Digest Archives Vol 1 Issue 142
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Sunday, January 17, 1999 9:25 AM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #142
champ-l-digest Sunday, January 17 1999 Volume 01 : Number 142
In this issue:
Re: Aragorn: Character
Re: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
Re: Y2k bug [VCR Fun]
Re: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
Nazgul Invulnerability (was Re: Aragorn)
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Aragorn: Character
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
RE: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
Re: Aragorn: Character
RE: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
RE: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
RE: Nazgul Invulnerability (was Re: Aragorn)
Re: Nazgul Invulnerability (was Re: Aragorn)
RE: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Re: Batman Beyond
RE: Nazgul Invulnerability (was Re: Aragorn)
Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:28:30 GMT
From: samael@clark.net (Acid Rainbow)
Subject: Re: Aragorn: Character
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:26:09 -0500, Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> sent
these symbols into the net:
>The closest thing I can find to a reference to their form is the way they
>moved on Weathertop. I often thought of them as incorporeal as well,
>but Tolkien never actually says that. Two points of evidence in favor
>of their solidity: 1) ICE treats them that way and ; 2) Eowyn killed the
>Lord of the Nazgul. Nothing anywhere (besides that fact) suggests
>that her sword is magical. In fact, it is just her sheer skill (and help
>from Merry) that does it.
>
While it's true that Eowyn wasn't carrying any magical weapons, Merry
*was* carrying a magical short sword he got from the barrow-downs. I'm
inclined to think it was the sword Merry used that did the job.
**********************************************************************
*Lissajous patterns and windmills and don't ask about the connection.*
* Acid Rainbow: Semi-professional windmill-tilter. *
**********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 99 22:24:08
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:54:37 -0500, Scott Nolan wrote:
>36 Desolidification,Only to Fire, 0 END Persistent,Always On
Cue arguments about Immunity to X. Personally I go for
60 100% rDR [120], Only vs Fire (-1)
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 99 22:39:29
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Y2k bug [VCR Fun]
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:42:37 -0800, Filksinger wrote:
>Forget VCR fun, how about real fun? Have a party New Years Eve. At exactly
>midnight, flip the master circuit breaker switch. See how long it takes them
>to figure out the other houses on the street have power.
Cruel swine! I love it!
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 99 22:35:08
From: "qts" <qts@nildram.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 02:54:37 -0500, Scott Nolan wrote:
>THE BALROG
>
>55 STR 0* *=Growth Figured In
>20 DEX 30
>25 CON 30
>30 BODY 22*
>18 INT 8
>25 EGO 30
>60 PRE 50
>4 COM 3
- -3 surely.
>18 PD 16
>14 ED 9
>4 SPD 10
>20 REC 26
>50 END 0
>100 STUN 52*
>Characteristics Cost: 280
>
>13 2" Change Environment,"Fire Aura",No Range,0 END Persistent
>25 2" Darkness,Sight Group,No Range,Personal Immunity 4
>15 25% Damage Reduction (PD),resistant
>15 25% Damage Reduction (ED),resistant
>36 Desolidification,Only to Fire, 0 END Persistent,Always On
>8 8/8 Damage Resistance
>30 3 BODY Regeneration
>10 10 Power Defense
>10 10 Flash Defense
>5 10 Mental Defense
How about putting these defenses in an EC? Then you could model him
being attacked by a Weaken Defenses attack (Drain)
>5 5 Lack Of Weakness
>
>30 Life Support,doesn't breathe,doesn't eat/sleep/excrete,safe
> in vacuum/pressure,safe in radiation,safe in heat/cold,
> immune to disease,immune to aging
>
>60 9 LVLS Growth,Always On,0 END Persistent
>
>5 Infrared Vision
>13 +2 Detect,"Life",make into sense,Ranged
>48 4D6 Killing Attack HTH,"Claws",vs physical defense,Reduced
> Penetration
I'd make these AP. Or, if you boost his STR to 60, this becomes 2x4d6K
>10 2 Levels,Melee Combat
>24 12" Flight
>80 8D6 Energy Blast,Damage Shield,0 END
A bit wimpy!
