Re: [DL] relics (SPOILERS)

["Kevin L Stoner" <stone1kl@cmich.edu>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Fred Jandt <fajandt@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:26 pm
Subject: Re: [DL] relics (SPOILERS)

> This may be spoily, so all you players go on...git!
> 
> Weighing in on the S&R catlogue...
> 
> I would say the S&R 1877 (?) with the info on
> Thaumaturgical Diffusion in it would be a relic just
> the same as Hoyle's. The others probably wouldn't.
> IIRC, that was the only year with anything "special"
> in it. I understand the idea of it not being as potent
> because you basically need to be a huckster first to
> figure it out, but I think splitting up relics into
> different classes could become too confusing too
> quickly. Imagine players arguing over what "type" of
> relic something is.
> 
> Fred J.


I agree Fred. I mean you do have relics that are designed in a certain 
manner so that they all into the right hands. Like the right hand of 
god, it would rock in the hands of a gunslinger, but it is always the 
blessed who picks it up and is able to use it. I think relics lean in a 
certain direction for a reason and all of them have strong taints 
because it is the way of the weird west. It is the same reason why it 
is difficult to cast a hex, or create a new science device. You get all 
the magic in the world from a manitou and they want to hurt you. So 
anytime there is an item infused with magic, it also is a necessity 
that it is balanced with a negative. I think this is what makes the 
difference between a cowgirl who dreads using that shotgun that kills 
ghosts, and one who tells the rest of the posse to go and sit in the 
wagon while she smokes some ethereal behind. Just my take.

Marshall Kevin Stoner