Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Spells and
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:42:34 -0000
Damion wrote:
>Stainless Steel Rat writes:
>
>> That assumes that you're using your eyes to see into astral space, which I
>> disagree with. It's another sense, with another set of sensory organs.
>> Astral ``sight'' is a misnomer of convenience because it can't be described
>> to someone without it. How do you explain the concept of ``color'' to a
>> blind man?

There is also no reason why a blind man can't astrally percieve, so tell
him seeing colours is a bit like Astral perception. :)

>
> I think Rat has a good point here. Just assume, for the sake of my argument,
> that Rat is right. Mages (and other astrally aware people and beings) have
> some other "sense" which allows them to "see" on the astral. Now,
would it
> not make logical sense that in order for people to "see" people on the
> astral, they need to have direct LOS to their target?
<snip>

It would have to be a different kind of 'sense' as the medium through which
you 'see' is not normal light


>(Exception: mirrors, I'm not
>surehow to handle these.) Now, if this makes any sense at all to you people
>out there, can you see what I'm getting at? It is irrelivent whether the
>magician has paid essence for the cybereyes, since he uses some other sence
>which has astral LOS restrictions to actually send the spell to his target.
<snip>
> What it doesn't accout for (besides mirrors) is why mages can't use
> electronic binoculars. If anyone follows what I just tried to get across,
> what do you think?

Good thinking, though there is still a problem with mirrors. If what you
see is not real light then I do not see why mirrors should work especially
as what is a good reflector for visible light may not be so good at
reflecting Infra-red amd vice versa. Thats where colour comes from.

Could you also astrally percieve when shooting someone, too get around
visibility mods like being blinded by a spotlight, as the +2 mod for
physical tasks while astrally percieving is better than being blinded by
(normal) light. Also if reflection is in doubt how about refraction
would you still see a false image of a fish under water? If by LOS
on the astral plane you mean direct line of fire then I ought to warn you
they aren't the same. Since it is a physical property of Light why should
it work on astral plane.

>Richard Osterhout writes:
>
>> DON'T BUY THE CORPORATE SECURITY SOURCEBOOK!!!!!
>>
>> it's liable to give you ulcers...the author has proposed using fibre optics
>> for casting spells, as long as the fibres are hand drawn natural glass rathe
>> than synthetic, machined fibres - the end of the fibre has a prism attached
>> to enable the mage to see the image...they will be thicker than normal fibre
>> and much more expensive, but mages will still be able to cast through them..
>
>Can I make a request for some physics geek to explain to me (us) how fibre
>optic cables are made, and if it is possible to make a "natural" one?

I'm not entirely sure how they're made but I ought to point out that they
do not work by reflection (only the the earliest ones did), modern optical
fibres work by refraction as the fibres get gradually denser from the
inside to the outside. So I doubt they could be used as they are more
complicated than a thin thread of natural glass. Also different
wavelengths of light travel down a fiber at different speeds so you would
not see a coherent image, only single wavelengths of light from LED's
or micro lasers are used in current optical fibres.

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
P.S. by refraction I mean bending of light as It passes through different
materials.
Message no. 2
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spells and
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 13:57:01 +0100
> Could you also astrally percieve when shooting someone, too get around
> visibility mods like being blinded by a spotlight, as the +2 mod for
> physical tasks while astrally percieving is better than being blinded by
> (normal) light. Also if reflection is in doubt how about refraction
> would you still see a false image of a fish under water? If by LOS
> on the astral plane you mean direct line of fire then I ought to warn you
> they aren't the same. Since it is a physical property of Light why should
> it work on astral plane.

Excellent thinking, I' say yes why not. The problem is however that
most magician (at least unconsiously) assosiate astral sight with sight
hence the glasy looks you get from mages in the astral. I'd say that if a
mage could (through practice) develop the skill to go around with his eyes
closed and depend only on his astral perception to guide him, I'd even
lower that penalty to -1 or even 0.

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

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++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?
Message no. 3
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spells and
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 00:55:47 +1100
Philip Hayward writes:

> It would have to be a different kind of 'sense' as the medium through which
> you 'see' is not normal light

Yep, this if perfectly alright as far as our idea goes.

> Good thinking, though there is still a problem with mirrors. If what you
> see is not real light then I do not see why mirrors should work especially
> as what is a good reflector for visible light may not be so good at
> reflecting Infra-red amd vice versa. Thats where colour comes from.

But, likwise, there is no reason why mirrors cannot have similar properties
on both the physical and astral (ie, they reflect light on the physical, and
the do the astral equivilent of reflecting the astral equivilent of light).
You realise that if this were assumed, then either of the two current
arguments (Jani and mine, and Chris's) work just fine. But both sets of
arguments have diffrent ramifications for the subject of the "optical fibre"
debate.

> I'm not entirely sure how they're made but I ought to point out that they
> do not work by reflection (only the the earliest ones did), modern optical
> fibres work by refraction as the fibres get gradually denser from the
> inside to the outside. So I doubt they could be used as they are more
> complicated than a thin thread of natural glass. Also different
> wavelengths of light travel down a fiber at different speeds so you would
> not see a coherent image, only single wavelengths of light from LED's
> or micro lasers are used in current optical fibres.

