Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 23:46:57 +1100
Amazing what you can come up with when you're under stress ...

In our regular game, our group was being attacked by an extremely
dangerous magical foe. We knew perfectly well that he'd be astral,
and grounding out spells through spell locks given any opportunity,
but also knew that without the benefits of our locked spells,
he'd probably make mincemeat of us.

Idea time.

Pop the spell lock in your mouth. This way, your body blocks the
spell lock's, so it can't be targeted on. Even if you only block
part of the aura,

``A living aura radiates a short distance from the being [...]
Seeing only a piece of an aura is not enough for targetting.''

SR II, p149

``The same requirement for line of sight holds for the spell's
effects as if the spell had been cast normally from physical
space: if the caster cannot see the target it cannot be hit.''

SR II, p150

Assuming that having a spell lock in your mouth would be uncomfortable
for any period of time (how big are they, anyway?), in a desperate
situation it seems like a good idea to use for a short period.

Note that the spell lock would only have this drawback if you read
the word `can' as `must' in the following:

``A magician using astral perception can touch and be touched by
other astrally active things.''
Grim II, p86

A similar technique would be to surgically implant the spell lock deep
within the body; or simply to wear it between your shoulder blades,
and always wear a foam-filled backpack over the top of it, completely
covering the aura of the spell lock.

This works because:

``Inanimate objects are visible [...] and block the passage of
magical energy and emotions. [...] However astral beings can
freely pass through.''
SR II p145

and a backpack is obviously a physical object. (I personally find
this rule a bit hazy; since a Clairvoyance spell will go through
walls, and a spirit certainly can...)

Anyway, there you have it: no longer can astral beings ground spells
through active spell locks. (And if they're implanted inside you, or
swallowed, then because:

``It is not possible to pass through things that are alive,
no matter at what level, in astral space.''
SR II p145
then the attacking spell (or spirit, or astral mage), cannot get to
the spell lock to destroy it.

However, it seems to us that this severely upsets game balance.
What do you think? Can anyone think of an interpretation of the
rules that makes sense, and yet avoids this problem?

Or is this a question that should be asked of DLOH (aka Tom Dowd)?

luke
Message no. 2
From: "David L. Hoff" <DLHOFF@****.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 09:50:00 CDT
My .o2 Nuyen:

Luke made several comments about how a spell lock would be protected from
hostile magic, simply by putting it inside your mouth. Also, he proposed
having a spell lock surgically implanted, to permanently protect it.

However, you have forgotten something: If living matter blocks astral
movement and such, wouldnt putting the spell lock inside your body _trap_ the
spell there? I mean, the spell would normally affect the space around you, but
if the spell effect cannot pass through your living matter, it would be the
same as if you turned off the spell lock. In fact, putting a spell lock
inside your mouth might render it inert, as you would have completely removed
any contact it had with the astral plane.

So I would say that putting a spell lock in your mouth would be the same as
turning it off, and might even be the same as completely removing it.

--Phoenix
dlhoff@****.wisc.edu
Message no. 3
From: Jason Ustica <usticaj@****.PR.ERAU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 10:43:02 -0700
On Sun, 13 Nov 1994, Luke Kendall wrote:

> Pop the spell lock in your mouth. This way, your body blocks the
> spell lock's, so it can't be targeted on. Even if you only block
> part of the aura,
>
> ``A living aura radiates a short distance from the being [...]
> Seeing only a piece of an aura is not enough for targetting.''
>
> SR II, p149
>
> ``The same requirement for line of sight holds for the spell's
> effects as if the spell had been cast normally from physical
> space: if the caster cannot see the target it cannot be hit.''
>
> SR II, p150
>
> Assuming that having a spell lock in your mouth would be uncomfortable
> for any period of time (how big are they, anyway?), in a desperate
> situation it seems like a good idea to use for a short period.

