scrolls and runes

[Nekira Sudacne]

if a wizard/ley line walker etc. was to create a scroll on a piece of parchment using a silver implement to write it in runes would that make it more potent or usuable more than once? the parchment becomes indestructible, the silver runes are there permantly and runes are inherently magical on their own. so what would be the effect of making a scroll using that method?

The parchment would survive but it would loose all magical effect.

[Killer Cyborg]

if a wizard/ley line walker etc. was to create a scroll on a piece of parchment using a silver implement to write it in runes would that make it more potent or usuable more than once? the parchment becomes indestructible, the silver runes are there permantly and runes are inherently magical on their own. so what would be the effect of making a scroll using that method?

If you used it as a scroll, the writing would disappear, leaving an intact page.
It's not uncommon (I believe) for spell books in PFRPG to be etched in silver runes, making them indestructible- but I believe there are also rules for using a page in your spell book as a scroll.
So the situation you describe wouldn't be that unusual (except for the mage destroying one of his spells just to use it once).

[Nekira Sudacne]

After a magic scroll is used, the words disappear, turn to gibberish, or turn into a magic symbol. I don't see why silver would behave any differently than ink in this regard. Perhaps I missed something though.

A Silver rune on parchment makes both the rune and the parchment completely indestructable.

[Killer Cyborg]

but suppose someone is literate enough to write out their scroll in runes of silver as they are creating it? the create scroll spell is kind of vague on the particulars of how its done. i assume the creator must pen out the scroll as he/she is enchanting it, that it just doesn't magically appear. again the spell is kind of vague.

ok if the spell doesn't make it a permanent scroll, the silver and parchment are still technically indestructible, just no magic to use as a ready cast spell. but since the words and all are still there couldn't a wizard try a scroll conversion with out fear of wasting the scroll? it would be an invaluable resource to magic schools.

The parchment wouldn't be destroyed.
The writing would disappear off of it.

[Nekira Sudacne]

but suppose someone is literate enough to write out their scroll in runes of silver as they are creating it? the create scroll spell is kind of vague on the particulars of how its done. i assume the creator must pen out the scroll as he/she is enchanting it, that it just doesn't magically appear. again the spell is kind of vague.

ok if the spell doesn't make it a permanent scroll, the silver and parchment are still technically indestructible, just no magic to use as a ready cast spell. but since the words and all are still there couldn't a wizard try a scroll conversion with out fear of wasting the scroll? it would be an invaluable resource to magic schools.

The parchment wouldn't be destroyed.
The writing would disappear off of it.

The Silver Runes are also indestructable.

The answer is: You'd still have your scroll, but it would no longer work. It says specifically that you actually imbue the scroll with magic as you scribe it and it's expended as you read it. Even if the parchment and writing somehow survives this process, the magic would be gone.

[Killer Cyborg]

but suppose someone is literate enough to write out their scroll in runes of silver as they are creating it? the create scroll spell is kind of vague on the particulars of how its done. i assume the creator must pen out the scroll as he/she is enchanting it, that it just doesn't magically appear. again the spell is kind of vague.

ok if the spell doesn't make it a permanent scroll, the silver and parchment are still technically indestructible, just no magic to use as a ready cast spell. but since the words and all are still there couldn't a wizard try a scroll conversion with out fear of wasting the scroll? it would be an invaluable resource to magic schools.

The parchment wouldn't be destroyed.
The writing would disappear off of it.

The Silver Runes are also indestructable.

They wouldn't be destroyed; they'd be disappeared.

The answer is: You'd still have your scroll, but it would no longer work. It says specifically that you actually imbue the scroll with magic as you scribe it and it's expended as you read it. Even if the parchment and writing somehow survives this process, the magic would be gone.

I could go with that possibility as well.

[Nekira Sudacne]

What if the rune was written to the page *after* the writer wrote his notes, memoirs, alchemical formulae, drew naughty pictures of fetching elvish maidens, etc.?

Would the ink, charcoal, or whatever then also be preserved/indestructable? If so, it would explain all those thousands-of-years-old tomes floating around with ancient knowledge in them just waiting to be found.

No, doing it after isn't any more effective than doing it before.

[jaymz]

Actually, when I dug out my PFRPG last night and looked through it, that *is* what the runes are used for, according to the diabolist description. Non-magical books and scrolls are written THEN the runes applied to make the book/scroll and writing indestructable. It just wouldn't work for magical writings (they disappear as I recall).