Ha. I thought I was on the right track with what I originally said. I'd say
these reasons would pretty well exclude mages from spellcasting down an
optical fibre. Now, complex sets of mirrors and lenses on the other hand
could still be used, as both these items can be used to aid in spell casting.

Jani Fikouras writes:

> > Could you also astrally percieve when shooting someone, too get around
> > visibility mods like being blinded by a spotlight, as the +2 mod for
> > physical tasks while astrally percieving is better than being blinded by
> > (normal) light. Also if reflection is in doubt how about refraction
> > would you still see a false image of a fish under water? If by LOS
> > on the astral plane you mean direct line of fire then I ought to warn you
> > they aren't the same. Since it is a physical property of Light why should
> > it work on astral plane.
>
> Excellent thinking, I' say yes why not. The problem is however that
> most magician (at least unconsiously) assosiate astral sight with sight
> hence the glasy looks you get from mages in the astral. I'd say that if a
> mage could (through practice) develop the skill to go around with his eyes
> closed and depend only on his astral perception to guide him, I'd even
> lower that penalty to -1 or even 0.

The other option is that the eyes are in actual fact dual sense organs, in
that they recive visual input for both the physical and astral planes. Hmm,
thinking about that I reslise that is incorrect. Blind mages can still
perceive, and they wouldn't get the +2 target number blanket for doing so
(would they?). Hang on, isn't the +2 modifier for reasons of concentration?
Maintaining both control over ones physical and astral self would be a
little demanding on the old brain, so a concentration modifier (similar to
sustained spells) would be entirely appropriate. If it is taken as a
concentration modifier, then the mages own perceptions are irrelivent, he
gets the +2 no matter what he actually beleives, because he has to
concentrate either way. In that case, if a perceiving magician had
visibility modifiers, then he'd have _both_ the visibility mods _and_ the +2
for maintaining astral perception.

As for reflection and refraction on the astral, who knows? The rules don't
say, and we could go on forever debating those two points: inherent
properties, perceived properties, and so on. Any one of them could be
responsible for astral "light" behaving in many similar ways to real light,
or none of them could be true at all, resulting in astral "light" being non
reflective and non refractive. We have to assume that for some reason or
another, astral "light" can be reflected by mirrors, and can be focused by
lenses (since mirrors and binoculars can be used to cast spells through).
This pretty much means that astral "light" can be reflected and refracted
doesn't it? Seems solved to me, the only thing remaining is the why, whether
the materials (and/or the astral "light") have the property just because
they do (inherent property, like glass's transparency to normal light), or
if they have the property because people perceive them to as they believe
such properties are appropriate.

I'd vouch for the inherent property line myself, because astral beings and
so on are subject to the same rules to do with mirrors etc as are human
mages, and these beings have no experience in the physical world from which
to get their beliefs.

Erg. That turned out HUGE. Sorry guys :-)

--
Damion Milliken University of Wollongong E-mail: adm82@***.edu.au

(GEEK CODE 2.1) GE -d+@ H s++:-- !g p0 !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. 4
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Spells and
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 14:14:59 -0000
>> Could you also astrally percieve when shooting someone, too get around
>> visibility mods like being blinded by a spotlight, as the +2 mod for
>> physical tasks while astrally percieving is better than being blinded by
>> (normal) light.
>
> Excellent thinking, I' say yes why not. The problem is however that
>most magician (at least unconsiously) assosiate astral sight with sight
>hence the glasy looks you get from mages in the astral. I'd say that if a
>mage could (through practice) develop the skill to go around with his eyes
>cloed and depend only on his astral perception to guide him, I'd even
>lower that penalty to -1 or even 0.

As SR2 (page 145) reads
"Lit by radiant life energy, astral space is usually bright no matter
what the time of day on the physical plane"

Oh boy, looks like mages no longer have to worry about any Visibility
modifiers, which reminds me something they got wrong in SR2 is the
Visibility table regarding Thermographic vision.

Thermographic imaging is almost useless in rain or mist as image becomes
so diffuse you could not tell the difference between 2 or 20 security
guards! but should have little or no penalty at all in Minimal or Full
darkness. If someone has cybereyes with thermographic vision can they
switch between thermographic and normal, have only thermographic or
both overlayed on top of each other.

Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 5
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Spells and
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 15:16:38 -0000
Damion wrote:
> That sounds all very fine and good, but (here I go, putting down an idea I
> helped create) it is inherent in the SR game system that photons _must_ have
> something to do with determining whether a mage can target someone with a
> spell or not. In one of the SR novels, there is a smuggling team who employ
> a system in their LAV involving mirrors and magnification lens's in a
> periscope type set up so that their on-board mage can cast spells at people
> outside the vehicle. Now, they magician is completely enclosed inside the
> LAV, but can see the original photons originating from the target (because
> the system is purely optical), and can cast spells at the target. The
> reasoning behind this I do not know, but that just seems to be that way it
> works. Now, I know the novels are not as good to take material from for
> "evidence" as are the books, but the mere fact that mirrors can be used to
> target spells around corners also support this argument.

