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

[John Hogg <johnhogg@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

On Thu, 5 Nov 1998, Kris Ames wrote:

> John,
> 
> Hmmmm...I think the original question was still valid.  They are immobile
> by itself is not clear.  Maybe it is to you, but us engineering and
> physics types are big into relativity :)
>

Well, Yeeeeeeehhhhaaa Doggie!  Wut wuz ah thinkin'?  Aw wuzzunt reedin'
y'all's posts!  Been a Journalism type, ah wuz jist copy editin' 'em.

Oh, and if you would like to recreationally discuss the theoretical
applications of time dialation, please let me know.  Oh, silly me, did I
mention I came here, years ago to study physics?  What WAS I thinking.

And here Texas A&M was offering me a scholarship.

Relativity arguement for you:

Blue fields can't happen.  Energy and matter are neither created nor
destroyed, merely transformed (now where did I get that theory?).  As
such, to go from having mass to having no mass (immaterial) would require
a (likely exothermic) release of energy.  As no such expendature occurs,
save a faint blue glow (bonus points for determining the candlepower of a 
formerly 1 kg target), blue fields don't happen.

Oh, but wait, it's MAGIC in a GAME.
 
> A couple of your statements might have been a little biased and appear to
> be your opinion. 

You think?

>This is fine, 

Thanks for your permission.

> but opinions that haven't been agreed upon
> by other GMs I really don't think make an immutable or strong e basis for
> an argument for why a ruling should be one way or the other.  For

They make a wonderful basis for an argument.  If I took an agreeable
rhetorical stand on a topic all participants agreed on, there would exist
no argument.

> example, almost none of the elemental spells specifically state that some
> of the element in question must be within touch distance of the caster. 
> Very few spells have a clause like this the vast majority do not.  Now I
> would agree that some fire spells don't work well underwater, but I view
> this not because water element opposes fire but because the effect of
> these spells (producing flame) are immediately extinguished by the water.
>  In real life water will put out a fire no matter how that fire is
> produced (oxidizers aside here).  Lack of Earth would not cause a blue
> field to not exist other than by made up qualifiers that aren't in the
> book.

If a spell were not element specific, at least on some level, it would be
core.  There's also a difference between saying I advocate touching earth
for the spell to work (I don't) and saying I think earth ought to exist
within the dimension one wishes to cast an earth spell (I do).

> Now if the GM group voted on and agreed with the idea that the
> element of the spell being cast must be present within blah radius in
> order for the spell to work, your logic would be valid.  But as of now I
> know of no such consensus.
>

Insofar as "If the group voted and passed the idea... blah (and it was
implemented into the game)" Yes, you are correct.
 
> The other statement which was a little questionable was "They are
> intended to be immeterial and immobile".  Yes the book right now says
> these things but intended is an iffy statement since they were mobile and
> material for MANY, MANY years.  They were changed by Dan to prevent some
> specific bends.  Mainly the building material use which wasn't really a
> bend.
> 

You seem to be arguing my point, but not reaching my conclusion.  The
arguement goes like this:

"they were mobile and material for MANY, MANY years."
"They were changed by Dan to prevent some specific bends."

going with the earlier posted progression of blue fields:

1)	mobile and matterial	(many years)
2)	immobile and matterial	(1 wk)
3)	immobile and immatterial(since last year)

Now, seeing they changed from 1 to 2 indicates that the way they were was
unsatisfactory.
As they then changed, within a week or two, to their current mechanism,
indicates 1) the immobility was satisfactory, 2) the immatterial aspect
was more desirable than the matterial aspect.

The progression indicates they were evaluated twice, and the current
incarnation is, SO FAR, the most desirable to those doing the evaluating.
Now, if someone want's mobile blue fields, propose them.  If someone wants
material blue fields, propose them.

> The purpose of this discussion is to believe it or not reach a clear
> concrete definition 

Correct

>(immobile relative to the nearest earth isn't that
> concrete..ie is stone earth, what if earth that is more earthy is moved
> within the area of effect,

I will re-word my position in a following, shorter post.

I will address the x ft radius in that post.

gotta fry up some possum for lunch ;)

John