Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 14:40:09 +0200
I already discussed this with Jani, and he liked the idea, so here's a
slightly updated version of a new totem I created...


MAN (or WOMAN)
CHARACTERISTICS: Able to survive in virtually any environment by making the
environment adapt to him instead of the other way around, Man can be a
danger to others. He is responsive to real or imagined threats, making him
unpredictable to a degree. In dangerous situations, Man generally knows two
ways to react: talk, or fight, and so Man shamans are divided into two
factions: Talkers and Fighters. Talkers feel that all problems can be solved
by talking, talking, and talking some more, while Fighters resort to
violence to solve problems, if given half a chance.
FAVORED ENVIRONMENT: Urban
ADVANTAGES: +2 dice for Combat spells if a Fighter; +2 dice for manipulation
spells if a Talker; +2 dice for conjuring any spirit of man.
DISADVANTAGES: Man has always been good at destroying things, giving him -1
die for health spells.
If a Talker is placed in a situation where a fight will break out, a Man
shaman must roll a Willpower (6) test. If the test fails, the shaman must
continue to try and talk it out; if it succeeds, the shaman may participate
in the fight.
If a Fighter shaman is placed in a situation where violence might only make
matters worse for the shaman, he must also roll a Willpower (6) test;
failure means he does use violence to try and solve the problems at hand;
success allows him to try and talk it out.
In any combat situation, Man fights to disable his opponent in any way possible.
NOTE: Toxic Man shamans are always Poisoners.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
"Did we fire in that club?" "No." "Then we're still welcome
there."
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 2
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 22:12:52 +0930
Gurth wrote:
> If a Fighter shaman is placed in a situation where violence might only make
> matters worse for the shaman, he must also roll a Willpower (6) test;
> failure means he does use violence to try and solve the problems at hand;
> success allows him to try and talk it out.

Gee... all my players (not the characters) must be Fighter shamans, except
for the lack of mana. (Only they never seem to make their Willpower test)

--
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.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 3
From: Michael Orion Jackson <moj0001@****.ACS.UNT.EDU>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 08:11:22 -0500
On Wed, 31 May 1995, Gurth wrote:

> I already discussed this with Jani, and he liked the idea, so here's a
> slightly updated version of a new totem I created...
>
>
> MAN (or WOMAN)
> CHARACTERISTICS: Able to survive in virtually any environment by making the
> environment adapt to him instead of the other way around, Man can be a
> danger to others. He is responsive to real or imagined threats, making him
> unpredictable to a degree. In dangerous situations, Man generally knows two
> ways to react: talk, or fight, and so Man shamans are divided into two
> factions: Talkers and Fighters. Talkers feel that all problems can be solved
> by talking, talking, and talking some more, while Fighters resort to
> violence to solve problems, if given half a chance.
> FAVORED ENVIRONMENT: Urban
> ADVANTAGES: +2 dice for Combat spells if a Fighter; +2 dice for manipulation
> spells if a Talker; +2 dice for conjuring any spirit of man.
> DISADVANTAGES: Man has always been good at destroying things, giving him -1
> die for health spells.
> If a Talker is placed in a situation where a fight will break out, a Man
> shaman must roll a Willpower (6) test. If the test fails, the shaman must
> continue to try and talk it out; if it succeeds, the shaman may participate
> in the fight.
> If a Fighter shaman is placed in a situation where violence might only make
> matters worse for the shaman, he must also roll a Willpower (6) test;
> failure means he does use violence to try and solve the problems at hand;
> success allows him to try and talk it out.
> In any combat situation, Man fights to disable his opponent in any way possible.
> NOTE: Toxic Man shamans are always Poisoners.
>
>
> Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
> "Did we fire in that club?" "No." "Then we're still
welcome there."
> Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
> P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
> B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
>
Good idea, but perhaps the target numbers should be four or five
instead. After all, the key aspect of Man is versitility (sp?). And, as
a subset of the Talkers would be Healers. For every violent punk killing
and maiming for the nihilistic joy of it, there is always some kind soul
who volunteers at the hospital, cooks for the homeless, or lends a hand
to stranded motorists. Give the Healers a +3 dice bonus on Health spells,
and a -1 die penalty to all combat and damaging manipulation spells due
to their desire to help rather than harm.
What would the "specs" on a Man Spirit be, anyway? Modern
Man is so diverse culturally that virtually any set of characteristics could
pop up. And if you include the cultural images of our past, the possibilities
are nearly infinite.
For example, a Fighter spirit might be: an Uruk-Hai (primal
man,see Altered States), a zulu warrior, a green beret, or virtually
anything else that would be considered an archetypal image of violence.
A Talker spirit would probably look like a Fighter Spirit, only it would
be wearing powder-blue headgear or have powder-blue patches on. Its
conjured equipment would probably be white in color and diverse in origin.
A Healer spirit would be similar in appearance to Talker spirits, except
that it would probably look somewhat medical in appearance.
I don't have any books handy, but the Powers of the spirit(s) should be
fairly easy to decide. They could be virtually anything, and they would
depend on which type of shaman was summoning them.
__________________________________________________________________________
|Michael Orion Jackson |"A college student is a mechanism for |
|moj0001@****.acs.unt.edu |converting caffeine into finished |
|>Flaming is immature.< |homework" -unknown, but perceptive author |
__________________________________________________________________________
Message no. 4
From: Jonas Gabrielson <m94jga@*******.TDB.UU.SE>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 16:36:17 +0200
On Wed, 31 May 1995, Gurth wrote:

