Teleporting things into people as a weapon ..

[Damian Magecraft]

Ah yes, resort to the dismissive behavior and insults when you can't actually support what you keep claiming.

Your entire argument is to insist that something right in front of you you (someone's head) isn't something known to you by insisting that the head isn't really a head and defining it as if it were some room where the head is now something that the only thing known is the outer layer of skin cells because that's all you can see and behaving as if everything else is unknown. There is no way you can remotely get away with such nonsense as valid definitions of the words or concepts of 'familiar' or 'known', yet you keep insisting that it actually makes sense.

So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

Yes, consider yourself dismissed
You have never made any worthwhile comment, other than to make the claim that I am attaching meanings to words that do not exist-
The words I have used have definitions-I provided them for your benefit-because it’s obvious you don’t understand.
What else should I do other than dismiss you then?
Saying that a person is wrong in their understanding is fine, but if you provide no evidence as to why they are wrong-your argument is very weak.
At this point I have realized that your comments have no actual meaning, and even In writing this I have wasted my time. (your welcome)
Your random babble = nonsensical

Yes the words have definitions, they've just never had the definitions you kept saying that they have. You attach what is obviously your meaning of them that you can't support and don't even deny that you're doing it because you don't agree with the Teleportation spell being exploited to do instant-kills. That's the only reason one would try and insist that a few molecules (the outer layer of something) render everything inside an unknown and unknowable location. To insist that a location is unknown for such reasons is absurd. Your position literally has been that you could hold an inflated balloon in your hand which would make the location of the space in your hand unknown because a few molecules thickness of rubber has transformed it into a space unknowable.

Worse because you can't successfully validate that house rule that rewrites the actual meaning of several common words you resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies, being dismissive and condescending.

ok I am confused...
How does citing the DICTIONARY mean he is making up meanings?
you have not made any effort to support your claim beyond endlessly repeating a variant of "you are being unfair and a rules lawyer".
Sorry but by any rules of debate he wins.
Support your claim.
And use something besides trying to obfuscate the established definitions as presented.
Or admit you are defeated.

[Lenwen]

most people agree that Teleport: Superior has failsafes that do not allow the spell to be used in that way (like requiring knowledge of the target location)

There are no failsafe's .. (teleportation greater.)

If there is perhaps you can quote the spells description an show us ?

[Nightmask]

Ah yes, resort to the dismissive behavior and insults when you can't actually support what you keep claiming.

Your entire argument is to insist that something right in front of you you (someone's head) isn't something known to you by insisting that the head isn't really a head and defining it as if it were some room where the head is now something that the only thing known is the outer layer of skin cells because that's all you can see and behaving as if everything else is unknown. There is no way you can remotely get away with such nonsense as valid definitions of the words or concepts of 'familiar' or 'known', yet you keep insisting that it actually makes sense.

So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

Yes, consider yourself dismissed
You have never made any worthwhile comment, other than to make the claim that I am attaching meanings to words that do not exist-
The words I have used have definitions-I provided them for your benefit-because it’s obvious you don’t understand.
What else should I do other than dismiss you then?
Saying that a person is wrong in their understanding is fine, but if you provide no evidence as to why they are wrong-your argument is very weak.
At this point I have realized that your comments have no actual meaning, and even In writing this I have wasted my time. (your welcome)
Your random babble = nonsensical

Yes the words have definitions, they've just never had the definitions you kept saying that they have. You attach what is obviously your meaning of them that you can't support and don't even deny that you're doing it because you don't agree with the Teleportation spell being exploited to do instant-kills. That's the only reason one would try and insist that a few molecules (the outer layer of something) render everything inside an unknown and unknowable location. To insist that a location is unknown for such reasons is absurd. Your position literally has been that you could hold an inflated balloon in your hand which would make the location of the space in your hand unknown because a few molecules thickness of rubber has transformed it into a space unknowable.

Worse because you can't successfully validate that house rule that rewrites the actual meaning of several common words you resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies, being dismissive and condescending.

ok I am confused...
How does citing the DICTIONARY mean he is making up meanings?
you have not made any effort to support your claim beyond endlessly repeating a variant of "you are being unfair and a rules lawyer".
Sorry but by any rules of debate he wins.
Support your claim.
And use something besides trying to obfuscate the established definitions as presented.
Or admit you are defeated.

Not once have I made any such claim, I studiously avoided using any language that anyone might even remotely take such an inference from. So don't even begin to attempt to ascribe to myself something I never even remotely said, especially as part of an effort to obfuscate things by attacking myself rather than respond to the actual points I made.

