not to mention that once you cast the mana static spell, it immediately starts losing rating points at a rate of 1 per hour. so by the time you actually make the binding test, the spirit is no longer in a high rating background count, the background count has actually disappeared. also not to mention that a rating 11 background count is going to inflict damage to the spirit which it cannot easily resist when it is reduced to force 1.

i don't think you can really set up mana static in advance for this. you need a second ubermagician to drop a mana static at the right time, or it is useless.

After re-reading the descriptive differences between voids and warps, yeah, warp.

Okay, now to really muck things up. I know the official line between Earthdawn and SR is cut, but background count came from there, so I feel at least a bit justified in bringing it up. Let's assume that a spirit has been around from the fourth age. One may assume not only does it know spells, but spell matrixes (no idea how this works on the spirt itself though), and thus can ignore the background count when casting or using a power.

I agree though that mana static should be limited to 6. Even at 6 it is a pain of a spell.

Spell Matrices do exist in SR4: it's basically the Filtering metamagic. No reason why a spirit can't learn it, but it's not available to non-free spirits.

Do people really think that back ground count and taint are the same thing? They are caused by different things, and have different effects.

They're certainly close enough. When you poison astral space, you end up with a background count in Shadowrun, and tainted space in Earthdawn. The mechanics are close enough, given that we're discussing totally different systems.

Taint didn't effect people's ability to use magic at all. I think that's pretty necessary to call something background count. Back ground count doesn't have anything to do with horrors and I think that's pretty necessary to call something taint.

I was playing both when ED came out and the idea of background count in SR seemed to naturally flow from the ED concept. IIRC it created an area of clean astral space to hold the spell. Still, I think it would be a nasty surprise for the mage relying too much on mana static.

Yes, yes it did. Read about casting magic RAW in earthdawn, and what happens to you. RAW casting is how the shadowrun mages do it, guess why they take drain and have nasty effects from background count.

Like I said, it's essentially the Filtering metamagic. It even works in a similar fashion.

Similar too, but filtering is more like trying to create matrixes on the fly, for any spell, which might explain why they fall apart rather quick and still cause the magician drain.

Earthdawn matrixes take an hour to prep for use, but then are useable until you glitch on a test.

Filtering is definately on the right path towards matrixes though.

filtering may be a metamagic technique which would be required for the spell matrix metamagic, but it definitely isn't the full version. for one thing, matrices are permanent. they can store one spell (or, in the case of advanced versions, a limited selection of spells), and they negate drain entirely.

so it might be a metamagic technique which you would have to learn first, but imo it is not actually the full spell matrix metamagic.

Allow me to clarify "Taint didn't effect people's ability to use magic at all". What I meant was that taint makes spell casting more dangerous. Back ground count makes it harder. Taint does not effect astral perception, spell casting step, effect step, or anything like that. It doesn't interfere with your magic, it just bones you if you try to cast raw magic with a chance at a horror mark and warping(AKA drain). Also a huge difference is that taint only effects spell casters. No other form of magic is effected in anyway. This is a radically different phenomenon than field that can discorporate spirits, remove adept powers, crash wards, and deactivate foci, etc. Also I'm ok horrors not existing canonically enough to have the write up of background count even hint at marks or what not. But a couple words along the lines of "some astral nasties wait are attracted the use of magic in background count" would have been more than enough.

As for the origins, wholly mundane acts can create background count. Horrors create taint. That's a pretty important difference too. Taint is Evil. Background count is chaotic. Are geomancers Evil? I'm pretty sure anyone using horror droppings to casts bigger spells is pretty nasty fellow.

So we have 2 phenomena with different origins that have very different fluff, and very different mechanics (even at a level of abstraction required to make a cross system analysis). I dont' really see how they are the same thing other than being 'a-field-of-bad-mojo'


Now I am perfectly willing to entertain the idea that the connection was stronger in at some point in time. I'm comparing SR4 to my tattered copy of ED first edition. I haven't really read the books or SR1-3 though i have a descent familiarity, I have no clue what changed in ED 2nd ed. Is there something I'm missing perhaps?

