Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Bryan Prince <prince%xray.dnet@******.ROC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 20:05:54 -0500
Subj: Re: Spells and Fibre Optics

On Wed, 1 Mar 1995, Bryan Prince wrote:

]> How about this twist?....
]> Your combat mage with cybereyes and a datajack can cast spells, right?
]> Why can't he hook up to the building monitors and cast spells from the
]> security room?
]Are you trying to suggest someone paying essence for a BUILDING?! Or at
]least its sensors? And no, you can't use a datajack for spells, because
]the data has to be encoded, even if it's just dumped to your eyes via
]display link, it's still encoded when it enters your datajack.

No, what I was trying to get across was the simple(?) idea that if you
allow a mage to use cybereyes that digitally process his sense of
vision, what difference does it make where that vision sensor is...
Let me clarify. [I hope]
Your combat mage(standard template) has cybereyes. They use some kind of
digital processor to provide an image to the optic nerve, thus creating
an image of an object. Now if you connect his digital processor to a
security terminal instead, why can't he use the field of view (image)
provided by the terminal as his vision? Admittedly the idea becomes
"munchkinous" when you start using a single mage hooked up to every sec
system in the building, but a mage with a SINGLE sec-cam should be
feasible...At least by FASA rules....
Shadowmaster
Message no. 2
From: Luke Kendall <luke@********.CANON.OZ.AU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:54:20 +1100
Bryan Prince wrote:

> No, what I was trying to get across was the simple(?) idea that if you
> allow a mage to use cybereyes that digitally process his sense of
> vision, what difference does it make where that vision sensor is...

I believe I understand what you're saying. I also agree with you
that it's munchkinous.

Even if you allowed it just for 1 security camera.

I also think the 3 or 4 justifications that people have posted
explaining why it shouldn't work are pretty solid.

Otherwise, imagine this: you manage to deliver a tiny digital
video camera with short-range short-duration broadcast ability,
to the home or office of some wealthy/powerful/influential
person.

You activate the camera when the person approaches, mage links
in, and casts... Stun/Control Actions/... whatever they like.

You see where this leads?

luke
Message no. 3
From: Bryan Prince <prince%xray.dnet@******.ROC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spells and Fiberoptics...
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 21:25:15 -0500
Subj: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...

]Otherwise, imagine this: you manage to deliver a tiny digital
]video camera with short-range short-duration broadcast ability,
]to the home or office of some wealthy/powerful/influential
]person.
]You activate the camera when the person approaches, mage links
]in, and casts... Stun/Control Actions/... whatever they like.
]You see where this leads?
]luke

Agreed that it can get out of hand, but your example is using a
radio broadcast, where mine is done by cable link from receptor
to processor-much like a RS232 cable connecting your printer to
your PC.

Just pointing out inconsistencies with the rules, that and an
honest question I've been puzzling over for awhile...

Bryan Prince
Message no. 4
From: Chris McKinnon <cmckinno@********.CA>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 01:26:52 -0400
On Wed, 1 Mar 1995, Bryan Prince wrote:

> No, what I was trying to get across was the simple(?) idea that if you
> allow a mage to use cybereyes that digitally process his sense of
> vision, what difference does it make where that vision sensor is...
> Let me clarify. [I hope]
> Your combat mage(standard template) has cybereyes. They use some kind of
> digital processor to provide an image to the optic nerve, thus creating
> an image of an object. Now if you connect his digital processor to a
> security terminal instead, why can't he use the field of view (image)
> provided by the terminal as his vision? Admittedly the idea becomes
> "munchkinous" when you start using a single mage hooked up to every sec
> system in the building, but a mage with a SINGLE sec-cam should be
> feasible...At least by FASA rules....
> Shadowmaster

No. When the game says that the character has paid for the cybereyes with
Essence, those cybereyes become a part of the mage's AURA. I don't think
that the building becomes part of the character's aura.


=============================================================================
Enigma = "Good...Bad...I'm the guy with the gun..."
Chris McKinnon = - Ash, Army of Darkness
cmckinno@********.ca =
Message no. 5
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:31:18 +0100
> No, what I was trying to get across was the simple(?) idea that if you
> allow a mage to use cybereyes that digitally process his sense of
> vision, what difference does it make where that vision sensor is...

I understand what you mean, the answer (I was also given by an other
listmember) is that a mage does not cast through his eyes - he does not
need to "see" the target. He casts through his astral sences and the
LOS condition of most spells means that you meed an unempeded line of fire.


