Digest Archive vol 1 Issue 272
From: owner-champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 1999 9:10 PM
To: champ-l-digest@sysabend.org
Subject: champ-l-digest V1 #272
champ-l-digest Saturday, April 10 1999 Volume 01 : Number 272
In this issue:
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Civilization
Re: 5th Edition
Re: 5th Edition
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Non-Lethal Weapons
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Non-Lethal Weapons
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
FW: was: off list: theme villains
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Re: theme villains
Hearing
Re: FW: was: off list: theme villains
Damage Values
Re: Damage Values
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:08:18 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
> > Havening recently read some material on Aztec mythos, I disagree. Aztec
> > gods can be very confusing and it trying to define tham in Hero terms
> > would take some work. GURPS Aztec might help (never seen it), but in
> > genreal the dieties of the Aztecs are not as straight forward as those
of
> > hte Greeks or Norse.
>
> Are the greeks or norse even that straightforward? If they are,
> they are about the only ones. Even the Judeo-Christian Diety(ies) are
> anything but straightforward.
Absolutely. The traditions of the Greek, Roman, and Norse gods clearly
indicate what each one does, what sort of special powers each has. Thor
throws a hammer that is lightning, and is incredibly strong. Artemis was the
virgin huntress, and so would have incredible archery skills, a powerful
bow, etc. Athena had powers of transformation, capable of turning a woman
into a spider. Etc.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 13:20:45 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Civilization
I know that this is off-topic, but does anyone have Civ:Call to
Power? Any early reviews--I may go buy it.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 18:24:00 GMT
From: samael@clark.net (Acid Rainbow)
Subject: Re: 5th Edition
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999 17:04:27 EDT, HeroGames@aol.com sent these symbols =
into
the net:
>
>In a message dated 4/9/99 1:11:36 PM, nbymail11@mln.lib.ma.us writes:
>
>>My hopes for minimal typos in the 5th edition have just gone way up, by
>>the
>>way - hardly anyone ever spells "Svitavsky" right, even when they're =
just
>>transcribing from one typed document to another.=20
>
>Remember, Steve Long is just drafting the manuscript. Bruce Harlick and =
I=20
>still have to go through and put in all the typos. ;)
Speaking of such things, there are 2 issues I'd like to raise again, =
the
first being Flash attacks, is there any change planned for the 5th =
edition?
I feel that the 4th edition made flash attacks too costly in regard to
their effects. One point in favor of flash attacks is that since they do
*no* damage to the target, (at least in game terms) they're the attack of
choice for a character with Code vs Killing. Raising the price penalizes
characters who'd rather not hurt their opponents any more than they'd =
have
to.
Second is Double knockback vs buying off knockback dice. I used to have=
a
character with a 6D6 EB with 2 dice of KB bought off for a 1/2 advantage,
the thing about this attack is it was quite useful vs agents because it
would usually KO or stun them without hurting them, and would even work
versus bricks because unless said brick had knockback resistance, one =
could
count on being able to knock said brick over. What I find objectionable
about Double KB isn't the times when I get none (although it's
inconvenient) but the times when an agent is knocked for 12" into a
questonite wall.
**********************************************************************
*Lissajous patterns and windmills and don't ask about the connection.*
* Acid Rainbow: Semi-professional windmill-tilter. *
**********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:06:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: SURGAT <RAVANOS@NJCU.edu>
Subject: Re: 5th Edition
>What I find objectionable about Double KB isn't the times when I get
>none (...) but the times when an agent is knocked for 12" into a
>questonite wall.
When fighting agents, you can always decrease the ammount of dice
(especially the additional KB dice). If you have a KB based power,
you might want to consider defining the KB as KnockDown instead, thus
you can topple Brick Titans and just mash agents instead of flinging
them like beer nuts.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:52:39 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
At 11:12 PM 4/9/1999 EDT, Leah L Watts wrote:
>>] [2]Peru, during the reign of Smoke Jaguar, the great Inca king
>
>Can someone translate that name back into Quechua? The only references I
>have on the Inca give the kings' names in Quechua, not English.