Yeah I would say the magic would be used up but the wrods may still be there. Can't rember what issue but the rifter had a REALLY good article on Spellbooks, thier creation and use....yes I know it isn't official but I use it nonetheless

[drewkitty ~..~]

Ether way, the runes stay or the runes disappear, the scroll spell's magic would be gone after using.

[jaymz]

Actually, when I dug out my PFRPG last night and looked through it, that *is* what the runes are used for, according to the diabolist description. Non-magical books and scrolls are written THEN the runes applied to make the book/scroll and writing indestructable. It just wouldn't work for magical writings (they disappear as I recall).

To quote PFRPG 2e page 118: "Some silly notes about indestructible paper: Although runes are ideal for preserving or protecting books only other Diabolists can read rune writings. Of course, a single silver rune letter will make the parchment page indestructible (there must be at least one letter on every page of a book). The indestructible page can be written on with ordinary ink, paint, and graphite. However, these ordinary materials will age, fade and crumble with the ravages of time and can be physically marred, burnt off, scraped or scrubbed away, etc."

Therefore, unless the entire page is written in silver runes, an ancient tome might still contain nothing of value as the ordinary writing itself is not invulnerable. A single silver rune only makes the actual parchment indestructible, not the writing itself.

My understanding of that is that if you write on it AFTER the runes are inscribed it is not protected but if the writing was there BEFORE you inscribed hte rune then it woudl be considered part of thepage and protected. That woudl be why you cna find these ancient tomes with thinsg still legible inside. You may not be able to read depending on the language but to me that woudl certainly be acceptanel. Write then inscribe = protected, inscribe then write = not protected.

[jaymz]

What part of "A single silver rune only makes the actual parchment indestructible, not the writing itself," isn't clear?

The part that says the indestructable page can be written on infers that the writing AFTER its made indestructable is not protected.

[Nekira Sudacne]

What part of "A single silver rune only makes the actual parchment indestructible, not the writing itself," isn't clear?

The part that says the indestructable page can be written on infers that the writing AFTER its made indestructable is not protected.

The order it's written on is irrelevant.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Why is it irrelevant? If the page is written on then a rune is applied, the page + writing becomes indestructible. If the writing was magical, once the magic has been used, either the magic is gone but the writing itself remains or the writing disappears (not destroyed, just disappeared).

The part where it never says that stuff written before the rune is applied is indestructable?

If it dosn't say it, it's not how it works.

[jaymz]

Why is it irrelevant? If the page is written on then a rune is applied, the page + writing becomes indestructible. If the writing was magical, once the magic has been used, either the magic is gone but the writing itself remains or the writing disappears (not destroyed, just disappeared).

The part where it never says that stuff written before the rune is applied is indestructable?

If it dosn't say it, it's not how it works.

Only thing is it doesnt say anythign written on it ISNT protected when made indestructable. It only states anythign written on it after its made indestructable is not protected.

"The indestructible page can be written on with ordinary ink, paint, and graphite. However, these ordinary materials will age, fade and crumble with the ravages of time and can be physically marred, burnt off, scraped or scrubbed away, etc.""

Says nothing about any that was already on the page when it was made indestructable.

If it doesn't say previous writing is not indestructable then it can be indestructable.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Why is it irrelevant? If the page is written on then a rune is applied, the page + writing becomes indestructible. If the writing was magical, once the magic has been used, either the magic is gone but the writing itself remains or the writing disappears (not destroyed, just disappeared).

The part where it never says that stuff written before the rune is applied is indestructable?

If it dosn't say it, it's not how it works.

Only thing is it doesnt say anythign written on it ISNT protected when made indestructable. It only states anythign written on it after its made indestructable is not protected.

"The indestructible page can be written on with ordinary ink, paint, and graphite. However, these ordinary materials will age, fade and crumble with the ravages of time and can be physically marred, burnt off, scraped or scrubbed away, etc.""

Says nothing about any that was already on the page when it was made indestructable.

If it doesn't say previous writing is not indestructable then it can be indestructable.

Backwards, it dosn't say it is, therefore, it isn't. Lack of rules does not rules make.

[jaymz]

Why is it irrelevant? If the page is written on then a rune is applied, the page + writing becomes indestructible. If the writing was magical, once the magic has been used, either the magic is gone but the writing itself remains or the writing disappears (not destroyed, just disappeared).

