HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chris Pearce <cpearce@morticia.cnns.unt.edu>
Subject: Re: Axioms
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:48:31 GMT

> They're all occupying the same cosm; there can be only one accurate
> description of the cosm. 

Why do you think this?

> Or does the universe transform itself as you
> travel from culture to culture, the sun, moon and planets doing some
> spastic gavotte to rearrange themselves into the patterns of the new
> culture as you meet them? 

The universe transforms itself when *you* perceive it differently.
If I, a medieval European, travel to Peru, I will still perceive that
the universe behanves the way I think it does until some Peruvian
convinces me it works differently and I disconnect.

Perhaps the universe is so complex that we give it form by perceiving
it. No one perceives its true form, which is unperceiveable, but
filters it through their preconceptions. The universe doesn't change --
just your perception of it. That's another way to look at the question.

> And why should _you_ be the magic focus
> that determines the rearrangement of the cosm, instead of some other
> traveller?

Neither I nor another traveller are the magic focus -- we *both* are.
He perceive it his way and I perceive it my way.

> The Tech axiom of Magna Verita is 26, but the residents
> retain the mindset of the Middle Ages -- while the technology may work
> of itself, the individual does not have the belief and understanding
> to make it work for him.

I still see no problem... Magna Verita supports a Tech 26 way of looking
at things... no Magna Veritan will be able to convince a visitor that
the Earth is the center of the universe, though he may be able to believe
it himself.

However, the offshoot is that Magna Veritans disconnect 'up' as they
disconnect from their personal axioms. But they'll do so only
if they use new technology or think in new technological concepts, which
their culture will resist.

Magna Verita is a rather unusual case as far as cosms go... You could
say that the combined beliefs of the Kadandrans support the high
tech axioms. I suspect that without further reinforcement, Magna Verita's
tech axioms will drop to a lower level -- though not as low as it was
at the beginning.

Finally, keep in mind that the Tech axiom is by necessity oversimplified
and western oriented... if you want greater detail in how the Kadandran
beliefs interface with those of Magna Verita, add it.

> Sean Malloy                                 This is a test. Had this been an

-- 
Chris Pearce -- cpearce@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
--
   "Baldric, go forth into the streets and announce that Lord Blackadder wishes
    to sell his house. Percy, just go forth into the streets."
       - EB, "Money", BA2
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: cluther@morticia.cnns.unt.edu (Clay Luther)
Subject: Re: Nippon Tech in Cali
Organization: University of North Texas
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 20:19:43 GMT

jwchas@eng.clemson.edu (jerry wayne chastain) writes:

>regions surrounding the Nippon Tech pure region.  These regions are mixed LL 
>and NT.  Whose stelae are bounding these regions?  These mixed regions connect
>directly to both the NT pure and LL dominant regions.  This says to me that 
>regions are bounded and the reality altered when any three stelae, not
>necessarily three from the same cosm, are in range.  How else can you explain
>a transition from NT pure, through a NT/LL mixed, to a LL dominant?

The mixed regions seem to be bounded by both NT and LL stelae.

>Question number two is, since Baruk Kaah's bridge in the west was destroyed,
>how can the LL stelae in the west shunt the possiblity energy they are
>collecting to Rec Pakken?  Doesn't there need to be a bridge of some sort
>for the possibility energy to flow along back to the DD?  Is 3327's DD ( I 
>don't remember the name ) getting that possibilty energy?

I don't think so.  Stelae are connected directly to the Darkness Device.

