Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Magic in the Shadows: Some commentary
Date: Wed May 30 05:05:00 2001
1. Religion (pg 10):
While I am happy to see Unitarianism mentioned, and indeed
agree that it would be more liberal than the Catholics on
magic, I am afraid that Unitarianism (more accurately,
Unitarian Universalism) cannot be classifed with "Christian
churches". There are many UUs (Unitarian Universalists) who
are Christians - indeed, there are some congregations that are
primarily Christian - and both halves (Unitarianism and
Universalism) of UUism emerged from Christianity, but
Christianity today is a minority within UUism. See
http://www.uua.org/promise/results.html, a survey of UUs, in
which Humanism and Paganism were both more common than
Christianity. (This survey is admittedly complicated by the
existence of UUs like me who are, to use my case as an
instance, both pagan and humanist.) UUism would indeed be
likely to have a large number of the Awakened in it, and be
generally magic-friendly, at least after the more ardent
humanists got over their shock at magic actually provably
working... The most common forms of magic within UUism would
be Chaos (an area in which I have a personal interest),
shamanic Druidic, Norse, and Witchcraft; there would probably
also be some Hindu, Quabbalistic, Rastafarian, and Shinto
practitioners, or at least people influenced by such (and by
others such as Christian and Islamic magic). The
Miracle-working (pg 27) variety of Awakened Oddity would
almost certainly not be found within UUism. Magical Groups
might well form within UU congregations, or with members of UU
congregations in a given area. Other subgroups within UUism
other than regional might also well form Magical Groups
(conference-going youth and young adults, for instance). These
would almost certainly not actually have "must be member of UU
congregation" as a Stricture, BTW... in most matters except
those of bureaucracy (voting structure et al), most UUs don't
tend to notice whether you're actually a member of the
congregation "officially" or not!

2. Elemental Mages and Wujen (pg 17-19):
Would there be an equivalent of Elemental Mages for Wujen?

3. If an Initiatory Group has an Oath stricture, this is broken by the
group if it admits someone sans Oath. Is an Oath also considered an
individual stricture, so that someone who breaks an Oath is
violating a stricture?

4. Any ideas on spell formulae for groups based on levels of
resources?

5. Would a free (former ally) spirit be capable of joining an
Initiatory group? Would this count as an additional tradition to
let in?

6. Stephen/TalonMail: Any thoughts on the Watcher tracking problem
(anyone can find anyone else via sic-cing a Watcher on them and
following)?

Other, more general magic questions/thoughts:

1. Stephen/TalonMail: Any thoughts on the previous debate regarding
whether or not geased Magic (geases from various causes) or
bioware-suppressed Magic would count on rolls vs Magic Loss? How
about for Focus Addiction?

2. If one cleans (SR3 pg 172) one's astral signature (sans Cleansing)
while astrally projecting, is the Drain from this physical or stun?

3. What physical form does Drain damage take? Fatigue for Stun is what
I've tended to think of it as, probably from GURPS...

Yours,

-Allen

P.S. To Stephen Henson: As with my commentary on M&M, I do trust you
don't mind the above comments, or my earlier ones regarding science &
the scientific method.


--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
Message no. 2
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Graht)
Subject: Magic in the Shadows: Some commentary
Date: Wed May 30 10:40:01 2001
At 05:03 AM 5/30/2001 -0400, Allen Smith wrote:
>1. Religion (pg 10):
> While I am happy to see Unitarianism mentioned, and indeed
> agree that it would be more liberal than the Catholics on
> magic, I am afraid that Unitarianism (more accurately,
> Unitarian Universalism) cannot be classifed with "Christian
> churches".

I'm a UU too <hands Allen a cup of coffee> (It's a UU joke, don't worry if
you don't get it :).

I was also a playtester for MitS and made note of this in my playtest
review to FASA, but they left it as it was.

Given that the goal of MitS is to present the rules for magic in Shadowrun,
and *not* educate players on the world's religions, I was able to let this
slide pretty easily. Also, I could imagine that the fictional writer of
that history may have had experience with only one UU church, that happened
to be Christian based. (Every UU church has a different focus.)

