Jump to content

The Eternal RP Debate


Recommended Posts

my conservation of energy law says that there is no battery that recharges itself. Beat that.
there's tons of devices to make a battery recharge with solar energy, heat, mechanical energy and what not, but the battery doesn't simply recharge over time. If it did, there would be a whole lot less problems in the world, and we'd have to rewrite all physics-books.

And there's that subtle difference between being bound to something and residing somewhere.
I agree that a lot cultures wanted the body to be objected to certain rituals and parts of it kept safe for the soul to find rest.
But none of them believed that the soul was trapped in some part of the body. In fact, they believed that the soul was bound to be restless for evermore if the body was completely destroyed, like you told us about the Egyptians. That implies that they were fairly certain that the soul was NOT some molecul, atom or other, but something beyond physics, chemics and biology, but something spiritual. spiritual doesn't know the organic-inorganic thingie, it doesn't work there.

And... the worst thing to happen are more splits, not like this was something absolutely uninteresting xD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Burns, humans obey the law of conservation of energy too. We don't just "reproduce" either: we require chemical and other energies to rebuild cells.

So by your logic, a battery is just as organic as a human is. It is being fed energy and it's level of order increases as it gains energy. Just like humans, it decreases in order as it finally reaches its death.

So then what is the difference between organic and inorganic? Well, there isn't one, they're just words. People attempt to make a distinction (organic things have carbon: but what about carbon dioxide? baking soda?), but in truth there is no set line.

In this sense, the argument is flawed from the beginning due to relying on such imprecise terms.

Awi

Edited by awiiya
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Burns' date='28 May 2010 - 05:12 PM' timestamp='1275084736' post='60555']
And there's that subtle difference between being bound to something and residing somewhere.
I agree that a lot cultures wanted the body to be objected to certain rituals and parts of it kept safe for the soul to find rest.
But none of them believed that the soul was trapped in some part of the body. In fact, they believed that the soul was bound to be restless for evermore if the body was completely destroyed, like you told us about the Egyptians.
[/quote]

This was not the case in Egypt. The egyptians in fact believed that the soul resided in the actual organ of the heart- this is why it was the only organ that was carefully wrapped and then replaced back into the body after all the other organs had been removed. Because the soul was so inadvertently tied to the body, this is why the body was thus preserved and the heart, the home of the soul, replaced so that the soul, the Ka, could find its way back to the body every day in order to perpetuate itself and its identity. Souls weren't just lost if a mummy was destroyed, it was devoured into oblivion (Amut) altogether.


[quote name='awiiya' date='28 May 2010 - 06:45 PM' timestamp='1275090330' post='60557']
So then what is the difference between organic and inorganic? Well, there isn't one, they're just words. People attempt to make a distinction (organic things have carbon: but what about carbon dioxide? baking soda?), but in truth there is no set line.

In this sense, the argument is flawed from the beginning due to relying on such imprecise terms.

Awi
[/quote]

At this point, I'll have to acquiesce a poor choice of words also. I suppose we should just stick to natural and unnatural?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but Awii, batteries don't reproduce cells with extra-energy, but only push electrons from A to B iirc. They are only able to hold energy, but if you scratch their edges, they don't 'heal' like organic things do. They also don't grow bigger when you overfeed them. So i would think that, at least in classical chemics, there's a sharp destinction between them, it just gets harder as they find new things...

And now that we talk about natural/unnatural again, what makes you consider players as unnatural?
Unnatural things are such that don't occur in nature, like a White Khalazdad Cube (see Khalazdad), an Elemental Cube (see Golemus), or a Wooden Cube (see first chapter of story).
Natural things, on the other hand, are those that don't need man's influence to be there, like Wind's Crossing and Raven's Peace. Other creatures are rather not natural, by my understanding, like Aramors and Tormented Souls, but that's a different argument i guess.

