Undead, Energy Drain and Bloodlines

[Azrai_Dark]

Hehe, great ideas

I go for the Lost, cos I like those people. Besides it makes it really interesting that Magian, the Ghul and the Raven are all so close to one another, no?

As for the Vampire not being undead, I said so myself and the Magian agreed He just looks like one.

The Magian, as Gary said, could be undead.

I also said too, that the undead cannot have bloodlines with the possible unique exception of vampires, since they do have blood. The Spectral Scion, drains blood, but he destroys it. He does not add it to his own

[Lord_Eldred]

Orginally posted by Ariadne

         Why a commoner can't commit bloodtheft? This does mean, no commoner can EVER get blooded. 

Not exactly Ariadne. Commoners can be invested with a bloodline or inherit it at someone’s death but they can not commit bloodtheft.

[Lord_Eldred]

Orginally posted by geeman

         At 01:35 PM 8/1/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

> OK Gary, How did he steal the bloodline. Unblooded can not commit blood
> theft. Someone would have had to vested him with a bloodline. Who would
> do that and why?

Well, first of all, I dont think he did steal his bloodline. I go with a version of the Magian as a "typical" awnsheghlien, corrupted by his bloodline into the form that somehow represents his personal/spiritual image, just like all the others. It hasnt really come up IMC that I need
to have more background material on the Magian, so I havent ruled as to his specific origin, and if it does Ill probably go with the simplest
interpretation. There are several possible origins for the Magian as a
blooded lich, however, including such things as:

1. It may not be absolutely necessary to have a bloodline in order to
   commit bloodtheft. There are several examples of awnsheghlien who gained
   their bloodline by committing an act of bloodtheft. The Wolf and the Boar,
   for instance, gained a bloodline after an act of bloodtheft, or it is
   speculated that some similar event caused their corruption. I would
   suggest that has something to do with the nature of Azrais bloodline, since those whove been described as having gained their bloodline by
   bloodtheft seem to have Azrai`s derivation.

While it may be speculated that this is true it would not be consistent with the rulebook on bloodtheft. However, they may have forced someone to invest them with their bloodline thus committing a form of bloodtheft. OF COURSE IF YOU WISH TO DISREGARD THE RULES YOU COULD HAVE THEM COMMITTING BLOODTHEFT.

Orginally posted by geeman

2. The Magian may be one of the last members of the Lost. (Maybe he`s the
   Last Long-lived Lost Left?) The Lost gained some sort of bloodline like
   power from Azrai and the ability to cast true magic. We have very little
   information on what specific powers were gained by being one of the Lost,
   but since it replicates the ability to cast true magic the same way a
   bloodline does, it may also allow one to commit bloodtheft..

Are you sure that the Lost don’t really just have a bloodline that was imbued differently than all the ones gained at Deismarr? Can you point me to some readings on the Lost that would support them not being blooded? Otherwise I think you may have a reasonable explanation here.

Orginally posted by geeman

3. He might have been at Deismaar. The Magian could have gained his
   bloodline after having transformed into a lich and attended the
   battle. The Magian was unknown on Cerilia until recently, but that just
   means that he wasnt around as The Magian. He could have existed for centuries, he might have left the continent immediately after the battle and travelled Aebrynis, he could have been trapped somehow by the energies released at the battle and only recently freed himself, or he might simply have been laying low, gathering his strength and preparing for the right time to make his appearance on the scene in Cerilia. Granted, it would seem strange not to note the appearance of a lich at Deismaar, but there were some pretty powerful characters there, not to mention a few gods and dragons, so the Magians presence might not figure too highly on the
   billing. He may not even have been there as a combatant, but as an
   observer trying to learn as much as possible about the nature of
   divinity–of interest to a lich..

I really like this explanation.

Orginally posted by geeman

4. The Lands Choice. Why must the Lands Choice always be
   benevolent? Sometimes Cerilia (not to mention the DM) needs a dark
   overlord to thin out the population and act as a foil to youthful
   adventurers. Who better than a vastly powerful lich? “You speak of the
   one prophesied to bring balance to mebhaighl? You think it is this… lich?”.