>
>I could have sworn there was a Mayan king named Smoke Jaguar, but I can't
>find that name listed in any indexes -- a lot of other "Smoke - ___" type
>names, though. (Bob, there was a king of Naranjo named Smoking-Squirrel,
>maybe the Squirrel King could try to "liberate" some artifacts.)
You know, guys, if I keep getting tips and ideas like this, a
full-length Squirrel King supplement may not be far behind.... ;-]
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 11:59:48 -0700
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
Subject: Re: Non-Lethal Weapons
At 10:57 AM 4/10/1999 -0700, Filksinger wrote:
>From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
>>
>> Hmmm... Would this be AVLD (non-resistant PD) or NND (having
>> non-resistant PD)?
>> (Obviously it does BODY in either case....)
>
>Neither one. It does most BODY that it does, when it does BODY, to hard
>targets. So, it would be an EB, Reduced Penetration, with RP itself limited
>by "Only vs soft targets" (which I would probably give no points for, since
>for most people, this is an Advantage, not a Limitation.)
Not to mention that you can't put a Limitation on a Limitation (just
trying to figure out how that would work makes my head hurt -- though I'm
sure it can be modeled mathematically). No, the mechanic you describe
above doesn't quite look like what I understand to be the effect of the
weapon.
I'm for making this NND (having non-resistant PD) that Does BODY.
- ---
Bob's Original Hero Stuff Page! [Circle of HEROS member]
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/original.htm
Merry-Go-Round Webring -- wanna join?
http://www.klock.com/public/users/bob.greenwade/merrhome.htm
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:45:41 -0400
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
At 11:21 PM 4/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>>
>> . . .based on what, native descendant oral tradition?
>> *L*
>> good one. . .
>
> How so? Actually, based on centuries of recorded oral records.
>Stuff has been written down from many different tribes almost from the
>first contact of cultures. This is wrong how?
>
Well, we have to accept that the person writing them down might have lied
to us. Also, I'd call this written as opposed to oral.
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
Attention all enemies of the Rival Ninja Corporation: You will lay down
your weapons and surrender to your nearest R.N.C. representative. Failure
to do so will result in your total destruction. Thank you.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:47:35 -0400
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
At 11:25 PM 4/9/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>> Here we go again: a perfectly valid Hero systems related question has now
>> become a socio-political discussion. Please take that discussion off-list,
>> or bring it back around to a list-relevant discussion.
>
> Keep your nose out of it--no one appointed you in charge around
>here.
>
> And we were discussing the Aztec culture in order to use it in a
>game.
>
>
> -Tim Gilberg
> -"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
>
That's true, Tim. (I don't remember who made the post you replied to, I'll
take your word it wasn't John). However, we have drifted off-topic and
being rude only compounds the error.
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
Attention all enemies of the Rival Ninja Corporation: You will lay down
your weapons and surrender to your nearest R.N.C. representative. Failure
to do so will result in your total destruction. Thank you.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:30:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Tim Gilberg wrote:
> Though the difference we've finally gotten to is ritual infrequent
> ceremonies versus daily slaughters. Also, there is some evidence that
> many tribes--and not just North and South American tribes--practiced
> ritual cannibalization. Usually a symbolic bite from a vanquished enemy.
I think this is part of the idea of gaining the power of your enemies. If
you enemy is a powerful foe, you can share (or gain) this power by
devouring the enemy. Sort of like the idea that by eating (say) a bear
you can share the power of the bear.
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"I don't care where I go, as long as it ain't here..."
George Thorogood, "Gear Jammer"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 12:30:09 -0700
From: "Filksinger" <filkhero@usa.net>
Subject: Re: Non-Lethal Weapons
From: Bob Greenwade <bob.greenwade@klock.com>
<snip>
> Not to mention that you can't put a Limitation on a Limitation (just
> trying to figure out how that would work makes my head hurt -- though I'm
> sure it can be modeled mathematically).
It was a holdover from 3rd Ed. I found it to be much superior to Variable
Limitation, so I still use it.
