From: basestu@bnr.ca (Jean Giblin)
Subject: Re: Permenant damage in HERO
Reply-To: basestu@bnr.ca (Jean Giblin)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 18:36:22 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.010011.22620@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep11.173005.21649@bmerh85.bnr.ca> basestu@bnr.ca (Jean Giblin) writes:
|> >Let's just take that 'killing the person to reverse the transformation'
|> >thing to another example, shall we?  How about:  transform into toad,
|> >reverse procedure:  kill toad.  To me, that the reversing procedure is
|> >worse than the transformation itself sorta flags it as being a bit
|> >munchkin.
|> 
|> Not really....
|> 
|> If you transform someone into a toad and reverse the procedure by killing the
|> toad, the person isn't in the same condition they're in before the
|> transformation.  The reversal has not only reversed the transformation, but
|> injured them in addition.

Hm.  Well, I don't have my original article, but I think my point didn't 
come across well here.  What I meant (if you have the article, look it
over, it might be clearer) was that 

	a) For continuity sake, if we were to allow such a reversal 
	procedure in the ressurection case, we would have to allow it
	in other cases..I was attempting a reductio in absurdum (sp?).
	Your rebuttal in this case is valid, but didn't really reach
	what I meant to say (again, this is probably my fault)  Yes,
	killing the toad did not reverse the procedure.  The point I
	meant to make was that if we MADE it be the reversal (kissing
	a toad doesn't normally return it to a prince) it would be one
	which no one who cared about the prince's interests would use:
	You want a live prince back, not a dead one..  Of course, this
	was merely included for the continuity argument, and does not 
	apply to the ressurection example, obviously, since it is not
	in the living person's best interests to have the tranformation
	reversed in the first place.  So, what you said was right, it's
	just you seem to have killed a scarecrow with a shotgun, if you
	get my point.

	b) (My direct attack against the Ressurection Power) Since killing
	a live man returns him to a dead state WHETHER OR NOT that is 
	the chosen reversal, choosing it a reversal seems to be dodging
	a bullet that you deserve.  In other words, YES it makes sense 
	that killing a man reverses a ressurection spell, but NO it
	cannot be the reversal procedure required in the rules, because it
	would have happened anyways.  
 
|> If you transform a corpse into a living person and reverse the procedure by
|> killing the transformation, the person _is_ in the same condition they were
|> in before the transformation.  The reversal has not done any _additional_
|> harm at all.
 
	I think this was my argument precisely.  The point was that 
	'reverse the procedure' would have happened whether it was the 
	rules-specified exception or not.

|> 
|> >Anyways, as for my ideas for ressurection, I came upon the summoning
|> >thing, and liked it.  But the problem I found (with the transformation
|> >as well) is that it did work, but there's nothing in the rules that
|> >says that the result would be a PLAYER character.  Just because you
|> >have something that looks and works exactly like the player, doesn't
|> >mean the player should control him.  If that were so, we could have a
|> >summon power that summoned duplicates of ourselves WHILE WE WERE STILL
|> >ALIVE which we would use a PCs too.. sounds unbalancing.
|> 
|> That doesn't mean _resurrection_ is unbalancing.  That means "summoning
|> duplicates while the player is still alive" is unbalancing.  

	Right on that point.  However, FOR CONTINUITY'S SAKE if we were to
	allow one power, we should consider the other as well.  (Please 
	don't think because I use all-caps that I am angry..consider them
	in italics, if you will.)  This isn't necessarily so, but it does
	seem to suggest it.  BUT, and I emphasize this, ressurection IS
	an imbalancing power to begin with.  The point is that simply
	charging the 5-odd END and letting a dead teammate come back to 
	life does not seem to be reasonable to me.  This is, of course,
	in addition to my other complaints.
 
|> Ken Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm;
|>      INTERNET: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)

Actually, if it must be said, any disparity between Ken's view of my article
and my intended view was probably mine.  I tend to overwhelm the reader with
the many ideas I have at one time, and in this case, I presented three 
arguments seemingly as one, which led to a bit of confusion.

Views on the above?


Nok

////PAID ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE MUNCHKIN'S BOARD OF FREEDOM IN HERO////
Gotta beef?
Your friend know something you wanna know but you don't 
have the points for Telepathy?
Why waste valueable time and CPs on out-of-date and expensive 
mental powers, when you can just buy

	DETECT THOUGHTS, discriminatory, based on ECV!

Cheap, powerful, and no messy depth levels to tell you how
much you can know, you know it all!!  And no Ego or Mental Defence
allowed..

////This advertisement was paid by an anonymous organization hoping to
enlighten the masses who thought HERO was not just another game////