RE: Re: City gods

From: Mike Holmes <homeydont_at_...>
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:55:36 -0500


>From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_...>
>
> >Uh, Peter, check back. I've never argued that he could use his abilities
> >outside of Pavis as magic. I agree with you.

>Sure doesn't look like it. I was criticizing the statement to the effect
>that
>heroes can invent weak excuses (i.e. the aforementioned "foolish love")
>to get around the ban.

Again, go read the post, Peter. I was saying that this was a reasonable reason for anybody to go to Sartar. Not that he would retain his magic. In fact, in the post in question I point out that's what's interesting in this case is that the character then has a conflict regarding his foolishness, and his previous committment to the cult which is made manifest by the fact that he doesn't have access to his magic.

I don't really want to argue this, but I do want my position to be clear.

> >My point was that, given that
> >this is how the setting is that we should come up with other ways to make
> >the character valid.
>
>What's wrong with abandoning his worship of Pavis since he thinks Pan
>-Heortling nationalism is a far greater cause than the City to whom he has
>previously devoted himself to? A more realistic proposition than most
>things
>advanced so far.

Nothing at all. That's a perfectly fine way to go. In fact, it's sorta what I was proposing. As long as this creates character tension - which I think it will - as opposed to just ignoring that he was at one point dedicated to something important, then I think this is a terribly interesting character concept.

Again, my contribution to the thread has been to agree with your position (tacitly, admittedly), and then to try to move on to a discussion of how the character concept can still be viable, sans magic.

> >Your response was that no such character should be allowed because cannon
> >made it so that they couldn't use their magic outside of the city.
>
>Wrong. If you are going to rewrite history then find someone else to
>deceive.
>My response was to a specific statement by flynn that you have omitted.

> >Responding to the idea that perhaps bending the restriction would be a
>way
> >out of the problem.
>
>Wrong again. I responded to the statements that the restriction was "not
>overly player friendly" and that nobody would play a Pavis cultist in
>Sartar
>in such circumstances.

Right, that's what I was trying to say - badly, apparently. I've said specifically that you were responding to the ideas proposed in the thread, but that it's only one angle, and that there's another to look at. One that I think will be more helpful to Flynnkd. But, hey, that's just my opinion.

> >Then a separate debate started up about whether or not such could be
> >reasonably rationalized, or whether or not YGMV is viable here...all not
>at
> >all pertinent to the original question.
>
>In other words, having misrepresented the original question you try and
>find some way of mischaracterizing the subsequent debate but are
>confronted with the problem that I agreed that HGMV.

Uh, that seems to assume that I think that you behaved in some way that needs correcting. Again, the debate in question is a valid one that proceeds apace. I was only calling attention back to what I saw as the original topic, and another approach to it.

> >If your
> >response is that you can't without altering canon, or having some other
> >reason to go, consider your point made.
>
>So having just revised the debate, you are still uncertain as to what I
>actually said. So why the pointlessly aggravating thread revisionism?

I'm not even sure what you're getting at here. It seems like we're arguing, but I'm not sure what about. I don't think that I am doing any revision, but that might just be my perspective. In any case, I don't see how the point that I think needs discussing is invalid.

> >But my point is that little about this has helped the original poster.
>
>What more help does he need? I've already conceded HGMV.

Well, he doesn't need any more help there, it sounds like he probably will go with that from what I've read. But I'm still trying to point out how the character can still make sense to play - how such a restriction is not too "player unfriendly" to play - without changing the canon. I think it might be helpful to him, and further, I think it's a helpful issue in general to discuss. As I posted before, more generally speaking, it's often the case that characters don't have access to some of their central abilities, and it's important to think about how to keep them interesting when this is true.

In any case, I'm not seeing an issue now, given that Jane has had the good sense to split off the part of the discussion that I wanted to see continue (thanks, Jane). Perhaps my idea is the tangential one. In any case, I apologize for having caused any pain here.

Mike



Get ready for school! Find articles, homework help and more in the Back to School Guide! http://special.msn.com/network/04backtoschool.armx

Powered by hypermail