Vortigern

I am interested, despite the relatively high price. The previews have given me an indication of consistent quality and improvement on the system, and I can't wait to see it. Though the price factor does worry me for the sales/long term propects of the line... I hope it succeeds anyway. Best wishes on this venture, I am sure you are full anticipation, positive and negative. Congratulations on seeing it through.

Any idea when Chaosium may have this product back in stock?

Has anyone seen a good writeup of this type of magick for an S&S game? An initial stab at it myself was having it be an advanced skill. Mesmerism: ( Pow + Cha ) Manipulation: For one magic point the Sorcerer can add his Mesmerism skill to his normal Influence or Insight skill for one check, to represent the subtle use of the power in a social setting. This use of the power does not contain the ability to achieve completely unplausable results, yet... the highly unlikely is possible. It allows the Sorcerer, to say the least, to be highly 'persuasive', getting targets to shift their opinions or agree to things they normally wouldn't, or divulge small clues to information they may otherwise desire to keep hidden. This use of the power/skill requires a calm and noncombative setting where social interaction may willingly take place. Another possible variation of this is allowing the user to add +10% to the skill check in question, per Magic Point spent, up to their rating in Mesmerism. Entrancement: This use of the skill requires the expenditure of a magic point, and one CA. If the user succeeds in an Opposed Mesmerism/Persistence ( or something on the resistance table if you prefer... ) test with the target, the target becomes Entranced. While Entranced the target loses all CAs, becoming hopelessly and completely fixated on the hypnotic ( pick one: voice/eyes/movements/breasts ) of the skill user. The Mesmerist must maintain this state by spending one CA per round. Domination: This skill allows the user to give commands or suggestions to targets by clouding their minds with hypnotic power. ( Blah, Yadda, Blah. ) Such a use requires the expenditure of a magic point, and an opposed test of Mesmerism vs. Persistence. Affecting more than one target requires the expenditure of one magic point per target on the action. In a combat situation the target must first be Entranced to be affected. Dominating in combat, post Entrancement, requires one CA. Actions that are deeply opposed by the target, or suicidal actions especially, should recieve a bonus to resist judged by the GM. ( No more than +20% ) In combat a failed Domination means the target breaks completely free and is no longer even Entranced. Treatment: If the game uses fear/insanity rules, depending on the structure of those, this skill should be quite useful in treating Psychological problems and/or even restoring Sanity to subjects/patients.

Which is an entirely different discussion that the relative merits and inconsistencies within 'the bible' as generally commonly accepted. Which I grant has more merit. The process by which given texts are selected for Canon and which become apocryphal I've always found rather interesting and dubious at the same time. Mmm. Yet the existence of different versions of the Bible I suppose is a natural by-product of schisms in the religion. Some of which seem to be genuine religious and interpretive differences, and some of which seem to go plainly against established mores and be more of what I mentioned previously... Altering the religion to suit their own views. It seems the world is full 'heretics' these days.

One can't really 'nitpick' while being unspecific and speaking in generalities. When -you- made specific points, I went through them, one by one, and attempted to explain the context and the genuine meaning of the scriptures that you had quoted. Conrad didn't do that. He spoke in very vague terms about the flaws and inconsistencies of the text, and I expressed an equally emphatic disagreement with his vague assertion. How am -I- now the one who is now speaking out of context?

Not true that a plain reading yields plain results? I don't see how that is at all incompatible with the rest of your statement? Not that I think you are at all on-point with all of it. Yet I'm beginning to tire of picking through individual points in this thread, as... there are so many of them. So, to keep things to one point, how does any of the rest of what you said in any way contradict the principle of plain reading yielding plain results?

