| From: | John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Do you all jump to conclusions, or is it just for me? |
| Date: | Mon, 11 May 1998 12:30:34 -0500 |
We'll be happy to misread and insult you no matter who you are. :):):):)
<-- note smilies
On Sun, 10 May 1998 23:07:05 -0700 Demosthenes Three
<demosthenes_3@*****.COM> writes:
>Wow. Not the reaction I expected at all.
>I mean I've seen some of your websites, and watched a few of you on
>IRC - guess I expected a little more open mindedness.
>
>A few of you have a couple misconceptions about me.
>Let me address those for you, OK? :)
>
>1) I am sick - Well, yes, I suppose I am. I hereby freely admit it.
Heh. Join the crowd:)
>2) My "Chunk Launcher" Ninja is NOT a shapeshifter -
<snip>
>Besides, shifters are truly munchkinous. :)
Hey! I resemble ... RESENT! I RESENT that remark!
;) so there :p nyah.
>this weapon very odten would quickly incapacitate me, damage
>resistance or no. Did I ever say that this thing fired bursts? Hell
>no. It's a SINGLE SHOT weapon, sort of an astral hold-out pistol, OK?
You never said it didn't, either. I got the impression that it was
intended as some sort shotgun-for-the-astrally-weak. I mean, 9M? It
seemed a bit much, to me.
>3) Flesh removed from the body is dead - Where'd that idea come from?
>Certainly not from Biology. Skin grafts, organ transplants, etc. (All
>canon Shadowrun concepts) are certainly alive, and any first year med
>student can tell you that tissue removed from the body can remain
>viable and alive for quite some time after being torn from a body.
We're dealing with more than one definition of 'dead'. It may still be
alive in the sense that the cells of that chunk are still alive, but
whether it is alive in the astral sense is debatable. One could in fact
point out that the aural component of that meat chunk is gone, or at
least fading, in the fact that said chunk of meat is no longer capable of
sustaining itself and will be quite dead in every sense of the word,
given time. Biologically viable and astrally alive aren't the same thing.
If I cut off my arm, does my soul get split into two pieces, one in my
arm and one in the rest of my body? Now, replace 'soul' with 'aura'...
There's no difference between the two in SR (not so far as I can tell,
anyway).
>4) Removed flesh has no aura - where'd that come from? Certainly not
>any Fasa product I've ever seen. Sounds like you're quoting a house
>rule at me. Where an aura comes from has never been plainly stated in
>and Shadowrun product, or erratta I've ever seen. (Which is ALL of it.
>:)) You wanna make the aura a part of the "conciousness" fine, I say
>it's a biological abstraction. You say Shamanic, I say Hermetic. :)
Whether it has an aura or not isn't the question. Whether it has a
*living* *astrally* *active* aura is the question. And it doesn't, unless
you've got lots of orichalcum in your bloodstream.
>5) I "violated a sacred trust between player and GM by going around
>Loche 7's back and posting this to the list" - Hmmm, kinda hard to go
>behind his back when he's on this list isn't it? As for this "sacred
>trust" thing - I think you and your GM have been seeing too much of
>each other.:) Repeat after me "It's only a game, it's only a game" :)
IT IS NOT ONLY A GAME! IT IS LIFE! IT IS REALI*THWUP*
<grumble>friggin' haddock</grumble>
>Just re-reading my post, I can't seem to find where I said that I was
>going to use list approval to influence my GM. Hmmm that must mean I
>wan't doing that, doesn't it. Just wanted a little input, that's all.
Well, that's the glory of e-mail: you don't always come off the way you
would in real life. Think of it as a mixed blessing:)
>6)Physical objects don't damage astral objects - Again, this sounds
>like a house rule to me. However, I recognize that Fasa has never been
>clear with this, which is why I posted the whole silly thing to the
>list in the first place, to get more ideas. We DO exchange ideas on
>this list right?
No, no, no. There's no exchange of ideas. As MC23 was so kind to point
out for me, the list only exists so that he can pillage ideas... (j/k,
btw:)
>Or do we just jump all over anyone who posts them and
>make veiled references to Munchkins,
It's a knee-jerk reaction. Some of us have had bad problems with
munchkins, consequently, many of us have a bad tendency to try and kill
things that seem munchy. Or a little bit 'out there' :) It's almost to
the point of instinct now...
>and wild guesses about player's
>ages (27 by the way, surprised? :))
A little, yes:) Probably wouldn't have asked, but we've had a recent
spate of young listmembers (I say this despite being only 18 (19 on
Wednesday!) because some of them are younger than me:) and I've been here
longer than them:):)) and the tone suggested that you might be another
one. I stand corrected, and I offer my apology for any offense that may
have caused.
>7)"Range combat cannot do damage to an astral being [though there
>might be a few exceptions to this rule they don't matter here].
>Hmm, so Distance Strike, Banishing, and Combat Spells, (All ranged
>combat) aren't effective against spirits? (Astral beings, in case you
>missed it.) Gee, guess I'll have to pull those pages out of my
>rulebooks. :)
Well, actually... purely physical weapons weilded by a purely physical
attacker (someone/thing without an active astral presence) can't do jack
squat against a non-manifest spirit or other astral being. There is no
such thing as ranged weapon focus. Why? Well, for one, it goes inactive
the moment it leaves the weilder's hands/aura. Second, an astrally active
presence which has no self-will (foci, hermetic circles, shamanic lodges,
wards) can only act in its own defense. Since the afore-mentioned "Chunk
O' Meat" (TM) doesn't have any sort of self-will or self-motivation
(prove to me that a can of Spam (TM) can do anything besides sit there
and I'll rescind that statement), let alone an active astral presence,
when it hits Bob the projecting mage, it cannot cause damage. *If* it had
an active astral presence and *if* Bob attacked it when it hit him it
*could* cause damage to Bob.
>8) What's a THWAP? It looks like a flame to me.
Not exactly. Um... You *did* read the FAQ, right? Good. I was just
checking. In that case, you should (I think, it's been awhile since I
read the thing myself) be aware that a thwap is generally intended in
good humour. Although, it seems to me that some folks (who I shall not
name) are occassionally a tad bit thwap-happy...
>Gee, coming from
>Barbie, it looks like fan mail. :) I've seen you on IRC Barbie,
>Getting labeled a munchkin from you is a fine compliment, since you
>seem to be in the perfect position to judge, being one yourself. Tell
>Mr. White I said "Hi!" :) Oh wait, I forgot, ALfredo B. Alves said
>you're a "special case" do I need a permit to be one too, or is that
>something specifically reserved for your group? :)
You know, it's generally considered bad form to practice the very
behaviour you were complaining about a few paragraphs ago...
>Now then, I seem to be fresh out of sarcasm.
Ah... here's a napkin. It's drifting off your chin:)
>I do want to thank those who gave me logical, RULES-based reasons why
>this was a bad idea. (Ereskanti comes to mind quickly)
>
>Gee maybe I should post my Suitcase nuke/Anti nuke barrier enchanted
>weapon next huh?
Nah, it's already been done. Chicago, you know.:)
>(That was a joke - thought I should point it out for
>the humor impaired among us.)
Mmm... joke. Seems like a familiar word... I think I'll have to look it
up:)
--
John Pederson "Oh my God! They killed Kenny!"
aka Canthros, shapeshifter-mage --South Park
lobo1@****.com canthros1@***.com john.e.pederson@***********.edu
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Lair/4864 ICQ UIN 3190186
_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
