>>Can you honestly not see how an uber "stop-every-spell-caster" ability at level 13 would be ridiculously unbalancing, and prone to abuse? Really? Really?<<

This doesn't make any sense to me either. All I can think is that low level empaths are vunerable to PP since they are constantly given coins and are often in RT trying to heal down. Then again, there is something of an unwritten rule not to steal from them.

I do find myself wondering why this spell has no level checks or even warding check. I'd think that higher levels characters should be able to shake off or ignore the effects of this spell since they are so much more powerful than some of the people who cast it.

>>On the topic at hand, I do NOT agree with the point you're making. Minor Sanctuary is a completely different spell, with a different purpose and different mechanics. It, like Song of Noise, is functioning as intended.

Please try to stay on topic here please, this is about Minor Sanctuary not Song of Noise.

Why should a level 13 empath be able to shut down a capped wizard with no chance at failing?

Setting aside who's zoomin' who, for a moment. . .

This much noise usually means there's a problem. And since I'm not seeing a problem worth this level of behavior, I have to believe the problem itself at the core isn't suitable for these forums. And all this is spillage.

Even with that said -- there's a germ of truth here. The goal of pick pocketing is to be so good as to be innocuous, to not threaten, to not be perceived as ill-intended, to be light-fingered, to be. . . well -- 'as calm as the praying pond in the mid of night'.

Yeah, ok. . . so maybe I'm confusing monks and pick pockets. But -- what if the sanctuary spell were reworked so that picking pockets were allowed. Until you got caught. Then, not only will the justice system likely kick in, but the spirits charged with protecting the area would be incensed beyond all measure.

Not only would those spirits (for the balance of spell duration, but also for as long as that spell could be kept in affect by refreshing) be so increasingly vigilant as to prevent the offender from pick pocketing again (I got my eye on you) but they would exact their own toll for the deception (loss of eyes, anyone?)

Take the risk, if you will. Get caught, and it's the casters' spirits' boot up your. . . well, you get the picture.

Doug

<<<Are you sure?>>>

What part of "leave me out of your childish games" did you not understand?

~ H

So stealing somebody's stuff isn't an aggressive action? That's a new one on me.

>>What part of "leave me out of your childish games" did you not understand?

Please try to remain civil and on topic.

>>So stealing somebody's stuff isn't an aggressive action? That's a new one on me.

The action itself might be aggressive in the sense that it's a "hostile" act. How the act is performed is not necessarily aggressive. If I club someone over the head and take their money then that is aggressive. If it's as WOLFFC3 states someone merely bumps into you and lifts your wallet the action itself is not aggressive. Pickpocketing in GS is the latter one, I can only imagine the howls of protests if players were allowed to do the former.

>>Therefore, if pickpocketing is allowed in a Sanctuary, spells like Sleep, Lullaby, Tangleweed (cast from defensive or guarded), Bind, and any other "nonaggressive" spell should also be able to be cast in a sanctuary.

I'm not so sure about bind but other than that I agree.

>>Why not Bind?

Because anyone can help someone out of sleep or lullaby. Off the top of my head the only way to help someone out of bind is with Empath's surge spell.

I wouldn't be upset either way if bind was usable in a sanct or not, I just think it stands out from the other spells slightly.

The way I see it is this. 213 protects clerics and empaths who put themselves into vulnerable states in order to help/rescue someone. The danger of removing the anti pick pocket effect is that the clerics and empaths make great targets while vulnerable like this and are often given lots of loose coin to carry. There is a part of our IG culture that looks down on pickpocketing them so perhaps the peer pressure is enough to keep them from getting absolutely pilfered while plying their trade.

Bind is a warding spell so at least it's taking skill/level into account.

Wikipedia: "A sanctuary, in its original meaning, is a sacred place, such as a shrine. By the use of such places as a safe haven, by extension the term has come to be used for any place of safety."

Those who seek refuge in a sanctuary can reasonably expect not to be assailed upon in any manner. In game terms, this means no attacks, offensive spells, and yes, no stealing. Furthermore, this is a magical sanctuary created by spiritual forces. As long as the sanctuary remains intact, those within it are incapable of offensive action against others. Period. It's really very simple.

