Aberrant RPG - Nonhuman Quantum Manipulators

[metaphysician]

In your campaign, are there any non-human-derived quantum manipulators, or is quantum a power only possessed be humans? Either way, why? ( if your in a position to know )

[Sprocket]

Looking at the canon Aeonverse materials, the Coalition's pseudo-Aberrant "Fury" phyle (from Trinity) might or might not qualify. Other than that, eximorph capabilities seem to be limited to humanity alone in the Aeonverse proper.

[metaphysician]

Looking at the canon Aeonverse materials, the Coalition's pseudo-Aberrant "Fury" phyle (from Trinity) might or might not qualify. Other than that, eximorph capabilities seem to be limited to humanity alone in the Aeonverse proper.

Ah, forgot about those. I'm not sure I'd count them, since they are based off human-derived biology.

[Sprocket]

They're questionable in the other way as well - looking at the writeup for Furies in Alien Encounter 2: Deception, they seem to be Trinity-style sub-Aberrants. As such, they wouldn't have a Quantum trait to speak of, just Taint, so they likely can't be considered true eximorphs.

Check out the "Aberrant Society" chapter of the Trinity Storytellers Guide WIKI-book for the details.

[Blue Thunder]

Zeps might be Quantum manipulators. Stellar Frontiers (I think...) alludes to the fact, but never says it or confirms it. Though to be honest, they may simply have created technology (the warping device) that uses "Quantum" energy to work. They seem to be an intelligent, technologically advanced race.

[Sprocket]

Re: Zep reference in Trinity: Stellar Frontiers

What you're referring to would be the Zep "quantum teleportation" device, AFAICT. Considering that the transit time of the device's effect is limited by/to lightspeed, I'd bet that it's just an example of extremely advanced hardtech. After all, RL scientists have already been using this quantum principle to teleport individual photons for several months now.

That said, the idea of Zeps as an "Elder Race" of apparently stable/non-Taint-ruined eximorphs does appeal greatly to me for 2 reasons.

1- It'd be another point with which to deflate the severely overblown ego of Divis Mal, as certain of his theories on Taint & the nature of being an eximorph would be debunked.

2- It'd (partially) reduce the impact of the "humans are special 'cause they can manipulate quantum" egotism meme. It always seemed more likely that quantum manipulation was just exceedingly rare, instead of being unique to one species in the Aeoniverse.

[Alex Green]

...instead of being unique to one species in the Aeoniverse.

One current species. In the back of my mind I'd assumed that the Doyen had exterminated any others.

[Sprocket]

(Nods head.) It'd make for a compelling backstory, that's for sure.

The idea is plausible, except for the little snag in The Story So Far about how the Doyen were shocked by the effects that quantum manipulation had on their 99% pure noetic energy bodies. Here they'd thought they were immortal for eons (no pun intended), & along comes the eximorphs, who can make them flicker out of & into existence without even trying.

[phoenix]

Unrelatedly, there's also atom bombs and nuclear reactors.

Actually, if quantum manipulation has such a negative effect on the Doyen, I wonder if that means they evolved to their current advanced state without ever utilizing nuclear physics?

[Sprocket]

There's no reason they couldn't have employed that technology, back when they had "flesh & blood" bodies. They probably abandoned such when they became the noetic slimeballs (pun intended) we all know & loathe, though I could easily be wrong. They could assemble nukes from biotech-sythesized hardtech components with telekinesis, & teleport them to far-away targets.

[SkyLion]

remind me again what the Zeps are, and in which book they may be found...

[Alex Green]

The Doyen could also simply have forgotten. If it'd been a million years since the last q-manip that's a long time for record retention. Also "shocked" that their immortality was being challenged doesn't preclude them from having done the odd extermination in the past.

[phoenix]

Actually, the Doyen would probably have to be much older than that. A million years is more along the lines of the time it took for humans to evolve from cave-living ape-men.

Although it didn't seem like it took the Aberrancy genes all that long to appear, so maybe evolution just works differently in the Aeonverse... ::wacko

[Sprocket]

Re: Data on the Zeps...

...can be found in Trinity Field Report: Extrasolar Colonies & Trinity: Stellar Frontiers. The Trinity core book has some brief mention of humans discovering their artifacts on/in Mgitu, but nothing beyond that.

