Page 2 of 3

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 12:50 am
by Damian Magecraft
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Goliath Strongarm wrote:
Goliath Strongarm wrote:So before this turns into a fight.... Anyone have thoughts about the issue of bones and organs I brought up? If the spell would "recreate" these for someone turned to stone, what about if used om raw stone? Possible? Impossible? Why?


And let's expand a bit.. how much of the "flesh" is muscle? Tendon? Fat? Blood vessels? Would blood cells be created?

If this is used to CREATE flesh, instead of restoring it, is this "dead" flesh? How far along the decay process would it be? Or would it be as if it were just killed?

So many possible questions arise when you start thinking outside the box on this...

Imagine a necromancer who used this to change the walls of his cavern into walls of flesh... would they start decaying, or would they be "alive"?

ok gonna go with my standard GM answer to this...
Caster Preference.


Cool.
I'm going to use the spell to turn stones into Dragon blood vessels and bones, and sell rocks at enormous profit.

sure go ahead...
hope you arent a known entity in town.
Odds are good that magically created versions wont function correctly (if at all) in alchemical formulae.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:11 am
by Killer Cyborg
Damian Magecraft wrote:Odds are good that magically created versions wont function correctly (if at all) in alchemical formulae.


Why not?
Apparently they'll function well enough in a stomach.

And does that mean that if I turn somebody who's been petrified BACK into flesh with the spell, they wouldn't be fit for a blood sacrifice?
Or that they wouldn't mystically be the same person, that they'd be changed somehow?

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:17 am
by Damian Magecraft
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:Odds are good that magically created versions wont function correctly (if at all) in alchemical formulae.


Why not?
Apparently they'll function well enough in a stomach.

And does that mean that if I turn somebody who's been petrified BACK into flesh with the spell, they wouldn't be fit for a blood sacrifice?
Or that they wouldn't mystically be the same person, that they'd be changed somehow?

Metaphysics is funny that way...
A reconverted petrified being would be normal.
But a random rock converted to dragon flesh? probably not gonna function the same as the real thing.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:18 am
by Goliath Strongarm
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:Odds are good that magically created versions wont function correctly (if at all) in alchemical formulae.


Why not?
Apparently they'll function well enough in a stomach.

And does that mean that if I turn somebody who's been petrified BACK into flesh with the spell, they wouldn't be fit for a blood sacrifice?
Or that they wouldn't mystically be the same person, that they'd be changed somehow?

Metaphysics is funny that way...
A reconverted petrified being would be normal.
But a random rock converted to dragon flesh? probably not gonna function the same as the real thing.


Yeah, I definately would NOT allow any creatures of magic or supernatural creatures.... no way no how

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:22 am
by Soldier of Od
Hi all,

Here's my take on this: Just because the 'restore a petrified person back to normal' part of this spell would restore all physical parts of the victim doesn't mean that the 'stone to flesh' part of the spell would do anything more than turn stone to flesh. In every day usage I think it is safe to say that 'flesh' is generally considered to be just muscle tissue (skeletal muscle tissue). I would never use the word flesh when talking about bones or even organs. Phrases like 'a flesh and blood human' doesn't mean that the word flesh is describing every aspect of a human being. In fact the use of phrases such as 'flesh and blood' or 'flesh and bone' explicitly differentiates it from bone and blood. Sure you could argue that flesh could in some cases be used to describe a pile of organs altogether (especially unidentifiable ones), but why would you try? Words like offal or viscera would be much more accurate. I can't imagine anyone seeing a dog burying a bone in the back yard and say 'that dog is burying flesh in the yard'. You could include fat and blood vessels (in my opinion, empty blood vessels) in and around the muscle tissue, as normally found in 'real' flesh, and maybe some skin, even though skin isn't necessarily covered by the word 'flesh' (in my personal opinion I would have skin only on one side, as if cut from some mystery beast).

As for the type of flesh/meat, I would call it an indeterminate unidentifiable 'mystery meat', like you might find in a Greggs pasty :D . If your character has any issues with certain types of meat, it is up to them (or their Church) to decide whether to include 'mystical meat' in their list of prohibited foods or risk eating it anyway.

Oh, and the flesh would definately be 'dead'.

Some optional rules: maybe a butcher or skilled cook familiar with this spell could recognise this mystery meat as magical in origin. Maybe a mage with this spell and the cook skill could roll under their skill to produce mystery meat of a higher quality. Otherwise, the meat is decidedly average.

Just my opinions!

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:57 am
by Killer Cyborg
Soldier of Od wrote:Hi all,

Here's my take on this: Just because the 'restore a petrified person back to normal' part of this spell would restore all physical parts of the victim doesn't mean that the 'stone to flesh' part of the spell would do anything more than turn stone to flesh. In every day usage I think it is safe to say that 'flesh' is generally considered to be just muscle tissue (skeletal muscle tissue).


That's not everyday usage.
When people want to talk about just the muscle tissue, they say "meat."
The most common uses of "flesh" include skin and other organs.
The phrase "Pleasures of the flesh" isn't referring to "pleasures of the muscle tissue."
"Flesh" colored crayons weren't meat-colored.
The phrase "In the flesh" means "bodily present," not "in the muscle tissue."
"Flesh-eating bacteria" destroys skin as well as muscle tissue.
In the movie "Flesh Gordon," the title character wasn't names such because he had a lot of muscle tissue.
And so-on, and so-on.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:12 pm
by The Dark Elf
Flesh:

noun

the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal.

Source- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/flesh

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:31 pm
by Goliath Strongarm
The Dark Elf wrote:Flesh:

noun

the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal.

Source- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/flesh



Yet the "standard" use of the spell covers all those things, as well as bone and tendon and blood, etc...

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:45 pm
by Killer Cyborg
The Dark Elf wrote:Flesh:

noun

the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal.

Source- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/flesh


Oddly enough, most people don't go by that definition when they use the term "flesh."
As described in my previous post.

Which is probably why your link had more than one definition:
-the flesh of an animal or fish, regarded as food:the food an animal eats will affect the taste and texture of its flesh
-the edible pulpy part of a fruit or vegetable:halve the avocados and scrape out the flesh
-the skin or surface of the human body with reference to its appearance or sensory properties:she gasped as the cold water hit her flesh
-(the flesh) the human body and its physical needs and desires, especially as contrasted with the mind or the soul:I have never been one to deny the pleasures of the flesh
-flesh colour.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:08 pm
by flatline
Little Snuzzles wrote:
Goliath Strongarm wrote:Yeah, I definately would NOT allow any creatures of magic or supernatural creatures.... no way no how


I agree. The spell should not be able to create custom alchemical components eg. dragon bones, bassilisk eyes, etc.


What if you cast it on a petrified dragon? Would it create dragon bones then?

--flatline

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:36 pm
by The Beast
flatline wrote:
Little Snuzzles wrote:
Goliath Strongarm wrote:Yeah, I definately would NOT allow any creatures of magic or supernatural creatures.... no way no how


I agree. The spell should not be able to create custom alchemical components eg. dragon bones, bassilisk eyes, etc.