I honestly really like the fact that ED magic makes SR magic seem so very crude. I think both games benifit from that.

If I had player that was want spell matrixes in SR, and had a damn good reason they should have access to that kind of magic, I'd do something like this:
-have them learn filtering
-have them lean a new skill: thread weaving
-Create a new focus type: the primitive matrices that were in objects. **


*Thread weaving would allow you to use a complex action to weaver a thread that reduces the force for calculating drain by two. Just like a spell can be learned with or without a fetish, a spell must be created to use a specific and fixed number of threads. To create a threaded spell you must know thread weaving and arcana.

** These would work exactly like ED spell matrices. Hour to attune. Force of the matrix is the max Force of spell you can attune to. Hour to attune. No drain no astral signature.

How's this for cheap.... Biomonitor on mage tied to say 4 Aztechnology dumb iron bombs (400nuyen a piece) arranged around the spirit. Have your spirit of man cast and sustain mana static on the force12 spirit's area during the binding (do temporary reductions in force reduce the ability of spirit to resist binding?). Each bomb explosion is 22P (far cheaper than actually buying raw HE). Based on the square root * value for determining normal explosive damage... it seems reasonable to argue the effect of 4 bombs wired to go off at the same time is 44P (22P * sqrt(4)==44P).

When the mage takes significant drain damage, killed, stunned, have the bombs go off. Make sure mage is standing say 15-20m away from spirit while completing the ritual (-2DV/m). Doesn't say you have to be within arms reach of the spirit to finish the binding.

Alternatively... make a spirit sized suicide vest and put it on the materialized summoned spirit. Again key it to dead mans switch on mages biomonitor. I quote! "When attached directly to a target, the targets armor is halved, otherwise the explosive is assumed to have an AP of 0." So based on that 1 to 4KG of rating 15 explosive worked into a suicide vest should get roughly the needed results.

Most of the differences you describe are cosmetic in nature. For one, Horrors don't cause Taint; they cause suffering, which poisons astral space, and creates Taint. Also, you can have aspected magic in ED, that's basically what the entire Blood Wood was.

Both Taint and background count can be caused by human emotions, messes heavily with magic, and basically poisons astral space. Now, since the mana levels in ED are significantly higher than Shadowrun, it's possible that background count would have more serious repercussions in SR than ED.

>Also, you can have aspected magic in ED, that's basically what the entire Blood Wood was.
Care to tell me where I can find this? I don't remember anything like that, and my memory of what can be found is failing me

now then

>For one, Horrors don't cause Taint; they cause suffering...

please note that horrors keep uninhabited areas corrupt without causing suffering.




Pretty sure horrors cause taint, what it it saying horrors cause taint ever where taint in mentioned in the core rules. Plus if mundane suffering caused taint the blood wood stunt would have 'worked'.

>Both Taint and background count can be caused by human emotions, messes heavily with magic
accept that it doesn't. Please show me where taint does anything to mess with any kind of magic except raw casting with it only makes dangerous

>Most of the differences you describe are cosmetic in nature.
I think this is the heart of our disagreement. Two different origins, different effects, different targets, and different fluff add up to being about as different as you could ask. 'Bad astral space' is IMO insufficient to describe either effect, and they have no similarities beyond that. Even that level is at times in accurate to describe background count.

You did read the previous two paragraphs, right?

And again, we have this:

So, we see that Taint is caused by suffering and pain, usually inflicted by Horrors. And even the sentence you point to just means that Horrors can cause Astral Hazing.

You just did it for me. Thank you, that proves my point.

Sure, but you've yet to prove that they actually are different effects with different targets. In other words, you need something other than different fluff to prove that they're totally different mechanisms. Filtering and Spell Matrixices both do essentially the same thing, just translated differently for a different system. Because magic in Shadowrun is much more "primitive" than it is in Earthdawn, when you allow for the difference in magical ability, mana level, and conversion between systems, it comes out that the two concepts of Background Count and Taint work the same way, and end up being the same thing.

well... You have here examples of Horrors and suffering together causing taint. You have horrors without suffering causing taint (which you left out of your reply). You also have no mention of just suffering causing taint. I can't imagine how you conclude from this that it was the suffering and not the horrors that cause the taint.

