Story Comic for 2016 April 25th

[InfiniteRemnant 141]

32 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I'm personally not comfortable with it either. But it is possible and it may be what Infinite Remnant was referring to. If it's small, subtle, gradual change, how can we tell if it's natural or not?

This is the true danger of magic. Not the obvious stuff like Not-Tengu transforming room of people into Nanase's clones, but small subtle changes.

Yeah, that's closer to what i was implying.
obviously it's not the only option, but i figured it's plausible enough to at least consider.

Also, didn't expect you, or anyone really to be comfortable with that. I find it creepy, and I came up with it. but something being unsettling doesn't make it impossible. Like i said, maybe there's a good reason why spell selection works the way it does.

[hkmaly 490]

15 minutes ago, InfiniteRemnant said:

but something being unsettling doesn't make it impossible

Exactly. Most people are not comfortable with nuclear weapons either. While Dan stated multiple times that he won't do X because he's not comfortable with it, we can't be sure that this will prevent stuff WE are uncomfortable with from appearing in EGS.

[Matoyak 51]

2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

And I'm still wondering what the hell this all means.

It's Elliot's version of Curiosity and Logic, or Diane's angel and devil. Just a representation of his mental state.

15 minutes ago, InfiniteRemnant said:

But something being unsettling doesn't make it impossible.

I just don't think it's something Dan would introduce. This is the same universe that has magic force transformations as being safe. I don't think magic would then slowly manipulate someone's identity to fit what it thought they were. Just doesn't seem "in character" for Dan's magic system.

[Scotty 1,061]

2 minutes ago, Matoyak said:

It's Elliot's version of Curiosity and Logic, or Diane's angel and devil. Just a representation of his mental state.

I just don't think it's something Dan would introduce. This is the same universe that has magic force transformations as being safe. I don't think magic would then slowly manipulate someone's identity to fit what it thought they were. Just doesn't seem "in character" for Dan's magic system.

Yeah, magic in EGS has always been stated as being a reflection of a person's self, which is why Edward's always saying that common knowledge is a bad idea because there are many who have dark desires that they normally wouldn't act on, but if they had access to magic, who knows what they'd do with it.

[Drasvin 123]

 

18 minutes ago, Matoyak said:

2 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

And I'm still wondering what the hell this all means.

It's Elliot's version of Curiosity and Logic, or Diane's angel and devil. Just a representation of his mental state.

I wonder what each aspect represents. The one in the robe is obviously Elliot's libido and the superhero is likely his Superego/Protector aspect. I think the black-shirted female might be his Logic. I'm stumped on which is which between the other three though.

[BurntAsh 10]

3 minutes ago, Drasvin said:

I wonder what each aspect represents. The one in the robe is obviously Elliot's libido and the superhero is likely his Superego/Protector aspect. I think the black-shirted female might be his Logic. I'm stumped on which is which between the other three though.

Well, the question I have is: Why are there both female and male representations of two particular aspects of his personality? And does it signify anything important? Is it a Chekov's Gun, or a Red Herring?

[Don Edwards 548]

5 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

I roleplay either gender as the mood strikes.  About half of my characters had enough animating energy for me to write a bio for them.

I think I've played one character I didn't have any backstory for. It was purely a mechanical concept - "Swordchucker Jones" - and I never even tried to figure out why he got into the habit of throwing his sword.

(Come to think of it, that isn't quite right. I also never explained why a Pixie Shaman would have a spirit companion that looks like a human-boy marionette puppet.)

But then I decided to try to build a pacifist wizard... and ended up writing about twelve pages of biography beginning with a scene that occurred shortly after he was conceived, followed by a 15-year time-skip and how he got into a wizard's academy, along with why he's "pacifist" and just what the functional definition is. (And then I never got a chance to play that character.)

[CritterKeeper 1,102]

6 hours ago, hkmaly said:

While not technically skirt, I think both this and this count as very feminine clothes. And remember that Elliot's ability to change clothes gives him much more opportunities for experiments that Ellen has - and more opportunity for Dan to show it. I don't think Elliot will get to be more female than Ellen.

The first example doesn't count, that's the dress Nanase chose for Ellen to wear at Grace's birthday party.  Ellen was blushing like mad, clearly not comfortable with the look, when she first appeared wearing it.

6 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Magic can adapt people to match the spells just as it's changing spells to match the people.

This is quite possible, but I don't think it's anything sinister.  I think it's more the way people in general tend to adapt to the situations they find themselves in.  We're wonderfully adaptable, which is part of how we've spread across the planet into every environment, and people can travel around the globe into a completely different culture and still find themselves feeling right at home after a while.  Elliot has adapted to the situation he found himself in; no intent on Magic's part is needed.

[Drasvin 123]

5 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

5 hours ago, Drasvin said:

 

I wonder what each aspect represents. The one in the robe is obviously Elliot's libido and the superhero is likely his Superego/Protector aspect. I think the black-shirted female might be his Logic. I'm stumped on which is which between the other three though.

Well, the question I have is: Why are there both female and male representations of two particular aspects of his personality? And does it signify anything important? Is it a Chekov's Gun, or a Red Herring?

