Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Great dragons
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 19:20:19 +1000
A the thought of the power levels needed to damage great dragons.

wWith an armour of about 20, that means you need a power of 20 to penetrate
and damage the thing. Thers only one weapon I know of that does that kind of
damage; the vigilant rotary cannon from the rigger black book. Come to think
of it, what if two great dragons were sluggin it ou, they only do (OK well
its note quite only) 16D, that means they can't harm each other.

Or since critters with hardened armour power are said to have vehicle
armour, and vehicle armour is said to be considered a barrier with a rating
of the arnour, do weapons with a power between half and equal to the armour
rating peel of armour. Like blow a few scales off that dragon with your
minigun before you can start to heart him?

Damion
Message no. 2
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Great dragons
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 09:58:24 -0700
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, MILLIKEN DAMION A wrote:

> A the thought of the power levels needed to damage great dragons.
>
> wWith an armour of about 20, that means you need a power of 20 to penetrate
> and damage the thing. Thers only one weapon I know of that does that kind of

You might want to notice that the reading for the Great Dragon is
+10/12. This means that their Body gets the +10, their armor only goes
up to 12 from 8. The Assualt Cannon, Missile Launcher, and many other
things will damage them.

> damage; the vigilant rotary cannon from the rigger black book. Come to think
> of it, what if two great dragons were sluggin it ou, they only do (OK well
> its note quite only) 16D, that means they can't harm each other.
>
> Or since critters with hardened armour power are said to have vehicle
> armour, and vehicle armour is said to be considered a barrier with a rating
> of the arnour, do weapons with a power between half and equal to the armour
> rating peel of armour. Like blow a few scales off that dragon with your
> minigun before you can start to heart him?

Yes, kinda. The minigun only does 8M base so a few scales is what you
get. Take a while to get his armor down to the point where you'll hurt
him at that rate.

> Damion
>

Ivy
Message no. 3
From: Chris Lubrecht <lubrecht@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great dragons
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 17:15:10 -0400
On Fri, 10 Jun 1994, MILLIKEN DAMION A wrote:

> A the thought of the power levels needed to damage great dragons.
>
> wWith an armour of about 20, that means you need a power of 20 to penetrate
> and damage the thing. Thers only one weapon I know of that does that kind of
> damage; the vigilant rotary cannon from the rigger black book. Come to think
> of it, what if two great dragons were sluggin it ou, they only do (OK well
> its note quite only) 16D, that means they can't harm each other.
>
> Or since critters with hardened armour power are said to have vehicle
> armour, and vehicle armour is said to be considered a barrier with a rating
> of the arnour, do weapons with a power between half and equal to the armour
> rating peel of armour. Like blow a few scales off that dragon with your
> minigun before you can start to heart him?
>
> Damion
>
Interesting thought.....

I remember somewhere , (the errata for SR I from Genie maybe) the topic
of "peeling armor". The thought went something along the lines of the
armor degrading for every X wound type. This might have even been a
rule, I don't remember. ex. take a deadly wound, and loose 1 rating
point from ballastic armor, even if resisted by armor alone, or help from
BOD. The point was that if the armor saved your skin, it had to be
damaged a little.

Nigel
Message no. 4
From: Claudia Mohr <claudia@*****.PHYS.ND.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great dragons
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 18:44:05 EST
Today Damio wrote:
>>
wWith an armour of about 20, that means you need a power of 20 to penetrate
and damage the thing. Thers only one weapon I know of that does that kind of
damage; the vigilant rotary cannon from the rigger black book. Come to think
of it, what if two great dragons were sluggin it ou, they only do (OK well
its note quite only) 16D, that means they can't harm each other.
>>
I don't think that the ruke given by SR are meant to describe possible fights
between great dragons. and by the way why should they fight each other they
have enough possibilities isnce they are not so many, or am I wrong?
And who is foolish enough to think about fighting a great dragon? He won't
survive long, I can predict that wihout being a fortune teller.
Stay in the shadows and stay alive
Nightdancer
Message no. 5
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Great dragons
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 1994 00:54:56 +1000
Ivy writes:
> You might want to notice that the reading for the Great Dragon is
> +10/12. This means that their Body gets the +10, their armor only goes
> up to 12 from 8. The Assualt Cannon, Missile Launcher, and many other
> things will damage them.