Given that, would you rather put a player in natural or unnatural? (Within the intrinsic logic, metalogic could argue that chars are made by the person who plays)
And when you agree that they are natural, why would they not be able to give birth? There are only so many animals that can't, like those donkey-horse halfbreeds for example (mules and hinnies), are players in MD such sterile halfbreeds in your opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ But that's just it- I [i]don't[/i] agree that we are natural beings! *chuckle* That's what I've been trying to say. The cubes we all reside in are artificial constructions, and I've spent a good chunk of my past few posts explaining why I feel that we as beings who reside within these cubes and whose lives are mapped out on the inside of them such as the world of MD is through metaphor via the different lands it encompasses would thus also be artificial constructions. Therefore, what I've been saying all this time is that I feel that the artificial such as we are cannot possibly create from ourselves something that is natural (aka babies in this instance) if we are artificial ourselves to begin with- we simply wouldn't have the tools to work with given those parameters- unless of course that sort of paradox is just one of the many mysteries of MD.

I've explained all this better in my previous posts here in this thread, and as it is very nearly 3am for me as I write this, you might be better off just going back and reading them for better clarity in what I mean here. :D:)):))

Edited by Aysun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahm...
And when we all are artificial, why are our babies not?

Same argument as post 30, with exchanged signs, something artificial can create something else that is artificial, like robots designed to built other robots. the internet is full of them, ai that creates more, or even changed ai, usually called polymorphic viruses.
I mean, we could consider the existance of different races, like humans and cyborgs, in MD, but... where's the indication for that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Burns' date='29 May 2010 - 08:45 AM' timestamp='1275140759' post='60582']I mean, we could consider the existance of different races, like humans and cyborgs, in MD, but... where's the indication for that?
[/quote]
Who needs 'em? We have knators, aramors, and grasans. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542']
Inorganic things do not occur in nature, that is the whole purpose of it being termed 'inorganic' to begin with. If nature created it, then it would be organic. If man gets its hands on it, alters its molecular properties into a beast of a thing that can never occur naturally on earth, then it is inorganic.
[/quote]


As Burns said, for something to be organic, it is merely a carbon compound. Nature created both the organic and the inorganic, water is not organic yet it readily appears in nature.
I will henceworth refer to the above concepts of organic and inorganic as true-organic and true-inorganic.
I ask you to please make a clear distinction between them because you have been arguing two different concepts of organic and inorganic.


[quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542']
I feel that natural/unnatural are interchangeable, in this instance, with organic/inorganic. What was created by the world and what was fabricated- like unto the cube we are in. Since in md we are literally in a cube, the philosophical aspects of it then become the literal, and that is what we're left to work with, I think.
[/quote]

We have established that natural/unnatural are not interchangeable with true-organic/true-inorganic.
The terms organic and inorganic are ones we coined for use in this thread, thus I agree they could be interchangeable with natural and unnatural. I also agree that we could be dealing with the philosophical aspects as our literal, and therefore refer you to my earlier post: the organic and inorganic are intersecting sets.

Your arguement is that because we are inhibited by an inorganic construct that is fashioned by us, we must therefore be inorganic. Addtionally you therefore postulate that something organic cannot give rise to something inorganic.
(please correct me if i am mistaken)

Thus you are proposing that organic and inorganic are mutually exclusive, whereas my argument is that they intersect.
I will rephrase my previous question (which I just saw had a glaring typo in it)
Why would something organic not be able to break from the confines of something that is inorganic?

I do not see why something organic cannot produce something ingoranic, are we, organic humans, not able to create inorganic machines?

Even if what we are producing stems from our thoughts, why would we not be able to break the barrier?

I believe this example was posted by Mur: elephants are tied to stumps when they are young so that they cannot escape, because they are still young and small they fight all they can against it but cannot break free, when they grow older they are tied to the same stump yet do not even try to free themselves because of the limitations that they think are there, even though they could snap the rope easily.

This is not a natural (organic) limitation, it is one we force upon it.
Surely this does not mean that the elephant is therefore inorganic?


[quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542']
I think it is possible for something organic to [i]affect[/i] something else that is organic and thus make it inorganic (our periodic table is proof of such endeavours), however we cannot, say, conceive a child by the regular means that would therefore be some sort of freak inorganic thing.
[/quote]

Here you are using the notion of true-organic, rather than organic from above. We have already established that true-organic and true-inorganic appear in nature.
In fact, we, as human being are both true-organic and true-inorganic. 70% of our body is water, thus true-inorganic, yet the very building blocks of our energy, glucose, is true-organic (a hydrocarbon)

Thus by regular means we would not conceive a child that is true-inorganic, but that is both true-organic and true-inorganic.
Incidentally, this mirrors my proposition that organic and inorganic intersect.

