Re: Spell symbols

Subject: Re: Spell symbols
From: Atte Koivula (
Date: Wed Sep 08 1999 - 20:23:04 EEST


> Now these do need to be put in tune.. we dont need powers 
and forms. Only
> spheres. I see no point in separating the elements - not 
in symbols but
> maybe in actual spell as an argument, otherwise its going 
to bee too hard
> to code a system that allows fireballs or waterbolts - if 
there would not
> even be an argument for it.

Too hard to code, eh? I have a pretty good idea how this all 
can be coded. IN FACT, I coded a system like this into 
Majik4 in a couple of hours. Don\'t tell me what is hard to 
code and what is not, mur. 

> and whats with that arrow-form? or key?.. or weapon? 

Looks like I need to dig up that documentation about these 
symbols from the old archives or just type the shit from the 

> earth, water can be combined to \"matter\" symbol
> flesh, nature, spirit, being, essence,  plantkind to 
\"life\" or \"spirit\"
> symbol
> fire and air (as in electricity) can be put into \"force\"
> magic need its own symbol, as does mind.
> image isnt a symbol at all since all illusions exist 
either A) inside some
> persons mind (which puts in to mind symbo) or B) as 
> illusions which puts image symbol to \"force\"..
> essence, being etc symbols can be put to life, spirit or 
soul - which ever
> you want to call it.

This is so ridiculous it isn\'t even funny. We NEED, REQUIRE 
and MUST HAVE different kinds of symbols because we need a 
flexible spellsystem that gives space for hundreds, even 
thousands of spells. It must be possible, for example, to 
cast, as Aluna pointed out, firebolts and lightnings. And 
don\'t even try to squirm your way out of this, your \"tune\" 
is simply fucked up.

Hey, I got a GREAT idea, how about we combine ALL the 
symbols into one single symbol called \"magic\"!  

> with those 5 tehcniques and 9 symbols it is possible to 
cast any possible
> spell. we dont need more symbosl than that - instead of 
symbols we need
> arguments that can be given.. like targets or form.. THEN 
we might need
> those arrows and weapons etc.. but not as actual symbols.

There\'s no reason to change the entire fundamentals of our 
entire fucking magic system. It\'s hard enough to understand 
for most people even now. Evolution has directed our magic 
system into what it is now. 

Besides, the argument stuff would be much harder to code 
than the simple symbol system and it wouldn\'t be very 
graceful codewise, mind you.

Sorry about the discouraging criticism, nothing personal...

/Atte \"Yorkaturr/Shadow\" Koivula <>

True darkness is not the absence of light.
 Tämä viesti on lähetetty Saunalahden Serverin Webmailista

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 00:03:17 EET