The part where it never says that stuff written before the rune is applied is indestructable?

If it dosn't say it, it's not how it works.

Only thing is it doesnt say anythign written on it ISNT protected when made indestructable. It only states anythign written on it after its made indestructable is not protected.

"The indestructible page can be written on with ordinary ink, paint, and graphite. However, these ordinary materials will age, fade and crumble with the ravages of time and can be physically marred, burnt off, scraped or scrubbed away, etc.""

Says nothing about any that was already on the page when it was made indestructable.

If it doesn't say previous writing is not indestructable then it can be indestructable.

Backwards, it dosn't say it is, therefore, it isn't. Lack of rules does not rules make.

No it does not so we are both wrong unless someone clarilfies it. You are making a rule saying the previous writing is not indestructable when the only thing that is stated is any writing after its made indestructable is not indestructable.

Either way with previous writing, indestructable or not...is a rule call that can't be made because there is no rule clarifying it.

So for me to say it IS indestructable is just as valid as you saying it ISN'T

[jaymz]

You're way off the mark on this one, Jaymz. And to argue with Nekira is usually a futile process as she is almost always right. I can honestly say I've never seen her proven wrong.

Read this again once more, very carefully, and note the emphasis.\

"A single silver rune ONLY makes the ACTUAL PARCHMENT indestructible, NOT the WRITING itself."

Still not clear? Let me divide the sentence up into easy pieces.

"A single silver rune..."

This means ONE rune. We're not talking about every word written.

"...only makes the actual parchment indestructible..."

The keyword here is PARCHMENT, not parchment + writing, JUST parchment.

"...not the writing itself."

This phrase ought to be self-explanatory, but apparently we are having a failure to communicate so I'll explain it. This phrase means the writing is NOT indestructible. NOT is the keyword here. Parchment = indestructible. Writing = NOT indestructible.

You can put this sentence at the beginning of the section, in the middle, or at the end. It makes no difference. It still means the same thing. To argue otherwise is simply refusal to acknowledge the facts.

Now if you want to change the rules for your game that's fine. But the canon answer is quite clear and unambiguous.

*snipped from above* To quote PFRPG 2e page 118: "Some silly notes about indestructible paper: Although runes are ideal for preserving or protecting books only other Diabolists can read rune writings. Of course, a single silver rune letter will make the parchment page indestructible (there must be at least one letter on every page of a book). The indestructible page can be written on with ordinary ink, paint, and graphite. However, these ordinary materials will age, fade and crumble with the ravages of time and can be physically marred, burnt off, scraped or scrubbed away, etc."

I can read Sam thanks. But it does not say the ACTUAL PARCHMENT. It just says THE PARCHMENT PAGE. It also says the runes are for preserving and protecting books. Why bother if the writings won't actually be proteced. It would be a waste of time and energy to protect the parchment and not whats on it. That to me would make it a vague enough to argue the point either way. It also says the indestructable page can be written on but over time those writing will fade etc. The qoute goes out of its way to say anything written on the indestructable page (The indestructible page can be written on with ordinary ink - pointing to after it was made indesctructable) not anything written on it period.

The placement of the when the writing is done is very relevant and makes perfect sense to allow what I am arguing.

I am not sure why this is so hard to allow. It makes sense to allow what I am saying in fact otherwise any magic spell book would just fade away which is not what happens typically in fantasy they seem to last for millenia at times. To do that it would have to be written in silver runes by the sounds of it in which case its useless to anyone but Diabolists which seems....well not right to be frank.

[jaymz]

I am not sure why this is so hard to allow. It makes sense to allow what I am saying in fact otherwise any magic spell book would just fade away which is not what happens typically in fantasy they seem to last for millenia at times. To do that it would have to be written in silver runes by the sounds of it in which case its useless to anyone but Diabolists which seems....well not right to be frank.

I never said it's hard to allow. Quite the opposite, I said there's nothing wrong with changing the rules for your campaign, but that doesn't change what the actual rules say.

A text in a book or scroll that is heavily used will indeed fade. The indestructible parchment means that a lightly used text, or one that has been forgotten for millennia will still appear as good as it did when last used, provided it was not submerged or something, which would destroy the text and not the book.