Nowhere in the definitions for things like 'known' or 'familiar' does it even remotely state or imply that something ceases to be known or familiar because something as thin as a sheet of paper is between you and it. It's a LOCATION, someone puts a tent over your house it still remains in the same LOCATION. You must go down in defeat because you're trying to argue that a location ceases to be known the moment you put something between it and your eyes which is an obvious absurdity. Heck you're embracing that kind of nonsense as you clearly aren't going 'no that's not what I mean' you're attacking myself so you must be advocating that the space above your hand becomes instantly an unknown location even though it's right above your hand just because someone put a red balloon in it. If you think the location right above your hand becomes unfathomably unknown in such a situation you're clearly NOT using the established meanings or definitions of 'known' or 'familiar'.

[Nightmask]

most people agree that Teleport: Superior has failsafes that do not allow the spell to be used in that way (like requiring knowledge of the target location)

There are no failsafe's .. (teleportation greater.)

If there is perhaps you can quote the spells description an show us ?

Certainly the 'spell failure' check you make to see if you materialize inside an object and instantly end up dead implies that there either are no failsafes or that what failsafes it has aren't adequate to ensure 100% safe travel.

[Lenwen]

I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

[Lenwen]

I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

No

Considering that the mage knows what the inside of the box looks like ..

According to canon rules, it would in fact work ..

[Lenwen]

I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

No

Considering that the mage knows what the inside of the box looks like ..

According to canon rules, it would in fact work ..

You literally JUST said that he has never seen the inside of the box.

Of that box .. he has seen the inside of other boxes ..

According to the statement I made earlier, he cannot actually know what the inside of the box looks like unless he can actually observe it.

Your house rules do not effect the outcome of a canon debate..

[Pepsi Jedi]

Is the cat alive or dead? We don't know but it's also both. Oh the horror the horror...

I still say smack um with the RUE.

[Lenwen]

But this box could also actually be a horrible pocket dimension where thousands of gods are imprisoned, he doesn't know for certain. Teleport Lesser runs on certanties, not "meh I got a pretty good feeling that it is just a normal box"

As the one who gave the scenario, I can tell you with 100% certainty ..

It was an empty box ..

According to the statement I made earlier, he cannot actually know what the inside of the box looks like unless he can actually observe it.

Your house rules do not effect the outcome of a canon debate..

Really? So give me the definition that canon uses as a known location. Because, guess what? There isn't one.

What I'm telling you is that IN SCIENCE

Were not talking science ..

Were talking about magic .. which break's science down by default ..

as you wish ..

known (nn)
v.
Past participle of know.
adj.
Proved or generally recognized

As it is a box it is generally recognized as something the caster has seen before many times ..

As such it satisfies the spells single .. rule ..

And thus works.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Even if you HAVE seen inside a box, you STILL don't know what's in the box, unless you looked in the box, closed it and sealed it yourself and have kept your eyes on it the entire time as it hovered in the air with no ability for anything else to enter the box (( including the wall opposite of you where something could use the box itself to block your view, and enter through the side))

If you've seen inside a box, and take your eyes off it for a second, someone could dump rocks in there. or grenades. or whatever. Boxes are built to hold things after all.

[Mercdog]

I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

I'd likely allow it if they successfully roll their teleport %. I might include a penalty depending on the make of the box.

However, if the box was full of meat, the spell would fail.

[Lenwen]

The more important question here is-If you've never seen the inside of a particular box how do you know its empty to begin

As I stated .. as the person who gave the scenario I knew it was empty ..

On another point is a human being the same as a box? No it is an Inanimate object.

Humans are in fact not Inanimate objects ..

Additionally you can look inside a box, a brain well….. OK yeah you could-so now were up to a surgeon –magic OCC that has previously performed surgery on the target, and is now casting teleportation to place an object inside his brain?[/quote]
Good debate now we get to the thickness .. of the literal meanings ..

Every single brain of every single human is EXACTLY .. the same as every other human .. sure some are larger some are smaller, but facts are facts each and every brain of "normal" humans are identical to the point that it is near impossible to recognize the differences from eye balling an open head.

Unless you can cite me a sources that is a medical journal which dictates that each and every brain ever inspected was different enough to see with your own eye ..

I can appreciate the fact your trying to illuminate your point-but the two things are only related in the fact that one cannot be familiar with the inside of these things-

Additionally, if the spell was meant to (teleport) insert small object-into another small object brain (box) don’t you think this would have an entire paragraph dedicated to it

Actually no.

Does palladium books describe each and every single use .. for each and every single spell ever printed ?

[Lenwen]

Even if you HAVE seen inside a box, you STILL don't know what's in the box

Irrelevant ..

Due to the mage being told .. it was empty ..

[Lenwen]

I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

I'd likely allow it if they successfully roll their teleport %. I might include a penalty depending on the make of the box.

However, if the box was full of meat, the spell would fail.

There is no pass/fail percentages .. of teleport lesser .. It either works or does not ..

People need to stop placing the restrictions from Teleport greater onto the teleport lesser spell ..

If the teleport lesser had the same restrictions it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same restrictions as Teleport Greater" some where in the spells description, in which .. it does in fact not even hint at that..