> No, the mechanic you describe
> above doesn't quite look like what I understand to be the effect of the
> weapon.
> I'm for making this NND (having non-resistant PD) that Does BODY.
But it doesn't do BODY, or at least not much, to targets that have no
resistant PD. It does BODY to targets that _do_ have resistant PD. Thus, if
the target is "soft", like humans, it takes STUN only (or minimal BODY), if
target is hard, like concrete or airplane bodies, it then takes BODY.
Filksinger
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 05:41:42 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
Well, literally. it's wrong- as in not true, innacurate, incorrect.
Oral history does not accuratly portray events, hence nor do records spawned
from them. They may seem a good reason to reinvestigade a history, but once
the actual analisis begins, they become less and less feasable as various
facts fail to be related to the work. In the end, little can be established
either
way, and basing the inquiry on a shaky platform like oral history is not the
best of options.
- -----Original Message-----
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Cc: champs-l@sysabend.org <champs-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 1:30 AM
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
>
>>
>> . . .based on what, native descendant oral tradition?
>> *L*
>> good one. . .
>
> How so? Actually, based on centuries of recorded oral records.
>Stuff has been written down from many different tribes almost from the
>first contact of cultures. This is wrong how?
>
>
> -Tim Gilberg
> -"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 05:41:00 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
- -----Original Message-----
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
>> Writing stays static. oral histories change a great deal.
>
>Actually, no, it doesn't. We have direct evidence that they are long-term
>stable.
>
um, . .. big time no there. Really, really, this is a 'no' call. I mean
come on, the very nature of society, linguistics and culture are
mobile and fluid in nature.
>Cultures without writing tended to have fairly stable oral histories. This
>can be shown by the fact that written records made of oral traditions taken
>many years apart show relatively little change.
As in, 500, 1000 years? and there's also a great difference between
certain logistical issues that can be easily held static, and
more complex issues. Plus, this strikes me as the type of situation where
someone could easily recognise the support for their pov-
hence, the two records match- but the non-support is far more
confusing and hard to pin down- hence, two records say different things.
Unless the two records agree, what basis is there for even comparing them?
and thus, the evidence for the negative becomes a lot harder to gather,
and easily neglected by somebody enthusiastic for the contrary issue.
>In societies where oral
>traditions were the only way of keeping records, memories are generally
>better, and those whose duty it was to maintain those traditions had their
>memories trained and the exact wording of those traditions forced into them
>until they could remember them word for word.
ahh. . .generally better? well gee. .. . nope. I think a good example is the
koran-recital
roles certain islamic beliefs have. These students memorise huuuuge tracts,
very well, but the memory prowess does not actually cross over to other
fields at all.
Note- these tracts are memorised from a book, and are otherwise not a
perfect example.
However, it's still innacurate to say that just because the society has the
norm
f strict repetition, does not mean meaning, and eventually specifics, will
change.
I mean look at the bible. What does genesis talk about? a million, million
different
things,but the words are the same. Plus, language evolves. IF language is
evolving,
clearly the cultures oral traditions are in flux also. A text, unless very
deeply
involved in intangible issues like religion, is likely to be far more stable
over time.
>
>> >And oral traditions are fairly reliable ways to track the
>> >essence of what happened over a considerable period of time.
>>
>> essence. . . . right, i'll just go look that term up in my psychology
>> textbooks *g*
>
>Fine. Then "Oral traditions are fairly reliable ways to track the essential
>facts of what happened over a considerable period of time".
>
That's a value atribution. . . it cna lead to problems with
support for hypothesis. hence "Gee, the oral traditions don't
match the written records of floods"
"Well, floods are hardly essential fact, really. "
"good call!"
><snip>
>>
>> Yes, and that only supports my position. The spaniards
>> did their lying on the spot, but it doesn't mean the oral traditions on
>> the other side of the imperialism cliche didn't do it more gradually,
>> over time.
>
>Why would they have spent years making the Aztechs look good, when the
>Aztechs were their traditional enemies? People don't go around changing
>history to make old enemies look better than new enemies, they change
>history to make _all_ enemies look bad.