> MAN (or WOMAN) [totem description cut]

The following is a highly personal and metaphysical view.
Well, I'm not going to ban you for doing this, but I've always
felt that sentient species have no Totem spirit guarding them - it's as
if the Totem fragmented into pieces and lodged separate parts in the
physical bodies of sentients. For example, you'll probably (read: I hope)
never see a Dragon Totem in an official product. Granted, Leviathan and
Wendigo are listed in the (Net/Beta) NAGA, but I think these were pretty
unnecessary myself, and could easily be ignored.
Besides, as someone pointed out before, the versatility of Man
(hey, are Metahumans included too? and what about women, do they really
have the same "types" (Fighter/Talker) - I think not!) is a point
against. As for your partition of the totem - I would rather use Idols.
Perhaps the totems of sentient species are really fragmented into Idols -
after all, sentience is characterized by a wide difference in mentality.
Maybe this means that there are Dragon Idols (The Elf-Slayer immediately
comes to mind... :) ), and Sasquatch Idols, and so on.
Just a thought.

-Jonas
Message no. 5
From: Todd James Gillespie <toddg@****.ACS.UNT.EDU>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Wed, 31 May 1995 18:49:25 -0500
Gurth, I think this is an insane idea. Since when do I gain powers by
imitating myself? The point of totems is the conformity to certain quos
the totem requires. Adds roleplaying. But more importantly is how you
and Mike are parading this as a boon to the reality of the diversity of
humanity. Frankly, no shit. That's the reason we can call this a
role-playing game, where human creativity comes into play, instead of
just rolling the good 'ole d20 repeatedly for a few hours. But the fact
of the matter is, creating a 'diverse' human totem is quite silly,
because totems describe how we can be pigeon holed by our standpoint on
life. Not complete conformity, but how we will normally default in our
actions. This totem is reaffirmation of higher thought, and I don't
think we really ned to be reminded that we have forebrains. Also, the totem
below looks like a lucrative (munchinized) coyote.

BTW, the Talker deconstructs itself. Think about it. It's philosophy is
that talking, communication, and understanding can solve all our
problems. So, no combat spells, or damaging manips. Healing? maybe, but
it's kind of tangent to the totem. Illusions? not really needed, seing as
no communication will occur with that. Detection? could get a bit of use
with sensing the other guy and getting an upper hand, but that overrides
the idea that talking can solve everything. So what's left? Prepare Good
Cappuchino And Establish A Good Atmosphere For Conversation, Force 7?
(expendable fetish is a coffee bean, of course) Sorry, Gurth, it doesn't
have a purpose.

ABTW, no one would play a Fighter. No contacts and everyone gets sick of
him killing the meet, not to mention what will happen when the recovery
target insults the Fighter.

AABTW, come on, Mike, I was your roommate. I know you have better ideas.

AAABTW, I did like the UN joke, though.

On Wed, 31 May 1995, Michael Orion Jackson wrote:

> On Wed, 31 May 1995, Gurth wrote:
> >
> >
> > MAN (or WOMAN)
> > CHARACTERISTICS: Able to survive in virtually any environment by making the
> > environment adapt to him instead of the other way around, Man can be a
> > danger to others. He is responsive to real or imagined threats, making him
> > unpredictable to a degree. In dangerous situations, Man generally knows two
Gurth, have you ever thought about what any living thing does to a threat?