What if you cast it on a petrified dragon? Would it create dragon bones then?

--flatline


Was it petrified because something else turned it to stone, or was it petrified because it was in Pompeii on Volcano Day?

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:42 pm
by Killer Cyborg
Little Snuzzles wrote:
Goliath Strongarm wrote:Yeah, I definately would NOT allow any creatures of magic or supernatural creatures.... no way no how


I agree. The spell should not be able to create custom alchemical components eg. dragon bones, bassilisk eyes, etc.


Wizard's Tongue?
Animal Blood?
Butterfly Wings?
Elf Bones?
Goblin Tongue?
Wolfen Tongue?

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:45 pm
by Killer Cyborg
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:Odds are good that magically created versions wont function correctly (if at all) in alchemical formulae.


Why not?
Apparently they'll function well enough in a stomach.

And does that mean that if I turn somebody who's been petrified BACK into flesh with the spell, they wouldn't be fit for a blood sacrifice?
Or that they wouldn't mystically be the same person, that they'd be changed somehow?

Metaphysics is funny that way...
A reconverted petrified being would be normal.
But a random rock converted to dragon flesh? probably not gonna function the same as the real thing.


Got any metaphysical reasoning behind that?
Because it sounds like you're just making decisions out of attempts to enforce balance, not in order to enforce logic.

Also, what about a rock converted to Frost Giant flesh?
Because, you know... it's ALL frost giant flesh, according to some myths.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:39 pm
by Damian Magecraft
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:Odds are good that magically created versions wont function correctly (if at all) in alchemical formulae.


Why not?
Apparently they'll function well enough in a stomach.

And does that mean that if I turn somebody who's been petrified BACK into flesh with the spell, they wouldn't be fit for a blood sacrifice?
Or that they wouldn't mystically be the same person, that they'd be changed somehow?

Metaphysics is funny that way...
A reconverted petrified being would be normal.
But a random rock converted to dragon flesh? probably not gonna function the same as the real thing.


Got any metaphysical reasoning behind that?
Because it sounds like you're just making decisions out of attempts to enforce balance, not in order to enforce logic.
You are bloody well right it is meta-game decision. Any GM worth his salt is going to snip that loaded question in the bud.
As to the in game explanation?
That is beauty of Metaphysics... It dosent require a logical reason.
It is a study of what is outside objective experience.

Also, what about a rock converted to Frost Giant flesh?
Because, you know... it's ALL frost giant flesh, according to some myths.

well apparently those myths are wrong in this game world.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:44 pm
by Goliath Strongarm
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Got any metaphysical reasoning behind that?
Because it sounds like you're just making decisions out of attempts to enforce balance, not in order to enforce logic.

Also, what about a rock converted to Frost Giant flesh?
Because, you know... it's ALL frost giant flesh, according to some myths.



Well, I'm going to go with a page from that "other" game.... So, since there is no official rule on this for PB, this would fall under a house rule for me

Magically created items, while can be used "normally" will not work for something akin to being a "component". This would include items made by a conjurer, or by uses of stone to flesh that are turning original stone into something, etc etc etc

Wizard's Tongue?
Animal Blood?
Butterfly Wings?
Elf Bones?
Goblin Tongue?
Wolfen Tongue?


#1- I'll point to my above statement...
#2- We're still in that discussion of "what type of flesh" (I am one of those "mystery meat" answer guys normally)
#3- Wizard most definately no.... that's an OCC, which isn't something you can just "carve", if you accept that version of determining meat type
#4- Blood- That discussion is still ongoing as well, although the general consensus seems to be that blood wouldn't be made
#5- Bones- again, that discussion is still ongoing... people are still arguing talking if bone would be made or not
#6- Goblin/Wolfen tongue or Butterfly Wings- I'd rule, as a GM, no, for #1, #2, AND just because it looks like a wolfen or a goblin doesn't mean it IS a wolfen or a goblin...

As for the petrified dragon question.. again, that's a loaded question.. are we talking fossilized (in which case, there's no real bone there, but stone in the shape of a bone), or are we talking petrified by Medusa? Or buried and packed in volcanic ash?

A short question that can have a million and one variables cannot be given a short answer that works for every possible variable

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:47 pm
by Goliath Strongarm
Killer Cyborg wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:Flesh:

noun

the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal.

Source- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/flesh


Oddly enough, most people don't go by that definition when they use the term "flesh."
As described in my previous post.

Which is probably why your link had more than one definition:
-the flesh of an animal or fish, regarded as food:the food an animal eats will affect the taste and texture of its flesh
-the edible pulpy part of a fruit or vegetable:halve the avocados and scrape out the flesh
-the skin or surface of the human body with reference to its appearance or sensory properties:she gasped as the cold water hit her flesh
-(the flesh) the human body and its physical needs and desires, especially as contrasted with the mind or the soul:I have never been one to deny the pleasures of the flesh
-flesh colour.



KC, this is why you're typically one of my favorite posters...

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 4:48 pm
by Damian Magecraft
RuneKatana wrote:Dang, now I want a Rogue Scientist to study different types of rocks with this spell cast on them, to determine just what sort of flesh it is!

Plus, I think if a player asks a serious question about how a spell he has works, then I think the GM should do their best not to dismiss it with an off the cuff remark, but take the chance to make it interesting. Even if they have to think about it and get back to me. It makes the world more real.

I guess some folks would just laugh this question off if it came up in game, but I think it's really interesting and could lead to neat things if taken seriously and explored a little.
If the question comes up during the course of a game then I will come up with an answer (it is why I have an answer for this particular question).
But if the question never comes up then it is foolish to believe that every single GM is going to have an answer for it just laying about.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:49 pm
by Killer Cyborg
Goliath Strongarm wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Got any metaphysical reasoning behind that?
Because it sounds like you're just making decisions out of attempts to enforce balance, not in order to enforce logic.

Also, what about a rock converted to Frost Giant flesh?
Because, you know... it's ALL frost giant flesh, according to some myths.



Well, I'm going to go with a page from that "other" game.... So, since there is no official rule on this for PB, this would fall under a house rule for me

Magically created items, while can be used "normally" will not work for something akin to being a "component". This would include items made by a conjurer, or by uses of stone to flesh that are turning original stone into something, etc etc etc


Hm.
I wasn't aware of that rule, and can appreciate it's importation as a house rule in this case. :ok:

...AND just because it looks like a wolfen or a goblin doesn't mean it IS a wolfen or a goblin...


And that's the crux of it for me. Well, one of the cruxes.
If you try to make some beef from stone, and the result is something that looks like beef, but isn't beef... I wouldn't want to be the first one to taste-test it.
Creating edible meat isn't necessarily easy, and the result might be something like this.

As for the petrified dragon question.. again, that's a loaded question.. are we talking fossilized (in which case, there's no real bone there, but stone in the shape of a bone), or are we talking petrified by Medusa? Or buried and packed in volcanic ash?

A short question that can have a million and one variables cannot be given a short answer that works for every possible variable


Petrified by a Basilisk.
The point of the question, I think, is that IF the spell can create dragon bone and blood via transmutation in the one case, why not in the other?

