Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolepgeek]

We connect them magically so they count as one creature for death magic. In swarms, so if they do get enough they can't kill them all. My point was that it would be relatively simple to create a WMD anyway.

[Remuthra]

Why are we plotting the creation of a whole range of WMDs? While we're at it, let's create a giant white-hot elemental fire golem, using fusion for energy, to simply burn everything? Cold would do nothing against heat that immense, and with a local source.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Words.

Sentient means the ability to know suffering, or at least experience. You know suffering. I know suffering. Dogs know suffering, even rats. Simpler creatures(insects), and plants, maybe not so much.
Sapience is essentially having a mind(that can create, etc.), and it seems to me the Troglodytes have none more advanced than a wise dog's(though if tool useage can be proven, early man). By which I mean they're probably driven almost entirely by instinct.

Ah.
I meant sentience in the sense that a creature is intelligent in the "conventional" sense; if forced to define it, I'd say it's something like self-awareness. I thought sapience was more along the lines of possessing a language.

Sure, duller, or even mentally disabled humans operate on instinct far more, but they're capable of learning and even of choice. Look at the bottom of the post for what I have in mind.

You and I seem to have differing assumptions about troglodytes. I assume they are sentient beings, perhaps dull by nature and certainly uneducated but full of promise. You assume they are barely more intelligent that canines. Meaningful discussion will be...difficult if we can't get any proof one way or the other on this matter. Not that I won't try.

Dogs lack free will in the.. what? Are you implying both humans and gods lack free will(not that I disagree)?

I have no idea why I said that, I suspect mental tyop.

Nobody has the decency to turn the elves back, do they? The people in that universe are complicit with the evil. Perhaps the point where we're misunderstanding each other is thus: I do not see it as evil to, in committing genesis, enable a creature to love doing a particular act, provided it's not completely detrimental or used in a detrimental way. But breaking in an existing creature, with an existing mind, would be far darker. Which was why I suggested morphing them into completely different beings in the first place, to erase what they used to be. Hell, we might be able to make them.. I don't know what, but more sociable.

You're still taking an existing person and making them into something fit only for servitude. It matters not how much you change it, only what you started with and what you did to it.

As it is, I see an opportunity here, in a compromise. We could have a force of public worker bug people devoted to us, while at the same time civilizing them, and making them smarter/more capable than their root being. We could make them enjoy serving us(though not necessarily bound to us like stems- we need souls), in whatever way we choose. Like a secondary population of willing-to-forgo-luxuries-in-service-of-god creatures. That way, they have some measure of freedom, will work for us implicitly due to their inbuilt faith, and count as citizens, essentially. I can't quite figure out a proper analogue for this. Zealots who serve their god because they love serving their god?

I really don't like the idea of binding beings to love us eternally. Not only does it sound not-possible and evil...as a practical consequence, imagine what would happen if the Empire of Tranquility found out about the possibility...

They're already reptilian.

Depends. Are these D&D trogs or DF trogs? The former are stinky lizardmen, the latter cavemen.

Or what'shisface the Jawa?

Jara.

Then why doesn't large animal life have chitin shells? Probably partially because lugging around effectively a suit of armor is hard work when you're large. When you're small, you don't give a shit because you're a goddamn tiny Hercules (beetle, that is).

Or possibly because creatures with chitin are pretty much confined to various types of arthropods, who for various reasons can't grow very large. Certainly a beetle or lobster's chitin can be almost armorlike.

Why are we plotting the creation of a whole range of WMDs? While we're at it, let's create a giant white-hot elemental fire golem, using fusion for energy, to simply burn everything? Cold would do nothing against heat that immense, and with a local source.

Excellent question. I assume it's because each side of various arguments keeps escalating the opponents' arguments.

[Gentlefish]

I don't think chitinous armor is a form of WMD ._.

Just tank armor when mixed with bone.

[Remuthra]

I don't think chitinous armor is a form of WMD ._.

Just tank armor when mixed with bone.