[Nightmask]

So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

In your opinion sure-unfortunatly these are the conditions of the spell invocation rules that I did not write.

No, you're giving your opinion and insisting it's the only valid one that's allowed trying to establish your opinion as canon when clearly it is not. It is your opinion that the text carries meanings that it doesn't, meanings you insist on because you start with the conclusion 'I don't want to allow instant kills' and rather than just go 'I don't allow instant kills even though the text is ambiguous on things' you feel (wrongly) that it requires the weight of canon because you don't wish to simply call it what it is: a house rule.

[Damian Magecraft]

Ah yes, resort to the dismissive behavior and insults when you can't actually support what you keep claiming.

Your entire argument is to insist that something right in front of you you (someone's head) isn't something known to you by insisting that the head isn't really a head and defining it as if it were some room where the head is now something that the only thing known is the outer layer of skin cells because that's all you can see and behaving as if everything else is unknown. There is no way you can remotely get away with such nonsense as valid definitions of the words or concepts of 'familiar' or 'known', yet you keep insisting that it actually makes sense.

So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

Yes, consider yourself dismissed
You have never made any worthwhile comment, other than to make the claim that I am attaching meanings to words that do not exist-
The words I have used have definitions-I provided them for your benefit-because it’s obvious you don’t understand.
What else should I do other than dismiss you then?
Saying that a person is wrong in their understanding is fine, but if you provide no evidence as to why they are wrong-your argument is very weak.
At this point I have realized that your comments have no actual meaning, and even In writing this I have wasted my time. (your welcome)
Your random babble = nonsensical

Yes the words have definitions, they've just never had the definitions you kept saying that they have. You attach what is obviously your meaning of them that you can't support and don't even deny that you're doing it because you don't agree with the Teleportation spell being exploited to do instant-kills. That's the only reason one would try and insist that a few molecules (the outer layer of something) render everything inside an unknown and unknowable location. To insist that a location is unknown for such reasons is absurd. Your position literally has been that you could hold an inflated balloon in your hand which would make the location of the space in your hand unknown because a few molecules thickness of rubber has transformed it into a space unknowable.

Worse because you can't successfully validate that house rule that rewrites the actual meaning of several common words you resort to 'attack the poster' fallacies, being dismissive and condescending.

ok I am confused...
How does citing the DICTIONARY mean he is making up meanings?
you have not made any effort to support your claim beyond endlessly repeating a variant of "you are being unfair and a rules lawyer".
Sorry but by any rules of debate he wins.
Support your claim.
And use something besides trying to obfuscate the established definitions as presented.
Or admit you are defeated.

Not once have I made any such claim, I studiously avoided using any language that anyone might even remotely take such an inference from. So don't even begin to attempt to ascribe to myself something I never even remotely said, especially as part of an effort to obfuscate things by attacking myself rather than respond to the actual points I made.

Nowhere in the definitions for things like 'known' or 'familiar' does it even remotely state or imply that something ceases to be known or familiar because something as thin as a sheet of paper is between you and it. It's a LOCATION, someone puts a tent over your house it still remains in the same LOCATION. You must go down in defeat because you're trying to argue that a location ceases to be known the moment you put something between it and your eyes which is an obvious absurdity. Heck you're embracing that kind of nonsense as you clearly aren't going 'no that's not what I mean' you're attacking myself so you must be advocating that the space above your hand becomes instantly an unknown location even though it's right above your hand just because someone put a red balloon in it. If you think the location right above your hand becomes unfathomably unknown in such a situation you're clearly NOT using the established meanings or definitions of 'known' or 'familiar'.

oh Really?

Yes the words have definitions, they've just never had the definitions you kept saying that they have. You attach what is obviously your meaning of them that you can't support

those are your words taken directly from your post are they not?

[Nightmask]

So the only one who needs to get shewing is yourself, who insists the known is unknown and everything's unknown because anything behind the first layer of atoms that reflect the light isn't knowable. Total nonsense.

In your opinion sure-unfortunatly these are the conditions of the spell invocation rules that I did not write.

No, you're giving your opinion and insisting it's the only valid one that's allowed trying to establish your opinion as canon when clearly it is not. It is your opinion that the text carries meanings that it doesn't, meanings you insist on because you start with the conclusion 'I don't want to allow instant kills' and rather than just go 'I don't allow instant kills even though the text is ambiguous on things' you feel (wrongly) that it requires the weight of canon because you don't wish to simply call it what it is: a house rule.

The more you put words in my mouth-the weaker your argument gets.

I haven't put any words into your mouth, you're clearly espousing an opinion and claiming it to be canon. Someone reading the text without a bias they're looking to support wouldn't insist on such stretches to redefine known words to support a particular outcome. The text itself isn't written explicitly to support only the position you espouse making it an opinion meaning it's no more valid than anyone else's opinion as to what the text says.