Really, I've always interpreted it as adding 10 body and 12 armour, else why
woudln't they have written +10 ?

Damion
Message no. 6
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.ORG>
Subject: Re: Great dragons
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 1994 18:21:52 -0700
On Sun, 12 Jun 1994, MILLIKEN DAMION A wrote:

> Ivy writes:
> > You might want to notice that the reading for the Great Dragon is
> > +10/12. This means that their Body gets the +10, their armor only goes
> > up to 12 from 8. The Assualt Cannon, Missile Launcher, and many other
> > things will damage them.
>
> Really, I've always interpreted it as adding 10 body and 12 armour, else why
> woudln't they have written +10 ?
>
> Damion
>
Actually Damion, I kinda do like the +10/+12 idea, but the actual idea
was to have the Great Dragons somewhere within the damageable range.
They just wanted to up their armor to 12, so that's why they wrote it
that way. They also could have written it +10/+4 too.

Hmmm, maybe they 'did' mean it the way you say. . .
Ouch!

I think I'll use it for old Dunk.
Ivy
Message no. 7
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 11:58:17 +1000
I seem to have a fixation with Great Dragons dont I? :-)

Anyway. The book says that all great dragons are magically active, and that
the vast majority follow the shamanic path. I was curious as to what totem a
Great Dragon would follow. I cant quite imagine a Great Dragon following any
animal totem. Great Dragon following raccoon, Nah, I dont think so :-) Nor
Lion, nor Dog etc. What would they follow. Also, I noticed that the only
Great Dragon I know of in any of the FASA products that actually has stats
is a mage (this is Arleesh form Bottled Demon).

Damion
Message no. 8
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 21:19:34 -0500
I think Great Dragons are hermetic, actually...
Message no. 9
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 22:27:37 +0100
On Sun, 26 Jun 1994, Gian-Paolo Musumeci wrote:

> I think Great Dragons are hermetic, actually...

Great Dragons are flakey, especially if they are cooked right...

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or Blue Earth County
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 10
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 22:23:03 -0500
> Great Dragons are flakey, especially if they are cooked right...

BZZZZZZZZT not SR appropriate! Sizzle sizzle fry fry

(sorry rob been waitin' to do that for a while)
Message no. 11
From: steven mancini <mancinis@******.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 1994 23:24:58 EST
In response to Gian-Paolo Musumeci:
]
] I think Great Dragons are hermetic, actually...
]
No, many are Shamanic. The write-up on Dunkelzahn for one
of those gaming magazines by Tom Dowd specified him as
Shamanic. I also believe that Lofwyr was confirmed as
Shamanic in some section of the Tir sourcebook (being
a Prince and all). Arlessh, who was already mentioned,
I believe was portrayed as shamanic in one of the
various modules that she has appeared in.

Overall I believe they are mostly shamanic. Could really
get you worried if you pissed of a G Dragon who was also
a follower of Wolf too eh? :)

And yes I do believe they follow totems. I am sorry, as
powerful as dragons may be, they are still very limited
in comparison to a Totem, though there may be Totems of
Power forgotten by man that are still remembers by these
great beings. (FYI: I have used a few of the more exotic
totems from White Wolf's Werewolf series for a few of
my dragons, though my players have not realized this yet.)

-Da Minotaur

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
| Steve Mancini | mancinis@******.cc.purdue.edu |
| Department of Political Science | phi@****.cc.purdue.edu |
]#######################################################################[
| The most merciful thing in the world... |
| is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. |
| - H. P. Lovecraft |
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Message no. 12
From: the holy Entombed <rasputin@***.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 01:28:39 -0400
On Sun, 26 Jun 1994, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 1994, Gian-Paolo Musumeci wrote:
>
> > I think Great Dragons are hermetic, actually...
>
> Great Dragons are flakey, especially if they are cooked right...


Consider yerself lucky, F.L. I tried to THWAP you for that one, but one
of your agents jumped in front of you and took the carp.

Tough job, that.



