Post by David on Jun 24, 2005 14:24:47 GMT -5
Howdy folks,
Okay, let me try to express a couple things:
a) I do feel that anytime I propose a change, there is an avalanche of resistance before a glance at evaluation. Before anyone (other than maybe Elf) says "not me", I will say "clerical spheres" and you BETTER say "oh, I guess you're right." QED. Please keep that in mind; it's hard to improve ANYTHING (be it a game, a relationship, or society-at-large) if other parties do not give the potential change an honest evaluation divorced from personal bias (as much as possible).
b) I DO value different opinions and definitely WANT to hear them; as I have said for, oh, I dunno, 15+ years, "I'd rather be correct than right." So, if I make a bad call, I WANT to hear feedback. But, to be meaningful (and avoid getting blown off as a reactionary), that feedback needs to at least attempt to see where I'm coming from (or we're having a fundy discussion, which is, by definition, pointless). There's a reason I tended to give credence to Mr Ott's critiques more than anyone else's...
c) If I disagree with you (that's the general, all-encompassing YOU), it is NOT a reflection on what I think about you. It is rather, my attempt to make sure we're all "correct" instead of "right". Replace "views on lycanthropy" with "belief the world is flat" or some other factoid. Now, reapply the discussion with the understanding that I believe your viewpoint is faulty -OR- my own viewpoint is fractured and in need of correction. So, it IS a way of seeking a consensus...as well as a sanity check for EVERYONE involved.
d) If you have no idea why I'm going into this kind of detail over such a minor topic, just accept that there were other exchanges that went on outside of email or with (not always valid) implied judgement.
Look, I appreciate Kari and Ray's concerns, Paul's support, Elf's critique, and the other comments I've gotten. As you recall, I get nervous when any suggestion I make is a "slam-dunk" (rare as those are). That said, it's really important to give the idea (not just my idea, but any idea) a "fair trial" before lynching it. C'mon, last I checked we all considered ourselves open-minded liberals...
As for this PARTICULAR issue, let me try (for those "on the fence") to sum up the issue:
a - currently werelords do no have to pay ANY proficiencies for ANY of their attack abilities (claws, bite, rear-claws, hug, etc)
b - for some time, dragons, tigers, lammasu, kenku, and other "monsterous folk" have had to buy the appropriate proficiencies with their natural attack routines. There was some recent, slight, debate when that was applied to humanoid monsters (lizard men and crats), but I think everyone agreed it was totally fair and consistent
c - anyone polymorphing into another form cannot fully use that form's attack abilities without the proper proficiency slots (per the rules and logic)
d - the few who can shape change DO get to use ALL powers of a form without any special skills. The logic is that the spell transfers the instincts to use the abilities as well (and this is born out by the spell's description).
e - druids, who do shape change, do not have to buy special proficiencies
f - so, therefore, if werelords shape change then they should follow druids, but if they polymorph or use any lesser "form alteration ability" (on part with alter self or shape alteration or whatever), there is a gross inconsistency in the rules. Moreover, this would mean that even a high-level werelord like Kalavor or Wooden Thighs knows LESS about fighting as a monster than most baby dragons, young tigers, fledgling lizard men, freshly reincarnated characters of Ray, etc.
g - to slam dunk this, IMO, werelords MUST not assume the instincts of the werebeast, so the rules, therefore, MUST change to suit this (ie, what I proposed in the revised article).
Now, as far as I can tell, the ONLY point of departure for anyone on any of this is "g".
Let me try "g" then as a formal proof.
1 -- the instincts of ALL werecreatures are such that passion of any sort becomes indistinguishable (hatred and love are both just "focus of attention"). Such a view pretty much precludes any sort of party loyalty or group interaction over the long-term.
2 -- the instincts of ALL werecreatures are so powerful and overwhelming that there is NO possibility to fight them off AT ALL even for a 20th level paladin or LG patriarch with 19 wisdom or master psionist with mind bar.
