ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:45 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:14 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 490
Location: none
I believe what Senko wasy saying in the first place is that a creature that can eat and digest food for the purpose of nourishment, and can produce offspring in the manner that's normally associated with multicellular living creatures (either sexually or by budding) probably shouldn't be considered a "construct". To continue borrowing examples from D&D, consider the Owlbear. It's generally accepted that they were created by some deranged spellcaster, but they carved out a niche in the natural ecology,and they breed true. Consequently, they are considered "magical beasts" (much like basilisks, unicorns, and some other presumably naturally occurring creatures).

I'm inclined to agree.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:17 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:06 am
Posts: 282
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/construct
Quote:
1. to build or form by putting together parts; frame; devise.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/golem
Quote:
1. Jewish Folklore. a figure artificially constructed in the form of a human being and endowed with life.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/familiar
Quote:
9. Witchcraft and Demonology. a. an animal, as a cat, that embodies a supernatural spirit and aids a witch in performing magic.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/breeding
Quote:
1. to produce (offspring); procreate; engender

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/produce
Quote:
3. to make or manufacture: to produce automobiles for export.

Quote:
10. to create, bring forth, or yield offspring, products, etc.: Their mines are closed because they no longer produce.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/manufacture
Quote:
2. the making or producing of anything; generation: the manufacture of body cells.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/make
Quote:
1. to bring into existence by shaping or changing material, combining parts, etc.: to make a dress; to make a channel; to make a work of art.


Therefore, yes. By definition: Ellis is a construct.

{EDIT}He was made by combining the aspects of a cat, and a bat, through a magical production process (after all.. he's not the only one, for sure).

It's entirely speculatory that he was specifically bred for this purpose, but if he was, then by definition he was produced, and manufactured into a familiar (as one definition of manufacture involves organics, I'm not talking total bullshit.. yet), and since that same definition of manufacture is to make, which ties to combining parts (the cat and bat... cat in the bat?) he is, for all intents and purposes

a construct.

Interweb knowledges FTW.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:05 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 345
Location: The Astral Plane
Slamlander wrote:
Rakshasa wrote:
Mestro wrote:
So.. a golem with the ability to create another golem like itself isn't a construct? If it isn't a construct, what is it?

If you make something out of other thing, isn't it a construct? Does it matter if the things it is made up of are ideas or rock or metal or flesh?

No... You are failing to differentiate between a specific kind of reproduction and replication.


Then highlight this, if you will. I'm becoming mystified as to what you mean. To refocus, you are maintaining that Ellis isn't a construct, n'est pas?

No, that reply was specifically on why under the proposed definition of a 'construct' vs. 'reproduction', a golem whom constructs another golem does not reproduce in that sense, but rather 'constructs' it's 'offspring'.

The difference here is that the golem performs the act as an 'actor', rather than the host, performing macroscopic acts which we would describe as construction. Reproduction on the other hand, would require internal (or sometimes external) processes that would be mostly automatic, though would be initiated by macroscopic acts in most cases.

There would of course be some corner cases, like if a golem could split in two like a cell... But that's outside of this scope.

Zherical wrote:
Therefore, yes. By definition: Ellis is a construct.

{EDIT}He was made by combining the aspects of a cat, and a bat, through a magical production process (after all.. he's not the only one, for sure).

It's entirely speculatory that he was specifically bred for this purpose, but if he was, then by definition he was produced, and manufactured into a familiar (as one definition of manufacture involves organics, I'm not talking total bullshit.. yet), and since that same definition of manufacture is to make, which ties to combining parts (the cat and bat... cat in the bat?) he is, for all intents and purposes

A dictionary is like a bible... By quoting it you can make any kind of claim you want.

There is no evidence he is a combination of an actual cat and a bat, and there have been discussion in the comic where that kind of information naturally would have come up, but didn't. So your first premise has no direct support and some indirect evidence against it.

The thing here is that we know they are bred, so just crafting on a pair of bat wings would not cause it to be passed on to the next generation. This is why I'm claiming that it is more akin to something like a genetic mutation, only involving magic.