Why not just put it in your pocket? It seems the 2nd rule you quoted
would preclude the inconvience of having to shove it in your mouth every
time you were attacked by a astral baddie. Besides, you never know where
that spell lock could have been! Yuck!!
--Jason--
Message no. 4
From: "C. Paul Douglas" <granite@*****.NET>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 13:40:09 -0500
On Sun, 13 Nov 1994, David L. Hoff wrote:
>
> However, you have forgotten something: If living matter blocks astral
> movement and such, wouldnt putting the spell lock inside your body _trap_ the
> spell there?

Not according to one of the novels..According to what others have said
when this idea has come up before..Evidentally one of the characters from
one of the novels had a spell lock implanted into their hip...
-----------------------------GRANITE
Message no. 5
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 10:49:14 +1100
luke writes:

> Pop the spell lock in your mouth. This way, your body blocks the
> spell lock's, so it can't be targeted on. Even if you only block
> part of the aura,

Ok, now I would argue that one doesn't need to target the spell lock
specifically. Look at it this way; most spell locks are placed close to the
body, and so would have their aura blocked by articles of clothing worn by
the recipient, hence making nearly all spell locks untargetable. Now, the
aura of the spell affecting the recipient would not be so blocked, as it is
evident to anyone viewing the person astrally. I would argue that it is not
the spell lock itself that is attacked when one "grounds" a spell, it is the
aura of the locked spell. The magical attack passes through the spell lock
via the aura of the locked spell and into the physical world. If such a
thing as this did not occur, then, as someone else said, putting the spell
lock into your pocket would effectively make it immune to astral attack.
However, placing the spell lock withing living tissue would make it
impossible to remove it from the person it is one, since the astral presence
could not pass through the person to touch the lock. So it would have it's
advantages.

> Assuming that having a spell lock in your mouth would be uncomfortable
> for any period of time (how big are they, anyway?), in a desperate
> situation it seems like a good idea to use for a short period.

Well, a lock, once activated, takes up no space at all. It exists only on
the astral, page 138 Sr II. Before it is first activated (or once removed
from its recipient or deactivated by a magician of the same tradition as the
maker) the lock is dormant and not present on the astral. It will have the
physical form of whatever the enchanter crafted it into. Probably something
small and handy, like a ring, or small pebble, or even an article of
jewelery, or wristwatch.

> Or is this a question that should be asked of DLOH (aka Tom Dowd)?

I think it'd be a great question to put to him. Even better to put it to
Paul Hume. We could petition the DLoH to get Paul to answer it for us.

GRANITE writes:

> Not according to one of the novels..According to what others have said
> when this idea has come up before..Evidentally one of the characters from
> one of the novels had a spell lock implanted into their hip...

That would be Frost(?), Ehrans daughter you are referring to, out of
Harlequin. Also remember, luke, that H used said spell lock for the purposes
of ritual sorcery, and the fact that it was contained inside another living
being didn't seem to have any effect on this. If ritual sorcery can get it
via astral space, I wouldn't see why a direct spell couldn't. If you take
Harlequin as a model, then it makes no difference whether you put it inside
your body or not. It just makes it a cast iron bitch to get rid of if you do
ever want to remove it in a hurry.

Also, the lock would have to be placed inside your body _before_ it was
activated, while it still had a physical presence. That would mean that you
either need to be a magician of the correct tradition yourself to activate
it, or you need to let your friendly neighbourhood magician who is put his
arm down your throat, or up your rectum, or into your abdominal cavity, or
whatever to touch and activate the spell lock.