If you like, I will post a venn diagram to further illustrate my meaning of the intersections.

[quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542']
And so, my point is that the organic produces the organic but can make what is already organic inorganic after the fact, and in a similar fashion that which is inorganic cannot produce something that is organic- they simply do not have the composition to do so. The inorganic would produce more of itself which is therefore also inorganic.
[/quote]

Certainly, if something is purely true-organic, anything that it makes of itself would be true-organic, but this has no relation to use or the cube we are in, as you yourself have said we are dealing with the philisophical aspects as the literal.

[quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542']
With regards to the soul, I cannot personally think of any more innately organic than that. A shell, which is ultimately inorganic, can have a consciousness that was put into it, but does consciousness constitute an actual soul? It is the argument of "Ghost in the Shell", and a very complex one in and of itself that I think perhaps warrants closer attention but probably not here, heheh.
[/quote]

Why could an artificial soul not be created? Or why could something inorganic not have an inorganic soul?
I am reminded of the modified souls from Bleach, suh as Kon or Nova. The latter was even given a true-organic body.
I agree that this is not the place to delve into such debates lest we lose what little semblance of the topic of this thread was left.

[quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 06:38 PM' timestamp='1275064684' post='60542']
It's similar to the analogy I used earlier but I shall modify it since you have me thinking of souls now- you yourself can, right now, remove or break out of your synthetic, inorganic clothing, however your organic soul cannot break out of its organic body. If we are to use Ghost in the Shell as another example, even Kusanagi can send her ghost/soul out of her shell along the lines of the ethernet, but her police partner who is 100% organic human cannot. It is another tantalizing clue that if she *does* have a soul, it cannot be held back by the inorganic shell if she chooses.
[/quote]

You have just refuted your own argument that something organic can break from the bonds of something inorganic :D
I must disagree though that Batou is neither 100% true-organic nor 100% organic. He is a cyborg, remember that he was a ranger (which is why he has the occular implants) and can be ghost hacked.
Kusanagi is a prime example of the insersection of the organic and inorganic which I proposed.


[quote name='Aysun' date='28 May 2010 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1275077551' post='60549']
As for transplanting a soul, one could say that is what has taken place in MD- [background=black][color="#000000"]a soul/consciousness of some varying degree has been placed within an artificial confine (the cube) and we grow at the price of sacrificing marind- or our carefree child-like naivete. Thus if there *had* been any sort of transfer, it wasn't done cleanly.[/color][/background]
[/quote]
The cube is a confine which we impose upon ourselves, not one that was placed on us by others (although I would say it is both really)

[quote name='awiiya' date='29 May 2010 - 01:45 AM' timestamp='1275090330' post='60557']
So then what is the difference between organic and inorganic? Well, there isn't one, they're just words. People attempt to make a distinction (organic things have carbon: but what about carbon dioxide? baking soda?), but in truth there is no set line.

In this sense, the argument is flawed from the beginning due to relying on such imprecise terms.
[/quote]

This is why I would like to make a distinction between true-organic and organic.
The importance is not on what words are used but on the meaning behind them. We can refer to them as red and blue or anything else for that matter as long as we can differentiate between them.



I have not seen how any of the "child alts" have been portrayed, though I am admittedly not travelling around much lately, I will not condemn their role play without witnessing them first hand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Burns' date='29 May 2010 - 08:45 AM' timestamp='1275140759' post='60582']
Ahm...
And when we all are artificial, why are our babies not?

Same argument as post 30, with exchanged signs, something artificial can create something else that is artificial, like robots designed to built other robots. the internet is full of them, ai that creates more, or even changed ai, usually called polymorphic viruses.
I mean, we could consider the existance of different races, like humans and cyborgs, in MD, but... where's the indication for that?
[/quote]

Because in this instance, Sagewoman is suggesting that she conceived and gave birth the old fashioned way, thus meaning that she did so biologically. If we are artificial constructions, this shouldn't be possible.