Now mechanically, Background count lowers Force or Magic on contact, and causes vision mods. Taint Does none of that and instead damages raw casters and exposes them marking. How is that similar at all there is zero overlap in effect. As for targets, taint effects people using raw magic, that's it. Background count effects anything with Force or Magic stat, or astral perception/projection. There is a little overlap here but those sets are hardly similar enough to call them same thing. How have I not demonstrated all of this several times now?


I put this back on you at this point to show me:
-They have similar effects: Find one single effect the phenomenon have in common (allowing for the necessary level of abstraction)
-They have similar origins: Find one single instance of suffering not caused by a horror creating taint.
-They have similar targets: Show me how "Everything magic" is a similar set to "People actively casting raw magic".

You have mention that the more suffering, the more Taint you get. Also, it's been established that some Horrors have the equivalent of Astral Hazing, polluting astral space just by being there. So, it's the suffering that causes the taint; having a Horror cause it is just a bonus.


Oh, no you don't. You made the claim, *you* have to prove it.

You're the one asserting that Taint and Background Count are totally different things. All I have to do is show a plausible case that they might be the same thing. The burden of proof is on you.

But I will humor you to a small degree. Both spell matrices and Filtering work the exact same way: it filters out astral space. Also, remember when I said Shadowrun magic was more primitive than ED magic? This should make sense, since magic has only been viable in the 6th world for about 60 years, versus two thousand years or so in ED. Because of that, almost no one in Shadowrun can cast non-raw magic. In fact, if you look at the effects, all Shadowrun magic works in a remarkably similar fashion to casting in the raw-- close enough to call them the same thing. So, if Taint only hurts raw magic; and since all Shadowrun magic is essentially raw, something else that hurts raw magic might be related, if not the same thing. In other words, background count could easily be the exact same thing.

As far as Taint goes, it's been a while and I don't have any Earthdawn books handy. But IIRC, the entire point of the Blood Wood was to twist astral space in such a way as to drive off the Horrors. But in doing so, they did the equivalent of Taint to their home.

>You have mention that the more suffering, the more Taint you get
Firstly please don't make stuff up. I in fact I pointed out the exact opposite, which is to say that more horrors more recently cause more taint regardless of how much suffering they cause.


>Oh, no you don't. You made the claim, *you* have to prove it.
I honestly don't know what else you could ask for. I have established different targets and different effects. Without contest. I have established different sources to. While you have contested that, I feel the first few lines of my last post are pretty damning such a position. Plus you I can flip this argument around on you too. You made the tacit assumption that they were the exact same thing. All I have to do is show a plausible case that they might not be the same thing. I have done much more than that.



Filtering doesn't erase your signature, hold threads, and falls apart quickly so 'exactly the same way' is a little to strong. But your point is very sound this far.

Here is where loose it.
>So, if Taint only hurts raw magic;
no it only damages name givers using raw magic when they cast in taint
>and since all Shadowrun magic is essentially raw
no all spell casting is raw, there are many other forms of magic in both games
>, something else that hurts raw magic might be related
as i said it doesn't effect the spell or any other magical effect at all. Taint makes raw magic draining (warping) and the caster leaves a sig. THAT IS IT.
>, if not the same thing. In other words, background count could easily be the exact same thing

About the blood wood, I really don't want this to turn into a he said/she said, but I'm pretty curtain that isn't how it worked was, [the they put themselves in agony because the horror that was breaching the defenses could only feed on pain it caused. [/edit]but I can't find anything in the core book, and that's I'll I have ATM. We'll come back to this, and I'm pretty sure it will settle the whole thing.

Sorry to threadjack this but ...

From a mechanical and logical point of view, both systems were created by FASA to be part of the same game world at different points in time. Making two effects that mechanically act the same but are different defies common sense.

