Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kamilion

Pages: 1 [2]
16
DFRPG / Re: A Non-Evil Denarian?
« on: April 05, 2011, 03:51:49 AM »
I suppose I just don't see a necessary disconnect between 'sympathetic light' and 'bad guys'.  That 'sympathetic light' might be limited a bit when you're talking about an entity that's planning what will, coincidentally, result in the cataclysmic destruction of human society, but I find 'they're doing evil because they're evil' to be rather less engrossing.

I was going to say I agree on the "evil for evil's sake" statement, since what the Denarians want in my Dresdenverse is evil primarily to humanity and certain forces of Good (big G), and probably perfectly reasonable to incredibly powerful beings from the beginning of time. My point focuses more on the "Denarian agenda" as evil, rather than the individuals. I think we're arguing semantics, really. To address the OP's original point, I personally wouldn't have a "good Denarian," but I think a ton of fun could be had with a Denarian who isn't straight up cackling, kitten-eating evil, but is instead behaving in a way that is at least, on the surface, being good, with a much more complicated reason.

So, yes, I guess you could have a "goodish Denarian" anyway.

What were we talking about again?

... Incidentally, this makes me want to start a topic about Evil for Evil's Sake in reference to certain entities that essentially Are What They Are.

17
DFRPG / Re: A Non-Evil Denarian?
« on: April 05, 2011, 03:29:44 AM »
Thanks! I'd forgotten about that WoJ section.

18
DFRPG / Re: A Non-Evil Denarian?
« on: April 05, 2011, 03:14:32 AM »
FWIW, WoJ

I'm going to need a translation of this, I'm not familiar with the forum abbreviations for Dresden Files stuff.

However, all is not status quo, as SmF shows us the definite possibility that the "Prince of f***ing Darkness" threw in on the side of the Denarians. It may be possible that Lucifer is either working a deal with them or is not as much punishing them as may have been believed. We'll see.

Can you point me in the direction of the section that indicates this? Not challenging, I'm just interested (I did mention I love the Denarians as a bad guy, right?).

Now that I think of it, I wonder if my ebook reader will search through the book texts... that might turn up some fun tidbits.

19
DFRPG / Re: A Non-Evil Denarian?
« on: April 05, 2011, 03:07:36 AM »
You mean "because they want neither to be imprisoned for all eternity, nor to be subservient to a being they feel has betrayed them in favour of His 'younger children', ie. mankind".
The methods they have chosen, certainly, are not in the best interests of mankind, but then, they were here, first, and it wasn't the Fallen that set this course of action, but rather had a dichotomous ultimatum set for them.  They just responded with 'option C'.

Well, you are welcome to such an interpretation, and I can certainly see such a view. I'm not using it myself, since the references I chose to use (which were primarily detailed scholarly analysis of Revelations, using other sections of the Bible to attempt to interpret those verses) don't mention jealousy. Basically, according to these texts, the angels were given direct dominion (as opposed to Satan's more ephemeral dominion) over mankind in God's name (twice!), they started doing whatever they wanted (twice!), and they had their positions revoked (twice!). I've basically chosen to not paint the Denarians in a sympathetic light (at least not as a group). It's a personal choice, because I love the Denarians as bad guys, and I want them to be bad.

That being said, if you want to go the sympathetic route, I think you could get real mileage out of a Denarian who is seeking redemption, or simply regretful about the path that has to be taken to achieve their goals. Personally I think the "it's all God's fault cause he didn't love me enough!" tact has been done to death, though. Then again, my players (well, former players, my group recently suffered catastrophic failure) tend to be disturbingly savvy in noticing uses of common memes and cliches, and I like to surprise them.

20
DFRPG / Re: A Non-Evil Denarian?
« on: April 05, 2011, 02:23:37 AM »
Christianity teaches that there is nothing that can put a person beyond redemption, so I assume that would apply to the Fallen, as well.  However, redemption requires repentence, and I think it's highly unlikely that any of the Fallen would repent, having become set in their ways since existence was young.  What we see of Lasciel (or at least, her shadow) does seem to indicate that such a thing might be possible, but (a) Lash is not Lasciel, and (b) any apparent act of repentence is likely to be cover for a betrayal -- after all, the thirty coins are the thirty pieces of silver which paid for Jesus' betrayal by Judas.

That makes me think - while I'm not sure about a repentant Denarian (not impossible, but like you said, unlikely), I rather like the idea of an apologetic Denarian. "Look, yes, I'm trying to end the world, subjugate all of its people, and basically rule over a kingdom of blood and tyranny, but I'd rather not, really. It's just, it seemed like a good idea at the time, and now, well... I'm committed, man. You see?" Which, being an evil, terrible bastard of a GM, I would then follow with the horrendous death of someone important to the characters.

Maybe I just like smiling killers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AffablyEvil).