Rasputin the (not so) Horrible //////
the holy Entombed ///--
rasputin@***.umd.edu ////// 5 megs of buried holiness...
Message no. 13
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 00:42:10 +0100
On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, the holy Entombed wrote:

> Consider yerself lucky, F.L. I tried to THWAP you for that one, but one
> of your agents jumped in front of you and took the carp.
>
> Tough job, that.

That's what they get paid for.

And the sunglasses are even recyclable.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or Blue Earth County
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 14
From: Doctor Doom <jch8169@*******.TAMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 00:35:22 -0500
Vom Fearless Leader:

> > I think Great Dragons are hermetic, actually...
>
> Great Dragons are flakey, especially if they are cooked right...


Oh Lord, bless this, Thy carp, that with it Thou mayest
THWAP Thine Enemies into tiny bits . . . in Thy Mercy.

Carpe Cyprinum!

TTTTTTTTTT HH HH WW WW AA PPPPPPP || ||
TT HH HH WW WW AAAA PP PP || ||
TT HH HH WW WW AA AA PP PP || ||
TT HHHHHHHH WW WW WW AA AA PPPPPPP || ||
TT HH HH WW WW WW AAAAAAAA PP || ||
TT HH HH WWWWWWWW AA AA PP
TT HH HH WW WW AA AA PP .. ..

[ wet carp noise ]


Doctor Doom
Message no. 15
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 15:44:22 +1000
Doctor Doom:

> Oh Lord, bless this, Thy carp, that with it [...]

(The seated judges raise their cards.)

8.2. Degree of difficulty: 1.0 :-)

luke
Message no. 16
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 01:00:30 -0500
> I think Great Dragons are hermetic, actually...

Book says shamanic, common sense says hermetic.

Which would you take? (Hint: this is FASA we're talking about).

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 17
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 01:11:38 +0100
On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:

> Book says shamanic, common sense says hermetic.
>
> Which would you take? (Hint: this is FASA we're talking about).

Shametic.

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or Blue Earth County
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 18
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 01:05:29 -0500
> Shametic.

*THWAP-A-THWAP-A-THWAP-A-THWAP-A*

You're in a strange mood tonight, aren't you?

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 19
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 16:08:55 +1000
Robert A. Hayden:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:
>

> > Book says shamanic, common sense says hermetic.
> >
> > Which would you take? (Hint: this is FASA we're talking about).
>

> Shametic.
>


Hermanic.

luke
Message no. 20
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 01:22:01 +0100
On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:

> > Shametic.
>
> *THWAP-A-THWAP-A-THWAP-A-THWAP-A*
> You're in a strange mood tonight, aren't you?

boingee boingee boingee boingee

----------------

"People Are Strange" as recorded by The Doors

People are strange When you're a stranger
Faces look ugly When you're alone
Women seem wicked When you're unwanted
Streets are uneven When you're down

CHORUS:
When you're strange Faces come out of the rain
When you're strange No one remembers your name
When you're strange When you're strange When you're strange

People are strange When you're a stranger
Faces look ugly When you're alone
Women seem wicked When you're unwanted
Streets are uneven When you're down

LEAD

CHORUS:

Alight Yeah

BREAK

When you're strange FACES COME OUT OF THE RAIN
When you're strange NO ONE REMEMBERS YOUR NAME
When you're strange When you're strange
When you're Strange----


<note: all caps text denotes backing vocals>

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or Blue Earth County
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 21
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <hayden@******.MANKATO.MSUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 01:22:50 +0100
On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:

> Hermanic.

Hermanic-Depressive, for the new-age PC dragon who blames his problems on
his mommy. :-)

____ Robert A. Hayden <=> hayden@******.mankato.msus.edu
\ /__ -=-=-=-=- <=> -=-=-=-=-
\/ / Finger for Geek Code Info <=> I do not necessarily speak for the
\/ Finger for PGP Public Key <=> City of Mankato or Blue Earth County
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
(GEEK CODE 1.0.1) GAT d- -p+(---) c++(++++) l++ u++ e+/* m++(*)@ s-/++
n-(---) h+(*) f+ g+ w++ t++ r++ y+(*)
Message no. 22
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 01:18:07 -0500
> Hermanic-Depressive, for the new-age PC dragon who blames his
> problems on his mommy. :-)

RIGHT! This is getting too silly! <said in best Monty Python voice>

If you do not discontinue this silliness, I will be forced to explode!

