>This is only partly true.
>If the skill is your highest ranked skill it is staining you arua, otherwise
>its not.
>In the new DA only the highest rank skill is a stain, so if Phaeton has the
>skill lowly ranked with other skills ranked higher then its a mark on your
>soul maybe but not a clear mark or stain on your arua, that others are able
>to detect.

In Phaeton's case, Assassin is 0 with Healer at 10.

>Having said that; I do not think of skills as just simple the skill alone,
>but also as you increase in rank is a more 'total view' or outlook which
>includes some life style choices also. If you are a rank 7 navigator you
>live and breath it. I think it is wrong/incorrect to think of the skills as
>just a set of knowledge but instead you need to consider them in referance
>to your character, and your background.
>
>On a note of Assassians;
>James Bond is clearly an assassian. Assassain characters should kill less
>people that the normal guild party who normaly beats there way in and out of
>somewhere. But I also think Andrew is correct - if you want to play a
>pacifist and just knock people out then sap.

I finally got to read this thread after having my machine off-line 
all day doing data recoveries. Anyway, there are two main reasons 
(and a third minor reason) that I chose to do this. If the rules 
allowed any other method, then I would gladly take it and refund the 
initial xp costs.

Under Assassin it says "An assassin may attempt to automatically 
knock out a target using a sap. They must make a successful strike 
while attacking from behind or surprise against an unhelmeted 
opponent." Without the skill, in order to achieve a successful 
knockout, you have to succeed in a blow resulting in Endurance damage 
(3.9).  Personally, I feel there should be a more effective method of 
rendering someone unconscious or asleep, and given that Phaeton now 
knows techniques of acupuncture and acupressure, there may be ways of 
doing this (Vulcan nerve pinch anyone?)

The other main reason can be found in 3.13 Envemomed weapons. "When 
anyone, except an assassin, handles an envenomed weapon, they must 
make a 3xMD check every time they handle the weapon." Now a 
reasonable alchemist/healer would want to examine the weapon in order 
to identify the poison and produce a suitable counteragent, and I do 
intend for Phaeton to get sufficient ranks in Alchemist to do that. 
Again, if anyone has any better ideas on how to achieve the same 
objective, I'd happily listen.

The minor reason is for the photographic memory, in order to keep the 
scribe notes in your head while on adventure. However the current 
spies are much better at that.

As for someone's comment about obtaining information, that's what 
diplomacy is for, not torture. That would be in violation of 
Phaeton's oath to 'First, do no harm".

What's this about new sap rules? I missed a memo?

Keith


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Yes, the assassian skill is plain dumb.

> What's this about new sap rules? I missed a memo?
>
> Keith

I proposed that the sapee gets an EN check to stay awake.
Modifiers include the difference between the damage done and
the armour of the wearer.

This benefits skilled assassians with their increased
critical chances and extra damage from behind meaning
they're more likely to get a KO than a rookie. It also means
saps are not good weapons in regular combat.

It also means you can use saps on PCs, as the rules stand an
assassain could sap to death the entire party and the PCs
get to make not one roll*. If I, as GM say to you, "You've
been sapped." there's not a lot you can do. If you get a
dice roll then it's equivalent to copping a sleep spell or
such. It's not as poisonously arbitary.

The differentials for damage/armour also does away with the
cheese that is 'hard hats' in the game and also gives the
ace assassians a chance against heavily armoured opponents.

William

*Assassian makes stealth roll sneaking into camp and saps
the PC on watch, makes the second stealth roll and then saps
the second watch. Assassian then saps all other PCs.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

actually, without skill or neurotoxin, the only way to render someone unconscious is to knock them so hard on the head that the brain shuts down.

in DQ that is an END blow.

and the relevant skill is "assassin"

though be careful. If enough PCs start knocking people out (one hit take downs) then NPCs will become immune, similar to how they are immune to sleep and mental attack. binary results are bad for the game.


Ian

> 
> From: Keith Smith <phaeton@ihug.co.nz>
> Date: 2005/11/29 Tue AM 09:12:03 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: Re: [dq] Assassins
> 
> 
> >This is only partly true.
> >If the skill is your highest ranked skill it is staining you arua, otherwise
> >its not.
> >In the new DA only the highest rank skill is a stain, so if Phaeton has the
> >skill lowly ranked with other skills ranked higher then its a mark on your
> >soul maybe but not a clear mark or stain on your arua, that others are able
> >to detect.
> 
> In Phaeton's case, Assassin is 0 with Healer at 10.
> 
> >Having said that; I do not think of skills as just simple the skill alone,
> >but also as you increase in rank is a more 'total view' or outlook which
> >includes some life style choices also. If you are a rank 7 navigator you
> >live and breath it. I think it is wrong/incorrect to think of the skills as
> >just a set of knowledge but instead you need to consider them in referance
> >to your character, and your background.
> >
> >On a note of Assassians;
> >James Bond is clearly an assassian. Assassain characters should kill less
> >people that the normal guild party who normaly beats there way in and out of
> >somewhere. But I also think Andrew is correct - if you want to play a
> >pacifist and just knock people out then sap.
> 
> I finally got to read this thread after having my machine off-line 
> all day doing data recoveries. Anyway, there are two main reasons 
> (and a third minor reason) that I chose to do this. If the rules 
> allowed any other method, then I would gladly take it and refund the 
> initial xp costs.
> 
> Under Assassin it says "An assassin may attempt to automatically 
> knock out a target using a sap. They must make a successful strike 
> while attacking from behind or surprise against an unhelmeted 
> opponent." Without the skill, in order to achieve a successful 
> knockout, you have to succeed in a blow resulting in Endurance damage 
> (3.9).  Personally, I feel there should be a more effective method of 
> rendering someone unconscious or asleep, and given that Phaeton now 
> knows techniques of acupuncture and acupressure, there may be ways of 
> doing this (Vulcan nerve pinch anyone?)
> 
> The other main reason can be found in 3.13 Envemomed weapons. "When 
> anyone, except an assassin, handles an envenomed weapon, they must 
> make a 3xMD check every time they handle the weapon." Now a 
> reasonable alchemist/healer would want to examine the weapon in order 
> to identify the poison and produce a suitable counteragent, and I do 
> intend for Phaeton to get sufficient ranks in Alchemist to do that. 
> Again, if anyone has any better ideas on how to achieve the same 
> objective, I'd happily listen.
> 
> The minor reason is for the photographic memory, in order to keep the 
> scribe notes in your head while on adventure. However the current 
> spies are much better at that.
> 
> As for someone's comment about obtaining information, that's what 
> diplomacy is for, not torture. That would be in violation of 
> Phaeton's oath to 'First, do no harm".
> 
> What's this about new sap rules? I missed a memo?
> 
> Keith
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