Which involves changes in the microscopic components as they grow from two cells. This implies that they can't be constructs of macroscopic components. There are of course other definitions of construct which one could shoehorn this into, but then you operate with a definition that isn't really very productive for this discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:30 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 7:47 pm
Posts: 1168
Right. Per Occam's Razor, we should use consensus definitions before moving on to variant definitions tailored to the situation. It simplifies things.

The speicies of familiar Ellis belongs to may well have been constructed at one time, in the sense of being magically created, mutated, or bred, but, barring information we do not have, he was probably born of a mother of his own kind and is therefore not a construct.

Irony: the major subplot of Frankenstein is that the monster contructed by Victor Frankenstein wishes to have a mate so he can love and reproduce.. The monster demands that Victor construct a female of his kind, but Victor refuses. He considers the monster a hideous mistake, does not wish to construct a second such horror, and doubtless is disgusted and horrified that the the creatures might have sex and breed more of their kind. The monster then kills ("deconstructs?") Frankenstein's fiance so he is as alone as his creation.

_________________
"We are not going to die! And do you know why? Because Thomas is too pretty to die. And because I'm too stubborn to die. And most of all because tomorrow is Oktoberfest, Butters, and <i>polka will never die!</i>"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:14 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
Rakshasa wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
Rakshasa wrote:
Mestro wrote:
So.. a golem with the ability to create another golem like itself isn't a construct? If it isn't a construct, what is it?

If you make something out of other thing, isn't it a construct? Does it matter if the things it is made up of are ideas or rock or metal or flesh?

No... You are failing to differentiate between a specific kind of reproduction and replication.


Then highlight this, if you will. I'm becoming mystified as to what you mean. To refocus, you are maintaining that Ellis isn't a construct, n'est pas?

No, that reply was specifically on why under the proposed definition of a 'construct' vs. 'reproduction', a golem whom constructs another golem does not reproduce in that sense, but rather 'constructs' it's 'offspring'.


Does that then mean that you agree that Ellis is a construct?

Rakshasa wrote:
The difference here is that the golem performs the act as an 'actor', rather than the host, performing macroscopic acts which we would describe as construction. Reproduction on the other hand, would require internal (or sometimes external) processes that would be mostly automatic, though would be initiated by macroscopic acts in most cases.

There would of course be some corner cases, like if a golem could split in two like a cell... But that's outside of this scope.


We are skirting the absurd here. A Golem can construct another Golem, as a robot can construct another robot. That doesn't alter the basic nature of either of them and in either case, the new construct is not an offspring, rather simply another robot or Golem.

Rakshasa wrote:
Zherical wrote:
Therefore, yes. By definition: Ellis is a construct.

{EDIT}He was made by combining the aspects of a cat, and a bat, through a magical production process (after all.. he's not the only one, for sure).

It's entirely speculatory that he was specifically bred for this purpose, but if he was, then by definition he was produced, and manufactured into a familiar (as one definition of manufacture involves organics, I'm not talking total bullshit.. yet), and since that same definition of manufacture is to make, which ties to combining parts (the cat and bat... cat in the bat?) he is, for all intents and purposes


A dictionary is like a bible... By quoting it you can make any kind of claim you want.


:roll: Likewise, by discounting it you can make any counter-claim you want :wink:

Rakshasa wrote:
There is no evidence he is a combination of an actual cat and a bat, and there have been discussion in the comic where that kind of information naturally would have come up, but didn't. So your first premise has no direct support and some indirect evidence against it.

The thing here is that we know they are bred, so just crafting on a pair of bat wings would not cause it to be passed on to the next generation. This is why I'm claiming that it is more akin to something like a genetic mutation, only involving magic.


Actually, there is no cannonical evidence for either. I only mentioned what he looked like. We don't have enough details of Ellis' fabrication to know, either way. It's indeed possible that we wasn't at all born with wings and they were created by magic, polymorph or otherwise, during his construction. Equally, there is no support for him being able to breed true (exit, the DNA discussions). Although, he seems to have functional equipment for breeding, there is nothing that leads us to believe that the kittens wouldn't be normal kittens.