See this is where I think we differ on it. To me the whole point to inscribing the book is to in fact protect it permanently. Again why bother to do it if it will only in actuallity protect the pages. A book can last a VERY long time without being inscribed at all as long as it isn;t used constantly. What you are saying is that a Diabolist would purposefully inscribe to make paper indestructable yet not protect anythign that may be on it. Seems like a waste of time and energy to go thru such a process. That is hte only reason I think the writing before is protected and why the writing after isn't. It would basically make it a indestructable notepad which seems pointless. The way the above quote is worded to me certainly leaves it open to interpretation and nothing is definitive. At least not the way I read every time I read it over.

My guess is we won't see eye to eye on this though Good debate is fun either way.

[jaymz]

Books are rarely made of parchment in the first place, so silver runes are far more likely to see use as scrolls, which tend to be somewhat fragile. Making them immune to simple rips and tears is invaluable in and of itself. Besides that, parchment that is not sealed in an air-tight container will eventually desiccate over time due to environmental factors. Absorbing water by condensation during wet seasons and drying out during dry seasons will ruin the writing first and eventually destroy the scroll. Making the scroll immune to such factors goes a long way to protecting the writing itself. In addition, immersing the scroll in water even once would normally ruin it. However if the scroll is indestructible, the writing could probably withstand at least a few immersions before running off completely. It's hardly useless.

Nevertheless, your argument is weak simply for the fact that the text NEVER says a silver rune protects the writing on the page in ANY circumstance, let alone whether the writing is done before or after scribing the silver rune. It does however make an unequivocal statement that the writing can be rubbed, washed or faded off.

...it dosn't say it is, therefore, it isn't. Lack of rules does not rules make.

This is the way rules work in every game. To infer otherwise simply because it "makes sense" to you is still an inference. Like I said, there's nothing wrong with changing the rules if they don't make sense to you, but that doesn't change the actual rule.

Thats the thing I do not interpret the rule as you put it as the rule. That's all. we just interpret it differently There are rules throughout the entire game that be interpretted differently fromone person to another. Seems this is one of them. At least to me.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, you've all made me curious. So I've opened my book and started to read. Reading it, I'll agree the answer is pretty clear actually. Though I'll address a few references of note.

1) First, parchment books aren't that uncommon. They're only 50 gold more than paper, and have advantages such as this. It's part of the standard equipment list, and anyone with the money can easily buy one (it's listed in the equipment section, no notes of being rare). Minor note, but wanted to get that in there before I forgot it.

2) Page 118 (second column, middle of page): "Books written thus are impervious to the ravages of time." Okay, this one kind of sounds like the whole book might be preserved. However, not quite definitive. This merely makes it questionable without proof one way or the other. Let's continue.

3) Page 119 (first column, top of the page): The quote jaymz mentions is a nice one. It specifically mentions things written on it after. This could be important because otherwise it may raise the question: "Once indestructable can it still be written on? Otherwise the ink may not be able to stain the page." Again, it could help to support the claim that if written on it will protect all words. But, once again, it's not definitive. Let's continue.

4) Page 118 (last column, bottom of page): "Although runes are ideal for preserving or protecting books only other diabolists can read rune writings." Hmm ... okay, this one is making it sound the other way now. After all, this note isn't important if normal writing will be preserved as well. Still not definitive, but it's a point in the other direction. Let's continue.

5) Page 119 (first column, middle of ssection): "Another problem is with the materials used to bind the sheets of parchment together and which are not transformed into indestructible materials." Okay, this one flat out says other materials aren't transformed. It also says "glues and threads are vulnerable" to various aspects. A book itself is made up of threads or glue. So even if you take a book of parchment, it can still fall apart. Yikes! Hopefully some of those silver runes mark page numbers just in case. Now, as the book clearly won't survive anything (only the parchment) it's not looking good for ink at all. This isn't just listed once, but TWICE! Once in regards to armor and again for sails. It does mention you should sew or glue it before it's made indestructible, but only because it's impossible or difficult to do so afterwards.

I'll note that when I started this I agreed with jaymz and believed the writing would be safe too. When I read 2 and 3 in the book I was feeling pretty good. But reading it all in more detail, it looks like I was wrong. Number 4 and 5 are just too damning in my opinion. I'm stating that to point out that while I like the other way better and what I had thought was true, by the book I'd have to say it's not and that the text actually changed my mind (by the book). I'll always throw in points when I can. Hopefully some of that helps. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.

[jaymz]

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, you've all made me curious. So I've opened my book and started to read. Reading it, I'll agree the answer is pretty clear actually. Though I'll address a few references of note.