On 28/11/2005, at 12:29, Simpson@smtp.sig.net.nz,  Mark ((NZ)) wrote:

> I would fall somewhere between the two extremes. Certain skills, and 
> mastery of other skills is definitely more than just an "enabler". But 
> this stuff about being "selfless" if you take healer or "dishonest" if 
> you take thief is going too far the other way.
>
> To me it depends on the skill and the level to which you take the 
> skill as to whether the skill forms a vital part of a pc's "character" 
> or is merely something they can do that have learnt (and as the pc 
> elect to spend more and more time training and using the skill it 
> progresses from the later to the former imho). Let people use their 
> characters skillset to enrich their roleplaying of that character. 
> Don't seek to use a characters skillset to straightjacket them into 
> sterotypes (ala D&D alignments and character classes).

I agree in general with Mark here.

cheers,

clare


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

As part of trying to separate the worshipers of PoLs, PoDs, etc. from our one-god religions I
would like to change the terminology for places of worship from Churches to Temples.

It may seem minor but I think the words have considerably different visual/emotional associations.

Church is strongly associated with long rectangular buildings with a peaked roof, rows of pews,
crucifixes, priests dressed in white, large hierarchical organisations, and singing songs no-one
knows the words to.

Temple has a much broader range of buildings, rituals, and people associated with it.

I believe that referring to places of worship as temples will help free the imaginations of
players and GMs from all the assumptions that are made when the word Church is used.

Before I start searching and replacing on the wiki...
Is this reasonable?
Are there any objections?

Cheers, Stephen.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5F46C.87C4FC2A
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"

That would be just the buildings, not any organisations, right?

Cheers
Errol

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen Martin [mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 11:26
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] Terminology: Church => Temple
> 
> 
> As part of trying to separate the worshipers of PoLs, PoDs, 
> etc. from our one-god religions I
> would like to change the terminology for places of worship 
> from Churches to Temples.
> 
> It may seem minor but I think the words have considerably 
> different visual/emotional associations.
> 
> Church is strongly associated with long rectangular buildings 
> with a peaked roof, rows of pews,
> crucifixes, priests dressed in white, large hierarchical 
> organisations, and singing songs no-one
> knows the words to.
> 
> Temple has a much broader range of buildings, rituals, and 
> people associated with it.
> 
> I believe that referring to places of worship as temples will 
> help free the imaginations of
> players and GMs from all the assumptions that are made when 
> the word Church is used.
> 
> Before I start searching and replacing on the wiki...
> Is this reasonable?
> Are there any objections?
> 
> Cheers, Stephen.
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
> 

------_=_NextPart_001_01C5F46C.87C4FC2A
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
5.5.2658.2">
<TITLE>RE: [dq] Terminology: Church =3D&gt; Temple</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>That would be just the buildings, not any =
organisations, right?</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>Cheers</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>Errol</FONT>
</P>

<P><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -----Original Message-----</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; From: Stephen Martin [<A =
HREF=3D"mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net">mailto:stephenm@castle.po=
intclark.net</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 11:26</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Subject: [dq] Terminology: Church =3D&gt; =
Temple</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; As part of trying to separate the worshipers of =
PoLs, PoDs, </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; etc. from our one-god religions I</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; would like to change the terminology for places =
of worship </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; from Churches to Temples.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; It may seem minor but I think the words have =
considerably </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; different visual/emotional associations.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Church is strongly associated with long =
rectangular buildings </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; with a peaked roof, rows of pews,</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; crucifixes, priests dressed in white, large =
hierarchical </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; organisations, and singing songs no-one</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; knows the words to.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Temple has a much broader range of buildings, =
rituals, and </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; people associated with it.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; I believe that referring to places of worship =
as temples will </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; help free the imaginations of</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; players and GMs from all the assumptions that =
are made when </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; the word Church is used.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Before I start searching and replacing on the =
wiki...</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Is this reasonable?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Are there any objections?</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; Cheers, Stephen.</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; -- to unsubscribe notify <A =
HREF=3D"mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz">mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz</=
A> --</FONT>
<BR><FONT SIZE=3D2>&gt; </FONT>
</P>

</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C5F46C.87C4FC2A--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I would like the PoL to have churches, Gods to have temples or shrines,
and the PoD to have seedy warehouses with blood-stained altars.

I think that the word "church", and the allusions you refer to (except
crosses) are the feeling we want for PoL worship.