Christian Censorship? Really? Have you never seen a thread anywhere shut down for perfectly reasonable 'anti-muslim' comments? I'm not in favor of censorship, yet, as one poster has already noted the 'double-standard' in some circles against Christians is plain to see. It is Liberal types who started the whole 'Offensive' language taboo to begin with. Funny how they only seem to apply it when convenient to them. Frankly your outcry of 'Christian Censorship' makes me see -you- as the drama queen in this situation. Hyperbole in the extreme. And you show your own contempt as you use 'anti-evolutionists' or 'Biblical literalist' as examples of people that are 'batty' or completely 'extreme' or crazy etc. You have not been alone in this. As if no reasonable person could ever hold a viewpoint that you disagree with... Perish the thought. And I would say that the odds are that your 'ambiguities' and 'inconsistencies' in the Bible that you refer to are most likely either your own limited knowledge thereof, or misinterpretations seeking that end even if unintentional. Most of the time a plain reading of the text, in context, leaves one with a quite plain meaning in my experience.

Some Christian scholars go to great lengths to try and find the oldest possible or indeed original versions of texts, in their original languages, and study them in that manner in an attempt to seek deeper understanding over just such issues. Yet essentially it comes down a question of faith. Either you believe that the work is 'inspired' by the Divine, or you don't. Finding that belief contemptable is something else entirely.

Not that you would have any detectable bias yourself, of course?

It seems like plain sophistry to say that you believe something does not violate the 'spirit' of a text, when it plainly violates an explicit prohibition. When scripture directly states that something is an abomination before God, it cannot then be declared otherwise without boldy and baldly seeking to revise the religion and faith. And my point is that if you disagree with something to that extent... you shouldn't be seeking to undermine and change it, you should be going your own way and seeking a philosophy or faith that is a better match for you. The problems of 'inconsistency' for Christianity these days stem from the large number of people who purport to be Christians but in fact believe in things that are totally different from the scriptures and doctrines of the faith, and thus misrepresent the religion to outsiders.

Are they really Christian if they openly violate the tenets of what is supposedly their faith? You can't live your life in complete opposition to scripture and still claim to be a devout priest of that faith. Have the courage to be something else, if you genuinely don't agree with it.

I get it... you disagree with Christianity about the scriputural/doctrinal stance concerning homosexuality. And you are correct. Homosexuality is, scriputurally, an abomination before God. Yet you consider that grounds for complete contempt? The fact that they have a moral/ethical disagreement with you about that one facet of human behavior? It seems you are instead displaying your own narrow-minded intolerance to other people's ideas.

I quite agree.

Generated by a quick google search. http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/a-nation-of-givers Q. We often hear that religious people give more to charity than secularists. Is this true? A. In the year 2000, “religious” people (the 33 percent of the population who attend their houses of worship at least once per week) were 25 percentage points more likely to give charitably than “secularists” (the 27 percent who attend less than a few times per year, or have no religion). They were also 23 percentage points more likely to volunteer. When considering the average dollar amounts of money donated and time volunteered, the gap between the groups increases even further: religious people gave nearly four times more dollars per year, on average, than secularists ($2,210 versus $642). They also volunteered more than twice as often (12 times per year, versus 5.8 times). Very little of this gap is due to personal differences between religious and secular people with respect to income, age, family, or anything else. For instance, imagine two people who are identical in income, education, age, race, and marital status. The one difference between them is that, while one goes to church every week, the other never does. Knowing this, we can predict that the churchgoer will be 21 percentage points more likely to make a charitable gift of money during the year than the nonchurchgoer, and will also be 26 points more likely to volunteer. As a non-christian myself, my objection is more to the tone of contempt with which you seem to treat the subject and Christians in general. Which I find objectionable in and of itself. So, I'm only allowed to use arguments or positions that you consider valid in premise? That isn't usually how this works. Free Will most certainly is a rather cogent argument. That the vast majority of evils in the world come directly from decisions made by people. And therefore are acts of Free Will. There are also a variety of interpretations of the Devil and Satan, that are much more in-depth as to the existence of hardship and want in the world. Suffice it to say that Christian Theology and Doctrine rather adequately explain these things from a variety of different angles. The question is whether you find the explanations believable, on a personal level, and choose to have Faith in them. You quite plainly do not. Neither do I. But I do /not/ choose to have contempt for those who do. You seem to quite readily do so, and that I rather strongly dislike. Which is a personal value judgement based on your concious decision to consider someone else's religion hopeless make-believe, rather than respecting the fact they chose differently in that decision making process.