1) First, parchment books aren't that uncommon. They're only 50 gold more than paper, and have advantages such as this. It's part of the standard equipment list, and anyone with the money can easily buy one (it's listed in the equipment section, no notes of being rare). Minor note, but wanted to get that in there before I forgot it.

2) Page 118 (second column, middle of page): "Books written thus are impervious to the ravages of time." Okay, this one kind of sounds like the whole book might be preserved. However, not quite definitive. This merely makes it questionable without proof one way or the other. Let's continue.

3) Page 119 (first column, top of the page): The quote jaymz mentions is a nice one. It specifically mentions things written on it after. This could be important because otherwise it may raise the question: "Once indestructable can it still be written on? Otherwise the ink may not be able to stain the page." Again, it could help to support the claim that if written on it will protect all words. But, once again, it's not definitive. Let's continue.

4) Page 118 (last column, bottom of page): "Although runes are ideal for preserving or protecting books only other diabolists can read rune writings." Hmm ... okay, this one is making it sound the other way now. After all, this note isn't important if normal writing will be preserved as well. Still not definitive, but it's a point in the other direction. Let's continue.

5) Page 119 (first column, middle of ssection): "Another problem is with the materials used to bind the sheets of parchment together and which are not transformed into indestructible materials." Okay, this one flat out says other materials aren't transformed. It also says "glues and threads are vulnerable" to various aspects. A book itself is made up of threads or glue. So even if you take a book of parchment, it can still fall apart. Yikes! Hopefully some of those silver runes mark page numbers just in case. Now, as the book clearly won't survive anything (only the parchment) it's not looking good for ink at all. This isn't just listed once, but TWICE! Once in regards to armor and again for sails. It does mention you should sew or glue it before it's made indestructible, but only because it's impossible or difficult to do so afterwards.

I'll note that when I started this I agreed with jaymz and believed the writing would be safe too. When I read 2 and 3 in the book I was feeling pretty good. But reading it all in more detail, it looks like I was wrong. Number 4 and 5 are just too damning in my opinion. I'm stating that to point out that while I like the other way better and what I had thought was true, by the book I'd have to say it's not and that the text actually changed my mind (by the book). I'll always throw in points when I can. Hopefully some of that helps. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.

Well put.....hmm........now you have me rethinking it as well........though I still think the writing on the parchment itself could be considered part of the page while I will readily say the stitching or binding would not be. But you definitely have me questioning it now.....

I just keep arguing this point because it just would not make any sense to bother writing a tome of magic if you cannot protect it to survive the ravages of time. It would seem to be a huge waste of time energy and effort to make the parchment indestructable. It essentially becomes a indestructable notepad.....

[Prysus]

I just keep arguing this point because it just would not make any sense to bother writing a tome of magic if you cannot protect it to survive the ravages of time. It would seem to be a huge waste of time energy and effort to make the parchment indestructable. It essentially becomes a indestructable notepad.....

Greetings and Salutations. I agree, to an extent. Though in this case, I believe the concept is that the writing is indestructable, just that it needs to be written in silver runes. It's a method for Diabolists only to save their work. It can serve as an instruction book for diabolists, notes on research, etc., but it's all in silver runes and only another diabolist could read it. Read that first paragraph about "silly notes." First sentence: It's a great way of preserving books, but only diabolists can read it. Second sentence and on: Describes how to make the page indestructible for other writings, but the results.

Kind of limiting, and I think that's the point for how it's written. I don't believe it ever mentions making spell books (for wizards) out of it. Though, since we're mentioning things like spell books, I can only think of one spell book off the top of my head, and that was in ... um ... I want to say in one of the Adventures in the Northern Wilderness books (first or second), where when they find the book it crumbles in their hands (if you don't touch it you can learn the spell it's opened up to). By no means will I say you have to play it by these rules, just what I think the concept is (after having read it more thoroughly). Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.

[jaymz]

I just keep arguing this point because it just would not make any sense to bother writing a tome of magic if you cannot protect it to survive the ravages of time. It would seem to be a huge waste of time energy and effort to make the parchment indestructable. It essentially becomes a indestructable notepad.....