-- 
Clay W. Luther                  cluther@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
System Manager                  Center for Network Neuroscience
University of North Texas       PO Box 5218 Denton, Texas 76203
817/565-3896,3472               aka. Malraux@GodNet (Bushashuru!)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: James H. Kiley<jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu>
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 15:30:42 GMT

I think part of the problem that Sean's having with the idea that the
laws of physics aren't the same under lower tech axioms is one that my
players had for a long time, and that is that certain physical laws might
not work, but on the whole, the concepts around the various laws of physics
still hold true, and this simply isn't the case.
Take for example Aristotle's view of the universe:  Heavier elements, 
like Earth and Water, fell to the center of the universe (ie the earth), while while
the lighter ones (air and fire) naturally rose.  Sublunar objects (things on
earth) tended to move naturally in straight lines, while heavenly objects (
the stars and planets) moved in circles (rise in the morning, set in the evening).
Now, for a low-tech world, this makes perfect sense, and we _don't have to_
apply our laws of physics to it for it to make sense.
As another example, look at Aysle (I mean the Aysle from whence they came, not
the part on Earth).  Their sun bobs up and down through the middle of their
world.  This doesn't make any sense with _any_ of our laws of physics.  Yet it
happens there.  The Laws of Physics Are Different In Other Cosms.

I'm sorry if anyone took this post the wrong way, I didn't mean for it to
seem inflammatory at all, I'm just trying to help with visualization 
problems... ;)

Jim Kiley			|"Fighting fire with empty words,
jkiley@andy.bgsu.edu		|"While the banks get fat, the poor stay poor,
ba-py403@andy.bgsu.edu		|"The rich get rich, the cops get paid 
jkiley@dad.bgsu.edu		|"To look away as one percent rules America"
				
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: burt@ptltd.com (Burton Choinski)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Tech Axioms
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:24:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: morticia.gatemail1.0b971225266747
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b

I think the best way to deal with all the percieved problems in tech is leave
it to the "feel" of the GM.  When I run, Auto pistols work in Nile, they won't
in Orrorsh...they don't "Feel" right to me, the personification of the EL1 as
far as the characters are concerned.  Yea, I know that one COULD hook a steam
engine to a gatling and make a minigun, but it doesn't "feel" right, and as
such is a contradition.

Every GM has his or her own impressions of what does and doesn't fit in the
realm.  i go pretty fast and loose with the tech definitions, and pretty much
use my own interpetation -- Nile, pre WW2, Orrorsh, Victorian, 1889, Civil War
; Asyle, Fantasy/Renessiance (sp?).   I have my own mind set of what "fits"
and that is what I use when looking at strange things or ideas.  The idea of
things is my guideline, given my knowlegde of the supposed era.   

It also allows me to play a little looser with my villians.
   -- Burton
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:06:15 -0400 
From: Andrew David Weiland <aw1s+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Axiom mania!

Sean writes,

>I think it would be possible to argue that you can explain the process
of >technological development by stating that the _cosm's_ axioms place
a >limit on what will _work_ (regularization of physical laws being
>addressed elsewhere for the purposes of this argument), while the
>_personal_ axioms of the residents place a limit on what they can
>understand and conceive of.

Ugh.  Eight axioms is three too many.  And your reconnection chart is
going to be really ugly.

>So, you have the prehistoric proto-humans, who start with personal Tech
>axioms of 0. Over time, some discover and understand fire, raising
their >personal axiom level; the others regard it as mystical and
>incomprehensible -- and are unable to produce it for themselves -- but
>learn how, raising their Tech axiom. The process is repeated over
>time, as inventors push their personal axiom higher, then spread the
>fruits of their effort to the population; each individual raises their
>personal Tech axiom as they make the leap to understanding the new
>technology.

Your personal axioms are like government regulations; they're meant to
help but they're just another set of restrictions.  And it screws the
third world.

It is possible to develop spells and machines beyond your cosm's axioms,
especially if you have access to the resources of another cosm. 
Technology one axiom level higher is possible with a +10 difficulty
number (see the science skill).  There are no restrictions I know of on
developing spells above your axiom level.  This new technology-magic is
a four-case contradiction; but contradictions in your home cosm are not
a big problem.  The technology will be unreliable at first (fails 20% of
the time), but eventually enough people will believe in the new tech to
raise the tech axiom (or eventually the everlaw of one gives in & raises
the tech axiom). 

The Social and Spiritual axiom are a different matter; it's my belief
that these axioms are not raised by new developments (new miracles or
philosophy).  The faith or community of the people raises the axiom
level, and new miracles and psi powers are a consequence.  Priests and
social scientists may not like this, but I don't care because I'm an
atheist and a misanthrope (hates humanity, though I tolerate and
sometimes love specific people).

