Ghost rules discussion

[marbleman]

Rocks aren't property, so it doesn't matter that you moved it, crowbar or no crowbar. Again, if I understand the wording of the rule and Peter's clarifications, the mere fact of removing an obstacle doesn't matter. What counts is visible or implied damage, as is with the case of using bolt cutters.

The weakened wall being pushed out does not appear in a different state; it's just located in a different place, overturned. The rest of the wall already has a gigantic hole in it, which is not made by myself, so there is no damage here. Actually, I'm gonna bring up an example from Disorientation here, particularly the following passage: "There, I find a loose brick in the wall separating his shop from the alchemist’s. I take the brick out of the wall and pick up the alchemist’s key through the hole. Then, I place the brick as close to the wall as I can since I cannot place it back inside of it."

There is no way taking out a loose brick out of that wall is property damage. The brick is already loose. The best I can do for Supreme is put it next to the wall, the nearest logical place. In Burrick, the situation is basically the same, but we have a loose piece of wall instead of a single brick this time. I don't see how it's different except we cannot put the loose wall close to the rest of it, which should be excused.

[klatremus]

Well, thank you so much for responding Peter. I am happy your response was aligned with my ideas, not because I want to be right above all, but because I was hoping I had understood the main spirit of the rules and the main ideas laid out by the mode's creators. I think it is pretty obvious then that natural objects like boulders, foliage, etc. are not breaking the rule if destroyed, whether it is done by Garrett's hands, weapons, items, and whether there is visible damage or not. Those items do not even fall under the category 'property'. The rule was meant to cover man-made objects. However, there are probably going to be objects that fall somewhere between, and like Peter said "the distinction is arbitrary". Those cases the player will either just have to make a decision and report it, or first come ask here in the discussion thread and based on the consensus of the community hopefully we can come to an agreement. Something we haven't discussed before is if there are readables or story elements that make it obvious that something that appear natural (like icicles) have indeed been constructed by a person (like for example if in Trial of Blood a journal somewhere boasted about a person creating the icicles in order to block the passage for Garrett), then it would fall under the category 'property' because it evidently is someone's construct. But unless the mission says so explicitly, natural objects do not count.

The other thing Peter points out (and marbleman confirmed) is that there has to be visible/audible or implied damage. And it should also take some sort of object/weapon/force in order to damage it. Thus, the wall in Sound of a Burrick is not property damage for two reasons: 1) It is weak enough for Garrett to simply push, and 2) It falls out in one piece, much like a door that can't be closed, and is not fragmented and therefore not damaged. You can imagine two strong guys coming there later and placing the wall piece back, without telling the owner the wall has been destroyed.

So how about this: any beast that can speak the language, like the apemen, can own property (and by that I mean something they've made, not icicles that grow in their habitat). Less advanced beasts and undeads cannot.

This is a difficult distinction to determine. If you have a ruined house with haunts in it, breaking a door to gain access would still be property damage, even though it's not owned by the man who made it any longer, but instead undeads. Or did you mean since it was at one point made by men, then it would be property? Perhaps I misinterpreted. Maybe there won't be that many cases where this becomes applicable even, so perhaps there's no point in making it a rule. If we did, to me spiders, burricks and beasts like that no, people and apebeasts yes, undeads I would also say yes because in some missions there are clever ghosts that talk and make evil contructions. Zombies no, but then again they don't ever make anything (unless it was a modified clever zombie and in that case perhaps could talk). Craymen are sort of borderline. I'd say they probably fall into the beast category. I'm just thinking out loud as I'm writing right now, so let me know what you guys think.

[smithpd]

Thanks, Klatremus.

I don't think it matters who or what occupies the building containing the property. It could be empty. To me, the only thing that matters is that the item / property was placed there by someone, some thing, who intended it to block passage. It could have been magic or a god. So maybe we need to replace the phrase "man-made" with "fabricated." My basic principle is to adhere to the concept of ghosting and to keep it simple. Moving a boulder is allowable because it is easily moved and was not fabricated -- just arranged -- and it is natural. Frobbing and moving loose stones in a wall is allowed because, even though the wall was fabricated, nothing is broken that was not already damaged. If you had to bash the stones with your sword or blackjack, I would call it damage.

Another case not discussed immediately above is a passage that is boarded up. In one recent mission, the boards could be frobbed, removed, and set aside. I would not call that damage. In other missions I have played, one had to hit the boards with a sword or blackjack to remove them. They made a cracking noise, and the boards flew apart in pieces with a sufficient number of blows. I would call that damage. The distinction is the act of breaking or bashing something.

Breaking icicles seems to be a special case that is allowable because they are natural. If you can prove, say by a readable, that the icicles were placed there deliberately (how would you fabricate them?) to block a passage, then I would be tempted to call that damage. Still, I don't really like that distinction because it adds complexity. I wonder if it has ever occurred. It would be simpler so say that breaking icicles is OK.

Does all that make sense?

[klatremus]

That is all perfectly aligned with my thinking. I agree with all you just said.

[Cigam]

If the prohibition on property damage is to minimise evidence of your passing through, and thee amount of suspicion raised, then isn't it the permanent altering of the environment that is the issue,rather than the fact that it was owned by somebody?

Someone familiar with the environment might say "wasn't like that this morning", whether it is owned vines that were cut, or not.

If the prohibition is simply about preventing the player from removing intentional barriers via "artificial" means, then it wouldn't matter whether you bash through a wall or neatly pry out the bricks, either way this is an artificial way to get past the wall. And either way you weaken its integrity from what it was. And it will look in a worse state.

Still, 'no visible damage to intentionally-placed obstacles' is certainly clear. Though I still think causing visible degredation to such barriers and structures would count. Including the aformentioned brick and plank removals.