Galadorn

Was that kind of battle really that common in those days? I don't seem to remember it was. Telekinetic battles may be common nowaday, but back in the eighties, it was new stuff.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, way back when it was made. LOL. Well, I guess it depends on how you do it. Many actors have shown up in sequels to their movies, with beards or such, and then revealed they were really who you thought they were. LOL. But, they could have been just another character.

Your interpretation, your perception. If you want to agree with the villification of a Pope, then your a greater troll then I thought. Lets wait until you die, then write an article about your sins in Digital Hero and make you a villian. What you do think about that?

If he hasn't used the spell before, he would need extra time. If he has, it's instantaneous.

I'm not much for Harn, but building floor plans will do.

Is that why there was an article in Digital Hero about a previous wordly Pope? Because religion isn't a roleplaying topic? Digital Hero opened the topic up, so it stays. No seriously, I wasn't planning on continuing this, anyway.

Well the scene I liked was the wizard battle at the stone mouth/door. Pretty funny scene, as well as riveting. Actually, maybe the third was better. It's been so long since I've seen any Conan movies, I could hardly remember. LOL

LOL. Indeed.

I consider any movie under three stars not worth watching - I have better things to do with my time. And this includes Krull, which I thought was good at the time. I try to focus on those movies that meet the three-star cut: Lord of the Rings, Dragonslayer, Lady Hawk, et. al. Problem is we fantasy lovers are so fantasy movie-starved, that many of us accept as good, that which is only fair - like Conan the Movie. The books are much better, though harsher. Conan #2 met the cut, I think. I would echo alot of posts here. I haven't seen anything that I would disagree with, that I've notice so far.

Indeed.

And we don't have elves in my order (see avatar).

O.K. Bishop, I think you can see how this comment might offend people with my background. You can make fun of the Anglicans anytime. No seriously, I try to have a respect for all religions.

I'll let him speak for himself, but thank you.

Huh? I believe in free will.

Yeah, good point. I won't sink to the level of a Clintonfile. Evilsteve, go to NGD, I'll meet you there...in a century or so.

Since you attacked our sitting president, I think the typical response would be to throw back Clinton in your face.

I agree. I once played a character who was a Doc Elliot type, but with DEX 14. I was slaughtered by the first gunman my character met, who moved so fast (DEX 23), I didn't even see the gunman's movements. If I had known I would be meeting a DEX 23 gunman, I would have had at least a 24 DEX.

Thanks.

Steve, Where's MMM in the online store? It's not on the ordering list, that I can find.

Re: Love it. You mean, the shadowcat. That was a great plot thread. Oops, I see Steve beat me to the punch.

I allow redesigns, over time. At one point we limited them to two redesigns per campaign, in our roleplaying group, but fettered it down to "redesigns as needed." Theres a few reasons for redesigns: 1. A skill the character has, is now obsolete, or needs an upgrade. 2. Redundant powers, talents, perks, etc. 3. Ineffective character - poor character design. 4. Inexperienced player - poor character design. And many other reasons.

Or both. Actually I believe its "requires a spellbook to change" not "requires a record of spells used, in spellbook."

Actually Phil, this was discussion oriented to Tolkiens total system of magic, and how his theory of magic applied to the case of turning lead into gold. Stylistically, Tolkein used the Rabbinic method of story telling. Magic wasn't just magic to him, it was sacred and a metaphor for grace. Thus using magic for a profane thing, like changing lead into gold, was tentamount to blasphemy. Get the background thread now? True, but I think you missed the point, again. Gandalf was very powerful - but even Gandalf didn't change lead into gold. This means that Tolkien didn't think alchemy was a worthy use of his "sacred" magic. Thus, the conclusion may be drawn, that Tolkien though changing lead into gold was rather silly, and too "super-fantastic" [my words] and irrelevent, to include in his books.

No, no Steve, peep using those fancy words, I like to expand my vocabulary. Fancy words remind me of literature class. LOL.

It was quite common in Norse mythology, for giants to cast spells - especially illusions. Trolls, I'm not sure about. And certainly trolls, to my recollection, were just big dwarf-kin. Though I do remember reading something about a troll and a magic ring, somewhere.