Game/Fantasy World Questions/Comments/General Musings

Discussion in 'Multimedia' started by Lunex, Aug 11, 2018.

Watchers:
This thread is being watched by 2 users.
  1. calmchaos

    calmchaos Moderator Staff Member Senior Member

    Local Time:
    3:33 AM
    If we're talking specifically Danmachi, then I'd go with what Flame said since I'm not up to date on the LNs.

    In general though, I believe it depends on the intention of the dungeon. If the dungeon itself is man-made, then the number of entrances is arbitrary, as it would have simply been determined by the architect(s).

    Alternatively, there could be a different explanation if it's a natural dungeon, as in created by the natural elements and processes of the world like erosion or whatever. For example, if it was originally a cave created by an underground water source that developed into a rapids or something which was then inhabited by monsters after the fact, then the number of dungeon entrances would have been originally determined by the forces that created the cave in the first place.

    If we're taking a living or modular dungeon concept however, then it would definitely be determined by the dungeon's host, the being in control of the dungeon itself. Whatever that being decides is best is what's gonna happen, and the reasoning then boils down to why it was considered the best course of action.

    As far as whether the entrances can be in any way manipulated from the outside... I suppose it depends on the lore and material makeup of the dungeon. If the material is too advanced for outside forces or, like before, has some kind of "plot armor" such as a forcefield or whatever then it makes sense that something outside cannot affect anything inside. Otherwise, they should be able to.
    flamedog likes this.
  2. Lunex

    Lunex Bloody Lunatic... Senior Member Indiegogo Backer

    Local Time:
    4:33 AM
    I however am up to date in the LNs, as much as English readers can be, at least. Feel free to bring up anything you want on the spoiler thread if you want me to say something further.
    Actually the longer we talk about the series, the more it seems we should move to the spoilers thread.

    But from not looking at the written source, let me ask another question to put this into perspective. Assuming the dungeon is either a living creature or under the will of a living creature, why it might regenerate, then why does it have an entrance at all? If it were all about protecting it's core, than even if it were formed outside in, sealing itself of from the outside would be the wisest decision.

    Since there is an entrance, that would imply that either the will behind the formation either wants something to come in, or it could be thought of as an exit, and it wants monsters to come out. In either case, since the one known entrance is essentially capped off, and assuming there's still a will behind the cave system, than would it not be in it's interest under such circumstances to change its design to allow for other entrances/exits to complete this function?

    Now what flame says about people mapping the upper floors decreases the idea that an effort to expand to the surface in other ways has thus yet taken place. However, that still assumes that such an expansion happened on the surface floors. Considering the dungeon is supposed to be in a spiral form, that means it grows bigger the further down it goes. And I assume with growing danger the lower one goes, the less people stop to look for paths that don't lead up or down the way you want to go. What if there were paths from lower floors, even the lowest one, that led up to other surface floors, ones that adventurers hadn't mapped because it is in no way connected to the one under the city.

    Course, one thing going against my theory is that I think they established that strong monsters emerged from the one known surface entrance, so if such an entrance was around for a while, nations without upper levels would be overrun when things eventually came to the surface. Unless of course they'd been keeping it under wraps or the entrance/exits were extremely recent.
  3. flamedog

    flamedog Draeanale Senior Member Indiegogo Backer Parkour Master

    Local Time:
    4:33 AM
    Simply to eat. It needs no other entrance because enough people come into the dungeon as it is through the main entrance. Why not eat the monsters you ask? Because it's basically a part of it. It released parts of it's self to kill outside beings to feed on them.

    As for why it just doesn't block things off... it's a common point in Dungeon(not just dnamachi) lore that blocking a route to the core is a no go. In many ways as it is in dungeon logic that creating an unbreakable door with no possible way to open it would be super weak while an unbreakable door with a riddle to open it is almost (actually) unbreakable. There is always some hidden force that is there to balance both sides.
  4. flamedog

    flamedog Draeanale Senior Member Indiegogo Backer Parkour Master

    Local Time:
    4:33 AM
    Just another thing about monsters and what makes them... well monsters.
    Lunex likes this.
  5. Lunex

    Lunex Bloody Lunatic... Senior Member Indiegogo Backer

    Local Time:
    4:33 AM
    Let's talk a bit about necromancy. Rather, I want to bring up the idea of bringing the dead back to life.

