From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 08:52:21 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id IAA28900; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:52:21 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id IAA28890 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:52:17 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id IAA04433; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:39:54 +1300 Message-ID: <36586A29.62933955@peace.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:46:49 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Darkness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Jacqui Smith wrote: > I prefer a different explanation - a darkness spell negates a percentage of > the light passing though or created in a volume. Which incidentally makes it almost exactly the same as fog -- which is what I said Kelsie pointed out to me. :) The concept that Darkness is "stuff", rather than an absence of light, and that it "fights" lights passing through or generated inside it makes it easier to explain in a volume and does away with the need for more scientific explanations. As Keith mentioned, many of the Elemental spells summon and shape some of their element temporarily. So, Darkness summons a patch of weakish Elemental Darkness; Wall of Darkness summons a smaller amount, but at a higher "concentration", thus explaining damage and fear effects. Cheers, Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 09:04:34 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA28930; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:04:34 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id JAA28921 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:04:33 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id IAA05115; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:52:09 +1300 Orig-Sender: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com Message-ID: <36586B68.E2E7C4E3@peace.co.nz> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 08:52:09 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05C-SGI [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.5 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Darkness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Jacqui Smith wrote: > >I can understand it - it decreases the albedo of everything in the volume of > >effect by some factor. It probably also decreases the brightness of any light > >sources in the area by the same factor, but from memory this is not explicit in > >the description. At rank 16+, all objects in the volume become perfectly black. > > If that were all it did, then objects within the area of effect would > appear as black silhouettes against a lighted background. This could look > seriously weird if a darkness is cast on a sunny hilltop! > > I prefer a different explanation - a darkness spell negates a percentage of > the light passing though or created in a volume. The effect (to risk being > slapped over the coals for using a technological analogy) is like turning > down the brightness on your monitor screen... > > What I wrote above is how the spell is currrently written - and yes, it is seriously weird if darkness is cast on a sunny hilltop. Your alternative is a viable way of doing darkness - and subtly different from the black fog. I would be happy with this as a change to how darkness works. Others may disagree, but I think technological terms and analogies are just fine in inter-gm and player discussions of rules. This is not an in-character discussion, and we should be communicating as clearly as possible, and sometimes this means using technical terms. Michael W -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 09:28:09 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA28976; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:28:09 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id JAA28965 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:28:06 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id JAA06656; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:15:41 +1300 Orig-Sender: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com Message-ID: <365870EC.7E703D6B@peace.co.nz> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:15:41 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05C-SGI [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.5 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Darkness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Martin Dickson wrote: > Jacqui Smith wrote: > > > I prefer a different explanation - a darkness spell negates a percentage of > > the light passing though or created in a volume. > > Which incidentally makes it almost exactly the same as fog -- which is what I said > Kelsie pointed out to me. :) But not quite the same as fog. In fog, something held just in front of your face can be seen as easily as if the fog were not there, but something far away is completely obscured. In darkness as described above, the level of deminishment is distance independent. If we take a modern view of light, then this proposal is effectively: Any light entering the volume from outside is reduced by a some factor. Any light generated within the volume is reduced by the same factor. Consequences of this: The volume of darkness does cast a shadow. Anything seen through the volume of darkness looks as if it is in darkness, even if it is actually out the other side. A corrolary of this: From inside the darkness, it looks like the whole world is in darkness. There is no way to tell where the darkness ends (other than by magic or by reaching the edge.) This is a viable implementation of Darkness (unlike the current monstrosity.) Some may feel that it relies too much on modern scientifc knowledge (althought the effects could be described in a non-technological way.) Michael W. