whherron@uok.UUCP (12/09/85)
This came up in a game over the weekend: During a campaign, one of our characters was killed. A resurrection spell was cast, and worked...but the character had forgotten all of the spells that he had memorized prior to tthe campaign. We argued that since the character could remember all of the events of today (up to his death), then he should also remember his spells. The DM argued that a) this was a traumatic injury, and b) that spells are saved in a "different" kind of memory (emphasis is DM's). Is there any precedent for his decision (preferably in print somewhere)? Should there be? Bill (ihnp4!cuuxb!uokvax!"whherron%uok")
cdrigney@uokvax.UUCP (12/09/85)
> /* Written 6:09 pm Dec 8, 1985 by whherron@uok.UUCP in uokvax.UUCP:net.games.frp */ > During a campaign, one of our characters was killed. A > resurrection spell was cast, and worked...but the character > had forgotten all of the spells that he had memorized prior > to tthe campaign. > > [...] The DM argued that a) this was a traumatic injury, > and b) that spells are saved in a "different" kind of memory > (emphasis is DM's). > > Is there any precedent for his decision (preferably in print > somewhere)? Should there be? Precedent doesn't matter in FRP; it's the GM's world, and his world-view is what counts. His interpretation seems reasonable, although if he's suggesting that spells are stored in short-term rather than long-term memory, then the character should also forget everything else he was only keeping in short term memory when he was killed. As a rough approximation, one might suggest that would be all but the most important things that had happened to him, back to his last REM sleep. Or is the GM suggesting a 3rd kind of memory, "magic memory" as it were, which only some people have? That would be an elegant way of explaining why only some people can cast spells, and those who can't cast spells can't understand them at all no matter how bright they may be otherwise, and why a mage forgets his spell as he casts it (it's "erase after reading" memory). A 3rd possibility is that your mage's memory was volatile RAM - dying is like turning the power off, and resurrection is a reboot. Perhaps the mage should move his more important spells to ROM. Fascinating new vistas appear! Just think of PROMs, EPROMs, high-speed cache memory, spell books as offline media, disk storage, *real* head crashes, and magical magnets like feeblemind!! Am I serious? Should I be? :-) --Carl Rigney USENET: {ihnp4,allegra!cbosgd}!okstate!uokvax!cdrigney "You needn't thank me for telling you all this, the havoc created shall be my reward."
jim@hcrvax.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) (12/11/85)
>This came up in a game over the weekend: > > During a campaign, one of our characters was killed. A >resurrection spell was cast, and worked...but the character >had forgotten all of the spells that he had memorized prior >to tthe campaign. And rightly so, he DIED ! After his resurrection, he would have had to rest (bed-rest!) for at least one day. >We argued that since the character could remember all of the >events of today (up to his death), then he should also remember >his spells. Well, not quite the way we play it. Remember, He DIED ! Sure he remembers, but it's fuzzy and he's unsure of the events. Bed-rest and other party members telling him about the events of the day (including his death) flesh out the rest of his memory. > The DM argued that a) this was a traumatic injury, >and b) that spells are saved in a "different" kind of memory >(emphasis is DM's). You got it. Think about it for a second. When you think about and old flame (or a new flame), does the memory disappear ? No. But, when you think about a fireball spell, it's gone, until you re-learn the spell the next day. So, we can infer that spells are saved in a "different" kind of memory (emphasis is mine and your DM's). >Is there any precedent for his decision (preferably in print >somewhere)? Should there be? Sure. I recently went through "Vault of the Drow" (D1-D3(?)). We had a fairly large party (eight (8) PC's), but my magic user, Selti died four times. It wasn't pretty, she just kept getting caught in nasty spells, and being fairly wimpy at the start, death came easily. But we had a couple of healthly, powerful clerics, who always carried a a raise dead spell (or two!). So, I got luckly, made my rolls (almost missed once), and survived. But, after the spell was cast and I came back from the land of the dead, I had to spent at least one day in bed, and several more days recovering my spells. Is this precedent ? In our campaigns it is. >Bill > >(ihnp4!cuuxb!uokvax!"whherron%uok") Jim Sullivan mage, monk, thief, DM (utzoo!hcr!jim)
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) (12/12/85)