--
"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. 6
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 00:01:01 +1100
Chris McKinnon writes:

> No. When the game says that the character has paid for the cybereyes with
> Essence, those cybereyes become a part of the mage's AURA. I don't think
> that the building becomes part of the character's aura.

Hmm, very good idea. I can't think of any examples where this is faulty.
Couple this with the requirment that the magician must be able to see the
target "first hand" (ie, the image reaching his eyes needs to be made up
from the original photons leaving the target), and I think you have a rather
good explanation. It covers cybereyes, allows optical binoculars, and
disallows cameras. Well done.

--
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. 7
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 14:06:01 +0100
> Hmm, very good idea. I can't think of any examples where this is faulty.
> Couple this with the requirment that the magician must be able to see the
> target "first hand" (ie, the image reaching his eyes needs to be made up
> from the original photons leaving the target), and I think you have a rather
> good explanation. It covers cybereyes, allows optical binoculars, and
> disallows cameras. Well done.

No, the imporatnt think is to have a clear astral field of fire, (this
can also be interpreted as a LOS in the physical plane). We have already
established that the mages physical eyes and hence the photons leaving the
targets body have no actual imporatnce. A mage canot cast spells at people
outside the building because he canot see through walls. Its as simple
as that.

--
"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: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 01:08:46 +1100
Jani Fikouras writes:

> No, the imporatnt think is to have a clear astral field of fire, (this
> can also be interpreted as a LOS in the physical plane). We have already
> established that the mages physical eyes and hence the photons leaving the
> targets body have no actual imporatnce. A mage canot cast spells at people
> outside the building because he canot see through walls. Its as simple
> as that.

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.

--
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. 9
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 17:47:34 +0100
> 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

That doesnt have to mean diddly, its the same thing as casting around a
corner with the help of a mirror - as for the magnification, who sez that
in the astral things that are in a distance are harder to see, hell we
dont even know how far one can see in the astral.

--
"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. 10
From: Bryan Prince <prince%xray.dnet@******.ROC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spells and Fiberoptics...
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 12:43:40 -0500
Begin included text:----------
ON 2 MAR 1995 Goehrigd@********.bitnet wrote:
2.) Spells
Why can't spells be cast through a camera?

Same reason ther aren't martix spirits or car spirits.
Spells are living entities of astral energy. Spirits can not
enter highly processed objects..(see spell damages/effects
against objects in the GRIMORE 2) The object's nature
inhibits them. In SR a wiz doesn't cast a spell, he creates
it, breathes life into it, and sends it on its way to do a job.
A shaman doesn't throw or fire a mana bolt he persuades
his totem, and gathers energy as an offering, and the totem
(a spirit) uses the energy to give life to a spell.

Also the spell must be able to "see" the target through
a foci or direct sight of the person's aura.

END INCLUDED TXT:-------------

After all the other arguements I have read in the past couple days, I
read this one. I now see the point all of you have been trying to
make, and I surrender the arguement. Thank all of you for your
suggestions...
Bryan Prince
Message no. 11
From: Sean Sheridan <sean@**.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 20:17:44 -0600
About windows, mirrors, and walls. Don't all these things have auras? I mean,
their passive astral auras would probably stop a spell, just like the whole
"primitive aura" concept about vehicles that was passed around here the
other day. The aura of the mirror could be said to have reflecive powers,
and the glass could have a really weak astral aura. ABout the fish in the
pond idea, however, I have NO idea(yet).
A quick question. Anyone ever develop an astral invisibility spell?
Sean
Message no. 12
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 16:05:05 +1100
MINION writes:

[Good stuff on game power levels]

You have very good points, but remember that it is human nature to strive
for the best (not to mention most gamers consider it much more fun to blow
bad guys away with miniguns rather than merely sneaking past them).
Otherwise you convinced me for sure.

> Also the spell must be able to "see" the target through
> a foci or direct sight of the person's aura.

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?

Jani Fikouras writes:

> 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.

True, but it is an established fact that mirrors and lenses _can_ be used to
assist in targetting spells, so that needs consideration and explanation. If
it were impossible to use mirrors and lenses, then you would be entirely
correct. But since it is possible, then something needs to be added or
altered in you explanation to cope with this fact.

> 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.

Yep, you've convinced me there.

> as for the magnification, who sez that in the astral things that are in a
> distance are harder to see, hell we dont even know how far one can see in
> the astral.

Well, I'd like to point out that binoculars can be used to enhance spell
targetting, so therefore they must magnify the astral "sight" too (otherwise
they would not be neccessary - all one would have to do is know which
direction one's opponent was in, and cast the spell. The moment you switched
to the astral for that brief second you would be able to see your target and
hit him with your spell.)