[Lenwen]

Please give me a source that verifies your theory that all human brains are the same?

Show me how they differ ?

Their not-are they made of the same materials yes-most typically yes-this does not make them the same however. The human brain is a very complex organ-if all brains were the same-transplants would be available very soon.

Wrong, the availability of brain transplants .. does not depend upon the brain being the same for each and every brain, it is the surgeon that it is dependent upon ..

It would be helpful for those of you who believe the spell allows this sort of teleportation-to site directly the sentence that leads you to think the way you do; from the text of the spell-

In other words what grounds from directly from the text do you stand on.

I would appreciate it.
Thank you.

I stand on the ground that I do not add anything into the spells description and I use the spell as its intended ..

Teleporting objects from point A .. to point B.

There is nothing in the spells description that deny's the ability to place items into other items .. Unless your description is different them my books description..

People are the one's who are placing restriction's .. upon a spell where there were none before ..

[Shark_Force]

man, the way you people try to defend it, i pity anyone who's made a mage angry and has ever gotten an MRI in your worlds

i'm gonna stick with my answer "the spell doesn't work like that because i say so" when i GM... if it was a viable weapon, people would be using it as one.

(and besides, it's not like you can't get similar results by teleporting explosives next to someone... it just makes you actually have to deal with their defenses instead of cheesing your way past them by relying on your GM to not know when to say no).

[Nightmask]

People are the one's who are placing restriction's .. upon a spell where there were none before ..

Which is fine, as long as they're just honest and admit the spell is vague from their standpoint and that they're just 'fixing' it for their game. Some seem to hate to admit that something is a house rule, they seem to feel something has to be considered canon to be acceptable which just isn't so. It'd hardly be the first time this or any other RPG had something prove more powerful than originally intended because of the wording (like that deal about an AD&D spell that could be turned into a city-destroying nuke at like 1st level) so a GM had to hold it back or ban it entirely.

[Nightmask]

man, the way you people try to defend it, i pity anyone who's made a mage angry and has ever gotten an MRI in your worlds

i'm gonna stick with my answer "the spell doesn't work like that because i say so" when i GM... if it was a viable weapon, people would be using it as one.

(and besides, it's not like you can't get similar results by teleporting explosives next to someone... it just makes you actually have to deal with their defenses instead of cheesing your way past them by relying on your GM to not know when to say no).

Which is fine, a GM is well within his rights to say 'well the spell has a hole in the wording where you could technically do that so I'm patching it to say it can't', he's supposed to manage things and deal with such situations based on his players and how he thinks they'd react to something.

[cornholioprime]

Are you aware that it is impossible to have two pieces of matter occupying the same exact space. Literally two completely different atoms becoming fused together. Doesn't really yield easy math. The closest example I can think of is the hadron collider where they smash atoms together, often resulting in several (while short-lived) micro-black holes.

Are you aware, that for that to happen you would need entirely another spell (completely new spell never before seen)?

Due entirely to how far apart matter is on the atomic level .. you think they are that close .. when relatively speaking .. its not ..

Solid matter is not displaced by teleport, that much has already been proven. Assuming the literal millions of atoms present inside of a piece of solid matter, it is almost certain that one is gonna land in another.

No offense to you, Johnnycat, but there is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more space between Electrons and the Nucleus of a single Atom, than you seem to be thinking -and much, much, much, much more space between individual atoms than that -even where different atoms are sharing electrons to create molecules and (on a much larger scale) chemical compounds.

Once upon a time, my Advanced Placement chemistry class teacher held up a basketball, and asked us to imagine it as the nucleus of an atom.

After we got that down in our heads, he informed us that the nearest electrons to that atomic nucleus.....if an atom were that size.....would be out somewhere in Pomona, California.

That class took place in Victorville, California (roughly 40-60 miles away).

Unless you're talking about something as dense as a stellar core, almost every observable thing in the Universe may look solid, but is mostly empty space.

EDIT: Just saw newer info than what I told that says that the nearest Electron to an Atom the size of a Basketball.....would be somewhere out in the Earth's Van Allen Belt, in space.

[cornholioprime]

most people agree that Teleport: Superior has failsafes that do not allow the spell to be used in that way (like requiring knowledge of the target location)

There are no failsafe's .. (teleportation greater.)

If there is perhaps you can quote the spells description an show us ?

Yes there is -unless you fail your Teleport (and thereafter, roll completely badly on the Failed Teleport Table).

You're ignoring the posts that have already been made in this Thread regarding what the magic does in-game on multiple levels, automatically, to safely transport objects and people from one location to another without subjecting them to any number of gruesome fates if teleportation magic didn't have so many failsafes in it.

[The Beast]

Solid matter is not displaced by teleport, that much has already been proven. Assuming the literal millions of atoms present inside of a piece of solid matter, it is almost certain that one is gonna land in another.