In article <2200040@uok.UUCP> whherron@uok.UUCP writes: > >This came up in a game over the weekend: > > During a campaign, one of our characters was killed. A >resurrection spell was cast, and worked...but the character >had forgotten all of the spells that he had memorized prior >to tthe campaign. > >We argued that since the character could remember all of the >events of today (up to his death), then he should also remember >his spells. The DM argued that a) this was a traumatic injury, >and b) that spells are saved in a "different" kind of memory >(emphasis is DM's). > >Is there any precedent for his decision (preferably in print >somewhere)? Should there be? > >Bill > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- First of all, whether something is in print or not has little bearing upon the matter - unless the GM (my preference) has specifically stated that they intend to go strictly by the official rule. Even if this is the case, I do not believe that there is anything in "official" print concerning the matter you are concerned about. In the campaigns that I have run (and many others in which I participate), when a character dies and is subsequently Raised or Resurrected, there is a period of recouperation which can last for days, weeks or even months - depending upon how long the character has been dead and how close to failure the Raise or Resurrection was. Also, the method of death must be taken into consideration. A character that died from a disease will still have that disease and will - no doubt - die from it again if not cured. Another factor which served to complicate matters a bit was a decision - on my part - that Resurrections could only be performmed in a consecrated temple or shrine to the Cleric's deity. As for remembering spells, though the situation litterally never came up, my ruling would be that from an AD&D perspective (i.e. spells are kept in conscious memory as a specially force or power which upon casting is erased or expended - thus not normal memory), all MU spells would be gone from the characters memory - dissipated as it where into the astral plane along with the character's soul. the never-present whisper spirit Joel Rives Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!" << Buckaroo Banzai >>
wagle@iuvax.UUCP (12/13/85)
Um, guys, I am pretty sure that the "Resurrect" and "Raise Dead" ADND spells are quite different. I got rid of my ADND stuff about 2 years ago, but the way I remember the "Raise Dead" spell is as bringing you barely back to life. The "Resurrect" spell, on the other hand, brought you back to full power, hits, spells, etc. The guy said "Resurrect", NOT "Raise Dead".
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (12/16/85)
Hello. We always let everybody play 2 characters -- their high level one, and a henchmen. (This assumes that you *have* a high level character.) Assuming that the henchman lasted very long (likely, since nobody was into using characters as cannon fodder) you ended up with 2 interesting characters to run. This was fun. About resurrection -- my world is in the midst of a religious civil war. The gods are *very* active. However, god-human communication is very poor (That was the first world-wreaking spell that the chaotic gods' alliance cast). Therefore, only clerics can actually communicate with the gods. This is tough on the gods, who would like to influence everybody powerful to further their own ends. But communicating with a dead character is *easy*. So, every time a character dies, they have an intense religious expoerience as a god (or ocassionally gods, though very few chaotic gods want to work with other chaotic gods much) starts communicating exactly what he feels about that players past life, his friends, countrymen, and whatnot. The good part is that the chaotic gods want their clerics to ressurrect everybody they can. Resurrections come free (from the point of view of the characters -- the churches, however, don't like it much!). But, in my world, you wouldn't wake up from a resserection remembering spells. If you are a low level character you may not wake up at all (in addition to ressurection failure, low-level characters may never get their personality back together enough to have enough Will to encarnate) or you may wake up insane. <That was a kludge stuck in because some wise cleric decided to kill and reincarnate peasants to find out what Anubis really wanted...