[AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

Originally posted by Felon
I'm pretty sure we all know that when the word "animal" is used in conversation in a categorical sense, it is usually not intended to include human beings (e.g. "animal experimentation, animal instincts, animal magnetism". We don't think of ourselves as just another animal, and we definitely don't conceptualize themselves as anthropomorphized apes. None of this is news to anyone, right?

Speak for yourself. A number of cultures thought of themselves as fundamentally no different from other animals (most notably those cultures which gave rise to the concept of "totems" ). Some cultures took it to greater extremes than others, of course. In fact, the only cultures I know of which outright reject the obvious connections between man and animals are those derived from Occidental religions. (I will concede that there may very well be others with which I am not familiar. I am not a history or sociology specialist)

However, I am a biologist...

And I have to say, bipedal form aside (which is shared by all humanoind creatures), we in fact do not have a countenance that greatly resembles a hairless ape; we don't resemble apes any more than we resemble, say, an orc or goblin. I don't see why litorians would make such a connection.

??? We're almost indistinguishable from apes, morphologically. Especially, from the perspective of something non-human. We have slightly less pronounced snouts and less hair, and aside from minor skeletal differences, that's about it. We're a lot more morphologically similar to apes than litorians are to lions. And if there were orcs in that world, Litorians probably would have trouble figuring out the difference between a human and an orc. Both groups look like monkeys without tails, have nearly identical facial structure, and they can interbreed. To a litorian (or to anything non-human), there's probably not a significant difference.

Litorians, otoh, do very much appear to be a lion with the bipedal form of a humanoid, i.e. a lion-man. I suspect that a litorian would be willing to admit that.

Why would another, independently involved intelligent species look upon themselves as "lion-men"? They are not at all "men", lion or otherwise. They are litorians. They would probably look at lions the way we look at chimps. This in no way restricts them from respecting and honoring the strength of a bear, the speed of a cheetah, etc the same way that we hairless apes do.

 

[Negative Zero]

... eight solid hours ... seems like a higher minimum requirement of sleep than a seasoned adventurer should need to get to by on.

i agree with you on this one. a set time of day and an hour or so of meditation should really be enough for a mage of any kind to recover his spell allotment for the day.

~NegZ

 

[Felon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

Speak for yourself. A number of cultures thought of themselves as fundamentally no different from other animals (most notably those cultures which gave rise to the concept of "totems" ).

I suspect that if you do further research you will find that the cultures that came up with the idea of totems did not think that a lizard can have an eagle spirit and that an eagle can have a fish spirit and that a fish can have a horse spirit. Moreover, you will also find that those cultures' mythologies for the most part do indeed indicate that man was put on the earth in a somehwat different way than other animals, that their gods are largely anthropomorphic, and that by and large they place themselves at the top of the heap.

But as far as this discussion goes, that's all off-topic and the research is unnecessary. The only relevant culture is ours, because it happens to be the one where most people don't consider themselves to be anthropomorphized apes, and where many gamers will find themselves rejecting the mental image of a litorian turning into a snake.

However, I am a biologist...

Well, maybe that's why your analytical approach to this is not helping you to understand why people have conceptual problems with the litorian totem warrior. You're applying a biological analysis and coming to the conclusion that other people's opinions are illogical. It should go without saying that a thorough scientific analysis often is not what governs a person's impressions about what is or isn't lame. Psychology's probably the most relevant science. Common sense helps too, because understanding why people reject a given concept is a matter where Wisdom is the relevant ability, not Intelligence.

Why would another, independently involved intelligent species look upon themselves as "lion-men"? They are not at all "men", lion or otherwise. They are litorians. They would probably look at lions the way we look at chimps.

Here I can only restate the obvious and wait to see if you'll reply with a bunch of question marks again like I'm saying something outlandish: the basic design of the litorian was clearly inspired by the idea of a lion in humanoid form--in other words, a "lion man". If they had been given a more human countenance--if they lacked body hair, or had a more human face, or didn't have paw-like hands and feet--then perhaps it would not be so easy to identify them as lion-men so readily, and thus have problems identifitying them with sharks, bears, and snakes.

I agree with you on this one. a set time of day and an hour or so of meditation should really be enough for a mage of any kind to recover his spell allotment for the day. ~NegZ

Right, the way I see it there are already rules pertaining to fatigue, exhaustion, and sleep deprivation.

 

[Wombat]

Hmm, I haven't seen this much of a division since The Riddle of Steel came out...