I've seen some of this change already on the Wiki, and it seems to be
promulgating the idea that the PoL and PoD have the same flavour.
Different words with different connotations help to remind players that
the PoL are different from the PoD, a theme that has been discussed
recently.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Stephen Martin
Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 11:26 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Terminology: Church => Temple


As part of trying to separate the worshipers of PoLs, PoDs, etc. from
our one-god religions I would like to change the terminology for places
of worship from Churches to Temples.

It may seem minor but I think the words have considerably different
visual/emotional associations.

Church is strongly associated with long rectangular buildings with a
peaked roof, rows of pews, crucifixes, priests dressed in white, large
hierarchical organisations, and singing songs no-one knows the words to.

Temple has a much broader range of buildings, rituals, and people
associated with it.

I believe that referring to places of worship as temples will help free
the imaginations of players and GMs from all the assumptions that are
made when the word Church is used.

Before I start searching and replacing on the wiki...
Is this reasonable?
Are there any objections?

Cheers, Stephen.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

I wholeheartedly agree.

Just somewhere note that some groups (cults, faiths, etc ..) may refer
to their temples as churches IN GAME.

TTFN, Struan.

On 11/29/05, Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote:
> As part of trying to separate the worshipers of PoLs, PoDs, etc. from our one-god religions I
> would like to change the terminology for places of worship from Churches to Temples.
>
> It may seem minor but I think the words have considerably different visual/emotional associations.
>
> Church is strongly associated with long rectangular buildings with a peaked roof, rows of pews,
> crucifixes, priests dressed in white, large hierarchical organisations, and singing songs no-one
> knows the words to.
>
> Temple has a much broader range of buildings, rituals, and people associated with it.
>
> I believe that referring to places of worship as temples will help free the imaginations of
> players and GMs from all the assumptions that are made when the word Church is used.
>
> Before I start searching and replacing on the wiki...
> Is this reasonable?
> Are there any objections?
>
> Cheers, Stephen.
>
>
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

What you're overlooking is the literary/fantasy tradition.  We NEED to have the equivalent of sapping in the game.
William said ...
> Yes, the assassian skill is plain dumb.
[...]
> I proposed that the sapee gets an EN check to stay awake.
> Modifiers include the difference between the damage done and
> the armour of the wearer.
> 
> This benefits skilled assassians with their increased
> critical chances and extra damage from behind meaning
> they're more likely to get a KO than a rookie. It also means
> saps are not good weapons in regular combat.
> 
> It also means you can use saps on PCs, as the rules stand an
> assassain could sap to death the entire party and the PCs
> get to make not one roll*. 

Endurance is already factored in to the combat equivalent -- If someone is sufficiently skillful AND strikes hard enough, their opponent will be knocked out.  The "sapped by surprise" is quite different: it is entire dependant on the skill of the attacker.  The fictional concensus  is clear:  you may have an ox of a character who is still standing and fighting with blood flowing out of half-a-dozen wounds ... but one blow, in the right place, with a sap will ALWAYS put him out.  

Incidentally there is a CONTRADICTION in the rules
Page 118 [Assassin skill]
An assassin may attempt to automatically knockout a target when using a sap.  They must make a successful strike while attacking from behind or surprise against an unhelmeted opponent.  
Page 148 [Weapon stats & rules, §D]
The sap may only be used to knock out targets wearing only leather, cloth or no armour.  Used by an assassin, any hit knocks out the target; for anyone else, any hit stuns and 4 or more points of effective damage knocks out the target.  This will not work on targets larger than human size.

Since, in fiction, the blow is variously to the back of the head, neck, or upper-back ... I would suggest something like:

Page 118 [Assassin skill]
An assassin may use a sap to attempt to automatically knockout a target who is wearing only leather, cloth or no armour.  They must make a successful strike while attacking from behind.  This will not work on targets larger than human size.

Page 148 [Weapon stats & rules, §D]
When striking from behind, an attacker may use the sap to knock out targets wearing only leather, cloth or no armour.  Used by an assassin, any successful hit knocks out the target; for anyone else, any hit stuns and 4 or more points of effective damage knocks out the target.  This will not work on targets larger than human size.

> If I, as GM say to you, "You've
> been sapped." there's not a lot you can do.

That's right! that's the whole point of it from a story point of view.  In fiction, having the hero knocked out is often the way an author can have the hero captured without permamnent damage (also a fictitious concept) ... when, all else considered, in the real world they'd be severly injured, maimed, or even dead.

> *Assassian makes stealth roll sneaking into camp and saps
> the PC on watch, makes the second stealth roll and then saps
> the second watch. Assassian then saps all other PCs.

Tough.  People on watch should realise they are not only guarding those asleep, but also the "rivals of their watch" -- the other guards.  Oh, and here's a hint -- how about wearing a metal helmet (or even armour), while on watch?  And where were the wards & physical defences?   IFF an assassin manages to sneak past everything, AND make successful attacks, then the GM has rightly got the party just where they deserve to be.   Frankly I'd rather rely on magic than Assassin skill.  Incidentally, it is much harder for assassins to get past guards properly protecting a fort or similar -- that's why one also sentries on the main door (preferably with their backs to a stone wall.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

There are some places where Church is appropriate for the PoD.

In Rokar there is a building described as a Cathedral, and the
worshippers of Seir are the social equivalent fo rthe Raphelite priests
in the Baronies. This would be an example where Church would be
appropriate for PoDs, and gives the PCs warning that they are not in
Kansas anymore. It's William's town, so he may override this example.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Withy (DSL AK) 
Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 11:38 a.m.
To: 'dq@dq.sf.org.nz'
Subject: RE: [dq] Terminology: Church => Temple


I would like the PoL to have churches, Gods to have temples or shrines,
and the PoD to have seedy warehouses with blood-stained altars.

