Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject:	Slaughter enemy Spell
Date:	Sat, 25 Dec 2004 06:18:29 -0800 (PST)

Message no. 1 > The same logic could be applied to a Slaughter Enemy
> spell: it would only
> affect people with hostile feelings toward you.
> However, this is somewhat
> munchkinous since this would let you use the spell
> in a crowd and only hit
> the bad guys. Renaming it to the "Chocolate Mousse
> Spell" might be a good
> idea...

Why Chocolate Mousse?

What if the "enemy" is doing something that will
overall be better for the spellcaster, though?
Consider someone who wants to stop you from doing
something that will eventually harm you, even though
they hold a grudge against you (they've been ordered
to by a superior). Many other counter-examples can be
thought of.

I'd say the spell becomes very difficult to
implement since it is (nearly?) impossible to
precisely define what an enemy is. Setting narrower
criteria will make things easier: "a living/conscious
entity whose actions will result in the permanent
cessation of my capability to affect any part of the
context we are sharing or might yet share" (i.e.:
someone who intends to limit your freedom of action in
a very broad sense) though even this is everything but
a water-tight definition.

Game-wise, given these considerations, a GM can have
the spell omit certain people if their intentions are
somehow beneficial to the players "in the long run"
*EGMML* [Maniacal Laughter] as long as the players can
be convinced of the eventual benefit being actualised
(for they will surely protest, oh yes).

Have a very |_33t <|-|rI5t/\/\45,

JJ

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

From:	gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject:	Slaughter enemy Spell
Date:	Sun, 26 Dec 2004 11:21:32 +0100

Message no. 2 According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on Saturday 25 December 2004 15:18 the
word on the street was...

> > Renaming it to the "Chocolate Mousse
> > Spell" might be a good idea...
>
> Why Chocolate Mousse?

Go to a video store and rent http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088286 NOW...! :)

> What if the "enemy" is doing something that will
> overall be better for the spellcaster, though?

Then it's your problem that you cast a spell that hurts them, of course.

> I'd say the spell becomes very difficult to
> implement since it is (nearly?) impossible to
> precisely define what an enemy is.

This is where I tend to apply my rule of thumb for SR magic: go with your
first impression on the subject. If talking about a spell called "Detect
Enemies", most people's first thought about who those enemies are will not
be "someone who wants to help me by stopping me".

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	jjvanp@*****.com (Jan Jaap van Poelgeest)
Subject:	Slaughter enemy Spell
Date:	Mon, 27 Dec 2004 04:34:19 -0800 (PST)

Message no. 3 --- Gurth <gurth@******.nl> wrote:

> > > Renaming it to the "Chocolate Mousse
> > > Spell" might be a good idea...
> >
> > Why Chocolate Mousse?
>
> Go to a video store and rent
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088286 NOW...! :)

Heh, I get it now :). "Nice shooting" *chuckle*

> > What if the "enemy" is doing something that will
> > overall be better for the spellcaster, though?
>
> Then it's your problem that you cast a spell that
> hurts them, of course.

So would that mean the spellcaster him/herself would
light up as being an enemy? Nice trick to pull on
someone who has a slaughter enemy spell :-D

> > I'd say the spell becomes very difficult to
> > implement since it is (nearly?) impossible to
> > precisely define what an enemy is.
>
> This is where I tend to apply my rule of thumb for
> SR magic: go with your
> first impression on the subject. If talking about a
> spell called "Detect
> Enemies", most people's first thought about who
> those enemies are will not
> be "someone who wants to help me by stopping me".

Ok, so people who intend to help someone by stopping
them will not be indicated by the spell (though I
might be misrepresenting your words here). Thus, the
sniper intending to shoot out a shadowrunner's kneecap
(so that they won't be able to step into a minefield,
say) is not an enemy. It makes sense, but what if the
sniper hits the target but doesn't stop them? Will
"Magic" take this future fact into account, or does
the spell only look at people's intentions within the
here and now and not at the actual or potential
results of their actions?

The time-travel clause would preclude SR magic from
taking future results into account, IMO. OTOH, since
the sniper could potentially kill the character when
something goes wrong with the implementation of the
(possibly) life-saving shot why would he not be
indicated by the spell? Magic in SR can do possibility
divination, so should the sniper light up as being a
"potential enemy," much like any other (living) thing
out there, therefore probably not being noticed unless
there's no-one around? In such a case the "Detect
Enemies" spell will essentially mimic the
functionality of a "Detect Life" spell, making the
latter almost useless except for its lower drain,
which is not how the spell appears to have been
designed.