    On the lower end, this is like zombies, skeletons, and any other form of deceased creature walking about as if it were alive, though its body is still decaying in the same way it would if it were still buried in the ground. Then on a higher end of the spectrum, you have actual resurrection, where the mind/soul/heart of a person has been restored in a previously dead body, which has resumed a level of decaying consistent with its normal living rate.

    Now, the actual point I want to discuss is, what should it take to actually bring life into the lifeless? Considering raising the dead is a violation of natural order, I should expect it's none to easy to pull off.

    Now in zombie movies, games, etc., sometimes it's a virus/fungus/parasite that takes over a body and carries out biological imperatives, i.e. find nutrients, and reproduce(somewhat loosely used, although I suppose biting and spreading the necessary materials to continue the process could be a bit literal.) In other cases, a villain will either directly control or leave programming in a corpse to make it do its work, or to ensure trespassers are stopped using tech or mystic powers. And in the latter case, it seems very possible to do. After all, a body can be moved very simply, after rigor, like it were a large puppet. And I suppose there is a tiny bit of evidence of the former case being possible, thinking of what cordyceps does to an ant that inhales it. Though I'm not sure if what happens after the ant dies could be considered a true zombie.

    However, at the higher end of reviving dead things the process is not so simple, is it? Two things have to be achieved, you have to reunite the lost essence of a person's consciousness with their body, and you have to make the body itself alive again. I'll leave the sci-fi possibilities to people who might know better than me what machines would need to do reasonably say someone came back to life.
    However, on the magical side of things, I would think it has to be a ritual. And not a simple one, seeing as there is no shortage of people who would like loved one's back from the grave. Now perhaps the ingredients are rare, the places at which such an event could take place scarce, but one thing I think would be essential and not subject to substitution is a crap ton of energy. Power that could pierce the veil to bring back what's been lost, to bind it back together with its old vessel, and perhaps to restart the organs. Of course, I still think the ingredients and place could be important, as you would have to find something to put the body in a state where it wouldn't keel off immediately after death, and perhaps doing the ritual at the wrong place could put strain on the subject to be reanimated.
  6. flamedog

    flamedog Draeanale Senior Member Indiegogo Backer Parkour Master

    Local Time:
    4:33 AM
    So I may not cover everything, but I thought I'd bring some ideas to the table.

    First on the undead and decaying. Depending on where they stand, I feel there is different grounds. So there is a novel called "Undead Seeks Warmth'. In it the MC is brought back as an undead. Now it's been a while since I read it, but within the dungeon/cave system he reawakens in his body doesn't rot. This is of course because of the coldness of the dungeon it's self. But also because of magic. Due to the dense mana within the dungeon, he is able to continue moving and retain his form.

    Anyway.... on to actually bringing things back from the dead. I don't believe this to be possible. Just straight up not possible. I'll of course for this talk be bringing FMA into this(sorry Lunex). Besides the huge amount of resources required as well as knowing the proper ritual or transmutation it's not even possible to begin to start even trying. Not to mention that once a persons soul passes on it's not possible to retrieve it in whole. The problem given to the Elrics(last name of the MC brothers) is of course of their own doing and Al even being possible to save was only possible for what they lost. Anyway, I'm getting off topic.

    It's not possible even with a Philosopher's Stone, once a soul has passed on to the other side, it's not possible for it to return. What would be summoned would most likely be a random soul or not even that but a hallow soul, soon to die from lack of proper binding and body. You may be able to create a new vasal or body, but you couldn't create something that no longer exists. It's on the levels of magic in Umineko. Something that doesn't exist can't exist. Anything said to be it is nothing more then a fake or what you knew to be true was a lie.

    For example, let us take say a one of a kind toy. It was a homemade gift given to the giftee as a present. It get's destroyed. From the giftee's POV and anyone looking upon it, it's not possible to bring it back to "life" be it if it has a soul or not. Now if what they knew were to say be a lie and it was actually a mass produced toy someone with such knowledge could claim(and be able to) bring the giftee's toy back to "life".