>
it's not a matter of pr. it's a matter of innacuracy.
such situations can be concious, but more likely to be
a gradual and diffuse event. Forgive my flippant use of the word 'lie'.
>An enemy of the Aztechs might have done this, though it is unlikely. Ask an
>anthropologist. _All_ of the enemies of the Aztechs? Unlikely.
>
well, an anthropolgist would have to be superhuman to
have a proper opinion here- otherwise, how would he track generations
of social evolution?
>>The situation is, in general, innacurate. Simply defining one
>> set of data as more valid becasue it supports somebody's
>> revisionist tendencies is not a good way to proceed.
>
>Nor is defining one set of data as more valid because it supports the side
>of the record that someone was raised to believe is true.
>
Yes, but two wrongs do not make a right. And in any case,
the burden of evidence rests with the minority view.
That is an important precep of modern science.
>Traditionaly, only one side of a multi-sided view was presented. That side
>was the sole source of information available until today, for most people.
>This does not make it more valid.
>
But it is static, and massivly less likely to change over time.
>> As it was my point
>> was simple- oral history does not a substantive revision-quest make.
>
>Why not? We have the Spaniards taking one oral tradition, for which we have
>no support except their say so. Why is that unsubstantiated oral tradition
>superior to _several_ others, just because the Spanish said so?
it's not oral. it's written. the words stay the same, dig? It might
change, but no way a cultural tradition is more robust than
the occasional recopying once a century or something.
> If the
>police write a report about what they say happened, and witnesses all
report
>something different, do we automatically trust the police report because it
>was written shortly after events, or do we at least consider that the
others
>are telling the truth?
>
Better example. The police write a report, and a year later
somebody pulls it out and compares it to what witnesses
say they *remember* happening a year ago. Guess which
is more valid? By a long shot?
>Keep in mind that there aren't two sides to this story. You classified it
as
>"anti-imperialists vs the Spaniards". That isn't what it is, however. It is
>several different stories, from several different groups.
Yes, and i bet the portugese had their side of the story, too. They might
not
even have hear about it but second hand, but then again who's further away?
Hearsay between villages, or missives written by people at least competent
to
use complex math to navigate the seas?
>Even if you
>consider _all_ of the groups biased against the Spanish except for the
>Spanish themselves, it still becomes significant that _none_ of them agree
>with the stories that the Spaniards supposedly took from their ancestors
>long ago.
>
do they agree with each other, on all issues? Even if they
agree on the sacrifice issue, it doesn't mean they were
in agreement,or that any consensus is automatically
a sign of greater validity.
>> Perhaps there are more solid issues involved, but if it's just
>> word of mouth, than 'essence' is all that can be achieved.
>
>The Spanish account of events was the recording of a supposed oral
tradition
>about someone they wanted to demonize, so they had an excuse for their
>behavior. The oral traditions taken down today are oral traditions about
>someone who was a traditional enemy, but today is of little consequence to
>these people. If some traditions said the Spanish view was correct, then we
>would have corroborating evidence, but we don't.
Look, if somebody writes something down. . it isn't an oral tradition, ok?
Also, again, just becasue the populations agree does not mean they
are in actual consensus. Thye could be talking about completly different
things,
that have eventually been generalised into the current pov. It's commmon
for instance for the names of nationalities and neighboring groups
to be translated, which often results in a refrence seeming relating to a
group,
which actually related to a redudant predecessor or specific instance of
that
group.
>
>The truth is, written history is less than accurate. Comparisons of
>histories taken at times relatively close to events often show very
>different stories. Taking one side over all others is bad policy,
especially
>a side with a history of telling certain types of similar lies, such as
"the
>savages were performing human sacrifices".
>
Oral history is far less accurate. That should be taken
into acocunt. And here we go- simmilar lies?
so if one sides historys agree it's 'similar lies', if the other side's
histories agree it's proof of their validity. Perhaps there
are uniform trends in how south american oral historys evolve, also?
>You want to say that the Aztecs are reported by the Spanish to have
>committed human sacrifice? Fine. You want to believe that? Fine as well.
