[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Souls in elves



How about the concept that soul strike causes damage by the pain of your
soul being pulled at.  When you run out of DP period you die and your
soul is successfully ripped out and heads toward the afterlife as usual

----------
> From: Steve Ames <steve@ns1.cioe.com>
> To: furmansj@expert.cc.purdue.edu; mooch@ns1.cioe.com
> Cc: gmlist@cioe.com; joe.f.@usa.net
> Subject: Re: Souls in elves
> Date: Friday, October 30, 1998 4:14 PM
> 
> > Soul strike does damage to the soul, any other interpretation is only
done
> > by folks who play priests of Anubis.  If it did damage Elves, that
would
> > not fit with the spirit of the group. (no pun intended).
> 
> So if I kill you with soulstrike than your soul is out of DP and is
> destroyed? No afterlife for you? Don't think so. DP seems to be linked
> to life-force. Any disruption in body/mind/spirit/soul seems to also
> cause a disruption in life-force. That said... that definition sucks
> because it doesn't fit a lot of other cases: Hirudo (no life force),
> golems, ships, etc...
> 
> The fact that a ship has DP kind of implies that DP aren't a skill
> and they are not related to mind, soul, spirit or life force (a 
> ship possesses none of these).
> 
> As I've stated in the past, and often, there does not seem to be a good
> definition of DP. If we seperate some things out than we could have
> damage points and structural points (ie for lifeless things) then we
> could get encompassing definitions for each. Undead don't have DP
> either.
> 
> > How would dp be done to a body with 2 souls?  One soul and an elf? 
Dont
> > know, but since DP is usually treated as a skill, and it goes with
the
> > soul or whatever in a body hop, then either can be effected.  
> 
> I don't treat DP like a skill. I don't rightfully know how to treat
> it. 
> 
> > Transmog just accounts the whale's dp into its rating, so that is why
you
> > get it's dp.  You have to be 100th rating to do it too.  
> 
> True enough.
>