(Another) Bindstone question

[Pseudonym]

All PCs are stonebound right?

I'm trying to determine how much my characters know of the process in an IC sense.

What do they feel when they initially bind?

What prompts them to do it (ie. in terms of commonly known lore)?

What might they be told by attending clergy if they go into a temple to bind? This last one, I understand different faiths might say different things to their followers, but is there anything about the process that is common to all faiths?

I read about how dangerous it is ... but is there any IC idea of how many who attempt to bind die during the process? I'd imagine such a risky process to be a pretty significant event in any PC's life yet, to be honest, i've never really given it a whole lot of thought before now. If it is a small margin that survive a very risky process, then sheesh, it is something that'd require more than a simple "I want to go adventuring and see the sights" type motivation to put oneself through the ordeal. I imagine it would require almost zealot-like devotion to something to undergo the process. If it is relatively safe, then why isn't every Tom, *edit* Mick and Harry doing it?

Maybe more related thoughts to follow. Maybe these questions prompt some of your own questions. Feel free to post in this thread. I'm not exclusionary.

Many thanks!



PS. By 'Many thanks' I mean, big thank-yous to the GMs who might answer some of these questions, not I want 'Many thanks' .... that said, you're here now, so might as well.

[Dorganath]

Some of these are Ed questions. I'm not even sure they're even fully defined in a quantitative sense.

One thing I do want to clarify though, is that while mechanically all PCs are stonebound, RP-wise, you can chose not to bind.  However, if you do so, then your first death, without someone to raise you, would also be your last, RP-wise.

There is one character that I know of who has chosen this path.

So as for the IC motivation, that's up to the individual

It is also a mechanical convenience that all PCs are assumed to be able to survive the binding process.

Moving further through the list, bindstones have nothing to do with deities. Because they are in a temple or a shrine or something does not mean that they are somehow controlled or influenced by said deity.  There may be a ritual that some churches have for such, but it is one of those "for show" and not anything necessary.  It's not a test of faith or piety or anything else.  A Pyrtechonite could bind to a stone in one of Aeridin's temples, but then that would either be fabulously horrid RP or a similarly poor way of trying to stick it to Aeridin.

So don't get too hung on the mechanical nature of it all. If you PC can't come up with an IC motivation to bind, then don't (in an RP sense)....and don't die without a cleric around...or at least a friend with a pocket full of scrolls. The GM Team doesn't have any particular or specific motivation for why a person may wish to bind.  That's sort of an individual choice.

Adventurers as a whole tend to possess a degree of bravado (and perhaps foolishness) that the bulk of the population lack. It's entirely possible for one's motivation to be "Well....I might as well try, because I'm going somewhere dangerous regardless, and I could be dead either way."

[Lance Stargazer]

My toughts about it.

I got this very questions when i was creating Argos and that is what i tought it should be felt,  of course I think that the experience for everyone must be diferent.

Must say that this is just my personal player toughts and was by no way officialized by the team, but I tought it to be a nice touch to actually find a reason for him to bind himself.

[Gulnyr]

I like these questions.

I have always imagined that Jennara, being dragoncalled, had it somehow handled for her; it was all part of the magic of talking to a dragon and being transported to Hlint.  I have never imagined she had any initial experience with a bindstone where she didn't know if she would live or die if she tried to make it work.

[Filatus]

It was my understanding that what Gulnyr pointed out was the big difference between being dragoncalled and binding yourself to the stone after Ozlo stopped summoning folks.

[Pseudonym]

Some of these are Ed questions. I'm not even sure they're even fully defined in a quantitative sense.

One thing I do want to clarify though, is that while mechanically all PCs are stonebound, RP-wise, you can chose not to bind.  However, if you do so, then your first death, without someone to raise you, would also be your last, RP-wise.

There is one character that I know of who has chosen this path.

I had a character that RP-wise refused to bind to the stone (too) and was deleted after his first (accidental) death.

Moving further through the list, bindstones have nothing to do with deities. Because they are in a temple or a shrine or something does not mean that they are somehow controlled or influenced by said deity.  There may be a ritual that some churches have for such, but it is one of those "for show" and not anything necessary.  It's not a test of faith or piety or anything else.  A Pyrtechonite could bind to a stone in one of Aeridin's temples, but then that would either be fabulously horrid RP or a similarly poor way of trying to stick it to Aeridin.

Yeah, I understand they have nothing to do with deities. I read the LORE entry. However, the fact is that they are put into a temple, used as a focus point, carved into relevant shapes. They have significance. Surely there are common-to-all-temple rumours and myths about the processes? Surely the temples have a duty of care to their followers to have some explanation about the stones and the maybe-effect on their everlasting souls?

Adventurers as a whole tend to possess a degree of bravado (and perhaps foolishness) that the bulk of the population lack. It's entirely possible for one's motivation to be "Well....I might as well try, because I'm going somewhere dangerous regardless, and I could be dead either way."

I'd venture there is a fair difference between an armour-clad & confidence-clad warrior venturing into a dark cave with his glowing sword swinging versus subjecting oneself to a mysterious process over which there is little control, little known and an empirical xx% chance of survival. That 'xx%' is something that is significant. I don't normally get too hung up on having to define and delineate every last detail in my gaming ... this however is relevant to my character in-game (and interesting to me OOC too now I have devoted some thought to it all!)

