Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5819930" data-attributes="member: 957">1)&nbsp; &nbsp; In order to “be” Medusa it must follow myth.&nbsp; In order to “be” a banshee it must follow myth.&nbsp; No contradiction or double standard.2)&nbsp; &nbsp; Myth before mechanics for Medusa.&nbsp; Myth before mechanics for Banshee.&nbsp; No contradiction or double standard.3)&nbsp; &nbsp; If you look at Medusa you are affected by an instant effect, both in myth and in my game.&nbsp; If you hear a banshee you are inflicted by a curse that will quickly bring about your death, both in myth and in my game.&nbsp; No contradiction or double standard.4)&nbsp; &nbsp; In both the Medusa and Banshee myths the results are irrevocable.&nbsp; I have never suggested that Flesh to Stone does not work in my D&amp;D games.&nbsp; &nbsp; It would be unreasonable to presume anything other than that it does work in the conversation of a D&amp;D game.&nbsp; The Medusa works exactly as myth but outside of that event other actions can undo the effect.&nbsp; This does nothing whatsoever to undermine the fact that Medusa still worked just like the myth.&nbsp; The Banshee works exactly as myth.&nbsp; But outside the action of hearing and being cursed to die VERY SOON the curse may be removed by any of the normal options and/or the character may die but be restored to life by any of the normal means.&nbsp; No contradiction or double standard.5)&nbsp; &nbsp; The Medusa myth is very specific.&nbsp; You turn to stone.&nbsp; (Turn to Stone by ELO is playing on Itunes as I type…) The Banshee myth is far more open ended.&nbsp; Both have a clear cause and a clear final effect.&nbsp; I enforce both for each.&nbsp; The fact that I have liberty to tinker with the in between parts in the Banshee case does nothing to change the fact that the defined absolutes of the myth are retained.&nbsp; No contradiction or double standard.6)&nbsp; &nbsp; I clearly stated in at least a couple posts that having another monster that is inspired by Medusa is completely acceptable It wouldn’t be “Medusa” but it may be a great and related monster.&nbsp; If you call it Medusa then I will disagree.&nbsp; If you call it cool I may agree.&nbsp; There are a number of published “Banshee” creatures that I consider to be “cool” monsters very much inspired by the banshee but not “the banshee”.&nbsp; If you call it “the banshee” then I will disagree.&nbsp; No contradiction or double standard.Do you retract your claims?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5819930, member: 957"] 1) In order to “be” Medusa it must follow myth. In order to “be” a banshee it must follow myth. No contradiction or double standard. 2) Myth before mechanics for Medusa. Myth before mechanics for Banshee. No contradiction or double standard. 3) If you look at Medusa you are affected by an instant effect, both in myth and in my game. If you hear a banshee you are inflicted by a curse that will quickly bring about your death, both in myth and in my game. No contradiction or double standard. 4) In both the Medusa and Banshee myths the results are irrevocable. I have never suggested that Flesh to Stone does not work in my D&D games. It would be unreasonable to presume anything other than that it does work in the conversation of a D&D game. The Medusa works exactly as myth but outside of that event other actions can undo the effect. This does nothing whatsoever to undermine the fact that Medusa still worked just like the myth. The Banshee works exactly as myth. But outside the action of hearing and being cursed to die VERY SOON the curse may be removed by any of the normal options and/or the character may die but be restored to life by any of the normal means. No contradiction or double standard. 5) The Medusa myth is very specific. You turn to stone. (Turn to Stone by ELO is playing on Itunes as I type…) The Banshee myth is far more open ended. Both have a clear cause and a clear final effect. I enforce both for each. The fact that I have liberty to tinker with the in between parts in the Banshee case does nothing to change the fact that the defined absolutes of the myth are retained. No contradiction or double standard. 6) I clearly stated in at least a couple posts that having another monster that is inspired by Medusa is completely acceptable It wouldn’t be “Medusa” but it may be a great and related monster. If you call it Medusa then I will disagree. If you call it cool I may agree. There are a number of published “Banshee” creatures that I consider to be “cool” monsters very much inspired by the banshee but not “the banshee”. If you call it “the banshee” then I will disagree. No contradiction or double standard. Do you retract your claims? [/QUOTE]

Verification