I would think the land would fear this type of blooded because they are more likely to abuse the land than to do it good. However, perhaps a swamp land or a land highly connected to the shadow world would make this choice.

Orginally posted by geeman

5. The Magian is also known to have done extensive research into the nature
   of bloodlines itself. Hes created a spell that can corrupt the bloodline of another character, so its possible that he`s also come up with a means
   of stealing the bloodline of another character. Danita Kusor, the
   Chimaera, is/was a much less powerful wizard than the Magian (W13 compared
   to W20) but she managed to gain her bloodline after being soaked in the
   same alchemical fluids she used to create the Binman–who also gained a
   bloodline–after slaying the Iron Troll..

Again a distortion of the rules. However, this could have been a forced investiture ceremony.

Orginally posted by geeman

6. He could have gotten his bloodline by investiture. That doesnt mean he was necessarily someones heir (though that too is a possible explanation)
   since he could have used his powerful magics to charm/enslave someone with
   a bloodline and then got a priest (by coercion or he might have just found
   an evil priest) to perform an Investiture to transfer his victims bloodline. This person need not necessarily have been of Azrais
   derivation, since one of the spells the Magian has access is to switch a
   bloodline derivation to Azrai. Maybe the first person that spell was used
   on was the Magian himself…

I`m sure there are other possibilities, and there are combinations of the
above that could be used to explain his bloodline.

Gary.

Wow, I think I have argued the 6th one alot so I don’t think I can disagree with Gary on that one.

[Ariadne]

Orginally posted by Lord Eldred

Not exactly Ariadne. Commoners can be invested with a bloodline or inherit it at someone’s death but they can not commit bloodtheft.

Why not? In the book of regency is described, if a scion dies (through bloodtheft???), a great (or not so great) explosion followes. This would mean, anything (included plants and commoners) would get something of this power. Aren’t they blooded then? Or how does this work???

[geeman]

At 01:20 PM 8/2/2002 +0200, Ariadne wrote:

>In the book of regency is described, if a scion dies (through
>bloodtheft???), a great (or not so great) explosion followes. This would
>mean, anything (included plants and commoners) would get something of this
>power. Aren`t they blooded then? Or how does this work???

That doesnt mean the explosion is as great as that which created bloodlines in the first place, nor that the characters bloodline is
dispersed to those within the blast radius. The only ways that are 100%
sure to turn a commoner into a scion is investiture/inheritance or the
Land`s Choice. Some characters have gained a bloodline in mysterious ways
(mostly awnsheghlien) but for the most part those two are the only ways
that there are rules for.

That doesnt mean you couldnt change it, of course, so that bloodtheft is
possible for non-scions. I believe Travis Doom`s BR 3e conversion
does. If commoners can gain a bloodline, however, I suspect scions would
become something of a hunted group of people, however, and it creates a lot
of strangeness with how regents will work at the domain level. Regents
have some measure of job security in that they are not replaceable with
99.9% of the population. If an act of bloodtheft can “create” a blooded
character, however, that opens up a whole new pool of potential rulers…

The Vos are described as having much less of a problem using investiture to
transfer a bloodline to a worthy commoner. In essence, all you need is a
willing 1st level priest who controls a temple(1) and 1GB to perform that
ceremony upon a captured or otherwise unwilling target.

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.

[geeman]

At 09:18 PM 8/1/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

>>It may not be absolutely necessary to have a bloodline in order to commit
>>bloodtheft. There are several examples of awnsheghlien who gained their
>>bloodline by committing an act of bloodtheft.
>
>While it may be speculated that this is true it would not be consistent
>with the rulebook on bloodtheft. However, they may have forced someone to
>invest them with their bloodline thus committing a form of bloodtheft. OF
>COURSE IF YOU WISH TO DISREGARD THE RULES YOU COULD HAVE THEM COMMITTING
>BLOODTHEFT.