Then one could always argue that the spell lock doesn't really have it's own
aura at all, that it just modifies the aura of the recipient. This way an
astral foe could just merely target the anomaly in the targets aura, and hit
that. If the spell lock is bonded to the recipient, then I could see how it
could be easy enough to argue that the aura of the lock was infused with the
aura of the recipient. This therefore creating a permanent astral-physical
bridge through the recipients aura which could be exploited. Until you
deactivated it of course. If you took it this way, then it wouldn't matter
where you put the lock at all.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
Message no. 6
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 1994 21:10:56 -0500
>>>>> "Luke" == Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
writes:

Luke> Pop the spell lock in your mouth. This way, your body blocks the
Luke> spell lock's, so it can't be targeted on. Even if you only block
Luke> part of the aura,

Won't work. Either a) the living matter of your body completely isolates
the spell lock from astral space and thus the astral "power conduit" that
keeps the lock active, effectively shutting it down, or b) it doesn't do a
thing, in which case you can still ground through the astral link.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> |Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox|of skin.
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |
Message no. 7
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:11:49 +1100
Damion writes:

> I would argue that it is not
> the spell lock itself that is attacked when one "grounds" a spell, it is
the
> aura of the locked spell. The magical attack passes through the spell lock
> via the aura of the locked spell and into the physical world

This sounds like a good explanation to me; though it implies that you
could also ground a spell through a spell that a non-astral mage was
maintaining, too. Or through a Quickening. And I didn't think you could
do that, though.

(Remember that the astral energies are coursing through the caster's body -
it's what causes drain, I recall.)

> Well, a lock, once activated, takes up no space at all. It exists only on
> the astral, page 138 Sr II.

The rules seem unclear, here. Remember:

``A magician using astral perception can touch and be touched by
other astrally active things.''
Grim II, p86

and the spell lock is astrally active (when it's `on'). It's intangible
to a mundane, but tangible to a mage (at least, when they're astrally
perceiving). FASA don't spell out whether feeling the spell lock
requires a conscious decision, or whether the mage can't _avoid_ feeling it.

luke
Message no. 8
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 13:49:23 +1100
Stainless Steel Rat replies:

Luke> Pop the spell lock in your mouth. This way, your body blocks the
Luke> spell lock's, so it can't be targeted on. Even if you only block
Luke> part of the aura,

> Won't work. Either a) the living matter of your body completely isolates
> the spell lock from astral space and thus the astral "power conduit" that
> keeps the lock active, effectively shutting it down, or b) it doesn't do a
> thing, in which case you can still ground through the astral link.

I don't understand. Your body is congruent with astal space - it's not
like it stops at the surface of your skin. So the lock still has a tap
into astral space.

But unless the astral being can travel through a hypothetical 4th
dimension, he can't look inside you to see the lock.

Could you try to explain further?

luke
Message no. 9
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:58:54 +1100
luke writes:

> This sounds like a good explanation to me; though it implies that you
> could also ground a spell through a spell that a non-astral mage was
> maintaining, too. Or through a Quickening. And I didn't think you could
> do that, though.

No, you can't. Ooops. I didn't think of that. But by the "astral-physical
link" requirement, a sustained spell would seem to qualify... So I am
tempted to allow grounding through quickenings and sustained spells now.

> FASA don't spell out whether feeling the spell lock requires a conscious
> decision, or whether the mage can't _avoid_ feeling it.

Could explain just what it is that you're rambling about here? I don't
understand.

> So - if a mage wanted to mix spell casting with more mundane
> actions, would either delay them enormously while they shifted
> their perception to the astral plane and back again, or force them
> to suffer a +2 TN.
>
> Am I missing something here? I really don't think you're expected
> to be assensing to cast a spell; yet why this talk of auras, otherwise?
> And, given that FASA's position is that spells can ground through
> astrally perceiving characters, it means that every time a mage
> cast a spell, she could be attacked astrally!

You are wrong on the first bit, but have a good point on the second. In SR
II, on page 149 it yabs on about how a mage in physical space synchronises
his aura with the target and thus creates the bridge for the brief instant
of spell casting. This nicely removes the need to be astrally present to
cast a spell, as well as removes the fear of an astrally projecting mage
lobbing spells at physically present people. But as for the bit about being
able to be attacked whenever you cast a spell, you might be right. Now, the
time spent astral & physical when casting a spell is miniscule, but we do
know that if a purely astral mage has a delayed action, then he can
intercept the spell on the way across from caster to target. Why not,
instead of intercepting the spell, lob your own spell at the caster?