Also, who's to say what the future will hold? Maybe with the coming of
magic the Druids, Wiccans, etc suddenly found they had real power and left
the UU to form their own churches, leaving the disgruntled Catholics at the
core of the UU :)

Anyway, it wasn't a big issue to me, especially when considering what a
great job Steve did with MitS :)

To Life,
-Graht
ShadowRN Gridsec, Nice Guy Division
--
Message no. 3
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Magic in the Shadows: Some commentary
Date: Sat Jun 2 05:55:04 2001
On May 30, 11:02am, Graht wrote:
> At 05:03 AM 5/30/2001 -0400, Allen Smith wrote:
> >1. Religion (pg 10):
> > While I am happy to see Unitarianism mentioned, and indeed
> > agree that it would be more liberal than the Catholics on
> > magic, I am afraid that Unitarianism (more accurately,
> > Unitarian Universalism) cannot be classifed with "Christian
> > churches".
>
> I'm a UU too <hands Allen a cup of coffee> (It's a UU joke, don't worry if
> you don't get it :).

Chuckle... I fear I am an atypical UU in that the only form I like
coffee beans is in Kalua (sp)! (I did discover this at a UU Young
Adult weekend, though...) My typical form of caffeine is from colas.

> I was also a playtester for MitS and made note of this in my playtest
> review to FASA, but they left it as it was.

Ah.

> Given that the goal of MitS is to present the rules for magic in Shadowrun,
> and *not* educate players on the world's religions,

Well, yes... and Steve did do a pretty good job on religions in
general in MitS - I might disagree with, for instance, some of the
characterizations of the "Idols" (not to mention my dislike of that
name, with its connotations), but they aren't insulting to paganism
the way I've seen some systems be. (As much as I like Lovecraft, I'm
afraid CofC and other things based on his work do have this problem.)
A few errors I'm willing to let slide; bias or potentially-insulting
errors, which Steve avoided so far as I can tell, I'm not.

> I was able to let this slide pretty easily. Also, I could imagine
> that the fictional writer of that history may have had experience
> with only one UU church, that happened to be Christian based.
> (Every UU church has a different focus.)

Well, the section in question isn't presented as being _from_ a
fictional character, but aside from that I can understand this being
the origin of the mistake.

> Also, who's to say what the future will hold? Maybe with the coming of
> magic the Druids, Wiccans, etc suddenly found they had real power and left
> the UU to form their own churches, leaving the disgruntled Catholics at the
> core of the UU :)

The "disgruntled Catholics" tend to be humanists, however... actually,
I would suggest that the Awakening would result in _more_ unity
between the humanists and the pagans in UUism. Currently, the major
problems that a lot of humanists have with paganism are the minority
(in UU circles, at least) of pagans who have beliefs that sound to
humanists too irrational - in many cases, too much like the humanists'
religious upbringing. (Noticeable in this regard is the tendency for
raised-UU humanists to be a lot better at getting along with pagans.)
If the pagans can prove that what they're saying is correct when they
make a claim that sounds like a claim of "truth" (as opposed to a
claim of belief, which is all that most - all but that minority - are
actually doing), or at least have a _much_ higher likelihood of being
so than most humanists would currently believe, that would remove a
_lot_ of the problem.

> Anyway, it wasn't a big issue to me, especially when considering what a
> great job Steve did with MitS :)

Agreed.

Yours,

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
Message no. 4
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Sebastian Wiers)
Subject: Magic in the Shadows: Some commentary
Date: Sun Jun 3 16:15:01 2001
>2. Elemental Mages and Wujen (pg 17-19):
> Would there be an equivalent of Elemental Mages for Wujen?

Yes. Page 19 of MITS in the "Wujen Aspected Magicians" says "there do
exist
aspected magicians dedicated to one of the five wuxing stems, or elements."
They can cast the matching catogory of spells and summon the matching type
of wu-jen spirit.
Which elements relate to which spell catagories is detailed right at the top
of p. 19.

>3. If an Initiatory Group has an Oath stricture, this is broken by the
> group if it admits someone sans Oath. Is an Oath also considered an
> individual stricture, so that someone who breaks an Oath is
> violating a stricture?

I don't think so. If the group lets you in without taking the oath, they
have already given you permission to not take the oath (and thereby broken a
group stricture)- why woul you roll later (when initiating) to see if you
pissed them off by doing something they already let you do?

>4. Any ideas on spell formulae for groups based on levels of
> resources?

Huh? You can purchase spell formualae, which makes them oretty soundly
based on resources already...
If you mean based on an intiatory groups resource level, I'd allow the
members of the group the same price break on formualae that they get on
other magical goods.

>5. Would a free (former ally) spirit be capable of joining an
> Initiatory group? Would this count as an additional tradition to
> let in?

I don't see how or why it would join such a group- they can't initiate. A
free spirit might certainly form an association with such a group,
exhcanging services (such as teaching of metamagic) for services (such as
combat support or cojuring to increase karma transfers from mundanes), or
cash for karma, or whatever. For badguy NPC groups, spirits could form
spirit pacts with various members of the group (probably just one free
spirit formaing a pact with the leader of the group- I can't see that many
free spirits co-operating and sharing such a juicy sorce of power).

-Mongoose
Message no. 5
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Magic in the Shadows: Some commentary
Date: Mon Jun 4 03:50:01 2001
On Jun 3, 4:31pm, Sebastian Wiers wrote:
> >2. Elemental Mages and Wujen (pg 17-19):
> > Would there be an equivalent of Elemental Mages for Wujen?
>
> Yes. Page 19 of MITS in the "Wujen Aspected Magicians" says "there
> do exist aspected magicians dedicated to one of the five wuxing
> stems, or elements." They can cast the matching catogory of spells
> and summon the matching type of wu-jen spirit.
> Which elements relate to which spell catagories is detailed right at the top
> of p. 19.

Umm... sorry, that wasn't what I was asking. The terminology of
"elemental mages" and "elemental _aspected_ mages" is unfortunately
unclear, so I can see the cause for the confusion. I was referring to
"elemental mages" who get a +2 for a given type of spell and
elemental, but a -1 for the "opposite" type (MitS pg 17).

> >3. If an Initiatory Group has an Oath stricture, this is broken by
> > the group if it admits someone sans Oath. Is an Oath also
> > considered an individual stricture, so that someone who breaks
> > an Oath is violating a stricture?
>
> I don't think so. If the group lets you in without taking the oath,
> they have already given you permission to not take the oath (and
> thereby broken a group stricture)- why woul you roll later (when
> initiating) to see if you pissed them off by doing something they
> already let you do?

I'm sorry for not having been clear enough. If you _take_ an Oath,
because it's a group stricture, then _break_ that Oath, would it count
as breaking an _individual_ stricture? I tend to say yes...

> >4. Any ideas on spell formulae for groups based on levels of
> > resources?
>
> Huh?

Sorry if I was unclear.

> You can purchase spell formualae, which makes them oretty
> soundly based on resources already...
> If you mean based on an intiatory groups resource level, I'd allow
> the members of the group the same price break on formualae that they
> get on other magical goods.

I'd agree on that, but wouldn't most groups have some spell formulae
in their libraries? At least the customary mage formats for such (and,
apparently, the wujen versions) are digitally reproduceable, for
instance, so it isn't as if they get used up.

> >5. Would a free (former ally) spirit be capable of joining an
> > Initiatory group? Would this count as an additional tradition to
> > let in?
>
> I don't see how or why it would join such a group- they can't
> initiate.

I can see that most GMs would indeed rule that they can't initiate,
although I'm curious if that's in the text - I haven't found mention
of it one way or another. There's also the interesting idea of
allowing joining a group without initiating - see
http://www.amurgsval.org/shadowrun/characters/InitiatoryGroup.html -
although that's unofficial.

> A free spirit might certainly form an association with such a group,
> exhcanging services (such as teaching of metamagic) for services
> (such as combat support or cojuring to increase karma transfers from
> mundanes), or cash for karma, or whatever.

Definitely - indeed, I'd call it likely, especially for groups that
were allied with the SR version of PETA, for shamanic groups, or for
ecoactivist groups with Guardian Free Spirits.

> For badguy NPC groups, spirits could form
> spirit pacts with various members of the group (probably just one free
> spirit formaing a pact with the leader of the group- I can't see that many
> free spirits co-operating and sharing such a juicy sorce of power).

Agreed.

