Legends and Lore - Nod To Realism

[LostSoul]

I have Open Grave open before me and I'm going to quote some text about undead.

[sblock]Soulless Undead
Sentient living creatures have a body and a soul, the latter of which is the consciousness that exists in an departs from the body when it perishes. A body's "life force" that drives a creature's muscles and emotions is called the animus. The animus provides vitality and mobility for a creature, and like the soul, it fades from the body after death. Unlike the soul, it fades from the body as the body rots.

If "revived" in the proper fashion, the animus can rouse the body in the absence of a soul. (This phenomenon is what makes it possible for creatures that were never alive, such as constructs, to become undead.) In some cases, the animus can even exist apart from the body as a cruel memory of life. Such impetus can come from necromantic magic, a corrupting supernatural influence at the place of death or interment, or a locale's connection to the Shadowfell. Strong desires, beliefs, or emotions on the part of the deceased can also tap into the magic of the world to give the animus power.

Most undead, even those that seem intelligent, are this sort of creature - driven to inhuman behaviour by lack of governance of a soul and a hunger for life that can't be sated. Nearly mindless undead have been infused with just enough impetus to give the remains mobility but little else. Sentient undead have a stronger animus that might even have access to the memories of the deceased, but such monstrosities have few or none of the sympathies they had in life. A wight has a body and a feral awareness granted by the animus, but no soul. Even the dreaded wraith is simple a soulless animus, deeply corrupted and infused with strong necromantic energy.

The Shadowfeel most often serves as the source of this impetus. In the Shadowfell, bodiless spirits are common, as are undead. Something within this echo-plane's dreary nature nurtures undead. This shadowstuff can "leak" into a dying creature as that being passes away. It can be introduced by necromantic powers or rituals. Or it can be siphoned into areas strongly associated with death, pooling there.[/sblock]

 

[Imaro]

So was the 2e PHB wrong when it called Hercules a fighter?

Did Hercules use spells empowered by arcane knowledge or a divine being... no.

Was Hercules able to pick locks, climb walls, etc? No.

So he wasn't a wizard and he wasn't a cleric and he wasn't a rogue...

Was he able to fight and kill things with weapons and his physical prowess? Yup. However being a fighter had no bearing on the fact that he was a demi-god though being a demi-god did make him an extraordinary fighter.

EDIT: In other words I think you are confusing the issue of Hercules being a demi-god and son of Zeus... with him being a fighter.

 

[LurkAway]

You're sidestepping the point I made.

I'm not sidestepping. In this thread, I've seen several references to myths without accounting for PC level, and I find it erroneous.

In the 2e PHB, in the section on character creation, which implies 1st level characters, mind you, Hercules is specifically used as an example of a fighter. The intent is clear. Wouldn't this is an extremely poor choice --one of several-- if the intent was to describe a class that's completely mundane?

It doesn't imply 1st level characters at all. Hercules is clearly given as an example of what fighters can achieve when they get high enough level... something to look forward to, something to work towards, something to be earned. The idea that Hercules was anything remotely comparable to 1st level would be ludicrous. The PHB could have named any ancient greek warrior as an example of a 1st level fighter... except that nobody heard of Bob the Ancient Greek fighter!

Second, are you really saying abilities like Inspiring Word are similar in both nature and scope to the stunts pulled in the Labors are to warrant the comparison?

I didn't start the Inspiring Word sub-thread, so I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[Dausuul]

The point about Hercules and Perseus still stands. What abilities, other than magic items and incredible strength, were they using?

Keep in mind that Hercules and Perseus are mythological figures, and as others have pointed out, myths have a much lower threshold for verisimilitude than modern gamers do. I'm not interested in quibbling over whether super-strength is really enough to divert a river in a day. In the myth of Hercules, it was.

 

[Imaro]

The "martial power source" is just drek. Merely a lame justification that all character types now use magical powers without having the sack to just come out and say so. Thats my position. I have no problem treating it as magic if what it accomplishes is essentially magic.

Thus, everyone is a worker of magic in thier own way. There simply are no non-magical mundane PC types.

Earthdawn uses the concept quite well. Adventurers are all adepts that command magical powers. Nethermancers, thieves, warriors, swordmasters all use adept magic to power thier abilities. The manifestation of that magic depends on the class and talents available. Thats the way the world is flavored.

D&D moved to this model while trying to leave the flavor of the old D&D implied world intact. It just doesn't work.

Earthdawn... the game where all the tropes of D&D make sense. I love that game and wish it had become more popular.

 

[Imaro]

I have Open Grave open before me and I'm going to quote some text about undead.

[sblock]Soulless Undead
Sentient living creatures have a body and a soul, the latter of which is the consciousness that exists in an departs from the body when it perishes. A body's "life force" that drives a creature's muscles and emotions is called the animus. The animus provides vitality and mobility for a creature, and like the soul, it fades from the body after death. Unlike the soul, it fades from the body as the body rots.