I think that the word "church", and the allusions you refer to (except
crosses) are the feeling we want for PoL worship.

I've seen some of this change already on the Wiki, and it seems to be
promulgating the idea that the PoL and PoD have the same flavour.
Different words with different connotations help to remind players that
the PoL are different from the PoD, a theme that has been discussed
recently.

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz] On Behalf Of
Stephen Martin
Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 11:26 a.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: [dq] Terminology: Church => Temple


As part of trying to separate the worshipers of PoLs, PoDs, etc. from
our one-god religions I would like to change the terminology for places
of worship from Churches to Temples.

It may seem minor but I think the words have considerably different
visual/emotional associations.

Church is strongly associated with long rectangular buildings with a
peaked roof, rows of pews, crucifixes, priests dressed in white, large
hierarchical organisations, and singing songs no-one knows the words to.

Temple has a much broader range of buildings, rituals, and people
associated with it.

I believe that referring to places of worship as temples will help free
the imaginations of players and GMs from all the assumptions that are
made when the word Church is used.

Before I start searching and replacing on the wiki...
Is this reasonable?
Are there any objections?

Cheers, Stephen.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> I believe that referring to places of worship as temples will 
> help free the imaginations of players and GMs from all the 
> assumptions that are made when the word Church is used.
> 
> Before I start searching and replacing on the wiki...
> Is this reasonable?
> Are there any objections?

Have already been working on it :-) I have gone through a number of the
Pod pages and the seagate pages as well. 

I have been doing it manually however :-)

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> I would like the PoL to have churches, Gods to have temples 
> or shrines, and the PoD to have seedy warehouses with 
> blood-stained altars.
> 
> I think that the word "church", and the allusions you refer to (except
> crosses) are the feeling we want for PoL worship.
> 
> I've seen some of this change already on the Wiki, and it 
> seems to be promulgating the idea that the PoL and PoD have 
> the same flavour. Different words with different connotations 
> help to remind players that the PoL are different from the 
> PoD, a theme that has been discussed recently.

I disagree. I think that using the term church smacks of Christianity
and gives the wrong impression. We do not have a unified church in DQ,
nor is it based on christianity despite the names and other annoying
baggage. I think if we use the term temples it gives a more generic feel
and encourages people to see it as different from christianity. 

Just in case anyone suspects this of being an antichristian rant I also
don't think we should call them mosques or any other term specific to a
religion. 

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> In Rokar there is a building described as a Cathedral, and
> the worshippers of Seir are the social equivalent fo rthe
> Raphelite priests in the Baronies. This would be an
> example where Church would be appropriate for PoDs, and
> gives the PCs warning that they are not in Kansas anymore.
> It's William's town, so he may override this example.
>
> Andrew

I mainly use Cathedral because I'm a civilization junkie
:.-)

'Church' is also a handy word-concept that conveys a lot of
infomation to the PCs without my having to labouriously
detail it to them.

'You see a church of Sier'

'You see a fortified temple which is the focal point of the
community. Upon it's roof is the symbol of the Sier
cultists.'

If for some reason it's going to matter what the place looks
like then I'll go into detail. But if not I'll prefer the
word which allows the players to best fill in the blanks and
fool them into thinking I have a rich and detailed game
world.

William


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Mandos Mitchinson wrote:

>>I would like the PoL to have churches, Gods to have temples 
>>or shrines, and the PoD to have seedy warehouses with 
>>blood-stained altars.
>>
>>I think that the word "church", and the allusions you refer to (except
>>crosses) are the feeling we want for PoL worship.
>>
>>I've seen some of this change already on the Wiki, and it 
>>seems to be promulgating the idea that the PoL and PoD have 
>>the same flavour. Different words with different connotations 
>>help to remind players that the PoL are different from the 
>>PoD, a theme that has been discussed recently.
>>    
>>
>
>I disagree. I think that using the term church smacks of Christianity
>and gives the wrong impression. We do not have a unified church in DQ,
>nor is it based on christianity despite the names and other annoying
>baggage. I think if we use the term temples it gives a more generic feel
>and encourages people to see it as different from christianity. 
>
>Just in case anyone suspects this of being an antichristian rant I also
>don't think we should call them mosques or any other term specific to a
>religion. 
>
>Mandos
>/s
>
>
>-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>
>
>  
>
I agree with Mandos.  We should actively try to avoid references to real 
world religions.  We are in a fantasy world with it's own history and 
mythology.  And unlike our world the powers and gods exist and intefere 
fairly regulary :-)

Scott Whitaker


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

Umm, and the point is?
were you also going to stop using the 'church of the western kingdom'? or 'the church' as a general cognomen for the POL? 
"The cult of the 5 archangels" feels much less opressive and pervasive than the CotWK.

words are useful, until they mislead. However, as the PC nausea has shown, changing a word without changing the meaning is pointless, as the new word rapidly acquires the connotations of the first.

we need better descriptions of the Powers, and those that worship/follow them, rather than just changing the odd word.

please add IMO as required. insert 'H' if it makes you feel better.