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 09:52:06 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id JAA29014; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:52:06 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id JAA29005 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:52:04 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id JAA08320; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:39:39 +1300 Message-ID: <36587829.D035AB8B@peace.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:46:33 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Darkness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Michael Woodhams wrote: > Martin Dickson wrote: > > > Jacqui Smith wrote: > > > > > I prefer a different explanation - a darkness spell negates a percentage of > > > the light passing though or created in a volume. > > > > Which incidentally makes it almost exactly the same as fog -- which is what I said > > Kelsie pointed out to me. :) > > But not quite the same as fog. In fog, something held just in front of your face can be > seen as easily as if the fog were not there, but something far away is completely > obscured. In darkness as described above, the level of deminishment is distance > independent. Fair cop. > If we take a modern view of light, then this proposal is effectively: > > Any light entering the volume from outside is reduced by a some factor. > Any light generated within the volume is reduced by the same factor. So, the light is reduced by a factor that is not affected by how far though the Darkness the light passes. Which is not "fog", fair enough. It is however counter-intuitive. It suggests the corrolary to your comment above that objects far away will be as easy to observe as close up. So in a not-total Darkness I will be able to see my hand in front of my face no better than I can see an object across the room. This is not necessarily bad, or wrong, but it is definitely weird. [Odd aside: If DQ magical "Darkness" is magically summoned Elemental Darkness -- in the same way as Air, Fire, Water, etc -- then it suggests that it should operate in the same way as DQ non-magical darkness. So a further odd corrolary could be that if this is the way that magical darkness works (ie visibility/light reduction is distance independant) then perhaps non-magical Darkness on Alusia works the same way]. :) > Consequences of this: > The volume of darkness does cast a shadow. As would a dark enough fog in a bright light -- smoke certainly can. > Anything seen through the volume of darkness looks as if it is in darkness, even if it > is actually out the other side. As would looking through a "column" of smoke. > A corrolary of this: From inside the darkness, it looks like the whole world is in > darkness. There is no way to tell where the darkness ends (other than by magic or by > reaching the edge.) And fog definitely does this. > This is a viable implementation of Darkness (unlike the current monstrosity.) Some may > feel that it relies too much on modern scientifc knowledge (althought the effects could > be described in a non-technological way.) I don't think that it relies on modern knowledge too much -- since it is not a normal scientific effect, unless I have misread badly. It is in effect the Darkness counterpart to "diffused" lighting. However, I think that it is at odds with how people will percieve that Darkness should intuitively work -- things that are close up are easier to see, things that are far away are harder. Cheers, Martin. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 10:09:13 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA29095; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:09:13 +1300 Received: from fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz ([203.98.14.148] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA29086 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:09:11 +1300 Received: from falaklnt000.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.20]) by fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id nz ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:55:33 +1300 Received: by falaklnt000.falum.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5) id <01BE16C7.DB698060@falaklnt000.falum.co.nz>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:58:44 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Darkness Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:58:43 +1300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. >However, I think that it is at odds with how people will percieve that >Darkness should intuitively work -- things that are close up are easier to >see, things that are far away are harder. This is "established" in Alusia - most/all magical & racial nightvisions have a range of effectiveness, beyond which it is dark. Black Fog, anyone? Andrew > -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 10:09:08 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA29074; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:09:08 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id KAA29065 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:09:07 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id JAA09428; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:56:43 +1300 Orig-Sender: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com Message-ID: <36587A8A.80F727C6@peace.co.nz> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:56:43 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05C-SGI [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.5 