posted
Yeah, it would be natural if there were dragons running around.
But in that worldview, dragons were supernatural creatures, apparently with an appetite for the sun. You never actually SAW a dragon. You just saw them exercise their appetites.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I love about Earthsea and Out of the Silent Planet series are how they both have the West as the direction of Heaven. But then, I'm a Tolkien fanatic. Long live the True West.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, What on earth are you talking about?
Do you have an actual argument to present? Or are you just wanking here?
Science (or materialism) is continuing to explain things. The supernatural gets smaller and smaller as human progress continues.
And, to address your 'consistency' claim, science never says 'this is an unexplainable mystery' when dealing with something and then try to attribute it to some supernatural force. It just says, 'we think it might work this way, but we are still trying to figure it out'.
It is only the spiritualists who are satisfied to claim that something has a supernatural origin and leave it at that.
Which is why the piece of reality that the spiritualists are laying claim to shrinks every day.
No more priests banging drums to chase away the dragon that eats the sun.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're the one who dismissed the beliefs of the majority of human beings throughout the history of the world that there is a world beyond the natural. You never acknowledge it, but immediately move onto this ridiculous advancment theory and attempt to support by selecting the most ridiculous example you can. Fair debating tactic for you and not for me? Why?
How many people believed an eclipse was a dragon eating the sun? When was this belief a majority view? You're be absolutely ridiculous.
Science in no way shrinks the bounds of the supernatural. The reaon people called particular events "miracles" is because they were recognized as being outside the natural order. Which meant such people had an implicit understanding that there were repeating natural laws that underscore science.
The fact that they didn't know as much about these physical processes is an accident of chornology - our theories today will look ridiculous in some ways to scientists 100 years from now.
Science relies on developing a greater understanding to advance itself. Trying to figure out how things work is part of it. Everything is theory until it is provable.
The supernatural relies on NOT being able to figure out how it works. It is never provable. As such, it's domain can never grow, only contract. No religious leader ever speaks of their 'theory on how god wants to be worshipped' then goes off experimenting to try and prove it.
The dragon thing was the majority opinion in china some centuries ago. And yes, they banged drums to drive the monster away and keep it from eating the sun. My point in using this illustration is that once the real reason for eclipses were discovered, they were taken out of the realm of the spiritual and the religious, and placed into the realm of the physical and explainable. It is just an example of an ongoing process.
There are recent examples as well. One well documented one being the experiments that conclusively proved that the catholic cracker is still just a cracker when it hits a persons stomach. Oops, there goes transubstantiation.
Each of these things takes another bite out of the spiritualist mystery, and places another chunk into provable human understanding.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are recent examples as well. One well documented one being the experiments that conclusively proved that the catholic cracker is still just a cracker when it hits a persons stomach. Oops, there goes transubstantiation.
Well, if we ever needed proof you don't know what the hell you are talking about, here it is. Transubstantiation has NEVER been interpreted such that a physical, detectable change occurs in the bread.
You should learn about things before you spout off.
posted
"Transubstantiation has NEVER been interpreted such that a physical, detectable change occurs in the bread."
I was under the impression that the Catholics killed a harge number of people who said otherwise, a few hundred years ago.
BTW, someone who really knows stuff should know better than accusing Slash of not knowing stuff. Just a tip.
---------
What you're missing, Dag, is that once a belief becomes testable fact, it ceases to be superstition and becomes science. In other words, all the truth of all the religions in the world will ultimately be a science -- but not the other way around.
Slash is utterly wrong in what he said about transubstantiation. The substance changes in a non-detectable way. Do you think priests throughout the ages failed to notice that the bread still felt and tasted like bread and the wine still felt and tasted like wine (and was intoxicating as well)?
quote:What you're missing, Dag, is that once a belief becomes testable fact, it ceases to be superstition and becomes science. In other words, all the truth of all the religions in the world will ultimately be a science -- but not the other way around.
And what your missing is that a large portion or "reality" exists outside the realm of what we call nature. Hence the term "supernatural." And these will never be provable with methodologies limited to space and time.
It's just as easy to say that all the aspects of science will be seen to be mere subsets of the supernatural.
posted
Yeah, thanks Tom. Dag, it was indeed interpreted that way for a very long time. Maybe before you accuse people of not knowing things, you should actually know those things.
And now you are all worked up. Instead of addressing any of my ideas, you leaped to attack what you incorrectly perceived as the single weak link in my post. Come on, you're better than that. But I remember now that you once said you are incapable of backing down, so I will do it for you. My point has been made, and I stand by it. But I won't keep belaboring it.
Once again, Tom beat me to succinctness. His short synopsis is indeed the sum of my point.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, it was indeed interpreted that way for a very long time.