<boom>

(I think I'll go to bed now...)

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 23
From: the holy Entombed <rasputin@***.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 02:27:04 -0400
On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:
>
> > Hermanic.
>
> Hermanic-Depressive, for the new-age PC dragon who blames his problems on
> his mommy. :-)

Ich...

Wasn't Reagan like this when he missed HIS bedtime?



the holy mackeral Entombed
rasputin@***.umd.edu

Support the Carp-O-Matic fund!
Your cash or fish donation is appreciated!

alt.fan.oj-simpson.drive.drive.drive needs posts...
Message no. 24
From: Jai Tao <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 02:29:10 -0400
On Sun, 26 Jun 1994, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Jun 1994, Gian-Paolo Musumeci wrote:
>
> > I think Great Dragons are hermetic, actually...
>
> Great Dragons are flakey, especially if they are cooked right...
>
>>>>>[ Ahem. ]<<<<<
--Dunklezahn (02:03:45/06-27-54)

>>>>>[ NEWS FLASH!
The widely respected Robert A. Hayden, affectionately
known to many by the nickname Fearless Leader, seems to be
the first _proven_ casualty as a result of being burned to a
crisp and then -- this is no joke, chummers -- _eaten_ by one
of the Great Dragons! Tune to MatrixVision channel 58B for
live coverage! ]<<<<<
--Ewald Karlson (02:22:34/06-27-54)

(((FILE: TRANSCRIPT OF MATRIXVISION CH. 58B STARTING 02:23:00/06-27-54)))
<<<Ewald Karlson>>> Yes, folks, no drek, our own Fearless Leader has
been fried and chomped by what appears to be none
other than the respected Great Dragon Dunkle--
(((EOF : TRANSMISSION CUT OFF 02:23:50/06-27-54)))

(((FILE: OBITUARY DATASTORE FOR 06-27-54)))
(((SEARCH: 02:15:00 TO 02:30:00)))
Robert A. Hayden, Systems Administrator
Died of natural causes.

Ewald Karlson, Freelance Reporter
Died of natural causes.
(((SEARCH COMPLETE.)))
Message no. 25
From: Jai Tao <jdfalk@****.CAIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 02:39:50 -0400
On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, Robert A. Hayden wrote:

> On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:
>
> > Book says shamanic, common sense says hermetic.
> >
> > Which would you take? (Hint: this is FASA we're talking about).
>
> Shametic.
>
I don't think dragons are magical at all...it must be a sham.
Message no. 26
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.EFN.ORG>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 09:15:00 -0700
On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:

> > I think Great Dragons are hermetic, actually...
>
> Book says shamanic, common sense says hermetic.
> Which would you take? (Hint: this is FASA we're talking about).

Well, actually I generally choose it myself, when I use one. But,
according to the SRII 'book, the majority of great dragons are shamanic.

That leaves 49% who might not be.

Ivy
Message no. 27
From: Gian-Paolo Musumeci <musumeci@***.LIS.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 16:11:54 -0500
Hermetic makes much more sense.
Message no. 28
From: Patrick F Omalley <omalleyp@*******.MSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 17:52:07 -0400
>
> Hermetic makes much more sense.
>

Greets,

Maybe I missed it. But why does it make more sense?

See ya on the flip side,
Pat O'Malley
Message no. 29
From: "Jason Carter, Nightstalker" <CARTER@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 1994 21:58:36 -0700
Shamanic Magic makes more sense for dragons and any other intelligent
paranormal being. Remember that Shamanic Magic is magic based on a natural
viewpoint while Hermetic Magic is magic of an scientific viewpoint. Dragons
don't think scientifically.

*******************************************************************************
* See Ya in Shadows * * "Trust No One." *
* Jason J Carter * Carter@***.EDU * The late Deep Throat *
* The Nightstalker * * The X-Files *
*******************************************************************************
Message no. 30
From: Tim Skirvin <tskirvin@********.UNI.UIUC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 00:32:54 -0500
> viewpoint while Hermetic Magic is magic of an scientific viewpoint.
> Dragons don't think scientifically.

Actually, I DO think of dragons thinking scientifically, almost to a
fault.

