Ironing out the Elementals.

Quote :

Your interpretation of my point is completely wrong.

Mainly because you never explain yourself adequately.

Quote :

The mating with fairies is more mystical or magical than biological one.

Did I mention biology?
Nope.
Of course it is magical/mystical.

Quote :

hereditary with spiritual entity that's more speculation than fact

That's true. But we only have speculation.

Quote :

Are you kidding, none of this elements are really homogeneous even air is not. And how they can't be unformed as they are the result of natural formation. The difference between artificial and natural is a artificial iis the exploitation of a natural resources to fulfil the needs of a creator.

homogenous as defined by argonics.com
"Of uniform composition throughout."

All the things that I mentioned above are, homogeneous.

Quote :

But as I said the choice can be misled they doesn't make the perfect choice.

Who's doing the misleading? Or do you mean they made a mistake?
Anyway, if they make a mistake, they're going to try to rectify it. Nobody wants their body made of sub-optimal materials.

Anime-Junkie wrote:

Mainly because you never explain yourself adequately.

I did my best.

Anime-Junkie wrote:

homogenous as defined by argonics.com
"Of uniform composition throughout."

All the things that I mentioned above are, homogeneous.

No they are not.

Anime-Junkie wrote:

Who's doing the misleading? Or do you mean they made a mistake?
Anyway, if they make a mistake, they're going to try to rectify it. Nobody wants their body made of sub-optimal materials.

No, it's not making a simple mistake or trying to correct it. Any natural process can be altered in its original state by an external factors natural or artificial, willingly or not which can create irreversible change during the development stage. To be clear natural phenomenon can be hijacked or distorted and give a different result than would normally happen.

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

Anime-Junkie wrote:

Mainly because you never explain yourself adequately.

I did my best.

Anime-Junkie wrote:

homogenous as defined by argonics.com
"Of uniform composition throughout."

All the things that I mentioned above are, homogeneous.

No they are not.

Anime-Junkie wrote:

Who's doing the misleading? Or do you mean they made a mistake?
Anyway, if they make a mistake, they're going to try to rectify it. Nobody wants their body made of sub-optimal materials.

No, it's not making a simple mistake or trying to correct it. Any natural process can be altered in its original state by an external factors natural or artificial, willingly or not which can create irreversible change during the development stage. To be clear natural phenomenon can be hijacked or distorted and give a different result than would normally happen.

examples of natural phenomonon that have been hijacked include any river known for flooding that now has a dam on it. that's just one, I am sure there are others.

Gwada, do not derail another thread with your arguing. By homogenous, it doesn't mean that water has to be made of one atom to be uniform all throughout, but that its atomic structure is composed of two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom. Sea water and river water both have that composition. As for your point about glass and stone, an Elemental doesn't possess one massive boulder which will then be reshaped into an anthropomorphic form? Most likely, the stones would be cut to look more lean, but there would be spaces of soft material to act as joints. Your pointless arguments where you nitpick minuscule details is irritating quite a lot of persons I talk to on Ventrilo, and I am one of them.

Sean Okotami wrote:

Gwada, do not derail another thread with your arguing. By homogenous, it doesn't mean that water has to be made of one atom to be uniform all throughout, but that its atomic structure is composed of two hydrogen atoms with one oxygen atom. Sea water and river water both have that composition.

I'm not derailling or something like that water can have it property altered by the different mineral it can absorb like salt water can be less dense than fresh water they are not made of pure water whose the property are a bit different but water mix with different mineral which can have some consequence on their initial creation

Sean Okotami wrote:

As for your point about glass and stone, an Elemental doesn't possess one massive boulder which will then be reshaped into an anthropomorphic form? Most likely, the stones would be cut to look more lean, but there would be spaces of soft material to act as joints.

Obsidium can have a similar treatment or you can find some sand elemental with part made of glass too. What's really the problem.

Sean Okotami wrote:

Your pointless arguments where you nitpick minuscule details is irritating quite a lot of persons I talk to on Ventrilo, and I am one of them.

