At 05:23 PM 9/3/2002 -0500, Kenneth Gauck wrote:
> > […] 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 couldn`t. 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
weren`t enough to topple Azrai, so 10,000 to 1 is probabaly too small.
First, I dont think I need to note that were talking about ascending into
the lower ranks of divinity, not jumping right up to major god level, so
the Azrai to mortal comparison is a bit misleading. (Azrai was probably a
bit beyond the major god level, actually.) Azrai to Gorgon is probably
100th level character to 1st-3rd level character.
Second, I think if epic blood abilities were to exist they would probably
have to be an exponential power system the same way epic feats are
exponentially more powerful than standard ones. Would 10,000 to 1 be
enough for whatever the first rung of the ladder might be? In the same way
a 5th level character might be x10 (to use your example) more powerful than
a 1st level one, and a 10th level one x10 more powerful than a 5th (as a
rough guide) one could then reach 10,000 at 20th level. One neednt really assign a x10/5 levels value to that kind of thing, of course, but since the Gorgon is 36th level shouldnt he qualify as being 10,000 times more
powerful than an average mortal? Wouldn`t that qualify him to be a low
level divine being?
Aside from that I don
t 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 don
t 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.
No, I dont want to accord them the same divine element for several reasons. Real world figures werent at Deismaar. There is no real world
historical event that equates to exploding gods and infusing those present
with divine energy that grants them magical powers. Real world historical
figures are often described as having been chosen by God, descended from
gods, or even as the corporeal embodiment of a god, but Im afraid none of them actually had such a connection with the divine. They were just people who sometimes were talented at their jobs and often werent. Any
historical figure you could describe as having some sort of actual
connection to the divine would not only get an argument from me but I could
also list dozens of historical figures who occupied the same position who
exemplified that there is no actual relationship between rulers and the
divine. Dozens of pharaohs were mundane, mediocre, even inbred mentally
and physically challenged figures kept in their position of adoration by
the cultural system and the theocracy of Egypt that preserved them like
house plants. Where you see a divine strength in a mediocre pharaoh, I see
the mundane mechanics of real world oligarchy.
Now, I have to mention again that Im not a particularly religious person. I have my own set of beliefs that I take seriously, but in general most organized religion isnt really for me. I believe its important to respect others religious beliefs, but in the same way that stating
something on a public forum opens up those statements to public critique, I
dont cut anyone slack when they express their views. Public disclosure equates to public debate. This is relevant for two reasons. First, because I hope not to offend anyone with these statements (any more than is necessary.) I want to make it clear that my statements dont come from a
position of derision, but of embracing free and open discussion. (Ill certainly be derisive when engaging in a discussion when that makes a point, but free talk is the idea.) Second, to make the following point regarding religion and realism: If I were a religious person I would find it... I guess, "inaccurate" is the word Ill use, to think that someone
could portray the might and majesty of a divine connection with some sort
of deity using something like the BR bloodline system. Let`s say that
instead of just naming a few religious figures here and there we decided to
go ahead and write them up using 3e character descriptions. It is
“inaccurate” to think that any real life person, let alone a historical
figure, let alone a religious historical figure could portrayed using D&D
stats.
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.
Im trying to steer clear of the real world Christian stuff, but Im
curious what exactly you see as the difference here between a saint and
some of the lesser gods of various pagan faiths. Isn`t it possible to see
the Christian system of saints as a parallel to the pantheons of other faiths?
You
ve 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.
No, of course not. You should do whatever makes you comfortable. But
looking at the system objectively, without basing on some sort of other
interpretations of real world religions, and using the game as a whole
doesn`t bloodline represent such a jump start? Using a system in which a
character can reach 36th level and have a bloodline of 500+ it just seems
strange to me that such a character would run into a “glass ceiling” when
it comes to the divinity aspect of the game.
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.
Rationalization not rationalism. 
I actually misspelled beatification
as beautification in a previous post which got me some ribbing off-list
(though IMO much Christian iconagraphy could do with being prettied up a
bit) but my point here is that rationalizing the domain rules is
fine. Its fair to point out that its a rationalization, and as such not
real any more than any other rationalization makes the rationalized
situation the reality.
I don
t much care for realism in RPGs. If one came up with the > > most realistic game conceivable Id 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.
Thats not quite what I meant. I dont mean that a realistic RPG would
have to be banal. You could still have fantastic plotlines and events, and
realistic games can still be a lot of fun. Alternitys Dark*Matter setting is more realistic than D&D and IMO even more fantastic. What I mean is that a truly realistic RPG would be so complex as to be unplayable, and the limitations of real life dont lend themselves to an epic fantasy
game. Describing a sword strike as doing 1-8 hit points damage, for
example, is so simplistic as to be unreal. Real swords dont do "points" of damage, and describing lacerations, contusions, blood loss, internal injuries, shock, infection, not to mention the effects of pain as hit points or even vitality/wound points isnt realistic. There are many more
realistic game systems out there than D&D that use complex systems of
combat and damage. Even those systems fall short of “realism” IMO, but I
dont play them because "realism" isnt what Im after. D&D is a level based system that ranks just below most super hero games in its "realism" when lined up with other RPGs, and in several ways surpasses them in being unrealistic. I dont mean that as a slam. Its part of the appeal of the system. I rarely play more realistic systems just because I dont want
such realism most of the time. Occasionally it might be entertaining to
play using a system in which a character could suffer a sucking chest
wound, but most often I`m happy to abstract that kind of thing into
unrealistic hit points.
If one looks at the BR domain system, bloodlines, spellcasting, etc. they
are similarly unrealistic, but again thats not a bad thing. Distilling the complexities of a trade agreement down to a diplomacy action or trade route works fine as a game mechanic, but it doesnt very accurately reflect
the complexities of commerce. The broad point Im trying to make here is that D&D (and BR) is a poor fit when trying on the "realism" jacket. "Realism" arguments are fine, and one can absolutely base ones
game on what one finds realistic, but in general “realism” doesnt apply very well to D&D/BR. To me a realistic 36th level BR character is oxymoronic, so not allowing the transcendence into divinity for such a character (or any character) based on "realistic" reasons doesnt really
add up.
Gary
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.