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Darkness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Martin Dickson wrote: > Michael Woodhams wrote: > > > Martin Dickson wrote: > > > > > > Any light entering the volume from outside is reduced by a some factor. > > Any light generated within the volume is reduced by the same factor. > > So, the light is reduced by a factor that is not affected by how far though the Darkness > the light passes. > > Which is not "fog", fair enough. It is however counter-intuitive. It suggests the > corrolary to your comment above that objects far away will be as easy to observe as close > up. So in a not-total Darkness I will be able to see my hand in front of my face no better > than I can see an object across the room. > > This is not necessarily bad, or wrong, but it is definitely weird. No - it is the way the real world works. Consider two hands, one in front of your face, one across the room. Assuming both have the same level of illumination, the only reason the further one is harder to see is that it takes up less of your field of view. If the distant hand were 10 times as distant and 10 times as big, it would be as easy to see as the hand in front of your face (neglecting issues of adjusting the focus of your eyes.) This is how real darkness works, and how the proposed darkness spell works, but not how fog or smoke works (assuming the fog fills the volume, rather than being a thin sheet just in front of you.) Distant things can be easier to see than nearby - e.g. the Big Spike (attached to the casino) can be easier to see than a tree in your backyard at night. Another way of looking at it is that by this proposal, being inside a Darkness is like wearing dark sunglasses. (At rank 16, opaque sunglasses.) From outside the darkness, it is as if there were a giant sunglass on the near surface of the darkness volume, so that everything beyond is seen through the sunglasses. (Technically, a better term than sunglasses is 'neutral density filter.') Michael W. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 10:08:20 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA29055; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:08:20 +1300 Received: from fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz ([203.98.14.148] (may be forged)) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA29044 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:08:12 +1300 Received: from falaklnt000.falum.co.nz ([10.8.1.20]) by fclaklmr01.fcl.co.nz (Post.Office MTA v3.5.1 release 219 ID# 0-0U10L2S100) with SMTP id nz ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:52:19 +1300 Received: by falaklnt000.falum.co.nz with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5) id <01BE16C7.67920B80@falaklnt000.falum.co.nz>; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:55:30 +1300 Message-ID: Subject: RE: Darkness Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 09:55:26 +1300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Exchange Server Internet Mail Connector Version 4.0.993.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. One problem with M.W's proposal is that a big "darkness umbrella" can be created, where an area is sealed off (say 50x50x50) by a foot-thick Darkness, and suddenly the volume of Darkness multiplies by 10 or more. Another problem is that a shadow seems odd. Why do you need a shadow? (excluding science) It seems more intuitive that you could see the edge of the darkness from inside or out. This all seems more magical, simpler, and just as consistent. Just a note - the current "monstrosity" got where it is because it is a scientific description of how light works on Earth - I suggest we avoid science for this spell. Andrew >---------- >From: Michael Woodhams[SMTP:michaelw@defacto.peace.co.nz] >> > I prefer a different explanation - a darkness spell negates a percentage >>of >> > the light passing though or created in a volume. > >If we take a modern view of light, then this proposal is effectively: > >Any light entering the volume from outside is reduced by a some factor. >Any light generated within the volume is reduced by the same factor. > >Consequences of this: >The volume of darkness does cast a shadow. >Anything seen through the volume of darkness looks as if it is in darkness, >even if it >is actually out the other side. >A corrolary of this: From inside the darkness, it looks like the whole world >is in >darkness. There is no way to tell where the darkness ends (other than by >magic or by >reaching the edge.) > >This is a viable implementation of Darkness (unlike the current monstrosity.) >Some may >feel that it relies too much on modern scientifc knowledge (althought the >effects could >be described in a non-technological way.) -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 10:28:01 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA29152; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:28:01 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id KAA29141 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:27:56 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id KAA10649; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:15:27 +1300 Orig-Sender: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com Message-ID: <36587EEE.2071CEBE@peace.co.nz> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:15:27 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05C-SGI [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.5 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Darkness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) wrote: > One problem with M.W's proposal is that a big "darkness umbrella" can