11

posted 2nd Dec 2017, 5:01 AM

11
rate this page: X X X X X
average rating: 0
post a comment
author comments
view WanderingJew's profile

2nd Dec 2017, 5:01 AM

WanderingJew

*Well, well, well! Already broke my upload schedule!* I intended to get this out on Friday, but oof. I had to hand write all that Hebrew in the Circle of Solomon. A good learning experience, I finally learned how to write a nice aleph (א). Luckily I drew it digitally, so I can reuse it over and over (which I will in the coming chapters).
--
Hon hon hon, we're finally getting to some meat.
I must also regrettably inform you that from here on out, things will become very uncomfortable.

end of message
user comments

2nd Dec 2017, 1:37 PM

Iceburgh69

Pure curiosity question. Have you ever read Ilona Andrews' Magic series? I can't remember which one it is off the top of my head (it's really best to read them in order anyway), but at one point she introduces Jewish magic, and states that the easiest way to disarm a Jewish mage is to take away their pen.

end of message
view WanderingJew's profile

2nd Dec 2017, 5:04 PM

WanderingJew

Never heard of it. And I don't understand that reference, unless they're referring to more of a wand instead of a pen? I'm not sure The only thing I can think of that could be compared to that would be the Book of Abramelin the Mage, but that's more Goetic and less Kabbalah, but as far as I know, a pen wasn't involved in that lol.

end of message

3rd Dec 2017, 4:33 AM

Iceburgh69

If you get the chance, I highly reccommend reading it. It had to do with Jewish mages invoking magic by writing, animating golems with the word for life, that sort of thing. I will admit I know so little of Jewish tradition that it has to be measured in Planck lengths.

end of message
view WanderingJew's profile

3rd Dec 2017, 4:41 AM

WanderingJew

Golems-those will be mentioned in this chapter in a couple pages and subsequent chapters. Finicky, finicky things.

end of message

5th Dec 2017, 12:26 AM

Iceburgh69

Well, yeah, given that the one that gave us the word destroyed part of Prague...

end of message
view WanderingJew's profile

5th Dec 2017, 2:25 AM

WanderingJew

Now imagine a golem with a gun.
Yeah.

end of message

5th Dec 2017, 9:15 AM

Iceburgh69

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of a golem, though? At least to an extent? Since they're durable and strong, they'd be best as a mobile wall as it were. By giving them a gun, you limit their damage potential to that of the gun and its ammo. And while a golem wouldn't have any real morals and kill indiscriminately, there are plenty of humans that can do the same thing (scary thought by itself).

end of message
view WanderingJew's profile

5th Dec 2017, 3:53 PM

WanderingJew

No, it wouldn't actually defeat their purpose. Golems aren't just humanoid beings made from clay, animated by a piece of paper. The Hebrew that's actually used to create a golem is "emet", or "truth". Golems are the word of God made physical, made to protect Jews in times of need and destroy their enemies. They do have morals and they DON'T kill indiscriminately when they're handled with strict discipline. They go wrong and go on rampages because the rabbi or magi who made them usually forgets to "kill" them on the Sabbath (thus forcing them to work on the Sabbath instead of observing it, unless there's a good reason like being attacked) or the rabbi/magi does something sinful that breaks their faithfulness to God and they don't ask for forgiveness, in which the golem has no choice but to retaliate because it is God's word made into flesh from clay.
You can teach them to do things with basic instruction, IF you stick to a strict religious discipline.

end of message

6th Dec 2017, 12:09 AM

Iceburgh69

And thus I learn something new. Danke schoen! Though wouldn't the need for protection include the Sabbath as well, since enemies aren't usually nice enough to allow you to be at peace during holy days?

end of message

6th Dec 2017, 2:53 PM

adam

That's like saying "you limit a giant's damage potential by giving him a sword".

On one hand, if a golem wants to kill it can kill at range now. That is pretty damn deadly but guns are already deadly.