No - it was not EVER interpreted in such a way that there would be detectable changes. Again, the belief is that the entire body of Christ is present in each wafer. Obviously, they knew that the change occurred in a manner not perceivable to our senses. No priest has ever been surprised by these "scientific analyses."
And it's not a minor point - it represents the heart of the attitude you expressed in your original post I responded to - that supernatural just means we don't know the natural explanation for something. If you define supernatural that way, then of course we're not arguing about anything real. But the validity of the definition depends on the resolution of the dispute.
posted
Ok, I'm looking for links to medievel doctrine that did in fact teach that the bread changed in a substantial way. Though, I will grant that this has not been the modern interpretation for some time.
But this goes back to the original point again. The bread 'changes' in some mysterious and entirely unprovable way. This leave a person literally nothing on which to hang his hat, other than that someone tells them it changes.
And that is the fundamental difference. Science would never make a claim like that. And the number of things that it is possible to make unsubstantiated claims about will shrink as our understanding of the universe grows. At some point, it may be possible to prove that the bread doesn't even change on some quantum level after ingestion.
Though, even that may not be enough to alter the opinion of the die hard faithful.
I appreciate the less aggressive tone of your last response, Dag. Which is why I gave you the respect of replying. I know that you have a lot invested in your beliefs, so it may be difficult to not take such things personally.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:But this goes back to the original point again. The bread 'changes' in some mysterious and entirely unprovable way. This leave a person literally nothing on which to hang his hat, other than that someone tells them it changes.
Stating it this way is VERY different from saying "I mean, supernatural is just a long word for 'thing we can't currently explain'." And I agree that proving the supernatural exists is necessary but not sufficient to prove God exists.
Catholics don't see the lack of something to hang their hat on as a defect.
When you're doing your research, don't just find the word substance and immediately post it - substance is being used very differently in these descriptions than it is in the scientific sense. You'll need to read up on "accidents" as well.
posted
What proves that the supernatural exists to you?
Mysterious bread changes would certainly qualify as a supernatural event, but as you agree, it is literally impossible to prove. Is it enough for you that someone told you that it happens?
I mean, if that's enough, then I am not going to argue it. Faith is an impossible opponent, and one that I never box with.
But you can understand why without such faith, ANY claim of a supernatural element in the universe will be greeted by great skepticism?Which is the problem. Such beliefs demand equal respect with science, and yet refuse to be held to any of the same standards. I mean, at that point you can claim literally anything.
Including Tom's giant pink pandas creating the universe. (was it giant pink pandas tom?)
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slash - it's not that I want to convinve you that what I believe is true - at least in this discussion . It's that I want to you to acknowledge what it is people who believe in the supernaturalist actually are believing in. Or at least not misstate what it is that we believe in.
Put simply, this belief is that the supernatural is distinct from the set of natural phenonoma that we cannot explain yet. That is, events for which we don't know the cause could, with perfect knowledge, be divided into two categories: 1.) those that have unknown natural explanations, and 2.) those caused by the temporary alteration of natural laws by some force outside of nature. Of course, without perfect knowledge, we can't always assign an event to one category or the other correctly.
Science will decrease the number of things in category 1. It will also decrease the number of things which have been incorrectly placed in category 2. Neither of these shrink the realm of the supernatural - just our perception of what's in that realm.
Again, I'm not asking you to believe this. Just to realize that the word supernatural encompasses much more than how you described it on page 1.
posted
Got it. Your assertion is accepted with the conditions you attached.
But then you have to see the other side. That those of us on the other side think everything in group two has been incorrectly placed there.
And that is the side I made my statement from. And, from that side, the statement is entirely accurate. You can't get mad because I lack the 'faith' needed to believe anything is correctly placed in your second category.
Just like I don't get mad when people place all sorts of things in that category that I find ridiculous. And, believe me, that happens a lot more on this bulletin board than the other way around.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Science will decrease the number of things in category 1. It will also decrease the number of things which have been incorrectly placed in category 2. Neither of these shrink the realm of the supernatural - just our perception of what's in that realm.
Then would taking Slash's original statement and putting it in the realm of perception make it completely accurate? That, over time, the realm of what is perceived to be supernatural has been steadily decreasing and the realm of what is perceived to be natural or scientific has been increasing?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even understand what the heck this argument is about. You're both saying essentially the same thing. Slash thinks that all supernatural things have a rational explanation that can be found by science. Dagonee thinks that all supernatural things have a rational explanation, but it just may be that the explanation is God. The only difference is that Slash doesn't believe that God could be the rational explanation, which we already knew.
posted
There's a difference between placing things in the wrong category, or even claiming one category is entirely empty, and changing the definition of one of the categories.
It's the difference between saying "ghosts don't exist" and "the word 'ghost' means shapes that people make up out of their imagination."
quote: Then would taking Slash's original statement and putting it in the realm of perception make it completely accurate? That, over time, the realm of what is perceived to be supernatural has been steadily decreasing and the realm of what is perceived to be natural or scientific has been increasing?