Re: Doyen

True, there's no evidence against the Doyen having exterminated annoying sapient species in the past - I'd be surprised if they hadn't done that at least once. We just have no evidence for the Doyen having had any prior experience with eximorphs of any species. Sure, there may have been a Precursor eximorph species in the past, but the odds are so small for any species to develop eximoprhs that the Doyen may well have been in a state of collective racial infancy at the time of the said Precursors' heyday.

[metaphysician]

Ah, the ever fun issue of nova ( indeed, any ___morph ) origin.

I actually favor a non-evolutionary origin for eximorphism. Rather, eximorphism as a latent potential is caused by. . . eximorphism. Hey, time travel and universe creation are on the power list, among other things.

Of course, that leaves several possible "deep mystery" explanations. The obvious ones:

1. At some point, a powerful novas travels back in time to induce eximorphic potential in humanity or its precursor species, because they found out that they would do such. Thus, they did to close the time loop and fulfill history. Nice, pat, and doesn't imply an ulterior motive in nova in question.

2. Accidental. While not intending to do such, a time travelling nova inadvertantly altered humanity. Maybe an experiment with time travel resulted in a massive release of quantum energy that effected humanity. . . or maybe a grand battle between cosmically powerful novas occured at the beginning of history. . .

3. And, nastiest of all, the Lavos/Earth X Option. Eximorphism was added to humanity by an entity of some kind, with an ulterior motive and a plan stretching throughout the millenia of history.

[Alex Green]

I actually favor a non-evolutionary origin for eximorphism.

Me too. I have a good idea on how evolution works and this isn't it. ::sly

[phoenix]

Me too. I have a good idea on how evolution works and this isn't it. ::sly

::huh Did I explain something wrong? Evolution is one of those few subjects I actually know a bit about...

After quickly rethinking, it seems more likely that you were criticizing the premise of Aberrant, not my two-sentence explanation. ::rolleyes Never mind... ::blush

1. At some point, a powerful novas travels back in time to induce eximorphic potential in humanity or its precursor species, because they found out that they would do such. Thus, they did to close the time loop and fulfill history. Nice, pat, and doesn't imply an ulterior motive in nova in question.

Not bad. Heck, the same theory could be used to explain the origin of life in the Aeonverse; maybe bacteria were first introduced to the primordial ooze when a hapless time traveller sneezed on it.

[Alex Green]

After quickly rethinking, it seems more likely that you were criticizing the premise of Aberrant, not my two-sentence explanation. ::rolleyes Never mind... ::blush

Exactly. Mutants-suddenly-with-superpowers is simply not an evolutionary thing. It works better as a "Gene-bomb-planted-eons-ago-by-space-gods".

[SkyLion]

Exactly. Mutants-suddenly-with-superpowers is simply not an evolutionary thing. It works better as a "Gene-bomb-planted-eons-ago-by-space-gods".

Oh yeah...thats *much* more scientific... ::tongue

[metaphysician]

Oh yeah...thats *much* more scientific... ::tongue

Actually, it is. One option requires having a known phenomenon behave in a manner entirely different than it actually works. The other, merely requires that a known phenomenon do what it has already shown to do.

Admittedly, the one "known phenomenon" is eximorphism, but hey, in the *setting*, its a well established phenomenon.

( advice for writers: the fewer 'rubber science' principles you use, the better, so try and get as much mileage out of each one. If everything you change can be logically derived from one single cause, you did good )

Now, *psychamorphism*, that seems like it might be a 'genuine' evolutionary development. After all, it seems to be present in numerous independently evolved species, and where it develops spontaneously, there seem to be fairly hard ceilings on what it can achieve.

[Centimane]

I think that the only 'real' reason there aren't any other known eximorph species in the Aeonverse is because the creators wanted to deal with as few 'Divis Mals' as possible, not because it was necassarily supposed to be so incredibly rare. Having one race with lots of Q6+ novas running around space is bad enough, never mind the chaos 2, 3, or more races full of godlings would unleash on the setting.

And while I tend to agree that the process of eruption, as listed, hardly seems to fall under the mantle of "evolutionary processes", eruption as the result of "a god/time traveller/future nova sneezing" is, unfortunately, *not* more scientific, or even necassarily more believable (probably less so when you think about it). Time loops are not exactly in the realm of "hard" science, they're just theory. Evolution is a known and almost universally accepted mechanism for explaining the origin of life forms on this world and on any other that might possess them.