>3 Ambidexterity
>3 Bump Of Direction
>7 15- Combat Sense
>5 Defense Maneuver
>28 15- Universal Translator
>
>6 AK: Moria 16-
>
>80 4,000 100 pt. Followers (Orcs)
>
>40 Package,"Whip",OAF,personal focus
>(25) 5D6 Entangle
>(15) 8D6 Energy Blast,beam attack,Linked,"Entangle"
>
>50 Package,"Sword",OAF,unbreakable,personal focus
>(5) 2 Levels,related group
>(30) 4D6 Killing Attack HTH,vs physical defense
>(15) 8D6 Energy Blast,beam attack,Linked,"Killing Attack"
<snip>
I hate to say this but this is *far* too wimpy for something supposedly
Sauron's equal in power.
I'd add in a 150 pt VPP for magic, and make its attacks far nastier.
qts
Home: qts@nildram.co.uk.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 17:44:13 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Hayden <mhayden@tsoft.com>
Subject: Nazgul Invulnerability (was Re: Aragorn)
On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, Acid Rainbow wrote:
> While it's true that Eowyn wasn't carrying any magical weapons, Merry
> *was* carrying a magical short sword he got from the barrow-downs. I'm
> inclined to think it was the sword Merry used that did the job.
Bingo. The Nazgul King claimed that he could not be killed by any man.
Eowyn took that to mean that a woman -could- kill the Nazgul, and that's
what she tried to do.
In actuality, the Nazgul King meant he could not be killed by any Man --
capital "M", meaning human. That's where Merry came in...
On a more speculative level, I think the Nazgul claim of invulnerability
against humans was more prophetic than real. In terms of raw power, yes,
the Nazgul were nigh unstoppable, but under the right circumstances they
- -could- be hurt. As it happened, it was a hobbit that killed him, hence
the claim/prophecy that he could not (or would not, maybe, if it were a
prophecy?) be killed by any Man.
Something to consider when you're writing the powers...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael D. Hayden -- mhayden@silverhammer.org -- http://silverhammer.org/
Hey, I use Procmail with Spam Bouncer, so spam away! (^_^)
"What you are about to see is real. These are not actors; they're directors."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:23:24 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
At 02:25 PM 1/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
>I can see characters with a code vs. killing possessing a killing attack
>(examples, Superman, and his heat vision; Batman and his sharp edged
>batarangs).
>
IMO, Batman doesn't have code against killing, just against guns.
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
And it's a little-known fact that the Y1K problem caused the Dark Ages.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 18:30:10 -0800
From: Christopher Taylor <ctaylor@viser.net>
Subject: Re: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
>>10 2 Levels,Melee Combat
>>24 12" Flight
>>80 8D6 Energy Blast,Damage Shield,0 END
>
>A bit wimpy!
You dont play much Heroic level do you?
>I hate to say this but this is *far* too wimpy for something supposedly
>Sauron's equal in power.
That would be due to the fact he isnt Sauron's equal.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sola Gracia Sola Scriptura Sola Fide
Soli Gloria Deo Solus Christus Corum Deo
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:19:42 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
I feel compelled to step in here.
At 01:57 PM 1/16/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Gee... waht a wonderfully 'elitist' attitude. "Hi, I'm an old time list
>member, which means what I say goes. If you don't think like I do, then
>I will have you removed."
>
He didn't say that. What he said was that saying you're new does not
excuse you're being rude in calling many of the people here munchkins,
especiall over an issue where their position is backed by Hero Games. And
he did not say he was having anybody removed or that he had the power to do
so, but made it clear that a person who behaved this way was, in his
opinion, not welcome here.
>Whatever happened to freedom of speech and expression? Of "I may not
>agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it?"
>
"You're free to speak your mind, but not on my time." If you can't be
civil, don't expect the rest of us to listen to you.
I, too have had a problem with the prevailing opinon on this list in some
matters, and once I even took a tone that those who opposed me were clearly
morons. I have since decided that it is _I_ who have failed to explain my
argument clearly, and until I can do so I should let the subject drop,
which I did.
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
And it's a little-known fact that the Y1K problem caused the Dark Ages.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:54:51 -0500 (EST)
From: tdj723@webtv.net (thomas deja)
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
>From: gheald@worldnet.att.net (geoff heald)
>> IMO, Batman doesn't have code against
>> killing, just against guns.
No--he has a Code V. Killing, according to BATMAN guru Denny O'Neil....
"A trial without witnesses is like the Euro, a monetary system without
the benefits of paper money or coin--what's the fun of that?"