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu
Message no. 6
From: shadowrn@*********.com (shadowrn@*********.com)
Subject: Magic in the Shadows: Some commentary
Date: Mon Jun 4 12:55:05 2001
In a message dated 5/30/01 5:09:18 AM, easmith@********.rutgers.edu writes:
>1. Religion (pg 10):
>While I am happy to see Unitarianism mentioned, and indeed
>agree that it would be more liberal than the Catholics on
>magic, I am afraid that Unitarianism (more accurately,
>Unitarian Universalism) cannot be classifed with "Christian
>churches".

True. It probably shouldn't have been, but for some reason notes to that
effect didn't get changed in the final draft. Unfortunately, the space
constraints made if difficult to do more than touch upon any one religion,
which tends to give an incomplete picture.

>2. Elemental Mages and Wujen (pg 17-19):
>Would there be an equivalent of Elemental Mages for Wujen?

I don't see why not, if you wanted to include them in your game. The
elemental oppositions in wuxing are a bit different:

Fire opposes Metal
Metal opposes Wood
Wood opposes Earth
Earth opposes Water
Water opposes Fire

So a wujen aligned with Fire (for example) gets a bonus with combat spells
and fire spirits but suffers a penalty for manipulation spells and ancestor
spirits or spirits of man (which I'd associate with Metal).

>3. If an Initiatory Group has an Oath stricture, this is broken by the
>group if it admits someone sans Oath. Is an Oath also considered an
>individual stricture, so that someone who breaks an Oath is
>violating a stricture?

Yes.

>4. Any ideas on spell formulae for groups based on levels of
>resources?

It's a GM call but as a ballpark figure I'd say a group with Low or better
Resources will have access to spell formulae with a max Drain based on
Resources level (Low = Light, Middle = Moderate, etc.) and a max Force equal
to half the group's rating for libraries and lodges. Naturally individual
members can also teach each other spells and can use the group's resources to
research them on their own.

>5. Would a free (former ally) spirit be capable of joining an
>Initiatory group?

Socially, as in "hangs out with people in the group and does stuff with
them," yes. Magically, as in "is connected to the group's astral link and
benefits from it," no. Spirits don't initiate or develop magically like
mortals, so the magical aspects of an initiatory group are meaningless to
them.

>6. Stephen/TalonMail: Any thoughts on the Watcher tracking problem
>(anyone can find anyone else via sic-cing a Watcher on them and
>following)?

Well, I've never found it a "problem" as such, but if you find it's getting
out of control, there are some ways of reining it in:

1) Keep in mind that the magician must know the subject the watcher is going
to track. The GM gets to define how well the magician must "know" the
subject, but at a bare minimum I'd say the magician must have met (not just
seen) them in person or been there (for a location). Things like photographs
and video are useless for astral tracking. If you want to be a bit more
stringent, require that the magician must have assensed the subject before
and gotten at least 1 success (maybe more) in order to know their aura well
enough to track them.

2) If the subject enters a ward (or other astral barrier) AT ANY TIME while
the watcher is tracking, the tracking attempt automatically fails. Since
wards are very cost-effective in SR3, they're fairly common. Expect any
secure location to be warded, so it's pretty easy for a watcher to lose the
trail.

3) Watchers are none too bright (regardless of Force), so they can stumble
into trouble, get eaten by astral predators, run afoul of (completely
unrelated) spirits or other hazards, etc. GMs should ALWAYS make watcher
Tracking Tests secretly, then reveal the results to the player, since the
magician just sends the watcher off and hopes for the best. That allows you
room to fudge things, if need be. "Well it's been over four hours and your
watcher hasn't returned yet, what do you want to do?"

>1. Stephen/TalonMail: Any thoughts on the previous debate regarding
>whether or not geased Magic (geases from various causes) or
>bioware-suppressed Magic would count on rolls vs Magic Loss? How
>about for Focus Addiction?

IMHO, you roll your current EFFECTIVE Magic Rating (whatever it might be) for
both Magic Loss and Focus Addiction Tests. Thus "virtual" Magic reduction
from Bioware makes it harder to lose further Magic but easier to become focus
addicted. "Virtual" Magic increase from geasa is the other way around (harder
to become focus addicted but the same difficulty for you to lose further
Magic).

