Difference between revisions of "Talk:Elementals"

190 bytes added ,  21:58, 20 September 2008
m
no edit summary
m
 
Line 8: Line 8:
:::Some elementals are sentient, and some elementals aren't (as evidenced by the tell-reception of [[Krrathknar]] and others).  Sending tells, in and of itself, is probably not evidence of sentience but rather a nonsensical game mechanic; any loyal denizen will send tells for ORDER <x> FOLLOW <absent target> or ORDER <x> LOSE, including mounts and bees. I would classify elementals on the whole as both sentients and nonsentients, varying based on purity, size, age, or simply their ability to communicate with complex beings. -{{User:Delphinus/sig1}} 07:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:::Some elementals are sentient, and some elementals aren't (as evidenced by the tell-reception of [[Krrathknar]] and others).  Sending tells, in and of itself, is probably not evidence of sentience but rather a nonsensical game mechanic; any loyal denizen will send tells for ORDER <x> FOLLOW <absent target> or ORDER <x> LOSE, including mounts and bees. I would classify elementals on the whole as both sentients and nonsentients, varying based on purity, size, age, or simply their ability to communicate with complex beings. -{{User:Delphinus/sig1}} 07:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree that to generalise all elementals as one or the other would undermine the complexities of their true nature (and would also make them less interesting). For now I will place them in both categories, but I suppose that ultimately we will have to decide whether this in itself is sufficient or we would again like to attack the inconsistency (if it wasn't intended) via the coding angle instead of otherwise. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 14:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree that to generalise all elementals as one or the other would undermine the complexities of their true nature (and would also make them less interesting). For now I will place them in both categories, but I suppose that ultimately we will have to decide whether this in itself is sufficient or we would again like to attack the inconsistency (if it wasn't intended) via the coding angle instead of otherwise. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 14:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Actually, since the "class loyals" category is already categorized under denizens -and- creatures, just class loyals will do for now. [[User:Asara|Asara]] 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)