> > 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.

Note the 'light' in the above paragraph. Unless you have a better term for
the transmisson material/method on the astral plane, I think "astral light"
will do fine.

> > 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.

In that case a blind mage would not be able to astrally perceive at all -
his mental block would prevent him from doing anything even remotely akin to
"seeing". I don't think this is true.

As for an asnwer to the question, I think it is almost impossible to answer
personally. It would depend on exactly _how_ information is relayed to an
astrally perceiving magician. Does it travel in something similar to real
light's waveforms? If not, then how? If so, then how does the magician
actually receive this information? Does it need to be detected with a
particular sensory organ?, on a particular part of the magicians body? And
so on. You get the idea. _If_ you rule that the eyes (or a very close part
of the body) detect incoming astral information, then yes, a blind mage
probably could use the apparatus. If you rule, for example, that to detect
incoming information, the magician needs to have part of his aura intersect
with the incoming "visual" information, then that too would work. There are
too many possibilities to go into for reasons why the magician couldn't use
the apparatus as well. Because we cannot say just how "visual" information
is conveyed on the astral, it is impossible to answer the question.

I'll tell you how I'd rule it though: From the evidence gathered, it seems
to me that astral "light" obeys many of the same reflection and refraction
laws that real light does (mirrors, lenses). It is a fair bet that astral
"light" behaves in a very similar way to real light as far as other similar
properties go. Now, because a magician needs to actually have a visual line
of sight to his opponents to cast spell at them (he needs to be able to
trace a line from his eyes to his target - via mirrors and lenses if need
be) I'd say that the astral "light" is detected either by some sensory organ
in the head, or by interaction of the incoming "light" and the magicians
aura. Note that interaction between the aura would have to specifically be
the head aura, because a magician cannot cast a spell at someone if only the
aura of his leg has LOS to the target. 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.

pran r mukherjee writes:

> Regarding this entire "astral sight" and "aural synching" thing,
one
> point: Sorcery adepts cannot even use astral perception/projection, this
> becomes a moot point. They can cast spells without "seeing" auras at
> all. The LOS thing is merely used for targeting, and it must be direct
> because of the way magic works. 'Nuff said.

Wel, I don't think this is entirely correct. You see, the book speaks of the
instant of astral perception which occurs during spellcasting as the way the
spell is aligned with the targets aura. Now, having Sorcery Adepts being
able to cast spells without doing so would be _completely_ contradictory to
the rules as they stand. I'd say that the minute amount of astral perception
which occurs during spellcasting, while bridging the same bridges as full
astral perception, is an involuntary occurance (once you cast a spell - you
go astral for a flicker whether you want to or not). Full astral perception
on the other hand requires a closer link to the astral planes (such as full
magicians have - due to their A priority on magic vs the Adepts B), and so
cannot be achieved by the Sorcery Adpet. Full Astral perception is a
voluntary ability, and the Sorcery Adepts do not have sufficient skill or
ability or whatever to do so.

Sean Sheridan writes:

> About windows, mirrors, and walls. Don't all these things have auras? I mean,
> their passive astral auras would probably stop a spell, just like the whole
> "primitive aura" concept about vehicles that was passed around here the
> other day. The aura of the mirror could be said to have reflecive powers,
> and the glass could have a really weak astral aura. ABout the fish in the
> pond idea, however, I have NO idea(yet).

Cool idea. It solves things like mirrors being reflective and glass and such.

> A quick question. Anyone ever develop an astral invisibility spell?

Yep many people have on this list. I for one do not think they should be
possible. Spells and such are always visible from the astral plane. The only
way to get around this is by Masking (the Initiate Metamagical ability), and
this only covers things up, it doesn't make them invisible, you are still
perfectly visible on the astral, only others can not tell the exact extent
of your powers or foci. An astral invisibility spell would mean that any old
uninitiated magician could do something which is much superior to an
Initiated Metamagical ability. I for one don't think that should be so.

--
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. 13
From: Sean Sheridan <sean@**.WISC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 02:12:15 -0600
Damion brought up several good points and tied a bunch of ideas together. But
heres someting I just noticed. Read the description in the blue book for
magic fingers.It says that you need LOS for the spell to work, but that
you can control the spell with remote devices, like cameras. SO, I think
that that blows the whole "original photon" idea out of the water. You need
to get the spell there astrally, but you don't need to see the target for
real to use the spell
Sean
Message no. 14
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 12:13:36 +0100
> > 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.
>
> True, but it is an established fact that mirrors and lenses _can_ be used to
> assist in targetting spells, so that needs consideration and explanation. If
> it were impossible to use mirrors and lenses, then you would be entirely
> correct. But since it is possible, then something needs to be added or
> altered in you explanation to cope with this fact.

