From: Alex Ferguson (alex@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Mon 07 Nov 1994 - 23:39:31 EET
Colin W.:
> > > I consider Intellect spirits to be the ghosts of animals; and Power
> > > spirits to be the ghosts of plants (which lack INT)
Sandy P.:
> > But you can use the INT but not the MPs of an intellect
> > spirit, and you can use the MPs of a power spirit. Yet you can't use
> > either in a Magic spirit.
CW again:
> Yes, but I thought these were just features of the different binding
> enchantments rather than differences in the way the spirits worked. You
> can't use the MP of a bound Intellect Spirit because that's not what
> Bind Intellect Spirit is meant to do.
I quite like this view, but it does seem have as its logical conclusion that if you had a clever enough Binding Enchantment, then you could bind a suitably meaty spirit as a _combined_ Intellect/Power/Magic spirit, which would be somewhat gross. Unless there's some handy reason this should be impossible or prohibitively expensive, or as Colin suggests, the spirits are distinct too, which seems to be multiple redundancy of game mechanical magic control systems.
> What I was getting at in my original post is that spirits should be
> bound differently; not just because of what they do, but because of what
> they *are*. You can't bind an Intellect spirit in the same way as you bind
> a Ghost because the former is (I imagine) a Beast-spirit whereas the latter
> is a Man-spirit.
This seems very odd. Firstly, it seems counter to the intent of making the Binding Enchantment the determining factor in the taxonomy of bound spirits and their effects. And also: since most Beasts can't know spells, having fixed INT, why would Beast spirits make very good Intellect spirits?
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 10 Oct 2003 - 01:37:33 EEST