----- Original Message -----
From: “Gary” <geeman@SOFTHOME.NET>
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 9:34 AM
> What`s the qualitative difference that blocks the quantitative
progression? If a character could somehow gain a bloodline strength score
that was in the middle triple digits and gain essentially, all the blood
abilities for that derivation plus additional ones that were greater than
great abilities wouldnt he be for all intents and purposes a divine > being? Im not saying there shouldnt or couldnt be such a qualitative
difference, I`m just curious how you define it.
Part of it is definitional. Gods are gods, people are people, ducks are
ducks. Ducks dont become peolpe or gods, and people dont become ducks or
people. Part of it is the huge gulf between a human with triple digit blood
strength and all the blood ability one the one hand, and gods on the other.
Gods hand out 9th level spells to dozens of priests, if not scores. 8th
level spells to maybe a hundred priests. And so on down. And there is no
reason to believe that this is the limit of their ability. Scions of Reynir
may meld into stone or passwall once per day. Gods can do that an unlimited
amount of time, teleport without error, visit a wounded tuna deep in the
sea, heal it, turn it into a constellation, return to their home plane, and
still hand out all the spells being cast that day. Gods are immeasurably
more powerful than the most powerful mortal. Divine powers are unlimited.
> […] What is the qualitative difference between the Gorgon [with 800
> points of blood power] and a lesser god? Any of the qualities of a
> lesser god could be acquired by additional blood abilities and more
> powerful (“epic”) versions of blood abilities available to characters
> with a bloodline strength score well into the triple digits.
No they couldnt. Epic bloodstrength characters could present pale immitations of more limited versions of divine powers. Gods are not x10 more powerful than humans. I couldnt guess the proper order of magnitude,
but Ill point out that all of the followers of the tribal gods werent
enough to topple Azrai, so 10,000 to 1 is probabaly too small.
> I feel obliged to contend that real life mass equates to spellcasting. It
> strikes me as being more like the adoration that creates RP or whatever
the
> godly energy the empowers the gods is.
> I don`t think D&D spellcasting is a particularly accurate
reflection of real life any more than hit points accurately
portray physical damage, the intelligence score accurately
reflects intellect or the domain rules accurately represent
the way nations and how they engage in their politics.
Aside from that I dont think Im getting the relevance of the above to
the
point that bloodlines are created from the divine essence of the gods and
are, therefore, more closely related to the process of ascension than real
world theological figures.
Says who? You just dont want to accord historical figures the divine element that you happly bestow upon Darien Avan, as though the founding of a great nation is done by some guy off the street, and Avan is a semi-divine figure. Id put more Bloodstrength in a mediocre pharaoh than I would in
any BR character. You couldn`t run Egypt without it.
> Bloodlines are what makes divinity possible for
> BR characters where figures like Abraham remain human. Abraham et al have
> no direct aspect of divinity in them, or no more than the rest of us. The
> Christian figure who does have a divine spark actually does ascend to
godhood.
The common word for the divine spark, is a soul, and the theological system
that posits one argues all people have it. Hence followers are all
potentially granted immortality.
> When it comes to Christian ascension, however, can`t one interpret
beautification as the process by which mortals become immortals? Saints
essentially act as lesser immortal beings in D&D terms.
Certainly are, but they`re not gods. Their power comes from a higher
source. They are intermediaries, not divinities.
> People pray to them, they (supposedly) grant benefices, they have
> a portfolio, etc. So I`d contend even the real life example of
Christian doctrine since it has many features that coincide with the
D&D paradigm. Most religions have some sort of ascension that
turns mortals into divine beings.
Immortals, yes. Gods, no.
Youve suggested that a mortal couldnt become immortal without some sort
of divine assistance. I dont really agree, but even using that standard > doesnt the bloodline system itself represents the kind of jump start
needed to enter into the ranks of divinity?
Not if I don`t want it to.
> Well, my experience has been happy, I just don`t find a lot of “realism”
in
it.
So its not a happy realism, its a happy fantasy, or something else. I`m
talking about a happy realism. Not a boring realism, a tedious realism, or
a sad little realism.
> The BR domain rules need substantial alteration (or a whole lot of
> rationalization) in order to play them under the supposition that they in
> any way represent “real life.”
Then it only goes to figure that some of us are doing that rationalism, and
like it.
> I don`t much care for realism in RPGs. If one came up with the
most realistic game conceivable I`d probably not play it. I get
> enough realism in my real life.
No, that`s banality. Realism is what Jackson set about to creat in his
movie of LoTR. Having objects hand crafted with a certain level of
technology, giving thought to how elven tablewhere would differ from hobbit
tablewear. Banality is where I worry about standing in line at the
fishmonger.
I dont mind trying to sync up certain game effects with "reality" (though > I find many people more often than not have a "reality" standard that is as > unrealistic as D&D) but I dont think any game system or mechanic can
really reflect reality accurately. Reality is too complex and much more
significant than is accurately portrayed with a few numbers, dice and
character sheets.
This is, after all, a game. Some concessions to its gameness is allowed.
Simplifications purpose however, is not to escape realism, but to leave out the dull parts, and focus on the fun. During our daily lives we have to sit in waiting rooms, and stand in line, and three weeks of travel time takes three weeks, not a couple of dice rolls behind a screen. But, being a game, those who cleave a realistic approach prefer to imagine that while we didnt
dwell upon the three weeks of walking, it was nonetheless realistic in its
muddy, cold, wet, slow, tiring way. Its the banality we abandon, not the
fact that bold actions might frighten neutrals into an enemy camp.
Playing the game is not supposed to leave you with the sense that, "oh yeah,
that was gritty realism down to the sand in my shoe, and the infection in my
injuries. Im off now to visit the VA hospital." Its allowable to focus on the heroic, because thats an interpretation of the event, not the event
itself. I think its perfectly acceptable to put a heroic motif on the game,
meaning we imagine a realistic course of events transpires, and then reflect
on the most elevating features and ignore the tedium. Were concerned both
with what archeaologists and historians say knighthood was like as well as
with what troubadours and romance writers say it was like. In such a case,
we do knightly things, but we do them very well. As opposed to doing
super-human things and ignoring limitations all together.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