There is no problem there, mages are used to the idea of mirrors allowing
them (in real life) to take a peek around the corner - so they unconsiously
shape the astral to work this way. I quote Harlequins Back "... and having been
raised and taught magic in a different age, his view of the metaplanes is
different from the modern (circa 2055) view." ... "Yes, this does mean that
a character's world view shapes how magic works for him in the Shadowrun
universe." So is my view "entirely correct" ? :)

> > as for the magnification, who sez that in the astral things that are in a
> > distance are harder to see, hell we dont even know how far one can see in
> > the astral.
>
> Well, I'd like to point out that binoculars can be used to enhance spell
> targetting, so therefore they must magnify the astral "sight" too
(otherwise
> they would not be neccessary - all one would have to do is know which
> direction one's opponent was in, and cast the spell. The moment you switched
> to the astral for that brief second you would be able to see your target and
> hit him with your spell.)

Aha, but once again the mage himself believes that the binoculars will
help him to cast as they naturally help him see his target in the physical
world. My guess is that it *theoretically* is possible to do just what you
suggest "The moment you ... hit him with your spell." Who knows maybe that
is the way horrors manage to find raw-casting mages.

> Note the 'light' in the above paragraph. Unless you have a better term for
> the transmisson material/method on the astral plane, I think "astral light"
> will do fine.

But light has nothing to do with it - at least in the astral. What matters
is the "astral line of sight" which equates to a "path" that can be
traversed
by a photon in the physical plane - hence LOS. To give you a small example
you can see around corners using a mirror - you can also cast around them
you can use a periscope/lenses to see from within a submarine/T-bird -
you can use the same device to cast from within that vehicle

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.

> > 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.
>
> In that case a blind mage would not be able to astrally perceive at all -
> his mental block would prevent him from doing anything even remotely akin to
> "seeing". I don't think this is true.

Yes, but you forget that astral sight would be some sort of "miracle" or
"magic" for a blind man. And magic has been know to chance the world and
even break the natural laws :)


--
"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. 15
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 22:37:03 +1100
Sean Sheridan writes:

> Read the description in the blue book for magic fingers.It says that you
> need LOS for the spell to work, but that you can control the spell with
> remote devices, like cameras. SO, I think that that blows the whole
> "original photon" idea out of the water. You need to get the spell there
> astrally, but you don't need to see the target for real to use the spell

But you are forgetting that Magic Fingers is a sustained spell. Any
sustained spell, once cast (abiding by the LOS rules) can be sustained while
not in LOS of the caster. It's just that making good use of a Magic fingers
spell is difficult if you cannot see what you are doing. Since you can
sustain the spell out of LOS, and use it out of LOS, then it helps to be
able to see it out of LOS to use it properly. The LOS problem comes into the
situation in that a magician _cannot_ cast a Magic Fingers spell using a
camera or clairvoyance spell.

--
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. 16
From: Damion Milliken <adm82@***.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 23:19:01 +1100
Jani Fikouras writes:

> There is no problem there, mages are used to the idea of mirrors allowing
> them (in real life) to take a peek around the corner - so they unconsiously
> shape the astral to work this way. I quote Harlequins Back "..." So is my
> view "entirely correct" ? :)

If we assume that astral space is that malleable to human perceptions, then
yes. But there still needs to be a limit somewhere, otherwise what's wrong
with the troll mage who has natural thermographic eyes being able to cast
spells through walls because his mind tells him that he can see people on
the other side? Not to mention many more particularily munchkinous things:

GM: "No, your character can't do that, it's impossible"
Munchkin: "But my characters world view is that nothing and nobody else can
harm him. He beleives that, so the astral plane should be
modified by his perceptions to allow for this."

> 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?

--
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. 17
From: The Bastard Child of God <goehrigd@****.CANISIUS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 07:52:08 -0500
How do I explain mirrors and lenses? Easy..
Around the turn of the century in the Mid western US
there was a documented case of a guy who could read
people's auras. Ie could see them in a mirror because
he said they radiated from their bodies. Those people
near death did not have auras or had auras a shad of grey.

One incident that saved his life was that he was waiting for
an elevator when it opened none of the people had auras
he would not go on board. A few seconds latter the
cord snaped and all of the passengers died.

The thing is a camera could not let you target a spell
because cameras can not pick up an aura because a camera
is not alive and therefore does not truely exist in astral
space.