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:50 pm
by Killer Cyborg
RuneKatana wrote:Dang, now I want a Rogue Scientist to study different types of rocks with this spell cast on them, to determine just what sort of flesh it is!


I know, right? :D

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:16 pm
by flatline
Damian Magecraft wrote:That is beauty of Metaphysics... It doesn't require a logical reason.


If my Metaphysics professor from college were dead, he would have just rolled over.

--flatline

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:11 am
by Nightmask
flatline wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:That is beauty of Metaphysics... It doesn't require a logical reason.


If my Metaphysics professor from college were dead, he would have just rolled over.

--flatline


I can imagine, I can't fathom it either how some people seem to think when you involve such things that somehow they cease to be bound by logic and rules even when they in fact clearly do have rules and an internal logic.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:20 am
by Damian Magecraft
Nightmask wrote:
flatline wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:That is beauty of Metaphysics... It doesn't require a logical reason.


If my Metaphysics professor from college were dead, he would have just rolled over.

--flatline


I can imagine, I can't fathom it either how some people seem to think when you involve such things that somehow they cease to be bound by logic and rules even when they in fact clearly do have rules and an internal logic.
what part of Outside of objective experience escapes you?
Just because you do not comprehend or see the logic does not mean said logic does not exist.
By the rules of observation if something exists but violates your knowledge base then the obvious answer is not that it cannot exist but rather that your knowledge base is either wrong or insufficient.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:38 am
by Killer Cyborg
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Nightmask wrote:
flatline wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:That is beauty of Metaphysics... It doesn't require a logical reason.


If my Metaphysics professor from college were dead, he would have just rolled over.

--flatline


I can imagine, I can't fathom it either how some people seem to think when you involve such things that somehow they cease to be bound by logic and rules even when they in fact clearly do have rules and an internal logic.
what part of Outside of objective experience escapes you?
Just because you do not comprehend or see the logic does not mean said logic does not exist.
By the rules of observation if something exists but violates your knowledge base then the obvious answer is not that it cannot exist but rather that your knowledge base is either wrong or insufficient.


The thing is, going with that, the Stone To Flesh spell might just make normal stones turn into flesh that automatically explodes for 1d6x1000 MD.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:24 am
by Damian Magecraft
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:what part of Outside of objective experience escapes you?
Just because you do not comprehend or see the logic does not mean said logic does not exist.
By the rules of observation if something exists but violates your knowledge base then the obvious answer is not that it cannot exist but rather that your knowledge base is either wrong or insufficient.


The thing is, going with that, the Stone To Flesh spell might just make normal stones turn into flesh that automatically explodes for 1d6x1000 MD.
yes if the GM is an ass...
but that is taking the terms to extremes...
disallowing the use of "created" items as functional magical components vs "naturally occuring" items is just good sense.
Especially since the alternative would destabilize the setting thereby making the GMs job (of ensuring everyone at the table has an enjoyable time) all that much harder.
The standard GM answer of because I say so is often looked upon as poor GMing. (There are players who will accept this reason but not very many)
But unfortunately any out of game reason is also frowned upon apparently. (there are more players who will accept meta-game reasoning but they are still a minority)
And any "logical" in game reason is just fodder for abuse. (care to guess where the majority of players fall these days?)
The answer that "the meta-physics" of magic do not allow it nips the attempted abuse in the bud.
Why does it work? because the GM now does not have to come up with a reason that lends itself to abuses.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:46 am
by The Dark Elf
Killer Cyborg wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:Flesh:

noun

the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal.

Source- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/flesh


Oddly enough, most people don't go by that definition when they use the term "flesh."
As described in my previous post.

Which is probably why your link had more than one definition:
-the flesh of an animal or fish, regarded as food:the food an animal eats will affect the taste and texture of its flesh
-the edible pulpy part of a fruit or vegetable:halve the avocados and scrape out the flesh
-the skin or surface of the human body with reference to its appearance or sensory properties:she gasped as the cold water hit her flesh
-(the flesh) the human body and its physical needs and desires, especially as contrasted with the mind or the soul:I have never been one to deny the pleasures of the flesh
-flesh colour.

Hi,

to help clarify, those other descriptions arent definitions. They're examples of how the word is used. When the dictionary has more than one definition it will number them (e.g. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitio ... pam?q=spam or the verbs of flesh link).

There has been question about a definition; most words have already been allocated one. Dont argue, just find it.
Im not talking about interpretations or what people "go by" just trying to add some useful, definitive, constructive input to the topic. All of which is indifferent.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:39 am
by Killer Cyborg
The Dark Elf wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:Flesh:

noun

the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal.

Source- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/flesh


Oddly enough, most people don't go by that definition when they use the term "flesh."
As described in my previous post.

Which is probably why your link had more than one definition:
-the flesh of an animal or fish, regarded as food:the food an animal eats will affect the taste and texture of its flesh
-the edible pulpy part of a fruit or vegetable:halve the avocados and scrape out the flesh
-the skin or surface of the human body with reference to its appearance or sensory properties:she gasped as the cold water hit her flesh
-(the flesh) the human body and its physical needs and desires, especially as contrasted with the mind or the soul:I have never been one to deny the pleasures of the flesh
-flesh colour.

Hi,

to help clarify, those other descriptions arent definitions. They're examples of how the word is used.


Odd.
Usually an example of something isn't significantly different from that something.

Like how "cat" is usually not an example of "dog," and how "the edible pulpy part of a fruit or vegetable" is usually not an example of "soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal."

Im not talking about interpretations or what people "go by" just trying to add some useful, definitive, constructive input to the topic. All of which is indifferent.


The definition you provided was not particularly useful, nor constructive.

Edit:
Best entry I've found on the word is in wiktionary:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flesh
Noun
flesh (uncountable)
1 The soft tissue of the body, especially muscle and fat.  
2 The skin of a human or animal.
3 (by extension) Bare arms, bare legs, bare torso.
4 (archaic) Animal tissue regarded as food; meat.  
5 The human body as a physical entity.  
6 (religion) The mortal body of a human being, contrasted with the spirit or soul.  
7 (religion) The evil and corrupting principle working in man.
8 The soft, often edible, parts of fruits or vegetables.  
9 A yellowish pink colour; the colour of some Caucasian human skin.


Notice how these ARE separate definitions, by your standards, complete with numbers.
So "The soft, often edible, parts of fruits or vegetables" is a separate definition of the word, not just an inexplicably contradictory example.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 12:35 pm
by Goliath Strongarm
Flatline, Nightmask, why don't you two try contributing to the discussion more than just trying to be argumentative. Pointless arguing doesn't help anyone, and doesn't help the game overall. Instead, if you post something useful to the discussion, people might think better of you.

Arguing for the sake of arguing is trollish behavior. Please don't encourage that mindset.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 1:10 pm
by Killer Cyborg
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:what part of Outside of objective experience escapes you?
Just because you do not comprehend or see the logic does not mean said logic does not exist.
By the rules of observation if something exists but violates your knowledge base then the obvious answer is not that it cannot exist but rather that your knowledge base is either wrong or insufficient.