~ Heathyr and friends

>> Alright people no more talking while you're dead in game, there is no evidence that people are conscious while dead.

Actually, I suspect that only undermines your point. You have demonstrated an area where game mechanics clearly make a claim on how Elanthia works differently from Earth.

In Elanthia, quite obviously, we are conscious when dead. It makes little sense to appeal to real-world materials to try to clarify this point.

Similarly, in Elanthia, the spirits summoned to erect a Sanctuary do not allow stealing. So perhaps appeals to real world stealing, traditions, or whatever, makes as little sense as it does for death. The best view we have into how Elanthia works is through what is explicitly allowed or disallowed by the mechanics of the game. Sanctuary spirits don't like stealing. That's Elanthia for you.

The nerf advocates have failed so far to note the existing 213 nerf, where it can fail if there are higher-level creatures in the room. ("You attempt to call peaceful spirits to the area but are overwhelmed with a spirit of aggression!") That level 13 empath you're so concerned about can't necessarily put up a sanctuary against a tree spirit.

So rather than pretending that they're good upright citizens, maybe pickpockets should figure out how to exude that aura of aggression and prevent sanctuaries.

>>So rather than pretending that they're good upright citizens, maybe pickpockets should figure out how to exude that aura of aggression and prevent sanctuaries.

So if someone has a criminal record it should interfere with someone casting minor sanctuary? Sounds good to me.

<<<Churches are commonly regarded as sanctuaries. Yet that didn't stop some crazy anti-abortion guy from walking in and killing an abortion doctor, or whatever that story was.>>>

I'm sorry to break it to you, but real-life churches aren't magic.

<<<Using someone's own words to point out their completely contradictory stance on two almost identical issues isn't exactly plagiarism.>>>

I'm not sure why you're even involved in this, but if you look at the OP he used my exact words from a completely different thread and attempted to pass it off as his own. That's plagiarism. If he had simply quoted me, that would be one thing. But no. At best, he misrepresented my intent. I had made absolutely no comment about Minor Sanctuary at that point, nor had I intended to. We were discussing Song of Noise, which is a very different spell. My "stance" is not contradictory, and the issues are far from identical.

<<<Wrong. Ever see someone cast Call Lightning at someone and then sanct the room so that nobody can dispel it?>>>

This is a poor example. You could as easily cast any offensive spell in the book, or simply outright attack, then throw up a sanct to prevent a counter-attack. There's no way to claim casting sanctuary is an offensive ability.

<<<How about setting off a scarab that nobody can kill because a level 13 decided to sanct the room, and it slowly kills everyone in the room one by one?>>>

If your first example was poor, this one is outright ludicrous. Scarabs do not attack innocent bystanders in a sanct. If someone activates a scarab, the bug will attack the person who set it off (and only that person). When that person is dead, the bug will pop out and leave the area. It will not, I repeat, not "slowly kill everyone in the room one by one". That is a fallacy. It's not true.

<<<Therefore I would be forced to walk to the next room and cast Meteor Swarm in order to kill the scarab that otherwise can't be killed because it's wreaking havoc in a sancted room.>>>

Again, this situation will never happen. It's impossible. And on a side note, using Meteor Swarm to kill a scarab? Seriously?

<<<I couldn't care less about the pickpocket issue with Minor Sanctuary.>>>

Mmm-hmm. Okay.

<<<it is just a tad bit ridiculous that a fresh level 13 who could theoretically be trained in literally nothing except 13 major spirit ranks can shut down any offensive move from any character of any level no matter what.>>>

Again, please note the definition of sanctuary. The level of the character who created it is irrelevant. It's still a sanctuary.

~ Heathyr

It is inconsistent and illogical for a level 13 spell to be a no fail, 100% way to prevent any offensive action by a character, period, with no training requirements beyond 13 ranks in MjS. At this point I am hard pressed to think of other mechanics in the game that can negatively effect other characters and have no level or skill based checks at all. I also don't care about pickpocket, and don't have a character trained in the skill, but there are plenty of ways that sanctuary could be made to actually make a trained skill more complex, challenging, and interesting instead of making it completely unusable.