Probably. But I think there’s less of that going on than he thinks.
quote: don't even understand what the heck this argument is about. You're both saying essentially the same thing. Slash thinks that all supernatural things have a rational explanation that can be found by science. Dagonee thinks that all supernatural things have a rational explanation, but it just may be that the explanation is God.
Is that right?
Not really – I mean, that’s an accurate summary of the corresponding beliefs, but the argument was about the definition of supernatural. See my preceding post.
posted
It's amazing how many of these things turn into semantic arguments. Ah well. Dag, I understand your perception of what I was saying. But I still think I'm right.
Oh, and I think both your statements about ghosts would be entirely accurate too.
posted
The problem that I have with the magic system in D&D and other role-playing games is that it generally grants power without having to work for it. OSC covers this in 'How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy.' There is no price for magic-- other than the cost of spell components, I suppose. It can be argued that the mage class is forced to forgo physical prowess; but that is compensated for by being the most powerful class of all at high levels.
What I would love is for an RPG setting where magic COSTS. For example, in my story (shameless plug) Blackberry Witch, in order to use magic, Nina has to bleed out almost all of her blood. This to make a magic strong enough to charm a demon another wizard created.
What I would like to play is a world where magic is treated as it was traditionally known to exist-- as a rarity. An accomplished wizard would have to spend hours and hours drawing out hexes or making voodoo dolls or whatever, just to lay a simple curse.
And no freakin' fireballs. Seriously-- the only fireballs created in the history of 'magic' have been those made by gods.
You didn't see Gandalf throwing around lightning, did you?
posted
I had a campaign where official magic was very legalistic - members of this had double casting time with zero subtlety, every spell had at least verbal and somatic components, and the use of magic outside this order was strictly forbidden.
Then I let my characters have magic outside those rules, with the caveat that they had to journey outside the land to find any spells. It made them really powerful compared to the general populace, and hated by the local ruling council. It was much closer to a superhero setting with battles between powerful beings taking place amongst mere mortals.
It was quite fun, but it was hard to let them find enough spells in a manner consistent with the story.
posted
Speaking as someone who’s read the tortuous explanations medieval theologians wrote to explain how something could change into something else with absolutely no change detectable to any human sense or science, Dag’s right about transubstantiation. The change has always been understood as real, but not physical/material/detectable. It’s built into the word, where substance means the reality of a thing, apart from the way it looks, feels, tastes, smells, breaks apart under chemical analysis, or any other examination. No detectable change, even on a quantum level.
Okay, I have rough outlines of a kingdom's capital city sketched out. Things are coming together.
I just can't decide how freeform to make things. I kind of just want to gather up some players and turn them loose in my world to see what happens. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> The problem that I have with the magic system in D&D and other role-playing games is that it generally grants power without having to work for it. <<
Ironically, this is precisely how I feel about the monk classes. Give up weapons and armour, and suddenly you can stun one-ton crocodiles with your pinky finger.
I'd like to devise a magic system like the one found in Steven Brust's books or Guy Gavriel Kay's books, where magic-users have a finite amount of power that they project in various ways rather than casting specific spells. But I don't see any easy way to do it, which means it would be a lot of work – thus I probably won't.
I dunno. I like the D&D wizard. In all honesty I think they're my favourite class in the game to play, because the plethora of spells makes playing them very interesting.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:At that point I start wondering if the emperor is wearing any clothes at all!
Well, certainly, this isn't the place to start believing in supernatural events, since it takes as a prequesite believing in pretty much all of Christian doctrine.
posted
NOW it comes out-- twink's jealous that Mission stopped a one ton lizard by striking it once; while Sa'id, poor miserable, tortured soul, didn't even make it growl with his finger-o'-flame.
HAHAHAAA!
EDIT: Seriously, though-- if I hit you in the right place, hard enough, you're going to be stunned. Although some of the other monk abilities are unrealistic, this one isn't.
As long as I'm lamenting RPG's, the damage system sucks. Legally, I can be down to 1 hp left, and I have full attack capacity. Edge of death, and my character can attack with his full strength. It makes no sense at all.
The best damage system I've seen was in Top Secret (best RPG system out there, bar none). You'd roll a d10 for where the damage was inflicted-- hand, torso, left leg, right leg, etc-- and depending on what weapon you were using, you'd roll for that. If you got a hand shot off, it was gone-- damage was drawn from a random pool of hit points, it had consequences.
I miss Top Secret. . .
[ April 08, 2004, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
RIght. Or, to translate: the monk is a class that was added to the game for munchkins.
Edit:
Don't worry, I'm mostly kidding. I used to get annoyed with munchkin monks, though, which is why I've never played one. But you've done a fantastic job with Mission and so now I'm mildly interested in the class again.