@Rendril: Please take a look at my second to last post-- I agreed with Awiiya that at this point, the terms organic and inorganic had become the wrong ones to use.

[quote name='Rendril']You have just refuted your own argument that something organic can break from the bonds of something inorganic.[/quote]

I'm not sure how you think I did so there, but I'm interested to hear your explanation of how I might've. I personally don't see it, but it's easier to understand your own logic than to explain it sometimes so I'm guessing I wrote something funny and it got misinterpreted. ;)

Edited by Aysun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your argument was that because we are limited by an inorganic construct, we are therefore inorganic. Yet your example of Major Kusanagi shows that an organic soul can break from the limitation an inorganic shell.

As I mentioned, the wording used is irrelevnt, I merely wanted to make a distinction for clarity. I have already stated why neither view of organic/inorganic could hold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rendril' date='29 May 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1275190907' post='60606']
Your argument was that because we are limited by an inorganic construct, we are therefore inorganic. Yet your example of Major Kusanagi shows that an organic soul can break from the limitation an inorganic shell.
[/quote]

Right, and as my argument was that our souls are inorganic because our cubes are inorganic and still keep us trapped, the idea of Kusanagi, who in theory has a real human ghost, being able to break free of her shell and travel the internet makes sense since her organic soul could not be bound by an inorganic shell, yet we are inorganic constructions here and thus bound by our inorganic cubes that we cannot break free of.

It still holds. ;)

Edited by Aysun
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who says that a not-biological being can't conceive and give birth?

I mean, sure, the good old robots with the steel arms and two finger per hand can't, but this is a realm of magic where a land is created by accident, souls are captured from dreams and spellcasting is as common as walking.
In such settings, golems who can spawn other golems are very possible.

Take a look at creationism: Adam is made of clay, Eve made of his rib, and some godly spark makes them alive, and capable of having children. If god can do such in his worlds, why would a wizard not be able to in ours? Not any wizard, maybe, but Mur? Or even each of us, if we are the gods of our phantasyworlds in MD?

Magical beings are definitely artificial in a sense that they are not born by a female, but if enchanted properly, they could conceive and give birth just fine, see creationism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aysun' date='30 May 2010 - 09:01 AM' timestamp='1275202890' post='60608']
Right, and as my argument was that our souls are inorganic because our cubes are inorganic and still keep us trapped, the idea of Kusanagi, who in theory has a real human ghost, being able to break free of her shell and travel the internet makes sense since her organic soul could not be bound by an inorganic shell, yet we are inorganic constructions here and thus bound by our inorganic cubes that we cannot break free of.

It still holds. ;)
[/quote]
You have yet to provide any reasoning as to why specifically an inorganic being could not break from an inorganic confine.
Since you are arguing only this special case, your example of Kusanagi serves no purpose in your attempt to strengthen your agrument.
To illustrate, you are using it to say this:
A, given B, therefore C. (what we know)
Now, D, given B, therefore E. (the deduction as a result of what we know)
Surely you see that they don't share the same premise.


The fundemental reason that your argument does not hold is this:
We break out of our cubes.

Even if we ignore all the other arguments (as you seem to be doing by neglecting to refute any that I put forth. I will therefore assume you argree with me), we can see by modus tollens that the premise does not hold (that is, the conclusion is negated and therefore the premise is negated)

The point of MD is not that we are in some inescapable cube. We are not confined to the cube because we are organic or inorganic. We have to challenge our limitations and transcend them.
The truth will set you free ;)


I must echo the question that Burns has posed, "Who says that a not-biological being can't conceive and give birth?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Rendril' date='30 May 2010 - 06:22 AM' timestamp='1275218545' post='60616']
You have yet to provide any reasoning as to why specifically an inorganic being could not break from an inorganic confine.
Since you are arguing only this special case, your example of Kusanagi serves no purpose in your attempt to strengthen your agrument.
To illustrate, you are using it to say this:
A, given B, therefore C. (what we know)
Now, D, given B, therefore E. (the deduction as a result of what we know)
Surely you see that they don't share the same premise.[/quote]

I've been using ghost in the shell (the movie- I know next to nothing about the tv show) to illustrate my point that synthetic things cannot hold back the natural (aka the shell cannot hold the ghost if the ghost doesn't want to be held) as an example. I don't know how what we know and what we assume from what we know has no relation to you. The pieces fit from what I can see, however your examples still don't seem to make sense in how you think they don't.