>2. If one cleans (SR3 pg 172) one's astral signature (sans Cleansing)
>while astrally projecting, is the Drain from this physical or stun?

Physical.

>3. What physical form does Drain damage take? Fatigue for Stun is what
>I've tended to think of it as, probably from GURPS...

Physical drain can take the form of torn or strained muscles, burst blood
vessels, burns (for excess magical power), and so forth. In more extreme
cases it can result in things like internal bleeding, severe burns, even the
equivalent of a heart attack, stroke, or cerebral hermorage.

Steve Kenson

Talon Studio
http://members.aol.com/talonmail
Message no. 7
From: shadowrn@*********.com (Allen Smith)
Subject: Magic in the Shadows: Some commentary
Date: Mon Jun 4 14:55:00 2001
On Jun 4, 1:13pm, TalonMail@***.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/30/01 5:09:18 AM, easmith@********.rutgers.edu writes:
> >1. Religion (pg 10):
> >While I am happy to see Unitarianism mentioned, and indeed
> >agree that it would be more liberal than the Catholics on
> >magic, I am afraid that Unitarianism (more accurately,
> >Unitarian Universalism) cannot be classifed with "Christian
> >churches".
>
> True. It probably shouldn't have been, but for some reason notes to that
> effect didn't get changed in the final draft.

Ah - understand. Mixups happen... including it in the errata would be
a nice touch, BTW, although given the current FASA et al chaos it's
quite understandable that that would take a while!

> Unfortunately, the space constraints made if difficult to do more
> than touch upon any one religion, which tends to give an incomplete
> picture.

Understood. I'll try to write up something regarding UUism in the SR
world (and will check with my fellow UU(s) on the list for accuracy &
viewpoint) and put it up on dumpshock.

> >2. Elemental Mages and Wujen (pg 17-19):
> >Would there be an equivalent of Elemental Mages for Wujen?
>
> I don't see why not, if you wanted to include them in your game. The
> elemental oppositions in wuxing are a bit different:
>
> Fire opposes Metal
> Metal opposes Wood
> Wood opposes Earth
> Earth opposes Water
> Water opposes Fire
>
> So a wujen aligned with Fire (for example) gets a bonus with combat spells
> and fire spirits but suffers a penalty for manipulation spells and ancestor
> spirits or spirits of man (which I'd associate with Metal).

Huh. Thank you, this will be helpful. (I'll post a bit more on the
subject when I have my books with me.)

> >3. If an Initiatory Group has an Oath stricture, this is broken by the
> >group if it admits someone sans Oath. Is an Oath also considered an
> >individual stricture, so that someone who breaks an Oath is
> >violating a stricture?
>
> Yes.

Good. I'd thought as much; otherwise, the Oath stricture doesn't
really constrain people to obey the rules of the group, since it's
only on getting kicked _out_ of the group that they'd have to roll for
Magic Loss.

> >4. Any ideas on spell formulae for groups based on levels of
> >resources?
>
> It's a GM call but as a ballpark figure I'd say a group with Low or
> better Resources will have access to spell formulae with a max Drain
> based on Resources level (Low = Light, Middle = Moderate, etc.) and
> a max Force equal to half the group's rating for libraries and
> lodges.

OK. The system I'd come up with off the top of my head was:

Since spell formulae, especially for mages (and, I believe,
wujen and Path-followers), are quite reproduceable, it appears
likely that a group with resources above Squatter will have
some formulae. I suggest that the normal rating of a spell
formula in a group's library will be equal to its Sorcery
library (for mages or wujen) or Lodge rating (for shamen,
including followers of voodoo), with a maximum of 6. To
determine the percentage chance of a given spell's formula
being in a group's library, I suggest totaling the following:
[Group's discount for ritual materials, if any]
+25 if the spell formula is legal without a permit,
or would be if it had a Force of 3 or less
+25 if it is in the SR3 main rulebook (as opposed to
MitS), or is otherwise a "standard" spell
(GM's determination)
-25 if it is Deadly Drain
-15 if it is Serious Drain
-10 if it is Moderate Drain
Use the spell's highest possible Drain level if it is
variable-drain; e.g., if a spell is at a -1 Drain Level
modifier, use the Serious Drain modifier. The above is the
chance for having a given spell formula at a rating of 6, or
the group's Sorcery library (for mages, wujen, or
Path-followers) or Lodge rating (for shamen, including
followers of voodoo), whichever is less. If the roll fails by
less than 25%, the formula is in the library, but at a rating
half the normal one (round up) or of 3, whichever is less. GMs
may wish to apply further minuses on the above for
shamanic-format formulae, since they are harder to
reproduce. The above admittedly has the problem of being based
on percentile dice instead of SR's customary D6, but it's
unlikely gaming groups will be without a D6 or two around.