It occurs to me that what is described in the texts regarding this
particular method of transferring a bloodline isnt really bloodtheft, per se. Its something extra, usually involving the target being devoured by
the creature who winds up with the bloodline. Check out Blood Enemies
entries for the Wolf or the Sphinx. The discovery that one could commit
bloodtheft by stabbing a character through the heart came rather quickly
after Deismaar, but apparently relatively few Cerilians kill and then eat
their blooded opponents… Could it be that devouring a blooded character
is even more effective than jabbing a ventricle? There are many examples
of this kind of sympathetic magic relationship. Many Norse myths have
heroes eating the hearts of their enemies…

Several other awnsheghlien could be hypothesized as having gained their
bloodline in a similar manner.

>Are you sure that the Lost don`t really just have a bloodline that was

imbued differently than all the ones gained at Deismarr? Can you point me
to some readings on the Lost that would support them not being blooded?
Otherwise I think you may have a reasonable explanation here.

There`s not a lot of information on the Lost, so you can make up just about
whatever you like. There have been various explanations for their
powers. I personally like to think of the Lost as being like a proxy in
tMotP/Planescape, with at least one of their powers being to cast true
magic on Aebrynis. Additional powers could be things very similar to a
bloodline and blood abilities.

Also, “the Lost” as a group need not all necessarily have been empowered in
the same way. One could have his soul tied to a demon`s, another could
have the equivalent of a bloodline, a third could be a proxy, etc. “The
Lost” might be more of an explanation of their status as a minion of Azra
(as well as something of a hint about their condition/fate) than as a sort
of template.

He might have been at Deismaar.

I really like this explanation.

Really? I thought it kind of the silliest… but I guess it does have a
kind of appeal… and if the Magian transformed into a lich before Deismaar
he would be immortal (or whatever you want to call that undead state) so
theres no reason why he couldnt still be around…

The Lands Choice. Why must the Lands Choice always be benevolent?

I would think the land would fear this type of blooded because they are
more likely to abuse the land than to do it good. However, perhaps a swamp
land or a land highly connected to the shadow world would make this choice.

The Magian does have an interest in maintaining sources… Also, this
very much depends on how/why you think the Lands Choice works. I kind of like the idea that Aebrynis was "awakened" by the explosion of Deismaar, so on those occasions when the Lands Choice occurs it is the planet
him/her/itself engaging in a little social farming of humanity. Who knows
what the purposes are behind the awakened planet? There`s some more
information regarding this interpretation in the birthright-l archives
under the title “The BR Gaia Hypothesis” available at:

http://oracle.wizards.com/scripts/wa.exe?A…D=0&H=0&O=T&T=1

>>The Magian is also known to have done extensive research into the nature
>>of bloodlines itself. He`s created a spell that can corrupt the

bloodline of another character, so its possible that hes also come up
>>with a means of stealing the bloodline of another character. Danita
>>Kusor, the Chimaera, is/was a much less powerful wizard than the Magian
>>(W13 compared to W20) but she managed to gain her bloodline after being
>>soaked in the same alchemical fluids she used to create the Binman–who
>>also gained a bloodline–after slaying the Iron Troll.
>
>Again a distortion of the rules. However, this could have been a forced
>investiture ceremony.

The Binman or the Chimaera could have been forced investiture? It seems
lacking several important aspects to be an investiture, and has a few
circumstances that would seem extraneous to investiture, but that seem
important to the process of gaining a bloodline…

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.

[Peter_Lubke]

On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 22:51, Gary wrote:

At 01:20 PM 8/2/2002 +0200, Ariadne wrote:

>In the book of regency is described, if a scion dies (through
>bloodtheft???), a great (or not so great) explosion followes. This would
>mean, anything (included plants and commoners) would get something of this
>power. Aren`t they blooded then? Or how does this work???

That doesn`t mean the explosion is as great as that which created
bloodlines in the first place, nor that the character`s bloodline is
dispersed to those within the blast radius.  The only ways that are 100%
sure to turn a commoner into a scion is investiture/inheritance or the
Land`s Choice.  Some characters have gained a bloodline in mysterious ways
(mostly awnsheghlien) but for the most part those two are the only ways
that there are rules for.