One thing our modern science does yield, six-limbed modern vertebrates do not exist and genetically creating one is next to impossible, with simple genetics. In short, other than wyverns (pterodactyls), dragons do not exist and can never have existed, reptilian or otherwise.

Rakshasa wrote:
Which involves changes in the microscopic components as they grow from two cells. This implies that they can't be constructs of macroscopic components. There are of course other definitions of construct which one could shoehorn this into, but then you operate with a definition that isn't really very productive for this discussion.


The definition of 'construct' is simple; something that is made, period. Take a cat and add a pair of bat-wings, as well as enough IQ to make him a real pain-in-the-ass smart-mouth, and you have Ellis, a construct.

A problem with pure logic is that it can be 100% correct, in form, and 100% wrong, in conclusion.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:19 am 
Offline
Local

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:06 am
Posts: 282
It all makes sense to me.

"One does not have to be Caeser, to understand Caeser", yes? As far as I'm concerned; I've found a definition that will suffice until Poe Himself says otherwise.

That he hasn't said anything in.. 5 years? Probably a good idea to assume that we're ALL correct, according to ANY point we wish to make.

After all.. hunting for backing evidence when you're talking about a fictional story just seems like a farcical expedition in getting pissed off at people over nothing.. to me, at least.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 8:58 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 345
Location: The Astral Plane
Slamlander wrote:
Does that then mean that you agree that Ellis is a construct?

That is outside the scope of the argument I made there and I fail to see how you come to that conclusion. I can only assume you are mixing together unrelated arguments I've made.

Slamlander wrote:
We are skirting the absurd here. A Golem can construct another Golem, as a robot can construct another robot. That doesn't alter the basic nature of either of them and in either case, the new construct is not an offspring, rather simply another robot or Golem.

Exactly the point I was making. Someone else was suggesting that a Golem that constructs another Golem was equivalent to biological reproduction and therefor reproduction would not be much different from construction. I was attempting to debunk that argument by showing the above.

Slamlander wrote:
:roll: Likewise, by discounting it you can make any counter-claim you want :wink:

What? That one is just plain insulting...

By rejecting the stringing together of barely relevant definitions as an argument, I am also implicitly rejecting the notion of stringing together an empty set of definitions as an argument.

Why do you think I've been making a point of establishing what _definition_ of construct we should be discussing? That is because I'm very aware of this problem.

Slamlander wrote:
Actually, there is no cannonical evidence for either. I only mentioned what he looked like. We don't have enough details of Ellis' fabrication to know, either way. It's indeed possible that we wasn't at all born with wings and they were created by magic, polymorph or otherwise, during his construction. Equally, there is no support for him being able to breed true (exit, the DNA discussions). Although, he seems to have functional equipment for breeding, there is nothing that leads us to believe that the kittens wouldn't be normal kittens.

We do know that one of the familiars with wings, the unicorn, does breed true. Although I admit there's a possibility the wings are crafted on afterwards, it doesn't seem that likely to me.

But I guess that is the discussion we should really be having, which is why I'm making a point of getting the right definition of construct. And if the wings really are added after birth, it does make it possible constructing is involved if it is not a mutation/growth during their life-cycle.

On the other hand, if we are dealing with true-bred creatures, do you agree that they are not a construct?

Slamlander wrote:
One thing our modern science does yield, six-limbed modern vertebrates do not exist and genetically creating one is next to impossible, with simple genetics. In short, other than wyverns, dragons do not exist and can never have existed, reptilian or otherwise.

The problem is magic seems to follow somewhat different rules from modern science.

Slamlander wrote:
The definition of 'construct' is simple; something that is made, period. Take a cat and add a pair of bat-wings, as well as enough IQ to make him a real pain-in-the-ass smart-mouth, and you have Ellis, a construct.