- --Harry Shearer
____________________________________
THE ULTIMATE HULK, containing the new story, "A Quiet, Normal Life," is
available now from Byron Preiss and Berkley
_______________________________
An except from the new story "Too Needy" can now be found at MAKE UP
YOUR OWN DAMN TITLE
www.freeyellow.com/members/tdj
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:24:21 -0600
From: Lance Dyas <lancelot@binary.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
Ah batman has both how he got it past the game master i will never know
geoff heald wrote:
> At 02:25 PM 1/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >I can see characters with a code vs. killing possessing a killing attack
> >(examples, Superman, and his heat vision; Batman and his sharp edged
> >batarangs).
> >
> IMO, Batman doesn't have code against killing, just against guns.
>
> ============================
> Geoff Heald
> ============================
> And it's a little-known fact that the Y1K problem caused the Dark Ages.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 21:08:39 -0600
From: Lance Dyas <lancelot@binary.net>
Subject: Re: Aragorn: Character
Acid Rainbow wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 17:26:09 -0500, Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com> sent
> these symbols into the net:
>
> >The closest thing I can find to a reference to their form is the way they
> >moved on Weathertop. I often thought of them as incorporeal as well,
> >but Tolkien never actually says that. Two points of evidence in favor
> >of their solidity: 1) ICE treats them that way and ; 2) Eowyn killed the
> >Lord of the Nazgul. Nothing anywhere (besides that fact) suggests
> >that her sword is magical. In fact, it is just her sheer skill (and help
> >from Merry) that does it.
> >
> While it's true that Eowyn wasn't carrying any magical weapons, Merry
> *was* carrying a magical short sword he got from the barrow-downs. I'm
> inclined to think it was the sword Merry used that did the job.
> *********
I wouldnt be so certain either or both her femeninity and his hobbitishness
didnt really fulfill the prophecy (That prophecy would make an interesting
limit to place on whatever defensive powers the Nazgul have)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:53:51 -0500
From: "Ronald A. Miller" <rabmiller@email.msn.com>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
>I, too have had a problem with the prevailing opinon on this list in some
>matters, and once I even took a tone that those who opposed me were clearly
>morons. I have since decided that it is _I_ who have failed to explain my
>argument clearly, and until I can do so I should let the subject drop,
>which I did.
Thanks for that, Geoff, we've moved on... I haven't called anybody a
"moron" (there's them dang quotes again), what I said was to the effect of
this "... seems a bit munchkiny...". Take it as you like, if you haven't
had problems with rule benders, then you're that much more better off.
'Nuff said.
Miller
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 19:33:06 -0800
From: Scott Bennie <sbennie@dowco.com>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
I'll respectfully disagree. Otherwise, the Joker would have been Joker jerky
after Jason was killed or after Barbara was crippled.
Also, Superman uses "the code vs. killing" they share as the one thing they
have in common in Kingdom Come.
geoff heald wrote:
> At 02:25 PM 1/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
> >I can see characters with a code vs. killing possessing a killing attack
> >(examples, Superman, and his heat vision; Batman and his sharp edged
> >batarangs).
> >
> IMO, Batman doesn't have code against killing, just against guns.
>
> ============================
> Geoff Heald
> ============================
> And it's a little-known fact that the Y1K problem caused the Dark Ages.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:17:32 -0600
From: "Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin" <griffin@txdirect.net>
Subject: RE: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
At 10:38 AM 1/16/1999 -0500, Scott A. Colcord wrote:
>Umm, it might be time to dust off those books and give them another
>read. The quote from Gandalf was from "The Two Towers", chapter 5,
>speaking to Gimli:
>
>"Dangerous!", cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more
>dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought
>alive before the seat of the Dark Lord."
>
>Gandalf's imprisonment was at the hands of Saruman, not Treebeard.
>(Treebeard was one of the good guys!). At the time Gandalf said
>that "There are many powers greater than mine, for good and evil,
>in the world.", Saruman was still more powerful than he. That
>changed after Gandalf died and was resurrected. Note also that
>the quote states that he's the most dangerous thing they'll ever
>meet...there are other powers in the world (the Valar), that are
>far more powerful.
This is what I get for reading notes (which I had handy) instead of going
to the trouble of digging out the books in their final published form.
What I said earlier was not from my memory, but from the History of
Middle-Earth Volume VI: Return of the Shadow (page 363). This describes an
early draft of LotR. The conversation I mentioned between Frodo and
Gandalf takes place in "Many Meetings", Chapter 1 of Book II of "The
Fellowship of the Ring".
However, by the time the story was published, the dialogue had been revised
so that all Gandalf would tell Frodo at the time was that he'd been held
captive (he didn't say at that point by whom). His placement of himself in
the hierarchy of power is worded differently, too:
"There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are
greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured."