God, in scripture, has expressed hatred and/or disapproval or wrath over a great many things. This is not unusual. Generally these are things he finds evil and irredeemable. Such as Sodom and Gomorrah. Even still, those that 'could' be redeemed, were, in that instance. Reference 'Lot'. And really? Seriously? Being ready and willing to accept the costs of faith and belief is to 'put religion over real people'? Your bias is showing again. The teaching isn't telling the believer to cast aside all family bonds, as a tenet of faith. It is saying that you should be ready for any possible or potential strife within your family that such belief and faith might cause. Rather distinct there. And I don't see how that is 'putting your religion before others'. Unless you mean to say that we should all adhere only to beliefs that our families approve of, at all times?

Not that I have figures on-hand to quote, yet, all statistical information about this subject that I have ever seen shows consistently that Christians donate far more often and far larger proportional to their income than any other area of society. And they do it willingly, out of genuine charity, rather than from being compelled by some tyrannical government seeking to 'redistribute' their wealth. Downplaying that is downplaying the facts. By the numbers, straight up, Christians do more for the disadvantaged than anyone else. Not that there is any bias what-so-ever in 'that' statement? Of course not. Quoting out of context, to say the least. A passage, read as a whole, that indicates that Christians are going to persecuted for their belief and faith. That divisions will occur, even within families. That the true believer should adhere to their faith despite such divisions and pressures, or they are not ultimately a believer/saved, and worthy of the Grace of God. But then cherry-picking seems to be common practice in these sorts of things. This is part of the same passage, only from a different Gospel. Same. You seem to like this passage. Again. Yet I find this ironic, a scripture essentially saying knowing misdeeds are greater than misdeeds in ignorance you find reprehensible? Again, upon consulting the entire chapter/scripture, this passage speaks as to the potential costs of being a believer, and having to deal with persecution. As for example comparing to the parable concerning the careful weighing of costs during the construction of a building etc. Leaving completely aside that the speaker in this parable is the rightful ruler and these enemies so mentioned are rebellious subjects? Speaking of an early heretical branch of Christianity which did not adhere to the doctrines of the faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaism What is it exactly you think is so objectionable here, speaking about people operating under false pretext and misrepresentation while actually being other than virtuous? As before. And again. --- Really, I am not a fan of cherry-picking. You may disagree with some of the teachings represented here... even find them reprehensible. But cherry-picking things out to lead others to a distorted view to suit yourself is... less than honest. Though I will grant perhaps I misunderstand your intent. If you would like I would freely discuss any of the relative merits or flaws of any of these ideas. In full context.

Again, on the one hand I would agree most people in general do not seem to have a very good grounding in 'any' religious education these days. Yet that said, your words seem to project a rather solid anti-christian bias, which is what I was pointing out. And this statement doesn't really do much to refute that. Which isn't to say you don't have logical or well considered reasons why you feel the way that you do. I just don't care for such blanket statements attributing things to a whole group rather than the espousing individuals unless a given idea or statement actually 'is' endorsed by the whole group. Which it is plain that RPG = Devilry is not a 'Doctrine of the Faith' in Christianity of any sect and that people have varying opinions on the matter. Which is why the 'U.S. Christians Are Hilarious' statement annoyed me. It lowers any possible debate and is, frankly, offensive to me... and I'm not even a Christian. If I were, I could imagine my annoyance being rather greater. As for Christians in scripture being involved in various 'nefarious' or 'immoral' activities... that is rather difficult to discuss in a 'general' kind of way. Specific points are more or less necessary to have any meaningful discussion on that. By so-called 'modern' standards, I would agree in principle that there are a variety of different behaviors described in scripture that 'modern' people don't tend to agree with however.