> How does a mage target a spell (like Ignite) on a physical object
> that has no aura? Hmm - perhaps everything has an aura; but some
> (like manufactured items) are just amazingly bland and dull.

The second bit is right. It yaks on about that under the vehicle, magic and
whatever section.

> How can a mage target a spell using binoculars or a telescope?
> Looking through hundreds of metres (or more) of astral space
> filled with the usual teeming tiny auras of microbes etc. (and
> the more-than-occasional spirit), would be like trying to look through
> a fog, I would have thought.

This is a very good point, something I've never considered. But is there
really that many such life forms floating around? The auras of such
creatures would hardly be much larger than the creatures themselves, and yet
we on the physical plane find no difficulty seeing thru/around all of them.
Perhaps in a controlled situation (such as when the security system dumps 10
litres of Gamma Anthrax infected air into the same room as the runners), the
effect might be more noticeable.

> _And_, I'd hazard a guess that this ability to use non-electronic
> vision enhancers to cast spells at long distance, is the main
> reason for FASA's ruling that you _can_ see through one type of
> physical object (glass) on the astral plane.

But it does have its ligitimate arguments, which nobody can prove or disprove
because we are (oddly enough) unable to enter astral space to see for
ourselves. FASA just took one side of the argument, arbitrarily.

Mike writes:

> Also, if in astral space, mundane peole cannot be attacked unless they have
> a lock or focus. Sort of a contradiction.

Sorta, but the book (Paul Hume I assume) goes on (and on, and on) about
this, and comes up with all sorts of physical-astral symmetry, and
physical-astral dual presence and so on and so forth, and gets around it.
Read pages 149-150 and see what you think of it.

luke writes:

> I don't understand. Your body is congruent with astal space - it's not
> like it stops at the surface of your skin. So the lock still has a tap
> into astral space.

He's right Rat. Otherwise your spell locks would cease to function whenver
you entered a ward, or magic circle, or medicine lodge. These areas are
completely enclosed from the outside astral space, yet spell locks still
function fine inside them.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
Message no. 10
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 00:15:12 +1100
Damion writes:

luke> FASA don't spell out whether feeling the spell lock requires a conscious
luke> decision, or whether the mage can't _avoid_ feeling it.

> Could explain just what it is that you're rambling about here? I don't
> understand.

A mage can _feel_ a spell lock. I'm trying to work out whether being
able to do so is automatic (and can't be turned off), or whether it
requires a conscious effort.

``A magician using astral perception can touch and be touched by
other astrally active things.''
Grim II, p86

And the only reason I'm interested, is to work out whether there's
any reason not to pop the spell lock in your mouth.

> In SR II, on page 149 it yabs on about how a mage in physical space
> synchronises his aura with the target and thus creates the bridge for
> the brief instant of spell casting. This nicely removes the need to be
> astrally present to cast a spell, as well as removes the fear of an
> astrally projecting mage lobbing spells at physically present people.

I remember this. But how can he synchronise it without seeing it? In
other words, without Assensing. (Only assensing - no need to be astrally
projecting.)

Come to think of it, I'm not sure the explanation really _explains_ why
an astral mage can't lob spells from astral space into physical space.
They certainly shouldn't be able to; I'll have to reread that section.


As far as visibility interference from life-forms, and using binoculars -

> The auras of such creatures would hardly be much larger than the
> creatures themselves, and yet we on the physical plane find no
> difficulty seeing thru/around all of them.

Yes, but they don't all radiate the light by which we see on the physical
plane, that's what I was thinking. But anyway, from rereading of bit of
Grimoire I, (``And the etheric is permeated with the glow of Earth's
biosphere [...]''), I'd have to agree that FASA intends there to be no
problem with doing this.