[quote]The fundemental reason that your argument does not hold is this:
We break out of our cubes.[/quote]

If we break out of our cubes, how come we're all still in MD? I think the ultimate premise is that we can [i]never[/i] break out-- all we can do is try to expand our horizons, widen the walls a little, but those walls will never break down because we are not all-knowing. We will always and forever be stuck in a cube. The question is, then, how do we deal with that?

[quote]Even if we ignore all the other arguments (as you seem to be doing by neglecting to refute any that I put forth. I will therefore assume you argree with me), we can see by modus tollens that the premise does not hold (that is, the conclusion is negated and therefore the premise is negated)....The point of MD is not that we are in some inescapable cube. We are not confined to the cube because we are organic or inorganic. We have to challenge our limitations and transcend them.
The truth will set you free ;)[/quote]

I've not avoided your arguments- if you're meaning the one you spent on how organic and inorganic are inaccurate terms, that point was already established two posts before you made that one, was agreed upon, and so your comments on that note were a tad late.


[quote]I must echo the question that Burns has posed, "Who says that a not-biological being can't conceive and give birth?"
[/quote]

Because giving physical birth to something is a biological process. Sure there's magic and dreams that can create things, but they cannot physically bear child-- they can only 'give birth' in the metaphorical sense.

Edited by Aysun
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote]
If we break out of our cubes, how come we're all still in MD? I think the ultimate premise is that we can never break out-- all we can do is try to expand our horizons, widen the walls a little, but those walls will never break down because we are not all-knowing. We will always and forever stuck in a cube. The question is, then, how do we deal with that?
[/quote]

I disagree quite strongly with this statement, especially the following - "We will always and forever stuck in a cube."

Forever is a long time, and infinity a most beautiful concept, simply because EVERYTHING happens when given infinite time. There is a slight probability that everything will happen, and given enough time, that slight possibility will become a reality.

I think we can break free of our cube, although often times we find ourselves in another cube. Is that to say that there is no way to eventually lack barriers and shed walls? No, certainly not.

And besides, if someone did break free of the "prison" of cubicity, it is my impression that they would be too busy enjoying the freedom to come back and tell us how to perform such an act of escape. To me, the dead and the free rarely return to speak.

Awi

Edited by awiiya
Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='awiiya' date='30 May 2010 - 10:25 PM' timestamp='1275276339' post='60661']
I disagree quite strongly with this statement, especially the following - "We will always and forever stuck in a cube."

Forever is a long time, and infinity a most beautiful concept, simply because EVERYTHING happens when given infinite time. There is a slight probability that everything will happen, and given enough time, that slight possibility will become a reality.

I think we can break free of our cube, although often times we find ourselves in another cube. Is that to say that there is no way to eventually lack barriers and shed walls? No, certainly not.

And besides, if someone did break free of the "prison" of cubicity, it is my impression that they would be too busy enjoying the freedom to come back and tell us how to perform such an act of escape. To me, the dead and the free rarely return to speak.

Awi
[/quote]

Again, I'll admit to perhaps a poor choice of words, but technicalities aside I think you understand what I was getting at.

I suppose also we've finally hit the line if subjectivity. I don't think any of us can truly be free of our perceptions- they can be altered over time, yes, but they'll still be there. And so, in my opinion, will there always be the cube. I think it could be this cube, though, that perhaps in part defines us as humans- because we cannot (in my opinion) break free of it, it creates in us flaws, and those flaws become the sum of our humanity.