be > created, where an area is sealed off (say 50x50x50) by a foot-thick > Darkness, and suddenly the volume of Darkness multiplies by 10 or more. Yes, this would be (in my opinion) bad. It can be easily fixed by requiring the volume of darkness to be convex. (For those who object to use of modern terms: first use of 'convex' according to Mirrium-Webster dictionary is 1571 (sorry, I don't know of an OED online site.)) > > > Another problem is that a shadow seems odd. Why do you need a shadow? > (excluding science) Because otherwise you end up sitting around in bright sunlight when the sun is invisible because it is behind a rank 16 darkness. > > > It seems more intuitive that you could see the edge of the darkness from > inside or out. > Yes. It is not consistent with the physical explanation effects of the spell, but we could hack it in if it is considered more desirable than consistency. But if everything outside the darkness area appears as bright as normal to someone inside the darkness, then we are back to the current monstrosity where everything in the darkness just turns into silhouettes. > This all seems more magical, simpler, and just as consistent. > > Just a note - the current "monstrosity" got where it is because it is a > scientific description of how light works on Earth - I suggest we avoid > science for this spell. > I suspect it got where it is because people didn't want it to cast shadows, and to disallow the umbrella trick described above, and followed these to their illogical conclusion. Some points to consider: Do we want people to be able to hide in a darkness and shoot at people outside the darkness without difficulty? (The current spell allows this in apropriate circumstance.) Do we want people to be able to cast a darkness on their victims and be able to see and shoot the victims but not be able to be seen back? (Neither of these works with my proposal.) Michael -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 10:39:47 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA29188; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:39:47 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id KAA29178 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:39:43 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id KAA11338; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:27:15 +1300 Message-ID: <36588352.BD3D80E@peace.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:34:10 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5b2 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Darkness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Martin Dickson To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Michael Woodhams wrote: > Andrew Withy (FAL AKL) wrote: > > > One problem with M.W's proposal is that a big "darkness umbrella" can be > > created, where an area is sealed off (say 50x50x50) by a foot-thick > > Darkness, and suddenly the volume of Darkness multiplies by 10 or more. > > Yes, this would be (in my opinion) bad. It can be easily fixed by requiring the > volume of darkness to be convex. Or a "blob" to use the technical term. :) It still lets you seal off areas in some circumstances -- but it does prevent the 1 foot thick umbrella trick... much beloved of Nite Owl if I remember correctly, who, in conjuntion to the volume modification that he had on his spell, could eclipse entire towns. Cheers, Martin -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 10:43:47 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id KAA29218; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:43:47 +1300 Received: from mail.iconz.co.nz (mail.iconz.co.nz [202.14.100.36]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id KAA29209 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:43:46 +1300 Received: from mandos (e0.firewall.ak.iconz.net.nz [202.14.100.208]) by mail.iconz.co.nz (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id KAA204010911770276 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:31:16 +1300 (NZDT) Message-ID: <006701be165f$3bedd8a0$1564a8c0@mandos.ICONZ> Subject: Re: Childish Behaviour? Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 10:29:48 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 From: "Mandos Mitchinson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. >Yes my reply was childish and very nasty. > >No I did not start the abuse. > >I find it remarkable and informative to see George and Paul leap to Jim's >defence, yet never critisize his behaviour I am not leaping to Jim's defence, I don't think the insults he throws are particularly nice either but he does at least keep to insult rather than the foul mouthed abuse you sent. That kind of language is not required. I have no problem with sarcastic slurs, or low level insults. Many people on the news group use insults as part of their messages, however you sunk to all new levels of disgusting behaviour and I for one do not wish to see that repeated. Mandos /s -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 13:34:12 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA29376; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:34:12 +1300 Received: from fep1-orange.clear.net.nz (fep1-orange.clear.net.nz [203.97.32.1]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id NAA29365 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:34:11 +1300 Received: from qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz ([203.97.23.141]) by fep1-orange.clear.net.nz (1.5/1.11) with ESMTP id NAA03742; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:21:06 +1300 (NZDT) Received: by qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz with Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) id ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:22:15 +1300 Message-ID: <15A7D8BC5E3ED2119E2E0000F82150FC010A58@qed_akl_nt_1.qed.co.nz> Subject: RE: Darkness Analogy Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:22:14 +1300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.1960.3) Content-Type: text/plain From: Stephen Martin To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. While the debate on how darkness should work continues, this is my analogy to help understand how darkness currently works. It's like standing outside on a bright sunny day looking into a railway tunnel. You can see everything in front of you up until the edge of the shadow, then nothing within the tunnel, but you can see the other end of the tunnel and the track continuing on the other side. It becomes hard to judge how far away the other end of the tunnel is because you have no reference points in between. If you were inside the tunnel you may or may not be able to see the ground in front of you (depending on how much your eyes had adjusted) but you would be able to see anything outside the tunnel at either end. There are a couple of differences between this analogy and DQ darkness: - In DQ there is no graduation of light to dark it's a definite boundary. - Replace "the amount your eyes have adjusted" with "based on the rank of the spell and your abilities to see in the dark". - If someone or something was in the tunnel/darkness they should be silhoutted against the light from the other side. The common interpretation of darkness is that you don't seen their silhoutte. - And substitute thousands of tonnes of rock for a thin layer of magic. :) Cheers, Stephen. > -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 13:55:03 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id NAA29409; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:55:03 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id NAA29398 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:55:01 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id NAA22538; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:42:36 +1300 Orig-Sender: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com Message-ID: <3658AF7A.AD298421@peace.co.nz> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:42:36 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05C-SGI [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.5 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Darkness Analogy Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Stephen Martin wrote: > It's like standing outside on a bright sunny day looking into a railway > tunnel. You can see everything in front of you up until the edge of the > shadow, then nothing within the tunnel, but you can see the other end of > the tunnel and the track continuing on the other side. However the tunnel provides opaque walls so that things in the tunnel are mostly black silhouettes against a black background - i.e. can't be seen. If the background is sky, this changes things a lot. > - If someone or something was in the tunnel/darkness they should be > silhoutted against the light from the other side. The common > interpretation of darkness is that you don't seen their silhoutte. Because it is silly if you can. (I think that the spell explicitly says you do see silhouettes, but I don't have the writeup here. I'll bring it tomorrow.) But is is equally silly if you can't - consider, I cast a darkness in the air - there is nothing solid inside it. The darkness region is completely invisible by current rules. Now I fly around inside the darkened region. If I don't make a silhouette, I am invisible. I cast darkness over a forest, but just above the ground. With no silhouettes, the trees become invisible (except for what look like black topped stumps.) Flying people happily fly into this 'open' area and impale themselves on branches. I'm not knocking your analogy - it is a better explanation of the current rule than I thought it was possible to give - but the current rule is fundamentally broken. Michael W. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 14:10:45 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA29442; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:10:45 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id OAA29432 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:10:44 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p18-max3.akl.ihug.co.nz [207.213.218.146]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA29698 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:58:16 +1300 Message-Id: <199811230058.NAA29698@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Fw: Darkness Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:55:57 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. > The discussion on Darkness has raised the question of what we want such a > spell to do. I suppose that this is the first thing we should have > addressed, but have actually gotten away from in the rush to find an > interesting description. > In view of this, here is what I think the idea of a Darkness spell should > do. > 1) It should create a volume of obscurement. It should be harder to see > through, from the outside in, from the inside out, and within itself. > 2) It should be bloody obvious in lit circumstances. > 3) It should cast a shadow. > 4) It should not be hollow, i.e., you should not be able to create a volume > of 'normal' darkness by casting a 'magical' darkness around it. > > I don't know that anything else is important, really. Changing the light > level or the albedo within its borders may satisfy some people, but they > don't really provide a sense of the nature of darkness. They just seem like > some other weird effect. If you wanted to describe some creeping thing > from the halls of ancient Ling, then that would be fine. The descriptions > have a sense of something just a little outside time and space. > > I think it's unwise to redefine a spell on the grounds of what a character > can do. If Nite Owl could cover whole towns with darkness, then there is > either a problem with the volume allowed, or the modification he had. To > change the rationsalisation of a spell to provide a control on one > player's abilities is a little extreme. > In any case, limiting it so that the volume created may not be hollow, or that any > normal darkness created within its confines counts against the total volume > is probably a better plan. > > The only other limitation is whether or not the darkness can create > shadows. >The only reason to not allow this is to stop Shadow Weavers > hopping around the place, I think. > Frankly, I don't have a problem with it. It's about the only real cool > thing you get out of being a Shadow Weaver, and if I were one I'd be using > it all the time. > If they aren't allowed to use the shadows created by a darkness spell, then > they just buy a lantern and screen apparatus, and take ages setting up > their wretched areas of shadow... > > Jim. > -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 14:18:40 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA29471; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:18:40 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id OAA29462 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:18:39 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id OAA23643; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:06:07 +1300 Orig-Sender: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com Message-ID: <3658B4FE.9A27D008@peace.co.nz> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:06:07 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05C-SGI [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.5 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [Fwd: Darkness] Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------71C5218DC6CB077B1E0BEF0B" From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------71C5218DC6CB077B1E0BEF0B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sorry, I botched the sending of this. Some but not all of you will have seen it already. --------------71C5218DC6CB077B1E0BEF0B Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <3658AC98.F04727F2@peace.co.nz> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 13:30:17 +1300 From: Michael Woodhams Reply-To: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com Organization: Peace Computers X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05C-SGI [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.5 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "amtennant@worley.co.nz" , Mandos Mitchinson , Stephen Martin , Keith Smith , "Andrew Withy (FAL AKL)" , Michael Parkinson , Rosemary , Brent & Sally , Kelsie , "Greg M. Taylor" , "nigel@convergence.co.nz" , Noel Livingston Subject: Re: Darkness References: <36587EEE.2071CEBE@peace.co.nz> <3658A3C8.134DF373@takitimu.co.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Kelsie wrote: > Aaargh! > You people just don't understand magic. > You're all bogged down in 'science', and assuming cause and effect that just > don't apply. > > Things are invisible bacause you can't see them. > > Darkness doesn't cast a shadow simply because it doesn't cast a shadow. Theres > nothing wrong with > "> you end up sitting around in bright sunlight when the sun is > > invisible because it is behind a rank 16 darkness." > I think it is counterintuitive and undesirable, but it is not a vital point. If people don't want darkness to cast a shadow, and so long as they realize this is one of the consequences, then it is OK for darkness not to have a shadow. A few points to consider if the shadow is eliminated: Would something in the rank 16 darkness cast a shadow if the shadow would normally fall outside the darkness? Presumably so - otherwise you can cast a darkness on the roof of your house and get sunlight into your rooms. What light sources are allowed to penetrate the darkness to illuminate the far side? > If you try to apply 'our' science to the magic in DQ you will fail. But you do still need to satisfy logic, which is universal. I have described a consistent, logical way in which Darkness could work, and pointed out the side effects, particularly ones that people may object to (e.g. casts a shadow, can't see the edge from inside.) My suggestion is open to modification if it doesn't bend logic too far (either of the two previously mentioned points could be changed) or, of course, to rejection if it is just too different from how people think darkness should work. > > > > everything outside the darkness area appears as bright as normal to someone > > inside the darkness, then we are back to the current monstrosity where everything > > in the darkness just turns into silhouettes. > > The silhouettes thing is not what happens/how it's played. It's once again > only an incorrect conclusion based on a science that doesn't apply. > But it is how the spell is currently written. If it is an incorrect conclusion it is only because the spell is so blatently broken that nobody attempts to play it according to the writeup. If things beyond the darkness are as bright as if the darkness wasn't there, then either the silhouette problem arises or the darkness creates some sort of invisibility field. Consider: I am watching a white wall. There is a region of darkness between me and it. Somebody walks by through the darkness. What do I see? If I