• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
The Old Hack

Story Friday 22, December 2017

Recommended Posts

Yeah, ring species are an amusing puzzle sometimes. They cast doubt on some of the attempts to define species in a clear-cut manner.

However, it's a simple thought experiment to shoot down most such attempts.

A mother animal and its children are the same species. Any problem with that statement? No? Good.

Somewhere in the distant past there was a female animal which was the ancestor of all dogs and all cats. (And quite a few other critters.)

Dogs and cats are not the same species. 

If you insist on drawing a sharp line between species, the three paragraphs just prior to this one are not compatible.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Don Edwards said:

A mother animal and its children are the same species. Any problem with that statement? No? Good.

Problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, animalia said:
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Yes. Which sounds like good idea if we want our children to know snow leopard better than from image. Although I don't think we can argue with "natural" here, considering livestock - domesticated animals - is pretty unnatural.

It also makes sure farmers don't go broke when their livestock ARE killed.

Guns are not THAT costly. The idea that farmers would voluntary go broke is naive ; they would either change profession or start shooting the leopards if they wouldn't be compensated.

56 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

The definitions are not as neat and tidy as we would like them, but that doesn't always mean that those words lose all their meaning. Sometimes we just need to admit that the boundary is there even if we are not able to find it when we look too close.

I once read something on the order of "we may not be able to define precisely when day ends and evening begins, but we can certainly distinguish between noon and midnight."

Yup, exactly.

56 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

This is problematic when applied to humans. We NEVER meet without human intervention. We NEVER reproduce without human intervention. (Aside from a very few alleged events all of which, coincidentally, are associated with the founding of one religion or another; none of said alleged events being recent enough for rigorous documentation including medical records or DNA analysis.)

Actually, lot of people meet and mate without (other) human intervention. Although it's possible the "intervention" is understood differently in those two contexts.

56 minutes ago, Don Edwards said:

So, by this definition, we became extinct in the wild the day our distant ancestors first qualified as "human".

I'm not sure by which definition but I find quite plausible that we went extinct in the wild long ago.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:
1 hour ago, ChronosCat said:

If modern technology is "unnatural", but humans naturally do unnatural things, doesn't that mean that it's natural for humans to use modern technology? :)

Something about that doesn't sound right to me, but I can't put my finger on it. Most likely, natural is used in two different meanings in that sentence (I mean even the one I did.)

... or maybe it's because "natural" is not transitive ... it FEELS to be, but presumably humans got to their current point of doing unnatural things by series of steps, each of them "natural" - without any outside intervention. The unnaturality was emergent property.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Guns are not THAT costly. The idea that farmers would voluntary go broke is naive ; they would either change profession or start shooting the leopards if they wouldn't be compensated.

Yup, exactly.

Actually, lot of people meet and mate without (other) human intervention. Although it's possible the "intervention" is understood differently in those two contexts.

I'm not sure by which definition but I find quite plausible that we went extinct in the wild long ago.

... or maybe it's because "natural" is not transitive ... it FEELS to be, but presumably humans got to their current point of doing unnatural things by series of steps, each of them "natural" - without any outside intervention. The unnaturality was emergent property.

 

 

I meant they would NEITHER go broke OR kill the snow leopard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2017 at 4:16 PM, hkmaly said:

What else would you expect from spell Pandora taught Raven to protect him as best as she can? This probably wasn't only vampire stupid enough to charge inside the shroud. 

Given that it's been stated there are Wizards that gain there own spells (in addition to being able to learn other people's spells) and Wizards that don't (Raven being the former (stated by Dan) and Tedd being the latter), what makes you think Raven learned Murder Shroud from Pandora? It's entirely possible it's one of the spells he has in his own spellbook. Which is probably just as confusing as Susan's and the others', but he's more experienced with reading his. :P 

On 12/22/2017 at 11:43 PM, CritterKeeper said:

We are getting closer and closer to being able to merge two eggs instead of an egg and a sperm, so they might not need Grace after all. 