But
>claiming that that is what _did_ happen is ridiculous, hundreds of years
>after events.
That's what i said at the start of this whole thing. It's a generally
innacurate
field of inquity. don't you love how people take what you say, as their own,
attach the reverse opinion to your arguments and then exagerate them
beyond any reasonable interpretation? I don't.
>Even if only oral traditions existed against the Spanish
>claims, and oral traditions were as unstable as you seem to believe, there
>still exists valid reasons for making it clear in history books that _we do
>not know_.
>
Yes, i agree., as i said, both are 'lying', so to speak. I simply challenge
the validity
of the oral history theory.
>What does this have to do with HERO? Well, your heroes could have a great
>deal riding on finding out what happened somewhere a long time ago, with
>some accuracy. What happens if the heroes take sides in a conflict based
>upon stories that were told 300 years later? Are they on the right side?
>What about assuming that group X is murderous, likes human sacrifice, or
>eats people, because of what their enemies wrote about them? Could cause
>more than a little trouble.
>
The reverse would likely cause more trouble. a lot more.
"Ahh, greetings smurfs! we come for earAAAAHHH!"
>However, any future posts by me on this subject will be taken off the list.
>
>Filksinger
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 14:50:16 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
> I think this is part of the idea of gaining the power of your enemies. If
> you enemy is a powerful foe, you can share (or gain) this power by
> devouring the enemy. Sort of like the idea that by eating (say) a bear
> you can share the power of the bear.
Exactly true. This is considered a highly symbolic act.
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 05:45:14 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
- -----Original Message-----
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
To: Hero List <champ-l@sysabend.org>
Date: Sunday, April 11, 1999 3:04 AM
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
>From: Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com>
>
>
><snip>
>>
>> I would liketo comment that I recently purchased the Time Life series
>> "Myth and Mankind" that shows Aztec (and Mayan) books. It does mention
>> human scarifice and reprintings of Mayan (and Aztec) codexes show the
>> same.
>>
>> I'm not saying Tim is incorrect, but there is some hard, - period -
>> evidence to support execution of captives.
>
>Excellent. Good, hard evidence, from multiple sources, supporting each
>other. Including the original people themselves, who might have whitewashed
>things to claim they _didn't_ commit sacrifices, but are unlikely to have
>written that they did when they didn't.
>
>Filksinger
>
>
actually, why not? why not make a myth that your kingdom kills 50 men a day
just to praise the gods? Sounds like good propaganda to me.
One of the most well known anthropological blunders of this century
involved an anthropoligist who swallowed hook, line and sinker a certain
exagerated view of the promiscuity of the relationships of the young people
in the area they were studying.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:38:35 -0400
From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: FW: was: off list: theme villains
>
>Spoiler for old and canceled comic below:
>
>
>
>At 10:54 AM 4/10/99 -0700, Filksinger wrote:
>>From: geoff heald <gheald@worldnet.att.net>
>>
>><snip>
>>> Agents Identities are absoulutely secret, to the point that it is against
>>> the rules for a Knight to intentionally allow someone to see his skin.
>>> Several of the bad guy's did not catch on that the Knights were more than
>>> one person, as they usually work alone and dress identically.
>>
<snip NPC description>
>>
>>Filksinger
>>
>>
>>
>
>I remember this NPC came up earlier on the list. The two instances I recal
and am refering to here are:
>
>A knight has just busted a bunch of white supremacists and one of them is
spouting off about "Why are you standing against us?" and how "We" (clearly
incuding the Knight) are better than the "mud people". As his ride pulls
up, the knight removes his glove, showing the stunned man that his group of
six or seven "aryan supermen" were just beaten by a single black man. Pawn
says "isn't that against the rules?" "Absolutely"
>
>An arms smuggling ring has been having problems with Knights dirupting
their operations. Finally, three knights team up to raid a wharehouse in
rome. One of the manager types of the cartel, who had seen the Knights
before, draws his pistol to shoot the Knight he sees in the wharehouse.
"Wha? A woman?" Just enough delay for another Knight to knock the gun from
his hand.