Andrew "Write to live, live to write" Weiland
Organization: Junior, Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 16:33:00 -0400 
From: Andrew David Weiland <aw1s+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Psi and Magic

David Rose writes,

>I am wondering the difference in game balance terms between magic,
>miracles and psi.  All three seem similar, and tend to blend in my
>mind.
>
>I know there has been some talk about miracles and how they can
>become unbalancing if one isn't careful to use the "sufficient cause"
>rule.  Magic requires lots of study and can backlash.  I'm not
>sure about psi, but going by the literature, doing psi causes
>personal damage, yes?  So how is this different from backlash?
>
>  I'm not looking for answers having to do with different axioms,
>though.  Pretend we are in a universe where all axiom levels are
>equal (say 18s or 20s across the board).  What would distinguish
>an esper from a mage from a paladin?

The mage would be able to do just about anything with magic, but would
have a difficult time with some spells, which he could not cast without
suffering annoying backlash.

The priest would be able to summon more powerful effects than the mage,
and would never worry about backlash, but he would be limited to
miracles specific to his religion.

The psi could not have a social 18-20 realm as his home cosm.  If he was
a visitor from another cosm, or if we considered an axiom level 25 cosm,
the psychic
1) Would be limited in his selection of abilities, and could not lower
difficulty by increasing backlash (the magician's martyr strategy).
2) Would in general have higher difficulty numbers than the mage or
priest, and would suffer more backlash (psistrain) than the mage (the
mage resists backlash with skill+bonus number, the psi resists strain
with skill).
3) Would be able to increase the effect value of his powers at the cost
of a higher difficulty/strain, which neither the mage nor the priest
could do.

#3 (the Yoda manuever) is the only advantage to playing a psi, and can
be quite useful when you're willing to spend possibilities and cards. 
But otherwise psis are just the combination of the worst features of
priests and mages.
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: bpostow@fred.oberlin.edu (Brian Postow)
Subject: Re: Axiom mania!
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:52:56 GMT

wait... this is a question that I know has been asked here before, I
remember it, but I can't find the answer...

if say, an ayleish person is using an uzi in Nippon, and discos [this
is a rule of 1 right] then he is considered a nippon local. Can he or
can he not continue to use the uzi, and if not, why not.
--
Brian Postow :: The Pasta Knight - that noodle head in shiny armour
reachable at:
bpostow@occs.oberlin.edu
sbp2530@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu		this space left unintentionally blank.
sbp2530@oberlin.bitnet.edu

Computer scientist do it backwards -- [Mathmatician's point of view]
From: albert@chain.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Rick Jones)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: MY VIEW: Cyberpapacy
Date: 7 Apr 1992 16:09:41 GMT
Organization: Baylor College of Medicine

In article <rose.702583203@acf9> rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose) writes:
>Rick Jones <albert@CRICK.SSCTR.BCM.TMC.EDU> writes:
>  I'm not sure that I understand faith chips.  Homers as SOP would require
>computer assisted tracking, and I doubt that more than 1% of those records
>are ever looked at.  The important thing is not to get caught.  If they
>know who you are, your ass is grass.  Until they do, you are relatively
>safe.

	Faith chips are described in the cyberpapacy SB.  Bascially,
if you want to perform an action that is contrary to cyberpapal
doctrine, you have to make a spirit check against a difficulty of 
20.  (or something remarkably like it)  It's true that homers 
would require tracking devices, and I'd bet they wouldn't be always
monitoring someone, but once they did something heretical, you can 
bet the Church Police will be out with trackers.

>  However
>I never saw faith in the religion as necessarily meaning that one had
>been corrupted by the CyberPope.  One could believe faithfully in the
>Cyberpope, but also believe that the Inquisition was a corrupt organization
>which had betrayed the trust of the CyberPope and must be resisted.