It is true that he was still Grey at this point, and gained power after
bleaching. He was also Grey on the bridge at Khazad-Dum, so your earlier
statement that "Gandalf is by his own admission the most dangerous thing in
Middle Earth, other than Sauron. And the Balrog killed him." might still
be questioned, if only on the basis of the order of events; Gandalf the
*White* made the claim of being dangerous, Gandalf the *Grey* -- a less
powerful entity, we all agree -- was killed by the Balrog.
I only suggest that Gandalf was not, prior to his transition, the
second-most dangerous person Gimli might have hoped to meet in
Middle-Earth, and so his death at the hands of the Balrog is somewhat less
remarkable as a result.
I don't think I'm contributing to this thread in a substantial way at the
moment, so I'll just be quiet and enjoy the write-ups for now. If I feel
moved to comment again, I'll try to check the reference first.
Damon
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 23:55:41 -0500
From: Badger <wbandsis@wstcm1.westco.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
At 07:33 PM 1/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
>I'll respectfully disagree. Otherwise, the Joker would have been Joker jerky
>after Jason was killed or after Barbara was crippled.
>
>Also, Superman uses "the code vs. killing" they share as the one thing they
>have in common in Kingdom Come.
Batman in modern day Gotham does have the Code Against killing. unless
you're talking the movies. The old batman in the future Darknight books by
miller wouldn't have the COK. Batman mighty not obey all the laws but he
doesn't kill and makes killers his priority to put behind bars. That's one
of the reason he and joker make such interesting foes.
- ----------------------------------------
What's going on?"
"I blew up the building."
"Why did you do that?"
"Because you made a phone call."
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 23:58:28 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
At 04:50 PM 1/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>>>No, Christopher. You are completely wrong. There are twelve Valar, and
>>>>countless maiar. Go look. The Valar are far more powerful.
>>>>
>>>>And the other word for wizards is "Istari".
>>>
>>>Thank you for the proper word Istari :) replace where I used valar for
>>>that word... and rethink the world 'completely'
>>
>>Only in this matter. The Istari -are- maiar.
>
>Yet they are less powerful and have a different name. This is why I said
>they were different, because they are. I dont actually recall reading
>anywhere that the wizards were maiar, actually, it would help if you would
>give me a reference where you get this idea.
They had to forsake power to become Istari, yet they never gave up their
status as ainur and maiar. Numerous sources support this. Here are
two:
1) In LOtR Gandalf says "Olorin I was in my youth in the West that is
forgotten" (Two Towers, p. 353). In The Silmarillion (pp. 30-31) we find
that Olorin is said to be the wisest of the maiar, of the company of Lorien.
2) "Who would go? For they must be peers of Sauron, but they must
forgo might and clothe themselves in flesh, so as to treat on equality and
win the trust of Elves and Men. But this would imperil them, dimming their
wisdom and knowledge, and confuse them with fears, cares and weariness
coming from the flesh." (Unfinished Tales, p. 393)
Peers of Sauron. Sauron is a maiar. Saruman and Sauron were both
maiar of the same Valar, Aule. The Istari are simply those maiar (the number
varies depending on source) who took up the flesh at the command of Manwe
and Mandos.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I distrust all systematizers, and avoid them. The will to
a system shows a lack of honesty."
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:41:57 -0600
From: "Melinda and Steven Mitchell" <mdmitche@advicom.net>
Subject: Re: Aragorn: Character
> From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
>
> At 11:13 PM 1/15/99 -0500, Scott Colcord wrote:
> >
> >He also needs to buy partial immunity to aging.
>
> I totally disagree with this. A lifespan longer than human is
> not immortality. He wasn't even among the longer-lived
> of the Dunadan.
>
Note he said "partial" immunity. I buy this as 1 pt for half-elves,
halflings, and other creatures that seem to live well into their hundreds.
I'd rate Aragaon in this kind of company.
BTW, I make dwarves, gnomes, and others that live 4 or 5 hundred years
spend 2 points towards this, and then elves spend 3 points. I also give
goblins and their ilk -1 for a 1/2 human lifespan. This is based more or
less straight off of Tolkien.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:11:09 -0500
From: "Scott A. Colcord" <sacolcor@ic.net>
Subject: RE: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
>>> THE BALROG
>>
>>> 36 Desolidification,Only to Fire, 0 END Persistent,Always On
>>
>> I probably wouldn't allow taking both 'Only to Fire' and
>> 'Always On' for points; how does 'Always On' provide any
>> additional limitation?
