I am in favor of keeping this character role, with the change others mentioned: Make the change be in the eyes of the beholder, not the form of the character. Of it is used to conceal the person's role as an LR, I don't see much difference between that and say... worshiping in the catacombs. Early Christians did this, and you don't see people condemning them all over the place, now do you? And if the change was in the vision of the DCs and DSes, then the players would not be actually changing shape, would not be wearing the clothes of the opposite sex, etc- eliminating that problem. Of course, the whole thing reminds me slightly of "An old Jedi mind trick"... :P -Mike "LikWid" Watson On Sat, 09 Jan 1999, you wrote: >As for the restrictions, or having eyes restrained, couldn't the ability >be explained in this way: > > DCs and OnceBorn's eyes are similarly restricted so that they will see >the LR as a freind/someone with clearance to the castle/etc. It works >something like the 'invisibility' the heroine used to escape her >abductors in Peretti's _This Present Darkness_. It wasn't so much that >she had changed, as I recall; her captors simply were prevented from >focusing their attention on her. > >As for the dress thing, if no one can focus on the LR long enough to see >who they are, the subject is moot. >----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Questioning Roman Catholicism? Check www.catholic.com > >On Fri, 8 Jan 1999 08:14:40 -0500 "Joe Revesz" <jrevesz@...> >writes: >>Arthur wrote: >>> KEEP IT! >>> I like this character role, myself since it seemed to symbolize >>the "new >>> creatures" we are in Christ, being strangers in the world. But to >>give a bit >>> more evidence, doesn't this role open up many opportunities to do >>good in >>> secret? (Maybe to teach not being open and flashy in your good >>deeds) Anyway, >>> the Lord Himself put on a disguise in at least two situations I can >>think of >>> right now: shortly after the resurrection when Mary mistook Him for >>a >>> gardener, and the Emmaus Road experience. >> >>The Lord had a resurected body at that time. Which is quite a bit >>different from a glued on moustache. John 20:15 says that Mary >>supposed that He was a gardener. Luke 24:16 says that their eyes >>were "restrained" so that the disciples did not know Him. Neither is >>a "disguise". >> >>>OK, so the wording is a bit vague in the LRHB. Perhaps it needs >>>more clarification--the OG passage *is* the second shortest >>>passage in that section. Maybe use a WordRune to change and >>>give some more restrictions on >>>transformation. >> >>The idea of limitations could be a good way to "fix" the Special Role. >> >>Let's be legalistic for a moment. Doesn't the Old Testament say >>that a man is not to wear a woman's dress, and a woman is not to >>wear a man's? The OverLord's Guard can do just this when >>changing form since it can be male or female in appearence. >>Unless the OG is naked at the time of shape-changing. But then >>again, the OG is still a male when appearing to be a female, and >>vice versa. Something to think about. >> >>Joe R >> >>-- >>To unsubscribe, send ANY message to >><dragonraid-unsubscribe@...> >> >> > >___________________________________________________________________ >You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. >Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html >or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] > >-- >To unsubscribe, send ANY message to <dragonraid-unsubscribe@...>