[Torg] Re: Axioms and PE

[Chad Dickhaut]

I apologize for the month's delay; lately I've had little time for more
than skimming my inbox for the purpose of determining whether to keep
or delete messages.

--- Jasyn Jones <jasynj at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Jun 10, 2007, at 9:32 PM, Chad Dickhaut wrote:

> If such arguments follow the pattern of the Tech argument above, then
>  
> the same counter-examples apply: PE can affect magic, that doesn't  
> mean that magic can affect PE. That's why it's a higher order
> phenomena.

Actually, in Torg cosmology PE does more than affect the axioms; it is
inextricably tied to them.  The flow of PE from the inhabitants of a
cosm serves to define the axiom limits, and the consistent, repeated
breaking of those limits by a sufficient portion of the cosm’s
population can drive them up.  PE is generated through the interactions
of the Living and Unliving, and the axioms define how the Living may
interact with the Unliving within a cosm.  This seems to me to indicate
a certain amount of reciprocity between PE and the axioms.  As such, I
would argue that while Tech (or Magic, Social, or Spirit) can never
fully comprehend PE and large-R Reality (it doesn’t see the whole
picture), it can apprehend it, however imperfectly.  If transcendent
abilities and effects cannot be understood in any part through the lens
of the axioms, by what frame of reference can they be made
comprehensible to the minds of creatures bound by the axioms?  The
Everlaws may be “above” the axioms, but they become largely meaningless
without the framework the axioms provide.

> 
> I'll stipulate that PE can affect magic, Tech, spirit, etc. However, 
> this in no way establishes or indicates that these phenomena can  
> affect PE. (Your argument is clever, but incorrect.)

Per the Eo2, PE is generated through interactions between the Living
and Unliving, which are governed by the axioms.  This seems to very
powerfully indicate that axiom-based phenomena can affect PE.

> >> PE is the fundamental unit of existence, and local cosm variables
> >> cannot order it around. After all, if PE is subject to natural
> laws,
> >> then that means the Everlaws are, and that means that tools can
> >> change the Everlaws. Madness!

Not true.  As I have stated, PE's relationship to the axioms is not as
one-sided as you make it out to be.  Besides, while the Everlaws
regulate PE in limited ways, the Everlaws are not PE, so if PE is
subject to axiomatic tools it does not necessarily follow that the
Everlaws are.

> > Just as mad as saying that the mass and volume of physical objects
> can
> > be manipulated.
> 
> Er, sorry? How does this follow?

Only that we can’t presently envision a way to increase or decrease the
mass and volume of physical objects, but devices can be built at Tech
31 which do just that.  At Tech 23 a shrink ray is “madness”, while at
Tech 31 it’s possible.  It’s not simply that scientists at Tech levels
below 31 haven’t figured out how to build a shrink ray, but rather that
such a device is contradictory at their Tech level.  Even if the
fundamental physical laws don’t change as one climbs the axiom chart,
they might as well be changing so far as Torg metaphysics is concerned.
 This, of course, defies our sensibilities.  If a tool utilizes a
“fundamental law” in order to operate, then why should it stop working
in a less advanced Reality?  Nonetheless, this is how Torg Reality
works.

> In the metaphysics of Torg, the Everlaws are the fundamental rules of
> all reality everywhere. Allowing a tool to change them is madness,  
> within the game that is Torg. 

The Everlaws are fundamental, but they are ultimately fairly limited in
their scope.  “Only one possibility from a set of two or more
contradictory possibilities can become a reality at a time.” “The
Living and the Unliving are linked by the rules of their reality,
possibility energy arises from their interaction, and the Living may
use this PE to create and change their world.”  “Part of reality (apart
from the Living and Unliving) is directly created by or through
Apeiros.”  “Some of the Living may amass and store larger quantities of
PE than the rest of the Living.”  There is much more to large-R Reality
than what the Everlaws cover; as you say, there is a host of additional
rules regarding PE manipulation, group powers, and the like.