A problem with pure logic is that it can be 100% correct, in form, and 100% wrong, in conclusion.

I know pure logic, and this isn't it... And as most people who know it, I also think I know something about how to correctly use it as a tool.

The reason I'm so obsessed with establishing what we mean by construct in this discussion, is because it became obvious that there were wildly different opinions on what it meant.

Quote:
Latin cōnstruere, cōnstrūct- : com-, com- + struere, to pile up; see ster-2 in Indo-European roots.


And I disagree with your definition of construct. The main definitions are largely tilted towards something consisting of multiple parts, assembled or devised.

You definition fits better with something that is created, a more generic definition.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 9:40 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
Rakshasa wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
Does that then mean that you agree that Ellis is a construct?

That is outside the scope of the argument I made there and I fail to see how you come to that conclusion. I can only assume you are mixing together unrelated arguments I've made.


Actually, I started off saying I was a bit mystified. Yes, it was indeed because I was inadvertantly mixing unrelated arguments. Thanks for the clarification.

Rakshasa wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
Actually, there is no cannonical evidence for either. I only mentioned what he looked like. We don't have enough details of Ellis' fabrication to know, either way. It's indeed possible that we wasn't at all born with wings and they were created by magic, polymorph or otherwise, during his construction. Equally, there is no support for him being able to breed true (exit, the DNA discussions). Although, he seems to have functional equipment for breeding, there is nothing that leads us to believe that the kittens wouldn't be normal kittens.

We do know that one of the familiars with wings, the unicorn, does breed true. Although I admit there's a possibility the wings are crafted on afterwards, it doesn't seem that likely to me.


You might have a point ... if unicorns had wings. They don't. They are only a horse with a single horn growing out of its forehead. As Meji said, "A giant phallic symbol". That they are partial to virgins makes that worse, actually. I believe that you are mistaking a winged Pegasus for a unicorn. Pegusii do not have horns.

Rakshasa wrote:
But I guess that is the discussion we should really be having, which is why I'm making a point of getting the right definition of construct. And if the wings really are added after birth, it does make it possible constructing is involved if it is not a mutation/growth during their life-cycle.

On the other hand, if we are dealing with true-bred creatures, do you agree that they are not a construct?


Yes, I would so agree. But there is no support for the argument that Ellis is true-bred.

Rakshasa wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
The definition of 'construct' is simple; something that is made, period. Take a cat and add a pair of bat-wings, as well as enough IQ to make him a real pain-in-the-ass smart-mouth, and you have Ellis, a construct.


The reason I'm so obsessed with establishing what we mean by construct in this discussion, is because it became obvious that there were wildly different opinions on what it meant.

Quote:
Latin cōnstruere, cōnstrūct- : com-, com- + struere, to pile up; see ster-2 in Indo-European roots.


And I disagree with your definition of construct. The main definitions are largely tilted towards something consisting of multiple parts, assembled or devised.

You definition fits better with something that is created, a more generic definition.


We may have to agree to disagree here. The word 'construct' in the fantasy genre takes on the definition that I gave, a more colloqial definition. The definition that you give is not complete and I disagree to being limited by it.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:08 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 345
Location: The Astral Plane
Slamlander wrote:
You might have a point ... if unicorns had wings. They don't. They are only a horse with a single horn growing out of its forehead. As Meji said, "A giant phallic symbol". That they are partial to virgins makes that worse, actually. I believe that you are mistaking a winged Pegasus for a unicorn. Pegusii do not have horns.

No I'm not... The assumption of wings is based on the fact that the unicorn familiars of this world can fly as per Ellis. We also know that flying by magic alone is generally considered an unsolved problem, which would make it unlikely they'd have a wingless horse amongst themselves for so long.

Slamlander wrote:
Yes, I would so agree. But there is no support for the argument that Ellis is true-bred.

There is support for both sides, which is not the same as no support.

Slamlander wrote:
We may have to agree to disagree here. The word 'construct' in the fantasy genre takes on the definition that I gave, a more colloqial definition. The definition that you give is not complete and I disagree to being limited by it.