On the other hand, the presence of guns may question just how dangerous IS a golem to begin with. Remember, that with the industrial revolution highly-energetic things like cars and gasoline have become commonplace that were previously impossible. Making a home-made bomb in the medieval period is going to be unimpressive by today's standards.

So a golem made out of clay, depending on the nature of how strong it is, is going to be night-unstoppable for pre-industrial people. If there are guns present, if it can be seen, it can be shot. Add explosives to the mix not only can it be blow up, but so can the ground and building it is standing on.

end of message
view WanderingJew's profile

6th Dec 2017, 8:54 PM

WanderingJew

Guns aren't nearly as deadly when they're used by an idiot who can't figure out which end is which, and that gun isn't going to be a danger if the person armed with it shoots themself in the foot or head, or breaks their thumb when the slide of a glock slides back lol. Teach your golem gun safety!

Remember, the average European doesn't have much access to guns or explosives. A homemade bomb would be more something like a pressure cooker, which is more deadly because of shrapnel discharge as opposed to an explosion caused by dynamite. If we're talking about a baked clay golem, or a golem made of a hard, solid material, shooting at it isn't going to do much damage unless it's anti-tank rounds lol. Even then, it depends on the type of golem. The assumption that golems must be made from baked, hard clay is logical, but a wet clay golem is also possible, and wet clay vs bullets? Golem will knock your head off with one swing before you can even reload. Even if the bullets had an effect, the wet clay could easily re-assimilate and repair itself.

If you try to ram a golem with a car, good luck. If the golem is made from hundreds of pounds of solid clay, maybe even thousands of pounds, the chances of the car drivers surviving the impact is pretty low. Deer typically weigh a range from 100-300lbs and hitting them at 35mph can be fatal. Hit something rock solid, and the entire car will crumble with the driver inside it.

end of message

7th Dec 2017, 6:12 AM

adam

I was already assuming that anyone in this hypothetical that is using guns knows how to use them. A ignorant person using a gun is still dangerous to others, even if they are a danger to themselves too.

My train of thought was the following: a rampaging golem versus a medieval village OR a modern one.

A medieval village's most powerful tools are going to be livestock (bulls? horses?) or fixed machinery (mills, furnaces, etc). Villagers can shoot arrows or attack it with hammers, that's the best I can think of. If they're lucky, some knights might have a good at it with iron weapons, maybe lances and a poleaxe.

Meanwhile a modern village will have cars, power tools, powerful chemicals that the medievals could only dream of. It is not an instant win, but my point was that the power equation is less one-sided as it would be when, say, the Bible was written.

And you are missing the point of the car: the point isn't the car getting off less worse, it is stopping the rampaging golem at all cost (even if the driver dies). The average weight of even a compact car is over 3000 pounds (around 1.3 tons). A car ramming up against a golem at 100 km/h is not going to be pretty for either one. Especially if its a truck or even a bulldozer.

As for golems versus guns: guns will penetrate where arrows can't. If the golem is hurt even just a little bit by having holes in it, it will be hurt. If having holes in its body weakens it, then it does work. This is not to mention combining them, such as a civilian hunter shooting from a car.

Of course how dangerous a golem is, like any fictional creature, depends on what assumptions you give it. If it can re-form itself ala Terminator's T-1000, then yeah, regular firearms are not going to stop it. But that wasn'T my point.

end of message
view WanderingJew's profile

7th Dec 2017, 6:29 AM

WanderingJew

Just so you guys know, I think this discussion about golems and weaponry is absolutely delightful and want to thank you both for the good chuckles and how much interest you show in the topic. I don't mean that ironically or sarcastically, I really am enjoying it!

end of message

7th Dec 2017, 7:13 AM

adam

Another thing to take to account: in some fiction, a golem's weak spot is depicted to be the scroll that gives it animation (I think it was in Vampire: The Masqurade - Redemption that had this specifically). Damage that and the words it has on it will stop the golem. Would this be true here?

end of message
view WanderingJew's profile

7th Dec 2017, 11:26 AM

WanderingJew

Yeah, but that's the damn dumbest thing. Why would you let your enemies see the weak spot of one of your most powerful weapons? Plus it's all wrong, guh. You put it on/in the head, not make it an obvious blaring target.
I should also note, again, that golems aren't animated by magic or programmed like robots (though they are robot-like). They're God's word made physical. They're not just a hunk or mass of clay, they're a divine force.

end of message

7th Dec 2017, 3:17 PM

adam

Well, you know stories about monsters. Every monster that should be defeated needs a weak spot, even if it is God's monster.