As far as "a known phenomenon behave in a manner entirely different than it actually works", well unfortunately all of the listed possibilities would qualify. Evolution may be accepted, and it certainly seems to have done it's job quite well, but there are plenty of puddles laying around filled with all the necassary ingredients for bacterial life and so far none of them have produced any. Evolution itself is "phenomena behaving contrary to expectations". To summarize my point; it doesn't really matter what explanation we go with, they're all a bit far-fetched, and they all require unusual circumstances, and they're all fictional, so just go with what works for you.

Thank you, that is all. ::happy

[Alex Green]

Evolution is a known and almost universally accepted mechanism for explaining the origin of life forms on this world and on any other that might possess them.

Exactly. It's pretty much a known thing, and there are no current things against it.

As far as "a known phenomenon behave in a manner entirely different than it actually works", well unfortunately all of the listed possibilities would qualify.

But I'd rather blame an unknown phenomenon that we don't understand that might work, than a known phenomonon where our current understanding says it doesn't work that way. Saying "it was evolution" makes about as much sense as saying "it was gravity".

In some ways Gravity actually makes more sense because we know there are problems with the theory of gravity (i.e. it's very possible that gravity will have to be re-written in the next few decades, the same is not true of evolution).

[metaphysician]

Yep. The total disconnect between eximorphism and any discernable evolutionary pressure, as well as the rapidity and extremity of its manifestation, makes it look unlike anything that evolution actually produces. Never mind that the functionality of the MR-Node is, pardon the pun, a quantum leap away from all other Earth-based biological processes.

It'd be like if an ordinary species of trees started randomly sprouting fully formed brains.

[Centimane]

Yep. The total disconnect between eximorphism and any discernable evolutionary pressure, as well as the rapidity and extremity of its manifestation, makes it look unlike anything that evolution actually produces. Never mind that the functionality of the MR-Node is, pardon the pun, a quantum leap away from all other Earth-based biological processes.

It'd be like if an ordinary species of trees started randomly sprouting fully formed brains.

My previous point was that the initial emergance of life (no matter how small and simple) would have looked just as rapid and sudden - and far more extreme - as the emergence of "eximorphs". And as far as problems with any given theory; there are problems with pretty much every *single* scientific theory we currently use, and evolution has been reworked, revised, rethought, and nearly scrapped far more times than the theory of relativity.

[Alex Green]

My previous point was that the initial emergance of life (no matter how small and simple) would have looked just as rapid and sudden - and far more extreme - as the emergence of "eximorphs".

Ah... no. Nodes are a big complex change. "Small and simple" pretty much means just that, simple.

And as far as problems with any given theory; there are problems with pretty much every *single* scientific theory we currently use, and evolution has been reworked, revised, rethought, and nearly scrapped far more times than the theory of relativity.

The issue isn't how many time's it's been scrapped, the issue is how strong is it now?

There are things we know that are wrong with the Theory of Gravity. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, predicted mass of the universe, predicted speed of the universe, that sort of thing.

The ToG makes predictions that aren't born out. It's *wrong*. We know it's *wrong*. We just don't have anything better at the moment. However there are theories out there that are trying to replace it (string, etc).

Evolution on the other hand isn't *wrong* in any way as far as I know. It's predictions work, the more we find out about biology the more we find that it works. Now, there are things that are not well understood in the big (the origin of life for example) and the small (why does "X" happen), but those aren't threats to the theory, those are more like missing pieces to a puzzle. Just as important, there currently are no theories even being proposed that could replace evolution. (Of course one of those missing pieces of the puzzel could be a different color and require a redo of the whole thing, but so far that hasn't happened).

Mind you, I'm not opposed to evolution or gravity being overthrown, but right now evolution's spot is MUCH more secure than gravity because we have fewer problems with it.

[Centimane]

Ah... no. Nodes are a big complex change. "Small and simple" pretty much means just that, simple.