don't see their silhouette, they have become invisible. Note that this previous paragraph doesn't attempt to apply science at all - just logic. Michael. --------------71C5218DC6CB077B1E0BEF0B-- -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 14:45:15 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA29521; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:45:15 +1300 Received: from smtp1.ihug.co.nz (root@tk1.ihug.co.nz [203.29.160.13]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id OAA29510 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:45:13 +1300 Received: from jimarona.ihug.co.nz (p18-max3.akl.ihug.co.nz [207.213.218.146]) by smtp1.ihug.co.nz (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA00712 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:32:47 +1300 Message-Id: <199811230132.OAA00712@smtp1.ihug.co.nz> Subject: Fw: Darkness Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:30:32 +1300 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Microsoft Internet Mail 4.70.1155 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: "Jim Arona" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. > > From: Michael Woodhams > > > > Kelsie wrote: > > > > > Aaargh! > > > You people just don't understand magic. > > > You're all bogged down in 'science', and assuming cause and effect that > just > > > don't apply. > > > > > > Things are invisible bacause you can't see them. > > > > > > Darkness doesn't cast a shadow simply because it doesn't cast a shadow. > Theres > > > nothing wrong with > > > "> you end up sitting around in bright sunlight when the sun is > > > > invisible because it is behind a rank 16 darkness." > > > > > > > I think it is counterintuitive and undesirable, but it is not a vital > point. If people > > don't want darkness to cast a shadow, and so long as they realize this is > one of the > > consequences, then it is OK for darkness not to have a shadow. > > > > A few points to consider if the shadow is eliminated: Would something in > the rank 16 > > darkness cast a shadow if the shadow would normally fall outside the > > darkness? Presumably so - otherwise you can cast a darkness on the roof > of your house > > and get sunlight into your rooms. What light sources are allowed to > penetrate the > > darkness to illuminate the far side? > > > > > If you try to apply 'our' science to the magic in DQ you will fail. > > > > But you do still need to satisfy logic, which is universal. > > > > I have described a consistent, logical way in which Darkness could work, > and pointed > > out the side effects, particularly ones that people may object to (e.g. > casts a > > shadow, can't see the edge from inside.) My suggestion is open to > modification if it > > doesn't bend logic too far (either of the two previously mentioned points > could be > > changed) or, of course, to rejection if it is just too different from how > people think > > darkness should work. > > > > > > > > > > > > everything outside the darkness area appears as bright as normal to > someone > > > > inside the darkness, then we are back to the current monstrosity > where everything > > > > in the darkness just turns into silhouettes. > > > > > > The silhouettes thing is not what happens/how it's played. It's once > again > > > only an incorrect conclusion based on a science that doesn't apply. > > > > > > > But it is how the spell is currently written. If it is an incorrect > conclusion it is > > only because the spell is so blatently broken that nobody attempts to > play it > > according to the writeup. > > > > If things beyond the darkness are as bright as if the darkness wasn't > there, then > > either the silhouette problem arises or the darkness creates some sort of > invisibility > > field. Consider: I am watching a white wall. There is a region of > darkness between me > > and it. Somebody walks by through the darkness. What do I see? If I don't > see their > > silhouette, they have become invisible. > > > > Note that this previous paragraph doesn't attempt to apply science at all > - just > > logic. > > Well, that's true...But it doesn't sound like magic, either... > This is going further than it need to. What we need to think about is what > we want darkness to do. > What would be the simplest way of doing that allows its affects to be > described easily? > Think about the game, first. Then think about the rationalisation. As far > as I can see, most of these things are just discussions about the way it > works depending on light level or albedo or tunnels of darkness... > Does anyone like the current flavour of Darkness? > If you do, why do you like it? > If you don't, what would you like this Darkness to do? > After that, let's work out why it works the way it does. > Jim. > -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 14:53:00 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id OAA29578; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:53:00 +1300 Received: from peace.com (defacto.peace.co.nz [202.14.141.225]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with SMTP id OAA29567 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:52:56 +1300 Received: via ESMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/pcnz2.7) id OAA25159; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:40:28 +1300 Orig-Sender: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com Message-ID: <3658BD0C.B1E36DAF@peace.co.nz> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:40:28 +1300 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05C-SGI [en] (X11; I; IRIX 6.5 IP32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Darkness Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael Woodhams