Greetings and Salutations. I agree, to an extent. Though in this case, I believe the concept is that the writing is indestructable, just that it needs to be written in silver runes. It's a method for Diabolists only to save their work. It can serve as an instruction book for diabolists, notes on research, etc., but it's all in silver runes and only another diabolist could read it. Read that first paragraph about "silly notes." First sentence: It's a great way of preserving books, but only diabolists can read it. Second sentence and on: Describes how to make the page indestructible for other writings, but the results.

Kind of limiting, and I think that's the point for how it's written. I don't believe it ever mentions making spell books (for wizards) out of it. Though, since we're mentioning things like spell books, I can only think of one spell book off the top of my head, and that was in ... um ... I want to say in one of the Adventures in the Northern Wilderness books (first or second), where when they find the book it crumbles in their hands (if you don't touch it you can learn the spell it's opened up to). By no means will I say you have to play it by these rules, just what I think the concept is (after having read it more thoroughly). Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.

Well with the rules for actual spell books in the rifter now....I guess this is less of a sore point...

I never disi play it that way....but now with more than just the one section quoted and whatnot....eh I don't know I may still play it the otehr way.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Greetings and Salutations. Okay, you've all made me curious. So I've opened my book and started to read. Reading it, I'll agree the answer is pretty clear actually. Though I'll address a few references of note.

1) First, parchment books aren't that uncommon. They're only 50 gold more than paper, and have advantages such as this. It's part of the standard equipment list, and anyone with the money can easily buy one (it's listed in the equipment section, no notes of being rare). Minor note, but wanted to get that in there before I forgot it.

2) Page 118 (second column, middle of page): "Books written thus are impervious to the ravages of time." Okay, this one kind of sounds like the whole book might be preserved. However, not quite definitive. This merely makes it questionable without proof one way or the other. Let's continue.

3) Page 119 (first column, top of the page): The quote jaymz mentions is a nice one. It specifically mentions things written on it after. This could be important because otherwise it may raise the question: "Once indestructable can it still be written on? Otherwise the ink may not be able to stain the page." Again, it could help to support the claim that if written on it will protect all words. But, once again, it's not definitive. Let's continue.

4) Page 118 (last column, bottom of page): "Although runes are ideal for preserving or protecting books only other diabolists can read rune writings." Hmm ... okay, this one is making it sound the other way now. After all, this note isn't important if normal writing will be preserved as well. Still not definitive, but it's a point in the other direction. Let's continue.

5) Page 119 (first column, middle of ssection): "Another problem is with the materials used to bind the sheets of parchment together and which are not transformed into indestructible materials." Okay, this one flat out says other materials aren't transformed. It also says "glues and threads are vulnerable" to various aspects. A book itself is made up of threads or glue. So even if you take a book of parchment, it can still fall apart. Yikes! Hopefully some of those silver runes mark page numbers just in case. Now, as the book clearly won't survive anything (only the parchment) it's not looking good for ink at all. This isn't just listed once, but TWICE! Once in regards to armor and again for sails. It does mention you should sew or glue it before it's made indestructible, but only because it's impossible or difficult to do so afterwards.

I'll note that when I started this I agreed with jaymz and believed the writing would be safe too. When I read 2 and 3 in the book I was feeling pretty good. But reading it all in more detail, it looks like I was wrong. Number 4 and 5 are just too damning in my opinion. I'm stating that to point out that while I like the other way better and what I had thought was true, by the book I'd have to say it's not and that the text actually changed my mind (by the book). I'll always throw in points when I can. Hopefully some of that helps. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys.

Well put.....hmm........now you have me rethinking it as well........though I still think the writing on the parchment itself could be considered part of the page while I will readily say the stitching or binding would not be. But you definitely have me questioning it now.....

I just keep arguing this point because it just would not make any sense to bother writing a tome of magic if you cannot protect it to survive the ravages of time. It would seem to be a huge waste of time energy and effort to make the parchment indestructable. It essentially becomes a indestructable notepad.....

Why? Not all Wizards are writing for the ages here. Most of them are mortal and probablly couldn't care less what happens to their books a few centuries after their own deaths.

[jaymz]

Well put.....hmm........now you have me rethinking it as well........though I still think the writing on the parchment itself could be considered part of the page while I will readily say the stitching or binding would not be. But you definitely have me questioning it now.....

I just keep arguing this point because it just would not make any sense to bother writing a tome of magic if you cannot protect it to survive the ravages of time. It would seem to be a huge waste of time energy and effort to make the parchment indestructable. It essentially becomes a indestructable notepad.....