Restricting us to the fantasy setting, I have only ever heard the word construct to apply to things like golems or mechanical items, where the mage assembles from components. So I'll have to disagree with your claim of it being a colloquial definition.

Words that would fit from a fantasy perspective is transmuted, polymorphed or mutated.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:05 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:23 am
Posts: 490
Location: none
Slamlander wrote:
The definition of 'construct' is simple; something that is made, period. Take a cat and add a pair of bat-wings, as well as enough IQ to make him a real pain-in-the-ass smart-mouth, and you have Ellis, a construct.

So, if I take a guy who lost one leg and one hand, stick a pet on one stump and a hook on the other, does that make him a "construct" as well? If I take one species of apple tree known for a strong root structure, and graft on branches from another species that's known for high fruit productivity (a real-world agricultural practice), is that a "construct"? There are lab rats with human ears growing out of their backs and bacteria that produce human insulin. Are they "constructs"? Personally, I'd say "no" to each of the above questions.

As for Ellis, the reason I'm reluctant to call him a construct is that he clearly has a metabolism-- he eats, sleeps, breathes, and bleeds. To me, that says "life form". Whether he's been bred, gengineered, or grafted, he's still a critter (or varmint, depending on your perspective).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:12 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 11:25 am
Posts: 2561
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Ellis is a familiar. That's about as much classification as we've actually been given.

Do you really <i>need</i> to know if he was produced on a magical assembly line vs. bred from a line of magical animals? How will arguing it back and forth help you to determine if he was... the comic hasn't said either way, so regardless of the outcome of your argument it's still anyone's guess. All this discussion will only determine your personal theory, and not the actual reality of the situation, so I sure hope you're all having fun with the argument instead of just taking it too seriously...

^-^'

_________________
I <3 Parker


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 12:54 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
:roll: :-o :confused:

:-D :lol: :-D

You think we're serious? If we were serious, you'd be seeing all sorts of canonical links :-3 :lol: :lol:

:wink:

Nah, just spending a slow Sunday afternoon in quiet conversation :-) . Rakshasa is pretty good at it when he wants to be :wink:

Gotta go eat the sushi I just made :-)

_________________
Image


Last edited by Slamlander on Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 1:00 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 8:40 am
Posts: 1090
Location: Nyon, CH, near Geneve, on the shores of the Lac Leman. The heart of Suisse Romande.
BloodHenge wrote:
Slamlander wrote:
The definition of 'construct' is simple; something that is made, period. Take a cat and add a pair of bat-wings, as well as enough IQ to make him a real pain-in-the-ass smart-mouth, and you have Ellis, a construct.

So, if I take a guy who lost one leg and one hand, stick a pet on one stump and a hook on the other, does that make him a "construct" as well? If I take one species of apple tree known for a strong root structure, and graft on branches from another species that's known for high fruit productivity (a real-world agricultural practice), is that a "construct"? There are lab rats with human ears growing out of their backs and bacteria that produce human insulin. Are they "constructs"? Personally, I'd say "no" to each of the above questions.

As for Ellis, the reason I'm reluctant to call him a construct is that he clearly has a metabolism-- he eats, sleeps, breathes, and bleeds. To me, that says "life form". Whether he's been bred, gengineered, or grafted, he's still a critter (or varmint, depending on your perspective).


Clearly, your definition differs from mine. But, I would argue that a cyborg might indeed be a construct, although it has biological components. A life-form is not exempt from being a construct, by the definition that I gave. However, there is disagreement over that definition and you seem to be operating on yet a third definition. I'd be interested to see you say what it is.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:21 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 345
Location: The Astral Plane
Imp-Chan wrote:
Do you really <i>need</i> to know if he was produced on a magical assembly line vs. bred from a line of magical animals? How will arguing it back and forth help you to determine if he was... the comic hasn't said either way, so regardless of the outcome of your argument it's still anyone's guess. All this discussion will only determine your personal theory, and not the actual reality of the situation, so I sure hope you're all having fun with the argument instead of just taking it too seriously...