That doesn`t mean you couldn`t change it, of course, so that bloodtheft is
possible for non-scions.  I believe Travis Doom`s BR 3e conversion
does.  If commoners can gain a bloodline, however, I suspect scions would
become something of a hunted group of people, however, and it creates a lot
of strangeness with how regents will work at the domain level.  Regents
have some measure of job security in that they are not replaceable with
99.9% of the population.  If an act of bloodtheft can "create" a blooded
character, however, that opens up a whole new pool of potential rulers....

The Vos are described as having much less of a problem using investiture to
transfer a bloodline to a worthy commoner.  In essence, all you need is a
willing 1st level priest who controls a temple(1) and 1GB to perform that
ceremony upon a captured or otherwise unwilling target.

I believe you need a WILLING target. Of course there is the “do it or
die willing”. However the priests of Belinik seem to have no problems
finding bloodlines. There seems sufficient anecdotal evidence that
bloodtheft can benefit non-scions (Manticore for example), and no truly
compelling reason why not.

Im not fond of the idea of unrestricted transferal of bloodlines however. It could lead to a situation where players attempt to abuse it. Like drugs in sport, once one competitor gets away with it, others see that they need to do it also in order to compete. The concept that players (or even that NPCs) could chop and change their bloodline at will (given a PC realm priest) is somewhat unsettling. A bloodline should be for life. Once you lose yours - through whatever means - you dont get another. Perhaps in all beings there is always a spark of
divine breath left over from their creation, and that this spark links
to the bloodline - or whatever.

Gary

****************************************************************************
The Birthright Homepage: [http://www.birthright.net](http://www.birthright.net)
Birthright-l Archives: [http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html](http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html)
To unsubscribe, send email to [email]LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM[/email]
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.

---

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.

[Peter_Lubke]

On Fri, 2002-08-02 at 23:19, Gary wrote:

At 09:18 PM 8/1/2002 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

>Are you sure that the Lost don`t really just have a bloodline that was
>imbued differently than all the ones gained at Deismarr?  Can you point me
>to some readings on the Lost that would support them not being blooded?
>Otherwise I think you may have a reasonable explanation here.

There`s not a lot of information on the Lost, so you can make up just about
whatever you like.  There have been various explanations for their
powers.  I personally like to think of the Lost as being like a proxy in
tMotP/Planescape, with at least one of their powers being to cast true
magic on Aebrynis.  Additional powers could be things very similar to a
bloodline and blood abilities.

Also, "the Lost" as a group need not all necessarily have been empowered in
the same way.  One could have his soul tied to a demon`s, another could
have the equivalent of a bloodline, a third could be a proxy, etc.  "The
Lost" might be more of an explanation of their status as a minion of Azra
(as well as something of a hint about their condition/fate) than as a sort
of template.

Or, of course Azrai may have imbued his favorites with a part of his
power while he was still alive - to enable them to cast arcane spells -
knowing that this power linked them to him forever. (Just another
explanation)

>>The Magian is also known to have done extensive research into the nature
>>of bloodlines itself.  He`s created a spell that can corrupt the
>>bloodline of another character, so it`s possible that he`s also come up
>>with a means of stealing the bloodline of another character.  Danita
>>Kusor, the Chimaera, is/was a much less powerful wizard than the Magian
>>(W13 compared to W20) but she managed to gain her bloodline after being
>>soaked in the same alchemical fluids she used to create the Binman--who
>>also gained a bloodline--after slaying the Iron Troll.
>
>Again a distortion of the rules. However, this could have been a forced
>investiture ceremony.

The Binman or the Chimaera could have been forced investiture?  It seems
lacking several important aspects to be an investiture, and has a few
circumstances that would seem extraneous to investiture, but that seem
important to the process of gaining a bloodline....

Investiture may not be the only way of stealing/gaining a bloodline –
but it remains the only way for player characters. Allowing something to
happen “outside the rules of play” when it`s under the control of the DM
is not only acceptable but quite commonplace. While the Magian (as an
NPC) may have discovered methods of corrupting and stealing/draining
bloodlines – and remember that bloodsilver was also uniquely discovered
– a player character attempting to discover the same has absolutely
zero (0%) chance ever.