> > ways to react: talk, or fight, and so Man shamans are divided into two
> > factions: Talkers and Fighters. Talkers feel that all problems can be solved
> > by talking, talking, and talking some more, while Fighters resort to
> > violence to solve problems, if given half a chance.
> > FAVORED ENVIRONMENT: Urban
> > ADVANTAGES: +2 dice for Combat spells if a Fighter; +2 dice for manipulation
> > spells if a Talker; +2 dice for conjuring any spirit of man.
> > DISADVANTAGES: Man has always been good at destroying things, giving him -1
> > die for health spells.
> > If a Talker is placed in a situation where a fight will break out, a Man
> > shaman must roll a Willpower (6) test. If the test fails, the shaman must
> > continue to try and talk it out; if it succeeds, the shaman may participate
> > in the fight.
> > If a Fighter shaman is placed in a situation where violence might only make
> > matters worse for the shaman, he must also roll a Willpower (6) test;
> > failure means he does use violence to try and solve the problems at hand;
> > success allows him to try and talk it out.
> > In any combat situation, Man fights to disable his opponent in any way possible.
> > NOTE: Toxic Man shamans are always Poisoners.
> >
> >
> > Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
> > "Did we fire in that club?" "No." "Then we're still
welcome there."
> > Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
> > P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
> > B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
> >
> Good idea, but perhaps the target numbers should be four or five
> instead. After all, the key aspect of Man is versitility (sp?). And, as
> a subset of the Talkers would be Healers. For every violent punk killing
> and maiming for the nihilistic joy of it, there is always some kind soul
> who volunteers at the hospital, cooks for the homeless, or lends a hand
> to stranded motorists. Give the Healers a +3 dice bonus on Health spells,
> and a -1 die penalty to all combat and damaging manipulation spells due
> to their desire to help rather than harm.
> What would the "specs" on a Man Spirit be, anyway? Modern
> Man is so diverse culturally that virtually any set of characteristics could
> pop up. And if you include the cultural images of our past, the possibilities
> are nearly infinite.
> For example, a Fighter spirit might be: an Uruk-Hai (primal
> man,see Altered States), a zulu warrior, a green beret, or virtually
> anything else that would be considered an archetypal image of violence.
> A Talker spirit would probably look like a Fighter Spirit, only it would
> be wearing powder-blue headgear or have powder-blue patches on. Its
> conjured equipment would probably be white in color and diverse in origin.
> A Healer spirit would be similar in appearance to Talker spirits, except
> that it would probably look somewhat medical in appearance.
> I don't have any books handy, but the Powers of the spirit(s) should be
> fairly easy to decide. They could be virtually anything, and they would
> depend on which type of shaman was summoning them.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> |Michael Orion Jackson |"A college student is a mechanism for |
> |moj0001@****.acs.unt.edu |converting caffeine into finished |
> |>Flaming is immature.< |homework" -unknown, but perceptive author |
> __________________________________________________________________________
>

==================
"A pretty face and a gun will get you farther than just a pretty face"
Message no. 6
From: Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 12:40:52 +0930
Jonas Gabrielson wrote:
> The following is a highly personal and metaphysical view.
> Well, I'm not going to ban you for doing this, but I've always
> felt that sentient species have no Totem spirit guarding them - it's as
> if the Totem fragmented into pieces and lodged separate parts in the
> physical bodies of sentients. For example, you'll probably (read: I hope)
> never see a Dragon Totem in an official product. Granted, Leviathan and
> Wendigo are listed in the (Net/Beta) NAGA, but I think these were pretty
> unnecessary myself, and could easily be ignored.

Well, there's a Dragon (well, Wyrm) Totem in London Sourcebook.

--
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.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***
Message no. 7
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 12:45:13 +0200
> Good idea, but perhaps the target numbers should be four or five
>instead. After all, the key aspect of Man is versitility (sp?).

The TNs should not, IMHO, be lower. The six is reasonable easy to reach if
you're throwing 5 or 6 dice, as most shamans are for Willpower tests, and
remember that, if you _fail_ the test you act the way your totem wants you
to (fight if you're a Fighter, talk if you're a Talker). If you succeed, you
can give the other possibility a go. Making the TNs lower means just about
every shaman makes just about every test just about every time, so there
will just about never :) be situations where the shaman starts to talk when
it's obvious to everyone else that fighting is the only viable option...