If "revived" in the proper fashion, the animus can rouse the body in the absence of a soul. (This phenomenon is what makes it possible for creatures that were never alive, such as constructs, to become undead.) In some cases, the animus can even exist apart from the body as a cruel memory of life. Such impetus can come from necromantic magic, a corrupting supernatural influence at the place of death or interment, or a locale's connection to the Shadowfell. Strong desires, beliefs, or emotions on the part of the deceased can also tap into the magic of the world to give the animus power.

Most undead, even those that seem intelligent, are this sort of creature - driven to inhuman behaviour by lack of governance of a soul and a hunger for life that can't be sated. Nearly mindless undead have been infused with just enough impetus to give the remains mobility but little else. Sentient undead have a stronger animus that might even have access to the memories of the deceased, but such monstrosities have few or none of the sympathies they had in life. A wight has a body and a feral awareness granted by the animus, but no soul. Even the dreaded wraith is simple a soulless animus, deeply corrupted and infused with strong necromantic energy.

The Shadowfeel most often serves as the source of this impetus. In the Shadowfell, bodiless spirits are common, as are undead. Something within this echo-plane's dreary nature nurtures undead. This shadowstuff can "leak" into a dying creature as that being passes away. It can be introduced by necromantic powers or rituals. Or it can be siphoned into areas strongly associated with death, pooling there.[/sblock]

Yeah, according to this a bard's powers (along with quite a few others) shouldn't work on certain undead. this is why I find 4e more gamist than anything... it works on undead to keep game balance functioning, not for some type of narrative or mythological justification, as so many here keep claiming... though again this will probably be chalked up to confused designers, the developers not knowing their own game or anything else that isn't the simplest answer.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So was the 2e PHB wrong when it called Hercules a fighter?

Not really - if it was meant to represent the ideal of what a fighter could possibly be after a long campaign worth of successful adventures.

 

[pauljathome]

If you think the fighter is not moving, then you seem to be assuming that the action economy, and turn-by-turn initiative, as depicted on the battlemap, really do correspond to a stop-motion world.

I assume that actions happen roughly simultaneously (as in real life), that the reason creatures occupy their squares isn't because they're very fat but because they're moving around in them, etc. Once you assume that the combat in the fiction looks like a real world fight rather than a chess game, it becomes fairly easy to envisage any number of reasons why the wizard suddenly and unexpectedly moves towards the fighter.

I am honestly trying to understand your point (as opposed to arguing with it or refuting it).

I should point out that the mental model I generally use is one of a film. My characters action occurs when the camera is focused on my character. Within a round things are kind of simultaneous except when ordering occurs from what we have seen.

So, if we see PC A deal damage and then get healed by PC B then the damage was dealt before the healing.

So (to slightly extend my hypothetical example), we see the wizard blast PC 1 and start to retreat. We then see PC 2 shoot an arrow at the wizard while standing beside PC 3. We then see the wizard waving a dagger at PC 3 while charging up and see PC 3 chopping at the wizard.

How do you make that sequence make sense from either the player OR character point of view. How does that become stumbling or missteppingÉ

 

[pauljathome]

Exactly. If you're going to treat the battlemat as representational, you're better off not using it at all. (and presumably, therefore, not playing WotC era D&D)

I am trying to understand this, NOT argue against it.

Clearly the battle mat is not an exact representation of what is going on but surely it is meant to be a moderately accurate representation

For example, if it tells me that I cannot shoot somebody (a wall is in the way) or cannot hit somebody with my sword (he is too far away) presumably that DOES represent at least that part of reality.

In the case of CAGI, the battlemap represents the fact that the fighter cannot hit the wizard unless one of them moves.

Suddenly, CAGI occurs and the wizard is adjacent to the fighter on the battlemat while the fighter is still adjacent to the door (or whatever)

Surely that represents that the wizard moved towards the fighter

Now, obviously he might have move 8 or 14 feet instead of 10 and obviously he might have zigged and zagged a little as he moved. But surely he DID move

 

[KidSnide]

Yeah, according to this a bard's powers (along with quite a few others) shouldn't work on certain undead. this is why I find 4e more gamist than anything... it works on undead to keep game balance functioning, not for some type of narrative or mythological justification, as so many here keep claiming... though again this will probably be chalked up to confused designers, the developers not knowing their own game or anything else that isn't the simplest answer.

The PH2 Bard isn't an exact match fluff-wise for earlier editions of the class. Because WotC merged the music-fluff with the spellcasting-fluff into a single set of powers, the PH2 bard is more like a music-themed sorcerer (with melee options and leader abilities) than anything else. A power like Vicious Mockery is obviously a magical attack (see the Arcana keyword) triggered off a clever quip.

Putting 3x spellcasting aside, the Skald captures more of the music-powers that made the 3.5 Bard different from a half-functional sorcerer.

-KS