>
>
Would have done well on list, I suspect. And worth it for plot ideas.
There was a short story written by Poul Anderson, I believe, called UN Man.
The UN had created a special team of agents who were incredibly capable and
worked independently. They were also clones of a single man who the UN
considered to be the perfect candidate when they first tried to create the
organization, but who wasn't interested. The Unman, as he became known, was
claimed to be a group, a single man, unkillable, and frequently killed,
depending upon who you talked to.
Filksinger
<so here it is. Hope I haven't let any of Filk's cats out of their bags.>
============================
Geoff Heald
============================
Attention all enemies of the Rival Ninja Corporation: You will lay down
your weapons and surrender to your nearest R.N.C. representative. Failure
to do so will result in your total destruction. Thank you.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:47:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Tim Gilberg wrote:
> > I think this is part of the idea of gaining the power of your enemies. If
> > you enemy is a powerful foe, you can share (or gain) this power by
> > devouring the enemy. Sort of like the idea that by eating (say) a bear
> > you can share the power of the bear.
>
> Exactly true. This is considered a highly symbolic act.
Lesse:
AID, Any one characteristic, Fade Rate: Day, Requires extended ritual
(must devour enemy / animal).
How's that?
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"I don't care where I go, as long as it ain't here..."
George Thorogood, "Gear Jammer"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 05:54:48 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
- -----Original Message-----
From: Filksinger <filkhero@usa.net>
>> In that way, written testimony is better than oral.
>
>There is a very great difference between a game of telephone and the oral
>traditions of most pre-literate societies. In pre-literate societies,
people
>have better memories. The keeper of the oral tradition is trained to
>memorize. He spends years memorizing the traditions word for word. And if
he
>ever gets it wrong, the entire tribe is there to correct him, even if the
>former keeper of the oral tradition isn't there to slap his head.
>
i think you're undereastimating the scope of history here. and also,
preliterate
societies do nto ahve better memory. there is not even a valid
way to compare the memory of two cultures properly, little own across a
literacy
barrier.
>Literate people have copied oral traditions of pre-literate societies, then
>come back and found them essentially unchanged a hundred years later. Oral
>tradition can be _very_ stable.
>
can be. and you never hear about the literate people who come back and find
the
society gone, or greatly changed, or changed a lot. After all, that doesn't
function as evidence supporting the supposition.
>> Of course, either side might be lying, but at least we have the original,
>> 400 year old lies from one source and can only guess at the 400 year old
>> version of the other.
>
>When two groups disagree, then we have no way of knowing who is telling the
>truth. When one group says X, and everyone else says Y, then Y is credible,
>even if X has better evidence.
>
No. When two groups agree, the credibility is VITAL.
That's like saying a binch of brainwashed zombies
are better witnesses then a single trained observer.
Also, the best option is sually to look for a view
between those extremes.
>There are multiple groups that dispute the Spanish version of events.
>Therefore, there is some credibility in that disputation, even if it is
>passed on through a less reliable method of record keeping.
>
Yes, but does that limited credibility overturn the counterargument? No.
Vice-versa? no.
>Filksinger
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:51:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
On Sun, 11 Apr 1999, Lockie wrote:
> >> I would liketo comment that I recently purchased the Time Life series
> >> "Myth and Mankind" that shows Aztec (and Mayan) books. It does mention
> >> human scarifice and reprintings of Mayan (and Aztec) codexes show the
> >> same.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying Tim is incorrect, but there is some hard, - period -
> >> evidence to support execution of captives.
> >
> >Excellent. Good, hard evidence, from multiple sources, supporting each
> >other. Including the original people themselves, who might have whitewashed
> >things to claim they _didn't_ commit sacrifices, but are unlikely to have
> >written that they did when they didn't.
>
> actually, why not? why not make a myth that your kingdom kills 50 men a day
> just to praise the gods? Sounds like good propaganda to me.
Considering the amount of work it takes to make a hand-drawn book, I doubt
that someone would make up lies as propoganda. Especially if you consider
that these books are used by the priests to mark holy days and so on.