They're supposed to be MEGA-intelligent and foresightful...

-------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
"He's NOT a gibbering idiot - he's cured of gibbering, he's just an
idiot now." -- Jane, "Waiting for God"
Message no. 31
From: Eve Forward <ez019741@****.UCDAVIS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 00:48:02 -0700
Jason Carter, Nightstalker says:

>Shamanic Magic makes more sense for dragons and any other intelligent
>paranormal being. Remember that Shamanic Magic is magic based on a natural
>viewpoint while Hermetic Magic is magic of an scientific viewpoint. Dragons
>don't think scientifically.

Um... just wondering... how do you know? I mean, it's not like we have
any living examples to work from. I would think that dragons would think
however the GM wants them to think. Myself, I've always liked the "scholarly"
image of dragons, as intelligent, crafty critters that play chess and speak
many different languages and like to ask riddles. I'd be more inclined to
use hermetic magic for my dragons. Of course, if your dragons are more
"natural", then of course they'd use Shamanic magic. Part of the niftyness
of "fantasy" is no-one can really say that unicorns -can't- be pink, or
that dragons -have- to speak in Latin; they're fantasy anyway, so make them
the way you like them, is how I see it. Just my thoughts...
Message no. 32
From: Gareth Owen <glowen1@*****.NHS.GOV.UK>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 11:53:11 +0100
> > viewpoint while Hermetic Magic is magic of an scientific viewpoint.
> > Dragons don't think scientifically.
>
> Actually, I DO think of dragons thinking scientifically, almost to a
> fault.
>
> They're supposed to be MEGA-intelligent and foresightful...
>
> -------------Tim Skirvin (tskirvin@********.uni.uiuc.edu-------------
>
Yeah but you're assuming a link between high intelligence and scientific
thinking.

Dragons are *different* to us. I guess I'd pretty much assumed the same as
you, but there isn't necessarily a correlation between intelligence and
scientific thought patterns.

Dragons are giant magical reptiles (as far as I can see). Perhaps they are
much more in touch with shamanic power.

I don't know. If you'd have asked me about what sort of magic dragons
practice out of the blue I'd probably have guessed hermetic.

But hey, this is shadowrun, expect the unexpected, don't assume anything,
keep a gun handy, but know when not to use it.

That's my daily ramble over, see you around :-)

GLO


--
Gareth Owen | Mail: glowen1@*****.nhs.gov.uk
Message no. 33
From: Janne Jalkanen <jalkanen@*********.CERN.CH>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 13:50:52 +0200
On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, Gareth Owen wrote:

> Dragons are *different* to us. I guess I'd pretty much assumed the same as
> you, but there isn't necessarily a correlation between intelligence and
> scientific thought patterns.

Yes, this is true. Many artists, even if they do not think scientifically
still are brilliant minds. You could very well be completely untrained in
the scientific methods and still be a very formidable thinker :)

> Dragons are giant magical reptiles (as far as I can see). Perhaps they are
> much more in touch with shamanic power.

Hm. This raises an interesting thought in my mind: The dragons are much
older than us. They probably understand much more about magic than us. It
could be that they are so advanced in the usage of magic (which
apparently is even an inherent part of their existance. How else could
they fly?) that they do not simply *observe* the difference between
hermetic and shamanic magic. After all, they are dual beings, thus
probably not separating astral/real worlds as such. They exist in both
places at the same time, so why should they need to separate them?

So, what I am saying is that possibly there is no hermetic dragon nor
shamanic dragon. There are just dragons, wielding the magical power as
they wish.

Interesting thought number two: What if they are their own shamans? I
mean, their totem could very well be Dragon. (I really cannot imagine a
dragon being a Dog shaman...) This could be very interesting, since it
would explain a couple of things in the published SR products...

> But hey, this is shadowrun, expect the unexpected, don't assume anything,
> keep a gun handy, but know when not to use it.

And prepare your soul to die at any moment...