WeaverMount, if it helps, think of background count as the taint without Horrors. I happen to agree with Cain, I think that Horrors just exacerbate the issue, the damage they cause by both what they do and what they are just generates that much more damage to astral space. Plus they do it in astral space, as opposed to most human harm which is done on the physical.

Also, magic in ED is not just more advanced, it is also more pleantiful. The mana level of ED is substantially higher than it currently is in SR. So I don't necessarily expect every person to run around with a spell matrix. But I definately wouldn't expect background count or mana static to affect a great dragon, an IE, or an old free spirit.

That's not what it says, though:
"Open: Open regions are those areas where Horrors passed through, but used little magic.
In these places they caused little pain and suffering and left the countryside mostly intact;
what they did destroy has been rebuilt since the end of the Scourge. Most of Barsaive fits
into this classification.
Tainted: Tainted regions are those areas where the Horrors caused considerable
destruction and pain. Though Horrors may no longer be active in the area, the region
once suffered terribly under the Horrors’ influence. Some areas of the cities of Parlainth
and Haven fall under this classification.
Corrupt: Corrupt regions are areas currently inhabited by a Horror. A Horror can affect
a region varying in size from a few hundred yards to hundreds of square miles,
depending on its power. The Badlands, the Wastes, and some areas of Parlainth are
Corrupt."
So, in an open region, the horrors didn't do much damage. In a Tainted region, they did a lot of damage. And in a Corrupt region, they produced an astral hazing effect just by living there. That sounds an awful lot like background count to me; the damage to astral space is proportional to the amount of suffering caused.

Differing effects is still debatable. Taint is a kind of Background count, most likely aspected towards the Horrors. Different targets is also under dispute, since we don't know for sure how background count changes as the mana level rises.

I'm going to fall back on the old line: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." What you said was, there were no cases that you know of no non-Horrors creating Taint-like effects. I've given one counter-example, although it is disputable: the Blood Wood. We also don't know about many of the other places, if they managed to develop Taint-like qualities at the site of other atrocities. You're making an awfully big assumption, that nowhere in the world could anyone else cause anything like Taint.


Sorry, no. You made the assertion, you need to defend it.

Filtering may be a more primitive version. If it ever becomes necessary, it may evolve into a form that does more of what you suggest. Remember, thread magic hasn't been discovered yet in Shadowrun.

Since IIRC you can't do nearly as many things safely in Shadowrun as you can do in ED, it's safe to assume that all Shadowrun magic works just like raw spellcasting. I mean, how many different types of magic is out there for ED? In Shadowrun, you have Spellcasting, Enchanting, and Conjuring. That's it. Thus, if you allow for the idea that ED magic (Thread magic, which doesn't exist in Shadowrun) is more advanced than Shadowrun magic, it makes sense that Background count might not affect them in the exact same way.

*Ehem* actually Cain the rule of dibs applies (or schoolyard rules) in this certain situation. He called it first so you have to answer it first. That is the dumpshock way.


I was under the impression that Horrors created a form of aspected background count, but I have nothing to base that on and nothing to say about that so I will quietly slink away now if you all don't mind.

Cain you have flatly failed to comment on the part of the rules that say point blank "horrors caused taint" all over the place. You'd think if suffering also caused taint it would say, you know, somewhere. You also flatly failed address the examples of areas that are negative for suffering, but positive for horrors having the highest taint. Wham bam done cause == horror, cause != suffering.

>Differing effects is still debatable. Taint is a kind of Background count, most likely aspected towards the Horrors.
lol way to use your conclusion in your argument. You are inventing 'horror aspecting' out of whole cloth inorder to make {damage+mark for raw casters} the same thing as less magic or force on contact. Aspecting doesn't exist in ED (to my knowledge), if it did it would give horrors more mana increasing some step or stat of theirs, which it doesn't. stop making stuff up.

> Different targets is also under dispute, since we don't know for sure how background count changes as the mana level rises.
here you didn't even bother to make something up. But hey it's pretty tough to twist 'People casting raw magic' into 'everything magic', especially when the one that targets 'everything magic' is supposed to be weaker and cruder.