H-uh. Well, I wish him luck on that, but I think more people would find it more useful if they were trying this with mature eggs, not eggs from newborns. :icon_confused: Just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kazzellin said:
On 12/22/2017 at 11:16 PM, hkmaly said:

What else would you expect from spell Pandora taught Raven to protect him as best as she can? This probably wasn't only vampire stupid enough to charge inside the shroud. 

Given that it's been stated there are Wizards that gain there own spells (in addition to being able to learn other people's spells) and Wizards that don't (Raven being the former (stated by Dan) and Tedd being the latter), what makes you think Raven learned Murder Shroud from Pandora? It's entirely possible it's one of the spells he has in his own spellbook. Which is probably just as confusing as Susan's and the others', but he's more experienced with reading his. :P 

Well, Adrian is using Murder Shroud. Either it's from Pandora, or it's better than whatever Pandora taught him. I don't believe Adrian is using inferior spell just because it's his own or some similar reason, AND if he would, Pandora would likely facepalm.

Also, he might be so good in reading his spellbook he don't find it confusing at all :)

5 hours ago, Kazzellin said:
On 12/23/2017 at 6:43 AM, CritterKeeper said:

We are getting closer and closer to being able to merge two eggs instead of an egg and a sperm, so they might not need Grace after all. 

H-uh. Well, I wish him luck on that, but I think more people would find it more useful if they were trying this with mature eggs, not eggs from newborns. :icon_confused: Just a thought.

Why? Finding immature egg must be simpler than mature one, as there is just one mature one and lot of immature ones in every woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, hkmaly said:
On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 0:04 PM, Kazzellin said:
On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 4:16 PM, hkmaly said:

What else would you expect from spell Pandora taught Raven to protect him as best as she can? This probably wasn't only vampire stupid enough to charge inside the shroud. 

Given that it's been stated there are Wizards that gain there own spells (in addition to being able to learn other people's spells) and Wizards that don't (Raven being the former (stated by Dan) and Tedd being the latter), what makes you think Raven learned Murder Shroud from Pandora? It's entirely possible it's one of the spells he has in his own spellbook. Which is probably just as confusing as Susan's and the others', but he's more experienced with reading his. :P 

Well, Adrian is using Murder Shroud. Either it's from Pandora, or it's better than whatever Pandora taught him. I don't believe Adrian is using inferior spell just because it's his own or some similar reason, AND if he would, Pandora would likely facepalm.

Also, he might be so good in reading his spellbook he don't find it confusing at all :)

With the varied nature of both spells and combat in general, there likely isn't a strictly superior option. Some options might be better in some situations and worse in others, and being able to tell which is which in any given moment is an extremely important skill for combat. And the spell being his own (if it is) could be an advantage of it's own, as his own spells are going to be more inline with his personality and desires, meaning it's going to fit into his personal flow much better than a spell learned from someone else, making for greater ease of use and potentially skill with it's use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Drasvin said:

With the varied nature of both spells and combat in general, there likely isn't a strictly superior option. Some options might be better in some situations and worse in others, and being able to tell which is which in any given moment is an extremely important skill for combat. And the spell being his own (if it is) could be an advantage of it's own, as his own spells are going to be more inline with his personality and desires, meaning it's going to fit into his personal flow much better than a spell learned from someone else, making for greater ease of use and potentially skill with it's use.

... ok, maybe it's his spell. Not important. It started with

On 12/22/2017 at 11:16 PM, hkmaly said:
On 12/22/2017 at 9:56 PM, Drasvin said:

I just realized something. Against someone that doesn't know what it does and is willing to charge into it, murder shroud is ridiculously lethal. If you're inside the shroud, it can fire exploding crows at you from every possible angle, possibly at the same time.

What else would you expect from spell Pandora taught Raven to protect him as best as she can? This probably wasn't only vampire stupid enough to charge inside the shroud ...

and the point is that saying the spell is ridiculously lethal is similar to saying that hammer is ridiculously good for hammering nails. Sure it is. Of course it is. It was designed to be and expecting otherwise doesn't make sense. If it wouldn't, the overmotivated and overpowered nearly omniscient immortal would find some better spell to teach Adrian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/12/2017 at 9:56 PM, Drasvin said:

I just realized something. Against someone that doesn't know what it does and is willing to charge into it, murder shroud is ridiculously lethal. If you're inside the shroud, it can fire exploding crows at you from every possible angle, possibly at the same time.