My point wasn't that I agreed with the 'RPGs = Devilry' perspective. Rather that lumping all Christians into one group and ascribing these view to all of them, and mocking them collectively over it, is illogical and instead ( to me ) lowers my opinion of the one doing the mocking. There are a variey of different interpretations and schools of thought as to Christianity. It is hardly a monolithic group. It makes no more sense than ascribing terrorism to all Muslims and saying that therefore all Muslims are bad. As to a counter argument itself it really isn't that difficult, if you actually understand Christianity and know scripture, to pose a variety of different arguments against RPGs with certain thematic elements as being 'Un-Christian' and therefore activities that 'Good Christians' shouldn't engage in. That however is rather not the point. It doesn't sound as if the original article really did this in an intelligent way to begin with.

Agreed. Such as commenting that 'U.S. Christians are Hilarious'. It seems an unfortunate trend. Though on the one hand I can understand the desire to poke fun at and/or cut back at someone who obviously spouts untruths... doing so in such a generic and overly inclusive way doesn't lend any dignity or credence to a counter argument.

True. The Conan setting can easily in fact to be argued to be, and often is considered, a part of the Mythos body of writing/history. And the distinction between depicting and emulating the 'setting' as opposed to the 'stories' I think is exactly the point. Some people are quite captivated by the muscle-bound barbarian who defeats all with honest strength and good steel. While I like the Howard Conan stories myself, I'm not one of those people. Though even the character of Conan changes with his own chronology. The later-period Howard Conan is actually quite educated and constantly depicted as being a very aware and astute King in Aquilonia. Often being nostalgic for his 'days of adventure' while constantly going through papers and accounts and such. But yes. Most of the 'adventure' tales are of his younger days. Though even there I feel he was far from the stupid muscle-bound cretin some later authors and the seemingly common pre-conceptions people have depict him as. He was uneducated, and filled with supersititioun. But he was far from stupid, and was certainly not trying to just muscle his way through 'every' situation. ( Some he definately 'did' muscle through, I will grant. ) If you are shooting for a direct emulation of the stories, that is one thing. The stories constantly have the heroic warrior getting the drop on the nefarious sorcerer somehow. And some people really like that. Yet that seems incredibly limiting, and only so believable, to me. I'm far more interested in the 'Setting' emulation, with the group having a the freedom to make and do what they are interested in and find compelling. And I definately strive to break some of the 'classic fantasy' tropes/assumptions with my depiction of an S&S setting. For example in S&S the physically unskilled, unarmed, and therefore easily killable Sorcerer is... while depicted on occasion, hardly a hard and fast rule. Some can be quite skilled in arms as well. And since 'Conan' style magic usually isn't a battlefield art to begin with, it usually doesn't interfere in the slightest even if there 'are' rules about magic and armor or some such.

LOL. Well. While I will grant the whole 'Insanity' thing is kind of hardwired into CoC, the whole conversion into an NPC thing never really sits well with me. In CoC I can understand the need to kind of enforce that dark horror and mystery of the Mythos. But I think perhaps it goes a tad beyond what is really necessary to keep things to theme and becomes often rather debilitating to characters. And the S&S genre, while similar, isn't quite the same thing as the cosmic horror of the Mythos.

Yes! Why people seem to think that in the Swords & Sorcery Genre Sorcerers should only be NPCs, I just don't get. Personally that style of Howard-esque archetypal Sorcerers are what I find most compelling and interesting. Way more than a 'high fantasy' type of setting. And, for that matter, IMO if you don't have a clear idea of how things work, and are just continually 'winging it' as a GM? That is a no-no. People eventually will catch on that magic is just a hollow plot-device without any internal consistency. And the simple fact that making it NPC only crosses a boundary of mine. NPCs are, or should be, no different than PCs. It is just who owns the character. Having artificial divisions between what is achievable between each group is bad. That artificiality is not something that fades into the background for me. It is visible, and annoying, ruining my suspension of disbelief. Ummm. No. Bad GM.

Has anyone done any previous work on an Ars Magica conversion? Would anyone be willing to share their ideas regarding such? I'm relatively new to BRP/RQ, and I find a great deal that I like about it. However my favorite setting has always been the Mythic Europe of Ars Magica, and the Order of Hermes etc. that accompany it. Before I begin turning my own hand to the task as it were, I thought it would be perhaps be better to see if anyone else with more system experience had already approached this?