From: CRIMMARTI@urvax.urich.edu
Date: Mon 08 Jul 1991 - 09:56:33 EEST
Re: The Raw and the Cooked
or: Andrew's open question in RQ Discussion 19
>User/Target conditions: The description says that a target
>condition requires that the target be in a clearly defined
>group. It seems to me that this makes it fairly easy to create
>the ultimate inquisition device ... What do you think the
>limits on the detective power of enchantments to determine such
>things should be?
A terminology problem I noted: the Magic Book describes
target and user restrictions as defining who the item will NOT
affect or who can NOT use an item. I have tended to ignore this,
and so have the people I game with. Because any group can be
described as the exclusion of its opposite, I tend to write
"limited to Henotheist Adepts" rather than "barred to all who are
not Henotheist Adepts." Only a lawyer would worry about such
distinctions.
I don't think you will see many magic items that "cast a
light on any worshiper of a Chaos cult," because to do that, you
need:
* a Light matrix, MP matrix, and link condition; or a Light
magic/spell spirit
* a target condition, AND
* an attack condition.
To be effective at range, you also need an area-effect condition.
Why not save POW and just put a target condition on the item? On
the down side, you have to individually target the spell.
However, when you consider the hurt feelings that result when one
casts spells on most any being, it doesn't make much difference
whether the item or its holder cast the spell. The bigger
disadvantage, which is what I think Andrew was getting at, is
that somehow the deluxe target/attack condition item knows only
to target spells at beings who do not fit the target condition.
One can handle this in two ways:
1) The item targets against all who touch it or enter its
area of effect. The spell fails against those who fit its target
condition, as well as those whose MP it fails to overcome. Thus,
no one knows why the spell failed. Also, the item tends to run
out of MP quickly. This option avoids the problem.
2) The item does not target its spell against those who fit
its target condition. This ignores the problem, but some GMs may
not object to the existence of inquisitorial items.
I would adopt option 1) and also the following limitations.
I could also see how someone could adopt option 2) and the
following limitations. That would be the middle course between
almost no inquisition and full inquisition.
First, the caster should only be able to impose a restriction
based on a distinction which clearly divides all beings. This
knocks out philosophical beliefs for which some people will have
no opinion, like "those who believe Illumination is evil," or
"those who would like to see the power of the Red Moon Goddess
destroyed." By contrast, all beings are either chaotic or non-
chaotic, Malkioni or non-Malkioni, and Orlanthi or non-Orlanthi.
The hard cases include shamanistic v. non-shamanistic, humanist
v. non-humanist, and the various pantheon boundaries (are the
Caladralanders "Yelmic"?).
Second, the restriction would have to be something apparent from
the caster's aura. This type of restriction includes, but is not
limited to, ancestry, runic affinity, and cult status (i.e.,
initiate, rune lord, or priest). Within cults, some divisions
will be runic, while others are non-runic. Individualism and
Henotheism are runic. Lhankor Mhy factions are non-runic. Hard
cases include the various sects of Malkioni other than the
Henotheists. Rokari are not very different, mystically speaking,
from Hrestoli.
Third, certain magical protections can conceal the target's aura
so that the item cannot tell if the target is included or not.
In such a case, the item will not cast the spell. This rule
should apply for one reason: if the caster wanted to protect
certain persons from the spell's harm, or bar certain people from
the spell's benefits, he or she would err on the safe side. It
should be possible for experienced enchanters to override the
default setting. In the other setting, an item targeted at a
magically protected being will always try to affect it. Neither
setting gives any information about whether the target satisfies
the target condition. In the default setting, one gets many
false negatives, and in the other, false positives. Just like
urine sampling.
Spell Resistance conceals the target's aura if the intensity
of the item's spell does not overcome the intensity of the Spell
Resistance. Countermagic and Shield/Reflection/Absorption work
if the intensity of the item's spell is less than the intensity
of the defensive spell.
With attack conditions, the item looks to the target's
magical protections once when the target touches the item or
moves within its area of effect. It "looks" again when the
target is again touched or again moves within the area of effect.
Players should not know what kind of restrictions are
possible. If they find an item with a restriction and can find
out what the restriction is, they know that that restriction is
possible. They may have heard or read about various restrictions
with various levels of accuracy in reporting. If a PC tries to
create a novel user restriction, the GM should:
* tell the player what the PC thinks of the restriction's
viability
* decide independently whether the restriction is viable, &
* if the restriction is not viable, decide whether
* the restriction is void and the POW is wasted
* the restriction is present but ineffective and the
POW is wasted
* the restriction is void or ineffective but a similar
viable restriction comes into being (I prefer this one)
* the restriction is void and the PC does not lose the
POW used (a wimpy option)
======================================================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:21 EEST