From: Colin Watson (watson@csd.abdn.ac.uk)
Date: Mon 12 Sep 1994 - 19:08:10 EEST
Sure, mental communication needn't be language-less; but I'm saying, in the case of spirits, it usually is. Many types of spirits don't even have INT so I hardly think they would be capable of using human-like languages. That's why Control-type spells require the caster to form *mental images* of the actions they wish the controlled creature to perform. They don't use language 'cos many creatures wouldn't understand it.
I don't think its unreasonable to assume that the communication-link afforded by a binding enchantment uses the same approach.
> I'd have a heck of hard time suspending my disbelief to the point where a
> character could order a bound spirit to reveal its true name and
> abilities without the use of language.
IT'S MAGIC for cryin'-out-loud. The character does NOT explicitly say "Hey Mr. salamander, tell me your stats"; the salamander does NOT explicitly reply "I'm 3 cubic meters big; my POW is 12; my STR is 17 etc...". The exchange is implicit. The character gets an intuitive feel of what the salamander is like. (Which may be expressed by the GM to the player in terms of game statistics).
Anyway, the control-spell descriptions say that mental images are used to "command" the target; and the summoning rules say that control spells can be used to interrogate spirits: Hence I deduce that spirits can effectively be interrogated using mental images...
> As for random generation tables: don't you know who and what every spirit
> in your world is?
'course I do. :-)
The point I was making is: if you say bound spirits speak different languages then you are also implying that summoned spirits will speak different languages. Summoned spirits are randomly determined (unless a truename is used) so any poor sap who has the guts to cast a Summon(X) spell would, more often than not, end up with a creature he couldn't "talk" to.
Now, there are ways around this (maybe spirits can speak *all* languages; or maybe only spirits which understand your language will respond to the summons) but I think its simpler just to assume that language isn't a factor in the summons/binding process. The communication required is at a sub-linguistic level.
Of course, intelligent spirits might be able to use language; and if you can speak the same language you can have high-falutin' discussions with them. But I don't think language is required to get a bound spirit to perform the basic functions which binding-enchantments/control-spells allow.
> >Control-type spells allow you to get such information (see
> >Summoning rules) and my assumption is that a bound spirit is,
> >while bound, effectively Controlled in the same way.
> ^^^^^ ^^^^^ [ my emphasis - CW]
> This is directly contrary to the rules, which note a rather large
> difference between bound+controlled spirits and merely bound
> spirits (you can make the former come back).
That's why I said "while bound". You can make a bound spirit do as much as you like without needing a control spell as long as you don't release it from the binding. The way I read it, a control spell is only required if you want to release a spirit, get it to perform an act, and then command it back into the binding. I don't think you need to release a bound spirit in order to interrogate it; therefore I don't think you need a control spell.
>A commanded spirit
> answers one question per casting of the spell (MB, page 54).
Yes, this is clearly the case for summoned creatures which have not been bound. It is not clear (to me) whether a control spell is required to question a bound spirit. I admit that my assumption that Binding gives as much control as a control-spell (while the creature remains bound) is speculative.
___
CW.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:36:53 EEST