I think my mental idea of visibility on the astral plane is just plain
wrong. It's obviously a lot clearer there than I thought. (And here's
a rule that proves I was wrong: the worst astral visibility modifier is
just a +3 on perception target numbers.)

But I still can't see a way to disallow the swallow-a-spell-lock
safety method (and it should be disallowed, it's unbalancing)
that doesn't have bad logical consequences for the rest of the
magic system (e.g. grounding through quickenings and maintained
spells like Heal).

If it wasn't for my stubbornness, and the fact that the answers to
irritating, nit-picking questions like this are often of life-or-death
importance to the characters, I would have given up on trying to
reason about the magic system long ago.

I still like it though - it's richer and allows more creativity than
any other system I know.

luke
Message no. 11
From: Darth Vader <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 15:16:38 +0100
± However, it seems to us that this severely upsets game balance.
± What do you think? Can anyone think of an interpretation of the
± rules that makes sense, and yet avoids this problem?

± Or is this a question that should be asked of DLOH (aka Tom Dowd)?

First of all my congratulations for the excellent way you presented your
arguments. I hope that this leaves no doubts out there about the legitimity(sp)
of your solution :) Now I admit that such munchkinus thoughts have crossed my
mind as well (especially the swallowing part) only to be utterly dispelled
by the sheer terror their munchkinous application would cause.
So here are my thoughts on the subject. Holding them in your mouth has
some distinct disadvantages, propable loss of centering skill or even
all spellcasting ability (geasa?), use of triggering words etc. is impaired
and last but not least communication is practically nonexistant. One could
certainly overcome this obstacle by using locks and foci as fillings for his
teeth, or even as whole teeth :) As for surgically implanting them .. I
think I have heard this someplace.. wasnt it Ehrans daughter that had

bone-powe-focus in her leg ? Anyway I'd say that would cost essence..
Ok I have to go now ... C U l8tr
Message no. 12
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 11:45:37 -0500
>>>>> "Luke" == Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
writes:

Luke> I don't understand. Your body is congruent with astal space - it's not
Luke> like it stops at the surface of your skin. So the lock still has a tap
Luke> into astral space.

Ok, look at it this way. Imagine the spell lock is a really bright light
source (which is probably what it looks like in astral anyway). Hold up a
piece of paper in front of the light source; you can still see the light
through the paper, assuming it's bright enough. A spell lock (or any other
kind of active focus) is brighter than any living thing's aura. So it
doesn't matter how much of your personal aura you surround it with, the
glow from the lock is going to give itself away. That's where the masking
ability comes in.

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> |Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox|
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! |
Message no. 13
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:09:22 +1100
Darth Vader writes:

> Holding [spell locks] in your mouth has
> some distinct disadvantages, propable loss of centering skill or even
> all spellcasting ability (geasa?),

Maybe we'll have to try this idea; it seems pretty artificial, though.
I'm still hoping for something that follows from the magic system.

> use of triggering words etc. is impaired
> and last but not least communication is practically nonexistant.

Agreed.

> One could
> certainly overcome this obstacle by using locks and foci as fillings for his
> teeth, or even as whole teeth :)

Ye-ouch! I hadn't thought of that! <shudder> You're evil, dude. ;-)

And Stainless Steel Rat writes:

> Imagine the spell lock is a really bright light
> source (which is probably what it looks like in astral anyway).

A good analogy; I like this. (Except: there's no mention of spell
locks looking like this, and it seems weird to imagine that the initiate
Masking discipline would be able to conceal a 1000 watt light bulb.)

> Hold up a piece of paper in front of the light source; you can still
> see the light through the paper, assuming it's bright enough.

Er, yes. But a thin piece of aluminium would completely block the
light source. And a living body is more analogous to this. Living bodies
are not only opaque, they are impenetrable astral obstacles.

(Spells `penetrate' because the spell aura is `synchronised' to that
of the target.)