No, now we have H-Bombs (that was originally a joke), zombie viruses, and acid death bacteria.

[Origami_Psycho]

I don't think chitinous armor is a form of WMD ._.

Just tank armor when mixed with bone.

No, now we have H-Bombs (that was originally a joke), zombie viruses, and acid death bacteria.

Yippie kie yay motherfucker.

[Jbg97]

I still suggest corrupting the earth with chaos. Because fuck the environment, WE DON'T NEED NATURE WHERE WE'RE GOING.

[Rolepgeek]

Yes we do. We're life. Shush.

I'm calling them Jawas from now on. Cause they're baaaabies, and babies can't say R. So they're Jawas.

[Remuthra]

The rapid picture changes!
And every time someone mentions Jawas, I must invoke the Jawa sound.
Whooheehee!

[Gentlefish]

No WMDs.

Let's concentrate on thigs we need to put in our afterlife.

Lifesilk worms and flutterblazes. Eh? Eh?

They're simply for maintenence. Plus the flutterblazes, by sampling nectar, may cause a small mutation in the plant that will change it in some harmless, non-toxic way. Why? Because Chaos can be fun. I like neutral chaos.

[gman8181]

We can make angels capable of defending our afterlife and repairing it; I don't think we need butterflies in addition to angels.  Just seems like an unnecessary additional creation that only fills a single purpose that something else could already do in addition to other useful tasks.

Also I just don't feel like investing time and mana into butterflies.

[Koliup]

Words.

Sentience is experiences. Protein chains and bacteria and even sponges(apparently) and whatnot lack this. They're robots. Input output. Sapience is thought(and yes, language is a side effect), plus reasoning. What we're using right now to discuss this(or should be). Arguably any being that can grasp hefty ideas. Such as ceasing to be in all your entirety, or, possibly, the idea of god. Is sapient. As a side note, apparently some consider chimps sapient, and whether or not it is true it is very interesting.

I assume they(the Trogs) are no better than intelligent canines, or parrots, because we've no idea of their intelligence otherwise, and the chunk of their souls that is missing has to have been removed somewhere- I'm placing my bets on them having animal thought patterns(and have the idea that if we remove that and replace it with devotion, well..). If they're caveman smart, then excellent, we don't have to do much more work in shaping their brains to be built for non-caveman lifestyles.

The reason I suggested making them into new creatures was so they could start again as entirely new beings, with new intelligence and understanding. Instead of having to slave away at teaching the Trogs, we could have intelligent, loyal bug people. Or plant people. Or whatever we mold them into.

Grumugga has had some success with making orcs incredibly loyal. If we can't bind them to us, specifically, we may have to settle with making them enjoy serving under a higher power. Something the knowledge goddess may be able to help us with. Perhaps(one of) the most evil thing(s) to do with the Trogs would be to set up a pleasure loop system into their brain, blissing them into death. Also, they still have free will, as beings with souls, and can be spurned and leave, but lacking 'complete' souls, they'd be harder pressed to do such a thing. The only beings that love(serve) us entirely and unconditionally are our soulless creations. Another evil thing would be completely removing their free will, instead of enticing them to work for us.

Also, we're a young god and just considered something like this. The Empire has probably known about this sort of thing for years, if not decades, or even centuries! The only reason I can consider why they wouldn't do something like this is because of internal disputes(heh), or the fact it'd slash their mana income. They probably don't even need lesser-souled beings to work for them, after all, they're probably loading their people to the gills on propaganda.

[kaian-a-coel]

We can make angels capable of defending our afterlife and repairing it; I don't think we need butterflies in addition to angels.  Just seems like an unnecessary additional creation that only fills a single purpose that something else could already do in addition to other useful tasks.

Also I just don't feel like investing time and mana into butterflies.

I prefer having two specialized creatures rather than a single jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none.
Why do you think soldiers and engineers are two distinct jobs, like, everywhere?

[Gamerlord]

Posting to watch, same as the game thread.

[kaian-a-coel]

Thing I found.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)