I also didn't say anything about making the scroll VISIBLE. I actually imagined that the scroll would have its own little slot on the head somewhere, all roled up. Like a battery. If the creator wanted to be sneaky or just security-cautius, even put new clay over the scroll so you can't see it (unlike a battery, I don't imagine the scroll needing to be changed often).

end of message

7th Dec 2017, 11:07 AM

adam

Well you picked a dangerous topic in the sense that it is prime nerdbait. You'll have gamers discussing damage potential against what kind of golem soon enough.

end of message

8th Dec 2017, 1:41 AM

Iceburgh69

I've always had a fascination for weaponry. For example, using scythes as weapons drives me insane. Horribly impractical. If it's all you have, that's one thing, but there's a fascination for using them as actual weapons, where a bill hook would be a better choice. But that's just an example.

end of message

7th Dec 2017, 5:08 AM

Iceburgh69

No, giving a giant a sword increases the damage potential because it's directly tied to the wielder. The bullet from a gun doesn't change noticeably except by calibre, and while a golem can handle the recoil from a larger gun, that same gun can be used to the same effect (with some modifications) by me, or anyone else. They were called "Great Equalizers" for that reason. And guns are only as deadly as the accuracy of the wielder, and even the type of ammo used. An armor-piercing round isn't going to do a lot to the person actually inside the armor if it doesn't expand, and it'd be like getting run through by a rapier. If it doesn't hit anything important, it's not deadly, and won't cause a lot of blood loss. A sword hit is more deadly, because even if it doesn't hit anything immediately important, it leaves a large wound which has a greater chance of infecting if not greater blood loss. A hollow-point, on the other hand, will shred a soft target and be more like the sword strike. The only advantage that the golem with a gun would have is range, but again accuracy comes into play more and more the further out your target is. So yes, I'd argue that giving a golem a gun instead of, say, a spear, would limit the golem's damage potential rather than increase it, except between the gun's maximum range and the golem's throwing range. Though accuracy still comes into play for all ranged weapons. Honestly, though, I'd rather give the golem a spear or a 2-handed sword, and have it throw rubble. Capitalize on their strengths. Though to be fair, if the mage had the skill to animate a golem without it running amok, they would likely be able to fine-tune the "programming" to suite whatever needs the mage has. Need a flanker? Make it lighter and faster (say wood, for example). Need a tank? Metal, stone, or clay would work well. The main vulnerability that I see is if the animus got destroyed, or at least enough to change what it reads enough to prevent it from animating the golem.

end of message
view WanderingJew's profile

7th Dec 2017, 5:40 AM

WanderingJew

You guys are going to love the horrific golem creations of a certain insane rabbi who appears later on. He's absolutely bonkers.

end of message

7th Dec 2017, 5:42 AM

adam

I think you are really, really looking at this from a wrong angle. Let me ask in a slightly different way:

Giving a highly-dangerous golem a gun makes them LESS dangerous HOW?

I also think you deeply misunderstand just how dangerous guns are. Humans are fleshy sacks of water, poking holes in them is not good for them. Even if you don't immediately hit vital organs, you will hit muscle if not bone or other connection tissue. Hit an arm and you will disable that arm PLUS cause bleeding by tearing up tissue on the exit wound. This is not even getting what the shock of impact causes to surrounding tissue, such as cavitation that can be many times greater than the size of the bullet. Remember that exit wounds are bigger than the entrance wounds. And that arteries for your blood are all over your body.