>
> <shrug> he can't read the funnies without the paper bursting
> into flames? I dunno. It's just always on.
>
> Actually, Gandalf notes that it went out after the two plunged
> into the water at the bottom of the chasm, and that it only relit
> once they got to the top of the Endless Stair, but it seemed like
> such an infrequent thing (once in creation) that it wasn't worth
> modeling.
I'm a touch confused here...how does Desolidification set paper on
fire? My point is that having desolidification vs. fire effectively
makes you immune to fire. Making this Always On wouldn't really be
a limitation; when would you want to turn it off? People don't
generally /want/ to burn themselves.
----Scott
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:19:20 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: RE: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
At 12:11 AM 1/17/99 -0500, Scott A. Colcord wrote:
>>>> THE BALROG
>>>
>>>> 36 Desolidification,Only to Fire, 0 END Persistent,Always On
>>>
>>> I probably wouldn't allow taking both 'Only to Fire' and
>>> 'Always On' for points; how does 'Always On' provide any
>>> additional limitation?
>>
>> <shrug> he can't read the funnies without the paper bursting
>> into flames? I dunno. It's just always on.
>>
>> Actually, Gandalf notes that it went out after the two plunged
>> into the water at the bottom of the chasm, and that it only relit
>> once they got to the top of the Endless Stair, but it seemed like
>> such an infrequent thing (once in creation) that it wasn't worth
>> modeling.
>
>I'm a touch confused here...how does Desolidification set paper on
>fire? My point is that having desolidification vs. fire effectively
>makes you immune to fire. Making this Always On wouldn't really be
>a limitation; when would you want to turn it off? People don't
>generally /want/ to burn themselves.
Oops. Got me there, Scott! I wasn't paying attention. See? I do admit
my mistakes!
I actually like the 100% Damage Reduction mechanic,
and would play it that way in my own campaign, but avoided it because
this was for list consumption.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I distrust all systematizers, and avoid them. The will to
a system shows a lack of honesty."
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:37:14 -0500
From: "Scott A. Colcord" <sacolcor@ic.net>
Subject: RE: Nazgul Invulnerability (was Re: Aragorn)
> On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, Acid Rainbow wrote:
>
>> While it's true that Eowyn wasn't carrying any magical
>> weapons, Merry *was* carrying a magical short sword he got
>> from the barrow-downs. I'm inclined to think it was the sword
>> Merry used that did the job.
>
> Bingo. The Nazgul King claimed that he could not be killed by
> any man. Eowyn took that to mean that a woman -could- kill the
> Nazgul, and that's what she tried to do.
>
> In actuality, the Nazgul King meant he could not be killed by
> any Man -- capital "M", meaning human. That's where Merry came in...
The two applicable quotes here are from "Return of the King",
chapters four and six:
(Gandalf speaking to Denethor):
"And if words spoken of old be true, not by the hand of man shall he
fall, and hidden from the Wise is the doom that awaits him."
(The Lord of the Nazgul speaking to Dernhelm/Eowyn):
"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"
In the actual fight, Merry only stabs him in the back of the knee,
giving Eowyn the opening to stab him in the (invisible) face.
Between these quotes and the description of the fight, I'd say they
both hurt him, with Eowyn getting the death blow. His defense,
therefore, would be some form of immunity to the attacks of human
males.
----Scott
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:11:00 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: Re: Nazgul Invulnerability (was Re: Aragorn)
>> While it's true that Eowyn wasn't carrying any magical weapons, Merry
>> *was* carrying a magical short sword he got from the barrow-downs. I'm
>> inclined to think it was the sword Merry used that did the job.
>
>Bingo. The Nazgul King claimed that he could not be killed by any man.
>Eowyn took that to mean that a woman -could- kill the Nazgul, and that's
>what she tried to do.
>
>In actuality, the Nazgul King meant he could not be killed by any Man --
>capital "M", meaning human. That's where Merry came in...
>
>On a more speculative level, I think the Nazgul claim of invulnerability
>against humans was more prophetic than real. In terms of raw power, yes,
>the Nazgul were nigh unstoppable, but under the right circumstances they
>-could- be hurt. As it happened, it was a hobbit that killed him, hence
>the claim/prophecy that he could not (or would not, maybe, if it were a
>prophecy?) be killed by any Man.
>
>Something to consider when you're writing the powers...