Ian


> 
> From: Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net>
> Date: 2005/11/29 Tue AM 11:26:01 GMT+13:00
> To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
> Subject: [dq] Terminology: Church => Temple
> 
> As part of trying to separate the worshipers of PoLs, PoDs, etc. from our one-god religions I
> would like to change the terminology for places of worship from Churches to Temples.
> 
> It may seem minor but I think the words have considerably different visual/emotional associations.
> 
> Church is strongly associated with long rectangular buildings with a peaked roof, rows of pews,
> crucifixes, priests dressed in white, large hierarchical organisations, and singing songs no-one
> knows the words to.
> 
> Temple has a much broader range of buildings, rituals, and people associated with it.
> 
> I believe that referring to places of worship as temples will help free the imaginations of
> players and GMs from all the assumptions that are made when the word Church is used.
> 
> Before I start searching and replacing on the wiki...
> Is this reasonable?
> Are there any objections?
> 
> Cheers, Stephen.
> 
> 
> -- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --
>


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

To take the next step.

I think that using the term "demon" smacks of Christianity and gives the
wrong impression. We do not have a unified church in DQ, nor is it based
on christianity despite the names and other annoying baggage. I think if
we use the term "Zyxgap" it gives a more generic feel and encourages
people to see it as different from christianity. 

I think that using the term "angel" smacks of Christianity and gives the
wrong impression. We do not have a unified church in DQ, nor is it based
on christianity despite the names and other annoying baggage. I think if
we use the term "My Little Pony" it gives a more generic feel and
encourages people to see it as different from christianity. 

I think that using the term "soul" smacks of Christianity and gives the
wrong impression. We do not have a unified church in DQ, nor is it based
on christianity despite the names and other annoying baggage. I think if
we use the term "sold my spleen to the Zyxgap" it gives a more generic
feel and encourages people to see it as different from christianity. 


Andrew


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

So Lysander looks like a "My Little Pony". 

Sounds about right, although not really being a "My Little Pony" perhaps she could be more accurately described as a "My Little Pony's rear end"? 




-----Original Message-----
From: dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz [mailto:dq-owner@dq.sf.org.nz]On Behalf Of
Andrew Withy (DSL AK)
Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 3:17 p.m.
To: dq@dq.sf.org.nz
Subject: Re: [dq] Terminology: Church => Temple


To take the next step.

I think that using the term "demon" smacks of Christianity and gives the
wrong impression. We do not have a unified church in DQ, nor is it based
on christianity despite the names and other annoying baggage. I think if
we use the term "Zyxgap" it gives a more generic feel and encourages
people to see it as different from christianity. 

I think that using the term "angel" smacks of Christianity and gives the
wrong impression. We do not have a unified church in DQ, nor is it based
on christianity despite the names and other annoying baggage. I think if
we use the term "My Little Pony" it gives a more generic feel and
encourages people to see it as different from christianity. 

I think that using the term "soul" smacks of Christianity and gives the
wrong impression. We do not have a unified church in DQ, nor is it based
on christianity despite the names and other annoying baggage. I think if
we use the term "sold my spleen to the Zyxgap" it gives a more generic
feel and encourages people to see it as different from christianity. 


Andrew


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> I think that using the term "demon" smacks of Christianity 
> and gives the wrong impression. We do not have a unified 
> church in DQ, nor is it based on christianity despite the 
> names and other annoying baggage. I think if we use the term 
> "Zyxgap" it gives a more generic feel and encourages people 
> to see it as different from christianity. 
> 
> I think that using the term "angel" smacks of Christianity 
> and gives the wrong impression. We do not have a unified 
> church in DQ, nor is it based on christianity despite the 
> names and other annoying baggage. I think if we use the term 
> "My Little Pony" it gives a more generic feel and encourages 
> people to see it as different from christianity. 
> 
> I think that using the term "soul" smacks of Christianity and 
> gives the wrong impression. We do not have a unified church 
> in DQ, nor is it based on christianity despite the names and 
> other annoying baggage. I think if we use the term "sold my 
> spleen to the Zyxgap" it gives a more generic feel and 
> encourages people to see it as different from christianity. 

Apart from the word choices I agree completely.

I suspect Powers of Darkness will be better for the first option, Powers
of Light for the Second one and I am not sure of a good replacement for
the third but Spleen doesn't seen right. 

Mandos
/s


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

> Umm, and the point is?
> were you also going to stop using the 'church of the western 
> kingdom'? or 'the church' as a general cognomen for the POL? 
> "The cult of the 5 archangels" feels much less opressive and 
> pervasive than the CotWK.

I tend to agree.  It is just possible that  "The Holy Thearchy" or "The Divine Theocracy", etc may take off; although the "Fane of Five" sounds a little silly. 

Alternatively we can call them  "THE Powers of Light" ... with the emphasis on The five and only, and anyone who says otherwise will be sternly opressed/martyred.   But that would mean PoL-wannabe PCs that follow so-called "God" Powers of Light (like Dianecht or Unwe & the like) will have to be burned at the stake as schismatic heretics.  Unless, of course "Burning at the stake" smacks too heavily of Christianity ... and say farewell to "archbishops" & "bishops" (baby-eating or otherwise), since those terms carry all that overwhelming baggage of the Byzantine Empire.


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

--=====================_19914703==.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

At 23:32 27/11/05, you wrote:
>Without disputing that Daimon is a perfectly good term for these beings, 
>the word itself is simply the Greek from which both Demon and Daemon are 
>derived, and is not different in meaning.

Although they may have same root, it is the term "demon" that has acquired 
all the "horns and forked-tail" associations - and those we really need to 
get away from, especially in the case of POL. Mind you "daimon" was the 
original Greek word used by the writers of the New Testament - rather 
inaccurately since in no way can one equate the Hebrew concept of "fallen 
angels" with the Greek "defied hero".