I agree with you on damage. A friend of mine devised a relatively simple damage localization system for an RPG of his creation that worked very well, and I liked it. I used to be interested in doing similar rules adaptations myself, but now I'm too lazy – I just want to get the world built and (probably) a game going.
posted
'Realistic' and 'D&D Character Class' don't even exist on the same planet. You gotta get over that quick if you want to have any fun playing the game.
Posts: 5383 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, my map has been sufficiently revised, with trade neighbors for Khadanira to the north and west across the ocean.
Now to refine the political and social landscape, toss in some history and mythology, and decide what I'm going to do with this world of mine.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Legally, I can be down to 1 hp left, and I have full attack capacity. Edge of death, and my character can attack with his full strength. It makes no sense at all.
If you have 1 HP left, you're not really on the edge of death. You don't die until you get to -10 HP.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yeah, it also helps that I write for White Wolf and know their system inside and out.
It's FAR more flexible than the D&D system, though that flexibility requires that the Storyteller really be on top of things.
But, since experience is not gained through bashing random monsters, and there's no such thing as a "random" encounter, it's a lot more story-centered.
Then again, good DMs are story centered, but White Wolf basically requires that center. Sure, you can hack and slash if you want, but it's not the way experience is rewarded.
When it comes down to it, though, the WW skill system trumps the D&D one hands down. And the d10 dice system trumps the d20 dice system pretty handily, too, imo.
However, I *am* biased. Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Instead of a 20 sided die (and the various and sundry 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 siders), all action is on the d10. All of it. No need for various dice. It's all d10s, all the time, baby.
Instead of skill ranks that can, essentially, go up to infinity, and specific skills that have rigid descriptions and requirements, the d10 system streamlines things.
Skill usage You have Attributes, and Abilities. Attributes are divided into Physical, Social and Mental. Abilities are divided into Talents, Skills, and Knowledges.
Each of these traits is ranked from 1 to 5 dots. For any given action, you need to pick one Attribute and one Ability, and add the dots. You then roll that many d10 dice. Simple.
F'rinstance. To jump down from a tree, I'd roll my Dexterity + Athletics. I have three dots in Dex, and two in Athletics, so I roll five dice.
Standard difficulty is 6, which means a roll of 6 or higher on a die is a success, and a roll of 5 or less is a failure. A roll of 1 is a botch, and cancels out a success. You look at your dice, check your numbers, and figure out if you succeeded.
Flexibility Storytellers can adjust this, though. They can set the difficulty higher, or require a greater number of successes. (Obviously, picking a standard lock is a lot less complicated than cracking a safe, and this is reflected in the difficulty and success requirements).
Now, Dexterity + Athletics can be used for jumping from the tree, climbing a wall, performing a backflip, throwing a rock at a security camera, jumping a chasm, or keeping balance on shifting ground. It's WIDE OPEN, and subject only to the Storyteller's interpretation.
Similarly, Stamina + Athletics would be used for long distance running, swimming or the like. Strength + Athletics for maintaing a wrestling pin. Etc.
Then of course, there are all the possibilities with other combinations. Charisma + Performance, Manipulation + Performance, Dexterity + Performance, Wits + Performance, and so on, and so on... anything a player can think of, there's a skill combination calling for it.
Thing is, does the player have enough dots in those traits to make an attempt worthwhile? There's no random Attribute generation, it's all chosen based on player choice.
Choice If I want a slow witted bruiser, I'll set Physical Attributes as primary, and I'll get 7 dots to distribute. Then I'll set Social as Secondary, and get 5 dots to distribute. Finally, I'll pick Mental as Tertiary, and get 3 dots to distribute.
If I want a politician, I'll arrange the order Social/Mental/Physical. If I want a swashbuckling fighter, maybe Social/Physical/Mental. Lots of choices.
Of course, you prioritize your Talents, Skills, and Knowledges the same way. So, if you want to be a physical person, you'd likely look at physical traits and talents. If you want to be a scientist, then you'd gravitate toward mental traits and knowledges. It's totally flexible to a player's wants.
Lost Opportunities One problem, though. The White Wolf line of games just ended. Almost all of them. Kaput, finis, done. Granted, they're revamping the system (making it better, and fixing small issues that came up over the last 12 years) and releasing a new set of books in the fall, but that's a few months away.
That's actually what I've been working on with my writing, and why the Segreda stuff is delayed.
I hope this helped you out a bit, twinky.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anybody ever play the Amber diceless roll playing sytem? I bought the book for it years ago, and it looked interesting, but I couldn't find anybody to play with at that point, so I never got to actually try it out.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. It's that I want to you to acknowledge what it is people who believe in the supernaturalist actually are believing in. Or at least not misstate what it is that we believe in.![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