I know you don't like when people have divergent opinion than your I don't care too much about thta I'm just voicing my opinion. Respect it, that's all I ask to you and the other persons.

Guh. I've upheld my word so far, and not gotten involved in any Felarya discussions here. However, I will say this, as it pertains to SCIENCE and ONLY SCIENCE, as it's pissing me off that no one has said the obvious to you, Gwada.

"Homogenous" means equally distributed throughout. Air is homogenous. So is water. Not all earth is, but much of it is. Do you take in approximately equal amounts of nitrogen, oxygen, and water vapor with each breath? Yes? AIR IS HOMOGENOUS. I don't see anyone choking because they suddenly took in a "chunk" of water that happened to be somehow floating around.

Homogenous does NOT mean "composed of one element or compound", like you seem to be arguing. No, no, no, no. It means "a solution that is equally distributed". See, I've said it again, so everyone is clear. Water is a FUCKING HOMOGENOUS SOLUTION. That's all.

Peace out, yo! I've stated what I needed to.

The problem with you is that you keep on arguing and arguing when it's clear that you're not convincing anyone and moving on would be much wiser. Like right now. Moving to another subject instead of uniformity and bickering about obsidian and minerals being so dramatically different it needs to be its own type.

As the core of an elemental is something you're better off explaining with magic than science, may I suggest we take a break for a second. We all have our own views on what magic is; as it is something that cannot be studied in reality we only have our imaginations as a way of explaining it. So unless we as a community can give a definition of magic, which would take a lot of fun out of the subject, we aren't going to fully agree on a matter such as this. We all view things differently. There is probably a reason why the explanation on elementals is so vague; it allows for our own imagenation to provide an explanation that fits our view. While that does leave the door open for some outlandish ideas, so be it, the whole concept of an elemental is outlandish.

So, we can either come up with something concrete and effectivly chain ourselves to a post, or we can leave it open and accept the fact some ideas will be 'out there.' For those ideas that are out there it is up to the author to make them work in their story. Remember just because the material is in front of you doesn't mean you need to use it; all this bickering about ideas and concepts which may or may not fit your own personal view is a quick way to burn yourself out.

ZionAtriedes wrote:

Homogenous does NOT mean "composed of one element or compound", like you seem to be arguing. No, no, no, no. It means "a solution that is equally distributed". See, I've said it again, so everyone is clear. Water is a FUCKING HOMOGENOUS SOLUTION. That's all.

I admit I make a mistake on this point and I overreact a bit.

Sean Okotami wrote:

The problem with you is that you keep on arguing and arguing when it's clear that you're not convincing anyone and moving on would be much wiser. Like right now. Moving to another subject instead of uniformity and bickering about obsidian and minerals being so dramatically different it needs to be its own type.

It won't be the wise choice to move as it won't help me to understand why I failed to convince and how I can be more convincing in the future. I decide when I move not you. Let's be clear on that.

While I agree with Cauldronborn in some aspects, we still need some level of consistency here. While we may differ on how elementals work, I believe that we should have some basis for what they can make their body out of.

Lastly, Calling out each other for minor details that do not impact the main point is not conducive to consistency. An example is only ever that; an example. It is meant to show a point in action, it is not a point in itself.
Nitpicking derails threads.

Here is the problem: the current description alludes that literally everything can be an elemental, regardless of how ludicrous the concept is. This needs to be ironed out. What constitute an element needs to be defined as a good basis is key to good ideas to expand upon it. Because as of now, the definition lack proper basis. The most logical conclusion, since Elementals are highly magical, can only merge with something exuding a lot of magic or can easily be manipulated with magic.

Sean Okotami wrote:

Elementals are highly magical, can only merge with somethinging a lot of magic or can easily be manipulated with magic.

That line there brings us back to the definition of magic; what if, in your definition, any form of matter can be easily manipulated with magic? What is magic to begin with and thus what things exude it? I'm sure the 'definition' and rules of magic I use will be vastly different than the next community member's thus we will have differing views and ideas on what can and cannot be minipulated by magic.