>The background for the POD in DQ suggests that they are mortals become 
>immortal through dubious means, and thus more "deified villains" than 
>"deified heroes". They have at some point taken on the names and something 
>of nature of the arch-demons of medieval church mythology - a unfortunate 
>choice on the part of the original writers, but one we are stuck with.
>
>Ahh... this is a combination of two pieces of info -- the original DQ has 
>demons named (in the most part) from the Lesser Key of Solomon, the idea 
>that they are "deified villains" was a later addition, part of an attempt 
>to move away from a pseduo-catholic PoD, PoL, and explain the absence of a 
>supreme diety or chief demon -- two things that have never been in this 
>campaign.

Yes, I rather put those two inclusions in the wrong order, I'll admit.

>Similarly the POL are named for archangels -  although I might add that 
>there are a whole lot more named archangels in mythology than just the five.
>
>Sort of... [all outside of DQ]...  the names vary on the different lists, 
>but oddly enough almost all sources agree that there are seven Archangels 
>(except Muslim lore which acknowledges only 4).

The "Book of Enoch" lists seven archangels - and names quite a few other 
angels. Enoch is a pre-Christian Jewish document which is one of the root 
sources of a lot of this material.

>However the term "daimon" does cover both the POD and POL, while the term 
>"demon" really does not fit with the POL.
>
>I'm still concerned that daimon or daemon is still too close 
>linguistically, and simply sounds too much the same, and may still carry 
>too much baggage... but definitely agree that it was an error to apply 
>demon as a generic term to cover both factions.

The generic term "power" is rather better although rather lacking in flavour.

We could use "Archon" for the POL - it does convey an impression of 
importance, and lawfulness, without any specific religious baggage. The 
term "Daimon" then works nicely for the POD.

archon
NOUN: 1. A high official; a ruler. 2. One of the nine principal magistrates 
of ancient Athens. 3. An authoritative figure; a leader: archons of 
cultural modernism.

>While [the PoL] consider magic too powerful for the hands of mortals, they 
>would not disdain its use appropriately channelled through their 
>followers.... However, they should be portrayed as the "good guys" or at 
>least the "trying-do-to-the-right-thing" brigade.
>
>I agree, and also think the anti-magic stance needs careful toning in 
>order for the heavily magical Guild / PCs and the PoL to not end up as 
>natural enemies.  Uneasy allies is OK, but make them enemies from the 
>point of view of PCs and they will never be seen as "white hats".

In any cosmology for RPG purposes it is advisable to have a balance between 
powers representing "good" and others representing "bad". If they're all 
"bad" from the PCs point of view it's hard to encourage PCs to be heroic - 
and personally I like to see PCs being heroic.

>The POD are all villains in my book - of varying stripes, from the 
>outright nasty and/or bonkers, to the insidious evil which is Seir and his ilk.
>
>Yes, tend to agree.  The charming and urbane ones have simply discovered 
>that you can catch more flies with honey as it were.  Even those that 
>appear helpful and principled will still have an enourmous sense of self 
>interest and be working towards their own goals -- in order to become 
>demons in the first place these transformed mortals have to have been both 
>powerful and massively ego-centric.

Exactly - they may be helpful when their interests coincide with those of 
mortals, but in the long term it's only likely to turn out as being good 
for the daimon in question. Which reminds me - we should see considerable 
infighting between PODs with opposed agendas - there has to be a ton of 
possible plot-lines in there.

>Speaking of Seir, if there *is* a public "church" of Seir in Seagate I'd 
>expect it to be burnt down at least as regularly as a certain infamous 
>tavern. A clandestine operation would be much more to Seir's tastes I'm 
>sure, and more likely to survive the mob.
>
>I don't see "the mob" having much against Seir, who is presumably seen by 
>simple people as a minor deity of wealth and prosperity (and perhaps 
>gambling)... I don't see how this would be much different ot a cult of Mercury.
>
>The PoL may wish to burn it down / shut it down, but unless they are the 
>official religion in the area (and my understanding is that the Western 
>Church has limited standing in Carzala) then they will be asking the Duke 
>to shut it down, and he is likely to be telling the varous religious 
>groups that he wants them to all play nicely and to not cause trouble in town.

Actually its just as likely that other POD, envious of Seir's influence, 
would send their followers to have a go... Which does suggest a story-line 
or two. Furthermore, the shrine of Seir is likely to be as much a bawdy 
house as anything - gambling, drinking and other less savoury activities 
encouraged...