I think it's clear that Merry -and- Eowyn killed him. Her sword flew apart
when she stabbed him.
And I agree with the interpretation that the nazgul was -fated- to be killed
in that manner, not that he was immune to other forms of destruction. It
was Glorfindel, an elf, who foresaw at the battle of Fornost in Third Age
1975 that "No man" would kill the Witch-King. Surely the Lord of the
Nazgul's (The Witch-King's) claim a thousand years later that no man could
kill him was based on his having heard of this prophecy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I distrust all systematizers, and avoid them. The will to
a system shows a lack of honesty."
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:14:47 -0500
From: Scott Nolan <nolan@erols.com>
Subject: RE: Character: The Balrog (And you thought Aragorn was controversial!)
At 10:17 PM 1/16/99 -0600, Michael (Damon) & Peni Griffin wrote:
>At 10:38 AM 1/16/1999 -0500, Scott A. Colcord wrote:
>>Umm, it might be time to dust off those books and give them another
>>read. The quote from Gandalf was from "The Two Towers", chapter 5,
>>speaking to Gimli:
>>
>>"Dangerous!", cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more
>>dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought
>>alive before the seat of the Dark Lord."
>>
>>Gandalf's imprisonment was at the hands of Saruman, not Treebeard.
>>(Treebeard was one of the good guys!). At the time Gandalf said
>>that "There are many powers greater than mine, for good and evil,
>>in the world.", Saruman was still more powerful than he. That
>>changed after Gandalf died and was resurrected. Note also that
>>the quote states that he's the most dangerous thing they'll ever
>>meet...there are other powers in the world (the Valar), that are
>>far more powerful.
>
>This is what I get for reading notes (which I had handy) instead of going
>to the trouble of digging out the books in their final published form.
>What I said earlier was not from my memory, but from the History of
>Middle-Earth Volume VI: Return of the Shadow (page 363). This describes an
>early draft of LotR. The conversation I mentioned between Frodo and
>Gandalf takes place in "Many Meetings", Chapter 1 of Book II of "The
>Fellowship of the Ring".
>
>However, by the time the story was published, the dialogue had been revised
>so that all Gandalf would tell Frodo at the time was that he'd been held
>captive (he didn't say at that point by whom). His placement of himself in
>the hierarchy of power is worded differently, too:
>
>"There are many powers in the world, for good or for evil. Some are
>greater than I am. Against some I have not yet been measured."
>
>It is true that he was still Grey at this point, and gained power after
>bleaching. He was also Grey on the bridge at Khazad-Dum, so your earlier
>statement that "Gandalf is by his own admission the most dangerous thing in
>Middle Earth, other than Sauron. And the Balrog killed him." might still
>be questioned, if only on the basis of the order of events; Gandalf the
>*White* made the claim of being dangerous, Gandalf the *Grey* -- a less
>powerful entity, we all agree -- was killed by the Balrog.
>
>I only suggest that Gandalf was not, prior to his transition, the
>second-most dangerous person Gimli might have hoped to meet in
>Middle-Earth, and so his death at the hands of the Balrog is somewhat less
>remarkable as a result.
I entirely agree. But I would put him on the Top Ten list, and nearer to the
top
than the bottom!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I distrust all systematizers, and avoid them. The will to
a system shows a lack of honesty."
Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott C. Nolan
nolan@erols.com
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 07:10:17 GMT
From: samael@clark.net (Acid Rainbow)
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
On Sat, 16 Jan 1999 11:06:14 -0500, Mike Christodoulou
<Cypriot@concentric.net> sent these symbols into the net:
>BAD HABITS OF POOR GAMERS or LIMITATIONS OF CHAMPIONS MECHANICS
<snip>
>* Hitting an opponent with killing level damage because chances are
> the dice will come up in your favor.
>
> This especially applies to players who take the Code Against
> Killing disad (apparently just for the points), but still have no
> problems using the big guns. "It's almost impossible to actually
> kill someone in Champions, and besides, I'd have to roll all 5s
> and 6s."
This one is iffy, but if Our Hero is up against a brick-type villain, a
robot, or vehicle, I don't see where he's violated his CVK.
>
>* Ignoring a down team member because you know that he's only at -10
> and will be up again after post-segment-12.
>
> In the movies, when your partner gets hit, you rush to help him
> out. At least until he protests weakly, "I'm ok. Go get the
> mad scientist!" I suppose one way of handling it is never to
> tell anyone your Stun level.