> GLO

<The Evil>

--
Janne Jalkanen ///! For those who have to fight for it
jalkanen@******.cern.ch /// ! life has a flavor
Janne.Jalkanen@***.fi \\\/// ! the protected will never understand
-'Keep on going...' \XX/ ! (anonymous, Viet Nam, 1968)
Message no. 34
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.EFN.ORG>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 07:08:35 -0700
On Mon, 27 Jun 1994, Jason Carter, Nightstalker wrote:

> Shamanic Magic makes more sense for dragons and any other intelligent
> paranormal being. Remember that Shamanic Magic is magic based on a natural
> viewpoint while Hermetic Magic is magic of an scientific viewpoint. Dragons
> don't think scientifically.

I am in full agreement here.

I have most of my great dragons and the lesser dragons who can use the
power as shamanic types. But their totems tend to be a bit wierd to
humanish eyes. Not that any of my PCs have ever found out.

Incidentially, in Bottled Demon there is no mention of Arleish being
Hermetic at all. In fact, they don't say anything about her style of
magic anywhere. When Deirdre ran the thing she just played Arleish as
having the power, and we never asked what trad. she followed.

Interestingly enough, Bloodwing had made Di'mon's so mad by trashing our
rep that she geeked him as soon as we had the idol (after Arleish had
de-powered it). Left us with Capt. Grissom as a contact. ;)

Ivy
Message no. 35
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.EFN.ORG>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 07:14:08 -0700
On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, Tim Skirvin wrote:

> > viewpoint while Hermetic Magic is magic of an scientific viewpoint.
> > Dragons don't think scientifically.
>
> Actually, I DO think of dragons thinking scientifically, almost to a
> fault.
> They're supposed to be MEGA-intelligent and foresightful...

Well, while they are intelligent <with capitals> and foresightful, they
are not human at all. And science is a human invention. They do reason,
but their starting points and ending points don't fit "science" as we
know it in any way. Their "causes" aren't ours and they expect effects
from the strangest causes.

One of the totems I use for them is "Life", but humanity doesn't even
come into the picture to them. Life" is all life, and in a lot of forms
that haven't been around for a long time.

Shamanistic? Yeah, they have to be.

Ivy
Message no. 36
From: Bryan Prince <WALAB@******.HH.VANDERBILT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 09:39:40 -0600
Jason Carter writes:
....Dragons don't think scientifically.

>>>>HUMPH! I'll show him Dragons don't think scientifically!<<<<
-Dunkelzahn [-:-:-/------]

Dunkie begins to type on the keyboard:
[As Jason begins to jack out, he finds himself in a 10' by 10' room]
A disembodied voice comes from the darkness "Jason, you are in a 10'
by 10' room. There is a candle sitting atop a chest-what do you do???"

HA HA HA HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
*grin* Sorry Jason, I just couldn't resist....I think that Dunkelzahn sorta
disproves the non-scientific thinking theory, seeing as he runs the matrix...
Feel free to disagree....
Bryan Prince
Message no. 37
From: the holy Entombed <rasputin@***.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 13:36:37 -0400
On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:

> Well, while they are intelligent <with capitals> and foresightful, they
> are not human at all. And science is a human invention. They do reason,
> but their starting points and ending points don't fit "science" as we
> know it in any way. Their "causes" aren't ours and they expect effects
> from the strangest causes.

Science is not something to be invented, by humans or anyone else. It's
a vague term that encompasses just about everything in everyday
life. Who's to say that the thought processes of a dragon are not too
far removed from our own? I agree that dragons would likely follow a
different path for study ( in studying at all) , but, assuming that the
scientific theory of dragons is superior to our own, is it necessarally
the case that it has to be drastically different? Why not just an
advanced form of our own hypothesis/reasoning patterns?

> Shamanistic? Yeah, they have to be.

I disagree. I look at dragon magic as magic based on hermetic theory
(not necessarally the hermetic tradition the Ares wage-mage is used to),
with perhaps a good dose of keeping magic-use closely related to nature.


the holy Entombed [[[[[[
Rasputin the (not so) Horrible [[--
rasputin@***.umd.edu [[[[[[ E
Message no. 38
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.EFN.ORG>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 1994 13:35:11 -0700
On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, the holy Entombed wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:
>
> > Well, while they are intelligent <with capitals> and foresightful, they
>
> Science is not something to be invented, by humans or anyone else. It's
> a vague term that encompasses just about everything in everyday

Science, Ras, is a very humanish idea. In fact it grew into a serious
idea inside of recorded history. From the greeks to the renaisance, then
developed to it's current state in the 1800s and 1900s. Science really
is a very new system.