>I'm sorry to break it to you, but real-life churches aren't magic. -Heathyr

Then why are you using Wikipedia as a reference? I don't recall the definition you copy & pasted mentioning anything about magic either, yet somehow it's supposed to be relevant to your argument, at least until you're called out on it.

>I'm not sure why you're even involved in this,

Oh gee I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this was a members only thread that required your permission to participate. Please accept my humble non-apologies.

>but if you look at the OP he used my exact words from a completely different thread and attempted to pass it off as his own. That's plagiarism. If he had simply quoted me, that would be one thing. But no. At best, he misrepresented my intent. I had made absolutely no comment about Minor Sanctuary at that point, nor had I intended to. We were discussing Song of Noise, which is a very different spell. My "stance" is not contradictory, and the issues are far from identical.

So sue him. I'm sure the judge would die laughing over something so petty.

And yes if you think a level 17 bard shouldn't be able to shut down a level 100, but it's a-ok for a level 13 to do so with minor sanctuary, then that is contradictory.

On a slightly unrelated note, does Song of Peace work like Minor Sanctuary? Or does it work like Song of Noise, as far as being level/training based? That would be a better comparison.

>This is a poor example. You could as easily cast any offensive spell in the book, or simply outright attack, then throw up a sanct to prevent a counter-attack. There's no way to claim casting sanctuary is an offensive ability.

I wasn't referring to it as a means to prevent a counter attack. You can cast Call Lightning and then sanct, which prevents the cloud from being dispelled, because spells like call wind, dispel, hand of tonis, etc. would all be blocked by the sanct., but the cloud will still strike. Breeze might be an exception though. I've seen 125/213 abused like that plenty of times over the years, so no, just because it doesn't suit your argument doesn't make it a poor example. It's still something that can be done (unless it's been changed, which just backs up my argument on 213's ridiculousness).

The scarab issue had apparently been changed at some point, so my info on scarabs in a sanct was outdated. Obviously it was seen as a problem, or else it wouldn't have been changed.

>Mmm-hmm. Okay.

Who are you again? I don't even have a character trained in pickpocketing. I can generate money thousands of times faster than anyone ever could by pickpocketing. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion on this issue, even if you do think this thread requires your exclusive permission to participate.

Not to mention I specifically stated that my main issue with the spell is its lack of consistency. It has a level/skill check against critters, but not against players. Perhaps you'd care to explain how that makes sense, despite me being here in this thread without your gracious blessing?

>Again, please note the definition of sanctuary. The level of the character who created it is irrelevant. It's still a sanctuary.

We're falling back on dictionaries again? Oh I see, it's only applicable when it's convenient for your argument.

But since we're using definitions again...

...I'm sorry to break it to you, but real-life sanctuaries aren't magic.

I hope you won't sue me for "plagiarism".

I've yet to see anyone make a valid argument on why 213 can shut down anyone regardless of level or training, and why it has a check vs. critters and not players. And I don't expect one to be presented either.

>Actually. if anything is to be changed, I'd like to just eliminate the pickpocket skill altogether. All it does is annoy folks. But I doubt this would happen. Too many griefers would complain. -Throgg

Why? There are tons of ways to not only prevent being pickpocketed, but to make the thief avoid you as a target altogether. Cursed gems, needles, etc. will keep a thief from targeting you.

If I know pickpocketing from a certain character would likely result in a cursed clear zircon being stuck to my hand or being stuck by a needle, then I'm not even going to bother trying to steal from that person in the future. Same thing if I put my hands in their pockets and repeatedly get nothing.

People who whine about pickpockets are generally just too lazy to take precautions, or ignorant to the easily accessible steps that can be taken to both prevent and deter a thief from not only stealing from you, but from targeting you altogether.

And of course theres always the foolproof method of closing your container and depositing your coins. If I leave my gem pouch open and someone steals from me, I consider it my own fault. But I also carry cursed gems and needles, so I don't even have to worry about it.