The above is more appropriate with a Super-Agent or Heroic-level
campaign, IMO. Members of super-teams traditionally keep fighting until
they're all KO'd or the situation's resolved. If a member has paramedic or
appropriate powers, that's different, but...
>* Exposing an innocent with an Ego or Stun Only blast because it
> doesn't really do any damage.
>
> Let's say you've got an area effect stun grenade. The bad guys
> have been considerate enough to group themselves together, but
> darn it if there isn't a pregnant mother walking into your target
> radius. "Oh well ... She'll be fine after she recovers her stun."
IMNSHO, the pregnant woman's a bit of a straw man here. If there *is*
one in the crowd, make sure the players know it before-hand. It's extremely
unfair to have one pop up in the middle of the crowd after the hero lets
fly. BTW, this *is* why they developed rubber bullets, 'instant
banana-peel' tear gas, etc IRL. In other words, if an attack's bought
stun-only, it's meant to be something Our Hero can fire into a crowd
without fear of excessive casualties.
This also, IMNSHO, is another arguement for making flash attacks
somewhat cheaper, because a flash attack does no damage at *all*.
>* Shrugging off damage to the tune of 8 BODY because you still have
> 2 BODY left and that's enough to keep the battle going.
>
> Sure, it's one thing to heroically claim "I'm hurt bad ... but
> I still have to save the world!" It's another to have your
> enemy take you down to 2 Body, and still perform your acrobatic
> maneuvers like an expert. Minuses on all your skill rolls?
This may be hard to believe, but this and the stun lotto *are* modeled
on real-world experience. The .45 automatic was developed because it was
discovered that people could take 2 or 3 .38 slugs, and keep on coming.
I've personally had broken bones, and largish cuts that I didn't really
feel until about 10-20 minutes after the fact. OTOH, minor cuts and things
like having blood drawn are often quite painful.
**********************************************************************
*Lissajous patterns and windmills and don't ask about the connection.*
* Acid Rainbow: Semi-professional windmill-tilter. *
**********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 02:46:23 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
At 11:55 PM 1/16/99 -0500, you wrote:
>At 07:33 PM 1/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
>>I'll respectfully disagree. Otherwise, the Joker would have been Joker jerky
>>after Jason was killed or after Barbara was crippled.
>>
>>Also, Superman uses "the code vs. killing" they share as the one thing they
>>have in common in Kingdom Come.
>
>Batman in modern day Gotham does have the Code Against killing. unless
>you're talking the movies. The old batman in the future Darknight books by
>miller wouldn't have the COK. Batman mighty not obey all the laws but he
>doesn't kill and makes killers his priority to put behind bars. That's one
>of the reason he and joker make such interesting foes.
>
IMO, a big piece of why Batman doesn't kill is that he wants to so badly.
If he steps over that line, the only difference between him and the Joker
is victim selection.
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
And it's a little-known fact that the Y1K problem caused the Dark Ages.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 02:44:13 -0500
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
>geoff heald wrote:
>
>> At 02:25 PM 1/16/99 -0800, you wrote:
>> >I can see characters with a code vs. killing possessing a killing attack
>> >(examples, Superman, and his heat vision; Batman and his sharp edged
>> >batarangs).
>> >
>> IMO, Batman doesn't have code against killing, just against guns.
>>
At 07:33 PM 1/16/99 -0800, Scott Bennie wrote:
>I'll respectfully disagree. Otherwise, the Joker would have been Joker jerky
>after Jason was killed or after Barbara was crippled.
>
Well, (and a big IMO here) Batman has a big thing about Justice. To that
end, he wouldn't kill the Joker for revenge. And, he has a thing about
insane people not being responsible for their actions. He believes that
everyone can be reached, that "We can all beat our own personal demons."
So, he wouldn't kill Two-Face because that would also kill Harvey Dent, an
innocent man. But if it were simple, clear cut, kill the Joker or someone
else dies, right now, immediately: Joker's toast, no regrets. Well, the
regret that he couldn't find another way to stop him.
In The Dark Knight Returns, which is NOT part of the official storyline, he
throws a batarang at a gang-banger's eye, direct hit, bloody destruction.
Of course, he also fires a gun at a bad guy threatening a hostage.
Related: in the premere of Batman Beyond (The 30 minute bit that ran on
Kids WB Saturday morning), did Bruce give up being Batman because his pains
had caused him to almost fail, or because in his desperation, he had
grabbed an fired a gun?