>I'm going to fall back on the old line: "Absence of proof is not proof of absence." What you said was, there were no cases that you know of no >non-Horrors creating Taint-like effects.
What you are going to do is fail to comment on how areas without beings to suffer can have the max taint. Yes, I did use not knowing of suffering causing taint to coraborate my claim, but I base my claim based on horrors causing taint with out causing suffering.

>I've given one counter-example, although it is disputable: the Blood Wood. We also don't know about many of the other places, if they managed to >develop Taint-like qualities at the site of other atrocities. You're making an awfully big assumption, that nowhere in the world could anyone else cause >anything like Taint.
No, no I'm not. The rules say horrors cause taint without mentioning suffering, and never mention suffering without horrors causing taint. I'm making an inferance about a game world based on RAW. I'll give another example though to help this discussion along until I can get a hold of blood wood material. The entire city of Throal is safe. If you will allow the assumption that in a metropolis there should be some suffering somewhere at some point in it's history then it should have some taint. And it doesn't. Different cause established. And yes suffering will usually correlate with suffering because it's caused by horrors which also cause suffering. I bet you don't eat ice cream much because you are afraid having your house hit by a tornado.


>Sorry, no. You made the assertion, you need to defend it.
you also need to defend your much farther flung claims of 'horror aspecting' and wherever your are going with "Different targets is also under dispute, since we don't know for sure how background count changes as the mana level rises." Those are you making assertions if ever I read some.

Basiclly you are saying that if you can make up whatever you want to so I could be wrong. Of course 2 + 2 could really be 5 and the Flying Spaghetti Monster just uses its noodely appendage to make you think it's 4.



Now I will readily admit that taint and background count are thematically related, just not mechanically related. If that's enough for you to call them the same thing, cool. It isn't for me.

Damn you Flying Spaghetti Monster! DAMN YOOOOU!! *Strikes dramatic pose*

Dude, you have flatly failed to respond to the fact that's been repeated, several times: Horrors only cause Taint when they're causing suffering, or polluting an area. We know that Horrors in Shadowrun can cause Astral Hazing, so it's shouldn't be a surprise that they can in Earthdawn.

You clearly know the ED rules better than I do, so I'm wondering exactly how it is that you don't know that Horrors can aspect an area just by being there. Horrors come in all shapes and sizes, but they can also mimic the polluting powers of Blood spirits and Toxic spirits. If they can do it in Shadowrun, they could do it in ED, right?

"Primitive magic"= easier to interfere with. According to canon, prior to 2011 magic *did* work, it was just that it worked infrequently, and required huge rituals to pull off the simplest effect. So, the more "primitive" the magic, the easier it was to interfere with.

Once again: we *know* that Horrors can have Astral Hazing. We also don't know if the Horrors are causing suffering near their own homes; but since they feed on suffering and pain, it makes sense that they'd be feeding near their homes.

Wrong. By the example you posted, in two out of three examples, it says explicitly that the Taint is caused by Horrors causing suffering. It also correlates them; the more suffering caused, the more Taint you have. So, saying "horrors cause taint without mentioning suffering" is completely wrong.
Now, you're going to point to the third example, which doesn't explicitly mention suffering. However, since Horros cause a lot of suffering when they spend a longer time in one place, it *implicitly* says that the Horror is causing pain and suffering, to make its home nice and comfy. Causing massive amounts of strife is the Horror equivalent of a huge plate of nachos and a fridge full of beer.


When you look at it, Shadowrun and Earthdawn aren't mechanically related at all; they're only thematically related. When you try and draw parallels between the systems, you shouldn't try to make a lot of mechanical references, because it's the thematic ones that really make the difference.

>Dude, you have flatly failed to respond to the fact that's been repeated, several times: Horrors only cause Taint when they're causing suffering, or >polluting an area. We know that Horrors in Shadowrun can cause Astral Hazing, so it's shouldn't be a surprise that they can in Earthdawn.
You only think I haven't addressed this because you have preconceived and incorrect idea's about the setting, and can't hear my point. Parlainth and the Wastes are uninhabited there for there is no suffering. They are also some of the most corrupt locals written up. Therefor it is the horrors and not the suffering causing taint.