So a golem with a gun is far more threatening than a golem with a poleaxe or something. With a melee weapon, you can still RUN or dodge to get away. It still needs to get to you. With a gun (and assuming basic ability to use it), the golem can kill you as soon as it sees you (and within the gun's range). It doesn't matter if punching me would damage me more than getting shot, it still needs to reach me to punch me. Not an issue with a gun.

As for accuracy, a golem doesn't have heartbeat and breathing, while likely has a very stable body. So with some programming on how to use a gun, it will actually be FAR MORE accurate than a human (on average). So giving a golem a gun is hardly crippling it.

I cannot help but think that you are approaching this from a gaming min-maxing standpoint, where immediate damage matters more than anything. The problem is that we are not talking from that context, especially as there is no balancing of ranged-vs-melee here. The golem, if it decides to kill, doesn't care if you die from bloodloss or from a crushed head. You're still dead.

end of message

8th Dec 2017, 1:38 AM

Iceburgh69

You're right in that humans are basically waterbags. However, the damage from a bullet comes from two things: how it hits (the shockwave you mention) and how it fragments. A hit to a limb is survivable so long as it isn't shredded. Muscle heals, as does bone. So long as you don't bleed out (and you have to hit a fairly major artery for that to happen). You're right in that most exit wounds are larger than the entrance wound. You're also right that a golem doesn't have breathing or heartbeat to worry about, which would make them more accurate. However, you're still trying to hit a moving target with an object with the cross section the size of a dime or smaller. The other thing that makes a golem dangerous is the fact that it doesn't tire. Humans do. Yes, we're pursuit-hunters (or rather that's how we evolved), but we still have to eat, sleep, rest, drink, excrete, etc. Golems don't. Golems are persistent, and WILL reach you eventually.

And no, I'm not coming at this from a gaming standpoint. I'm an engineering student looking to go into prosthetics. That means I have to have some idea of what I'm talking about when it comes to anatomy and physics. Honestly, I'd be less worried about the golem coming at me with a gun, since I'm more likely to survive its attack. I'm not going to survive the one chasing me.

end of message

8th Dec 2017, 4:53 AM

adam

A hit from a bullet is survivable, depending on location, WITH medical treatment. Muscle and bone will not heal during the fight, but after extensive medical care and recovery. Blood loss will add up the longer a fight drags on. It also doesn't say anywhere that the golem can only shoot you once or attack you once. Or can't switch weapons.

You are still focusing exclusively on damage potential while ignoring tactical and strategic aspects like range.

If a golem can hit you, then you have already lost (unless you are somehow supernaturally durable). Whether it hits you with a sword or telephone pole or just its fists is academic at that point. In combat, avoiding getting hit should be your primary activity in the first place. Any of its melee attacks will be overkill. If it grabs you, you are screwed. Since its supernaturally durable, any exchange of blows would leave you screwed.

If you do have to close in the distance, you want to do hit-and-run, preferably at something vulnerable (say, the scroll that animates it) and with you being highly mobile (or have teams distracting it in turn). If you want to survive the fight, simply running away to brake line of sight is a possibility.

Yes, it will chase you. But you can still keep running, you are still uninjured, you still have a chance. If it has shot you, then it is a massive roulette of just how serious the gunshot IS and whether the injury will stop you or the golem will.

Give a golem a gun (or a bow for that matter) and that tactic goes out the window because you can't hit-and-run if the golem can shoot you as you approach or run away. Then you have little choice but either match it in firepower or lure it into a trap (the latter which is harder to survive if it can shoot you the moment it can see you).