Also, I think it'd be fun to start another discussion on this in a new thread, but it's just occurred to me that we've gone waaaaay off topic here. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Aysun' date='31 May 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1275274455' post='60659']
I've been using ghost in the shell (the movie- I know next to nothing about the tv show) to illustrate my point that synthetic things cannot hold back the natural (aka the shell cannot hold the ghost if the ghost doesn't want to be held) as an example. I don't know how what we know and what we assume from what we know has no relation to you. The pieces fit from what I can see, however your examples still don't seem to make sense in how you think they don't.
[/quote]
Yes and that is what the example illustrates, but your argument is that something is synthetic because it is held back by a synthetic limitation.
You have yet you say what makes this special case true.

[quote name='Aysun' date='31 May 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1275274455' post='60659']
If we break out of our cubes, how come we're all still in MD?
[/quote]
Perhaps because it isn't a cube?
Each person has a different cube, and more than one at that.
If you wish to make MD your cube, far be it for me to stop you.

[quote name='Aysun' date='31 May 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1275274455' post='60659']
I think the ultimate premise is that we can [i]never[/i] break out-- all we can do is try to expand our horizons, widen the walls a little, but those walls will never break down because we are not all-knowing. We will always and forever be stuck in a cube. The question is, then, how do we deal with that?
[/quote]
You might find that your limitation can become your freedom.

[quote name='Aysun' date='31 May 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1275274455' post='60659']
I've not avoided your arguments- if you're meaning the one you spent on how organic and inorganic are inaccurate terms, that point was already established two posts before you made that one, was agreed upon, and so your comments on that note were a tad late.
[/quote]
As I said, the terms used are irrelevant. In fact my argument is not on the accuracy of organic/inorganic, if that is all your garnered from it I feel there is an important cube that you still need to overcome.

[quote name='Aysun' date='31 May 2010 - 04:54 AM' timestamp='1275274455' post='60659']
Because giving physical birth to something is a biological process. Sure there's magic and dreams that can create things, but they cannot physically bear child-- they can only 'give birth' in the metaphorical sense.
[/quote]
That would depend on what you consider "birth". Your own words were that the philosophical is our literal.
I was under the impression that we were discussing this in the metaphorical sense.
It is my understanding that Sagewoman portray's a human character, so giving birth to a child seems plausible ;)
If we assume your argument and say she is an unnatural being, why then can she not have a birth in whatever way such a being would?

Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='Udgard' date='31 May 2010 - 06:10 AM' timestamp='1275279037' post='60662']
[i][center]Everything that has a beginning, has an end.[/center][/i]
If the cube was made, than at one time is shall be unmade.
[/quote]
Counterexample: N, the natural numbers have a beginning but no end.
The cubes were made and will probably be 'unmade' but if such an event happens after your characters' death, then to your character that cube will have always been there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice point.

I was referring to beginning of existence of in a timeline though. Still, good point, and it does show that not everything that has a beginning has an end, at least not in every interpretation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread recreates the history of chemistry. Organic/inorganic originally refered to source of a compound, living or dead. When they realized the same molecule could be made from either sort of raw material, the definitions got more technical, around the element Carbon.

Reproduction, once considered a hallmark of the living, is now a commonplace occurrence on your computer - in the form of digital viruses.

So to have meaning in life, the discussion must turn to the nature of the soul.... bringing us back to the topic.

There are so many metaphors for the child trapped in the cube, the gnostic christian soul without stains, the Hindu/Buddist soul without karmic burden, the born-again christian, capitalist trying to "think outside the box", folk songs encouraging us to find the inner child..... The child's skull is still soft so the brain can grow, the adult's skull hardens for protection and so limits growth. The snail is my favorite example, it builds its own shell for protection, then must live within its confines.

We roleplay to escape the RL shells we have built for and around us. We try alts to see what a DIFFERENT shell would feel like. In these ways, we escape our protective biases and limitations, and experience a bit of the freedom that is our birthright, is lost as we live, and we constantly strive to find again.

The only problem I see with "birthing" an alt is that it carries on the karma/history of the parent with it. It is not a clean start to try on a different shell. And so, THEORETICALLY, ought to be a less satisfying way to play, since the "escape" factor is diminished.

Edited by Fyrd Argentus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Forum Statistics

    16,164
    Total Topics
    176,460
    Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Recent Event Reviews

×
×
  • Create New...