Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Can I activate magic charms on the Magi?
I mean they were astrologers and magic charms is an artifact....

Definition of Magi:
Magi (Latin plural of magus; Ancient Greek μάγος (magos); Old Persian (maguš) (Modern Persian مغ (magh)); Arabic مجوس; English singular magian, mage, magus, magusian, magusaean) is a term, used since at least the 4th century BCE, to denote a follower of Zoroaster, or rather, a follower of what the Hellenistic world associated Zoroaster with, which was – in the main – the ability to read the stars, and manipulate the fate that the stars foretold. The meaning prior to Hellenistic period is uncertain.

I have bolded relevant info 

I think the consensus is that good characters cannot be magicians. Let me go find the thread.

So we're ignoring historical fact because it's convenient?
That doesn't seem right

Quote from: TheHobbit13 on June 26, 2010, 11:34:20 PM

I think the consensus is that good characters cannot be magicians. Let me go find the thread.

So we're ignoring historical fact because it's convenient?
That doesn't seem right

It doesn't seem right to abuse the game either.

But they were magicians...

But they were magicians...

But Rob said that they were not for Redemption purposes. I think they can be magicians in Redemption if they are converted, but otherwise they cannot. There's really no point in arguing about it. This was decided soon after TexP came out.

Quote from: Professoralstad on June 27, 2010, 12:19:36 AM

Quote from: JSB23 on June 27, 2010, 12:16:09 AM

But they were magicians...

But Rob said that they were not for Redemption purposes. I think they can be magicians in Redemption if they are converted, but otherwise they cannot. There's really no point in arguing about it. This was decided soon after TexP came out.

Not true. Converted Magicians lose the identifier.

I think the Professor was suggesting that if The Magi were converted to an evil character that they would be considered magicians, not that an evil magician converted to a hero would still be a magician.

However, I would disagree with that conclusion because of the actual identifier written on The Magi card, which says "Eastern Wise Men." Since Egyptian Wise Men are not magicians, I do not think a converted The Magi should be either.

But they were magicians...

And just FYI, I have heard that the magi actaully could have been students under the great prophet Daniel during the Babylonian Captivity Period for Judah. Therefore, they would be "Wise Men" like Prof. Underwood said...

See Daniel 2:48

(But again, I have not thoroughly researched this, so don't quote me on it, lol, It is just a thought...)

I think what some people might be trying to do here is manipulate words from the Bible that have been translated from languages which function differently than our own. Instead of getting a definition of the English word "magi", you should get a definition of the original word from the original language in which this section of the Bible was written in order to figure out what the people we call "magi" really were. I don't really care or know how to do such research myself, but if nothing else, keep in mind that you are reading a translated Bible, so manipulating words does not make a good argument.

That's a good point...I know how to look it up and research it, so I will get back when I find out...

I could care less about definitions found on the web. I think it is important to have consistent definitions within Redemption. We can not have one set of "Wise Men" be magicians, while another set of "Wise Men" are not. That is setting up hosts to fail. With all of the time and money requirements already placed on hosts, keeping ruling questions easy would be greatly appreciated.

you care less about the true meanings of biblical words?

Less than zero percent of words on the internet are Biblical. 

Quote from: Master KChief on June 27, 2010, 05:28:12 PM

you care less about the true meanings of biblical words?

Less than zero percent of words on the internet are Biblical.  

he just said he used strongs concordance. i wouldnt take that so lightly.

Quote from: Master KChief on June 27, 2010, 05:28:12 PM

Quote from: YourMathTeacher on June 27, 2010, 05:15:11 PM

We can not have one set of "Wise Men" be magicians, while another set of "Wise Men" are not.

because we already dont have a precedent where all beasts are demons but not all demons are beasts

I don't see how this example is relevant. There are no demons that are not demons, and there are no beasts that are not beasts.

because all demons are not beasts. similarily, all wise men could not be magicians.

fixed.

I could care less about definitions found on the web. I think it is important to have consistent definitions within Redemption. We can not have one set of "Wise Men" be magicians, while another set of "Wise Men" are not. That is setting up hosts to fail. With all of the time and money requirements already placed on hosts, keeping ruling questions easy would be greatly appreciated.

Agreed (although personally I am quite interested in definitions of words found in the original Bible). Here is my reasoning: Before Magic Charms came out, The Magi were ruled as magicians. Since I see no reason this would be concluded other than for the fact that they were wisemen (AKA magi), seeing as we know next to nothing more about these men, I take that to mean that Redemption ruled all wisemen as magicians. The reason the magician identifier was taken away from The Magi was not because Cactus decided that wisemen were not magicians, but rather because Rob and company did not like the idea of having magicians as heroes. I assume this would mean that all other wisemen would still be considered magicians, as long as they are not heroes, which Egyptian Wisemen are not.