As for something the cross section of a dime hitting you, I hate to brake it to you but that works just fine nowadays. There are lots of factors involved in a shot, but my primary assumption is that if you give a golem a gun then the golem knows how to use it properly. Which means that the chances of getting shot is pretty good. Hunters and soldiers and police can shoot people just fine.

end of message

9th Dec 2017, 12:00 AM

Iceburgh69

You can't give something a skill you don't have. So a golem's only going to be as good a shot as the one animating it. Admittedly a bit better due to the lack of breathing and heartbeat. But if you don't know how to lead your shots, you're only going to put holes in the environment and not your target. The folks you mention have the practice needed to do just that. But I will say this: there's a reason the 9mm isn't as popular among police and military as it once was. It had penetration, not stopping power. If the golem has the requisite skills, it won't be any more dangerous than anyone else until it gets in close, in which case it can bring its strength to bear and be absolutely devitating. The main advantage that I see that giving a golem a gun is that it can lay down covering fire and not have to duck or take cover. Even providing mobile cover for someone who has the skills needed to hit things. A Rabbi that was in special forces with the skills to make a golem would be terrifying, because they HAVE the tactical training to add to the word of God that animates the golem. In a case like that, most of my arguments would be nullified. However, that'd be dependant on the person creating the golem being able to add experience TO the golem, as well as the golem having the right characteristics. Would they be dexterous enough to react to changing circumstances? Would they have the judgement? That I couldn't say. Most are depicted as being slow and lumbering, but I'm sure that's based more on the material than anything else. I'd expect one made of wood, glass, or plastic to be much more nimble. But at the same time, the argument could be made for clay, stone, or metal ones to be likewise nimble.

As far as hitting on the run, that depends on the rate of fire, and all assuming that the golem didn't accidentally break the trigger mechanism. Add to that the fact that unless the firearm's belt fed, its ammo capacity's pretty limited. Which probably isn't an issue, given that a golem should be able to use most belt-fed weapons that are designed for "personal" use, much like Arnold in T2 with the minigun, or Jessie Ventura in Predator. Recoil wouldn't be an issue either, since it'd be less than the recoil of a .22 to a golem, even for something like a 20mm.

At any rate, the weakness of any weapon or weapon system is that it can miss, which also limits the damage it can do. But honestly, if I had to choose between getting shot by a golem, or getting punched by one, I'd rather be shot. You're right in that most gunshot wounds do require medical attention to deal with, but you stand a decent chance of surviving them long enough to get medical help. Getting crushed, I'd hope it was my head so I'm not sitting there in deep shock and mortally wounded. Though deep shock can occur with gunshot wounds as well.

end of message

9th Dec 2017, 7:32 AM

adam

What is more dangerous? A big burly guy with a two-handed sword? Or a small guy with a rifle?

Which is going to last longer against an armed response? Which will kill more people before they are stopped?

The problem is that by your attempt to maximize strength, you are actually crippling the overall potential harm a golem can do. If it can kill people just by punching them, than almost any melee weapon would be redundant (except maybe to increase reach). Give it a gun and it can kill more people from much further away and faster while overall gaining only advantage. Sure some might survive their injuries, but there is a chance of that too if you throw rubble at people.

Your argument keeps going back to this point: a punch of clay/iron/whatever to the head will DEFINITELY kill you while a gunshot MIGHT kill.

This is true. The problem is that you are ignoring everything else that makes someone dangerous, never mind the golem.

Again, getting shot by a gun has pretty good chances of me dying. If there is a golem rampage going on, there are good chances that I might not receive proper medical care in time.

Furthermore, the relative deadliness doesn't matter that much. Getting shot can kill me just as much as a grazing blow from a telephone pole will. Unless you are dealing with superhumans, focusing on increasing the damage of something that already can kill humans with its bare hands is pointless.

Think of this: take away supernatural strength and put it on the level of a burly dude, while keeping all other advantages. No organs, no soft skin, no vulnerable spots expect perhaps the scroll. Enter a melee fight with melee weapons? You are STILL screwed, or at least at a severe disadvantage because you can barely hurt the thing. If it can fight decently it can out-last you in endurance, capacity to take damage, the ability to deal out damage and then all the other assumptions you put in about the golem.