	Well, I was under the impression that most cyberpriests totally
embrace Malreaux's teachings, and that includes the Inquisition.  I'd guess
that anyone who questions the teachings too much ends up like the renegade
hospitalier template (having to flee/rebel).

>  I wonder what would happen for such a believer to discover the cold
>truth of who Jean Malreux I is.  I suspect that I would play that they
>would have a crisis of faith (faith role with some difficulty) which if
>they won, they would be permitted to retain their faith as well as the
>believe that the Church is corrupt.  Such a person would be able to
>spearhead a religious revolution to overthrow the anti-pope from his
>usurped office.

	It's possible for folks to reject the cyber part of the cyberpapacy
and keep Magna Veritas faith (which would be an interesting character),
and form a schism to bring the church back to the old ways, but I think
that most of the clerecy embrace the church, corruption and all.
-- 
Rick Jones				Systems Support Center
albert@bcm.tmc.edu			Baylor College of Medicine
Voice: 713-798-7352			standard disclaimers apply
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: jogle@zia.aoc.nrao.edu (Jim Ogle (Ks. Jim))
Subject: Re: Quick Tharkhold Question
Organization: National Radio Astronomy Observatory, Socorro NM
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 20:36:24 GMT

In article <mumble> albert@chain.ssctr.bcm.tmc.edu (Rick Jones) writes:
>In article <grumble> soholt@aludra.usc.edu (Timothy Soholt) writes:

>>I don't have the Thark sourcebook and I'm curious. What if any
>>discussion of psionics is there in the sourcebook?
>
>	No psi whatsoever.  There may be psi stuff in the LA Sourcebook.

Actually, there probably won't be.  Tharkold doesn't have a high
enough Social axiom to support psionics.

Plus, over on GEnie, I've found out from Paul Hume (half of the
Tharkold writing squad) that he had no idea of what the psionic rules
were like when he was doing Tharkold; he was forced to drop his
psionics due to space limitations, but I think having a second set of
psionics (his concept of how they work was based on entirely different
lines of thought than what's in Space Gods) would have/will be a
really big mistake.

It's not like techno-demons need psionics anyway....



-- 
Kansas Jim (Jim Ogle, Torg guru)
jogle@nrao.edu (NRAO-VLBA, Socorro New Mexico)
"I'd be apathetic if I cared."
From: rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose)
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Subject: Re: Psionics and Magic
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:12:03 GMT
Organization: New York University

aw1s+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew David Weiland) writes:

>rose@acf9.nyu.edu (David Rose) writes,
>>By the hypothesis that Social (living => living) and Magic (living =>
>>unliving), there are restrictions on what is psionics and what is
>magic.  >However this division would require a reworking of the game
>mechanics >of both.

>Don't push the analogy too far.  After all, technology
>(living->unliving) is certainly able to affect living beings, since
>technology includes surgery and, at high axiom levels, biotech.  The
>idea of a spell system that doesn't affect the kindred is a little too
>weird.

   I agree that this analogy shouldn't be taken immediately as to
gospel.  Consider it a hypothesis of Possibility Physics (the same
science which came up with Everlaws One and Two).  As yet unverified.

  Note:  
    Technology is (unliving => unliving).
    Magic is (living => unliving).

  It is true that at the high end of the Tech axioms, the living are
increasingly involved, though at the low end of Magic axioms the living
are involved.  This suggests more something wrong with Magic than
Tech, as higher axioms should be able to extend the boundaries of 
living/unliving more.

>Psionics and Spells are alike in that they draw their power from the
>user, and cause backlash (as opposed to machines and miracles).  The
>difference is that the Social axiom (like the Tech axiom) is relatively
>stable.  But the Magical (and Spiritual) axiom is subject to rapid
>shifts.

  I think that Tech and Social is stable only as a matter of circumstance
and they are no more inherently stable than the other two.

>  All of
>the technology and magic skills are Mind- or Perception-based, and all

  some tech skills are dex based, as melee weapons and lockpicking

>of the spiritual skills are Spirit- based.  But Social skills are half
>mental (trick, test, psionics) and half based on the oddball stat
>Charisma.

