A. Undead can spontaneously re-animate, but only in certain areas.
B. Creatures can achieve unnaturally large size, but only in certain areas.
C. Creatures can appear in approximately humanoid forms, but only in certain areas.
> A single source of mana, especially with, as you describe, a single conversion process, will not explain these results.
Why not? The sun is a single source of finite sunlight, yes?
There also exists no method by which to convert sugar back into sunlight, no?
Yet cacti or marigolds only grow in certain areas (full sun) and lavender and ferns only grow in others (shady spots).
Multiple sources are unnecessary to explain local differences -- they can simply have different amounts of mana. It is also unnecessary to explain spheres (spheres can just be different levels of sunny and shady spots of mana, and/or synergistic combinations of mana + other factors like how it interacts with lots of vegetation). And mana storage or transit is unnecessary either way -- with or without multiple types of mana.
I NEVER invoked altruism.
Implied it. Which organism is going around converting perfectly good chemical energy or whatever back into mana, and why is it doing that,
what does it get out of the deal? That energy is going to go back into a communal pool, only some of which it might get back, when it could have kept it all for itself.
Just divert or block the field. No need for it to run out.
If the field is getting diverted or blocked, then there must be something in place to KEEP it blocked. Due to like reality unless noted, I consider "mundane" the default, and mana a deviation from that default, a reverse of the position you outline. Your solution also implies that at some point the block will STOP and the magic will come back, which we do not observe. The magic goes away, and STAYS away. I prefer to explain this in terms of continuous local mana production, which creates a reserve that can be depleted and run out.
No offense, but why does it matter what you arbitrarily "preferred" or "considered" previously? That's not a game design argument. It's just as good at face value either way, yet mana on by default comes out significantly ahead, because it offers a significant benefit in simplicity by not requiring multiple conversion methods (even MORE conversions for multiple kinds of mana), not requiring as complex of an ecosystem, not requiring altruism or whatever elaborate explanation is needed for it not to be altruism...
It also offers a much simpler explanation of evolution, which I didn't mention before. If mana is vast in reserves and has been available since the dawn of time, etc., then of course organisms would evolve to use it if possible, over millions of years. IF, however, it is very finite in reserve, to the extent it can run out in a single fortress game, then there is pretty much ZERO chance that organisms would have evolved both a chemical reaction chain to harness it, and a separate chain to refill the reserves, all in what... 10 years? Evolution takes thousands and millions of years, during which time the reserves would have to not go empty in order to not have cut off the evolution process (if they run out even for a month or a year, all those organisms die and the development ends).
> This also permits two game scenarios I want:
A. A player embarks on an undead biome with the intention of wiping out all the undead. With local sources and reserve of Death mana, the player can deliberately remove the sources to starve out the undead.
B. A different player can create Death mana sources in a formerly undead-free area for the challenge and/or the laughs.
A) The player can just do something to block the mana access. Most likely something analogous to whatever nature is doing to shade certain areas from mana more than others.
B) The player can do the opposite, knock out the metaphysical cobwebs and let the mana flow in higher intensity which above some threshold starts turning things into zombies.
And/or as suggested above in this post, spheres can be some combination of mana + [other context]. In which case adjust the two scenarios above to = a combination of mana flow control and changing the context. Such as amount of vegetation combined with mana flow rate (high flow or raw mana + lots of normal vegetation makes nature mana in the area, etc.). So to alter mana, you might block or remove obstacles to mana flow, AND go cut down or plant more trees, etc.
7. Undead are not the only magical creatures. I invoke magic to explain giant animals and animal men as well. All are primarily found in certain areas because they require certain kinds of mana, which is only found in those areas. This directs and controls the variety.
Birds use sugar to fly. Humans use sugar (disproportionately) to think. Elephants use sugar to grow really big. Lamps use kerosene to light a room. Airplanes use kerosene to fly through the air. We already know in real life that a single energy source can and will be used for hugely different purposes. Organisms in particular almost universally use the same basic energy and the same basic energy reactions.
Doing it the same way with mana is the simplest and most intuitive approach -- i.e., the animals are evolving (or being manipulated by necromancers) to use the same generic form of extra energy in different ways. The animals are primarily the difference in how it manifests, not the energy source. Although the amount of energy source does matter too, regionally, it's still not the main source of variety. After all, animal men and giant animals live in the same place. And eyeball grass and zombies live in the same place. Quite a lot of local diversity in the game already.
A. However, all three CAN be found outside those areas, but usually nearby. I invoke an internal storage of mana to explain this behavior.
If you have a big brain and you stop eating for a couple of days while you make a weekend trip outside of your main feeding zone (on Earth), you don't just drop dead. Remember, I'm not suggesting that these animals not store their energy. I only said they don't need to store the MANA ITSELF. But the mana can still be used to drive the formation of mundane chemicals (like fat reserves or ATP or whatever else), which you can then store and use later to get through rough times. (or perhaps some creatures cannot, like maybe zombies, which might allow you to make them indeed drop dead instantly when you turn off the mana, just like you want. Again, diverse
animals are the diversity, rather than the energy source)
the Death mana source plants would have internal storage of mana. Killing one of them is likely to release that energy for a one-time, but significant, increase in the area's Death mana. Challenge!
This seems inconsistent with the fact that there are not big spikes of weird events when things just die normally in the game in their own areas. When I kill a giant jaguar just while out hunting or whatever, it's not like everything around it gets 30% bigger or something. It also seems inconsistent with other organisms being able to store and absorb mana from each other, because you setting off your spell would just be like, dinner, to all cave animals nearby, yes? It also presents a lot of logistical problems regarding the need to keep all of your specimens ALIVE up until the point that you need them. How do you keep a live tunnel tube in your alchemy lab when a tunnel tube is like 40x the size of your alchemy lab, etc.? Also come to think of it why do you need to study alchemy for 40 years to just look up a chart of mana and go kill something of that type for whatever you need? This seems like it has a lot of issues.
It seems more intuitive and more dwarven to me for alchemy to not be sspellcastery things (even in very high fantasy, dwarves are pretty much never wizards), but instead be the academic-flavor study of practical mana manipulation. Examples of things it does:
1) Splicing new organisms, sort of like GMOs, to maybe be faster or stronger with mana supplements by gaining organs or oganelles that convert it.
2) Necromancy is a sub branch of alchemy, and sort of an advanced, quicker, long range form of #1.
3) HERE is maybe where learned alchemists may be able to devise batteries for storing mana itself.
4) Making artificial converters. The equivalent of mana solar panels, instead of relying only on cave plants and natural conversion sources.
5) The art of using mana to help run machinery like pumps
etc.
This scenario comes across to me as "have your cake and eat it too." If magic is demonstrably present, then I would rather not bother with "THIS part is plausible!" fringe science. Just eat the cake and explain things with magic.
That's not what the phrase having your cake and eating it means...? I really don't know what you're saying here.
Limiting a necessary evil to... only the necessary amounts of it is
perfectly logical.It's "evil" because it promotes laziness, hand waving, and bad storytelling if you just use it to get out of puzzles that have other solutions.
It's necessary (perhaps) because if we TRULY can't explain certain critical plot points any other way, then the story won't get told at all.
You should only use it to exactly the point needed to be able to tell a coherent story and no more. Your "respecting science" page references this point in detail and the logic behind it
several times.