Yes, written records may turn a loss into a victory, or exaggerate claims,
but to out and out lie? I don't think so. Besides, I never said anyone
was killing 50 captives a day, and the books don't indicate that either.
What I said was that the books show the sacrifice of people, mostly slaves
and captives.
> One of the most well known anthropological blunders of this century
> involved an anthropoligist who swallowed hook, line and sinker a certain
> exagerated view of the promiscuity of the relationships of the young people
> in the area they were studying.
And a good thing to remember in any travel scenario (time or otherwise).
- --
Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
"I don't care where I go, as long as it ain't here..."
George Thorogood, "Gear Jammer"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 06:12:14 +1000
From: "Lockie" <jonesl@cqnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
- -----Original Message-----
From: Michael Surbrook <susano@dedaana.otd.com>
>> actually, why not? why not make a myth that your kingdom kills 50 men a
day
>> just to praise the gods? Sounds like good propaganda to me.
>
>Considering the amount of work it takes to make a hand-drawn book, I doubt
>that someone would make up lies as propoganda. Especially if you consider
>that these books are used by the priests to mark holy days and so on.
>Yes, written records may turn a loss into a victory, or exaggerate claims,
>but to out and out lie?
ok. . .loss. . victory. . . lie. ok? and it could simply be an exageration.
Also, we're pretty much assuming the spanish would lie with their books,
sure it's easier, but is honesty really the priority for any of these
groups?
>I don't think so. Besides, I never said anyone
>was killing 50 captives a day, and the books don't indicate that either.
>What I said was that the books show the sacrifice of people, mostly slaves
>and captives.
>
It wuz an example.
>> One of the most well known anthropological blunders of this century
>> involved an anthropoligist who swallowed hook, line and sinker a certain
>> exagerated view of the promiscuity of the relationships of the young
people
>> in the area they were studying.
>
>And a good thing to remember in any travel scenario (time or otherwise).
>
>--
>Michael Surbrook - susano@otd.com - http://www.otd.com/~susano/index.html
>
> "I don't care where I go, as long as it ain't here..."
> George Thorogood, "Gear Jammer"
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:44:07 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
> Well, literally. it's wrong- as in not true, innacurate, incorrect.
> Oral history does not accuratly portray events, hence nor do records spawned
> from them. They may seem a good reason to reinvestigade a history, but once
> the actual analisis begins, they become less and less feasable as various
> facts fail to be related to the work. In the end, little can be established
> either
> way, and basing the inquiry on a shaky platform like oral history is not the
> best of options.
Wow. You are firmly brainwashed by the myth of the superiority of
literacy over orality. Very interesting. May I recommend Walter Ong?
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:51:58 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
From: Tim Gilberg <gilberg@ou.edu>
Subject: Re: Heroes and Villians of Myth and Legend
> i think you're undereastimating the scope of history here. and also,
> preliterate
> societies do nto ahve better memory. there is not even a valid
> way to compare the memory of two cultures properly, little own across a
> literacy
> barrier.
You've claimed that there is nothing about preliterate society
memories that is inherently stronger than literate society memories a
couple of times now. It is obvious that you are not at all informed on
this subject--one of the major provinces of the field of CRL(Composition,
Rhetoric, and Literacy) is studying the difference between oral and
literate cultures. Everything points to the fact that the memory ability
in oral cultures is _much_ stronger than in literate cultures. Hell, read
Plato--he decried the written word because it weakened memory and the need
for memory. Memory used to be one of the key virtues/abilitys one could
have in oral cultures. Now? Well...
-Tim Gilberg
-"English Majors of the World! Untie!"
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 05:12:57 +0800
From: Allan Dunbar <adunbar@iinet.net.au>
Subject: Re: theme villains
At 12:57 9/04/99 -0700, you wrote:
>>
>>Anybody got any ideas for 'theme' villains ?
>>Villains whose crimes and m.o. all fit one theme or have a recurring motif.
>
I have a group called the Cats of Crime - cat thieves (yucka yucka yucka).
Hobbes, Garfield and Felix...