Why? Not all Wizards are writing for the ages here. Most of them are mortal and probablly couldn't care less what happens to their books a few centuries after their own deaths.

Then why bother protecting it at all? I would think any wizard worth his salt would want it left for the ages...or at the least his apprentices. They are, in most depictions, not just wizaards but keepers of knowledge and I wouldn't think they;d want that knowledge lost.

I am not talking your average joe shmoe wizard her but he the ones who achieve or surpass level 15 type wizards. Not sayign every tom dick and wizard would do it eitehr because you;d need to have a diabolist do it in teh first place, just saying to me it woudl make sense for it to be done even if not very often thats all.

[jaymz]

Thats the thing I do not interpret the rule as you put it as the rule. That's all. we just interpret it differently There are rules throughout the entire game that be interpretted differently fromone person to another. Seems this is one of them. At least to me.

For something to have different potential interpretations, it has to be vague, ambiguous, or undefined. This rule is none of the above. Any other "interpretation," as you put it, relies on adding or inferring something that isn't there. Find one single statement that says ink, charcoal, or graphite is made indestructible and I could at least agree to disagree, but there isn't any such statement anywhere. The only type of writing that is stated to be indestructible is silver runes.

I've already pointed out how making the parchment alone indestructible is quite helpful, but you clearly neglected to read it or you simply ignored it. I'm not going to repeat myself.

I have done niether. I have repeatedly stated I find that to be pointless as it makes it essentially a indestructable notepad. YOu may have also noticed I am wavering in my position on that matter after the additional quotes provided by Prysus were posted. I may not agree with your interpretation of the rules as it does not say such writing prior to the runes inscribing isnt protected
but my interpretation is that since it does not say it is not protected, it can be. Interpretation is just that, interpretation and that is how I choose to interpet it, though as I have already said the additional quotes from Prysus have me rethinking my stance now. Whether I change my stance or not is yet to be seen.

[jaymz]

Apparently you have ignored me because if you hadn't you would have seen a plethora of reasons for why indestructible parchment isn't simply an indestructible notepad. Do an experiment. Take two sheets of paper and write something with in pen on both. Submerge one in water for 10 minutes then dry it out. Compare it to the paper that wasn't submerged. IF you manage to get the submerged paper dried out WITHOUT it crumbling into pulp, you'll notice that the submerged paper is WARPED and difficult to read. The ink is probably fine after such a short duration of soaking, but the paper certainly isn't. Had the paper been unaffected by the water, it would be just as good as the paper that wasn't submerged.

Still not convinced? Here's an easier experiment: Write something on a sheet of paper and set it on fire with a lighter (you should probably do this outside). Wouldn't it have been better if that paper was fire-proof?

Still not convinced? Here's an even easier experiment: Write something on a sheet of paper and tear it up into dozens of tiny pieces. Not try to put it back together without using scotch tape. Impossible isn't it?

And don't tell me normal parchment is immune to water, fire, or tearing.

I could give you a dozen more experiments but hopefully you get the point by now. There are plenty of reasons for wanting to make your scrolls/books indestructible without necessarily needing the writing to be indestructible. Just because you don't have the imagination to think of those reasons doesn't mean they don't exist.

I read your reason and I understand them just fine and because I choose not to think of those as as valid enough and to still consider it essentially an indestructable notepad does not mean I haven't the imagination to see it. I'd appreciate you not insinuating such things. I choose to not see those tigns as useful as you do does not make me wrong or you right. It measn we don't agree plain and simple.

[jaymz]

Your key arguing point throughout this discussion has been that you don't see indestructible parchment as being worth a diabolist's time. I wasn't insinuating anything. You yourself stated that you thought it was pointless so I gave you several points to consider. If you said something you didn't mean that's not my fault.

No I said I don't see it as useful as you do. Thus I don't think its worth the Diabolists time. Thats my opinion. Doesn't make me unimaginitive or wrong. Doesnt make you more imaginitive or right. Makes us not agreeing.

[jaymz]

No I said I don't see it as useful as you do. Thus I don't think its worth the Diabolists time. Thats my opinion. Doesn't make me unimaginitive or wrong. Doesnt make you more imaginitive or right. Makes us not agreeing.

Funny i don't see my last post (above) being in contradiction with what you quoted.

Not to mention I have already said while position has not changed as of yet, I have been rethinking it.

I was willing to leave it alone and just have us not agree but you are the one that keeps bringing it up.