3 -- given 1 and 2, how could any first level, wet-behind-the-ears newbie, no matter HOW much training, NOT completely succumb to the drives and instincts of the beast? We're talking something that, by these definitions alone, makes fall-down-drunk alcoholism look like a passing fancy. Keep in mind, even Andar's vaunted mental defenses are nothing against a werebeast's compulsive drive and he would have no chance against losing himself. This is not just born out by the rules and manuals, but also by the legends and folklore of Southern France, Eastern Europe, and even our post-modern America (from Underworld, to Van Helsing, to an American Werewolf in London, to Scooby Dooby Doo), plus, with a slight stretch to adjust culturally, pagan Scandinavia, sub-Saharan Africa, India, and Polynesia.
4 -- so if anything short of a god or saint is powerless against the drives of true lycanthropy, it is completely illogical for a 1st lvl character to be able to handle them. Therefore, the (as I stated in the article) "attenuated version of the disease" a werelord contracts is limited and does NOT impart the beast's full instincts (sure, some are unavoidable, but the complete package isn't there). So, since the PC is using his knowledge rather than beastial instinct to "run" his melee abilities, the PC must purchase the required skills.
5 -- this is all completely consistent with how various players (me, Ray, Kari, Paul, Elf, Don, Jay, Chris, etc) have historically run their werelords; the basic template applies, but there is a human personality and intellect driving the show. This is why Kalavor can be sort of cuddly, steal pies, and the like. This is also why Torhallen could be on a party with friends and allies WITHOUT having to kill and eat them all. Sure, Phillipe is driven to torment his fellow party members, especially those he likes, but he doesn't have to "go for the jugular" either literally or figuratively. Remember, cross-culturally, lycanthropy is viewed as curse...the best you get is ambivalence that "the victim can kill anything now but must live alone, how sad" (proto-Celts) while most versions are much darker. Heck, it was the "Bear-sarker" (yes, the etymology doesn't quite work, I've heard that) concept of the pre-Vikings that GAVE me the idea for the class in the first place!
So, if after reading my points and attempting to see their merit, if you still disagree, please CONSTRUCTIVELY point out the flaw in my logic. "Because I think so" or "it just makes sense" not only are not, as Elf pointed out, "how intelligent people come to consensus" but they really belong only in church. If you cannot find a logical flaw but still want to hold onto your viewpoint, great, but perhaps you should also re-evaluate your personal belief in your own open-mindedness or you ability to critically and impartially evaluate a new idea.
Thanks,
David
Okay, let me try to express a couple things:
a) I do feel that anytime I propose a change, there is an avalanche of resistance before a glance at evaluation. Before anyone (other than maybe Elf) says "not me", I will say "clerical spheres" and you BETTER say "oh, I guess you're right." QED. Please keep that in mind; it's hard to improve ANYTHING (be it a game, a relationship, or society-at-large) if other parties do not give the potential change an honest evaluation divorced from personal bias (as much as possible).
b) I DO value different opinions and definitely WANT to hear them; as I have said for, oh, I dunno, 15+ years, "I'd rather be correct than right." So, if I make a bad call, I WANT to hear feedback. But, to be meaningful (and avoid getting blown off as a reactionary), that feedback needs to at least attempt to see where I'm coming from (or we're having a fundy discussion, which is, by definition, pointless). There's a reason I tended to give credence to Mr Ott's critiques more than anyone else's...
c) If I disagree with you (that's the general, all-encompassing YOU), it is NOT a reflection on what I think about you. It is rather, my attempt to make sure we're all "correct" instead of "right". Replace "views on lycanthropy" with "belief the world is flat" or some other factoid. Now, reapply the discussion with the understanding that I believe your viewpoint is faulty -OR- my own viewpoint is fractured and in need of correction. So, it IS a way of seeking a consensus...as well as a sanity check for EVERYONE involved.
d) If you have no idea why I'm going into this kind of detail over such a minor topic, just accept that there were other exchanges that went on outside of email or with (not always valid) implied judgement.
Look, I appreciate Kari and Ray's concerns, Paul's support, Elf's critique, and the other comments I've gotten. As you recall, I get nervous when any suggestion I make is a "slam-dunk" (rare as those are). That said, it's really important to give the idea (not just my idea, but any idea) a "fair trial" before lynching it. C'mon, last I checked we all considered ourselves open-minded liberals...
