Bay 12 Games Forum

The elemental did. And then dissolved, taking the amulet with it. Which is to say it doesn't work, exactly.

That's... actually somewhat understandable, if they were looking at the overworld at the time.

FREUD YOU PERVERTED QUACK ARGH

We was! We've got lots of better understand these days, so don't worry, it gets better as you get closer to the present. Mostly. Just avoid evopsych.

Then you should consult either a psychiatrist or a mortician, as you are either insane*or dead. *E: I just realized it would mean you would be, in fact, bugfuck crazy.

Sink the monkeyhumping hordemonger. You looted too widely, now you loot the ocean floor.

More like it depends if you consider perfection to be immutability or infinite virtue. I personally tend to say they're different sorts, which is why I said a "sort" of flawless. Once a thing cannot be changed, it holds no flaws because it has nothing that can be improved -- it only has degrees of virtue, but that virtue is naught but what it is and in that sense, as great a virtue as it can be. I AM the I AM, as it were. So upon the arrival of the present comes the perfection of immutability -- it has achieved maximal virtue, so to speak.

That thing in the future, of course, can be changed and is flawed. Different sort of (lack of) perfection -- it lacks infinite virtue. A broken thing may be made whole (or many wholes, as it may be) by the present, but it is still broken in the future.

This is the sort of conception that enables a person to stare at a wall for several hours and see beauty. Which I've done a few times. Yes, it's mental gymnastics, but it's mental gymnastics that for a time allows one to glimpse an approximation of the platonic form of brute existence, in all its glory. The flesh of humankind is perfect in the same sense a wall is. It is that it is.

No, no, please no stripping. As a general rule, I like the lie of form and flesh to stay put. The human form may be aesthetically pleasing in a sort of academic, observation-of-objective-perfection, way, but I have been socially conditioned to prefer not walking out of my front door into a massive sprawling wall of wang.

Hell desc, fairly sure it's bullshit as well, but when you're given a hypothesis, a means of testing it, and no conflicting resource allocation concerns, you might as well test it.

Don't have the means to see if making a radio transceiver dish out of baleen whale teeth would be effective, though. I doubt I could even rustle up the scratch to plate a dish in whaletooth. Also don't think that would do anything particularly useful, but better to test and know than not and not. The first thing to distrust is sense. The second is methodology. The third is sensory input. Then there's a bunch more things to distrust, yesyes.