> Player characters wake up full of remorse for their sins, and full of the Will of a powerful being (which eventually fades out). For a few weeks, though, they are walking proselytising machines who do nothing but the Will of whatever god talked to them. It is a lot of fun. While I am at it, I might as well let you know that the Gods have no independent existence from the rest of the world, and are actually aspects of the collective unconscious. It was this discovery which put the heavens into civil war. The lawful gods deny this truth while the chaotic ones rejoice in it. But the chaotic ones use it to justify heavy meddling in human affairs (if you want to be a stronger god, just change the attitude of sentient beings towards you) which the lawful gods (who had an enterprise-like non-interference policy with lower life forms if they were good, and were bored with the lower life forms and by and large left them alone because they were so uninteresting if they were evil) do not condone. It is copmplicated by the fact that most humans are lawful (though not most player characters) and so the collective unconscious favours the lawful gods. They think that if *everyone* was lawful then they would have real, permanent existence even if they *are* part of the collective unconscious (which is of course a lie... ;-) ). I think that every DM should run ressurecctions any way that he likes. Remember that the object of the whole thing is to have great imaginative fun, not to staple each other to the wall on tecchnicalities. -- Laura Creighton sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
cc100jr@gitpyr.UUCP (Joel M. Rives) (12/17/85)
In article <10000029@iuvax.UUCP> wagle@iuvax.UUCP writes: > > Um, guys, I am pretty sure that the "Resurrect" and "Raise Dead" ADND >spells are quite different. I got rid of my ADND stuff about 2 years ago, >but the way I remember the "Raise Dead" spell is as bringing you barely back >to life. The "Resurrect" spell, on the other hand, brought you back to full >power, hits, spells, etc. > > The guy said "Resurrect", NOT "Raise Dead". ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No doubt they are different spells, which is probably why they are of different spell levels as well. Even so, there is no reason why a GM can not place rest- rictions on a spell. In the case of the Resurrection spell, my players certainlygained the benifit of full recovery - only the full recovery did not happen like *poof*. It required several days of rest and recouperation. Also, I do not believe that the Resurrection spells states anything with respect to restoring spells in mind - which, by the way, was the major point of the discussion. the never present whisper spirit Joel Rives Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr "Remember, no matter where you go, there you are!" << Buckaroo Banzai >>
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/18/85)
<Can I remember what I wrote the first time I wrote this?> >We always let everybody play 2 characters -- their high level one, >and a henchmen. (Henchperson? How about Sap?) It's usually a good idea to have a few scummy underlings in a party to carry things and provide a few useful outside skills. It may be appropriate for a character to have a retinue, and these underlings may be played as dull, boring, unimaginative cloddish, "semi-PC's" because they know who "the boss" is, and they're only following orders. On the other hand, when the boss buys the farm, these "semi-PC's" are advanced to PC-hood by virtue of they're being all the player has left, and so they suddenly become quick-witted and inventive. This is only appropriate, as the boss is out for the count, and they suddenly realize that they're on their own, so they'd better learn some initiative before that charging purple ugly gets them. In other words, they all of a sudden have to think. >Assuming that the henchman lasted very long (likely, since nobody was >into using characters as cannon fodder) HAHAHAHAhahahahahaha...<chuckle> What about the referee, for instance? >While I am at it, I might as well let you know that the Gods have no >independent existence from the rest of the world, and are actually >aspects of the collective unconscious.... > ...But the chaotic ones use it to justify >heavy meddling in human affairs (if you want to be a stronger god, >just change the attitude of sentient beings towards you) which the >lawful gods...do not condone. A friend of mine ran a Rolemaster game this way, and it led to a few very interesting results, which sound a bit silly at first: 1) To kill off a religion, start an inquisition, and kill off the members. If you get enough of the worshippers fast enough, the religion has had it. If you don't, hoo boy, is that god going to be mad at you! Remember, gods can stomp humans and claim self-defense. 2) If enough people decide to be atheists, will their collective unconscious form a god of atheism? Will the new god go quietly nuts? 3) Being a member of an unpopular religion can be a drag. Rather than having a god pay more attention to your problems, due to the dearth of followers, you get stuck with a wimp of a deity. 4) Evangelical Fundamentalism is rife, and Reformations are common. Since if two people have different ideas about their god could result in having completely separate gods, rigorous adherence to church doctrine is nearly as important as active participation in the faith. 