Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: Krynn in Spelljammer...
Next Message: Re: Re:
Month Index: June, 1996

From:     Deviant <deviant@????????.??.ca>
Date:     Sun, 30 Jun 1996 02:43:21 -0700
Subject:  Re: Re:
> >I have the page numbers that you gave, there jsut isn't any proof on them. I
>  would like
> >to know exactly where it says that change is a necessity. It clearly states
> that it does
> >happen, but I have not yet seen a single source that states it must happen.
> Unlike the
> >change into elemental form which is clearly phrased. "A character elemental
> must assume
> >his elemental form exactly once per day, no more or less."
> Oh, please. You're right, it's not described as necessity for the change, It
> *is* described as *part* of the change. The first part. It is part of every
> description of the change. What it doesn't say anywhere is that it can be
> done without the first part, or, for that matter that it can be
> instantaneous, as you earlier claimed it was.
> I never claimed it was instantaneous. I suggested perhaps given the limitation (such as
it is) that perhaps it would be.

> >Then why is there an argument if the case is airtight. The answer is, it is
> not. You
> >have yet to have shown that the transformation is impossible given the
> restrictions.
> >Thus, the argument remains.
> Because you want to argue? You could argue that the sun is a big light bulb,
> But that wouldn't make it so.

I don't want to argue, I am making an argument. As in a logical discourse. And I don't
recall making any statement about light bulbs.

> I *have* shown the change to take place on the etherial, and the etherial to
> be impossible to access from certain places.

And how have you shown the change to take place on the etherial. Could you restate
exactly what proof that you have given towards this premise?
> What *you* haven't shown is the change to be possible without the access to
> the etherial.
> In fact, I don't believe you've even made an effort to show *anything*, but
> just a desire to argue the point.

Well, personal attacks aside, I am simply showing that there is no grounds for the
assumption that simply because access to the etherial plane is denied in the Phlogiston,
that it follows that the elemental transformation of a cleric is hindered in any way.
There are vortices on the Prime that make a direct connection between itself and the
Inner planes. There are other methods, you see.

> >> >I am not arguing about the stages of their change, rather the nature of
> the
> >> change
> >> >itself.
> >>
> >> Odd, you seem to be claiming that it can happen even without that first
> >> stage, which takes place on the etherial.
> >
> >No, in fact it does not. It is a physical occurrence, and happens on the
> Prime.
> Odd, that is *not* what the books say. They distinctly say "etherial".
> Of course, if you have a passage, as yet unrevealed, that says otherwise....

When a person is covered in oil of etherialness, is he suddenly no longer on the Prime
Material? In a physical sense he has no form, but his presence and his transformation
are still on the Prime Material. Is there any rule that states otherwise?

> >Once again, that is because the human form is his natural one. It is static,
> and changes
> >only very gradually. While an elemental is the very essence of change. But,
> as I
> >mentioned, once the form is permanent, the HD do not change.
> Or once the final body is acquired, it doesn't get traded in for another.
> That's *all* you've shown: Once a bodu doesn't change, it doesn't change.
> No kidding.

What I have shown is that the body is not a different one, and given a possible
explanation for the variability of the cleric's elemental form.

>  And as the cleric
> >approaches that state, his 'jits' as you put it, become less and less
> variable, and the
> Now you're making fun of spelling errors? I guess this isn't a discussion
> anymore, now you want to cause problems on the lists.

No, I am not making fun of any errors, I was simply unfamiliar with the term. I was not
sure if it was a spelling mistake or an actual term. Please try to see the point that I
am attempting to make, and not focus on the method that I am going about bringing it up.
My interests are purely in an exploration of the rules, and are not grounded in any sort
of hostility.

> Sorry, I'm in no mood to play.

I apologise for any offense, and assure you that it was not intentional.

> >> Why would they? Both Spelljamming and Planar travel are supposed to be
> >> impossible for a DS character, or so I've been told.
> >
> >By whom?
> You, amognst others, remember?

No, I simply said that Athas was off the normal space routes. And that as far as TSR was
concerned, i.e. in terms of creating a Athasspace supplement, the sphere was
inaccessible. That is not to say that spelljamming does not exist in their sphere, it is
to say that the characters spelljamming from a DS setting will not interact with SJ
characters setting out from Realmspace or the like.

> >> As far as DS not being taken into account in conjunction with SJ, PS *did*
> >> take it into account, and says the same things about accessing the Inner
> >> planes from the Outer.
> >
> >Once again your argument requires the assumption that the Inner planes must
> be accessed
> >from the Prime in order to make the change. This has yet to have been
> proven. There are
> >a host of alternate reasons that could be given to prove the contrary.
> Nope, just the etherial, and it is clearly described in all three places that
> describe the change, and is part of the change.

But the tern requirement has never been used in any of the three places, merely that the
change occurs in that manner. A part of the change yes, but not a requisite part. Ice
changes to liquid before turning to a vapor, but under certain circumstances when
prevented from attaining a liquid form, the solid form of water can sublimate the liquid
state entirely and change to a gas. I am merely suggesting that the part of the
transformation is not a requirement.

> >And as yet, there has not been one solid piece of evidence that states that
> your
> >assumption is correct.
> There hasn't been? Or you've ignored it?

I have not ignored anything you have said. On the contrary, I have been paying close
attention to your argument. It still has yet to prove the necessity of the etherial
state to the transformation. While in all of the three places that you point out, the
term etherial is used, in no place have I found the term 'necessary','manditory' or
'required'. I have no dispute with the fact that it is a part of the transformation
under normal circumstances, but given the possibility of the prevention of the etherial
state, there is nothing to say that the transformation will not take place.

Deviant of the Blatant Disregard    ?Moral victories don?t count.?
                                      -Ragnarok?s Sixth Law of
    deviant@????????.??.ca               Survival.

Previous Message: Re: Krynn in Spelljammer...
Next Message: Re: Re:
Month Index: June, 1996

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
Re: Re:    James Perry    27 Jun 1996 00:12:21
Re: Re:    James Perry    27 Jun 1996 00:37:33
Re: Re:    Don Weis    28 Jun 1996 15:10:58
Re: Re:    Deviant    29 Jun 1996 19:30:16
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    29 Jun 1996 19:18:13
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 01:46:25
Re: Re:    James Perry    29 Jun 1996 23:03:46
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 00:06:56
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 07:11:08
Re: Re:    Don Weis    30 Jun 1996 05:19:06
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 07:16:45
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 05:44:31
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 07:56:57
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 08:01:37
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 08:08:08
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 08:12:05
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 06:25:48
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 06:42:32
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 06:47:03
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 09:43:21
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 09:54:49
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 09:58:17
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 10:01:55
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 10:10:39
Re: Re:    Thomas O. Magann Jr.    30 Jun 1996 08:49:42
Re: Re:    Shelby Michlin    30 Jun 1996 15:48:10
Re: Re:    Deviant    30 Jun 1996 18:41:21
Re: Re:    James Perry    04 Jul 1996 16:24:22
Re: Re:    Don Weis    05 Jul 1996 10:34:37
Re: Re:    James Perry    05 Jul 1996 17:34:26
Re: Re:    Eugene Shumu1insky    16 Sep 1996 21:50:02

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]