Would you leave your safe full of money unlocked at home? Of course not.

This game has been soccer mom'd enough over the years. Removing an entire skill because people are too lazy to use even one of the many easily accessible prevention methods is just ludicrous.

>However, if a cleric/empath is consenting to you having your evil way with them, the mechanics exist to play it out by knocking down their sanct. -Rathboner

Who says the evil character shouldn't have to consent to the cleric/empath's rainbow and unicorns ways then? Consistency and all, etc.

~ Methais

>>On a slightly unrelated note, does Song of Peace work like Minor Sanctuary? Or does it work like Song of Noise, as far as being level/training based? That would be a better comparison.

To my knowledge Song of Peace is pretty much identical to Minor Sanctuary; there are success/failure factors against critters and zero checks if there are no critters or demons attempting to interfere with sancts in the room.

>>That's equally stupid. Well almost equally, since they have to keep renewing it.

It actually makes a lot of sense if you knew the definition of the word "peace."

I know this is an outdated conversation but the argument that an 'attack' on someone's personal property isn't aggressive is a bit silly. That same argument would imply I could Bind, Silence, Web (non-bolt version), Dispel, and probably a few other things, all of which are considered attacks, since they don't physically harm the person.

Pickpocketing absolutely falls under the umbrella of an attack on a person's person or property and as such would be prevented by the Minor Sanctuary.

Perhaps if people are so inclined to really look at a game-mechanics sensible interpretation of Minor Sanctuary and it's effectiveness, it should utilize the DEMEANOR trait that characters can set in regards to one another. If a character is in the room with a DEMEANOR set to something aggressive towards the character casting the Sanctuary, then a check can occur based on experience much as occurs with creatures that are a certain level higher than the empath/cleric. This would mirror the game mechanics on how it works with creatures. Additionally, the added factor of Sanctuary should be put into effect, namely that someone that is aggressive towards the casting character cannot even enter the room once the Minor Sanctuary is set, just as in the field. Clearly mechanics of this sort would also have to require that no one is able to set DEMEANOR while IN THE ROOM, otherwise cheaters would try to come in, change it, and then attack/pickpocket heh.

I will file this idea under a cool idea that probably won't happen due to the complexity of it code wise.

>Main one that needs to be incorporated regarding pickpocketing (if it isn't already and I'm just unaware)

minor sanctuary already blocks theft.

>Perhaps if people are so inclined to really look at a game-mechanics sensible interpretation of Minor Sanctuary and it's effectiveness, it should utilize the DEMEANOR trait that characters can set in regards to one another. If a character is in the room with a DEMEANOR set to something aggressive towards the character casting the Sanctuary, then a check can occur based on experience much as occurs with creatures that are a certain level higher than the empath/cleric. This would mirror the game mechanics on how it works with creatures. Additionally, the added factor of Sanctuary should be put into effect, namely that someone that is aggressive towards the casting character cannot even enter the room once the Minor Sanctuary is set, just as in the field. Clearly mechanics of this sort would also have to require that no one is able to set DEMEANOR while IN THE ROOM, otherwise cheaters would try to come in, change it, and then attack/pickpocket heh.

I don't know if it is possible for me to be more against this idea. It would bring back the abusive nature of sanctuary that has caused my character...and clearly myself...to despise the spell. Back in the day empaths and clerics routinely would hide in sanctuaries while bullying PCs with silence & bind. The release of demons evened the odds for a very small subset, but there were plenty of cases where sanctuary bullies, as in real life, were the first to run screaming to mommy and daddy GM when they were beaten at their own game. And of course, also like real life, the first one to cry to authority figures is deemed, with rare exceptions, to be in the right. Since then silence and bind got added to the list of spells that can't be cast in sanctuaries, leaving only RP memory reasons for my character to continue to hate sanctuaries. Let's not bring back a mechanical one. Being able to block a PC from entering a room just because the empathy/cleric doesn't like that PC and has a demeanor set to cold is...I can't even think of a forum appropriate way to sum up my thoughts on that one just at the moment.

--Jurp