Now, is any of this to say that a Tech 33 scientist should be able to
whip up a widget that entirely does away with the Eo1, or that a Magic
33 archmage should be able to crank out a cantrip that rewrites the
Eo2?  Not at all; DDs and E-shards can’t do as much (heck, Apeiros got
away with it only once!), so it would make no sense to allow an
inherently more limited axiom-based tool to do so.  Indeed, I agree
that it would not make sense to allow *any* tool (even a transcendent
one) to violate or revoke any of the Everlaws.  

It seems to me, though, that sufficiently advanced cosms should be able
to create tools which exploit the workings of those laws (however
imperfectly), allow for the detection and manipulation of PE, and
duplicate the effects of group powers.  You may not like the
implications of such tools, and certainly aren’t obliged to allow them
in your game, but it seems a bit much to me to bandy the term “madness”
about when describing them.  IMHO, that sort of hyperbole doesn’t serve
the discussion well.

 
(For example, it would lead to a  
> "reconnect me" gadget.)

It could lead to such a device, but it wouldn’t necessitate it.  There
is much within the scope of Torg which is possible but realistically
unattainable.  A Torg player character could theoretically design a
spell that coats the Earth in gold, invoke the divine to turn the
world’s oceans to blood, build a ray that transforms one species to
another species, or create a supermeme that turns those affected by it
into pacifists.  In the hands of PCs, any of these things could be
“game-breaking”.  On a practical level, though, these are extremely
unlikely to come into play because such things as the PCs’ skill level
and available resources are going to render such things effectively
impossible to them.  One might use such an item as a MacGuffin to build
an adventure around, but I just can’t see such things becoming common,
re-usable tools for the PCs (barring the indulgence of a pathologically
permissive GM).

> More, this argument is irrelevant: I didn't make the "always subject 
> to" claim. What I said was far more reasonable and accurate: This  
> evidence indicates that PE violates physical laws, and (AFAIK) no  
> evidence indicates the opposite.

You didn’t explicitly make the “always subject to” argument, but it’s
implicit in your argument (even as you’re rephrased it).  If PE can
violate physical laws and manipulate technology, but technology cannot
perceive or manipulate PE, then Tech is always subordinate to PE.  The
distinction is so fine as to be meaningless.

> > Does a Summon Demon spell mean that Spirituality is always
> > subject to Magic?
> 
> Demon's aren't Spiritual, in Torg. This may be a mistake (I've argued
> so, in the past), but this is the case.

Demons may be summoned by magic and they might require Magic 9 to
physically manifest, but the fact that they can be turned by Ward Enemy
indicates that there is more to them than whatever magical component
they might have; they are as Spiritual as they are Magical.

> > Just how common do you think Tech (or other axiom) 33 cosms are,
> > anyway?   I mean, really.
> 
> It's irrelevant, as I pointed out. Arguing that these devices should 
> be restricted by axiom is, in practical terms, an argument that these
> devices should be restricted.

I don’t believe that we’ve ever disagreed on whether such devices
should be restricted, but rather how and to what degree they should be
restricted.  You prefer to preclude your existence altogether, and I
prefer to make them possible, albeit extremely unlikely.  As such, the
commonality (or rarity) of Tech 33 cosms is germane to my argument.

> I prefer to restrict them in such a manner as to make a Tech 33 cosm 
> playable, you prefer to restrict them in such a manner as to make a  
> Tech 33 cosm unplayable.

Not at all.  Your assumption that a Tech 33 cosm as I envision it would
be unplayable seems to descend from the notion that because a tool is
possible within a setting that it will be common enough to disrupt
gameplay.  I contend that this idea is incorrect, because it ignores
considerations such as the tool’s availability, its energy consumption,
and the skill level required to operate it (and that’s all provided
that the tool has already been constructed and wouldn’t need to be
built from scratch).  After all, fairly sophisticated nuclear weapons
are possible in a Tech 23 cosm, but their destructive capability does
not make Core Earth unplayable because they are not readily available
to or constructible by PCs.  I find the thought of running an adventure
in a Tech 33 cosm to be fairly daunting, but it’s not because I’m
afraid that every Joe Blow is going to have some ridiculously
unbalancing Reality tool.

