We all know that what we see is light. But what if it isn't the case in Mythic Europe?
When you strike a bell, another bell might ring in harmony. You will say that pressure variations carried energy from one bell to another, as per modern physics. But can we uncouple the noise that strikes our ears from the effect that transfers vibrations?
Doesn't it make sense that bells that ring in harmony share a sympathetic connection, in the same aristotelian principle that creates a link between people sharing the same name or the same birthday? Isn't that nature's version of arcane connections? Why couldn't it be the same for light?
Of course, only a true magus will understand this, because he can see it with his own eyes, create it with his own magic. Those poor mundanes have no way of knowing the truth!
{And then they say Criamons are deluded, yeah right! }
It is relevant if you see in the dark by sensing the boundaries of air, by seeing the auditory species, or by simply generating light. In ars magica, it is impossible to see any images (visual species) of any objects shrouded in complete darkness. Kinda like smelling something that has no odor, or hearing something that makes no sound.
Like it or not, any time you diverge from canon in the way things work, you're in the domain of house rules, should even your HR be so awesome that everyone cheers for it and adopts it.
There is nothing wrong with it at all, so why are you so loathe to admit it? We all HR to one degree or another.
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Then AGAIN
You talk about these mostly as per the modern understanding.
We talk about these as per Ars canon, which doesn't use it.
So we're not talking about the same thing, these are different views and physics, and you can't force your way and HR on us anymore than we can force you to use species. These are different physics!!! This is not a problem so long as you accept this, which you seem to have difficulties with. You're just wasting everyone's time.
That's not a game? That's what, to some degree or another, we're all playing.
A made up alternate reality? Well, you know, faeries and dragons don't exist either, do they? So why do you use them in your game?
Inconsistencies between canon and common beliefs? Sure, I trust you on this, no problem. And you're perfectly free to HR these away. But I'm not sure that saying "it's magic" works better, nor does it make a more coherent system. But again, it all comes down to personnal preferences, no problem here.
Handwavium physics? You mean saying "it's magic" whenever real physics don't work the way you'd like them? Don't confuse alternate physics (Ars Canon) with handwavium. Alternate physics is "Illusions are species". Handwavium is "illusions are light when it suits me. When it doesn't, these suddenly become... "magic". Wooooot!"
And, without knowing the market, I wouldn't make any assumption about a minority, save that, even if only 10% of Ars Games use the Canon and species as intended by the authors and line director, that's probably a lot more than you and your table's precise set of House Rules. On this thread at least, YOU certainly are the one minority of people using handwavium "it's magic" illusions
Why do you have to be so insistant on putting words in my mouth and using strawman arguments?
The above has zero connection with what i have said and you should damn well know it.
Except it is. Its just codified.
Thats your loss.
Let me repeat myself, again... I go with "reality+", meaning reality AND the additions added upon that. Magic, or faeries or whatever doesnt replace physics in any way, they only make possible additional ways to interact.
Oh it works better alright. For one thing, it doesnt matter if i recall every little bit about something form the rules, i just assume reality as a startingpoint and go from there.
Its extremely coherent, because it works as reality with magic(and other stuff) adding on to work just as you want it to, no limitation.
Because i want to. I ADD them to the ingame reality.
Im not forcing anyone to do anything. I do use the concept of species. I simply dont accept the limited interpretation of the concept.
You´re saying that i cant be right, im saying that i think you´re wrong. Who´s being categorical and trying to force anything?
Yes? You just refuse to listen dont you, im not diverging from canon in this thing. Im interpreting it differently because otherwise it causes a bunch of unintended consequences and problems.
I do this because players found ways to completely break the game otherwise. As i assume that the makers of the game doesnt intend it to be broken, i must assume that they didnt mean for your limited interpretation to be the default one.
No. I ask a very relevant question. Modern or ancient physics doesnt matter, as i have already shown that enough was known in that area to effectively merge the two in this case. At least a thousand years before gamesetting time.
Personally i would be VERY unhappy about making Imagonem a subset of Mentem, but that is the path you´re on if you say that illusions does nothing but give off species.
Ok, another little question for your amusement then, if there is vacuum between you and an audible illusion, can you hear it? Based on you strict species argument, then yes.
Otherwise, you come back to the point where the illusion of sound IS sound. And when that is true, visual illusions that only exists if they´re lit by external sources becomes silly because it is counter to the logic of sound illusions.
If you put an olfactory illusion in the middle of the air, does it smell or not? Based on the logic you use for visual illusions the answer becomes "probably not". And then we´re back to "handwavium" to make up for the holes in your interpretation.
Medieval "phsyics" will say the same however. As i posted earlier, the understanding of sound and soundwaves etc was pretty decent long before gamesetting time.
Sure.
But its not the sound that have a sympathetic connection but the bells.
And after a short thought about it, i dont think i want to try to apply it to light or sound...
Well, I was more or less quoting you in most of my phrases above, even using a direct link. You chose to ignore the fact that these are your own words, instead presenting them as my invention, unable as you are to admit you may have failings at times. Fine. I could do it more heavily, but it'd be useless. I have no desire to waste my time having an endless no-discussion with you.
}