Confusion, pointlessness and dwarves

From: Kevin Rose <vladt_at_interaccess.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 1997 09:37:22 GMT


Paul Chapman <mercutio_at_btinternet.com> said

>Translation: "I couldn't be bothered to read the ideas presented =
properly
>because I had a lot to read at once. Therefore I decided to skim =
several
>postings about a similar subject, guess on what I thought they were =
saying
>and then criticise an imaginary viewpoint I myself made up from a =
collage
>of opposing viewpoints. Some other stuff that has been published was
>silly, and the idea I made up was silly too, so I posted to the digest
>slating it, but did so misleadingly, so that it looked like a comment on
>something somebody had actually written."

No, it means that by the time I get done looking through 20 digests over a week I am not really planning to go back and find just who originally said the questionable stuff and who elaborated on it to no purpose. One or two mentions of something silly is not too bad. But by the time it is showing up in every other digest (and getting more excessive each time) I might suggest that the idea is perhaps not a very good idea.

You originally asked

>Who is this addressed to? I don't think anybody _did_ decide this. In
>fact, all the postings I have seen on this seem to be against the idea =
of
>homing arrows. Kevin, you seem to be addressing someone by your
>grammatical structure, but there is nobody to address, surely?

I quoted V.S. Greene GD 450
>> "What a neat idea, actually. Picture a special, incredibly rare =
weapons
>>plant whose fruit is a self-guiding arrow. Maybe they'd only be useful
>>against a specific type of enemy. Figure that it would always hit its
>>target, maybe even if it is out of sight."

And you responded by suggesting that I had made a straw man=20 argument. Not the case. I didn't post the original posters name but I think the original posting shows that there was at least one proponent (or what an outside observer could conclude is a proponent) of what I was saying.

Actually what happened is that the discussion rapidly evolved from a=20 throwaway line by James Frusetta in GD 446 to the line I quoted above. You responded with your fairly reasonable article in DG 451. (which, as it was fairly resonable, didn't much register - except that the writer had included another entire digest.) Then we had other assorted people playing with it (mostly in jest), culminating with Peter Tracy, in GD 461, who said=20

>"Imagine a very small thin initiate of the "Arrow" subcult of Aldrya=20
>hurtling towards you, mindlinked to the Elf that fired it... And the=20
>arrow can cast its OWN arrow magic...
>
>or one step further...
>
>The runner scout, sneaking through the undergrowth towards the Troll=20
>camp, mindlinked to his elf-allies, providing the service of forward=20
>observer for mindlinked arrows..."

This was the evolution from a mildly disgusting (if pointless-Elves don't need help hitting the target, they need assistance in taking it down) magical dohicky (#450) to the horribly gross (the mind-linked runners to the mind-linked arrows) (#461). While these were mostly not terribly serious they all seemed to be missing the point, which is that hitting targets is not the problem for the elves.

The article in 461 was the proximate cause of my original posting. I=20 tend to not name exactly who I'm suggesting is advocating a pointless position as it tends to irritate them needlessly.

>And I don't remember much Pelorian stuff in KoS, BTW (maybe I'm wrong =
here...).
This is more or less the point. I don't think there is much there either (not that I have worn out my copy), but people have used it as part of arguments whose validity I am unable to evaluate (even if I cared.)

>>Why do naturally poisonous Aldryami arrows make it "too easy for
>>Game/World balance"? In what fashion? As I do not ever expect to =
allow
>>anyone to play an Elf in a functioning Aldryami society I don't see any
>>reason why this matters. Alydryami are plants, hence they can handle
>>toxins that are really lethal to animals (Like nerve agents) and ignore
>>them.
>
>I mean "Effects of this kind would be too easy and 'cheap' for the elves=
 to
>produce if they were simple biology, and thus too unbalancing. Why
>wouldn't the elves have taken the world over if this were the case?"

There are two ways of attacking this question:   First, why does using biology vs some sort of vague "mystic" effect=20 necessarily make something less rare? A plant that concentrates heavy metals as toxins can only concentrate what is present. If you have too many plants they are each going to get a very weak toxin. A neurotoxin or such is likely to have a maximum duration that it will remain active after being picked (similar to snake venom). This provides a fairly natural limit to how effective the weapon is in a strategic sense. (even if they had arrow orchards).

  Second, even if they had an instant death arrow that killed without fail if it penetrated armor, it still has to penetrate armor. This is a fairly major limitation. Against your average dwarf an elf arrow has about zero chance of putting a hole in 12 point iron that is also reinforced with heavy sorcery. Trolls are in somewhat worse shape, but they have darksense and elves are not great shots at night, in the open. Humans have numbers, adequate armor, more flexible magic, and the ability to ally with the other races if need be.

There was a discussion of how 200 elves in the Pavis Garden could hold

off the 2000 trolls in the GMs guide to the Big Rubble. The author was willing to accept as fairly possible that the elves could fire 2000 arrows and hit with almost every one. The trick was a) penetrating armor and b) incapacitating the trolls once you did penetrate their armor.

>You are overrating the the Mostali pike and musket regiments, they are =
not
>a world-beater, a seven-and-a-half foot Uz with lots of Battle magic =
will
>still tear a Mostali (read "Dwarven", obviously I'm not talking about
>_real_ Mostali here!) in half with one blow and muskets are slow to =
reload.

Maybe, but Elder races, page 13: "In the second age they used guns, and mustered an unbeatable regiment armed with pike and musket." You perhaps have something contradicting this?

In reality an iron dwarf is not too horribly matched against a troll in a one-to-one fight. Trolls do more (base) damage but dwarves have much higher skills, iron weapons, massive magical assists, and the best armor on Glorantha. (Most trolls don't handle being hit by an iron axe with damage boost 20 on it very well.) As Iron dwarves always want to fight in formation they tend to destroy troll units in set piece field battles. That's why trolls are described as the best guerrilla fighters (excepting Alryami in their forests) and generally use harassing tactics and small raids to grind a dwarf army down.

Kevin


Powered by hypermail