations should not have auras at all
or have wrong ones. Any decent Namer should be able to see that and
tell his party to ignore it.

> That is spurious, and the kind of argument that says that 'Enchanged

Sleep'

> is a pathetic spell, not the lethal hassle it really is. How much

time does

> it take to kill an unconscious foe?

That is spurious and it seems now you are saying Enchanters are too
powerfull. How long does it take to kill a foe who is already dead
from a fireball?

John

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

>> I calculate the minimum MA as written, but I also include a caveat.

That the absolute minimum, even for Namers, is 15 (culled from a
Judges Guild item). Sound good? Opinions?

>Well, just on general principles I would have to say that taking
>or extrapolating rules from any Judges Guild item is a Bad Idea.
>In this particular case, I don't much care for the idea anyway.
>It negates the possiblity of playing a not-so-gifted Adept...

[snip good reasons to not be a mage with MA 15]

I suppose I should add a little more of my viewpoint to this. Without
a minimum MA, Mind Magics has a minimum MA of 10 (or thereabouts).
Coming up with a 10 MA is a small price to pay for Resist Pain. To
take it even further, a real warrior-mage would be concerned only with
one other spell from the college, the Healing Spell (making the low
number of low-Ranked spells a non-issue).

I also have a problem with Namers having no minimum MA - it just seems
that they get too much of a good thing. Just having access to all the
counterspells in exchange for -20 to resist some spells doesn't seem
penalty enough.

It's not like I have a problem with min-maxers or game balance, but it
does have an effect on my view of a world 'governed' by DQ rules. It
suggests that there would be a large number of Namers walking around,
as well as Greater Summoners (minimum ~8) and a few other colleges
with low requirements. And since it only requires such a small MA, I
want to ignore the "Magic is an arcane wisdom, carefully guarded and
difficult to learn" argument based on the observation that apparently
any untalented ninny can learn how to summon a Demon. Of all things
in the universe, I would imagine Savnok (Marquis of Corruption) among
others would certainly delight in his minions teaching anyone who
cares to listen how to summon a Demon. The Namers might be more
restrained, but then again, maybe not.

That's why I institute the minimum 15 MA rule. It just seems to me
that magic should be inaccessible to the average person.

______________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com

<031e01be905a$9e818fa0$0201017-@saturn.fcc.net> wrote:
Original Article: http://www.egroups.com/list/dqn-list/?start=147

> Does anyone happen to know the name of the font that DragonQuest 2nd Edition
> uses for the DragonQuest Logo?
>

The closest that Eric Labelle and I have been able to determine
is that it is a Stylized form of a Victorian font.

We know from our contacts with former members of SPI that it
was a rub on (electraset) type of font. These fonts tend to
appear and disappear quite rapidly and I doubt that it was
ever converted to Adobe Postscript 1 or True Type format.

The DQ font was used on other SPI products as well and there
are examples of a large portion of the font set (MIA are 7
uppercase and 4 lowercase).

One of the projects I would like to see DQPA undertake is the
DQ font recovery project. I foresee this involving high
resolution scanning of all known font examples and then capturing
them in a font package, such as Macromedia's Fontographer.

Of course, I could be wrong and that font may not be lost in the
mists of time. Even having the font name would be helpful.

If you are interested in this project feel free to contact me
directly.

John F. Rauchert, Acting President
DragonQuest Players Association


------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroup home: http://www.eGroups.com/group/dqn-list
Free Web-based e-mail groups by eGroups.com