Warlocks

[Library Ogre]

Resolved: Warlocks are reincarnated elementals.

You have two weeks.

[Killer Cyborg]

They’re NOT, but they should be.
How do I vote?

[Glistam]

No. Warlocks are non-Elemental beings that Elementals find adorable so they let them play with them, occasionally to their regret.

[Library Ogre]

They’re NOT, but they should be.
How do I vote?

How do you think you should vote?

[Shark_Force]

minor thing: if that's supposed to be "yes" or "no", "yay" is an exclamation of celebration, "yea" is yes (and pronounced the same way).

but more importantly: what is the intent of the poll? are you saying that for some reason it is resolved that your statement is true, and asking whether we like it or not? whether we agree or disagree? or are you asking us to resolve that question for you somehow?

[Library Ogre]

minor thing: if that's supposed to be "yes" or "no", "yay" is an exclamation of celebration, "yea" is yes (and pronounced the same way).

but more importantly: what is the intent of the poll? are you saying that for some reason it is resolved that your statement is true, and asking whether we like it or not? whether we agree or disagree? or are you asking us to resolve that question for you somehow?

I had a wild hare that my mind chased a bit, because it was bored. I decided to toss it among y'all, so you might have something to discuss.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I voted: no.

They are listing in canon text (MoM1) as being a CC that has Granted Powers.


The 'shadows of light' book has a format for what happens when elemental and human are mixed.

[eliakon]

minor thing: if that's supposed to be "yes" or "no", "yay" is an exclamation of celebration, "yea" is yes (and pronounced the same way).

but more importantly: what is the intent of the poll? are you saying that for some reason it is resolved that your statement is true, and asking whether we like it or not? whether we agree or disagree? or are you asking us to resolve that question for you somehow?

I had a wild hare that my mind chased a bit, because it was bored. I decided to toss it among y'all, so you might have something to discuss.

For a discussion instead of just a vote I will present WHY I said no.
My view is that in my opinion the idea that the game already avoids, heavily, the metaphysics of souls. And for good reason. There is very little hard and fast information on what is a soul and the hard and fast mechanics of them. Which is, in my opinion a GOOD thing. Souls are a good area for a game to leave Canon Doubt and Uncertainty. Unless there is a pressing need to define them then I don't see it as being productive to go there. It is to easy to create unnecessary problems to be honest. For the same reason that the game stays away (mostly) from stating out real world religions (I know it fails, but it gets points for trying at least, and for its credit it does avoid the religions that are the most likely to be the faiths of the players which are the areas that cause the most trouble in games.)
The upshot of this is that suddenly not just introducing reincarnation as being A Thing, but also transmigration of souls where you can be reincarnated as different species... yeah that's going to open up a LOT of cans of worms. It might be an interesting flavor for a specific campaign... but for most games that is not going to be anything even remotely helpful and in fact to most games it will be the opposite and be destructive. It will be destructive because it is something that is totally out of line with the previously established mythos of Palladium and has massive metaphysical ramifications on virtually every level of the game. Basically unless your game was one where this particular plot thread was goign to be a key element... it will either have to be removed from the game or you will be having a lot of issues that are going to be a nuicence at best and likely a problem at worst. And worst of all it 'writes in' a huge area of the game (soul theory, after life, and the rest) for little gain (and conflicts with everything we already HAVE on souls to boot)... meaning that any GM who wants to impliment anything of their own has to choose between getting rid of parts of canon or their own ideas.

Thus I say not just no, but heck no.
Now for a specific game where I want to do something different? Yeah I might go play around with an idea like this. (or vice versa)
But in general? Not a chance.

[dragonfett]

I could see the argument being made for the opposite (where a lesser elemental is a reincarnated Warlock). Hear me out for a moment. Warlock links himself to a specific Elemental Intelligence (or two for those weirdos that split their commitments XD ), Warlock dies, Warlock's essence flows into the EI (or is split between the two EI's, or they fight it out, or whatever), EI creates a new minor or lesser elemental from the essence of the warlock (or much more likely, the essences of many warlocks), or the EI keeps the essence and adds it to it's own.

[ShadowLogan]

I voted No, since Elementals are alien intelligences. So in that sense they can't involve resurrection/re-incarnation or their thought processes and such wouldn't be so alien IMHO.

[Axelmania]

The 'shadows of light' book has a format for what happens when elemental and human are mixed.

The Gregori appear to be the Spirits of Light, who have elemental nature (and spells) but I can't recall if they're technically elementals or not.