You are going through extensive lengths to downplay the danger of a gun, but still ignoring a basic fact: if I have to face a golem armed with a hammer, I may survive as long as I don't let it reach me. If I face a golem with a gun, I may not survive it SEEING me because then I play a roulette-wheel of "just HOW BAD did I get shot?" every time it can pull off a shot. I don't just have to RUN, I have to HIDE (which very likely means that I CAN'T RUN). And if your strategy for dealing with someone armed with a gun is "but they might miss!", sorry, but that's just... suicidally stupid way to approach the situation.

No, hitting me on the run doesn't depend on the rate of fire. Shooting a gun isn't a goddamn gamble, it's a skill. I'm not arguing "but where does it get the skill from?" because that's built-in to whatever assumption you make about the golem. It needs to have a good shot at you only ONCE to kill you or injure you. Getting a good opportunity to shoot you is much easier and faster than trying to close up to you. Another point you keep ignoring.

Want to really maximize a golem's strength advantage for a rampage? Don't give it ONE weapon, give it an ARSENAL! If it is supernaturally strong, it can carry it all with no penalty and use whatever tool it needs for the moment. Give it tools that it can use to bypass obstacles its sheer strength can't bypass. Like a simple rope and hook it can use to get out of a pit (or climbing tools, a pair of climbing axes would work well).

end of message

9th Dec 2017, 12:47 AM

Iceburgh69

Ultimately, what it boils down to is this: What makes a golem with a gun any more dangerous than a human with that same gun? Not much. I'm well aware of how dangerous guns are, and I'm aware of how dangerous guns aren't. What makes a golem more dangerous with its own fists, let alone any melee weapon? Its resilience, endurance, and strength. Simply put, in terms of raw damage, a golem with a gun is limited to the damage the bullet can do. Period. Assuming it hits, as with any weapon. Bullet-resistant body armor can reduce the damage that a bullet can do by quite a lot. Instead of a .50 round taking half of your chest along with it as it leaves, armor can reduce that to a massive bruise, some broken ribs, and at worst a sucking chest wound/collapsed lung. A golems fist will cave in your chest unless you're in a tank (and even that's debatable) or a bunker (also debatable). That is what I mean by guns limiting the damage potential of a golem. I will admit, however, that a golem with a 20mm- or 30mm-autocannon would make me commit suicide, since even a grazing wound with something like that would be lethal, and a golem could potentially handle carrying something like that. And there's not much by way of armor or buildings that can protect against that. But at that point, can you even really call that a gun? I can see the argument for that, the same way I can for naval cannons.

end of message

9th Dec 2017, 6:09 AM

adam

You say you aren't minmaxing but then talk again about purely the damage potential while ignoring other things that make someone dangerous.

Let me put this another way: what is more dangerous? A man on a rampage with a two-handed sword, or a man on a rampage with a rifle?

You are trying to maximize the strength advantage of a golem in an attack, but the problem is that the strength advantage just doesn't matter against regular humans. There is such a thing as overkill. Again, trying to increase the damage potential of a golem that can punch THROUGH people is just unnecessary, unless you expect the golem to be dealing with superhumans of some sort.

No, if you want to make the golem more dangerous you want to maximize other things: how FAST it can kill (a punch versus a sword-strike isn't going to be much of a difference), from HOW FAR it can kill from, etc.

Here is another thing you are ignoring but I already pointed out: the golem doesn't have to carry ONE weapon. It doesn't have a fixed equipment slots. You can equip it with not one gun, but guns, other weapons as well. If you can equip it weapons, you can make it a harness system to carry many things. Including equipment to move about (rope and grapple to repel for example, tools to bypass obstacles it can't do with strength), to defend itself and even additional armor (if it CAN be damaged, it WILL be). Giving it a wide range of tools, both weapons and other, will do far better

end of message

9th Dec 2017, 10:17 AM

adam

I wish I could edit comments (Disquis is great to use although I heard it is a pain in the ass to implement) because this mostly the same as the one above. I thought the above wasn't sent, hence why I wrote two comments roughly with the same content.