    In short, I don't believe it's possible to bring back what is no longer there. Now if their soul was to say be chained to a location I feel with the right resources/power, it'd be possible to chain the soul to a vasal.

    Zombies, well it's just that, mindless murder machines. Nothing more, nothing less.
    Lunex likes this.
  7. Cerberuspaw

    Cerberuspaw Senior Member Senior Member Indiegogo Backer

    Local Time:
    3:33 AM
    I've always been under the impression of those full revivals being something akin to incomplete backup copies. I imagine as one goes through life fragments of the soul are left behind with a persons experiences to that point being tied to them. The fragments by themselves are relatively weak and negligible but say someone is currently in turmoil or going through a period of peak emotions the shard/fragment that breaks off at the point would be a lot stronger. Assuming the strength of the emotion is strong it can be strong enough to affect the physical, like a ghost or a specter or a will o wisp. This soul could potentially draw more from the many more soul fragments left behind by the individual to draw on a more complete copy with more memories and experiences. Unresolved issues lead to vengeful spirits, a complete life becomes a ghost drawing on the residual power of the souls fragments to exist until the energy ran dry.

    But this 'ghost'/spirit is kind of like a makeshift copy. complete enough to be you but not complete enough that it is you. This soul can inhabit your body where it is compatible and revive. Though the longer the duration between being revived the more incomplete the copy becomes using its fragments to extend its life and thus burning away experiences and memories as well as corrupting portions of itself. Only the strongest emotion would be last to go which would lead to unexpected variations. But once revived the person in question is who you wished to revive but no longer the version you were familiar with. Many experiences that made them who they were would be missing. To revive someone in this way it would be best to try to collect these fragments together to make a more complete soul copy. But like flame said the original is lost.
    Lunex likes this.
  8. Lunex

    Lunex Bloody Lunatic... Senior Member Indiegogo Backer

    Local Time:
    4:33 AM
    Don't call it a comeback, I've been here for years.
    Seriously though, I meant to get back to this thread for a while, but I always found some way to distract myself. Now, firstly, we must return to our last topic.
    Well flame, as much as I admire the thoroughness of your example (despite not having watched the series you based it off of) I must bring up the fact that things are as possible or impossible as any one story needs it to be. As much as we are putting our own interpretation of things, the fact remains that there are stories where people have been revived, are revived, and will be revived. To what extent, we can probably calculate using some scale, or argue based on our interpretation, but I don't think we can outright dismiss something happening. Unless I missed your point, in which case, forgive me, 6 months of rust to shake off.

    And once again, I appreciate the thoroughness of this answer. For the first part, I suppose the most applicable comparison I can make for what your describing is like a complete jigsaw puzzle being slowly deconstructed, then people put the pieces back together, but some to most got thrown away, lost, burnt, eaten by a dog, etc. In which case, you seem to be part of the "a ghost is a lingering sentiment" camp. I interpret the situation of leaving behind thoughts and emotions more like footprints in the sand, they prove someone walked there, but they didn't actually leave part of themselves behind.

    On to your second part, I'm guessing you don't see a stabilizing period for your version of resurrection? I don't imagine that a revived person will be immortal in my version, but what I'm getting from what you describe is that they will rot/break down at a far more accelerated rate than a normal person. I can't say you're wrong, but one thing I might bring up is that, I think something your answer doesn't address is the possibility that this revived "copy" could try filling out the gaps left behind by its incompleteness. Living things lose things all the time, but at the same time, they constantly try to find new things so as to not reach 0. Even if it were an incomplete copy, if the process were to bring back enough that someone could call it "alive," would it simply stand around like a wax figure constantly melting?

    I won't disagree that you'll ever get back exactly what died, at least in my interpretation of what it should be like. After all, dying should leave some impression on the living.

    I may have a new topic later.
    Cerberuspaw likes this.
  9. Cerberuspaw

    Cerberuspaw Senior Member Senior Member Indiegogo Backer

    Local Time:
    3:33 AM
    I enjoy these discussions and look forward to the next topic
  10. Lunex

    Lunex Bloody Lunatic... Senior Member Indiegogo Backer

    Local Time:
    4:33 AM
    After 6 months, a new topic shall be born.