  Q:  What attribute would you base a sexual performance skill on?

Note that technology is unliving vs. unliving.  I may physically manipulate
the tool, but fundamentally it is the notion of tool vs environment that
dignifies tech.  Also, I do not have much idea on how attributes relate
to axioms.

  Generally I layer the attributes this way:

      STR, DEX  (physical/material attributes)
      MIN, PER  (mental attributes)
      SPI, CHA  (spiritual/mystical/emotional attributes)
      TOU       (life-force, a combination of phys/ment/spiritual
                 resilience.)

  As I said before, I have no notion of how these connect to the axioms.
If someone sees a connection, I would be interested.

--
David Rose
Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
251 Mercer Street, New York, NY 10012
rose@math12.cims.nyu.edu
Organization: Junior, Philosophy, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:44:49 -0400 
From: Andrew David Weiland <aw1s+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A can of worms to detonate

>I'll regret this tomorrow, but anyway...
>
>Doesn't the Ayslish Law Of Observation make Quantomechanical >systems
contradictory in Aysle?
>--Evil Incarnate

The tech axiom ensures that quantum mechanics is already a
contradiction.  And I'm not so sure that the Law of Observation
disagrees with quantum mechanics; doesn't QM say that we define a
particle's position by observing it?

Andrew "Tharkoldu psionics?  Ouchie!" Weiland
Newsgroups: alt.games.torg
From: malloy@nprdc.navy.mil (Sean Malloy)
Subject: Re: How do axioms really work?
X-Gated-By: The Black Marble Wombat@morticia.cnns.unt.edu
X-Gated-From: torg mailing list
Organization: University of North Texas
X-Gatemail-Version: 1.0b
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 15:45:43 GMT

On Apr 6, 10:53am, Rick Pim wrote:
} >If the Tech axiom was a hard-and-fast limit on what
} >technology would _work_, then as soon as your character failed his
} >contradiction check while flying the airplane, not only would the
} >engines stop, but the plane would drop out of the sky like a rock and
} >be completely uncontrollable.
} 
}    i don't think this is necessarily something one can use to support
} any particular position; i suspect that they did it this way to avoid a
} situation like:  "you disconnect. you plunge from the sky. you die."
} which might make their sample adventure a bit grim. :-)

If you look at the adventure, you're given a choice of either letting
the Living Land Axioms cut off your engine, forcing you to make a
dead-stick landing immediately, or expend a Possibility to create a
reality bubble and keep your plane functioning normally. If you choose
to take it in immediately, you make a check using your Air Vehicles
skill to see whether you can land safely.

It seems to me that the deciding question as to whether a machine with
a Tech axiom higher than the area it's in will work (regardless of
whether or not a local can understand it and make it work) is whether
it uses an existing natural condition or creates an unnatural
condition in order to operate.

And some of the divisions in Tech axioms are purely arbitrary -- for
example, between Tech 7 and 8, bows go from being usable against small
game to usable as a combat weapon. To increase the power on a self
bow, you either make thicker limbs or make the bowstave longer. Why
would a 3' bowstave work as a bow at Tech 7 while a 6' bowstave -- the
same shape, the same wood -- wouldn't? Go into the Living Land, and
hand an edeinos a small orangewood self bow and show him how to use
it. Before the wood rots away, he'll be able to use it to hunt game;
it functions perfectly well. But then if you hand him a 6' orangewood
longbow, it's a four-case contradiction.

For a more extreme case, disconnect the edeinos. Until he reconnects,
he _can't_ create a contradiction. Now he _can't_ make a 6' orangewood
longbow work, but he can still use the 3' orangewood bow. What is it
about a 6' bow that is so fundamentally different from a 3' bow? Is
there some fundamental difference in the way the two bows are used
that would make him incapable of understanding how to use it? It's
just a bigger bow; it works the same way.

-- 
random sig #15:
Sean Malloy                                  | 
Navy Personnel Research & Development Center | Balance the budget -- declare
San Diego, CA 92152-6800                     | politicians a game species.
malloy@nprdc.navy.mil                        |