>
> > Shamanistic? Yeah, they have to be.
>
> I disagree. I look at dragon magic as magic based on hermetic theory
> (not necessarally the hermetic tradition the Ares wage-mage is used to),
> with perhaps a good dose of keeping magic-use closely related to nature.

Well, Ras, this is another one that won't hold up. The Orders of Hermes,
Named for Hermes Trismegistus (thrice Greatest) founders of the Hermetic
Tradition date from well back, around the time of the greek-macedonian
conquest of egypt, but they're mucho younger than the youngest dragon. The
Hermesian/Thothian traditions aren't more than 2500 years old. So it
would be really hard for any dragon to be a user of "Hermetic magic".

Their tradition is so much older than mankind's that only the T'GEiAns
have any idea of where they got it. But when it was invented the very
ideas behind cause and effect were different than they are today.

I think that this kind of thing is to be expected, given mankind's
humanocentrism, but that doesn't mean that it's accurate.

Ivy
Message no. 39
From: the holy Entombed <rasputin@***.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 02:48:47 -0400
On Tue, 28 Jun 1994, Ivy Ryan wrote:

> Science, Ras[putin], is a very humanish idea. In fact it grew into a
> serious idea inside of recorded history. From the greeks to the
> renaisance, then developed to it's current state in the 1800s and 1900s.
> Science really is a very new system.

Are you referring to scientific METHOD? It sounds like (system) that's
what you're talking about. In that case, I agree: scientific method, as
we know it, is definitely a human invention.

> > > Shamanistic? Yeah, they have to be.
> > I disagree. I look at dragon magic as magic based on hermetic theory
> > (not necessarally the hermetic tradition the Ares wage-mage is used
> > with perhaps a good dose of keeping magic-use closely related to
> > nature.
> >
> Well, Ras[putin], this is another one that won't hold up. The Orders
> of Hermes, Named for Hermes Trismegistus (thrice Greatest) founders of
> the Hermetic Tradition date from well back, around the time of the
> [...]
> [etc.]

Okay, perhaps I should have re-worded my point. I wasn't taking the term
"hermetic" as literally as I should have...

My point: I don't feel that dragonian magic use is based primarally on
the shamanic path. I feel that, while dragons likely feel a deep,
sensitive connection to the "living power" of the Earth, a good deal of
their manipulation of astral energy comes from their own formulae, their
own logical reasoning, their own "recipies." (I believe Mr. Kendall
brought up the term "recipie book")

I again want to make the point that we're discussing a game, based on
rules that are designed to be interpreted by the individual. I'm not
looking to shoot anyone's ideas down, or have my own attacked, but to
throw in my too-sense about an aspect of the GAME, and how I run it.
Historical references do not necessarally apply to Shadowrun, although it
may be implied...

Ivy, you've mentioned you're a "shamaness." What does this entail? I
admit that I'm curious, but a skeptic as far a magic goes in "real life."
Why? The only folks I ever knew who claimed to be wizards or shamans or
Wiccan Priestesses (etc.) were fellow classmates in high school and
college who ended up revealing some thyme later that it was "a phase" or
that they were "recruited" and made to believe they were something they
weren't. The majority were types who didn't seem to fit into a
particular clique and were looking for acceptance. The image presented
to me, therefore, has not been a good one.

Whew.


the holy Entombed \\\\\\
Rasputin the (not often) Horrible \\--
rasputin@***.umd.edu \\\\\\

alt.fan.mayor-barry.win.win.win needs posts...
Message no. 40
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 16:22:42 +0930
>
> > > viewpoint while Hermetic Magic is magic of an scientific viewpoint.
> > > Dragons don't think scientifically.
> >
> > Actually, I DO think of dragons thinking scientifically, almost to a
> > fault.
> > They're supposed to be MEGA-intelligent and foresightful...
>
> Well, while they are intelligent <with capitals> and foresightful, they
> are not human at all. And science is a human invention. They do reason,
> but their starting points and ending points don't fit "science" as we
> know it in any way. Their "causes" aren't ours and they expect effects
> from the strangest causes.
>