If you want to better define elementals then you'll be better off making something specific for them, rather than delving into the pandora's box of magic in general. I suppose the best start would be to define 'element' and stick to that definition.

But what is an "Element" I may ask? The key problem here is that Felarya's Elementals are partly based on mystical concept of Elementals where they're essentially sentient magic representing one of the four elements. While they are like this to an extent in Felarya, a lot of novices aren't catching on and they assume an Elemental can be made out of anything, simply because it's a spirit possessing something else. This is no longer really elementals, but more like generic spirits possessing inanimate matter, with a few exceptions like trees. If they are supposed to be like the mystical elementals where it's a magical representation of a natural force that gained sentience, boundaries must be erected in order to keep something familiar and easy to understand. If it isn't, then their name is a complete misnomer and should be changed.

Sean Okotami wrote:

But what is an "Element" I may ask? The key problem here is that Felarya's Elementals are partly based on mystical concept of Elementals where they're essentially sentient magic representing one of the four elements. While they are like this to an extent in Felarya, a lot of novices aren't catching on and they assume an Elemental can be made out of anything, simply because it's a spirit possessing something else. This is no longer really elementals, but more like generic spirits possessing inanimate matter, with a few exceptions like trees. If they are supposed to be like the mystical elementals where it's a magical representation of a natural force that gained sentience, boundaries must be erected in order to keep something familiar and easy to understand. If it isn't, then their name is a complete misnomer and should be changed.

Mayhaps there is a middleground to this discussion?

Here's what I've been thinking.

We know that Felarya...
- Is highly magical
- Constantly emits a magical field that passes through living and non-living things
- Each thing reacts to this magical field differently, which is why water, for example, would "feel" different to a mage than, say stone
- This is often used (at least by me) to explain why mastering more than a couple schools of magic is extremely difficult. They all require completely different ways of thinking

Now, what do we know about an Elemental?
- An Elemental is a sentient mass of magical energy
- In its "natural" state, it is formless, and unable to interact with the physical world
- Elementals bond themselves to other things to allow themselves to interact with the world
- The bond is permanent

My own theory about the bond is that the Elemental actually intertwines its own magical field with that of the material it is possessing, which creates a new, hybrid magical field that effectively makes the physical material, and the sentient energy one, single being. This process cannot be undone once completed. Its not just the Elemental and the, say, dirt anymore. The Elemental IS the dirt, and the dirt IS the Elemental.

Now, onto my main point. If we assume that the Elemental is actually merging its own magical field with that of inanimate matter, would it not make sense for simpler, more homogenous matter (earth, air, fire, lava, metal, etc, etc) to be easier? The magical fields of those kinds of materials would be constant throughout. It may also be the case that controlling a homogenous material is easier for the Elemental once the process is complete. That is why you almost never see an Elemental possess heterogenous material, even if it could. The process is much more difficult, and actually controlling the new body would be more difficult than it has to be.

So, in theory, an Elemental may actually be able to possess a junkyard, like Gwada proposed. But no sane Elemental would even try. It would continue its search for a body, and look for a more suitable material to merge with. An Elemental is stuck with whatever it bonds with for the rest of its life, most of them are going to take their time and pick the perfect material. They're not going to just merge with any old thing.

It makes sense to have elementals bond to a mass of homogeneous matter. (Or energy, as we have Magic, Electricity and Fire elementals).

However, the big sort of issue to work around then with that definition would be nature elementals - they are inhabiting something that is a complex, living mass, which is, if you think about it, radically different from what other elementals do.

Jætte_Troll wrote:

It makes sense to have elementals bond to a mass of homogeneous matter. (Or energy, as we have Magic, Electricity and Fire elementals).

However, the big sort of issue to work around then with that definition would be nature elementals - they are inhabiting something that is a complex, living mass, which is, if you think about it, radically different from what other elementals do.

Indeed.

Nature Elementals are definately the oddballs of the bunch.