5) Gods might make bargains over favors and interventions, as in "You don't help this guy you were going to rescue, (or don't give that priest that spell, or something) and I'll let you have the Temple of the Holy Apricot in the Kingdom of Biddlesbob." With the number of worshippers involved commensurate to the importance of the intervention. Major gods might even run protection rackets. 6) What happens if people start worshipping something that already exists? (i.e.-not a god) Suppose some really weird astral monster evolved the power to siphon off the "godhead" of a deity, or collect it normally from humans? Do gods need pest control? Do these astral monsters interfere with the power of deities? Can these creatures grow powerful? Are we glad they're all out there (instead of here)? Could it happen on the material plane? What about people who worship the wind? Idols? The earth? The stars? Or for a real winner, their king? This sort of thing can throw a banana cream pie into the most rational and organized campaign. You can just see some fool warrior proclaiming theirself "God/King" and the referee frantically trying to figure out what will happen. (In all likelihood, there will suddenly be two of the character: one mundane, and one divine. One will be a PC, and the other won't. And they won't like each other. Uh-oh.) >I think that every DM should run resurrections any way that he likes. >Remember that the object of the whole thing is to have great imaginative >fun, not to staple each other to the wall on technicalities. Huzzah! I'm all for it. >Laura Creighton p.s. New acronyms: VLSD--Very Large Scale Dungeons, CAD/CAM--Computer-Aided Dungeon/Monsters. --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Quotes on the Nature of Existence: "To be, or not to be..." -Hamlet (Wm. Shakespeare) "I think, therefore I am." -R. Descartes "<Gleep!>" -Gleep (Robt. Asprin)
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) (12/20/85)
> >While I am at it, I might as well let you know that the Gods have no > >independent existence from the rest of the world, and are actually > >aspects of the collective unconscious.... > > A friend of mine ran a Rolemaster game this way, and it led to a few very > interesting results, which sound a bit silly at first: > >1) To kill off a religion, start an inquisition, and kill off the members. > If you get enough of the worshippers fast enough, the religion has had it. > If you don't, hoo boy, is that god going to be mad at you! Remember, gods > can stomp humans and claim self-defense. >3) Being a member of an unpopular religion can be a drag. Rather than having > a god pay more attention to your problems, due to the dearth of followers, > you get stuck with a wimp of a deity. I have also tended to take this view, and indeed, in one adventure I ran, the players were offered a chance to wipe out a god by wiping out his sole living believer -- the god was sustained only by the fanaticism (and sacrifices) of this one last believer, who was protected by amulets et al given by the god while still powerful. (This was done mostly as a way of hinting how things worked. It also made for a good time.) However, I do grant gods a good deal of "inertia" (which, for example, allows historians to read over old texts and "revive" gods long forgotten), so it isn't necessarily fatal to lose your last supporter (not for a while, anyway). >6) What happens if people start worshipping something that already exists? > (i.e.-not a god) Suppose some really weird astral monster evolved the > power to siphon off the "godhead" of a deity, or collect it normally from > humans? My personal implementation is that some sentient being provides the "nucleation point" for a divinity (kind of a special psionic). This person (usually a bit crazy) is the first to receive the Divine Inspiration, and after dying, the spirit basically becomes the Divine figure. So, in a tribe which worshipped the wind, eventually there would come a Shaman who *really* got into that wind-worship, and upon 'giving his spirit to the wind' or some other claptrap, the tribe would find that the Wind suddenly could really be affected by their chants and dances... > Or for a real winner, their king? This sort of thing can throw a banana > cream pie into the most rational and organized campaign. Even the least :-). > You can just see some fool warrior proclaiming theirself "God/King" ... My interpretation would be: were the character the appropriate type, and were the character capable of The Divine Boot Process, then >after death<, the character just might find him/her/it-self able to grant miracles. While alive, the character would need to use mundane magic to impress people (if necessary). > >Remember that the object of the whole thing is to have great imaginative > >fun, not to staple each other to the wall on technicalities. > >Laura Creighton > > Huzzah! I'm all for it. > Eric McColm A tournament! A tournament! Staple guns and cream pies at 20 paces!! -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA Out of my way, I'm a scientist! War of the Worlds