I personally hold the belief that they don't use either of the two main
human concepts of magic. I've always given them BOTH spirits and
elementals at their beck and call, I've never given them totem
advantadges, and I gave up on trying to put Great Dragons into game terms
(the same way I don't mess with Harlequin's stats).
And why would a scientific outlook automatically prevent one from being
a shaman? Or vice-versa? There is research conducted into shamanic magic,
there are academic shamans in this field, and there are also some VERY
illogical mages out there...
As for causes and effects: Remember, Dragons aren't really part of
human society. However, they probably were a part of society prior to the
Hibernation, and that society, based on thousands of years of magic,
probably was very wierd. Also: Dragons do interact with the remanants of
that society (the elven councils of the Tirs, etc), and those Elven elders
are also magically wierd. Check out the Tir na nOg magic system.

>
> Shamanistic? Yeah, they have to be.
>
I kind of doubt that, Ivy. Dragons strike me as being too arrogant to
submit to any Totem, and, as for that Life totem idea, most Dragons in the
novels care about as much for other Life as I care for my next meal.

> Ivy

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers are around at 9 am,
it's because they were up all night.
Message no. 41
From: Unix_Kurs7044 <c7044@*****.RZ.UNI-REGENSBURG.DE>
Subject: Great Dragons
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 1994 13:28:14 +0200
I always thought Dragons should be powerful. And elemental spirits
are much more powerful than nature spirits. Therefore I and some
other people thought dragons had to be hermetic magicians. But if
they don't have to follow those human concepts of magic, they
don't necesserily have to be hermetics to conjure elemental
spirits.
Well, that's a good point.

Mephisto, ==St.Willkofer
Message no. 42
From: Chris Siebenmann <cks@********.UTCS.TORONTO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 1994 18:55:56 -0400
Shamanism is every bit as 'humanistic' as science; merely older and
in a different way.

If I had to do dragon magic, I would do it as raw power, without any
of the masks that humans find necessary to place over it.

- cks
Message no. 43
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 09:54:06 +1000
Ivy writes:

> Well, actually I generally choose it myself, when I use one. But,
> according to the SRII 'book, the majority of great dragons are shamanic.
>
> That leaves 49% who might not be.

Alright, it just says "magically active" doesnt it in the book? what about
dragon adepts? an elemental adept dragon, of, wait for it, a physical adept
dragon.

Damion
Message no. 44
From: MILLIKEN DAMION A <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 09:55:02 +1000
Ivy writes:

> Interestingly enough, Bloodwing had made Di'mon's so mad by trashing our
> rep that she geeked him as soon as we had the idol (after Arleish had
> de-powered it). Left us with Capt. Grissom as a contact. ;)

Is it bloodwing or blackwing???

Damion
Message no. 45
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 13:21:43 +1000
MILLIKEN DAMION A:

> Ivy writes:
>

> > Interestingly enough, Bloodwing had made Di'mon's so mad by trashing our
> > rep that she geeked him as soon as we had the idol (after Arleish had
> > de-powered it). Left us with Capt. Grissom as a contact. ;)
>

> Is it bloodwing or blackwing???

(How did that mail get to here?) Anyway, it's Blackwing. Our GM decided to
call him Bloodwing in our game. For various reasons. Guess it leaked onto
here...

luke
Message no. 46
From: Ivy Ryan <ivyryan@***.EFN.ORG>
Subject: Re: Great Dragons
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 1994 12:52:18 -0700
Yup, luke, and being as I knew who you GM was talkin' about I used the
same

On Mon, 18 Jul 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:

> MILLIKEN DAMION A:
>
> > Ivy writes:
> >
>
> > > Interestingly enough, Bloodwing had made Di'mon's so mad by trashing our
> > > rep that she geeked him as soon as we had the idol (after Arleish had
> > > de-powered it). Left us with Capt. Grissom as a contact. ;)
> >
>
> > Is it bloodwing or blackwing???
>
> (How did that mail get to here?) Anyway, it's Blackwing. Our GM decided to
> call him Bloodwing in our game. For various reasons. Guess it leaked onto
> here...
>
> luke
>
name. That's what happens when others get into a conversation. <grin>

Checked the module, definitely Blackwing.

Ivy

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Great Dragons, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!