I have to admit that it takes a special kind of stupid to overconfidently charge into a cloud of darkness a wizard just created. Me, I'd much rather throw something in there that would make remaining inside it a bad idea. A grenade, maybe a handful of caltrops... I just don't see the tactical value of deliberately blinding yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:
On 12/22/2017 at 9:56 PM, Drasvin said:

I just realized something. Against someone that doesn't know what it does and is willing to charge into it, murder shroud is ridiculously lethal. If you're inside the shroud, it can fire exploding crows at you from every possible angle, possibly at the same time.

I have to admit that it takes a special kind of stupid to overconfidently charge into a cloud of darkness a wizard just created. Me, I'd much rather throw something in there that would make remaining inside it a bad idea. A grenade, maybe a handful of caltrops... I just don't see the tactical value of deliberately blinding yourself.

Who's blinding himself?

Dan Shive in commentary said:

"Oh. Raven can see clearly through his own murder shroud, can't he? Or sense things? Either way, I probably shouldn't have tried for the ranged sneak attack. Got it."

EDIT: Wait. Sorry. Information from future :) - it's from Dec 27 comic commentary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Who's blinding himself?

Anyone deliberately charging into that cloud to get at Raven. DUH.

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

"Oh. Raven can see clearly through his own murder shroud, can't he? Or sense things? Either way, I probably shouldn't have tried for the ranged sneak attack. Got it."

Yes, that would be just ONE of many, many reasons it isn't tactically advantageous to blind oneself by charging into an enemy smoke cloud.

I once ran a game of D&D where several casters on different sides were casting spells. It was extremely chaotic. In one spot we ended up having spells of Darkness, Blade Barrier and Silence landing right on top of one another in rapid succession. This was entirely unplanned by anyone and thus no-one (apart from me, who could hardly believe my own eyes) knew exactly what had happened except for the caster of the Blade Barrier who stood inside the dark and silent area and so couldn't warn anyone. In the following round two player characters charged into the darkness to get at the caster and both got horribly mutilated by the Barrier. They staggered back out, bleeding and terrified, unsure what had happened as I of course had not specified precisely what sort of thing they had stumbled into.

There was of course only one thing for the rest of the group to do and they did it. They charged into the darkness to get at whatever thing had so badly hurt their friends.

(No, they didn't win that fight, why do you ask?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 2:56 PM, Drasvin said:

I just realized something. Against someone that doesn't know what it does and is willing to charge into it, murder shroud is ridiculously lethal. If you're inside the shroud, it can fire exploding crows at you from every possible angle, possibly at the same time.

I have to admit that it takes a special kind of stupid to overconfidently charge into a cloud of darkness a wizard just created. Me, I'd much rather throw something in there that would make remaining inside it a bad idea. A grenade, maybe a handful of caltrops... I just don't see the tactical value of deliberately blinding yourself.

Well, if the person attacking the wizard doesn't know what the cloud of darkness does, it would be easy to assume it works like a simple smoke grenade. Something to distract and obscure. I agree that it would be much better to use a grenade or some other ranged option than charging into a smoke cloud, but not everyone brings ranged options. Admittedly, that's not good tactics either, but some people don't plan ahead (More times than I care for in my Pathfinder gaming group, we've had situations were people neglected to get ranged options for their characters and end up suffering for it)

12 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Yes, that would be just ONE of many, many reasons it isn't tactically advantageous to blind oneself by charging into an enemy smoke cloud.

I once ran a game of D&D where several casters on different sides were casting spells. It was extremely chaotic. In one spot we ended up having spells of Darkness, Blade Barrier and Silence landing right on top of one another in rapid succession. This was entirely unplanned by anyone and thus no-one (apart from me, who could hardly believe my own eyes) knew exactly what had happened except for the caster of the Blade Barrier who stood inside the dark and silent area and so couldn't warn anyone. In the following round two player characters charged into the darkness to get at the caster and both got horribly mutilated by the Barrier. They staggered back out, bleeding and terrified, unsure what had happened as I of course had not specified precisely what sort of thing they had stumbled into.