> I'm building my axiom charts so that they anticipate and support as  
> many cosms/settings as desired.

With the exception of cosms and settings such as Kadandra and the Star
Sphere which have developed axiom-based Reality tools.  That’s fine if
you don’t desire such cosms, but your axiom charts preclude the use of
such cosms by others who might desire them. 

> I don't assume the limits of vanilla Torg.

Right, you’re assuming an entirely different (in some cases more
restrictive) set of limits, and you’re within your rights to do so. 
For that matter, I don’t assume vanilla Torg’s limits either; my
extrapolation of existing material on Reality-tech is an extension of
the existing material just as much as your formulation excises portions
of it.  While I don’t like your approach as much as I like my own, I
don’t think your way is invalid.
 
> My argument isn't "no one should ever know these truths" but  
> "individuals who know reality is plastic should be rare, no matter  
> the axiom levels." This makes Storm Knights and High Lords  
> exceptional, not run-of-the-mill.
> 
> How useful is "run-of-the-mill" SK's?
> 
> I'm sorry, you can't counter my reasoning by sneering at it: it is  
> solid, even if you disagree.

Right, I get that.  And my argument is that such individuals will be
rare regardless of whether or not the upper levels of the axioms can
begin to apprehend the nature of PE and reality.  In my reckoning,
cosms with any axioms sufficiently advanced to begin to apprehend
Reality would be so rare that their inclusion within the body of proper
SKs and HLs would hardly make either SKs and HLs “run-of-the-mill”.  It
seems to me that any cosm with an axiom of 30 would be exceedingly
rare, and that axiom 33 cosms should be rare to the point of being
effectively unique; indeed, cosms with (an) axiom(s) of 33 may not
exist at all except as a conceptual abstraction.  Your argument seems
to imply that if any sort of Reality tools become available outside
your proposed limits anywhere in the Cosmverse that soon every SK and
her thrice-dead grandmother (Occult ritual gone horribly wrong; don’t
ask) will be bristling with ridiculous, game-breaking tools.  I’ll
admit that such isn’t likely your intent, but that seems to be a
consequence of your rhetorical thrust.  I apologize if I seemed to
sneer at your argument, but I find it difficult not to smile a bit at
that sort of overstatement.

> You are asserting that I am crusading for a change to the canon: this
> is patently false.

No, I’m asserting that your proposed changes invalidate portions of
previously established Torg material irrespective of your intentions. 
Whether or not that is a negative thing depends entirely on how
attached one might be to those portions of canon.  For instance, I like
the idea that Kadandra has stumbled onto some of the workings of the
Cosmverse without the intervention of a DD or E-shard.  It allows them
to be a palpable help to Core Earth without having all the answers
themselves.  It allows a GM to build a scenario that pits Scitopianism
against scientific hubris: where Kadandran science forges ahead with
unshakable confidence precisely because of how much it *doesn’t* (and
ultimately, *cannot*) understand.  I like the idea of an ally for Core
Earth who isn’t directly tied to the Apieros/TNO struggle (as would be
necessary if Reality effects were only available through transcendent
means), an ally who has better reasons for not just stepping in and
winning the P-Wars for Core Earth than “the Prime Directive/our
philosophy forbids it” (*shakes fist at Space Gods*).  YMMV, of course,
but that’s where I’m coming from.

> It isn't in the canon Magic axiom, and it isn't in my Magic axiom.

Right.  It’s an extension of the idea of Reality-tech.  I don’t think I
asserted otherwise, but I’m sorry if any of what I wrote appeared to do
so.

> This just isn't a crusade against the canon. It's only my refusal to 
> extend the material in ways I find obnoxious.

Fair enough.  Likewise, my intent isn't to harangue you, but rather to
explain my position further.




       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's 
Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when. 
http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222