The thing is, going with that, the Stone To Flesh spell might just make normal stones turn into flesh that automatically explodes for 1d6x1000 MD.

yes if the GM is an ass...
but that is taking the terms to extremes...
disallowing the use of "created" items as functional magical components vs "naturally occuring" items is just good sense.


Earlier, you were saying that it didn't have to make any sense.

Especially since the alternative would destabilize the setting thereby making the GMs job (of ensuring everyone at the table has an enjoyable time) all that much harder.


You've switched from in-game explanation of events ("it just is") to out-of-game explanation of events.
I find that it's best to stick to one or the other.

If the GM doesn't want the spell to be abused, then casters shouldn't be able to pick whatever kind of meat they like. Period.
That alone would allow the spell to destabilize economies, even with arbitrary "It's meat, but it's not meat exactly, but you can eat it" kind of rulings to try to keep things toned down.
If one is interested strictly in balance, then the spell's key use should be to de-petrify people who have run into a gorgon or basilisk.
If one is NOT interested strictly in balance, then the effects of the spell should follow logically from an in-game perspective, regardless of how they affect balance.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 2:16 pm
by Damian Magecraft
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:what part of Outside of objective experience escapes you?
Just because you do not comprehend or see the logic does not mean said logic does not exist.
By the rules of observation if something exists but violates your knowledge base then the obvious answer is not that it cannot exist but rather that your knowledge base is either wrong or insufficient.


The thing is, going with that, the Stone To Flesh spell might just make normal stones turn into flesh that automatically explodes for 1d6x1000 MD.

yes if the GM is an ass...
but that is taking the terms to extremes...
disallowing the use of "created" items as functional magical components vs "naturally occuring" items is just good sense.


Earlier, you were saying that it didn't have to make any sense.
I also admitted earlier it was a Purely meta-game reason. your point?

Especially since the alternative would destabilize the setting thereby making the GMs job (of ensuring everyone at the table has an enjoyable time) all that much harder.


You've switched from in-game explanation of events ("it just is") to out-of-game explanation of events.
I find that it's best to stick to one or the other.

If the GM doesn't want the spell to be abused, then casters shouldn't be able to pick whatever kind of meat they like. Period.
That alone would allow the spell to destabilize economies, even with arbitrary "It's meat, but it's not meat exactly, but you can eat it" kind of rulings to try to keep things toned down.
If one is interested strictly in balance, then the spell's key use should be to de-petrify people who have run into a gorgon or basilisk.
Which completely ignores text in other spells that state the spell can be used to convert "never been alive" stone into flesh. (see breath of life and sculpt & animate clay animals)

If one is NOT interested strictly in balance, then the effects of the spell should follow logically from an in-game perspective, regardless of how they affect balance.
Its magic since when does being able to defy the laws of physics and nature by speaking a few words and an application of will follow logic?

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 3:32 pm
by Goliath Strongarm
For people trying to argue logic and physics....

I mumble a few words and a ball of fire shoots out of my hands.

'Nuff said

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 5:53 pm
by flatline
Goliath Strongarm wrote:For people trying to argue logic and physics....

I mumble a few words and a ball of fire shoots out of my hands.

'Nuff said


We may not know what rules govern the behavior of magic, but since magic is both discoverable and repeatable, we know that it is governed by rules.

--flatline

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 6:04 pm
by Goliath Strongarm
flatline wrote:
Goliath Strongarm wrote:For people trying to argue logic and physics....

I mumble a few words and a ball of fire shoots out of my hands.

'Nuff said


We may not know what rules govern the behavior of magic, but since magic is both discoverable and repeatable, we know that it is governed by rules.

--flatline


He said "outside of subjective experience". We don't get it. We don't know. We can't explain. Just because we can say that there rules exist doesn't say that we know WHAT those rules are. Here you are again, being argumentative simply to be argumentative... Want to look at all of what was said, instead of just part of it?

Just like we know a particle won't move in a wave, right? The RULES of physics say as much... until you get to light... oops... Guess we may not fully know WHAT those rules are after all, do we?

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 7:42 pm
by Nightmask
flatline wrote:
Goliath Strongarm wrote:For people trying to argue logic and physics....

I mumble a few words and a ball of fire shoots out of my hands.

'Nuff said


We may not know what rules govern the behavior of magic, but since magic is both discoverable and repeatable, we know that it is governed by rules.

--flatline


I wonder why that's so hard for some to accept, I think it seems to stem from the 'oh no magic can't be like science and since science is all about experimentation and logic and rules magic must have no logic or rules' mindset, one very deeply flawed since it really ignores all the obvious scientific-method based magical research in fantasy particularly AD&D. It just follows its own internal logic and rules but still very definable and teachable rules.

Then again some GM seem to toss out the 'oh magic has no rules and contradicts everything' just to use it as an excuse to make rulings biased against the PC, if they had to follow a set of rules they couldn't make those rulings.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:00 pm
by Goliath Strongarm
Once again, you're picking what parts to pay attention to. Your stance seems to be that every GM needs to fully flesh put how every bit of magic works (including all the physics and metaphysical aspects) in case it comes up. The case others of us are making is "this is the end result". You don't have to understand an internal combustion engine to work a car, or how to make a functioning circuit to turn on the lights in your house.

Knowing that "this is how" is not a prerequisite for knowing "it is". See my previous post about how light for clarification.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:19 pm
by Damian Magecraft
Nightmask wrote:
flatline wrote:
Goliath Strongarm wrote:For people trying to argue logic and physics....

I mumble a few words and a ball of fire shoots out of my hands.

'Nuff said


We may not know what rules govern the behavior of magic, but since magic is both discoverable and repeatable, we know that it is governed by rules.

--flatline


I wonder why that's so hard for some to accept, I think it seems to stem from the 'oh no magic can't be like science and since science is all about experimentation and logic and rules magic must have no logic or rules' mindset, one very deeply flawed since it really ignores all the obvious scientific-method based magical research in fantasy particularly AD&D. It just follows its own internal logic and rules but still very definable and teachable rules.

Then again some GM seem to toss out the 'oh magic has no rules and contradicts everything' just to use it as an excuse to make rulings biased against the PC, if they had to follow a set of rules they couldn't make those rulings.

This might come as a surprise to you...
But just because a GM makes a ruling that you disagree with does not mean they did it out of spite.(but in all honesty given how you respond to posts you disagree with here... if you speak to GMs in that manner you may be an exception).
They have a reason for the choice they made but because you do not like the choice or it is not to your advantage you refuse to listen to the reason.
You keep tossing that bad GM insinuation around as if you have experienced more than your fair share...
Ever think the GMs may not be the problem?

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 8:46 pm
by Killer Cyborg
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:what part of Outside of objective experience escapes you?
Just because you do not comprehend or see the logic does not mean said logic does not exist.
By the rules of observation if something exists but violates your knowledge base then the obvious answer is not that it cannot exist but rather that your knowledge base is either wrong or insufficient.