---

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.

[AKjeldsen]

> Investiture may not be the only way of stealing/gaining a bloodline –
> but it remains the only way for player characters. Allowing something to
> happen “outside the rules of play” when it`s under the control of the DM
> is not only acceptable but quite commonplace. While the Magian (as an
> NPC) may have discovered methods of corrupting and stealing/draining
> bloodlines – and remember that bloodsilver was also uniquely discovered
> – a player character attempting to discover the same has absolutely
> zero (0%) chance ever.

So the Magian, who is listed in BE as the equivalent of a 20th level
wizard, can find such a method, but my (hypothetical) 20th level PC
wizard with access to the same resources cannot? Why not?

To me, it seems both unfair and unrealistic to have effectively one
set of rules for the PCs and another, more liberal one for the NPCs.
That is definitely neither acceptable nor commonplace IMC.

-Andreas

---

Andreas Kjeldsen
Email: kjeldsen@stud.ku.dk

---

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.

[kgauck]

----- Original Message -----
From: “Andreas Kjeldsen” <kjeldsen@STUD.KU.DK>
Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 8:23 PM

> To me, it seems both unfair and unrealistic to have effectively one
> set of rules for the PCs and another, more liberal one for the NPCs.
> That is definitely neither acceptable nor commonplace IMC.

Abonminations are not just another NPC, though. Each one is a unique
super-being. This is one of the reasons that so many of them were
multi-classed back under a rules set that forbade it for humans.

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.

[Peter_Lubke]

On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 11:23, Andreas Kjeldsen wrote:

> Investiture may not be the only way of stealing/gaining a bloodline --
> but it remains the only way for player characters. Allowing something to
> happen "outside the rules of play" when it`s under the control of the DM
> is not only acceptable but quite commonplace. While the Magian (as an
> NPC) may have discovered methods of corrupting and stealing/draining
> bloodlines -- and remember that bloodsilver was also uniquely discovered
> -- a player character attempting to discover the same has absolutely
> zero (0%) chance ever.

So the Magian, who is listed in BE as the equivalent of a 20th level
wizard, can find such a method, but my (hypothetical) 20th level PC
wizard with access to the same resources cannot? Why not?

To me, it seems both unfair and unrealistic to have effectively one
set of rules for the PCs and another, more liberal one for the NPCs.
That is definitely neither acceptable nor commonplace IMC.

As a player I see your point. As a DM though, I might like to introduce
say a vorpal sword as a unique magic item without opening the door for
the characters to copy it 1,000 times and arm 5 units of swordsmen with
vorpal weapons - on the argument that “one such item exists. Someone
must have known how. Therefore I can learn how. etc”. But I try to avoid
rules that apply generally to PCs but not NPCs.

All individuals are unique. A guy that went to Uni with me, did the same
courses etc, and got about the same marks - remarked to me the other day
that he knows what object-oriented programming is - but just cant get his head around it - he just doesnt understand how I do it. You could
say he learned it, but never understood it enough to be able to apply
it. Given that tainting bloodlines is 1,000 times more complex, even if
the Magian himself taught the player character it doesn`t mean that the
character would be able to understand it enough that he could apply it.

---

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.

[geeman]

At 02:23 AM 8/3/2002 +0100, Andreas Kjeldsen wrote:

> > Investiture may not be the only way of stealing/gaining a bloodline –
> > but it remains the only way for player characters. Allowing something to
> > happen “outside the rules of play” when it`s under the control of the DM

is not only acceptable but quite commonplace. While the Magian (as an
NPC) may have discovered methods of corrupting and stealing/draining
bloodlines – and remember that bloodsilver was also uniquely discovered
– a player character attempting to discover the same has absolutely
zero (0%) chance ever.

So the Magian, who is listed in BE as the equivalent of a 20th level
wizard, can find such a method, but my (hypothetical) 20th level PC wizard
with access to the same resources cannot? Why not?