No offense to you, Johnnycat, but there is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more space between Electrons and the Nucleus of a single Atom, than you seem to be thinking -and much, much, much, much more space between individual atoms than that -even where different atoms are sharing electrons to create molecules and (on a much larger scale) chemical compounds.

Once upon a time, my Advanced Placement chemistry class teacher held up a basketball, and asked us to imagine it as the nucleus of an atom.

After we got that down in our heads, he informed us that the nearest electrons to that atomic nucleus.....if an atom were that size.....would be out somewhere in Pomona, California.

That class took place in Victorville, California (roughly 40-60 miles away).

Unless you're talking about something as dense as a stellar core, almost every observable thing in the Universe may look solid, but is mostly empty space.

EDIT: Just saw newer info than what I told that says that the nearest Electron to an Atom the size of a Basketball.....would be somewhere out in the Earth's Van Allen Belt, in space.

[/quote]

Heh, I've seen a show that said if you scaled one up to the size of the sun the nearest electron is farther away than Pluto is.

[Prysus]

Nowhere in the definitions for things like 'known' or 'familiar' does it even remotely state or imply that something ceases to be known or familiar because something as thin as a sheet of paper is between you and it.

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, I have shown definitions within the Palladium books (in various teleportation variations) that say you're wrong. You've ignored them. But, let's try a different experiment and use logic.

Place a sheet of paper over someone's hand (big enough to cover the whole hand). Have them hold up a number of fingers and see if you "know" how many fingers they're holding up? How about which fingers (three different people can hold up three fingers, and each one could be holding up a differenet set of fingers)? According to the arugment, you should "know" what's going on. This is the difference between knowing and guessing.

I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

Look at Teleport Superior for a moment (I know, different spell). Look at the first % of success, for familiar location or something you can see clearly. See it? Now look further down. Another listing is a place never seen, but described in detail. This is what you're talking about. Do you see the difference in the % and how yours is much lower? Do you also realize that if some place "familiar" has one percentage and some place described in detail has a different % then that means they can't be the same thing?

Teleport Lesser doesn't have the same range, as it only discusses known locations. So different options (such as those described in detail) aren't included here. This is what's written (not what some people feel like adding in).

If the teleport lesser had the same restrictions it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same restrictions as Teleport Greater" some where in the spells description, in which .. it does in fact not even hint at that..

Agreed. Teleport Superior mentions combining objects together. Teleport Lesser makes no such mention. So ...

"If the teleport lesser had the same abilities it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same abilities as Teleport Superior" some where in the spell description, in which ... it does fact not even hint at that.."

Just saying ...

On another point is a human being the same as a box? No it is an Inanimate object.

Humans are in fact not Inanimate objects ..

Agreed again. Humans are not inanimate objects. They're also not "non-living substances." Teleportation works by displacing (or moving) an object in space, yes? So how are you going to argue that it does work on living beings? To put the object INTO the person's head, you have to be displacing/moving the contents of the human being. The spell has two ends, Point A and Point B, an originating point and a destination. The spell doesn't work on living beings. So how are you getting around it working on a living being on one half of the spell? Or is that just being hand waved away?

Every single brain of every single human is EXACTLY .. the same as every other human .. sure some are larger some are smaller, but facts are facts each and every brain of "normal" humans are identical to the point that it is near impossible to recognize the differences from eye balling an open head.

Okay, for one moment let's just say this is true. This still goes back to "knowing" something. The fact is, especially in an environment like Rifts, you don't even know if that person is a human. Maybe it's a metamorphed dragon. Maybe it's a changeling. I think there's an Amorph or something that can change too? What about a spell? What about all those races that LOOK human but aren't such as Atlanteans and Sea Titans? Just because something looks human on the outside doesn't mean they're human on the inside, nor does it mean seeing a human face means human biology. This is the poblem with thinking you "know" something when you don't. Even if it's someone you think you know, we go back to things like Changelings (who can disguise themselves as real people) and a collection of others.

Anyways, I've been looking at this objectively. Looking at what's written, using the English language and comprehension, as well as reading the various books. I'm not adding definitions, I'm not ignoring sections, just looking at what's actually there. Even if I wouldn't allow the concept in my games, my interest is truth and knowing what's in the books (before you ignore something you must first know what's written). Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Mercdog]

I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

I'd likely allow it if they successfully roll their teleport %. I might include a penalty depending on the make of the box.

However, if the box was full of meat, the spell would fail.

There is no pass/fail percentages .. of teleport lesser .. It either works or does not ..

People need to stop placing the restrictions from Teleport greater onto the teleport lesser spell ..

If the teleport lesser had the same restrictions it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same restrictions as Teleport Greater" some where in the spells description, in which .. it does in fact not even hint at that..

Really?

Must be a change in the spell between RUE and Palladium fantasy books. All I've got with me is PF, and it has a % Roll in it for Teleport: Lesser.

