YANI: Muggle conduct

On Jan 25, 11:28 am, Michiel Helvensteijn <nom... RemoveThis @please.com> wrote:
> pend... RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:

>
> I find that most interesting. So because of your beliefs you could not use
> magic inside the game? But your character was allowed to pray to a
> non-Christian god, though?
>
> Forgive my curiosity.

I mentally substituted my Deity's name for the in-game character, on
the rationale "this is who I would pray to, if the game allowed".
Later I accessed the source code and built my own custom branch with
the god's names appropriately altered.

That's not a perfect fix because Nethacks' handling of deity
corresponds to no real-world religion's conception of God. I'm not
exactly sure how I could ever redress that without fundamentally
breaking the game. For instance, how could you reasonably get rid of
sacrifice without making the game fundamentally different from
nethack? You can't just give away artifacts for free because someone
prays. Same with murder. No real-world religion teaches you can buy
off God/the gods/whatever by simply sacrificing enough animals of the
appropriate type. If that were so, rich people would all go to Heaven
because they could afford to sacrifice as many cattle or whatever as
they needed. So they could commit mass genocide and expiate the crime
with wave after wave of animals specially bred for sacrifice. Poor
people, meanwhile, would all go to hell because they'd be unlikely to
afford even a single animal.

Fundamentally, why do I play nethack? Because the problem solving
skills, technical challenge, vast borrowing across literature, and the
education I get from reading the source code more than counterbalance
it's religious problems. Same reason during the Middle Ages scholars
still read Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. Plus, it's a fun game.
That's got to count for something.

--
Respectfully,

Brian P.

--
Respectfully,

Brian P.
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

On Jan 25, 11:56 am, Philip Potter <p....TakeThisOut@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
> Raisse the Thaumaturge wrote:
> > Philip Potter wrote:
>
> >> pend....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >>> refusal to use magical fooproofing,
> >> It's not necessarily magical. <rot13>cbylzbecuvat n pebpbqvyr pbecfr
> >> tvirf svercebbs ybj obbgf, juvpu ner cerfhznoyl svercebbs orpnhfr gurl
> >> ner pebpbqvyr-fxva.</rot13>
>
> > Yes, but that still needs magic to bring about.
>
> True; but as an example of a non-magical fooproof item it refutes the
> proposition that "all fooproofing is magical".
>
> I would argue that the samurai's rustproof splint mail is not magical too.

*Nods* Your point is taken. So rather than saying "all fooproofing is
magical" say "Most fooproofing is magical".

What it means, then, is that unless you're fortunate enough to find a
set of dragon scale mail premade in the dungeon, you're going to be
limited in your choice of armor to the specific subset of nonmagically
fooproof types you've mentioned. Or you can resort to temporary
nonmagical rustproofing. Or just accept the risk of rust and wear the
better armor anyway.

Sounds to me like, for a "muggle" game, the best armor you could wear
as far as AC improvement would be crystal plate mail. It also means
you're going to have a hard time getting magic resistance. Unless you
find the appropriate armor or cloak by accident (no mean feat), the
odds are pretty good you'll have to play a class that has magic
resistance as part of the class artifact.

--
Respectfully,

Brian P.
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

On Jan 25, 10:42 am, Philip Potter <p... RemoveThis @doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:
> pend... RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:
>
> When crowned, a neutral character is given a +1 Vorpal Blade. One could
> argue that this is divine assistance rather than magic. Also, a +1 long
> sword may simply be of superior quality to a +0 long sword. (This is
> corroborated by the loss of 'enchantment' to edged weapons used to
> engrave in the floor.)

Agree.
> >
> The OP postulated that potions are alchemical rather than magical.

Well, I suppose you could do that, but if we're talking about the
Potterverse potions are magical there. If we can handwave potions
into not being magical, could we not also handwave wands into being
technology? I could make a name change to create "death ray gun",
"sleep ray gun", "energy rifle", etc. Amulets could be devices,
(amulet of reflection becomes 'personal shield' a la dune), scrolls
could be one-shot nanobot tools, etc.

I guess my point is that, if we try hard enough, we can handwave just
about anything "magical" in the game to something "nonmagical" via
Clarke's law.. So why make an exception for potions? Why do potions
get the handwave and wands don't?

>
> Surely you could use the candelabrum as a light source if you wanted?
> Although the candelabrum is magical, it is not being used in a magical way.

While a human referee would certainly agree with you, how would this
be done in code? How does the software know whether you're using the
Candelabra as a light source or as a turning effect? Do we not break
conduct until a monster gets turned? And if so, how do we distinguish
the 'magical' turning of the Candelabra from the 'divine' turning of
the cleric or hte knight?