Jacqui

   
--=====================_19914703==.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<body>
At 23:32 27/11/05, you wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Without disputing that Daimon is
a perfectly good term for these beings, the word itself is simply the
Greek from which both Demon and Daemon are derived, and is not different
in meaning.</blockquote><br>
Although they may have same root, it is the term &quot;demon&quot; that
has acquired all the &quot;horns and forked-tail&quot; associations - and
those we really need to get away from, especially in the case of POL.
Mind you &quot;daimon&quot; was the original Greek word used by the
writers of the New Testament - rather inaccurately since in no way can
one equate the Hebrew concept of &quot;fallen angels&quot; with the Greek
&quot;defied hero&quot;. <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The background for the POD in DQ
suggests that they are mortals become immortal through dubious means, and
thus more &quot;deified villains&quot; than &quot;deified heroes&quot;.
They have at some point taken on the names and something of nature of the
arch-demons of medieval church mythology - a unfortunate choice on the
part of the original writers, but one we are stuck with.<br><br>
Ahh... this is a combination of two pieces of info -- the original DQ has
demons named (in the most part) from the Lesser Key of Solomon, the idea
that they are &quot;deified villains&quot; was a later addition, part of
an attempt to move away from a pseduo-catholic PoD, PoL, and explain the
absence of a supreme diety or chief demon -- two things that have never
been in this campaign.</blockquote><br>
Yes, I rather put those two inclusions in the wrong order, I'll admit.
<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Similarly the POL are named for
archangels -&nbsp; although I might add that there are a whole lot more
named archangels in mythology than just the five.<br><br>
Sort of... [all outside of DQ]...&nbsp; the names vary on the different
lists, but oddly enough almost all sources agree that there are seven
Archangels (except Muslim lore which acknowledges only
4).</blockquote><br>
The &quot;Book of Enoch&quot; lists seven archangels - and names quite a
few other angels. Enoch is a pre-Christian Jewish document which is one
of the root sources of a lot of this material.&nbsp; <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">However the term
&quot;daimon&quot; does cover both the POD and POL, while the term
&quot;demon&quot; really does not fit with the POL.<br><br>
I'm still concerned that daimon or daemon is still too close
linguistically, and simply sounds too much the same, and may still carry
too much baggage... but definitely agree that it was an error to apply
demon as a generic term to cover both factions.</blockquote><br>
The generic term &quot;power&quot; is rather better although rather
lacking in flavour. <br><br>
We could use &quot;Archon&quot; for the POL - it does convey an
impression of importance, and lawfulness, without any specific religious
baggage. The term &quot;Daimon&quot; then works nicely for the POD.
<br><br>
archon <br>
<font size=2 color="#000020">NOUN:</font><font color="#000020"> <b>1.</b>
A high official; a ruler. <b>2.</b> One of the nine principal magistrates
of ancient Athens. <b>3.</b> An authoritative figure; a leader:
<i>archons of cultural modernism.</i> <br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">While [the PoL] consider
magic too powerful for the hands of mortals, they would not disdain its
use appropriately channelled through their followers.... However, they
should be portrayed as the &quot;good guys&quot; or at least the
&quot;trying-do-to-the-right-thing&quot; brigade. <br><br>
I agree, and also think the anti-magic stance needs careful toning in
order for the heavily magical Guild / PCs and the PoL to not end up as
natural enemies.&nbsp; Uneasy allies is OK, but make them enemies from
the point of view of PCs and they will never be seen as &quot;white
hats&quot;.</blockquote><br>
In any cosmology for RPG purposes it is advisable to have a balance
between powers representing &quot;good&quot; and others representing
&quot;bad&quot;. If they're all &quot;bad&quot; from the PCs point of
view it's hard to encourage PCs to be heroic - and personally I like to
see PCs being heroic.  <br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The POD are all villains in my
book - of varying stripes, from the outright nasty and/or bonkers, to the
insidious evil which is Seir and his ilk.<br><br>
Yes, tend to agree.&nbsp; The charming and urbane ones have simply
discovered that you can catch more flies with honey as it were.&nbsp;
Even those that appear helpful and principled will still have an
enourmous sense of self interest and be working towards their own goals
-- in order to become demons in the first place these transformed mortals
have to have been both powerful and massively
ego-centric.</blockquote><br>
Exactly - they may be helpful when their interests coincide with those of
mortals, but in the long term it's only likely to turn out as being good
for the daimon in question. Which reminds me - we should see considerable
infighting between PODs with opposed agendas - there has to be a ton of
possible plot-lines in there.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Speaking of Seir, if there *is*
a public &quot;church&quot; of Seir in Seagate I'd expect it to be burnt
down at least as regularly as a certain infamous tavern. A clandestine
operation would be much more to Seir's tastes I'm sure, and more likely
to survive the mob.<br><br>
I don't see &quot;the mob&quot; having much against Seir, who is
presumably seen by simple people as a minor deity of wealth and
prosperity (and perhaps gambling)... I don't see how this would be much
different ot a cult of Mercury.<br><br>
The PoL may wish to burn it down / shut it down, but unless they are the
official religion in the area (and my understanding is that the Western
Church has limited standing in Carzala) then they will be asking the Duke
to shut it down, and he is likely to be telling the varous religious
groups that he wants them to all play nicely and to not cause trouble in
town. </blockquote><br>
Actually its just as likely that other POD, envious of Seir's influence,
would send their followers to have a go... Which does suggest a
story-line or two. Furthermore, the shrine of Seir is likely to be as
much a bawdy house as anything - gambling, drinking and other less
savoury activities encouraged... <br><br>
Jacqui<br><br>
&nbsp;</body>
</html>

--=====================_19914703==.ALT--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

------=_Part_613_12486838.1133252600852
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 11/29/05, Stephen Martin <stephenm@castle.pointclark.net> wrote:
>
>
> Before I start searching and replacing on the wiki...
> Is this reasonable?


No.

Are there any objections?


Yes.

As you wrote: "Church is strongly associated with long rectangular building=
s
with a peaked roof, rows of pews, crucifixes, priests dressed in white,
large hierarchical organisations, and singing songs no-one knows the words
to."

Apart from the crucifixes (which one may mentally replace with sun symbols
if you wish) this is a pretty good nutshell description of the PoL religion
as portrayed in most cases in Alusia.

Ergo, Church is, if not the only correct term, then probably the most
fitting.