>And, as
>a subset of the Talkers would be Healers. For every violent punk killing
>and maiming for the nihilistic joy of it, there is always some kind soul
>who volunteers at the hospital, cooks for the homeless, or lends a hand
>to stranded motorists. Give the Healers a +3 dice bonus on Health spells,
>and a -1 die penalty to all combat and damaging manipulation spells due
>to their desire to help rather than harm.

Create a third sub-set of Man shamans? I don't think I will, because
actually the totem is meant to reflect the fact that some people (diplomats,
mainly) keep talking while it's clear to everyone else that the only way to
solve the problem is to kill it, and others (aggressive types, mainly),
think they can solve everything by hitting it hard enough.

> What would the "specs" on a Man Spirit be, anyway? Modern
>Man is so diverse culturally that virtually any set of characteristics could
>pop up. And if you include the cultural images of our past, the possibilities
>are nearly infinite.

Spirits of Man are those listed as such in the SR2 book: City, Hearth, and
Field spirits. I though that was kind of self-explanatory, actually...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
she's just as bored as me
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 8
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 14:24:46 +0200
> Well, I'm not going to ban you for doing this

Unlike some others...

>but I've always
>felt that sentient species have no Totem spirit guarding them - it's as
>if the Totem fragmented into pieces and lodged separate parts in the
>physical bodies of sentients. For example, you'll probably (read: I hope)
>never see a Dragon Totem in an official product.

Yes you will. Open your Grimthingy and behold the Wyrm totem from Wales. I
don't see why there _shoudln't_ be totems for sentient creatures. First I
wondered about why FASA didn't bring out paranormal animal totems, which
they now will do with the NAGM, so now the next step, I'd say, is sentient
totems.
We've had the discussion on what totems really are before, and it seems to
me to be a product of the WYTIWYG theory Jani is so fond of :) because all
totems are what "people" think about the animal in question. The Man totem
is along those same lines, but now for what people think of people. I don't
see the problems, really.

>Granted, Leviathan and
>Wendigo are listed in the (Net/Beta) NAGA, but I think these were pretty
>unnecessary myself, and could easily be ignored.

As can the Man totem, if you don't want it.

>(hey, are Metahumans included too? and what about women, do they really
>have the same "types" (Fighter/Talker) - I think not!)

"Man" refers to all men and women, human or metahuman. Maybe you should
create a Woman totem if you think they'd deserve so (that is, if you want to
use these totems at all), but for fear of getting attacked by any women on
this list, I say I don't see the fuss about the differences between men and
women, psychologically speaking. (This is getting off topic...)

>Perhaps the totems of sentient species are really fragmented into Idols -
>after all, sentience is characterized by a wide difference in mentality.
>Maybe this means that there are Dragon Idols (The Elf-Slayer immediately
>comes to mind... :) ), and Sasquatch Idols, and so on.

Idols are not much more or less than totems called by a different name
because "totem" doesn't fir with European culture, IMHO.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
she's just as bored as me
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)
Message no. 9
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 15:08:03 +0200
> We've had the discussion on what totems really are before, and it seems to
> me to be a product of the WYTIWYG theory Jani is so fond of :) because all
> totems are what "people" think about the animal in question. The Man totem
> is along those same lines, but now for what people think of people. I don't
> see the problems, really.

Strictly WYTIWYG speaking I dont think that a totem of man should be any
less feasible than any other totem. After all totems are nothing more than
"figments" on the imagination of the shaman. I mean as far as I am concerned
an MTV (or even say a "coolness" totem) should be feasible by 205x provided
that this fad keeps going for another 50 years.

> >Granted, Leviathan and
> >Wendigo are listed in the (Net/Beta) NAGA, but I think these were pretty
> >unnecessary myself, and could easily be ignored.

So you ignore them because they dont fit into your explanation of totems :)

> >(hey, are Metahumans included too? and what about women, do they really
> >have the same "types" (Fighter/Talker) - I think not!)

Err would you care to explain why ? I mean metahumans grow up in the
same environment baseline human do and get only marginally different
treatment.

> "Man" refers to all men and women, human or metahuman. Maybe you should
> create a Woman totem if you think they'd deserve so (that is, if you want to
> use these totems at all), but for fear of getting attacked by any women on
> this list, I say I don't see the fuss about the differences between men and
> women, psychologically speaking. (This is getting off topic...)

I do see the difference, but I agree that its irrelevant.