Discussion is not just about putting forward one's own personal theory, but also about trolling for new details often hidden in the subconscious of one self and others. And in the end, you don't often get a resolution, but you do hope to get well defined premises and their resulting conclusions.

It is often said to be mental masturbation for a good reason, but that doesn't mean it doesn't do some good even if it is kinda pointless. And a sticky mind is a relaxed mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:12 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:22 pm
Posts: 362
Location: MA, USA
You know, the one thing I've wanted to see a discussion about for years now is the comic-world's wardrobe. Seriously, have you looked at it? The only non-Farrellian instance of a button that I've picked out is Sarine's wardrobe-upgrade. Now that is world-building.

_________________
Initiated by, adopted evil minion of: Insane_Megalamanic.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 3:58 pm 
Offline
Expatriate
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:25 am
Posts: 144
Location: Out playing CalvinBall.
Quote:
Lots of arguing about definitions, and a largely overlooked reference to Occam's Razor.


Whee, glad I stopped in.

_________________
Rar.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 5:57 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 4:01 pm
Posts: 150
normalphil wrote:
You know, the one thing I've wanted to see a discussion about for years now is the comic-world's wardrobe. Seriously, have you looked at it? The only non-Farrellian instance of a button that I've picked out is Sarine's wardrobe-upgrade. Now that is world-building.


It seems the buckles/straps that Meji's and Sarine's (old) cloaks are pretty much alike. They even leave the bottom one unbuckled as some sort of fashion statement. Prolly an elf thing.

_________________
I'm gonna snap!
Magic Ability = Right Place X Right Time + Being Raped By a God. ~ Reason


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:41 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:11 am
Posts: 304
Location: The South...
Ian wore buttons all the time.


And for the heck of it, Etsuko has some zippers.

_________________
***Kitty says, "Rawr".***


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:48 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 10:22 pm
Posts: 109
I've seen weirder a DnD style world with Denim jeans for instance.

In regards to the guy with things grafted onto him I'd agree with the cyborg definition. You aren't building the guy from scratch your adding things to a a base product. If its mechanical parts e.g. hook, pacemaker he's a cyborg if its biological components e.g. animal tail, eyes that see in a different spectrum he's a bioroid.

I'm personally disinclined to trust any claims that someone is a construct when they require you to link a dozen different definitions together to get that result espeially since any decent english dictionary usually has about half a dozen or more defnitions of any given term.

Yes the unicorns can fly as was mentioned earlier when Ellis said they were so inbred they could barely do more than fly and poop at the same time. So it seems like wings are a fairly standard addition to the Tsurakian familiar line. We know Ellis has wings, we know unicorns have wings, we know the unicorns breed true therefore its likely Ellis's race breeds true and the wings have been part of him since birth.

Either way Ellis is not a construct even if they did add the wings onto him instead of their being a part of his race it still doesn't make him a construct just a bioroid and I don't think they are additions.

EDIT
Yes Bloodhenge that is what I was saying.

I thought we were debating the definition of construct using Ellis as an example rather than specifically what Ellis was. A subtle but important distinction since we can reach a generally agreed upon use of a term in a specific medium given reasonable people on each side.


Last edited by Senko on Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2007 7:54 pm 
Offline
Local

Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:22 pm
Posts: 362
Location: MA, USA
bellofthedamned wrote:
Ian wore buttons all the time.


And for the heck of it, Etsuko has some zippers.


What Ian was wearing before he stole the priest's outfit didn't, the priest's coat was some kind of massive clasp. The outfit he mugged off the old man in Saus didn't. The 'Outdoorsman' getup he bought in Tsuiraku did, at least that's probably what's clustered up there at his throat. But I'll bet you it isn't tsuirakan native dress, and likely Farel-influenced (where else is a Tsuirakan clothes-designer going to get a template for what constitutes wilderness explorer wear?).

_________________
Initiated by, adopted evil minion of: Insane_Megalamanic.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group