Personally, I dont agree with Peters assessment of this particular
situation. I think your (hypothetical) PC should be able to find a method
of stealing/draining a bloodline from another character. It might take an
awful lot of commitment… like he may have to become an awnshegh or
otherwise commit to some significantly evil in a way that the game
designers often assumed before 3e turns a PC into an NPC and sometimes
still do, but if NPCs can do something than PCs should have a similar shot
at it if they are willing to make the sacrifices. PCs creating tighmaevril
weapons is another thing I would let PCs do, despite the protestations of
the BR text. Doing so would require significant time and effort, but it
could be done.

I think its equally important to remember that when the BR setting was written many of the prohibitions regarding what PCs could do and couldnt
do were much more restrictive than they are in 3e or, in fact, than they
need to have been in the first place. PCs are supposed to be exceptional
characters, with abilities beyond those of normal/average people, and often
above average people. Making the process for creating things like
tighmaevril or exceptionally powerful 9th level spells that alter bloodline
derivation very, very difficult is a good idea, but absolutely impossible
based on nothing more than the distinction between PC and NPC? That
doesn`t seem sensible to me.

Gary

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.

[Lord_Eldred]

Gary I agree with a lot of what you say. However, on the tighmaevril issue, if you let a PC have the knowledge to create them you could significantly change the balance of power in the blooded world. I think the creators limited the creation of tighmaevril for that very reason. In my campaign, the knowledge of how to create such a weapon has long been lost!

[geeman]

At 04:02 AM 8/19/02 +0200, Lord Eldred wrote:

> Gary I agree with a lot of what you say. However, on the tighmaevril
> issue, if you let a PC have the knowledge to create them you could
> significantly change the balance of power in the blooded world. I think
> the creators limited the creation of tighmaevril for that very reason. In
> my campaign, the knowledge of how to create such a weapon has long been lost!

Popular opinion will probably be against me on this one, but tighmaevril
weapons being created by a limited number of characters in a BR campaign
wouldnt be the end of things IMO. First, it would depend on the cost of creating such a weapon. If it was high (in XP and/or GB and/or RP) then that could be a balancing force against scads of them being made. Theres
probably a reason why only a dozen or so such weapons were created in the
first place. Second, owning/using tighmaevril is a significant thing, but
I don`t think PCs with such a weapons would be more than some of the
“standard” magic items in the DMG. A +1 tighmaevril longsword or a ?

Creating tighmaevril is a lost art IMC too, and Ive never had a player say they wanted to go about recreating such weapons, but if they wanted to I wouldnt mind making such knowledge the purpose of a campaigns series of adventures. The end result would be that the PCs would probably not gain much more than a "typical" reward for such a campaign (reference things like the Rod of Seven Parts adventure) and the creation of tighmaevril weapons would be costly enough that they couldnt go about arming a company
of elite infantry, but I wouldn`t be opposed to the idea automatically.

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.

[Lord_Eldred]

I suppose you could create two different adventure links here. One would be the PCs suspect that someone is trying to create such a weapon or has the ability to create them and they feel the need to move in and prevent the spread of such weapons. Two they wish to find the way to do it themselves creating many mini adventures!

[MichaelRoele]

<< the fact that there is a special monster awnsheglien does not mean that
“normal” monsters of that kind do not exist.
For example there are hundreds of kraken in the seas in coincidence with
the “anwsheglien kraken”. the same could be true for a vampire, maybe
there are some in the shadowworld.
>>

If monster counterparts to the awnsheighlien with the same did not exist,
how could the awnsheighlien ever gotten his name? If there were no gorgons,
how could Raesene ever be called the Gorgon? If there were no vampires, how
could Britter Kalt ever be called the Vampire? If there were no swords or
hawks, there would be no Swordhawk.
Ergo, if the monster does exist, the awnsheighlien cannot have its name,
therefor if an awnsheighlien exists with a monster`s name, that monster
must exist as well.
QED.

Hope that helps.

