Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site hammer.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!hammer!hutch
From: hutch@hammer.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Newsgroups: net.games.frp
Subject: Re: Using a light spell as a laser
Message-ID: <1691@hammer.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Dec-85 19:17:31 EST
Article-I.D.: hammer.1691
Posted: Thu Dec  5 19:17:31 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Dec-85 05:09:13 EST
References: <34@ttidcc.UUCP> <678@k.cs.cmu.edu> <1675@hammer.UUCP> <692@k.cs.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: hutch@hammer.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison)
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 81
Summary: why "demons of science" are incompatible with AD&D

In open reply to Tim Maroney,

Yes, I do in fact believe that a Polymorph Object spell would work for
shaping a laser crystal, assuming one had a lump of ruby which was of
sufficient size and grade.  "Permanency" might have to be cast as a
means of keeping the stress of laser-firing from reverting the crystal.

>I find your objection to consulting a demon of science peculiar.  In what
>way is it inconsistent with normal AD&D play?

It is inconsistent because the AD&D rules don't define any such thing.
Of course, anyone who has read Chivalry and Sorcery, or who has ever
encountered the concept from reading in musty old tomes about medieval
magic, would realize that such an idea makes an interesting variation.

The Cacodemon and related spells are indeed appropriate for that kind
of operation.  However, I doubt STRONGLY that it would be socially
accepted to practice this type of magic, because of the side effects
which should occur when the summonings are botched.

>The other objection is even stranger; I thought I understood what you were
>saying, but then I read on.  Do you mean that all magic that smacks of
>authenticity should be avoided because it is psychologically dangerous, or
>because it is liable to draw the wrath of fundamentalists?

Here we get into the fuzzy area which makes all the fundamentalists so
nervous.  I strongly advise NOT using names of demons or spirits which
are taken from any kind of medieval sources.  In fact, the AD&D books
use names which, though powerless to compel, were once believed to have
the power to compel.  The reasons are these:

If a fundamentalist group is going to be able to get something banned
because it is "witchcraft" then it will be precisely because they can
show that actual names of things which are commonly classed as diabolic
spirits are being used.  THAT would give them the ammunition they need
to toss out the whole thing.  Also, we do not want to make things
harder for our players.  If someone were to play in a game of mine, and
if I were to allow this sort of summoning, and that person were to
later on become a fundamentalist Christian, I would have to deal with
the fact that they considered me to have dragged them into a type of
sin.  I do not wish to do this, and I don't think anyone else really
wants to.

There is the remote possibility that the names actually do have some
power to compel, or that the players will think that they do, ESPECIALLY
during the roleplay.  Remembering the nature of the things being called
on and the dangers traditionally associated with calling on them, it is
better to either use a completely fictitious construct which is devised
to be benevolent rather than malevolent, OR to simply not have them
in the game.

>I fail to see the psychological danger; and I
>should mention that I do have experience with "real" invocations and
>evocations.

I hope I made my point clearer.  I realize that not everyone will
consider my reasons to be good ones.

The question of whether or not the device would be invented at all is
kind of silly.  Aristotle used a focussed-sunlight weapon to burn the
ships of invading Spartans.  The principle of making sunlight come
together into a "fire-ray" is a fairly obvious one.  The use of a ruby
crystal to make a laser might be decided by the fact that rubies are
obviously fire-related gemstones; the alchemetic research would "reveal"
them to be the appropriate gemstone for a fire-ray.

With respect to Ed Kline's hand-held laser gun:  In fact, I don't think
it will cut living flesh, or for that matter, most kinds of dead flesh.
It might give a bit of a burn though.  As has been said elsewhere, a
heat-laser doesn't do as good a job on tissues where there is a lot of
water circulating around to take away the heat.

The real danger is that it can damage the retina of the eye, resulting
in LOTS of pain and permanent blindness.

As far as "real" deathray guns go, one limitation on making them has
been the idea that the power supply has to be re-usable.  I don't think
this has to be the case, and I bet that one could use a high-energy
flash chemical reaction to trigger a laser-type weapon.

Hutch