If a spell lock's aura can penetrate a living body, why couldn't an
astral mage also pass through?

Ah! Let's say that the spell lock is `synchronised' when it's bonded.
Because of that, it _can_ penetrate. (It wouldn't penetrate any other
living body, though, but that's ok - if you removed it to hide it inside
someone else, you'd lose the benefits anyway.)

And if we assume that a spell lock radiates for a metre, compared to,
say, 5cm for a normal human aura, then we don't have to worry about
problems like:
Sammie leans against door; mage inside sees aura penetrate
door, and casts spell at it.

I think that this explanation works.

luke
Message no. 14
From: The GREAT Cornholio <mruane@***.UUG.ARIZONA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 1994 17:53:10 -0700
On Mon, 14 Nov 1994, Damion Milliken wrote:

> Mike writes:
>
> > Also, if in astral space, mundane peole cannot be attacked unless they have
> > a lock or focus. Sort of a contradiction.
>
> Sorta, but the book (Paul Hume I assume) goes on (and on, and on) about
> this, and comes up with all sorts of physical-astral symmetry, and
> physical-astral dual presence and so on and so forth, and gets around it.
> Read pages 149-150 and see what you think of it.
That rambling is what causes the confusion. Sometimes I just don't know
what the hell the guy is talking about.

Mike aka Spellslinger
Message no. 15
From: Damion Milliken <u9467882@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 13:57:19 +1100
luke writes:

> A mage can _feel_ a spell lock. I'm trying to work out whether being
> able to do so is automatic (and can't be turned off), or whether it
> requires a conscious effort.

Er? I still don't get it. I must be thick. Could you explain using single
syllable words please? But if it is no longer important (Kumquats explanation
seems pretty good to me), then don't worry.

> I remember this. But how can he synchronise it without seeing it? In
> other words, without Assensing. (Only assensing - no need to be astrally
> projecting.)
>
> Come to think of it, I'm not sure the explanation really _explains_ why
> an astral mage can't lob spells from astral space into physical space.
> They certainly shouldn't be able to; I'll have to reread that section.

Somebody gave a good explanation of these. Have you been converted yet, or
are you still a heretic and need to discuss the (supposed) inadequacies of
the SR magic system further? 'Cause if you have worked it out for yourself,
how about explaining it to all of us?

> But I still can't see a way to disallow the swallow-a-spell-lock
> safety method (and it should be disallowed, it's unbalancing)
> that doesn't have bad logical consequences for the rest of the
> magic system (e.g. grounding through quickenings and maintained
> spells like Heal).

That mightn't be a problem luke:

Craig writes:

> The official word from FASA is that you CAN ground through Quickenings and
> sustained spells - if the spell has a physical effect.

Darth writes:

> Magic in SR is highly based on the casters psychology. If you think you can
> do it its possible. So the way I see it all these 'you canot pass through'
> living matter restrictions are nothing but mental blocks in the mages mind
> psychological crouches he uses to wield power if you will. This helps
> explain many things in SR magic.

The only thing I don't like about this is that if this were the case, then
there _would_ be mages around who could pass through living beings. And
there aren't. I still think that comparing living theings to brick walls
when on the astral is pretty good.

The Kumquat writes:

> 1) A comment on targeting spell locks. Putting them in your mouth (or any
> other body part) would not help. The physical lock is not targeted, the
> spell locked to it is. You may ask "Why can't I target sustained spells or
> quickenings then?" The answer is simple. They have no physical prescence.
> Even if they are sustained On something (Increase reflexes on a human body)
> the spell is only affecting the body, not inhabiting it. The spell lock is
> something constructed solely for the purpose of containing the spell, and
> providing a link, "locking" it to the body. The spell is targeted, and it
> transfers to the physical component of the spell (the lock) and grounds
> through to the physical world. This brings up the question "Is a spell a
> valid target for another spell?" I would have to say yes, generally
> speaking, although I don't remember whether the Grimiore says you can
> actually ATTACK a spell in astral with another spell. If you can't, then it
> is a valid target, but without a link to the physical world, the spell will
> do no damage to anything. I would say anything with an aura could be a
> target for a spell. Whether that spell effects its target is another matter
> entirely.