    - the Falcon

---

“Oh no, I wont let bugbears break our hearts Dont be scared now, youll be safe I wont let goblins take you away”
- The Crash, “Polar”

“Ive got the Dungeon Masters Guide
Ive got a 12-sided die Ive got Kitty Pryde and Nightcrawler too
Waiting there for me, yes I do - I do”
- Weezer, “In The Garage”

---

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.

[MichaelRoele]

the Falcon wrote:

< Ergo, if the monster does exist, the awnsheighlien cannot have its name,
> therefor if an awnsheighlien exists with a monster`s name, that monster

must exist as well.
QED.<

Sorry, but I dont buy that. According to your logic, we wouldve never
heard of dragons, vampires, gorgons in our real world. You have to remember
that, in addition to accurate knowledge and real life experience, youll always find legends, myths, fairy tales and half-truths wherever human beings gather. An awnsheighlien may as well have gotten his name from such a source as from an existing creature. Therefore, the decision to include an awnsheighliens namesake creature in
BR is still up to the DM.

Christoph Tiemann

---

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.

[MichaelRoele]

the Falcon <M.M.Richert@ITS.TUDELFT.NL> wrote at 02-09-04 13.31:

> If monster counterparts to the awnsheighlien with the same did not exist,
> how could the awnsheighlien ever gotten his name? If there were no gorgons,
> how could Raesene ever be called the Gorgon? If there were no vampires, how
> could Britter Kalt ever be called the Vampire? If there were no swords or
> hawks, there would be no Swordhawk.
> Ergo, if the monster does exist, the awnsheighlien cannot have its name,
> therefor if an awnsheighlien exists with a monster`s name, that monster

must exist as well.

My take on this is that the original awnsheighlien has “offspring” (which
need not be children, merely created in it`s image) that roughly correspond
to the standard monsters. So THE Vampire has ordinary vampires serving him,
THE Chimera has sired ordinary chemeas and so on.

But these monsters did not exist before the awnsheighlien on whose pattern
they are formed.

Also notice that I give these lesser cmonsters a bllodline strength, so you
can comitt bloodtheft while out hunting monsters. This makes monster-hunting
into a very important royal duty.

/Carl

---

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.

[MichaelRoele]

<< Sorry, but I dont buy that. According to your logic, we wouldve never
heard of dragons, vampires, gorgons in our real world. You have to remember
that, in addition to accurate knowledge and real life experience, youll always find legends, myths, fairy tales and half-truths wherever human beings gather. An awnsheighlien may as well have gotten his name from such a source as from an existing creature. Therefore, the decision to include an awnsheighliens namesake creature in
BR is still up to the DM.
>>

Aw, come on - this is D&D. If a D&D source book even says that “It is
rumored that …”, then 9 out of 10 times it is the truth. With D&D
monsters rumored to exist, this even goes up to 100%.

---

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.

[MichaelRoele]

the Falcon wrote:
[> << You have to remember
> that, in addition to accurate knowledge and real life experience, you`ll

always find legends, myths, fairy tales and half-truths wherever human
beings gather. An awnsheighlien may as well have gotten his name from such
a
source as from an existing creature.
Therefore, the decision to include an awnsheighlien`s namesake creature in
> BR is still up to the DM.
> >>]

>>> Aw, come on - this is D&D. If a D&D source book even says that “It is
> rumored that …”, then 9 out of 10 times it is the truth. With D&D
> monsters rumored to exist, this even goes up to 100%. :)<<<

I agree whole-heartedly, with regard to source books. That most rumors in
D&D tend to be true (in stark contrast to RL) may have to do with the fact
that it`s already hard enough to come up with a good adventure idea. Wasting
an idea with potential on a red herring is something most DMs would rather
avoid.

Nevertheless, there is no inherent logic that a certain type of monster has
to exist, because an awnshegh (got the singular right at last) shares the
same name. As BR is a setting where magic is rare, some DMs might wish to
limit the number of mythical creatures that can be found in Cerilia as well
(or maybe they just hate a certain kind of monster). I still don`t see any
obligation for them to include any monster an awnshegh might be named
after.

Christoph Tiemann

---

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.