I would have two things to add:
1. A golem with a gun is not tied to only using the gun. What happens if a gun brakes or runs out of ammo? The golem can still just kill people with its bare hands (or use the gun as a bludgeon or use another weapon). Crippling it would be making it unable to fight melee. It merely maimed somoene with a gun? It can still go after them and crush their skull. It can also adept the tactic, if it wants to go for numbers, of deliberately maiming as many as possible until there is ammo and then pick off the survivors.

2. Let's take guns out of equation. Let me attack a main point of your argument: maximizing strength advantage.
What happens if I equip the golem with a lightsabre? Not the kind that can block bullets, but one that can still cut through nearly anything.

By your argument that would be crippling the golem because the lightsabre doesn't take advantage of its strength (except maybe when cutting through heavy material). Yet a golem with a lightsabre is still far more dangerous than one with a two-handed spear (it can throw the lightsabre too).

end of message

9th Dec 2017, 12:56 PM

Iceburgh69

With the lightsaber argument, I'd argue that it would limit the damage potential of the golem just as much as a gun does. Add to that the fact that we don't have a functioning lightsaber, which would make testing difficult, but since we also don't have a functioning golem, that renders that argument moot. I never said that golems with guns aren't dangerous. I simply said, and I will say it yet again, that the damage potential is limited compared to an unarmed golem. Nothing more than that. That means that a golem with a gun can literally only do as much damage as a gun allows. Period. No more, no less. How effective it is in doing that damage is dependent on a lot of variables. Most of those same variables apply when unarmed, or armed with a melee weapon. You would be hard pressed to find a gun that will destroy a tank without burning through most of your ammo. An unarmed golem can break that same tank pretty easily. Thus, the unarmed golem does more damage. Tactics aren't a factor. Strategy isn't a factor. Yes, dead is dead, injured is injured. Guns are dangerous, but there's an automatic perception that guns are always fatal, which isn't true. Gunshots are survivable, sometimes even without medical attention. However, that is meaningless to this debate. My entire premise is that, and I will directly quote: "By giving them a gun, you limit their damage potential to that of the gun and its ammo." What I mean here is the amount of damage an object is capable of causing. A hammer causes more damage than a sword of identical mass because the mass is what is moving. Thus the hammer has greater damage potential.

end of message

12th Dec 2017, 5:28 AM

adam

No, your argument was the following:

"By giving them a gun, you limit their damage potential to that of the gun and its ammo."

And you even went so far to suggest this:
"Honestly, though, I'd rather give the golem a spear or a 2-handed sword, and have it throw rubble. Capitalize on their strengths."

Here's the thing: I DID acknowledge the maximum-damage thing. What you are ignoring is that it DOESN'T MATTER, because what you want is the golem to be MORE dangerous, not less. This sort of thinking actually CRIPPLES the actual damage it can do.

The time it takes to chase someone down with a polexe and crush their skull, I can empty a pistol's magazine with decently-aimed shots. That is one certain death versus 12 people shot.
The exact ratio of how many missed, how many are non-fatal, how many major-but-not-instantly-fatal will depend on a variety of factors but I am fairly certain that it will be quite likely to have more than one dead.

Do you see what I mean by this sort of thinking actually CRIPPLES? Not just the golem but the entire logic of weapon choice.

Here's the thing: attacking someone with a poleaxe is a pretty sure death even if the wielder is just human. At most, a human might need to give more than one strike. So if you are equipping a golem to maximize a single attack, you are still not gaining much.

As for lightsabres not existing, golems don't exist and you have magnificently missed the point: yes, you are not minmaxing your strength stat. You are still doing more ACTUAL damage with something that mostly-regular-strength humans can easily cut through other people with.

As for a tank, most melee weapons won't work either! Because between a super-strong golem versus a thick armor, the melee weapon is more likely to brake! Your average spear or baseball bat or even maul is going to brake at its weakest point. Even durable medieval weapons meant for battle aren't meant to be able to chop through high-hardness ceramics and metal alloys. If not, at best you will leave a dent but a golem would still need a some time to take apart a tank piece by piece (depending again on the assumptions about the golem).

