Re: [Fwd: Re: The T'or Ruling]

[Orion Furmanski <thelaw@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

I'm still not sure what to make of the situation myself. There are a few
main sticky points:

1) This mutation took place a while back. There has been plenty of time
for GM's to react. WHy didn't we? Did Keith try to cover up a wrong (not
from what I peg him for), or was there no serious objection before? If so,
why all of a sudden?

2) As far a getting pissed off about his masking his appearance, how would
T'or get upset? This is _benign_ non-weapon magic. Would T'or be opposed
to a priest being "veiled," "masked," or using some other camouflage
spell in the line of duty? This wasn't a gambit to hide a misdeed in game,
it was, as someone else stated, to shelter his character from the
anti-muto sentiments of the locals. 
	 For my info alone, what types of magic is T'or against? Lamp?
Reassemble?  To me, it seems like Mr. Justice would be opposed to spells
that aid his flock in shirking duty, or looking for the easy out.
Examples: defensive magic, Quicken and the like, range offense spells
(duh!), or other things that enable a priest not to be self and
T'or-reliant. T'orites feel like they should be boy scouts that kick 
butt.  Please fill me in on what the real ideal is. 

3) I've seen T'orites get WAXed before; this is no different than having
exceptional strength. If anything, this mutation aids him in his priestly
duty in getting to and beating down baddies. I must not understand T'or. 

	Enough for the spew. I am more than willing to be wrong and get
put in my place. i just think more clarification is in order. Someone
PLAEASE write back with something more concrete.

Orion