--
Respectfully,

Brian P.
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

Philip Potter <p....RemoveThis@doc.ic.ac.uk> wrote:

> As with weapons, I'd say armor with positive
> enchantment need not be magical; it could simply
> be superior quality.

I don't think that works. Consider the difference in
attacks and their effects between disenchanters, on
the one hand, and monsters with rust/rot attacks,
on the other. The two kinds of attacks compound
their effects additively, where if enchantment were
"construction quality", they'd be parallel attacks
on the same limited-damage-possible attribute.

xanthian.
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

>
> Don't forget that there are still ways to make wishes. Like thrones and
> smoky potions.

Possible solution: wish for 'nothing' to preserve conduct. I think it
reasonable that a muggle wouldn't believe in a djinn, and therefore
wouldn't interact with it, and similarly dismiss the throne's voice as
hallucination.

--
Respectfully,

Brian P.
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

Michiel Helvensteijn wrote:
> It might be interesting to have a conduct of not using any magic or anything
> magical. This means:
>
> * No reading spellbooks (except the Book of the Dead, once)
> * No reading scrolls (except of mail)
> * No firing wands (except of nothing)
> * No using magic {lamps, markers, [instruments]}
>
> This would be a very challenging conduct. But:
>
> * It does NOT imply 'atheist'. You can still pray and use altars.
> * It does NOT mean you can't use enchanted equipment. You just can't enchant
> it yourself.
> * It does NOT mean you can't sit on a throne. So you can potentially use
> that to identify or get wishes.
> * It does NOT mean you can't use potions. They seem more alchemical than
> magical to me.
> * It does NOT mean you can't use rings or amulets.

What do you think is the difference in using magic between a magic lamp
and rings/amulets? In my opinion, this comes out to rather the same,
doesn't it?

Yours,
Daniel

--
Got two Dear-Daniel-Instant Messages
by MSN, associate ICQ with stress--so
please use good, old E-MAIL!
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

Daniel Kraft wrote:

>> It might be interesting to have a conduct of not using any magic or
>> anything magical. This means:
>>
>> * No reading spellbooks (except the Book of the Dead, once)
>> * No reading scrolls (except of mail)
>> * No firing wands (except of nothing)
>> * No using magic {lamps, markers, [instruments]}
>>
>> This would be a very challenging conduct. But:
>>
>> * It does NOT imply 'atheist'. You can still pray and use altars.
>> * It does NOT mean you can't use enchanted equipment. You just can't
>> enchant it yourself.
>> * It does NOT mean you can't sit on a throne. So you can potentially use
>> that to identify or get wishes.
>> * It does NOT mean you can't use potions. They seem more alchemical than
>> magical to me.
>> * It does NOT mean you can't use rings or amulets.
>
> What do you think is the difference in using magic between a magic lamp
> and rings/amulets? In my opinion, this comes out to rather the same,
> doesn't it?

Well, a magic lamp has the word 'magic' in it, and that's really the only
reason.

But you're right, maybe rings and amulets should be in the list as well.

--
Michiel
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

>>> * It does NOT mean you can't use rings or amulets.
>> What do you think is the difference in using magic between a magic lamp
>> and rings/amulets? In my opinion, this comes out to rather the same,
>> doesn't it?
>
> Well, a magic lamp has the word 'magic' in it, and that's really the only
> reason.
>
> But you're right, maybe rings and amulets should be in the list as well.

On the other hand, the other way round one could allow "passive" magic
as in rings/amulets, but then I think magic lamps should be allowed,
too; and what about magical armour, like speed boots?

Daniel

--
Got two Dear-Daniel-Instant Messages
by MSN, associate ICQ with stress--so
please use good, old E-MAIL!
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

Daniel Kraft wrote:

>>>> * It does NOT mean you can't use rings or amulets.
>>> What do you think is the difference in using magic between a magic lamp
>>> and rings/amulets? In my opinion, this comes out to rather the same,
>>> doesn't it?
>>
>> Well, a magic lamp has the word 'magic' in it, and that's really the only
>> reason.
>>
>> But you're right, maybe rings and amulets should be in the list as well.
>
> On the other hand, the other way round one could allow "passive" magic
> as in rings/amulets, but then I think magic lamps should be allowed,
> too; and what about magical armour, like speed boots?

Sounds good. But then you still couldn't rub a magic lamp to summon a jinni.
Nor could you use any magic instrument or a magic marker. So it doesn't
really change THAT much.

But then, if you're allowed to apply a magic lamp, shouldn't you also be
allowed to apply magic whistles and stuff?

It's gonna be hard to maintain consistency for this conduct.