I rather like AU. I don't expect it is for everyone. No, I have no problem with the "fuzzy" aspect, nor with Litorians being Totem Warriors, but that is just where I am coming from.

I have run across people who do not like the magic system, the classes, the races, whathaveyou. All well and good.

Just remember, though, that a person is not "stupid" or "wrong" because they like one game or another.

I hated TRoS; I love AU.

But in the end, those are opinions.

I'll be using AU as the basis for my next D20 campaign. That will ultimately only matter to me and my gaming group.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

Originally posted by Felon
I suspect that if you do further research you will find that the cultures that came up with the idea of totems did not think that a lizard can have an eagle spirit and that an eagle can have a fish spirit and that a fish can have a horse spirit. Moreover, you will also find that those cultures' mythologies for the most part do indeed indicate that man was put on the earth in a somehwat different way than other animals, that their gods are largely anthropomorphic, and that by and large they place themselves at the top of the heap.

Not always. Not even often in the cases that I am familiar with. Anthropomorphic gods, while popular, have never been the only game in town. Except in D&D, of course.

Well, maybe that's why your analytical approach to this is not helping you to understand why people have conceptual problems with the litorian totem warrior. You're applying a biological analysis and coming to the conclusion that other people's opinions are illogical. It should go without saying that a thorough scientific analysis often is not what governs a person's impressions about what is or isn't lame. Psychology's probably the most relevant science. Common sense helps too, because understanding why people reject a given concept is a matter where Wisdom is the relevant ability, not Intelligence.

Glad you mentioned psychology. You're the one applying inconsistent psychology to the Litorians. You're suggesting that they wouldn't become totem warriors because they are already identified with lions. That's an entirely external measure which has nothing to do with the relevant internal state of a Litorian. But there's no more reason for Litorians to identify themselves with lions than for humans to identify themselves with monkeys. Since they would no more think of themselves as "lion-men" than we think of ourselves as "monkey-men" then there is no reason for them not to take on a bear spirit, a fish spirit, a hawk spirit, etc.

 

[Felon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

Not always. Not even often in the cases that I am familiar with. Anthropomorphic gods, while popular, have never been the only game in town. Except in D&D, of course.

True, not always. That is why I said "largely".

Glad you mentioned psychology. You're the one applying inconsistent psychology to the Litorians. You're suggesting that they wouldn't become totem warriors because they are already identified with lions.

Let's be clear here: I wasn't talking about the psychology of the ficitional characters. I was talking about the psychology of the gamers whose general impression it is that litorian totem warriors are lame, and trying to generally lay out why someone (like myself) might have that impression.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

Originally posted by Felon
Let's be clear here: I wasn't talking about the psychology of the ficitional characters. I was talking about the psychology of the gamers whose general impression it is that litorian totem warriors are lame, and trying to generally lay out why someone (like myself) might have that impression.

That's cool. For the record, I didn't mean to denigrate anyone's opinion, so I'm sorry if I came off a bit strident about this. I'm just having trouble understanding why it's such a widely held opinon. The idea of Litorian Totem Warriors seems in no way unnatural to me, so I was trying to get a feel for the other side.

 

[Felon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: [AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

No worries, Canis; I enjoy a spirited discussion. I'm concerned that we may be hijacking the thread, so if it's all the same to you I'd just as soon shake hands and leave things as they stand.

 

[Plane Sailing]

i agree with you on this one. a set time of day and an hour or so of meditation should really be enough for a mage of any kind to recover his spell allotment for the day.

~NegZ

I agree completely. In standard D&D it's good enough for clerics, why shouldn't it be good enough for arcane users too?

Or put another way - why does being disturbed by a night attack hose the arcane casters and not bother the divine casters one whit?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Re: Re: Re: [AU] Arcana Unearthed Questions

I have to say that my greatest disappointment with AU so far was that it didn't live up to Monte's assertion about death:

I don't think the picture is quite as black as you painted it though. The raising from the dead spells have to be cast every day over a six (?) day period, so it is a long and solemn process, not just a quick 5th level spell and he's up again.

Furthermore, the text points out that your local powerful Greenbond who would be able to do this is unlikely to cast the spell for you (no matter *how* much is offered) unless there is a clear unfinished task which he is needed for, since they see death as just part of the natural process.

So while death is not as final as, say, Wheel of Time d20 (or Star Wars d20), it is not as easy to overcome as it is in typical D&D which owes more to computer game respawning than it does any fiction I've every come across!

Cheers