RE: The torite ruling

[Greg Mowczko <mooch@ns1.cioe.com>]

Ok all. I was going to respond to Lyle's original post but I chose to
wait a few replies out first ( I can't reply to every post I would like
since I have work to do ).

First I want to point out that some of this came down during MY running
of a town action ( Lyle when you know a name please include it in your
messages I don't need my identity hidden from anyone. We like to deal
with facts here and not inuendo ). Also there was no such things as 
"senior" GMs at the time just Dan as coordinator and he was not there 
that day.

Second ( to the best of my recolection and Joe's ) this is what happened:
Keith's adventurer ( what the hell is his name?) went to Von Darwin ( Joe's )
and asked for a mutate. Having an appropriete payment for Von Darwin he
said sure. The mutate required Joe to overload ( Keith wanted a double
mutate to get more than one change ( I believe that was just another rank
of scales ). Since all the actions up to this point did not need a witness
but the overload roll did they got me ( being the only one at the front of
the room who was being organizational ). I came over to them Joe said he
was overloading to cast his mutate. Since it looked like he wanted a witness
to the roll I witnessed the roll. It was a success. I went on to other
things.

That said on to Rob's and Dan's post. Which are slightly edited for brevity
words are not changed but stuff around the key words maybe ( just as long as
context keeps true )

> From: Daniel Lawrence <dan@aquest.com>
> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:38:12 -0500
>
> 	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.

Wasn't thinking. You were in the room and should have been consulted. But since
Lyle is a senior GM ( along with Wright ) I thought nothing of why Lyle didn't
bring you in on this.

>> From:	rob@bchm1.aclcb.purdue.edu [SMTP:rob@bchm1.aclcb.purdue.edu]
>> Sent:	Tuesday, August 11, 1998 1:21 PM
>>
>> 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.

Dan the question was if he was born that way would he be fine. Not because that
could be true why should another not change himself to be like them. You didn't
answer Rob's question but did, my interpretation, agree with Rob. You do point
out the counter to creed part though, which Rob's question directly avoided.

>> 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.

Dan here you misread Rob's question. He did not say the armor was magical. He said
if he had a mage REASSEMBLE the Torite's armor would he suffer for the use of
magic. As far as the Torite is concerned he gives his armor ( his lucky suit that
he has had since joining the Enclave ) to another person to fix it and he gets it
back in perfect condition. Could a spell have been used to do it or a skill it
doesn't matter to him.

>> 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.

True this is not a natural circumstance but Rob is trying to come in from an
angle. You are not answering Rob's questions but you are answering the questions
Rob is not asking.

>> 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.

I have always misunderstood the whole "non-weapon" magic bit. Here is the quote
from the book that Steve posted earlier: ( Any typos or edits are Steve's )

	 Priests believe that to truly participate in dispensing justice, they
	 must engage in hand-to-hand combat. They must see their opponent's
	 eyes, and be directly responsible for their deeds. They see those who
	 use missile weapons (such as bows and throwing daggers), defensive items
	 such as shields, bucklers and metal armor, non-weapon magic, and other
	 idirect means as lacking honor and unworthy of the protection of T'or.

In the dispensing of justice a Torite can use weapon magic. Enchanted swords
and the like. ( which sometimes are what is needed to cut down creatures who
can't be affected by standard weapons ). What about when they aren't dispensing
justice? I assume they can carry a LAMPed coin to see. If it isn't being used
as a defence EVER or in some "unworhty" way it should be fine.

>> 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.

See my last spew above.
 
>> 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.

Yep. But don't the Torites occasionally infiltrate groups just to make sure
that justice does not come down on the wrong people. How do they do that?
I thought that Keith's adventurer was one of these.

>> 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.

Yep I guess out of character I know and I keep forgetting that he is a
Torite.

>> 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.
>
[ several paragraphs deleted ]
>
> I would suggest waiting until the entire plot unfolds before making any further judgements
> on the motivation of the GMs involved.
>
> 						dan  

As for people thinking what is going on they should wait and see. If
there is no further rectification I would consider it a bend. Not an
uncalled for bend though. One can bend themselves quite easily. Ever
get caught in a fireball you cast but thought you were out of range
for? That just happens to be a instaneous self screw that you see the
effects of and know why it happened. Stick me with a fork I think
I'm done.
						Greg