As for this PARTICULAR issue, let me try (for those "on the fence") to sum up the issue:
a - currently werelords do no have to pay ANY proficiencies for ANY of their attack abilities (claws, bite, rear-claws, hug, etc)
b - for some time, dragons, tigers, lammasu, kenku, and other "monsterous folk" have had to buy the appropriate proficiencies with their natural attack routines. There was some recent, slight, debate when that was applied to humanoid monsters (lizard men and crats), but I think everyone agreed it was totally fair and consistent
c - anyone polymorphing into another form cannot fully use that form's attack abilities without the proper proficiency slots (per the rules and logic)
d - the few who can shape change DO get to use ALL powers of a form without any special skills. The logic is that the spell transfers the instincts to use the abilities as well (and this is born out by the spell's description).
e - druids, who do shape change, do not have to buy special proficiencies
f - so, therefore, if werelords shape change then they should follow druids, but if they polymorph or use any lesser "form alteration ability" (on part with alter self or shape alteration or whatever), there is a gross inconsistency in the rules. Moreover, this would mean that even a high-level werelord like Kalavor or Wooden Thighs knows LESS about fighting as a monster than most baby dragons, young tigers, fledgling lizard men, freshly reincarnated characters of Ray, etc.
g - to slam dunk this, IMO, werelords MUST not assume the instincts of the werebeast, so the rules, therefore, MUST change to suit this (ie, what I proposed in the revised article).
Now, as far as I can tell, the ONLY point of departure for anyone on any of this is "g".
Let me try "g" then as a formal proof.
1 -- the instincts of ALL werecreatures are such that passion of any sort becomes indistinguishable (hatred and love are both just "focus of attention"). Such a view pretty much precludes any sort of party loyalty or group interaction over the long-term.
2 -- the instincts of ALL werecreatures are so powerful and overwhelming that there is NO possibility to fight them off AT ALL even for a 20th level paladin or LG patriarch with 19 wisdom or master psionist with mind bar.
3 -- given 1 and 2, how could any first level, wet-behind-the-ears newbie, no matter HOW much training, NOT completely succumb to the drives and instincts of the beast? We're talking something that, by these definitions alone, makes fall-down-drunk alcoholism look like a passing fancy. Keep in mind, even Andar's vaunted mental defenses are nothing against a werebeast's compulsive drive and he would have no chance against losing himself. This is not just born out by the rules and manuals, but also by the legends and folklore of Southern France, Eastern Europe, and even our post-modern America (from Underworld, to Van Helsing, to an American Werewolf in London, to Scooby Dooby Doo), plus, with a slight stretch to adjust culturally, pagan Scandinavia, sub-Saharan Africa, India, and Polynesia.
4 -- so if anything short of a god or saint is powerless against the drives of true lycanthropy, it is completely illogical for a 1st lvl character to be able to handle them. Therefore, the (as I stated in the article) "attenuated version of the disease" a werelord contracts is limited and does NOT impart the beast's full instincts (sure, some are unavoidable, but the complete package isn't there). So, since the PC is using his knowledge rather than beastial instinct to "run" his melee abilities, the PC must purchase the required skills.
5 -- this is all completely consistent with how various players (me, Ray, Kari, Paul, Elf, Don, Jay, Chris, etc) have historically run their werelords; the basic template applies, but there is a human personality and intellect driving the show. This is why Kalavor can be sort of cuddly, steal pies, and the like. This is also why Torhallen could be on a party with friends and allies WITHOUT having to kill and eat them all. Sure, Phillipe is driven to torment his fellow party members, especially those he likes, but he doesn't have to "go for the jugular" either literally or figuratively. Remember, cross-culturally, lycanthropy is viewed as curse...the best you get is ambivalence that "the victim can kill anything now but must live alone, how sad" (proto-Celts) while most versions are much darker. Heck, it was the "Bear-sarker" (yes, the etymology doesn't quite work, I've heard that) concept of the pre-Vikings that GAVE me the idea for the class in the first place!
So, if after reading my points and attempting to see their merit, if you still disagree, please CONSTRUCTIVELY point out the flaw in my logic. "Because I think so" or "it just makes sense" not only are not, as Elf pointed out, "how intelligent people come to consensus" but they really belong only in church. If you cannot find a logical flaw but still want to hold onto your viewpoint, great, but perhaps you should also re-evaluate your personal belief in your own open-mindedness or you ability to critically and impartially evaluate a new idea.
Thanks,
David