| From: | "Sean \"Epicanis\" Clark" <dubiousu@******.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: DRAGONS AS NEXT NERPS? |
| Date: | Mon, 13 Mar 1995 12:53:40 -0800 |
> This is in response to the hydrogen-dragon thoughts that have been cast
> about recently. The amount of H2 required to lift 2000 kilos is enormous.
> You don't see the Shuttle floating off its launch pad do you? Trying to
> rationalize dragons is artificial to me. They are a manifestation, maybe of
> Gaia. As far as bazooka's being a recent development, how long ago
> have the chinese had rockets. And they've have a very old mythos
> concerning dragons.
Another good point...come to think of it, Chinese dragons WERE
personifications of natural forces, weren't they?
> Unfortunately, I have never seen a photograph of a dragon, getting ready
> to breathe or other, so I can't really say whether they need to "bloat up"
> first. If you consider that they can breathe every action they have, they
> would need to generate a drek load of hydrogen several times every
> FIVE SECONDS to accomplish this. That's unrealistic, the chemical
> reaction doesn't go that quick. Along with the fact that a hydrogen fire is
> very difficult to see. Which would make the "typical" representations of
> a conflagration coming from the creature's mouth overstated in the visual
> context, if nothing else. They would also need a hellacious cooling
> system in their mouths to keep from frying anything in the local.
>
I said this in a previous note, but: I think the dragon in
"Dragonslayer" makes a fine model. The way they animated it (her?) was,
I thought, very nice. When breathing fire, this dragon didn't puff up
any more than a human would (proportionally) from taking a very deep breath.
> In the Shadowrun world/game/reference frame/whatever, magic
is NOT
> ARTIFICIAL. Just as reptiles hibernate when the heliotropic energy is
> insufficient to stir their metabolisms, dragons behavior similarly with the
> magic energy level. The magic gene didn't express itself (except in a
> very few rare cases) until the magic cycle had developed /grown
> /increased to a certain extent. Read Ehran's speech for a refresher.
> And as magic is natural, why not use it to cover, at least in part, the
> dragon physiology.
>
> As to why they don't all breathe fire, why don't they all look alike. Natural
> selection didn't do it, as the dragon is probably the top of this world's
> food chain. Human's may outnumber them, but so what. Wildebeast out
> number lions. The key lies in their reason for being, what makes who
> they are.
>
Perhaps they represent different aspects of natural forces, or perhaps most
dragons are personifications of "natural forces" in general, with
individuals just having different emphasis on which types of "natural forces"
they are most and least powerful with.
If so - are there "Archetypical" dragons hiding out there somewhere who
have as much of their power as possible in ONE aspect? (A fire dragon, a
water dragon, a storm dragon...?)
Sorry, just free associating there...
> As far as FASA being wrong, they simply gave some outline stats. It's
> up to US to determine exactness and raison d'etre. They leave plenty of
> clues. I think we should try to stick somewhere in the ballpark.
>
> - Rocket Scientist
>