The thing is, going with that, the Stone To Flesh spell might just make normal stones turn into flesh that automatically explodes for 1d6x1000 MD.

yes if the GM is an ass...
but that is taking the terms to extremes...
disallowing the use of "created" items as functional magical components vs "naturally occuring" items is just good sense.


Earlier, you were saying that it didn't have to make any sense.
I also admitted earlier it was a Purely meta-game reason. your point?


Followed below.

You've switched from in-game explanation of events ("it just is") to out-of-game explanation of events.
I find that it's best to stick to one or the other.

If the GM doesn't want the spell to be abused, then casters shouldn't be able to pick whatever kind of meat they like. Period.
That alone would allow the spell to destabilize economies, even with arbitrary "It's meat, but it's not meat exactly, but you can eat it" kind of rulings to try to keep things toned down.
If one is interested strictly in balance, then the spell's key use should be to de-petrify people who have run into a gorgon or basilisk.

Which completely ignores text in other spells that state the spell can be used to convert "never been alive" stone into flesh. (see breath of life and sculpt & animate clay animals)


What part do you feel would be ignored...?
(Keeping in mind that "key" does not mean "sole.")

If one is NOT interested strictly in balance, then the effects of the spell should follow logically from an in-game perspective, regardless of how they affect balance.

Its magic since when does being able to defy the laws of physics and nature by speaking a few words and an application of will follow logic?[/quote]

Since the spell "fire ball" failed to create a swarm of butterflies, and instead produced (logically enough), a ball of fire.
Not just the first time a mage cast it, but as a consistent rule.
And since that fire that was created was able to melt, burn, and set afire various inflammable objects that it came into contact with, instead of transmuting those objects into kittens or teapots.
Magic in Palladium's games is extremely consistent, and the effects of the magic follow logically, not randomly.
Hell, just saying "If Stone To Flesh can make flesh, then it can make meat" is itself a logical claim.
As is the claim that one should be able to eat that meat, although I don't necessarily agree with that logic.
Throw logic out the window, and neither of those claims have any viability.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:06 pm
by Damian Magecraft
Killer Cyborg wrote:You've switched from in-game explanation of events ("it just is") to out-of-game explanation of events.
I find that it's best to stick to one or the other.

If the GM doesn't want the spell to be abused, then casters shouldn't be able to pick whatever kind of meat they like. Period.
That alone would allow the spell to destabilize economies, even with arbitrary "It's meat, but it's not meat exactly, but you can eat it" kind of rulings to try to keep things toned down.
If one is interested strictly in balance, then the spell's key use should be to de-petrify people who have run into a gorgon or basilisk.

Which completely ignores text in other spells that state the spell can be used to convert "never been alive" stone into flesh. (see breath of life and sculpt & animate clay animals)


What part do you feel would be ignored...?
(Keeping in mind that "key" does not mean "sole.")
so we interpret the spells in the strictest form possible whenever it may have a vague wording? and then demand that players think outside the box on spell use? That does not read as slightly hypocritical to you?

If one is NOT interested strictly in balance, then the effects of the spell should follow logically from an in-game perspective, regardless of how they affect balance.
Its magic since when does being able to defy the laws of physics and nature by speaking a few words and an application of will follow logic?


Since the spell "fire ball" failed to create a swarm of butterflies, and instead produced (logically enough), a ball of fire.
Not just the first time a mage cast it, but as a consistent rule.
And since that fire that was created was able to melt, burn, and set afire various inflammable objects that it came into contact with, instead of transmuting those objects into kittens or teapots.
Magic in Palladium's games is extremely consistent, and the effects of the magic follow logically, not randomly.
Hell, just saying "If Stone To Flesh can make flesh, then it can make meat" is itself a logical claim.
As is the claim that one should be able to eat that meat, although I don't necessarily agree with that logic.
Throw logic out the window, and neither of those claims have any viability.

I can agree with that to a point.
But when in-game logic and meta-game logic contradict which takes precedent?
In my games Meta-game does.
If that means a "logical disconnect" in game then it means that in game all the "laws" are not fully comprehended.
A rule from that "other" game was mentioned in conjunction with this discussion (not by you or I but it does pertain to this point). That meta-game rule (which is used by multiple systems) has no in game explanation (for any system) but is accepted without complaint. But should a GM propose to use something similar here it must have an in game explanation? why?

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:31 pm
by Killer Cyborg
Damian Magecraft wrote:so we interpret the spells in the strictest form possible whenever it may have a vague wording?


Nope.
And I'm not sure how that question entered the conversation at that point.
:-?

But when in-game logic and meta-game logic contradict which takes precedent?
In my games Meta-game does.


Not everybody plays the same way that you do.

If that means a "logical disconnect" in game then it means that in game all the "laws" are not fully comprehended.
A rule from that "other" game was mentioned in conjunction with this discussion (not by you or I but it does pertain to this point). That meta-game rule (which is used by multiple systems) has no in game explanation (for any system) but is accepted without complaint. But should a GM propose to use something similar here it must have an in game explanation? why?


Because it's a universal rule of that system, well-founded enough that it's a constant in the game world, a feature of it.
Not just something that one GM decided, for one spell.
It's a function of magic itself, which means that it's no more meta-game than the existence of magic itself in the game world.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:43 pm
by Killer Cyborg
I guess that my main confusion is this:
Why rule that mages get to pick the type of flesh being created, when...
a) That is not indicated anywhere in the spell
b) That ruling then necessitates another ruling that IF the caster chooses to create particular kinds of flesh, then any magical properties of the flesh do not exist
c) That ruling still allows for the spell to have potentially wide-ranging and extremely powerful consequences

It seems like going out of one's way to create problems that one then has to arbitrarily resolve, or choose to leave unresolved.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:48 pm
by Damian Magecraft
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:so we interpret the spells in the strictest form possible whenever it may have a vague wording?


Nope.
And I'm not sure how that question entered the conversation at that point.
:-?

But when in-game logic and meta-game logic contradict which takes precedent?
In my games Meta-game does.


Not everybody plays the same way that you do.

If that means a "logical disconnect" in game then it means that in game all the "laws" are not fully comprehended.
A rule from that "other" game was mentioned in conjunction with this discussion (not by you or I but it does pertain to this point). That meta-game rule (which is used by multiple systems) has no in game explanation (for any system) but is accepted without complaint. But should a GM propose to use something similar here it must have an in game explanation? why?