As ever, thanks for taking time to answer these questions. I'll point Ed to this thread when he returns - he'd probably be disappointed to return from a trip away and not have some question/issue or ten awaiting him.

[Dorganath]

Yeah, I understand they have nothing to do with deities. I read the LORE entry. However, the fact is that they are put into a temple, used as a focus point, carved into relevant shapes. They have significance. Surely there are common-to-all-temple rumours and myths about the processes? Surely the temples have a duty of care to their followers to have some explanation about the stones and the maybe-effect on their everlasting souls?

Well there's the common-to-all myths, whether temples or not, about bindstones in general.  Temples would probably gravitate toward the less sinister ones (on average) and add their own particular spin on them.  Perhaps they say, "You know, this is here for the benefit of our followers.  We don't necessarily recommend it, but if you do use a stone, use ours, and at least if you do die, you'll return to safety and our shelter."

The fact is that no one really knows how they work (ICly, anyway), so myths are all that exist. Beyond it being a relatively crude form of resurrection, there's little known about them.  Given the risks, people aren't exactly dying to study them.

I'd venture there is a fair difference between an armour-clad & confidence-clad warrior venturing into a dark cave with his glowing sword swinging versus subjecting oneself to a mysterious process over which there is little control, little known and an empirical xx% chance of survival. That 'xx%' is something that is significant. I don't normally get to hung up on having to define and delineate every last detail in my gaming ... this however is relevant to my character in-game (and interesting to me OOC too now I have devoted some thought to it all!)

Right, but remember that the typical adventurer binds early on, when he/she is just a lowly level 1 Whatever. He/she is not necessarily clad in armor that is very good nor sporting a glowing sword, unless said sword is stuck in a fire for a while.

And yep, I understand about the %. Again, I don't think it's been defined, because it's my understanding that it's not about a random chance with each binding but rather an evaluation of the individual by the stone's magic.  We could probably come up with a statistical number, but not necessarily one that would be fitting for a die roll.

For instance, the PC adventuring population has been noted as being less than 1% of Layonara's total population.  NPC adventurers exist also, but I think the total count, PCs and NPCs, is still at or below 1%.  One statistic might say, "OK, given that, only about 1% of the population is bound, so the die roll needs to be a 100 on a 1d100.  Good luck!"  We know, however, that there are non-adventurers who are stonebound as well.  They probably aren't very high in number, so again, we're still around that 1% number.  That said, I'm certain there are a lot of people who also simply avoid binding because of the risk of immediate death by a process no one understands with any real depth. So maybe the survival percentage would be 10%...or 20%...or 50% if everyone in the world attempted to bind.

But again, it's not about a standard chance. It's about the stone evaluating a potential bindee for worthiness, and if I had to guess, this is why a percentage was never defined.

Given popular myth and actual events, I would put the risk of death while binding at "significant," meaning it is high enough to give people pause, but not so high that it's completely foolish.

I also read something compelling in the LORE page, that being that "creatures have been known to die of {attempting to bind}." This suggests to me that it's not an "either you bind or you die" situation but rather that binding can result in death if the individual is found "unworthy" to the bindstone.  It may also be that a significant amount of life energy is drained from the potential bindee but not enough to kill said individual, whether due to some "choice" of the bindstone or simply gravity (i.e. the person falls away due to said draining, breaking contact with the stone).

So...yeah, just some thoughts.

As ever, thanks for taking time to answer these questions. I'll point Ed to this thread when he returns - he'd probably be disappointed to return from a trip away and not have some question/issue or ten awaiting him.

Lucky Ed!

[miltonyorkcastle]

My understanding is that few attempt to bind to the stones because there is a chance of death, not because there is a known percentage. All it takes is for one person in a village to die to the stone and from that point forward all would be wary of touching the thing. Since it is mysterious and unknown IC as to why one might die or live, all the more reason to avoid the thing unless you are desperate, determined, or confident (brave, foolish). Only a fraction of a percent of the population is actually stone-bound, and it's because of the known danger of potential death when attempting to bind, regardless of how often the death occurs (which considering few try the stones, I'd imagine the percentage is actually quite low).

Regarding temples and stones, I have always thought that temples would be built around stones, or stones would be brought into the temples to protect the people from the stones (at least in the case of good to neutral deities). Because the stones are a potential cause of death, I imagine the use of them would be discouraged, but that if one was bound and became a member of the church, then you could at least return to the church upon one of those bad days when a giant bashes in your skull. I never really considered the churches having rituals surrounding the stones. I always imagined them having warnings instead, and not allowing their patrons to touch the stones (or in the case of an evil church, perhaps forcing a member to touch the stone as punishment) unless they were already stonebound.

I've always seen the stones as a rival power to the gods, which is why I'd imagine the churches would be against their use (or at least reserved about their use), not for it.

Of course, Ed will confirm or deny my thoughts on this, heh.

[Script Wrecked]

Of course, given you get ten soul strands upon binding(1), it would seem a natural balance if nine out of ten people die when attempting to bind.


(1) the chance of losing a Soul Stand upon death not withstanding

[Dorganath]

Binding doesn't give you the Soul Strands.

[miltonyorkcastle]

I think Script was joking, but for those that might not be familiar/in-the-know, Dorganath's clarification is probably helpful.