21
DFRPG / Re: A Non-Evil Denarian?
« on: April 05, 2011, 02:11:22 AM »
I've actually wondered how close to classic Christian mythology JB is hewing on the Blackened Denarius. I did some research on the angels, fallen angels, etc, and came up with some interesting bits. It's a little far afield of the actual discussion, but it neatly answered the question for me; the question being "Are all Denarians evil?"

Incidentally, this is all based on a couple of research papers by Catholic scholars I dug up on the intertubes. I can't guarantee its validity, but it was certainly well supported.



Satan turned against God, and was cast down. However, he was not thrown into Hell, but was placed as ruler over all of the Earth. Essentially, he became God's dirty work man who serves to test the faith of mankind. Satan is a manipulator, never taking action directly, even in the last days. Incidentally, the Bible never calls Satan a fallen angel, or calls him/it Lucifer, though there is some reference to angels being cast down with a fallen angel associated with the Morning Star, a Babylonian king.

The first angels to fall were known as the Watchers, angels who were tasked to watch over Eden and then the tribes of mankind after Eden. They lusted after the women of humanity during Noah's time, siring the Nephilim, "who strode the land like giants." God flooded the world to destroy the Nephilim, and cast the Watchers into the Abyss to be imprisoned until the Apocalypse. They are led by Abbadon, known as the Destroyer, who serves Satan. The Nephilim were stripped of their flesh by God, and became demons, now existing as spirits to torture, tempt, and lead astray mankind.

After the Flood the 70 tribes of man were rules over by 70 angels, placed as gods (little G) over mankind by God. These god/angels quickly took to fighting amongst themselves (there are some statements in the Bible that suggest that the classic archangels, Michael, Uriel, Raphael, etc, were amongst these gods, though loyal to God). Many of these god/angels turned against God. Thus, Yeshua (now Jesus) was born, lived, and ascended. With his ascension, the god/angel rulers of Earth were removed from power and called back to Heaven. Any who refused would be considered Fallen and cast into the Abyss.



After that, the Bible isn't very clear on angels, demons, etc. Direct interference with humanity (by God, angels, demons, or Satan) was more the arena of the Old Testament.

What I've added on, in order to explain the Blackened Denarius, is that there were 30 of the angelic rulers of mankind who rebelled against God and wished to avoid being either called back to Heaven or cast into the Abyss (which appears to be basically a prison, and not directly related to the pit of fire that is the resting place of bad people). These 30 angels bound themselves to material objects (30 silver coins) using the blood sacrifice of Judas' betrayal and subsequent suicide, and became the Knights of the Blackened Denarius, allowing them to remain on Earth.

The Denarians originally had a goal, which was to short-circuit the Apocalypse. See, in the end times, there will be signs, until eventually the Abyss is opened by the sounding of the horns, and Abaddon, who is called the Destroyer, will rise and rule over the Earth for 3 1/2 years of destruction. Then Yeshua/Jesus will return, Abaddon and his followers (who I've decided are the 20 fallen Watchers and any other cast down angels, though they don't get mentioned again in the Bible) will be imprisoned in the Abyss again, forever.

In my Dresdenverse, the Denarians believe that if they can release Abaddon and/or the Watchers before the appointed time, they can prevent the Apocalypse (which actually ends pretty badly for the bad guys), or at least prevent the course of events that will end up with them all stuffed in a prison for all eternity.

Conclusion: In my Dresdenverse, all Denarians are bad guys, with a goal of unleashing untold destruction on mankind because they want to rule instead of God. Can some be regretting the decision after a few years, sure, but they all committed to a course of action that I think the majority of humanity would call evil.

Wow, that went on long.

22
DFRPG / Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
« on: March 31, 2011, 01:23:08 AM »
Evocation

Alternate Rule: The player can take a consequence to add that many shifts to Attack/Maneuver/Block Strength.

Stress
All evocation actions cost 1 Mental Stress.

Attack
Roll Discipline + Focus Item
Strength = Conviction + Specialization
  • Reduce Strength by 2 for each Zone affected
  • Caster can choose to limit the Spell Strength

Maneuver
Roll Discipline + Focus Item
Strength = Conviction + Specialization
Difficulty to Remove Aspect = Strength
  • Reduce Difficulty by 1 for each Exchange added
  • Reduce Difficulty by 2 for each Zone affected

Block
Roll Discipline + Focus Item

Counterspell
Treated as Thaumaturgy

Rote Spell
Removed

Fallout/Backlash
If you miss, the GM can choose to Compel your High Aspect to cause Fallout or Backlash.
  • Fallout effects are up to the GM, and should be influenced by the spell strength.  (The spell hits bystanders nearby. The spell adds a Scene aspect. etc.)
  • Backlash means you get hit with whatever you tried to cast (assume zero extra shifts and no defense roll).

Alternate Rule: If Compelled by the GM, the player can choose whether they want Fallout or Backlash.

Philosophy: The main intent here is to streamline Evocation a little bit, to make it play more like the other skills/powers in the game.  This also slightly limits Evocation power, so that it's not quite as overpowered.  And since the risk of Fallout/Backlash is greater, it forces a Wizard to be much more careful about the magic they sling around.