Whooa, sounds pretty good. But what about the FASA line (from Craig, above)
that says you can ground through quickenings and sustained spells if they
have a physical component? I think it wouldn't be too hard to argue that
physical spells _do_ create an astral physical link, in that they pump
astral energy through to the physical plane, so therefore you can ground
through them. The only thing I'm curious about is would it be possible to
lob a mana based spell at someone who had a mana based spell sustained at
them, and "ground" your mana spell through their mana spell (which is
aacting as a conduit for astral energy into their spiritual side), since a
mana spell effects your spiritual side. As for the atacking spells with
other spells, I think it says somewhere that two spells will ignore each
other and pass straight through and continue on their ways, so it would lead
one to beleive that a spell isn't quite considered as another astral being,
more of an astral construct that only has limited similarities with real
beings.

luke writes:

> (Spells `penetrate' because the spell aura is `synchronised' to that
> of the target.)
>
> If a spell lock's aura can penetrate a living body, why couldn't an
> astral mage also pass through?
>
> Ah! Let's say that the spell lock is `synchronised' when it's bonded.
> Because of that, it _can_ penetrate. (It wouldn't penetrate any other
> living body, though, but that's ok - if you removed it to hide it inside
> someone else, you'd lose the benefits anyway.)
>
> And if we assume that a spell lock radiates for a metre, compared to,
> say, 5cm for a normal human aura, then we don't have to worry about
> problems like:
> Sammie leans against door; mage inside sees aura penetrate
> door, and casts spell at it.

Just how does the radiating a meter bit stop that kind of stuff? Wouldn't it
mean that if I had a spell lock, and I leant against a wall, then you on the
other side in astral space could zap the lock?

> I think that this explanation works.

Just a reminder, what'd you think of The Kumquats explanation?

Mike writes:

> That rambling is what causes the confusion. Sometimes I just don't know
> what the hell the guy is talking about.

A quote from SR II: "Whew. Complex, eh? Welcome to _Shadowrun_." And that is
just at the end of Pauls(?) big rant on astral-physical symmetry etc too.
Too damn appropriate I say.

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong e-mail: u9467882@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+(d) H s++:-- !g p? !au a18 w+ v(?) C+(++) US++ P? L !3 E?
N K- W+ M@ !V po@ Y(+) t+ !5 !j R+(++) G(+)('') !tv(--)@ b++ D+
B? e+ u@ h* f(+) !r n--(----) !y+
Message no. 16
From: Darth Vader <j07c@***.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spell Locks made 100% safe
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 15:01:36 +0100
± Ok, look at it this way. Imagine the spell lock is a really bright light
± source (which is probably what it looks like in astral anyway). Hold up a
± piece of paper in front of the light source; you can still see the light
± through the paper, assuming it's bright enough. A spell lock (or any other
± kind of active focus) is brighter than any living thing's aura. So it
± doesn't matter how much of your personal aura you surround it with, the
± glow from the lock is going to give itself away. That's where the masking
± ability comes in.

Well the point is that even if you see the light, you wont be able to
hit it unless you tear through the piece of paper. So hiding a lock or focus
inside your body (aura) one way or another means that you are putting
yourself between the attacker and the object.

--
"Believe in Angels." -- The Crow

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++VS++L>++++ P-- (aren't we all?)
L+>+++ 3 E--- N++ K W(+)(---) M-- !V(--) -po+(---) Y+ t++ 5+ !j(-) R+++(--)
!G tv(++) b+++ D++ B- e+ u++(-) h*(+) f+ r- n!(----) y?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spell Locks made 100% safe, 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!