>so I'm wondering exactly how it is that you don't know that Horrors can aspect an area just by being there.
Hallelujah, he's seen the light! This actually the crux of my argument. Horrors can taint an area just by being there, no suffering required!

>Horrors come in all shapes and sizes, but they can also mimic the polluting powers of Blood spirits and Toxic spirits. If they can do it in Shadowrun, they could do it in ED, right?
could you point me to where blood and toxic spirits are related to horrors, and where they have hazing? I'm a SR4 kid, and think that cyber zombies are the only thing that cause hazing.

>Once again: we *know* that Horrors can have Astral Hazing.
Once again you are using your conclusion in your proof. You correctly take it that horrors make taint. You then falsely assume that taint = bc and swap them. from that faulty premise you conclude that horrors must have astral hazing. Then you site the "fact" that they have astral hazing as evidence that taint is bc.

>When you look at it, Shadowrun and Earthdawn aren't mechanically related at all; they're only thematically related.
I've been wondering what your glitch has been, and I think this is it. Taint feels like back ground count to you and you are smart enough to square this circle to your own satisfaction.

>When you try and draw parallels between the systems, you shouldn't try to make a lot of mechanical references, because it's the thematic ones that >really make the difference.
... filling the same nitch in the stories doesn't make them the same exact thing. Thera and Aztlan are both "The far off scary magic territory with blood magic and human rights violation". Hell I'm pretty sure Thera has some impressive pyramids. Are you trying to tell me that Thera is Aztlan because theme is all that matter?

I'm not saying that Trolls aren't Trolls because the two versions have couple discrepancies, don't think for a second I'm demanding literalism across systems. Both version of trolls are big, and physically deft, and have similar fluff, that's enough. I don't need ED to try to put in reach just for trolls or some such BS. But don't go around telling me that SR trolls are the same thing as Obsidian, even though they have different origins and abilities, but do share a theme, and magic works different now so they COULD be the same thing.

Except your own quotes say that it's linked to suffering and pain. You're still hanging onto the one quote that doesn't explicitly say they need to cause suffering to create Taint.

Look up Harlequin's Back and the Dragon Heart trilogy. In both, the connection between blood spirits and horrors is clearly shown.

Now I was flipping through Street Magic, and discovered a Toxic metamagic that causes a background count. Wanna know what it's called?

Taint.

It's on p143, SM. So, we've got something that looks the same, feels the same, and even has the same name. I'd say that pretty much closes the case.

About the taint meta magic, I don't feel that an going with an obvious foil of a name proves much if you aren't groping around for support.

--
Ok, so I managed to ... acquire ... the source book for the Blood Wood.

I was pretty sure that the Blood Wood would be the proving ground what with centuries agony and blood magic, and (functionally) zero horrors.


Similar does not mean the same thing.


This says specially that it takes horrors to make taint. Even if it takes horrors causing suffering (causing suffering + Evil magic ~= horror activity) to make taint, horrors are still the critical part.


The direct quote was spread out over two paragraphs.


The GM is encouraged to make the corruption of the blood wood different from taint proper.

I finally got two of main points in black and white. Horrors not suffering cause taint. Corruption caused by suffering and blood magic, and taint are different things. Taint and 'Background Count' also do different things. They are definitely related, but taint is not just just horror aspected BC. If taint was BC, they wouldn't have two sections devoted to how they are different.

Oh, come *on*!

Nope, sorry. It's pain and suffering that makes the difference, even in the section you cited.

Optional rules are usually not allowed as support for a mechanic.

It's not black-and-white. So far, all you've said is Horrors + Suffering = Taint; that does not disprove Suffering = Taint/Background Count. You need to show something that explicitly states that Horrors are required for Taint, and Taint-like effects. I'll grant that Taint may be aspected Background count, to favor Horrors; but otherwise, it's basically the same thing as Blood Wood, only without Horrors.