I'd agree with going by first impressions, but this
would make "enemy" more caster dependent than the
spell makes us think. Therefore I'd add the clause
that a mage casting "detect enemy" would have to
include a definition of "enemy" with the spell (either
when casting or designing it), as opposed to the spell
including the definition within itself.

Cheers,

Jan Jaap

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo

From:	korishinzo@*****.com (Ice Heart)
Subject:	Slaughter enemy Spell
Date:	Mon, 27 Dec 2004 07:30:48 -0800 (PST)

Message no. 4 I like to define "enemy" (for the detection spell's purpose) as
anyone in the process of carrying out or concentrating on their
hostile intent. In other words, they have to not only mean the spell
caster harm, but be thinking about it at the time or acting on it.
This narrows the field of possible enemies in a crowd. Furthermore,
The Detect Enemies spell does not pin point for the spell caster the
exact location of said enemies. They have an idea of the direction
and range to each enemy detected. Hence, the Detect Enemies spell
will not function as a targeting device for combat magic. Not in my
games. The spell extends out in a sphere, searching for auras that
are metaphyisically "linked" to the caster's aura by the hostile
intentions of the owner of that aura. Excellent. Now you know that
someone nearby is planning or attempting to do you harm. You don't
have any idea who they are, nor are you granted a certain line of
sight fix on them. So, any slaughter or slay spell is pretty well
useless to you, until you narrow the field to the person(s) detected
by your original spell. Perhaps the most effective use of an
anchored Detect Enemy spell was implemented a tricky player of mine
back under SR2. One Detect Enemeies (Extended), one indirect
physical audio illusion, and one area effect control manipulation
(emotions) spell. If and when the Detect Enemies spell warned of
hostile individuals nearby, a loud gunshot would suddenly ring out,
and a wave of panic would sweep through everyone near the PC.
Result, mass chaos that no one could pin point a reason for.
Meanwhile, the PC would make a hasty exit from the area. It was all
anchored to an amulet that the PC wore whenever he was going out into
crowded places. Like shopping, or a concert. Of course, he once
forgot to take it off, and wore it on a run. The results were less
useful. One guard saw the mage as the team was sneaking into a lab.
The guard decided to just pop the mage, thinking he was alone. The
mage's amulet flared, a loud gunshot rang out, and half the team
suddenly and inexplicably panicked. So much for stealth. :>

======Korishinzo
--Evil GM

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

From:	gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject:	Slaughter enemy Spell
Date:	Mon, 27 Dec 2004 19:07:27 +0100

Message no. 5 According to Jan Jaap van Poelgeest, on Monday 27 December 2004 13:34 the
word on the street was...

> So would that mean the spellcaster him/herself would
> light up as being an enemy?

I'm not sure that I follow how someone trying to do you a favor that you
don't know you want turns you into your own enemy...

> Ok, so people who intend to help someone by stopping
> them will not be indicated by the spell (though I
> might be misrepresenting your words here). Thus, the
> sniper intending to shoot out a shadowrunner's kneecap
> (so that they won't be able to step into a minefield,
> say) is not an enemy.

I don't know if I would make that kind of decision. Not that something like
it has ever come up in any games I've run, but if it did I'd again follow
my initial thought, and that is that someone trying to hurt you is your
enemy.

Then again, I also can't see why anyone would shoot out someone's kneecap
to stop them walking through a minefield -- they'll probably lose the leg
either way ;)

> I'd agree with going by first impressions, but this
> would make "enemy" more caster dependent than the
> spell makes us think.

Not really anymore than Analyze Truth is target-dependent, IMHO.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Kemen (keemde, h gekeemd): het spelen van computerspelletjes
-> Possibly NAGEE Editor & ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Site: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

From:	ourteam@*******.net (Larry White)
Subject:	Slaughter enemy Spell
Date:	Mon, 27 Dec 2004 17:06:57 -0800

Message no. 6 Did you hear about the mage who decided to commit suicide? He was stopped by
his anchored 'slaughter enemy' focus.

;)

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer