RE: The torite ruling

[Daniel Lawrence <dan@aquest.com>]

Well, 
	first off .... I was not involved in this ruling. That was incorrect.
As it happens, I do agree with MOST of what happened, but these
diety things do and will go through me.

-----Original Message-----
From:	rob@bchm1.aclcb.purdue.edu [SMTP:rob@bchm1.aclcb.purdue.edu]
Sent:	Tuesday, August 11, 1998 1:21 PM
To:	GMLIST@CIOE.COM
Subject:	The torite ruling

well i've got a few things to say about this issue so i'll number'em
out.

1.  if keith's character was born with these mutatuions would he be
cast out by t'or 

i think the answer to that is no.


[Daniel Lawrence]  Pointless. It does not matter. The rules that priests of T'or follow
are specific, and just the chance that one could have been born non-human in NO WAY
negates their creed that they do not use magical armor. The POINT of the mutation was
to gain this defense and as such is DIRECTLY counter to their creed.

2.  If a torite hired a mage to magically created a suit of say leather
armor (for whatever reason:his was mostly destroyed whatever {using
reassemble})

would the torite receive repercussions.  

no friggin way.

[Daniel Lawrence]  A T'orite would never had had magical armor to begin with. And yes,
there would be reprercusions.

3.  so if under natural circumsstances both would be allowed (suit of 
leather and any natural abilities.  Why should one receive such a 
harsh penalty.

 [Daniel Lawrence]  This was NOT a natural circumstance. This was directly
sought by the adventurer, directly against his priesthood's creed, and directly
wrong.

Keith doesn not use non weapon magic in combat he simply employed 
magic obtain his current status, and if using any magic ever is
against torite principle then my torite character needs to be struck
down to  (i've got a nipple ring of shadow carry and gloves of stickum).

[Daniel Lawrence]  Magic Offense and Defense... that is the restriction. A Priest
of T'or faces adversity on his own, with his own faith, strength and wit. He is not
'artificially' added by enchanted weapons and defenses.

because frankly i don't see any difference in using magic to carry my 
bags or climbe up a wall to a baddie any different than changing my skin
to scales.

[Daniel Lawrence]  I Do.

4. as far keith looking different.  that was mainly done to keep people
from knowing he was a muto because most people view them as bas and
nasty.  He was taking into consideration the consequences of his
mutation.


[Daniel Lawrence]  As a priest of T'or, he must be proud about what he
is. He faces danger, rights wrongs, and espouses the right path.... he should
not be skulking about, hiding, avoiding his responcibilities.

5.  the last number.  becuse keith was thinking of the consequences (see
above in #4) i'm pretty sure he thought it was perfectly okay to 
be a mutated torite.  If the ruling stands then i feel it would be 
more appropriate for t'or (if deference to dan, he does play tor after
all) zap keith to make him mutate free.  i doubt a god would strike down
one of his powerful priests because he's been mutating himself for quite
a while.   What it comes down to is that keith wasn't trying to "hide"
the fact that he was mutated out of character, and most people who have
adventured with him (including greg, correct me if i'm wrong here greg)
knew (out of character that he was mutated.

in short yes i think it was a bend


[Daniel Lawrence]  I think the process to arrive what happened was flawed,
but not the result. More than that, YOU have not yet seen the entire result....
as  there are things yet to come in this particular plot thread. I, and you, as GMs
do not have to explain every action and ruling taken here.... especially when such
information invalidates the choices an adventurere like this will have to take in
the upcoming weeks.

Rob, my responce here is not so much personal as to simply explain that when
circumstances appear to go bad agains an adventurer.... maybe it is because that
is what is happening  IN CHARACTER to them, and the GMs can not be subject to
a constant cross examination of these rulings.

There seems to be some sort of basic mistrust about the impartiality of GMs running today,
where people are accusing different GMs of bending and in which we end up getting
in these unending arguments about justifying our rulings. Generally, this makes the whole
experience of GMing suck. Do I have fun at this? not when I have to pass the review board
here afterword to justify every ruling.

Others were concerned about this ruling. But instead of simply accusing GMs of bending, 
they sought me out and described their view on what happened. Listening to ALL sides
of this... I privately censured the people I thought had not followed procedure on this, and
then I arraigned to continue to run the circumstances surrounding the involved character.

I would suggest waiting until the entire plot unfolds before making any further judgements
on the motivation of the GMs involved.

						dan