Galadorn

Originally posted by Old Man

That scene might have been good except for the evil sorcerer's Wonder Woman ringing bracelet schtick. What was up with that? Plus it amounted to another telekinetic duel between wizards, which is so common in Hollywood films it really annoys me.

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.

Originally posted by keithcurtis

I remember waiting in frustration through the whole of the abysmal Red Sonja waiting for Arnold to revela that he was Conan. If he wasn't, then what the heck was he doing in the picture?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing, way back when it was made. LOL.

It's like watching Young Indiana Jones and having Harrison Ford be cast, only to find out that he plays a British sea captain or something.

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.

Originally posted by lemming

Um, if you can't figure out the reasons, you're being more obtuse than some of the people in NGD are claimed to be.

 

This isn't the first time I've seen you respond with a venomous post to something not.

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?

Originally posted by Eclectic Wave

You could also have other neat dis-adds like; "Spell cannot be modified unless has access to magical research library/Lab" plus "Needs extra time to make changes to VPP Spells" the extra time being days/weeks that the wizard has to spend researching the "new" spell.

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

Originally posted by L. Marcus

This might come in handy . . . Thanks, Walker!

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

Originally posted by Rick

Hey guy's take the Discussion on the catholic church to the Non-Game Discussion board. It's not appropriate here.

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.

Originally posted by gewing

Thats kind of funny. Except for acting quality, I though Conan the Barbarian was MUCH better than Conan the Destroyer. Might have been my opinion that the soundtrack is absolutely awesome and the fact that the Princess in the second one drove me nuts.

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

Originally posted by archer

The Dungeonmaster. Starring Richard Moll (aka Bull from "Night Court") as a dark lord. It was bad and not in a "so bad it's funny" way.

 

The Shanarra books.

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.

Originally posted by Agent X

In the stories about Dietrich of Berne (Theodoric) the giants are quite versed in magic and shapeshifting especially.

Indeed.

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

Originally posted by BishopofB&W

The second Blackadder series (Elizabethan period) has an episode called 'Money' which centers around Blackadder's efforts to raise 1,000 pounds to pay off the Bank of the Black Monks. He can't do it so he drugs the Bishop of Bath and Wells (played brilliantly by Ronald Lacey, whom you might remember as Toht in Raiders of the Lost Ark) and has a DaVinciesque artist create a painting showing him in a compromising position with Blackadder's hanger-on Lord Percy Percy. The quote is the Bishop's response before acquiescing to blackmail. The quote is funny because the writers exaggerated the corruption in the Anglican Church at the time for effect. The Bishop was expressing how impressed as well as angry he was. I have seen an interview with the present-day Bishop of Bath and Wells and he wasn't offended at all by it because it wasn't intended to be considered accurate by the viewers.

 

I hope that clears it up for you.

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.

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

Galadorn, I believe the Bishop's signature is a line from a character in the "Blackadder" comedy television series, whose name he's taken for his board handle. It's set in medieval times and is a satire of the mores and practices of that era, including the Catholic Church.

 

I'm pretty certain that it in no way reflects his personal view of the modern Church.

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

Originally posted by Susano

I see my new "King in Yellow" spell is working perfectly.

 

Huh? I believe in free will.

Originally posted by austenandrews

Oh, good Christ. Take it to NGD, please.

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.

Originally posted by Space Cadet

Just out of curiousity, to which President are you referring to -- or was this a blanket statement?

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

Originally posted by slaughterj

Finally, a good way to get characters built "properly" according to your game world might be to provide the stats for a typical city guardsman, so the players know how the characters stack up and are made appropriately.

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.

Originally posted by misterdeath

New books don't show up in the online store until a month after they hit the shelves, in order to give retailers time to get some sales in.

Thanks.

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

Re: Love it.

Originally posted by Jkeown

Excellent use of some normal animals as monsters, wolves with horns and such... reminds me of that panther with wings that hung around in the Wormy comic in Dragon so long ago...

You mean, the shadowcat. That was a great plot thread.

Oops, I see Steve beat me to the punch.

Originally posted by Markdoc

I don't attempt to balance power levels. I enforce balance by starting players on low points levels (50+50 normally) so that they have to sacrifice in some areas if they want to excel in others.

 

As time goes on, obviously they get the power. But I have had a 325 point monster in the game, and he was not nearly as offensive as he would have been had he been designed to (say) 300 points - the extra stuff (languages, skills, contacts and so on) that he had acreted over time spread the points out.

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.

Originally posted by Black Rose

Now, do you mean that the player needs to have a writeup of each spell (what I think you're saying) or that the character must have each spell they know in some stored form (spellbook, runestones, woven tapestry, etc.)?

Or both.

There's already a mention of the Requires Spellbook (-1/2) for the latter, and for the first, I'd go with -1/4 myself.

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

Originally posted by PhilFleischmann

You don't have to. I can read. My point wasn't directed at you specifically. There were a few posts in a row that got off the subject of fantasy $ systems, and were instead talking about how much magic there is in Tolkien, apart from its effect on economics.

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?

Yes, that's what we were orginally talking about, but then some people started talking about how powerful a wizard Gandalf is and Tolkien's mythological inspirations.

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.

Originally posted by BishopofB&W

I never heard of a lich that wasn't withered and dry.

 

Stop showin' off usin' them big fancy words, Steve. It ain't fair to us'n that gawt our edgycation at th' public skools.

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

Originally posted by Jhamin

I like how alot of the Giants and Trolls are stated out a big lumbering brutes, but their optional packages include of magic VPPs for those more fantastic Faerie Trolls.

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.