And then there is the Dynamos - former workers at the worlds first Fusion
plant who were transformed into living Dynamos by an accident caused by
Powermaster. They now attack power stations to drain the electricity so
that they can continue living and continue hunting down Powermaster (a
psychotic lunatic who is immensely powerful but just doesn't have a clue).
Allan Dunbar
Regards
Allan Dunbar
"Don't you love lazy Sunday mornings Arthur?"
"Tick, it's Wednesday afternoon."
"Don't you love not having a regular job Arthur?"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 17:27:12 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jason Sullivan <ravanos@NJCU.edu>
Subject: Hearing
How much does the Hearing sense group cost in the Hero's Almanac?
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 17:41:46 -0400
From: "B.C. Holmes" <bcholmes@interlog.com>
Subject: Re: FW: was: off list: theme villains
geoff heald wrote:
>
> There was a short story written by Poul Anderson, I believe, called UN Man.
> The UN had created a special team of agents who were incredibly capable and
> worked independently. They were also clones of a single man who the UN
> considered to be the perfect candidate when they first tried to create the
> organization, but who wasn't interested.
There was a comic -- "The American" -- I think, where the premise was
that the government recruited men of similar builds, and gave them
enough plastic surgery so that they looked similar enough in a hero
costume.
Each one would spend a stint of a coupl'a years as "The American",
the government's super-defender, and then retire. Merchanidizing
associated with The American (movies, action figures, etc.) paid the
pensions for these folks. If The American was killed, then the next
person in line became The American, and the public assumed that the
same (unaging) hero had been protecting America since the 60s.
BCing you
- ----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----
B.C. Holmes http://www.interlog.com/~bcholmes/
"They go to nightclubs wearing black, but it's the wrong black, it's
like black Laura Ashley or something. It looks really stupid."
- Cynthia Heimel
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 15:25:32 -0700
From: Scott Bennie <sbennie@dowco.com>
Subject: Damage Values
I'm currently working on a scenario and I need some damage values.
If someone were to rip off a street light and expose the power cables,
how much damage would the current do from the power going to an ordinary
neighborhood?
If someone were to mind control an airforce pilot into dropping a 2000
lb. bomb (the sort you'd get in a B1 bomber) onto a hero's HQ, how much
damage would it do?
Thanks in advance.
Scott Bennie
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 20:11:03 -0500
From: "Michael Nunn" <mlnunn@blue.net>
Subject: Re: Damage Values
>I'm currently working on a scenario and I need some damage values.
Oddly enough I have real worl experence with both of these unusual and
unrelated things.
>If someone were to rip off a street light and expose the power cables,
>how much damage would the current do from the power going to an ordinary
>neighborhood?
While working in the construction industry I had the misfortune to be
present when an exposed service to a large mercury vapor street, was cut
into by a worker. The jolt tossed him roughly 15 to 20 feet. He had second
degree burns over about 70% of his body and third degree burns on his hands
and arms. It didn't kill him , but according to the Electric Company he was
extremely luck to be alive, we has in the hospital for several weeks, and
was never able to return to work, due to the damage to his hands.
So in game terms, I would put it a around a 3d6 killing. On the average
that will kill a normal, on a bad (or good if your on the wrong end) roll
you could survive.
>
>If someone were to mind control an airforce pilot into dropping a 2000
>lb. bomb (the sort you'd get in a B1 bomber) onto a hero's HQ, how much
>damage would it do?
I served with the 101st Airborne during Desert Storm, I can tell you approx
75k away from ground zero you can feel the ground shake hard enough to set
off a motion detector when a 2000lb. bomb hits. On a direct hit it can turn
a 3 story cinder block building in to a pile of rubble, on a near miss it
can make a two story block and wood building a pile of rubble.
Game terms: I would say an explosion in the 5 to 7 dice range, with a lot of
extended area, because there is little fall of from GZ to 100 meters out.
And you could make it AP, and not get an arguement from me.
Hope these real world experences help out a little.
Michael
------------------------------
End of champ-l-digest V1 #272
*****************************
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 1999 10:12 AM