Likely nothing too important. Elliot has been stuck having to regularly transform into a girl for a while by that point and he tends to be a rather laid back guy for the most part (he seems to get that from his parents), so it's possible some of his subconscious has picked up more feminine qualities. He still seems bothered by being forced to transform into a girl at that point though maybe with a degree of grudging acceptance.

[Ser Pentrose 14]

On 28/4/2016 at 11:26 AM, The Old Hack said:

A question just occurred to me:

The first time Elliot was ever turned into a girl, I am fairly sure Elliot's gender identity was that of a boy turned into a girl, i. e. still considering himself male.

Over time, this seems to have gradually changed. I wonder if today's comic's moment of acceptance also marks that Elliot now fully considers herself a girl while transformed into her superhero identity or other variations of female selves?

I'd say that some people are more strongly gendered than others. I'd bet the Elliot was never strongly gendered, which made adapting to his magic easier than it would have been if he were.

[ijuin 572]

Yes, Elliot seems to self-identify more by values such as friendship and loyalty and honesty than by masculinity. It probably helps that Elliot's friends, aside from Justin and Greg, are all either female or do not conform to masculine stereotypes--this prevents the sort of "echo chamber" effect that happens when people of exclusively one type gather together.

[Wildcat 37]

3 hours ago, ijuin said:

Yes, Elliot seems to self-identify more by values such as friendship and loyalty and honesty than by masculinity. It probably helps that Elliot's friends, aside from Justin and Greg, are all either female or do not conform to masculine stereotypes--this prevents the sort of "echo chamber" effect that happens when people of exclusively one type gather together.

That's true and it has probably helped him adjust, but I don't think it really has much to do with his gender identity.

[hkmaly 490]

17 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

On 04/29/2016 at 0:24 AM, hkmaly said:

While not technically skirt, I think both this and this count as very feminine clothes. And remember that Elliot's ability to change clothes gives him much more opportunities for experiments that Ellen has - and more opportunity for Dan to show it. I don't think Elliot will get to be more female than Ellen.

The first example doesn't count, that's the dress Nanase chose for Ellen to wear at Grace's birthday party.  Ellen was blushing like mad, clearly not comfortable with the look, when she first appeared wearing it.

But she choose to wear it and ONLY it when singing. Also, she might be more comfortable wearing it with more limited audience. And finally, I would say she got more comfortable with sexy clothes since then.

I think her choice of clothes is more "comfortable" than "tomboyish".

[Scotty 1,061]

25 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

But she choose to wear it and ONLY it when singing. Also, she might be more comfortable wearing it with more limited audience. And finally, I would say she got more comfortable with sexy clothes since then.

The main reason Ellen was uncomfortable with it, was knowing that Nanase picked it out for her at a time when her and Nanase were struggling with strong feelings for each other. Nanase obviously wanted to be with Ellen but was afraid to admit it, Ellen knew about that and wanted to be there for her. Ellen's worn revealing outfits before the LBD, but that was just for fun, for the birthday party though, there were serious feelings involved. Once that was all sorted out, Ellen was free to go back to wearing whatever she felt like.

[SeriousJupiter 49]

Okay, I clearly didn't know what I was saying when I said that Elliot had become 100% genderfluid. I had no idea how many politically correct labels actually existed.

[ijuin 572]

The real trouble comes when people within the group itself can't agree on the terminology with which to refer to themselves, and each sub-faction rejects the others' choices of terms. The infighting can be epic, and all outsiders had better agree with ALL sides of the argument (including agreeing with each side's rejection of the others), or else be branded an enemy. It's "my way or the highway" with multiple mutually exclusive "one true ways", meaning that there is NO possible position or lack-of-a-position that will not make you somebody's enemy. Hooray for double binds. 

[The Old Hack 2,448]

4 hours ago, ijuin said:

The real trouble comes when people within the group itself can't agree on the terminology with which to refer to themselves, and each sub-faction rejects the others' choices of terms. The infighting can be epic, and all outsiders had better agree with ALL sides of the argument (including agreeing with each side's rejection of the others), or else be branded an enemy. It's "my way or the highway" with multiple mutually exclusive "one true ways", meaning that there is NO possible position or lack-of-a-position that will not make you somebody's enemy. Hooray for double binds. 

I have elected to simplify. I choose to refer to each individual as they prefer and to otherwise avoid employing offensive terms as I am best able. That is the best I can do; if this stance makes me enemies, I regret that but I do not know a better place to work from.

[ijuin 572]

Sadly, some folks just seem to be fishing for reasons to be angry.

[BurntAsh 10]

3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I have elected to simplify. I choose to refer to each individual as they prefer and to otherwise avoid employing offensive terms as I am best able. That is the best I can do; if this stance makes me enemies, I regret that but I do not know a better place to work from.

Honestly, this is the ideal, IMO. It's going to take a while to sort out all the pieces that came flying out of Pandora's Box of Gender and for language to settle down on something we agree on.

 

3 hours ago, ijuin said:

Sadly, some folks just seem to be fishing for reasons to be angry.