Now, have you ever heard the saying: "If a bird looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck"? We have something that looks the same thematically, works in a reasonably similar fashion given the different systems, and even has the same name! You can quack now, if you like.

>It's not black-and-white. So far, all you've said is Horrors + Suffering = Taint; that does not disprove Suffering = Taint/Background Count.
I can't remember the last time I encountered selective reading this strong. I have given you two examples of horrors causing taint without suffering. The wastes and parlainth. I have horrors without suffer causing taint. You do not have suffering alone causing taint. I'll stop trying to be comprehensive sense it just give you more stuff to get wrong. I'll make it simple for you.

Please address how the wastes are THE MOST corrupt part of the setting w/o any suffering

Isn't that the home of Horrors? And haven't we established that Horrors can cause astral hazing, as well as access to the Taint metamagic? To use Shadowrun terms, they're creating a domain, aspected for them.

Now, your turn. Please address the fact that every example of Taint you've provided is related to either pain, suffering, or "Horror activity" (which may or may not include pain and suffering). Now, please show us how suffering is not enough, when Taint-like things happened in the Blood Wood, caused by the suffering of the elves.

.... I asked you to show me the suffering you maintain is necessary. You come back horror powers. Isn't that my point? I don't even have to bother shooting this down (again).

--

>Now, please show us how suffering is not enough, when Taint-like things happened in the Blood Wood, caused by the suffering of the elves.
I've said they are related. You claim they are the exact same thing. Identical phenomenon don't need multiple sections of text to tell them apart, and don't do different things.

Also there is no taint in the city of Throal. Do you feel the mosty likely explanation for that lack is that nothing nasty has ever happened in one the setting's largest metropolises?

Also unbreached kears are Safe. All were created, and many maintained for 400 hundred years with blood magic sacrifices. 400 years of sacrifice. No taint.

Weaver, think about what creates background count, not just "something nasty", but real torment and suffering. So one would assume most cities would not have a background count, nor would a kaer. Sacrifice is not suffering, and the artisic and communal activities of cities and kaers actually help reduce the disruptions to the asptral plain.

Look at toxics, bugs and cyberzombies, they all do the same kind of thing a horror does, to a lesser extent. Whether that is because of their natures or because of the pain and suffering they tend to cause to all around them is a matter of debate.

You can also argue that the taint, while similar to other types of background count is different because the horror causes the astral hazing that aspects the astral to itself. But I cannot understand how you can say that background count is not related to taint. Taint may be a subset of background count, but I can think of no rationale way to separate the two concepts.

Remember that ED takes place just after the reopening of the Kaers, so the metahumans haven't had the time to cause much real or seperate background count. Bloodwood has something similar in the RAW, just not taint, IIRC.

No, your point is that Horror powers are the only way to cause Taint. Unfortunately, you're wrong; Blood Wood shows Taint-like effects without the presence of Horrors.

There's several sections on background count in SM. Domains and Toxic zones are both subsets of background count, even though they're not identical, they have different sections of text to tell them apart, and do slightly different things.


I don't have an ED book to look at, so I can't tell you about Throal. However, as Skip pointed out, sacrifice isn't the same as suffering; and background count doesn't have to take over the whole kaer anyway. It can be very localized.

>Bloodwood has something similar in the RAW, just not taint, IIRC.
That's my whole point. Taint is not EXACTLY the same thing as background count.

>I cannot understand how you can say that background count is not related to taint.
I have said it is verbatim.


---



Strike two on answering a direct question. You maintain that suffering is requirement of taint and not horrors. Please explain the Wastes.

Employ one of these characters certain people on parties are always telling me about. They should be able to handle this just fine.

Don't have a book handy, but you've missed the point. Taint is just a subset of Background count. Mechanically, the work about the same way, both in Earthdawn (Taint/Blood Wood) and in Shadowrun (Taint and Toxic zones).

If you can't explain the Wastes, and want me to do it for you, please quote the relevant section here, as I don't have an ED book handy.

Could a moderator please split the Earthdawn chat tangent into its own thread? Its relevant to SR4 but the tangent train has left the station...