> >Perhaps the totems of sentient species are really fragmented into Idols -
> >after all, sentience is characterized by a wide difference in mentality.
> >Maybe this means that there are Dragon Idols (The Elf-Slayer immediately
> >comes to mind... :) ), and Sasquatch Idols, and so on.
>
> Idols are not much more or less than totems called by a different name
> because "totem" doesn't fir with European culture, IMHO.

Well idols are a bit more that a different word for totems. Idols
are a sort of anthropomorphised "gods" they are definitely "totems" of
a sentient species namely man. The idols represent the different aspects
of the mega-totem of man. For example the "warrior" aspect of gurth's totem
is the equivallent of Saint George the DragonSlayer.

--
GCS d H s+: !g p1 !au a- w+ v-(?) C++++ UA++$S++L++$>++++ L++>+++ E--- N+ h*(+)
W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5++ R+++ tv b++ e+ u++(-) f+ r- n!(-) y?

Moderator of alt.c00ld00z (coolness in general)
Message no. 10
From: Jonas Gabrielson <m94jga@*******.TDB.UU.SE>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 16:28:43 +0200
On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Robert Watkins wrote:
> > physical bodies of sentients. For example, you'll probably (read: I hope)
> > never see a Dragon Totem in an official product. Granted, Leviathan and
>
> Well, there's a Dragon (well, Wyrm) Totem in London Sourcebook.

Sure there is, but as it says in the text, Wyrm is a distant
relative to Dragons, and not to be confused with the real thing. I seem
to recall that it also was non-sentient, but maybe that's just wishful
thinking :)

-Jonas
Message no. 11
From: Jonas Gabrielson <m94jga@*******.TDB.UU.SE>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 17:29:34 +0200
On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Gurth wrote:

> > Well, I'm not going to ban you for doing this
>
> Unlike some others...

Well, at first I thought it was a joke, but then I saw someone
post a comment (whoever) that was serious, so I reevaluated.

> Yes you will. Open your Grimthingy and behold the Wyrm totem from Wales. I
> don't see why there _shoudln't_ be totems for sentient creatures. First I
> wondered about why FASA didn't bring out paranormal animal totems, which
> they now will do with the NAGM, so now the next step, I'd say, is sentient
> totems.
> We've had the discussion on what totems really are before, and it seems to
> me to be a product of the WYTIWYG theory Jani is so fond of :) because all
> totems are what "people" think about the animal in question. The Man totem
> is along those same lines, but now for what people think of people. I don't
> see the problems, really.

The Wyrm is not Dragon. Wyrm is Wyrm, and it's something
different from Dragon (kinda shows in the name, dont you think?).
As I said, I think sentient totems are out because sentient
species are more diverse in mind than a common animal. I mean, look at
any animal, and they behave in predictable manners. Pet owners might say
that animals have personalities too, but thats entirely subjective. So,
while you can group an entire animal species into a categorized behavior
(even though this is affected by what people think in general of the
animal), this can't be done with any sentient species, because they're
just too divergent. There must be free will, you know.
Your own Man totem proves this, as you have to part it into
different "mentalities", which are by no way complete (there has to be
hundreds of other partitions you can make).
And the paranimal totems - okay, some of them are cool, but... If
a paranimal is human mythic concepts acting out on an animal, what is the
Paranimal Totem? Humanity's perception of the influence of the human myth
upon animals? I know it's metablather, but the logic turns upon itself.
I'm not saying I don't think they should be allowed to exist, but
it can quickly become quite boring, if the paranimal isn't *heavily*
envisioned in myths and imagery, something most lack, at least for a
large number of people.
And, I think there's an inflation in totems. Enough already -
give it a rest.

> >Granted, Leviathan and
> >Wendigo are listed in the (Net/Beta) NAGA, but I think these were pretty
> >unnecessary myself, and could easily be ignored.
>
> As can the Man totem, if you don't want it.

The only time I could use a Man totem would be in TOONish
Shadowrun (which is incredibly amusing - try it!).

> >(hey, are Metahumans included too? and what about women, do they really
> >have the same "types" (Fighter/Talker) - I think not!)
>
> "Man" refers to all men and women, human or metahuman. Maybe you should
> create a Woman totem if you think they'd deserve so (that is, if you want to
> use these totems at all), but for fear of getting attacked by any women on
> this list, I say I don't see the fuss about the differences between men and
> women, psychologically speaking. (This is getting off topic...)