The reasoning is not that the photons must reach the mages eyes, but
that astral 'light' has the same properties as normal light regarding
reflection and refraction. (as you convinced me.) So both astral light
and real light should follow the same route, so as a by-product
the photons of real light will go through the same apparatus but
this is not the issue. The trick question is ... wait for it ...
...could the blind mage use the same apparatus with astral perception?

I don't think you've blown your theory out the water yet!


Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Message no. 6
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spells and
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:44:26 +0100
> > I'm not entirely sure how they're made but I ought to point out that they
> > do not work by reflection (only the the earliest ones did), modern optical
> > fibres work by refraction as the fibres get gradually denser from the
> > inside to the outside. So I doubt they could be used as they are more
> > complicated than a thin thread of natural glass. Also different
> > wavelengths of light travel down a fiber at different speeds so you would
> > not see a coherent image, only single wavelengths of light from LED's
> > or micro lasers are used in current optical fibres.
>
> Ha. I thought I was on the right track with what I originally said. I'd say
> these reasons would pretty well exclude mages from spellcasting down an
> optical fibre. Now, complex sets of mirrors and lenses on the other hand
> could still be used, as both these items can be used to aid in spell casting.

No if you accept that a mage "sees" in the astral not through eyes, but rather
through his astral sences - then this argument becomes meaningless. All a
combination of lenses/fibres/etc could ever hope to achieve would be to
stimulate your eyes - so they would give you absolutely nothing in the
astral.

> Jani Fikouras writes:

> The other option is that the eyes are in actual fact dual sense organs, in
> that they recive visual input for both the physical and astral planes. Hmm,
> thinking about that I reslise that is incorrect. Blind mages can still
> perceive, and they wouldn't get the +2 target number blanket for doing so
> (would they?). Hang on, isn't the +2 modifier for reasons of concentration?
> Maintaining both control over ones physical and astral self would be a
> little demanding on the old brain, so a concentration modifier (similar to
> sustained spells) would be entirely appropriate. If it is taken as a
> concentration modifier, then the mages own perceptions are irrelivent, he
> gets the +2 no matter what he actually beleives, because he has to
> concentrate either way. In that case, if a perceiving magician had
> visibility modifiers, then he'd have _both_ the visibility mods _and_ the +2
> for maintaining astral perception.

No they are definitely no dual sence organs and yes the +2 modifier
is atributed to strain so my idea is worse foobar :) So a mage percieving
in a difficult environment (dark/fog/etc.) would get the +2 from "sustaining"
the use of his astral sences, but no other modifiers.

> As for reflection and refraction on the astral, who knows? The rules don't
> say, and we could go on forever debating those two points: inherent

I'd say its irrelevent, just make up your mind and accept this as the
"accepted world view" concerning those things. This is how things will
work in the astral for your mages. No not astral creatures they are a nother
thing.

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

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++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?
Message no. 7
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spells and
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:51:08 +0100
> The reasoning is not that the photons must reach the mages eyes, but
> that astral 'light' has the same properties as normal light regarding
> reflection and refraction. (as you convinced me.) So both astral light
> and real light should follow the same route, so as a by-product
> the photons of real light will go through the same apparatus but

There is no light in the astral.

> this is not the issue. The trick question is ... wait for it ...
> ...could the blind mage use the same apparatus with astral perception?

Of course not, how on earth would a blind man use a device that
enhances sight. This mental block alone should be enough to prevent him
from doing it.

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

GCS d>- H s+: !g p? !au a- w+ v-(?) C+++ UA++S++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?
Message no. 8
From: Philip Hayward <Philip.Hayward@***.UK>
Subject: Re: Spells and
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 13:28:37 -0000
Damion writes :
> Very good way of looking at things (as you say later, we'd forgotten to
> class spells as living entities; we were more concerned with the formula of
> it all). But how do you explain mirrors?

If I remember correctly, when using a mirror to see round a corner. The
mirror lets you see round the corner for targetting the aura but the
'living entity' that is the spell travels by the more direct route.

<Cool answer regarding blind mages>
> Assuming a blind magicians can actually
> astrally perceive at all, then I'd have to say that he could sure
> and well use the apparatus to cast spells through.
wow, that tidied that up, I suppose it ought to be up to individual
GM's to decide if they let blind mages astrally percieve, I know I will.

Damion writes some more:
>> As for the T-bird example, my guess is that in reality the spell itself
>> goes through the walls following the direct route to its target. The casting
>> mage however being blocked by the mental cruch (sp?) he carries over
>> from the physical plane needs the "support" of the aparatus to see
>> his target.
>
> Er, you just allowed the use of cameras for spell targetting. Did you intend
> to do this?

No it doesn't, as the mage needs to see the targets aura - through the
mirrors/lens apparatus, If cameras cannot detect auras (which they can't)
then you cannot use them for spell targetting. Once the aura has been
targetted the spell can go the direct route through the walls.



Phil
<Philip.Hayward@***.UK>

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spells and, 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!