I did note in my earlier email that my mind tends toward complexity! I
am, BTW, assuming that groups are either:
A. skirting the law with regard to spell formulae copyrights;
B. simply loaning their copy to the member in question; and/or
C. have a group subscription, similar to the way I've got
access to quite a few journal's online version via Rutgers
(and my thesis/dissertation advisor's subscriptions, in
some cases).

> Naturally individual members can also teach each other
> spells and can use the group's resources to research them on their
> own.

Quite. Groups with Fraternity, Beliefs/Oaths involving the promotion
of knowledge, etcetera may indeed obligate members to teach other
members (or at least give them copies of spell formulae, modulo the
above copyright concerns).

> >5. Would a free (former ally) spirit be capable of joining an
> >Initiatory group?
>
> Socially, as in "hangs out with people in the group and does stuff with
> them," yes. Magically, as in "is connected to the group's astral link and
> benefits from it," no. Spirits don't initiate or develop magically like
> mortals, so the magical aspects of an initiatory group are meaningless to
> them.

I suspected as much... ah, well. I would think that a dragon, on the
other hand, could indeed join a group - their magic's a lot more
similar, or so I've gathered (including from the ED Dragons
supplement, which has dragons as members of the "normal" magical adept
paths, as well as having their own magical forms).

> >6. Stephen/TalonMail: Any thoughts on the Watcher tracking problem
> >(anyone can find anyone else via sic-cing a Watcher on them and
> >following)?
>
> Well, I've never found it a "problem" as such,

I was reading in the archives about some GMs finding it a problem.

> >1. Stephen/TalonMail: Any thoughts on the previous debate regarding
> > whether or not geased Magic (geases from various causes) or
> > bioware-suppressed Magic would count on rolls vs Magic Loss? How
> > about for Focus Addiction?
>
> IMHO, you roll your current EFFECTIVE Magic Rating (whatever it
> might be) for both Magic Loss and Focus Addiction Tests. Thus
> "virtual" Magic reduction from Bioware makes it harder to lose
> further Magic but easier to become focus addicted. "Virtual" Magic
> increase from geasa is the other way around (harder to become focus
> addicted but the same difficulty for you to lose further Magic).

Hmm... thank you, I'll have to think about this further. The idea of
geasa giving a "virtual" magic increase is an interesting idea,
although it does give rise to the question of whether said points
would be counted for Magic Loss if you're breaking the Geas in
question.

> >2. If one cleans (SR3 pg 172) one's astral signature (sans Cleansing)
> >while astrally projecting, is the Drain from this physical or stun?
>
> Physical.

Ouch! Well, given that virtually everything else doing Drain on the
Astral does physical damage, I suppose this makes sense... I was
wondering because it was requiring one to be astrally-perceiving, so
the person seems to be interacting with the astral whether projecting
or not. OTOH, this does limit people from deciding to take a lot less
time cleaning astral signatures via projecting to do it.

> >3. What physical form does Drain damage take? Fatigue for Stun is what
> >I've tended to think of it as, probably from GURPS...
>
> Physical drain can take the form of torn or strained muscles, burst blood
> vessels, burns (for excess magical power), and so forth. In more extreme
> cases it can result in things like internal bleeding, severe burns, even the
> equivalent of a heart attack, stroke, or cerebral hermorage.

Ouch! Any thoughts about Stun Drain? (BTW, Stun drain is also rather
likely to be a focus of biological research into magic; Physical's a
bit too nasty to ask people to go through on a regular basis, although
jailed magicians may well find themselves in such experiments.)

Thanks,

-Allen

--
Allen Smith easmith@********.rutgers.edu

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Magic in the Shadows: Some commentary, 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!