Well, as progressive westerners, we try to think that there are
no differences between men and women, and the line is getting blurred,
but we overlook the fact that there are biological differences (if you
look at a man and a woman, you'll spot a difference :) ). And this
philosophy is in minority on Earth. If we're looking at what people think
of men and women, respectively, the baseline answer would be yes, there
is a difference. Even us westerners raise girls and boys in different
manners.
People think differently of different human phenotypes, too.
There are always stereotypical elves and dwarves. There is an innate
psychological difference, too - dwarves like it underground, elves like
forests, have a nocturnal lifestyle and are vegetarians by preference.

> >Perhaps the totems of sentient species are really fragmented into Idols -
> >after all, sentience is characterized by a wide difference in mentality.
> >Maybe this means that there are Dragon Idols (The Elf-Slayer immediately
> >comes to mind... :) ), and Sasquatch Idols, and so on.
>
> Idols are not much more or less than totems called by a different name
> because "totem" doesn't fir with European culture, IMHO.

Are European cultures the only ones with anthropomorphic gods,
demi-gods and heroes? Nope. So Idols, while only European ones have been
described, should be quite universal among humans, in my opinion. And
just because Europeans worshipped gods doesn't mean that they never
worshipped animals. To take an example from Shadowrun, Welsh and Irish
shamans have Totems, but at the same time this Celtic culture (from where
those Totems spring) had its fair share of Gods and Goddesses too, so
Idols would have to be permitted as well.
As for what Idols really are, I leave the word free. I've already
told you my opinion.

Follow-up questions:
Why is it always what humans think that determines the Totems
personality? Haven't the other sentients an opinion on this, too? Maybe
Sasquatches think Bear is a bad Totem, 'cause they compete for food (or
whatever). And maybe Dragons think Man is a Totem of Weakness.
Lots of people think lots of other people are <insert favorite
derogatory noun, e.g. "shitheads">. Would this be a part of the Man totem?
Do Shamans go in heat according to their Totems sexual cycles?

-Jonas
Message no. 12
From: Tim Serpas <wretch@**.COM>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Thu, 1 Jun 1995 13:32:08 -0500
Well I think that we're suffering from a problem when you lump shamanic
totems with the druidic equivalents (see below)

On Thu, 1 Jun 1995, Gurth wrote:
> Yes you will. Open your Grimthingy and behold the Wyrm totem from Wales. I

Druids also have sun and moon "totems". We might call them that, but the
kinds of magic in use and the sources of power are different.

I'm not one to encourage completely new magic systems for different
realms of Gaia, (even though this is what the Tir books are all too happy
to do) but I think that when you come up with new "totems" for different
parts fo the world, you should consider them to be implicitly different
from the North American Shamans and their totems. The rules focus on
the shaman/hermetic dichotomy due to the focus of the campaign world.
(The Lion totem seems like an aberration to me!)

It's tough to come up with wholy new rules for each type of magician
wihtout making them too powerful or too weak in comparison to the established
types. Thus it's easiest to make them versions of shamans, even when they
have nothing to do with totems. (I have been a dutiful player and never
read any of the rules about the bugs, but it's my understanding that
they're really -nothing- like shamans and the different bugs are in no
way totems...)


> Idols are not much more or less than totems called by a different name
> because "totem" doesn't fir with European culture, IMHO.
I say again, it's too much trouble to completely reformulate the magic
system. They might look the same on paper (and to magical researchers
in the 2050s) but totemic and idolic magic should procede for separate
sources.

Re: WYTIWYG
Try telling that to my friend Shad who visited the big snake in the sky.
Not that he actually told any of us. Secrets and all that.


Tim Serpas :Geek Code v.2.1: GS d- H++>+++ s:- !g p1 auVW a- w+ v+ C+
BS Physics : U P? !L !3 E---- N++ K++ W M- !V -po+ Y+>++ t+ !5 j+>$
wretch@**.com: R+ G'' tv+>! b+>++ D+ B-- e++>-- u+ h- f+>* r++ n+ y+


PS > Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl -
> she's just as bored as me
(have you tried K-Y?)
Message no. 13
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: New totem. Whaddayatink?
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 11:21:48 +0200
>> this list, I say I don't see the fuss about the differences between men and
>> women, psychologically speaking. (This is getting off topic...)
>
> I do see the difference, but I agree that its irrelevant.

I said I don't see _the_fuss_ about the differences...


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
she's just as bored as me
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y? Unofficial Shadowrun Guru :)

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about New totem. Whaddayatink?, 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.