Because it's a universal rule of that system, well-founded enough that it's a constant in the game world, a feature of it.
Not just something that one GM decided, for one spell.
It's a function of magic itself, which means that it's no more meta-game than the existence of magic itself in the game world.

ah ok I see where part of the disconnect in our conversation is...
I do apply that "Natural vs Created" rule consistently.
I would not allow any other spell to supply components to a diabolist or alchemist any more than i would this specific spell. (for pretty much the same meta-game reason... so as to not destabilize the setting)
its just how magic works is all the in game explanation that is needed at that point.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 9:58 pm
by Damian Magecraft
Killer Cyborg wrote:I guess that my main confusion is this:
Why rule that mages get to pick the type of flesh being created, when...
a) That is not indicated anywhere in the spell nor is it contra-indicated But I take your meaning... For me its the quickest answer that gives a modicum of control to the player, and goes back to the fluff of magic requires belief... TBH I kinda like Prysus's answer better than my own.
b) That ruling then necessitates another ruling that IF the caster chooses to create particular kinds of flesh, then any magical properties of the flesh do not exista ruling common to most (if not all) games that include magic and is applied consistently where magic is concerned
c) That ruling still allows for the spell to have potentially wide-ranging and extremely powerful consequencesgonna have to spell this one out for me I am not seeing it

It seems like going out of one's way to create problems that one then has to arbitrarily resolve, or choose to leave unresolved.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 10:55 pm
by Killer Cyborg
Damian Magecraft wrote:gonna have to spell this one out for me I am not seeing it


It's nothing world-shattering, but, as I said in my initial post here:
If it's caster's choice, then you could create 50 lbs of skin, which could be tanned. Or 50 lbs of meat, which could be eaten. Or 50 lbs of organs, which could be eaten... or, if you can choose the species of flesh, could be used as spell components.
Of course, if you choose the species, that opens up a lot of doors, because you could run a fine eatery with this one spell stocking the smokehouse with everything from Aardvark to Zebra.
Arguably, you could even pick 50 lbs of MDC flesh, by picking a MDC species as the kind of flesh.


My assumption is that you might create (or refer to) yet another house rule on the part of the MDC flesh bit, to prevent people from crafting MDC Leather/hide/meat armor.
So let's just look at the basic ability to be able to create any kind of SDC meat, for now.

Think for a moment what YOU would do if you had that kind of power today.

Personally, I'd become wealthy.
Kobe Beef costs about $300 per pound, and there is significant demand for it.
The demand would be even MORE if I could undercut Japan's Kobe ranchers by selling and equal product for only $200/lb.
Assuming that I'm only First Level, I could "only" make 50 lbs of Kobe Beef per casting (30 PPE), which would gross me $1,000.
And I could cast this up to 4x per day, for a total of $4,000 per day.

Over the course of a year, using this one spell alone, I could make about $1.46 million dollars.
And that's without making any blood sacrifices, or borrowing other people's PPE, or otherwise really trying.

Of course, this increase in available product would assuage some of the demand for the product, which would result in lowering the price.
Which would mean that the longer I did this, the less money I'd make.
It would also mean that I'd be putting a lot of Japanese out of business, because the non-magical means of creating that level of quality of product is quite time-consuming and expensive, and most likely they couldn't compete with my low prices.
It would also mean, in the long term, that I'd be putting a few normal ranchers out of business, simply by putting out large amounts of high-quality beef at more affordable prices. Some people who could afford it would upgrade, buying less lower-quality beefs in favor of my product.
Long term consequences would be impossible to predict, except that a significant number of businesses would go under, and a lot of people would be unemployed.

GRANTED, the sheer amount of beef in the world would mean that it might take a while for me to create drastic impact, so only real immediate consequence of me knowing this one spell would be that I could earn well over a million dollars a year with little effort... but also remember that the above numbers are assuming that I'm not really trying hard, and that I'm only first level.
It wouldn't be tricky to boost those numbers by staggering amounts, even at first level... and I'd probably quickly level up, doubling my output at level 2, and so on.
Also remember that in this scenario, I'm the ONLY person on the planet that knows this spell, and that this planet has 7 billion people on it.
Neither of these will be the case in most Palladium settings.

In the world of Rifts, 50 lbs of beef (per level) goes a much longer way.
In beef-heavy America, the average person eats 67 lbs of beef per year.
And a first level mage who happens to know this spell can create 200 lbs per day, without trying.

On average, a single slaughtered cow from today's rather efficient beef industry nets about 568 lbs of beef.
So one (level 1) mage, operating by himself, could effectively create more than a cow's worth of beef in 3 days.
A level 2 mage could do it in 1.5 days.
A level 3 mage could do it in 2 days.
A level 4 mage could do it in less than one day.
A rancher can do it in 1 to 1.5 years.

Yes, a rancher can raise multiple cows at once... but, again, I'm not talking about a mage who's really trying.
Or, at least, I haven't been talking about that.
Let's take a look, though, in case the implications haven't fully set in.

For one thing, the mage could operate on a ley line, which would allow him to draw 10 PPE per melee round (PFRPG 2 standards).
Every 3 melees, he could cast that spell.
Which means that in a single 8 hour work day (minus a half hour for lunch), a single first level mage could cast the spell roughly 600 times, creating about 30,000 lbs of beef.
Or, in more accessible terms, almost 53 cows worth.

In two 5-day work weeks, this lone mage could create 530 cows worth of beef. At first level.
A single 10th level mage, for perspective, could create 530 cows worth of beef in a single day.

Of course, all of this beef has to come from somewhere. From stone, precisely.
Which could be a problem in areas without significant amounts of stone... but I'm not sure where those would be.
In any area where mining or tunneling is required, this "cost" would be a benefit, because you could do double-duty by magically removing stone at the same time you're creating beef- earning two paychecks at once. Simultaneously earning the mage more money, and putting more laborers out of work.

Now think for a bit on the sheer number of mages on Rifts Earth, or on Palladium, and ask yourself: how many ranchers would actually be able to make a good living (outside of CS territory or similar places)?
And it's not just beef. It's any kind of meat.
Anything from Aardvark to Zebra.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:27 pm
by Damian Magecraft
Killer Cyborg wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:gonna have to spell this one out for me I am not seeing it


It's nothing world-shattering, but, as I said in my initial post here:
If it's caster's choice, then you could create 50 lbs of skin, which could be tanned. Or 50 lbs of meat, which could be eaten. Or 50 lbs of organs, which could be eaten... or, if you can choose the species of flesh, could be used as spell components.
Of course, if you choose the species, that opens up a lot of doors, because you could run a fine eatery with this one spell stocking the smokehouse with everything from Aardvark to Zebra.
Arguably, you could even pick 50 lbs of MDC flesh, by picking a MDC species as the kind of flesh.


My assumption is that you might create (or refer to) yet another house rule on the part of the MDC flesh bit, to prevent people from crafting MDC Leather/hide/meat armor.
So let's just look at the basic ability to be able to create any kind of SDC meat, for now.

Think for a moment what YOU would do if you had that kind of power today.

Personally, I'd become wealthy.
Kobe Beef costs about $300 per pound, and there is significant demand for it.
The demand would be even MORE if I could undercut Japan's Kobe ranchers by selling and equal product for only $200/lb.
Assuming that I'm only First Level, I could "only" make 50 lbs of Kobe Beef per casting (30 PPE), which would gross me $1,000.
And I could cast this up to 4x per day, for a total of $4,000 per day.

Over the course of a year, using this one spell alone, I could make about $1.46 million dollars.
And that's without making any blood sacrifices, or borrowing other people's PPE, or otherwise really trying.