Consider it from the other perspective for the moment (and also consider which parts of the group you are interacting with as well, no group is a monolith). If you are having problems just getting folks to recognize your identity and how you see yourself, and that's a constant day-in/day-out issue, your nerves are going to be somewhat raw. You don't have to fish for reasons when people keep giving them to you as if they are some sort of housewarming gift.

Edited May 2, 2016 by BurntAsh
Grammar

[The Old Hack 2,448]

2 minutes ago, BurntAsh said:

Consider it from the other perspective for the moment (and also consider which parts of the group you are interacting with as well, no group is a monolith). If you are having problems just getting folks to recognize your identity and how you see yourself, and that's a constant day-in/day-out issue, your nerves are going to be somewhat raw. You don't have to fish for reasons when people keep giving to them as if they are some sort of housewarming gift.

This is true and also very important. One thing I find helpful to remember: if someone comes at me angry about something I said, however innocent my intent, they may well have cause. In that case my first priority must be to find out what it was I did wrong so I won't repeat it. And one cannot always expect people to behave reasonably when one has hurt them. In the best cases I've been able to work out what I did wrong and at the same time conveyed my apologies. That often goes a long way towards better communication afterwards.

Another point to remember: it is not often helpful to tell someone not to be angry. If they are actually communicating in good faith, they will be angry for cause and in that case the solution is to discover what caused the anger and hopefully alleviate it. If they are not communicating in good faith -- this is unfortunately also possible -- no appeal to their better nature will work in any event. And most importantly of all, there are those who simply use anger as an excuse to dismiss the angry person's argument. This is a much-loved tactic of those who wish to silence victims of (for example) misogyny, homophobia, transphobia and racism. It is called tone policing and works like this: if you are angry, your argument is invalid, if you are not angry, you have no reason to complain.

The above is the ideal and unfortunately I cannot always live up to it. For one thing, I have a temper of my own and I cannot always control it. But for exactly that reason I try to remember that the anger of the other person may very well be valid and should be respected.

[Vorlonagent 442]

On 4/30/2016 at 9:07 PM, Don Edwards said:

I think I've played one character I didn't have any backstory for. It was purely a mechanical concept - "Swordchucker Jones" - and I never even tried to figure out why he got into the habit of throwing his sword.

(Come to think of it, that isn't quite right. I also never explained why a Pixie Shaman would have a spirit companion that looks like a human-boy marionette puppet.)

But then I decided to try to build a pacifist wizard... and ended up writing about twelve pages of biography beginning with a scene that occurred shortly after he was conceived, followed by a 15-year time-skip and how he got into a wizard's academy, along with why he's "pacifist" and just what the functional definition is. (And then I never got a chance to play that character.)

I know what server you spent a lot of time on... 

I was fascinated by different combinations of power sets so I made a lot of experimental characters...and had the server space to keep them around.  Some of my experiments got enough animating energy to be in the top tier of my roleplaying characters.

I decided if you built a melee character, resistance-based was generally better than defense-based, and mixed sets gave mixed (and often unsatisfactory--looking at YOU, Ice Armor) results.  I worked somewhat on healing-based sets and I liked them but wasn't sure where they stood compared to the other two.  I was partial to Electrical Armor, Invulnerability and Fire Armor.

Electrical Armor and Super-Strength were an awesome duo.  I had tank and brute versions of this, both leveled to 50.  Both were well into the Incarnate endgame content when CoH ended.

[hkmaly 490]

8 hours ago, ijuin said:

Sadly, some folks just seem to be fishing for reasons to be angry.

It's perfectly logical for someone to be angry because you remind him something bad. The fact you couldn't possibly have any idea that what you said can remind him it doesn't make him less angry. In many cases, it actually makes him more angry (which is not so logical).

4 hours ago, BurntAsh said:

It's going to take a while to sort out all the pieces that came flying out of Pandora's Box of Gender and for language to settle down on something we agree on.

You think the pieces stopped flying out already?

[ijuin 572]

4 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

This is true and also very important. One thing I find helpful to remember: if someone comes at me angry about something I said, however innocent my intent, they may well have cause. In that case my first priority must be to find out what it was I did wrong so I won't repeat it. And one cannot always expect people to behave reasonably when one has hurt them. In the best cases I've been able to work out what I did wrong and at the same time conveyed my apologies. That often goes a long way towards better communication afterwards.

Enough times I've come across a situation where I'm talking to two groups at the same time, and group A demands terminology X and takes offense at all others, while group B demands terminology Y and takes offense to all others. In such a situation there is NO way not to offend one of them, because satisfying the one inherently offends the other.

[Don Edwards 548]

I've also seen that in a lot of these issues, the majority of the people most loudly offended by some terminology that they say is disrespectful of some group are NOT PART of that group. And if you think using the offending terminology brings down their wrath, just try being part of the group yet not be offended at the terminology...

[The Old Hack 2,448]

4 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

I've also seen that in a lot of these issues, the majority of the people most loudly offended by some terminology that they say is disrespectful of some group are NOT PART of that group. And if you think using the offending terminology brings down their wrath, just try being part of the group yet not be offended at the terminology...

I regret to inform these people that I consider it far more important to respect the wishes of those actually affected by the terminology than those of any spectators, however idealistic.