There is also the fact that if there is anything that if a golem can be harmed by guns in the first place, a tank's canon is sure as hell fit to do the job. And the golem needs to actually get to the tank to do that.

You also make the same mistake I repeatedly pointed out but kept ignoring: giving a golem a gun does NOT restrict it to ONLY using that gun. It merely means that the gun will be the first weapon it will use. It can still use its hands or any other weapon you also equip it with or can find in its environment.

If you can freely choose weapons to equip a golem that has supernatural strength, minmaxing damage is the wrong way to go about it. Nowhere was the restriction made that you can only choose ONE weapon.

end of message

9th Dec 2017, 12:49 AM

Iceburgh69

And lastly (I just noticed this bit) I specified damage potential in my original post about this. Ignoring the strategic and tactical aspects was intentional, since those are governed by the animation and not the weapon itself aside from pure range.

end of message

6th Dec 2017, 2:46 PM

adam

Infodump rating: interesting stuff and I see how it goes, but Lionel's case is still just flimsy. The problem is that he isn't telling new information about his dad: he wears wool (the most common and conservative clothing material), he knows Kaballah (not surprising after he BRAGGED about that) and... what?

Although Henri's reaction is strange. You would think that in his experience, condition, age and so forth he would be far less dismissive about magic. I get that he's portraying the "common man's" misconceptions about magic, but it's unusual for him to know better.

end of message
view WanderingJew's profile

7th Dec 2017, 2:53 AM

WanderingJew

I think you may be reading Lionel in the wrong tone. His voice is, ideally, Jonathan Pryce's voice and his quips are more out of irritation and tiredness than bragging. (I realize that isn't immediately apparent, but I was always under the impression that Lionel's constantly irritated expression would always match the tone that readers would read his dialog in.) Lionel's explanation will make more sense in a bit.
I think you're perhaps missing the connection of the importance of noting that Jacq wears his own wool, as opposed to mass produced wool from another sheep or perhaps even multiple sheep, hence the Samson comparison.
Henry's reaction will make more sense later.

end of message

7th Dec 2017, 6:30 AM

adam

I actually think Henry's reaction is artificial somewhat, deliberately to rile his brother (and siblings LOVE to rile each other). It just occured to me that he could be recording this with his laptop.

As for how I read Lionel's voice, well, it's just how he explains himself. He is explaining things like a teacher, trying to be clear, give context for himself and be widely informative.

If I may make a suggestion: have Lionel be more characterized in his wording be more personal. Insert small sarcastic remarks ("while dad IS a dick, that's beside the point"), bitter comments "He told me not to shave" or other things (it doesn't have to be all negative).

You could also have Henry ask questions, which works better because it helps create context, allow opportunity for jokes (and hints or other things) and brake up Lionel's infodump. Plus Lionel doesn't have to supply EVERYTHING (Henry: "hey, I remember seeing dad cutting his hair once and he told me it was for a tribute!").

end of message

7th Dec 2017, 8:42 AM

adam

Reviewing the pages again, I think the key issue is that Lionel should have focused on Jacques's hair from page one. "What is the strangest, most unique thing about Dad, aside his cloved feet? His hair!" (<- just an example)

That way, the rest of the pages make more sense by gaining more context. It's not just Lionel laboriously trying to get to a point. It's Lionel trying to prove a stated premise, which is easier to follow and more compelling.

Infodumping can be hard, so please don't take this criticism very hard, especially as I am reader.

end of message

8th Dec 2017, 1:45 AM

Iceburgh69

I agree that Lionel's narrating more than anything. To be fair, I have a habit of explaining myself for clarity, but I also insert some humor in there as well. Or try to, anyway. Attempts and success don't always go hand in hand.

end of message
view WanderingJew's profile

9th Dec 2017, 6:22 AM

WanderingJew

Related golem content
Video link

end of message
post a comment
This is a voluntary opt-in advertisement. Any profit generated goes to Comic Fury for hosting.