Of course, this increase in available product would assuage some of the demand for the product, which would result in lowering the price.
Which would mean that the longer I did this, the less money I'd make.
It would also mean that I'd be putting a lot of Japanese out of business, because the non-magical means of creating that level of quality of product is quite time-consuming and expensive, and most likely they couldn't compete with my low prices.
It would also mean, in the long term, that I'd be putting a few normal ranchers out of business, simply by putting out large amounts of high-quality beef at more affordable prices. Some people who could afford it would upgrade, buying less lower-quality beefs in favor of my product.
Long term consequences would be impossible to predict, except that a significant number of businesses would go under, and a lot of people would be unemployed.

GRANTED, the sheer amount of beef in the world would mean that it might take a while for me to create drastic impact, so only real immediate consequence of me knowing this one spell would be that I could earn well over a million dollars a year with little effort... but also remember that the above numbers are assuming that I'm not really trying hard, and that I'm only first level.
It wouldn't be tricky to boost those numbers by staggering amounts, even at first level... and I'd probably quickly level up, doubling my output at level 2, and so on.
Also remember that in this scenario, I'm the ONLY person on the planet that knows this spell, and that this planet has 7 billion people on it.
Neither of these will be the case in most Palladium settings.

In the world of Rifts, 50 lbs of beef (per level) goes a much longer way.
In beef-heavy America, the average person eats 67 lbs of beef per year.
And a first level mage who happens to know this spell can create 200 lbs per day, without trying.

On average, a single slaughtered cow from today's rather efficient beef industry nets about 568 lbs of beef.
So one (level 1) mage, operating by himself, could effectively create more than a cow's worth of beef in 3 days.
A level 2 mage could do it in 1.5 days.
A level 3 mage could do it in 2 days.
A level 4 mage could do it in less than one day.
A rancher can do it in 1 to 1.5 years.

Yes, a rancher can raise multiple cows at once... but, again, I'm not talking about a mage who's really trying.
Or, at least, I haven't been talking about that.
Let's take a look, though, in case the implications haven't fully set in.

For one thing, the mage could operate on a ley line, which would allow him to draw 10 PPE per melee round (PFRPG 2 standards).
Every 3 melees, he could cast that spell.
Which means that in a single 8 hour work day (minus a half hour for lunch), a single first level mage could cast the spell roughly 600 times, creating about 30,000 lbs of beef.
Or, in more accessible terms, almost 53 cows worth.

In two 5-day work weeks, this lone mage could create 530 cows worth of beef. At first level.
A single 10th level mage, for perspective, could create 530 cows worth of beef in a single day.

Of course, all of this beef has to come from somewhere. From stone, precisely.
Which could be a problem in areas without significant amounts of stone... but I'm not sure where those would be.
In any area where mining or tunneling is required, this "cost" would be a benefit, because you could do double-duty by magically removing stone at the same time you're creating beef- earning two paychecks at once. Simultaneously earning the mage more money, and putting more laborers out of work.

Now think for a bit on the sheer number of mages on Rifts Earth, or on Palladium, and ask yourself: how many ranchers would actually be able to make a good living (outside of CS territory or similar places)?
And it's not just beef. It's any kind of meat.
Anything from Aardvark to Zebra.

I think you are over looking the fact that the meat would still need to be carved and cured (slowing the process some) but I get the point.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:30 pm
by Damian Magecraft
Little Snuzzles wrote:Just wanted to let everyone know that we've won the annual "Biggest RPG Geeks in The Universe" award for this thread. :D

That is all.
No that title is still held by the math and physics geeks with the speed of the Boom gun threads some 10 to 15 years back...
Entire multiple walls of posts of nothing but math formulae.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2013 11:55 pm
by Goliath Strongarm
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Little Snuzzles wrote:Just wanted to let everyone know that we've won the annual "Biggest RPG Geeks in The Universe" award for this thread. :D

That is all.
No that title is still held by the math and physics geeks with the speed of the Boom gun threads some 10 to 15 years back...
Entire multiple walls of posts of nothing but math formulae.


Wasn't that long ago was it? Thought was only like 5 or 6... God, I feel old now...

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 5:02 am
by Soldier of Od
Goliath Strongarm wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:Flesh:

noun

the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal.

Source- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/flesh


Oddly enough, most people don't go by that definition when they use the term "flesh."
As described in my previous post.

Which is probably why your link had more than one definition:
-the flesh of an animal or fish, regarded as food:the food an animal eats will affect the taste and texture of its flesh
-the edible pulpy part of a fruit or vegetable:halve the avocados and scrape out the flesh
-the skin or surface of the human body with reference to its appearance or sensory properties:she gasped as the cold water hit her flesh
-(the flesh) the human body and its physical needs and desires, especially as contrasted with the mind or the soul:I have never been one to deny the pleasures of the flesh
-flesh colour.



KC, this is why you're typically one of my favorite posters...


KC & GS -
Lots of words have numerous meanings. That doesn't mean that the use of the word in the spell descrition is meant to cover all of those meanings. As we do in everyday conversation, we can look at the context and see which one of these definitions applies to the situation at hand. Obviously, in this case there may not be a definitive answer, or else we all wouldn't be having this discussion! But I have to say that the top two definitions in both of your lists (muscle and fat tissue/this tissue regarded as food) surely have to be considered the most appropriate in the case of this spell.

Considering the can of worms opened up if we allow the spell to do all of these other things, the spell simply works better in gaming terms to just do what it says on the tin - create flesh. Just undefined flesh. Not bone and not blood. Many spells in PF could be better described and detailed, but if you could do something as significant as create a person from a rock or create dragon bones then we have to assume that it would have been mentioned.

Are you seriously saying that a mage can creat fruit using this spell? Surely not. And if you are omitting one definition of the word 'flesh' from the things that can be created using the spell then you have already made the choice to limit the definition to what you feel is appropriate and must consider that it might not cover some of the other definitions either.

This thread has got so long and convoluted that I am not sure anymore what your stances are on this matter now, so sorry if I'm arguing in the wrong direction! But if you are not claiming that the spell covers all of these secondary definitions of the word, for what reason did you post them?