[Prysus]

I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

I'd likely allow it if they successfully roll their teleport %. I might include a penalty depending on the make of the box.

However, if the box was full of meat, the spell would fail.

There is no pass/fail percentages .. of teleport lesser .. It either works or does not ..

People need to stop placing the restrictions from Teleport greater onto the teleport lesser spell ..

If the teleport lesser had the same restrictions it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same restrictions as Teleport Greater" some where in the spells description, in which .. it does in fact not even hint at that..

Really?

Must be a change in the spell between RUE and Palladium fantasy books. All I've got with me is PF, and it has a % Roll in it for Teleport: Lesser.

Greetings and Salutations. It's in RUE too. I had thought about commenting on that myself, but I think I know what he means. What I think he means (notice I didn't say "know") is that there's the % for success, but if you fail there's no additional % table like you'll find in Teleportation Superior. In this case, a failed rolls always goes to an unknown location (and there's no mention at all of destroying the object by blending it appearing in another object ... which makes it odder that the same individual is arguing that it's become part of the spell). If that's not what he means, then he should either reread the spell or really needs to explain how he's interpreting it. Anyways, that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Lenwen]

Exactly-

In short when you make a claim (such as all brains are the same) and I ask you to clarify you don’t because you can’t.
I do not need to verify your claim for you-I didn’t make the claim in the first place.

Your claim is invalid-because it’s your opinion only, as such every opinion you’ve given, has no basis of reason only other than it’s what you believe.

Sorry to burst your bubble .. but the fact remains every working human brain is in fact visibly .. identical to every other brain .. minus its overall size / weight.

Just because you refuse to accept a fact for what it is worth .. does not change that fact's truth ..

I on the other hand have supplied reasons why I think the way I do-reasons backed up with the meanings and definitions of the words, words that are directly from the text of the spell.

You have yet to disprove human brains are all identical (for normal humans, minus size / weight)

I have asked you to clarify what gives you the impression the spell can be used in the manner in which you believe in can be-and again no surprise you don’t give any-

Quite the contrary, I gave and then supported my whole reason. Just because you do not like its supported by canon spell description you can not say I did not give any..

If another poster asks you to clarify and you utterly refuse-the point that your trying to make becomes irrelevant or invalid-

And just because you can not refute a single thing I stated / proven ..

Does not make it any less truth..

I have wasted enough time with this topic-it’s obvious to me that there is hardly any point in arguing with someone who has no sense to respond to my inquiry,

When your clearly .. ignoring what I wrote ..

You may end the debate any which way you wish.

[Lenwen]

I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

I'd likely allow it if they successfully roll their teleport %. I might include a penalty depending on the make of the box.

However, if the box was full of meat, the spell would fail.

There is no pass/fail percentages .. of teleport lesser .. It either works or does not ..

People need to stop placing the restrictions from Teleport greater onto the teleport lesser spell ..

If the teleport lesser had the same restrictions it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same restrictions as Teleport Greater" some where in the spells description, in which .. it does in fact not even hint at that..

Really?

Must be a change in the spell between RUE and Palladium fantasy books. All I've got with me is PF, and it has a % Roll in it for Teleport: Lesser.

Thee entire thread is a discussion on Teleport Lesser, I do apologize if anyone was confused about it being about Teleport Greater.

[Nightmask]

[justify]

Nowhere in the definitions for things like 'known' or 'familiar' does it even remotely state or imply that something ceases to be known or familiar because something as thin as a sheet of paper is between you and it.

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, I have shown definitions within the Palladium books (in various teleportation variations) that say you're wrong. You've ignored them. But, let's try a different experiment and use logic.

Place a sheet of paper over someone's hand (big enough to cover the whole hand). Have them hold up a number of fingers and see if you "know" how many fingers they're holding up? How about which fingers (three different people can hold up three fingers, and each one could be holding up a differenet set of fingers)? According to the arugment, you should "know" what's going on. This is the difference between knowing and guessing.

Sorry but no, the location that the hand occupies doesn't become unknown because you wrapped a sheet of paper around it and how many fingers it may be displaying is irrelevant to as to where the hand is located. The location is not dependent upon whether the hand is a fist or extending a finger nor does the location become unfamiliar because some fingers moved. Where you parked your car doesn't change because stuff shifted in the trunk, it's still parked there and the space called 'the trunk' is still in the same location, what's in it moving changed none of that.

[Killer Cyborg]

I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

Nope.
If you've never even seen the inside of the box, you can't rightfully claim to "know" the inside of the box.

[Killer Cyborg]

.. he has seen the inside of other boxes ..

Then he can potentially teleport stuff into other boxes.

[Killer Cyborg]

[the fact remains every working human brain is in fact visibly .. identical to every other brain .. minus its overall size / weight.

Care to cite your source?