Assuming you use your optional rules, this isn't a bad system. I can understand the desire to remove the complication of comparing strength version control, then determining Fallout/Backlash, etc. Other than that, there really isn't much change here from the RAW, except for explicitly applying Focus items to Discipline and Specializations to Conviction.

I'm in agreement with others here in that I don't see any reason to change the Block rules to rely soley on Discipline + Focus items. It seems like it's giving spellcasters a stronger ability to set up Blocks than your average individual is going to get, with no real downside.

I'm not sure why you would remove Rote spells - I'm assuming you want there to be the opportunity for casters to fail with every spell.

Other thoughts - the compel for Backlash/Fallout gives casters another opportunity for FP gain, not sure that's fair, though the consequences can be... painful. Also, why change Counterspell? Just make it an attack-type action on a spell, Strength vs. Strength, and move on.


Thaumaturgy

Stress
All thaumaturgy actions cost 1 Mental Stress.

Casting
  • Difficulty: Calculate difficulty for a spell using the same guidelines as before.
  • Casting The Spell: Roll Lore + Focus Item; Target = Difficulty of Spell
  • Timing: Casting a thaumaturgical spell takes one exchange.  On the other hand, tagging/invoking enough Aspects to cast the spell successfully may take a bit longer.

Alternate Rule: The player can take a consequence to add that many shifts to the Casting roll.

Fallout/Backlash
If you miss the Target, the GM can choose to Compel your High Aspect to cause Fallout or Backlash.
  • Fallout effects are up to the GM, and should be influenced by the spell strength.  (The spell hits bystanders nearby. The spell adds a Scene aspect. etc.)
  • Backlash means you take physical or mental stress equal to the Difficulty of the spell.

Alternate Rule: If Compelled by the GM, the player can choose whether they want Fallout or Backlash.

Note that "Thaumaturgy at the Speed of Evocation" is redundant under these rules.

I like the idea that it's the build-up that takes time, where-as the actual casting moves quite quickly, thogh I'm not sure that a single exchange is what I would choose. I'm assuming that in addition to tagging/invoking Aspects, you are also including declarations and assessments.

I'm NOT sure that I'm on board with only using Lore, though I can't come up with a solid argument against it. Only having one thing to worry about sure does make like simpler.
 
Crafting
The Crafting rules are mostly unchanged, with the following exceptions:
  • There are no Crafting specializations or Focus Items.
  • Add the highest relevant Specialization to the Strength of an Item.

Example: A Wizard with Lore +3 and Specialization: Earth +1 could create an Enchanted Item that created a +4 Block (or Armor:2)

I don't have any issue with this part. I'm assuming you are still on board with using additional item slots to add to strength or frequency on enchanted items?

Summary
I think you've accomplished your goal and streamlined the magic rules. I can't say I'm fond of cutting out Conviction from Evocation Blocks or of using only Lore for Thaumaturgy, though I think only the change to Evocation Blocks makes any real power difference, and I think it makes them more powerful, not less (especially since, as far as I can tell, there is no way to fail them).

I know you said you wanted to take some of the powerhouse out of Evocation, but I really think you have made spellcasters more powerful rather than less. Individual spells make carry a smidge less oomf, but it feels like a lot of the danger of magic has been tamed.

I wonder if you might be better served sticking with the original rules in general and simply clarifying any ambiguities, such as you did with the Focus Items and Specializations, rather than trying to change them. Have you tried playtesting these rules extensively to see where the biggest changes are?

23
DFRPG / Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
« on: March 26, 2011, 09:59:06 PM »
You could just eliminate magic too...

Or only allow channeling...

True, but I want magic in the game, I just want it to move as quickly as the rest of the rules. I'm thinking of writing up some good clarifications and such instead, with some simplification but not to the extent of these rules. I want to keep the flavor of the Dresden Files in there.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the discussion with my gaming woes. I'll comment on these magic rules in a bit.

24
DFRPG / Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
« on: March 26, 2011, 02:42:19 AM »
(As a minor tangential rant, I always hated the fact that Counterspelling was linked to Evocation.  That limits your maximum Counterspelling strength to, what, 10-12 shifts?  It's fairly easy to cast a spell tougher than that using Thaumaturgy.  And I have no idea if you're allowed to Counterspell using Thaumaturgy, since it's only described in the Evocation section.)

There is a use of Thaumaturgy called Enhanced Evocation which I imagine could just as easily be used for large-scale or powerful Counterspelling. In fact, I would imagine that your only hope of Counterspelling a powerful Thaumaturgy spell would be with another Thaumaturgy spell.

In regards to the alternative spell rules, I haven't really taken a hard look at the implications yet, but I'm interested. I've been trying to get my group into playing DFRPG with minimal success, making the magic rules less complicated would help that cause.

Pages: 1 [2]