------=_Part_613_12486838.1133252600852
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 11/29/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Stephen Martin</b> &lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:stephenm@castle.pointclark.net">stephenm@castle.pointclark.net</=
a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"g=
mail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt=
 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Before I start searching and replacing on the wiki...<br>
Is this reasonable?</blockquote><div><br>
No. <br>
</div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
 rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Are the=
re any objections?</blockquote><div><br>
Yes.<br>
<br>
As you wrote: &quot;Church is strongly associated with long rectangular
buildings with a peaked roof, rows of pews, crucifixes, priests dressed
in white, large hierarchical organisations, and singing songs no-one
knows the words to.&quot;<br>
<br>
Apart from the crucifixes (which one may mentally replace with sun
symbols if you wish) this is a pretty good nutshell description of the
PoL religion as portrayed in most cases in Alusia.<br>
<br>
Ergo, Church is, if not the only correct term, then probably the most fitti=
ng.<br>
</div></div><br>

------=_Part_613_12486838.1133252600852--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

------=_Part_777_7594683.1133253547046
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 11/29/05, Jacqui Smith <flamis@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
> Although they may have same root, it is the term "demon" that has acquire=
d
> all the "horns and forked-tail" associations - and those we really need t=
o
> get away from, especially in the case of POL.


Sure. I don't think we really need to get away from it for the PoD -- many
of them pretty accurately fit the horns and pointy tail description.


> The "Book of Enoch" lists seven archangels - and names quite a few other
> angels. Enoch is a pre-Christian Jewish document which is one of the root
> sources of a lot of this material.


Sure -- there are many, many, angels named by, (if you'll pardon the
cynicism) bored monks with too much time of their hands, and rather feveris=
h
imaginations (at least for the fallen angel  descriptions). :-)

The generic term "power" is rather better although rather lacking in
> flavour.
>
> We could use "Archon" for the POL - it does convey an impression of
> importance, and lawfulness, without any specific religious baggage. The t=
erm
> "Daimon" then works nicely for the POD.


Archon is quite nice (even with its "StarCraft" connection).  The term
Elohim has also been used for the PoL.

Actually its just as likely that other POD, envious of Seir's influence,
> would send their followers to have a go... Which does suggest a story-lin=
e
> or two. Furthermore, the shrine of Seir is likely to be as much a bawdy
> house as anything - gambling, drinking and other less savoury activities
> encouraged...


Yes, not sure what the nature of  Seir's place is, perhaps more the gamblin=
g
than bawdy house... I think the temple of the One Horned God has that
covered. :-)

------=_Part_777_7594683.1133253547046
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 11/29/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Jacqui Smith</b> &lt;<a href=3D"=
mailto:flamis@ihug.co.nz">flamis@ihug.co.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class=
=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-l=
eft: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left:=
 1ex;">
<span class=3D"q"><br></span>
Although they may have same root, it is the term &quot;demon&quot; that
has acquired all the &quot;horns and forked-tail&quot; associations - and
those we really need to get away from, especially in the case of POL.
</blockquote><div><br>
Sure. I don't think we really need to get away from it for the PoD --
many of them pretty accurately fit the horns and pointy tail
description. <br>
</div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
 rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><span c=
lass=3D"q"><br></span>
The &quot;Book of Enoch&quot; lists seven archangels - and names quite a
few other angels. Enoch is a pre-Christian Jewish document which is one
of the root sources of a lot of this material.&nbsp; </blockquote><div><br>
Sure -- there are many, many, angels named by, (if you'll pardon the
cynicism) bored monks with too much time of their hands, and rather
feverish imaginations (at least for the fallen angel&nbsp;
descriptions). :-)<br>
<br>
</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb=
(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><span class=
=3D"q"></span>The generic term &quot;power&quot; is rather better although =
rather
lacking in flavour. <br><br>
We could use &quot;Archon&quot; for the POL - it does convey an
impression of importance, and lawfulness, without any specific religious
baggage. The term &quot;Daimon&quot; then works nicely for the POD.
</blockquote><div><br>
Archon is quite nice (even with its &quot;StarCraft&quot; connection).&nbsp=
; The term Elohim has also been used for the PoL.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid=
 rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><span c=
lass=3D"q"></span><span class=3D"q"></span>Actually its just as likely that=
 other POD, envious of Seir's influence,
would send their followers to have a go... Which does suggest a
story-line or two. Furthermore, the shrine of Seir is likely to be as
much a bawdy house as anything - gambling, drinking and other less
savoury activities encouraged... </blockquote><div><br>
Yes, not sure what the nature of&nbsp; Seir's place is, perhaps more
the gambling than bawdy house... I think the temple of the One Horned
God has that covered. :-)<br>
</div></div><br>

------=_Part_777_7594683.1133253547046--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --

------=_Part_933_25772458.1133254566645
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 11/29/05, Mandos Mitchinson <MandosM@adhb.govt.nz> wrote:
>
> We do not have a unified church in DQ,
> nor is it based on christianity despite the names and other annoying
> baggage.


We do however have the "Unified Westen Church", despite it not being very
unified at all.  We also have Bishops (and an Archbishop), we've had Abbeys
(and Abbots and Abbesses), and Chapter Houses with Chapter Masters... not t=
o
mention Archangels... and all of it without being Christian.

Which words did you want to drop?

------=_Part_933_25772458.1133254566645
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 11/29/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sendername">Mandos Mitchinson</b> &lt;<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:MandosM@adhb.govt.nz">MandosM@adhb.govt.nz</a>&gt; wrote:<div><=
span class=3D"gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; p=
adding-left: 1ex;">
We do not have a unified church in DQ,<br>nor is it based on christianity d=
espite the names and other annoying<br>baggage.</blockquote><div><br>
We do however have the &quot;Unified Westen Church&quot;, despite it not be=
ing
very unified at all.&nbsp; We also have Bishops (and an Archbishop),
we've had Abbeys (and Abbots and Abbesses), and Chapter Houses with
Chapter Masters... not to mention Archangels... and all of it without
being Christian.<br>
<br>
Which words did you want to drop?<br>
</div></div><br>

------=_Part_933_25772458.1133254566645--


-- to unsubscribe notify mailto:dq-request@dq.sf.org.nz --