To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-To: Michael.Woodhams@peace.com X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Jim Arona wrote: > In view of this, here is what I think the idea of a Darkness spell should > do. > 1) It should create a volume of obscurement. It should be harder to see > through, from the outside in, from the inside out, and within itself. > 2) It should be bloody obvious in lit circumstances. > 3) It should cast a shadow. > 4) It should not be hollow, i.e., you should not be able to create a volume > of 'normal' darkness by casting a 'magical' darkness around it. I agree with this. I can be pursuaded to abandon item 3, but I would rather not. Elsewhere Jim writes >What we need to think about is what >we want darkness to do. >What would be the simplest way of doing that allows its affects to be >described easily? The above describes what I think darkness should do. Either the black fog or the light-suppressed-as-it-enters-darkness proposal are simple ways that fulfill all of these requirements, but I prefer the latter because it behaves more like normal darkness. Why I don't like the current darkness is because it doesn't do what I think darkness should do, and it leads either to an invisibility field or silhouettes as I have argued previously. -- See message headers to unsubscribe from -- From owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Mon Nov 23 15:03:35 1998 Received: (from bin@localhost) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) id PAA29653; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:03:35 +1300 Received: from mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (mailhost.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.1.4]) by mail.sf.org.nz (8.8.6/NZSFI-19980830) with ESMTP id PAA29644 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 15:03:34 +1300 Received: from sci4 (lbr-122-42.lbrsc.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.122.42]) by mailhost.auckland.ac.nz (8.9.1/8.9.1/8.9.1-ua) with SMTP id OAA08667 ; Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:51:07 +1300 (NZDT) Message-Id: <199811230151.OAA08667@mailhost.auckland.ac.nz> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1998 14:54:57 +0000 Subject: Re: Fw: Darkness X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v2.53/R1) From: "Michael Parkinson" To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz Sender: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Errors-To: owner-dq@dq.sf.org.nz Reply-to: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Loop: dq@dq.sf.org.nz X-Requests: To unsubscribe from this list, or change your subscription address, send a message to dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz. Dear all, This is mostly a "me-too" posting. Whilst other people have come up with "interesting" and sometimes valid analogies, I am always in favour of a what-do-we-want approach as the absolute measure of a spell. > > The discussion on Darkness has raised the question of what we want such a > > spell to do. [...] > > In view of this, here is what I think the idea of a Darkness spell should > > do. > > 1) It should create a volume of obscurement. It should be harder to see > > through, from the outside in, from the inside out, and within itself. Yes. Just add a sentence to say that the effective dimming is uniform, regardless of distance. Elaboration [ONLY for comparison with other postings]: For ease of play we should play it Jacqui's "brightness knob," i.e. an across-the-board reduction of perceived light, rather than the fixed reduction per foot travelled which is technically applicable to fog or thin smoke (all too difficult to calculate) -- although it *vaguely* looks like a lump of black fog. The darkness effects everything which has a line-of-sight passing through the darkness: this follows sinceDarkness should effect perception of anything within the area (i.e. fog/dimmer effect). If viewer is in the darkness observing out we get the tiresome "Hide of darkness" where the missile troops inside have no penalties; but outsiders shooting in do. If viewer is outside & viewing what lies beyond the area of darkness the viewed object is also obscurred -- because, if not, how can theysee both the blob of darkness AND what lies beyond it. > > 2) It should be bloody obvious in lit circumstances. Yes - Especially if we adopt Jim's suggestion that mist/fog spells should be permitted to have naturalistic edges & wisps -- but darkness doesn't. > > 3) It should cast a shadow. Elaboration [ONLY for comparison with other postings]: this is a reasonable consequence of the line-of-sight: i.e. the blades of grass, or someone lying on them has occluded vision in that direction. It is reasonable to assume that other aspects of their illumination are effected. > > 4) It should not be hollow, i.e., you should not be able to create a > volume > > of 'normal' darkness by casting a 'magical' darkness around it. Yes. Elaboration [ONLY for comparison with other postings]: A Nite-Owl sannabe may only shade an *entire* town at the moments near sun-rise & sunset, by effectively putting a slight bump on the horizon > > I don't know that anything else is important, really. Quite so > > The only other limitation is whether or not the darkness can create > > shadows. It's simplist (directly derived from the above 4 points) to rule that darkness is NOT shadow; but, at high ranks, it casts a shadow if there is a bright light on the far side. Regards (through a glass darkly), Michael Michael Parkinson Information Services A/L Science Library, University of Auckland. Email: m.parkinson@auckland.ac.nz Phone: (09) 3737 599 x 5858 Fax: (09) 3082 304 -- See message headers to unsubscribe from --