[Killer Cyborg]

[justify]

Nowhere in the definitions for things like 'known' or 'familiar' does it even remotely state or imply that something ceases to be known or familiar because something as thin as a sheet of paper is between you and it.

Greetings and Salutations. Actually, I have shown definitions within the Palladium books (in various teleportation variations) that say you're wrong. You've ignored them. But, let's try a different experiment and use logic.

Place a sheet of paper over someone's hand (big enough to cover the whole hand). Have them hold up a number of fingers and see if you "know" how many fingers they're holding up? How about which fingers (three different people can hold up three fingers, and each one could be holding up a differenet set of fingers)? According to the arugment, you should "know" what's going on. This is the difference between knowing and guessing.

Sorry but no, the location that the hand occupies doesn't become unknown because you wrapped a sheet of paper around it and how many fingers it may be displaying is irrelevant to as to where the hand is located. The location is not dependent upon whether the hand is a fist or extending a finger nor does the location become unfamiliar because some fingers moved. Where you parked your car doesn't change because stuff shifted in the trunk, it's still parked there and the space called 'the trunk' is still in the same location, what's in it moving changed none of that.

How exactly does that location become known in the first place?

[Mercdog]

I find it utterly hilarious .. the debate has taken new turns here or there..

A Box .. that was told to be empty .. sitting 5 ft in front of you.

You have never seen the inside of that particular box .

You have been told to teleport this deck of cards into the box, (unopened, completely sealed deck of cards)

Does it work or not ?

I'd likely allow it if they successfully roll their teleport %. I might include a penalty depending on the make of the box.

However, if the box was full of meat, the spell would fail.

There is no pass/fail percentages .. of teleport lesser .. It either works or does not ..

People need to stop placing the restrictions from Teleport greater onto the teleport lesser spell ..

If the teleport lesser had the same restrictions it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same restrictions as Teleport Greater" some where in the spells description, in which .. it does in fact not even hint at that..

Really?

Must be a change in the spell between RUE and Palladium fantasy books. All I've got with me is PF, and it has a % Roll in it for Teleport: Lesser.

Thee entire thread is a discussion on Teleport Lesser, I do apologize if anyone was confused about it being about Teleport Greater.

And according to what I'm looking at, Teleport Lesser has a success ratio of 80% +2% per level, and an Unsuccessful Roll means the object never arrives where it was meant to appear. But again, I've only got PF with me. I'll check RUE when I get home to see if there's a difference.

[Lenwen]

Here's a source: Where's yours?

Your claim: is that every human brain is identical
Definition: Identical
Similar or alike in every way: The two cars are identical except for their license plates.
Being the very same; selfsame: This is the identical room we stayed in last year.
Agreeing exactly: identical opinions.

Two brains that are different weights are not identical:

Question: Do identical twins have identical brains:

No they do not. Identical twins have identical DNA structure, and therefore they have very similar cell structure, leading them to have vastly similar organs (same size, health issues, etc.). However, everyone, even identical twins, do not share the exact same organs. Some identical twins get migraines, while the other doesn't. In some cases, one twin will be homosexual and the other heterosexual. In any case, by nature, identical twins do not have identical brains, and by nurture they experience different things, learn different things, and process information in different ways, resulting in the twins having differing opinions, etc. No two brains are exactly alike.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_identical_ ... z24zPt6c4s

Lets just say that this source is not exactly the best (it's not) but can you find one even as unrealiable as this source that agrees with your claim?

What's that---You won't hmmm.... my point exactly

The fact that your using wiki .. to prove anything at all only weakens your side of the debate ..

Anyone any time anywhere .. can modify any thing in wiki ..

[Lenwen]

No they do not. Identical twins have identical DNA structure, and therefore they have very similar cell structure, leading them to have vastly similar organs (same size, health issues, etc.). However, everyone, even identical twins, do not share the exact same organs. Some identical twins get migraines, while the other doesn't. In some cases, one twin will be homosexual and the other heterosexual. In any case, by nature, identical twins do not have identical brains, and by nurture they experience different things, learn different things, and process information in different ways, resulting in the twins having differing opinions, etc. No two brains are exactly alike.

Your not speaking about the structure of the brain ..

Your now expanding your arguement to include attributes of the brain that are regulated to memories , thoughts , patters of thought ..

Not the actual Structure and how it is identical to every other working normal human brain (minus, size/weight)

Ergo ..

Your arguement is even now more weaker ..

You have done what we call "Goal post move" ..

I said "Every normal brain looks like every other brain of a normal human (minus size / weight)

Your trying to bring in intangibles .. to say no they are not the same ie .. Your "Goal post moving" the debate from 1 subject .. to entirely another subject ..

Stay on subject ..

Topic : All working normal human brains look alike..

Not the Topic: What the brain goes threw forms how the brain thinks, opinions, sexual prefrence , migraines verses not having migraines ..

