Re: Brothers and Sisters ... Ayh have THE ANSWER (Touch the screen with me)

[Steve Ames <steve>]

> Not really, you were VERY specific in your details.  As such, I was
> pointing out that the first thing I would look at is how, IN ELEMENTAL AIR
> (which I believe the little pocket dimension is said to be made of ...
> dont have the book on campus) ELEMENTAL EARTH spells will function.  I'm
> not sure they would.  They're opposed.

Depends on how magic works. And we don't agree on that either. If your
a better and are storing up elemental earth magic you can probably
manifest it wherever you are depending on the spell affect. If your a
channeler it depends on if you are channeling elemental magic or magic
is magic and you are channeling it to produce elemental effects.

We don't agree on this either so raising another topic to point out a
potential flaw in a whole different discussion causes undue complications.

> You didn't just leave the planet, you left the dimension/phase of reality.
> It's not unheard of for adventureres to end up in a dimension where
> certain divine spells don't function ... why is it so hard to extend this
> to elemental?

It isn't. Source of magic. You questioned if a thing could work rather
than hypothisizing that it does and considering the consequences. 
Jevan said newton had left the building so I wasn't counting on anyone
else contributing to entropy.

> It ought not be that easy to move a blue field.
>
> They are intended to be immeterial and immobile.

So put up a hyopothesis that works in that way. Sheesh.

Say "Blue fields are relative to the nearest planetary mass".

Pretty simple to say.

> Putting as small a radius as 100-300  feet is simply too easy to tweak.
>
> Ex: mage with a pebble and fly/leap/giant stride, etc.

You misunderstood.

> > This, I think, makes most people pretty happy. If the water depth is
> > 100' or more you move wiht the boat.. otherwise you move with the
> > planet. I'd go with an even smaller number like 20' or so but you
> > get the picture (you do don't you?).
>
> Yes, you want blue fields to be mobile.

Nope. Said I didn't care as long as it was consistent.

> You're absolutely right, Steve.  Once I add about 5-10 caveats and
> conditions to a 2-3 sentence statement, it becomes so much simpler. 

Woa, sarcasm.

> And here I thought "Blue fields are immobile" was pretty simple.  What WAS
> I thinking?
>

That is not a simple statement because you do not define immobile. Immobile
compared to what? Its too ambiguous.

						-Steve