There was of course only one thing for the rest of the group to do and they did it. They charged into the darkness to get at whatever thing had so badly hurt their friends.

(No, they didn't win that fight, why do you ask?)

I wonder how many of the characters that charged in had ranged and/or AoE options. True, the rest of the group shouldn't have charged into the silent cloud of darkness and instead waited for whatever was inside that hurt their friends to come out where they could see it and properly fight it, though they might have been worried about the caster in the darkness setting stuff up. That scenario also displays the value of darkvision (something me and my group learned after getting ambushed at low levels by monsters with Darkness Spell-like Abilities and no one in the group had darkvision. We survived, but we were hurting afterward)

Edited by Drasvin
Some minor clarifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Drasvin said:

I wonder how many of the characters that charged in had ranged and/or AoE options.

Sadly, several of the players in that group had made use of the Weed option which tended to slow their thinking and as a result not properly consider consequences. 'Charge' was their primary mode of operation with 'Run away! Run away!' being the usual fallback if that should fail.

11 minutes ago, Drasvin said:

True, the rest of the group shouldn't have charged into the silent cloud of darkness and instead waited for whatever was inside that hurt their friends to come out where they could see it and properly fight it, though they might have been worried about the caster in the darkness setting stuff up.

In their defence, this was something they often suspected me of because I had done so before. I just wish they had considered the fact that as long as the Darkness was also Silenced, there was a definite limit to how much the caster could do to set things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
17 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Who's blinding himself?

Anyone deliberately charging into that cloud to get at Raven. DUH.

Oh. I misunderstood. Yes that definitely sounds like bad idea IF you have ranged option instead.

13 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

(No, they didn't win that fight, why do you ask?)

Presumably, the other side didn't exactly win either. Unless the caster of blade barrier didn't have any friends.

1 hour ago, Drasvin said:

That scenario also displays the value of darkvision (something me and my group learned after getting ambushed at low levels by monsters with Darkness Spell-like Abilities and no one in the group had darkvision. We survived, but we were hurting afterward)

Isn't magical darkness impenetrable by darkvision?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hkmaly said:
2 hours ago, Drasvin said:

That scenario also displays the value of darkvision (something me and my group learned after getting ambushed at low levels by monsters with Darkness Spell-like Abilities and no one in the group had darkvision. We survived, but we were hurting afterward)

Isn't magical darkness impenetrable by darkvision?

Not exactly. The Darkness spell can only create total darkness, which darkvision can see in. The more powerful version, Deeper Darkness, can make it supernaturally dark, which darkvision doesn't work in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understand your goals. If your goal is to defend a certain target, you going in and killing the enemy is only one of many possible ways to achieve that goal. In fact, if the enemy can be dissuaded from even attempting to take/attack the target, that's a complete success. Even if it happens while you're busy taking a nap.

Check with Sun Tsu for details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

Understand your goals. If your goal is to defend a certain target, you going in and killing the enemy is only one of many possible ways to achieve that goal. In fact, if the enemy can be dissuaded from even attempting to take/attack the target, that's a complete success. Even if it happens while you're busy taking a nap.

Check with Sun Tsu for details.

*scratches head* We now have a confusion of goals. In-game we had a group of NPCs whose objective was to keep their temple from being robbed. Out-of-Game we had the objective of everyone having fun.

In-game, the NPCs clearly achieved their objective. The players wanted loot and experience. They got half of that.

Out of game we all just wanted to have fun. Given how the players facepalmed and howled with laughter once they realised what had happened, I'd say we succeeded.

All of that is why I like good roleplaying games. They are not zero sum. And even losing in game does not equate to having lost in general.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Don Edwards said:

Understand your goals. If your goal is to defend a certain target, you going in and killing the enemy is only one of many possible ways to achieve that goal. In fact, if the enemy can be dissuaded from even attempting to take/attack the target, that's a complete success. Even if it happens while you're busy taking a nap.

Check with Sun Tsu for details.

Thats true. I would even say that it's very deep truth. I'm just not sure how it's related to the comics and/or the discussion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now