Stay on topic .. "Structure" of the brain .. how it looks how it sits and most importantly .. where it sits .. in relation to the human body..

[Killer Cyborg]

Here's a source: Where's yours?

Your claim: is that every human brain is identical
Definition: Identical
Similar or alike in every way: The two cars are identical except for their license plates.
Being the very same; selfsame: This is the identical room we stayed in last year.
Agreeing exactly: identical opinions.

Two brains that are different weights are not identical:

Question: Do identical twins have identical brains:

No they do not. Identical twins have identical DNA structure, and therefore they have very similar cell structure, leading them to have vastly similar organs (same size, health issues, etc.). However, everyone, even identical twins, do not share the exact same organs. Some identical twins get migraines, while the other doesn't. In some cases, one twin will be homosexual and the other heterosexual. In any case, by nature, identical twins do not have identical brains, and by nurture they experience different things, learn different things, and process information in different ways, resulting in the twins having differing opinions, etc. No two brains are exactly alike.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Do_identical_ ... z24zPt6c4s

Lets just say that this source is not exactly the best (it's not) but can you find one even as unrealiable as this source that agrees with your claim?

What's that---You won't hmmm.... my point exactly

The fact that your using wiki .. to prove anything at all only weakens your side of the debate ..

Anyone any time anywhere .. can modify any thing in wiki ..

What's your source again...?
Because if it's still "Nothing," then Wiki wins.

[Killer Cyborg]

I said "Every normal brain looks like every other brain of a normal human (minus size / weight)

IF the spell description state that the mage had to know the location he was teleporting stuff to OR simply had to know a similar-looking location, THEN your argument would have significance.

[Dr. Doom III]

How can anyone claim to know what the inside of a solid mass looks like? Do you have super electron microscope eyes that allow you to see the space between atoms? No?
Well then you can't.

[Lenwen]

Panomas
Stop goal post moving.
Were debating the shape of the brain not it's function or mental capabilities..

If you can not debate the shape and location of the human brain.. I understand and thank you for your time

[Mercdog]

There is no pass/fail percentages .. of teleport lesser .. It either works or does not ..

People need to stop placing the restrictions from Teleport greater onto the teleport lesser spell ..

If the teleport lesser had the same restrictions it would have at the very least said .. "follow the same restrictions as Teleport Greater" some where in the spells description, in which .. it does in fact not even hint at that..

Really?

Must be a change in the spell between RUE and Palladium fantasy books. All I've got with me is PF, and it has a % Roll in it for Teleport: Lesser.

Thee entire thread is a discussion on Teleport Lesser, I do apologize if anyone was confused about it being about Teleport Greater.

And according to what I'm looking at, Teleport Lesser has a success ratio of 80% +2% per level, and an Unsuccessful Roll means the object never arrives where it was meant to appear. But again, I've only got PF with me. I'll check RUE when I get home to see if there's a difference.

OK, I checked RUE, and for good measure RMB, BoM, Nightbane, and HU2 and all of them agree with the above. And just to be certain this is for Teleport: Lesser. Never once have I referenced Teleport: Superior for this thread, so I'm not sure where that idea's coming from. In all instances I saw of Teleport: Lesser, a roll for successful teleportation is required.

So, Lenwen, it seems that you are either
A. Screwing with me.
B. Trying to pass off a house rule as canon.
C. Have never bothered to read the spell description in it's entirety.
D. Or as Prysus suggested earlier, simply mistaken in thinking I'm referencing Teleport: Superior.

I'm really hoping it's A or D.

While on the subject, I see nothing in the spell description that remotely lends itself to being used in combat. Sure, I can see nothing wrong with the spell being used to teleport an explosive device behind enemy lines, but not to 'port an object at or into an enemy in the line of sight. For one thing, the shortest distance mentioned is 'miles'. For another, the Duration of the Teleport is 2 full melees (30 Seconds), which means that the target would have to stay stationary for that amount of time. It seems that the spell would be useful to get your groceries home, but not for killing the guy in armor shooting at you.

And with that, I'm out. It's been strange.

[Killer Cyborg]

Panomas
Stop goal post moving.
Were debating the shape of the brain not it's function or mental capabilities..

If you can not debate the shape and location of the human brain.. I understand and thank you for your time

If you cannot differentiate between one brain and another, how can it be said that you actually KNOW either of the brains in question?
Part of knowing something would be the ability to differentiate it from similar, separate items/locations.

Say there was a spell that had as part of its requirements that the caster had to know what the target looked like.
But the mage is blind, so all people look alike to him (i.e., pitch black nothingness).
Would that mean that the mage could cast the spell on any person, just because all people look alike to him?

Or perhaps the mage can see, but he has that disease that keeps him from recognizing faces. So, once again, everybody looks alike to him.
Does that mean that he knows everybody?
Or that he knows everybody's face?