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
And it's a little-known fact that the Y1K problem caused the Dark Ages.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999 18:09:56 -0800 (PST)
From: shaw@caprica.com (Wayne Shaw)
Subject: Re: Batman Beyond
>Related: in the premere of Batman Beyond (The 30 minute bit that ran on
>Kids WB Saturday morning), did Bruce give up being Batman because his pains
>had caused him to almost fail, or because in his desperation, he had
>grabbed an fired a gun?
I got the impression because of his expression that the latter at least had
a hell of a lot to do with it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 99 09:07:16 -0400
From: John P Weatherman <asahoshi@nr.infi.net>
Subject: RE: Nazgul Invulnerability (was Re: Aragorn)
Scott A. Colcord sacolcor@ic.net 1/17/99 1:37 AM
>> On Sun, 17 Jan 1999, Acid Rainbow wrote:
>>
>>> While it's true that Eowyn wasn't carrying any magical
>>> weapons, Merry *was* carrying a magical short sword he got
>>> from the barrow-downs. I'm inclined to think it was the sword
>>> Merry used that did the job.
>
>In the actual fight, Merry only stabs him in the back of the knee,
>giving Eowyn the opening to stab him in the (invisible) face.
>
>Between these quotes and the description of the fight, I'd say they
>both hurt him, with Eowyn getting the death blow. His defense,
>therefore, would be some form of immunity to the attacks of human
>males.
I think I would tend to agree more with Scott Nolan's view that the
"invulnerability" was more a matter of prophesy than actual power.
Reguardless however, I think the death blow was most likely Merry's.
_The Return of the King_, Chapter 6
So passed the sword of the Barrow-downs, work of Westernesse. But
glad would he have been to know its fate who wrought it slowly long
ago in the North-kingdom when the Dunedain were young, and chief
amoung their foes was the dread realm of Angmar and its sorcerer king.
No other blade, not though mightier hands had wielded it, would have
dealt that foe a wound so bitter, cleaving the undead flesh, breaking
the spell that knit his unseen sinews to his will.
I imply from this that Eowyn's blow didn't actually hurt him. Her
wounds and shattered sword a testiment to even the dying power of the
Lord of the Nazgul!
I didn't see what started this, but it is worth mentioning that only
the Lord himself seemed to be confident that no man (or Man) could
"hinder" him. Even if you wanted to use some form of invulnerabilty
it sould apply only to him, not the "lesser" nazgul.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 08:40:04 -0500
From: Mike Christodoulou <Cypriot@concentric.net>
Subject: Re: Bad Habits of Poor Gamers
At 07:10 AM 1/17/99 +0000, Acid Rainbow wrote:
>This one is iffy, but if Our Hero is up against a brick-type villain, a
>robot, or vehicle, I don't see where he's violated his CVK.
Though not specifically detailed in my original message, I'm not
talking about going up against a brick. Obviously, 12 dice against
Tank Guy cannot be considered a killing attack. But what if he
throws 12 dice against a martial artist, figuring that, on the
average, he'll only get about 40-some points of stun and MAYBE 12
body, most of which will PROBABLY get absorbed by the guy's (activation
roll) armor. The possibility exists that this roll could severely
cripple the opponent.
>one in the crowd, make sure the players know it before-hand. It's extremely
>unfair to have one pop up in the middle of the crowd after the hero lets
>fly. BTW, this *is* why they developed rubber bullets, 'instant
>banana-peel' tear gas, etc IRL. In other words, if an attack's bought
>stun-only, it's meant to be something Our Hero can fire into a crowd
>without fear of excessive casualties.
So "heroes" can fire rubber bullets indiscriminately into a crowd???
Sorry ... I must be using a different definition of "hero".
> This may be hard to believe, but this and the stun lotto *are* modeled
>on real-world experience. The .45 automatic was developed because it was
>discovered that people could take 2 or 3 .38 slugs, and keep on coming.
>I've personally had broken bones, and largish cuts that I didn't really
>feel until about 10-20 minutes after the fact. OTOH, minor cuts and things
>like having blood drawn are often quite painful.
Yes, but I'll bet that you probably would have had a little trouble on
the parallel bars with those broken bones.
====================== =================================================
Mike Christodoulou "Never doubt that a small group of committed
Cypriot@Concentric.Net citizens can change the world. In fact, it is
(770) 662-5605 the only thing that ever has." -- Margaret Mead
====================== =================================================
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #142
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Monday, May 24, 1999 03:12 PM