Alongside Darkness Elementals, and their opposite I want to obtain recognition, Light Elementals.

rcs619 wrote:

So, in theory, an Elemental may actually be able to possess a junkyard, like Gwada proposed. But no sane Elemental would even try. It would continue its search for a body, and look for a more suitable material to merge with. An Elemental is stuck with whatever it bonds with for the rest of its life, most of them are going to take their time and pick the perfect material. They're not going to just merge with any old thing

I want to clarify this point, I'm not proposing the elemental to possess the junkyard nor machine or something else but the mineral nature of the metallic components found into the junkyard are accidentally trapped into the process of the creation of the elemental body. Not the elemental choose to possess willingly the whole junkyard but due to the fact the it were located on the birth place on the elemental makes it has some consequence on the body creation. It doesn't create an junkyard elemental but just an earth elemental corrupted by the junkyard. The whole pollution elementals thing is not really new type of elemental nor pollution count as an element but just a corruption or impurities happening during the creation of the elemental body.

Sean Okotami wrote:

Alongside Darkness Elementals, and their opposite I want to obtain recognition, Light Elementals.

Light has nothing to fear contrary to darkness which is more metaphysical and the proprieties varies depending the writer and the universe, in Felarya it seems darkness has a physical substance you can subtance as an unknown homogeneous substance with different properties as the plot demands. You can define light easier than darkness.

To clarify Cliff's point: Yes, it's possible for an elemental to possess polluted earth or water, but why would they choose to do that is what Cliff is saying. Also, I don't care, there are Darkness Elementals, I want Light Elementals to make things full circle, dammit.

In Felarya Darkness can have essentially supernatural properties, assumably based on magic. Since this is sort of a "super-darkness" that elementals form themselves out of, there is no reason not to be able to have light with supernatural properties and have elementals thus, in a similar fashion, compose themselves from it.

As for nature elementals - they are a strange case but a popular and widespread form of elemental. They are divided into Wood and Floral elementals, which does suggest that they must inhabit a specific sort of plant matter and can't just posses a swath of forest, for example.

However, plants aren't exactly a sentient creature, though alive. As well, it would be possible to find a fairly large amount of homogenous plant matter. Thus, I would say nature elements are possibly, but should be the "limit" of complexity of the material allowed. So, nature plant elements would work, but "animal" (meat?) and "machine" elementals would not be. (Both of those are better represented in constructs - flesh and mechanical golems, for example. Though flesh golems might not be possible as that creeps onto Necromantic territory. Unless you used living matter. But that's just messed up.) As well, possession of a created object would not be possible. (Even if, somehow, a spirit DID possess an object, I would not call it an elemental. I doubt any spirit would do that willingly, but there may be a few exception examples with non-willing spirits).

Sean Okotami wrote:

To clarify Cliff's point: Yes, it's possible for an elemental to possess polluted earth or water, but why would they choose to do that is what Cliff is saying.

Because it's accidentally happened.

How accidentally? The spirits are sentient. They can tell if something would be good or not by just looking at it.

Sean Okotami wrote:

How accidentally? The spirits are sentient. They can tell if something would be good or not by just looking at it.

I stop you here, it's clearly state not all the spirits are sentient or has all a human level intelligence.

gwadahunter2222 wrote:

Sean Okotami wrote:

How accidentally? The spirits are sentient. They can tell if something would be good or not by just looking at it.

I stop you here, it's clearly state not all the spirits are sentient or has all a human level intelligence.

They wouldn't even need intelligence.

If, for example, Salmon have the instincts to travel back to the river they were born in (and that's only one of many incredible animal abilities), then a non-sentient elemental probably is born with the instincts to know what is good, and not good to merge with.

I'm done with you gwada. I'm done trying to address each of your nitpicks. If you can't use simple common sense and reasoning and need everything laid it in front of you in order to even make you acknowledge something simple, discussing with you in this thread is not only a waste of time and energy, it's also making more posts that could have been dedicated to come with a solution for the problem established in the original post. Good night.