I know to people who don't believe in these sort of things
my argument doesn't hold much weight, but I think it parrallels
the game universe well enough.

_____________________________________________________
| "Deaf And Blind And Dumb And Born To Follow, |
| What You Need Is Someone Strong to Guide You." |
|_____________________________________________________|
|Goehrigd@********.bitnet | Goehrigd@****.canisius.edu|
|_____________________________________________________|
Message no. 18
From: Luc <rjwate01@********.SPD.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 08:15:08 EST
> >jjj> > No, what I was trying to get across was the simple(?) idea that if
you
> > allow a mage to use cybereyes that digitally process his sense of
> > vision, what difference does it make where that vision sensor is...
>
> I believe I understand what you're saying. I also agree with you
> that it's munchkinous.
>
> Even if you allowed it just for 1 security camera.
>
> I also think the 3 or 4 justifications that people have posted
> explaining why it shouldn't work are pretty solid.
>
a better alternative might be to have someone monitoing the camera system who
notifies a mage of intruders. The mage can go via astral to take conjured
elementals to the location of the infiltrators. The elementals can attack the
runners while the mage can ground through dual natured item in area (dual
nature plants, etc) attacking the runners indirectly. Regular security
showing up a little later to mop up the leftover runners.

Luc
Message no. 19
From: Stainless Steel Rat <ratinox@***.NEU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 10:26:11 -0500
>>>>> "The" == The Bastard Child of God
<goehrigd@****.CANISIUS.EDU>
>>>>> writes:

The> The thing is a camera could not let you target a spell because cameras
The> can not pick up an aura because a camera is not alive and therefore
The> does not truely exist in astral space.

One word: Kirlian. Two more: Kirlian Photography.

If your example is valid, so is Kirlian's.

Just adding fuel to the fire, this was...

--
Rat <ratinox@***.neu.edu> | When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/ratinox | returned to its special container and
PGP Public Key: Ask for one today! | kept under refrigeration.
Message no. 20
From: Craig S Dohmen <dohmen@*******.CSE.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 11:42:05 -0500
On Fri, 3 Mar 1995, Damion Milliken wrote:

> GM: "No, your character can't do that, it's impossible"
> Munchkin: "But my characters world view is that nothing and nobody else can
> harm him. He beleives that, so the astral plane should be
> modified by his perceptions to allow for this."

GM: Ok, that astral mage that popped around the corner believes that he
can beat you into a greasy puddle of goo with no problem. Roll for
initiative. :)

--Craig
Message no. 21
From: Sam Thomas <sinbad@********.COM>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 12:22:57 -0600
Sean Says,

>Damion brought up several good points and tied a bunch of ideas together. But
>heres someting I just noticed. Read the description in the blue book for
>magic fingers.It says that you need LOS for the spell to work, but that
>you can control the spell with remote devices, like cameras. SO, I think
>that that blows the whole "original photon" idea out of the water. You need
>to get the spell there astrally, but you don't need to see the target for
>real to use the spell
>Sean

Also in the SR2hard it says that manipulations spells are exempt from the spell
casting LOS rules/conditions. Not damaging manipulations just manipulations.
And magic fingers is a telekinetic manipluation.

Sinbad Sam
Message no. 22
From: Jani Fikouras <feanor@**********.UNI-BREMEN.DE>
Subject: Re: Spells and fiberoptics...
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 19:20:58 +0100
> > There is no problem there, mages are used to the idea of mirrors allowing
> > them (in real life) to take a peek around the corner - so they unconsiously
> > shape the astral to work this way. I quote Harlequins Back "..." So
is my
> > view "entirely correct" ? :)
>
> If we assume that astral space is that malleable to human perceptions, then
> yes. But there still needs to be a limit somewhere, otherwise what's wrong
> with the troll mage who has natural thermographic eyes being able to cast
> spells through walls because his mind tells him that he can see people on
> the other side? Not to mention many more particularily munchkinous things:

This will probably be the case in the future - thats why Harlequin tells
the runners that mankind isnt ready for the horrors yest :) Imagine what
a couple of thousand years of magic research would yield ....
But for now any GM can simply say that the limitations imposed on the
players (like they cant see through walls etc.) are the current world view
end of discussion. See its this easy :)

> > 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 I dont think that make myself clear, what I had in mind was the mage
in the T-bird using the lens-mirror-periscope apparatus. Cameras dont count
because they actually block light and digitise the images and you can only
see through glass/lenses, digitised images are no good.

--
"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?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Spells and fiberoptics..., 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!