Anybody want to get started on the 'create bread and milk' spell too! ;)
My personal opinion with this spell is that you can create 2D6 one ton loaves of bread that can be dropped from the sky as weapons, and one gallon of manticore's milk, held in 128 one ounce jugs, which are made of solid gold. Or perhaps carved from demon bone. Caster's choice. The spell description doesn't say it isn't. :D

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:53 am
by Goliath Strongarm
Soldier of Od wrote:
KC & GS -
Lots of words have numerous meanings. That doesn't mean that the use of the word in the spell descrition is meant to cover all of those meanings. As we do in everyday conversation, we can look at the context and see which one of these definitions applies to the situation at hand. Obviously, in this case there may not be a definitive answer, or else we all wouldn't be having this discussion! But I have to say that the top two definitions in both of your lists (muscle and fat tissue/this tissue regarded as food) surely have to be considered the most appropriate in the case of this spell.

~~~~~~SNIPPED BY GOLIATH~~~~~~

so sorry if I'm arguing in the wrong direction! But if you are not claiming that the spell covers all of these secondary definitions of the word, for what reason did you post them?


Actually, if you go back, and look, the reason KC had posted those other definitions was because someone posted one definition, and said that was "THE" definition of the word flesh.. KC was pointing out that there were other definitions, that's all. No one is suggesting that the spell should do all of those things. "Common" usage is very subjective. As you said, there are multiple definitions for most words. The question is merely "which definition do we use?" Can go anywhere from skin down to the bone, to only portions between the two.


Anybody want to get started on the 'create bread and milk' spell too! ;)
My personal opinion with this spell is that you can create 2D6 one ton loaves of bread that can be dropped from the sky as weapons, and one gallon of manticore's milk, held in 128 one ounce jugs, which are made of solid gold. Or perhaps carved from demon bone. Caster's choice. The spell description doesn't say it isn't. :D



While I know you meant it tongue in cheek, we actually had the bread and milk debate many, many years ago... not in regards to to the jugs, of course, but some other issues.. IIRC, the results were as follows:

Bread type: Wheat (for PF. Characters from other worlds that are familiar with more "modern" bread types could have that option, but, each would be a DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE SPELL*.)
Bread loaf size: 16oz for human-sized characters (including gnomes), 24oz for "small giants" (ogres, trolls, etc), 32oz for full giants
Milk Type: Either Cow or goat would be possible, but each would be a different version of the spell.
Milk size: Would come in 1Gal containers, glass in PF (that would disappear as the milk was emptied), plastic in "modern" settings, and I don't remember for RIFTs, sorry.

For Example, Wizard Bob knows how to Create Wheat Bread and Goat Milk. His toddler is a very picky eater, and refuses to eat or drink that. Unfortunately, the spell Bob knows can NOT create any other types. So, Bob goes and creates a variation, which creates White Bread and Cow Milk.


*Variants of the spell is something we haven't yet addressed in this topic... maybe we should?

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:13 am
by Soldier of Od
Goliath Strongarm wrote:Actually, if you go back, and look, the reason KC had posted those other definitions was because someone posted one definition, and said that was "THE" definition of the word flesh.. KC was pointing out that there were other definitions, that's all. No one is suggesting that the spell should do all of those things. "Common" usage is very subjective. As you said, there are multiple definitions for most words. The question is merely "which definition do we use?" Can go anywhere from skin down to the bone, to only portions between the two.?

Well, the dark elf did post a link with all the details. I just thought it was confusing and unnecessary to be posting irrelevant information. If you don't think that the spell can create fruit or 'the human body and it's physical needs and desires' then don't post it. If you do think that then feel free to post it as part of a rebuttle to the Dark Elf's definition. But no worries, I see your reasons for doing it.

While I know you meant it tongue in cheek, we actually had the bread and milk debate many, many years ago... not in regards to to the jugs, of course, but some other issues.. IIRC, the results were as follows:

Bread type: Wheat (for PF. Characters from other worlds that are familiar with more "modern" bread types could have that option, but, each would be a DIFFERENT VERSION OF THE SPELL*.)
Bread loaf size: 16oz for human-sized characters (including gnomes), 24oz for "small giants" (ogres, trolls, etc), 32oz for full giants
Milk Type: Either Cow or goat would be possible, but each would be a different version of the spell.
Milk size: Would come in 1Gal containers, glass in PF (that would disappear as the milk was emptied), plastic in "modern" settings, and I don't remember for RIFTs, sorry.

For Example, Wizard Bob knows how to Create Wheat Bread and Goat Milk. His toddler is a very picky eater, and refuses to eat or drink that. Unfortunately, the spell Bob knows can NOT create any other types. So, Bob goes and creates a variation, which creates White Bread and Cow Milk.


*Variants of the spell is something we haven't yet addressed in this topic... maybe we should?

This is a really good concept - one I hadn't thought of. I think it would work very well for create bread and milk. The actual types of bread and milk might be representative of the place where the mage lives (or the place where that mage that taught the mage the spell lived, ad infinitum). Provides variation, but doesn't allow the mage to alter the spell as he sees fit every time.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:39 am
by The Dark Elf
In my country that source (the OED) is deferred to as the definitive definitions which I why I chose to use it. At least it is the official source to list all current definitions from it's last printing.

In other countries multiple websites may have to be selected over the internet to chose inconclusive words. It is a shame there is no truly definitive answer for you and you must use "common use" but I am not knowledgeable enough about American terms to add comment.

Re: Stone to Flesh Question

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:28 pm
by Killer Cyborg
Soldier of Od wrote:
Goliath Strongarm wrote:
Killer Cyborg wrote:
The Dark Elf wrote:Flesh:

noun

the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of a human or an animal.

Source- http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/flesh


Oddly enough, most people don't go by that definition when they use the term "flesh."
As described in my previous post.

Which is probably why your link had more than one definition:
-the flesh of an animal or fish, regarded as food:the food an animal eats will affect the taste and texture of its flesh
-the edible pulpy part of a fruit or vegetable:halve the avocados and scrape out the flesh
-the skin or surface of the human body with reference to its appearance or sensory properties:she gasped as the cold water hit her flesh
-(the flesh) the human body and its physical needs and desires, especially as contrasted with the mind or the soul:I have never been one to deny the pleasures of the flesh
-flesh colour.



KC, this is why you're typically one of my favorite posters...


KC & GS -
Lots of words have numerous meanings. That doesn't mean that the use of the word in the spell descrition is meant to cover all of those meanings. As we do in everyday conversation, we can look at the context and see which one of these definitions applies to the situation at hand. Obviously, in this case there may not be a definitive answer, or else we all wouldn't be having this discussion! But I have to say that the top two definitions in both of your lists (muscle and fat tissue/this tissue regarded as food) surely have to be considered the most appropriate in the case of this spell.


And I disagree, because we know that the spell creates blood and bone as well, since otherwise de-petrifying a character would be quite lethal to them, and they'd fall instantly into a boneless, blobby mess on the floor.

Considering the can of worms opened up if we allow the spell to do all of these other things, the spell simply works better in gaming terms to just do what it says on the tin - create flesh. Just undefined flesh. Not bone and not blood.


Yes. Let's ALL consider the implications if the spell does not create bone or blood.

Are you seriously saying that a mage can creat fruit using this spell?


Nope.
I'm just suggesting that there are more than one definitions to the word, so posting the definition that limits the spell to creating boneless and bloodless beings doesn't mean that THAT is the definition intended.
As I already described, the common usage of the term includes blood, bone, and organs, because it refers to the entire body.

Anybody want to get started on the 'create bread and milk' spell too! ;)
My personal opinion with this spell is that you can create 2D6 one ton loaves of bread that can be dropped from the sky as weapons, and one gallon of manticore's milk, held in 128 one ounce jugs, which are made of solid gold. Or perhaps carved from demon bone. Caster's choice. The spell description doesn't say it isn't. :D


That's pretty much the kind of thing that I'm talking about.
If you start letting the caster have choice about everything unspecified in a spell, it ends up a mess in short order.