--
Michiel
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

Michiel Helvensteijn kirjoitti:
> It might be interesting to have a conduct of not using any magic or anything
> magical. This means:
>
> * No reading spellbooks (except the Book of the Dead, once)
> * No reading scrolls (except of mail)
> * No firing wands (except of nothing)
> * No using magic {lamps, markers, [instruments]}
>
> This would be a very challenging conduct. But:
>
> * It does NOT imply 'atheist'. You can still pray and use altars.
> * It does NOT mean you can't use enchanted equipment. You just can't enchant
> it yourself.
> * It does NOT mean you can't sit on a throne. So you can potentially use
> that to identify or get wishes.
> * It does NOT mean you can't use potions. They seem more alchemical than
> magical to me.
> * It does NOT mean you can't use rings or amulets.
>
> What do you think?
>

Sounds very good. But what is "magic"? Many items are not magic but
actually they are "magic". Like speed boots
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

k00pa wrote:

> Michiel Helvensteijn kirjoitti:
>> It might be interesting to have a conduct of not using any magic or
>> anything magical. This means:
>>
>> * No reading spellbooks (except the Book of the Dead, once)
>> * No reading scrolls (except of mail)
>> * No firing wands (except of nothing)
>> * No using magic {lamps, markers, [instruments]}
>>
>> This would be a very challenging conduct. But:
>>
>> * It does NOT imply 'atheist'. You can still pray and use altars.
>> * It does NOT mean you can't use enchanted equipment. You just can't
>> enchant it yourself.
>> * It does NOT mean you can't sit on a throne. So you can potentially use
>> that to identify or get wishes.
>> * It does NOT mean you can't use potions. They seem more alchemical than
>> magical to me.
>> * It does NOT mean you can't use rings or amulets.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
> Sounds very good. But what is "magic"? Many items are not magic but
> actually they are "magic". Like speed boots

Yes, that's a good question. My newest thoughts are these: You may not
actively use any magic. No spells, wands, scrolls or books (with the
logical exceptions). No rubbing a magic lamp either. But you CAN wear magic
equipment and apply magic lamps and instruments.

--
Michiel
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

pendell DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:
> I don't really see this as doable. "No magic" should mean "no magic"
> -- nothing except divine assistance. Refusal to use any weapon that is
> not +0,

Your interpretation of "no magic" is different from mine. Here are a few
of our differences:

When crowned, a neutral character is given a +1 Vorpal Blade. One could
argue that this is divine assistance rather than magic. Also, a +1 long
sword may simply be of superior quality to a +0 long sword. (This is
corroborated by the loss of 'enchantment' to edged weapons used to
engrave in the floor.)

> refusal to use magical fooproofing,

It's not necessarily magical. <rot13>cbylzbecuvat n pebpbqvyr pbecfr
tvirf svercebbs ybj obbgf, juvpu ner cerfhznoyl svercebbs orpnhfr gurl
ner pebpbqvyr-fxva.</rot13>

> refusal to use any amulet,
> wand, potion (except oil, fruit juice, or holy/unholy water) or

The OP postulated that potions are alchemical rather than magical.

> magical armor (any armor with special attributes and not +0)

As with weapons, I'd say armor with positive enchantment need not be
magical; it could simply be superior quality.

> tool except as needed to perform the Invocation ritual.

Surely you could use the candelabrum as a light source if you wanted?
Although the candelabrum is magical, it is not being used in a magical way.

> That means digging through the plane of earth with a pickaxe, no trap
> detection to find the portal, no wand of teleport to keep off the air
> elementals and no potions of healing to save your life when they catch
> you ... because you're moving at a maximum of "fast". And you still
> have to find the portal the hard way. No wand of death and no magic
> resistance (except, perhaps, from quest artifact) means Rodney and
> liches will have to be meleed, and their touch-of-death will prove
> fatal. It also means, with no wand of death, you'll probably have to
> melee Pestilence.

Having said my disagreements, I mostly agree with your analysis here. I
guess you could weaken it to "no active magic" to allow boots of speed,
CoMR etc, but it still would be challenging.
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct 

Philip Potter wrote:

> pendell RemoveThis @hotmail.com wrote:

>> refusal to use magical fooproofing,
>
> It's not necessarily magical. <rot13>cbylzbecuvat n pebpbqvyr pbecfr
> tvirf svercebbs ybj obbgf, juvpu ner cerfhznoyl svercebbs orpnhfr gurl
> ner pebpbqvyr-fxva.</rot13>

Yes, but that still needs magic to bring about.

Raisse, killed by a priest of Moloch

--
irina RemoveThis @valdyas.org LegoHack: http://www.valdyas.org/irina/nethack/
Status of Raisse (piously neutral): Level 8 HP 63(67) AC -3, fast.
 >> Stay informed about: YANI: Muggle conduct