    So let's go back to discussing fictional worlds a bit. Something that occurs to me, playing games a lot or reading fantasy novels, is that there's a Northern Hemisphere bias in world building. What I mean by this is that up north is frozen tundra, down south is the tropics. And I suppose this makes sense, as the centrality of most story writers that I've experienced, if not all, would be that of someone who lives where this is generally the case, i.e. they live north of the equator.

    However, with that acknowledgement, the southern side of our world experiences the trends in reverse. North will be the warm, and south will be the cold. However, with all the stories I've seen, I've not once seen any cases of this taking place. Leaving alone that I've never seen any story that takes the idea that a Bahama-esque setting might be up on the map, and an Antarctic continent(though I figure South America would be most likely to have a writer produce such a story), I can't bring to mind anything that ever even brings up the two hemisphere model. I've only seen ice by going south when I was in a game where I went so far down on a map, I ended up back on top.

    But, delving away from realism, I also don't remember seeing, though I could envision, a world where the axis of a world was shifted by 90 degrees and we had Eastern and Western polar caps. Or alternatively, what if the ends of the world were volcanic fire pits all year round? In any case, there seems to be a trend of either a North Hemisphere construction encompassing the world, or one continuous environment (as is the case in a lot of sci-fi games). At least, from my experience.
  11. Cerberuspaw

    Cerberuspaw Senior Member Senior Member Indiegogo Backer

    Local Time:
    3:33 AM
    Its strange I've always thought that it was one of those situations where everyone says and does something for too long that it just becomes a sort of unspoken truth cold norths warm souths and deserts to the west/east. Suprised no one has gone into a deconstruction of the concept of regions and what could be a more in depth influence on the world then being generic set pieces to exist because they were needed back drops to a situation. These vastly extreme environments are handled in a manner similar to a kid experiencing a couple of holidays during the 4 primary seasons.

    On that note. I would love to see a series or game where the environment has more of a main role in a story. I want to see how much the narrative would change, Could a protagonist or Antagonist or just the general population make the same decisions if the threat of inclimate weather or ill suitable terrain made a significant impact.
  12. Lunex

    Lunex Bloody Lunatic... Senior Member Indiegogo Backer

    Local Time:
    4:33 AM
    Feel like that would lead to a war-esque series, as people who live in harsh environments would fight to take over lands that have more resources. As for whether or not they make the same decisions, depends on where the author wants to go with the characters. Plenty of idealistic protagonists despite the harshness around them, and antagonists that do what they do whether they grew up in a gutter, or born with a silver spoon.

    Let's revisit some monster logic for a bit, shall we?

    Now regardless of what we define as a monster, the implication still remains that they are considered a hazard to communities, are they not? So, let me ask, what stops them from destroying everything? Now larger cities have walls that keep some things from just charging in, but there are gonna be tiny villages, and open farms that are just exposed to monster raids. Not to mention any coastline city runs the risk of be attacked from the sea adapted beasts. I've seen a lot of villages and farms that have no measure of prevention, and yet they aren't erased from the map.

    Now one explanation I've seen is that there are guards on watch, possibly warriors, possibly hunters, who take care of towns, which might do if monster traffic is light, but if random encounters has taught me anything, there is never a shortage of monsters. Even if they don't horde together, I don't imagine that they don't gather where food is, so a small population community seems like easy pickings. I would figure even large cities with walls would constantly be fending of monster attacks. And farms, which provide food, I've seen no more protection that ranch style fences. Maybe good for keeping out some mid sized animals, but nothing to stop a beast from getting in there and wrecking the place.

    Now I've ramble a bit, but what I want to really talk about is, why aren't these places destroyed or constantly plagued. Now in the real world, people tend to build their communities where certain conditions are met, access to water, fertile land, etc. So is it possible in worlds where monsters exist, there are locations that repel monsters presence? And is that where all the necessities are placed? I can't think of any other reason.
  13. flamedog

    flamedog Draeanale Senior Member Indiegogo Backer Parkour Master

    Local Time:
    4:33 AM

Share This Page

  • Facebook