Um...nooo..... ::unsure

"Small and simple" is in relation to us and other complex lifeforms. When the first single celled organism appeared (whenever and where ever that was), it was anything but a "simple" occurence! Before life appeared here there was *nothing*, then there was *something*. People tend to forget that the while the difference between 1 and 2 is small and easily quantifiable, the difference between 0 and 1 is infinite (no matter how many times you break down 1 into something smaller, you still have more than 0). In the same way the emergence of life where there was none previously represents something far more than just "simple". The difference in complexity between even the largest and most complex molecules and even the simplest of viruses (organisms so small and simple that scientists can't agree as to whether or not they constitute "life") is enormous. So I have to disagree with you there.

And as far as the argument that the emergence of eximorphs or psychomorphs happening too fast; consider that in the past 10,000 years we've gone from a species that had just discovered agriculture to being able to shoot people to the moon and bring them back safely. My point is that, as species become more complex and developed, the range of their capabilities seems to grow exponentially. Further, the theory of "macroevolution" is currently not in vogue, but it's been in and out of scientific fashion several times over the years. So who knows? Maybe Aberrants are just a case of "macroevolution".

There are things we know that are wrong with the Theory of Gravity. Dark Matter, Dark Energy, predicted mass of the universe, predicted speed of the universe, that sort of thing.

Technically there is no "Theory of Gravity", there's the Special and General Theory of Relativity, but things like Dark Matter and what not were added decades later and are not a part of the original theories. The Special Theory of Relativity has been show to have several inconsistenies within it, but the General Theory of Relativity is almost problem-free when compared to most other mainstream scientific theories. The only real problem is that it doesn't jive at all well with quantum mechanics (which is where String Theory comes from), and quantum mechanics is what we currently use to describe the all of the other major forces of the universe. However, Quantum Theory has, so far, been a complete failure at predicting any sort of gravitational phenomina. Dark Matter was introduced into Astrophysics because of Quantum Theory (which in almost every case that it *can* be used has proved phenominally successful) which is what we use to understand "matter" and "energy" on a small scale. When applied to Universe proportions it gives equations that, for whatever reason, don't jive with observations. Dark Matter was introduced to explain this problem. However, it should be pointed out that while predictions which include the theory of Dark Matter have thus far turned out to be %100 correct (as in no margin of error whatsoever), no one has ever "found" any Dark Matter floating around out there. It's just filler material until a better solution comes along.

Now in case you're wondering what my point is, it's this: Relativity conflicts with Quantum Physics, but Quantum Physics conflicts with Relativity. Both work well enough within their respective realms, but neither is any good at describing anything having to do with the other (so Relativity *does* run into some problems with its description of light because light is energy which is best described using Quantum Physics, while Quantum physics *sucks* for describing large-scale phenomina).

So I restate my original claim that there are problems with pretty much

Every.

Single.

Theory out there.

None of them completely mesh with any of the others, and while theories like String Theory show some promise they usually have some "minor" problems (such as, in the case of String Theory, only being good for describing events that happen on such huge scales that small things like solar systems are considered insignificant).

So take whatever stance you want on the origin of Aberrants or any of the other "morphs", but all things considered, evolution is just as legitimate as "god sneezing".

[SkyLion]

Just thought Id remind y'all that eximorphism was apparently already in the human genome...it wasn't a "mutation." Its just that it wasn't activated until Hammersmith, and later Mal, raised the ambient levels of "teluric energy" such that it would become active...at least that was my understanding...

[Centimane]

Just thought Id remind y'all that eximorphism was apparently already in the human genome...it wasn't a "mutation." Its just that it wasn't activated until Hammersmith, and later Mal, raised the ambient levels of "teluric energy" such that it would become active...at least that was my understanding...

While that is an excellent point Mr. Lion, the facts of the matter are that all of Evolution constitutes "mutation", so whether it happened quick or slow doesn't matter. Still, thanks for bringing that up, it kind of a major point.

[phoenix]

::blink Okay, wait a minute.

Ah... no. Nodes are a big complex change. "Small and simple" pretty much means just that, simple.

Cottus, your criticism is slightly valid in that Alex would have done better to phrase it as "relatively small and simple", but not otherwise. Even though yes, even viruses and macromolecules are unbelievably complex, they are still "simple" when compared to something like an organism, or a synapse, or an entire chemical signal pathway. And things evolve through those relatively simple changes first. A complex structure, like an eyeball, is built through tiny evolutionary baby steps over many millions of years, starting with a miniscule "eyespot" nerve ganglion, with housing structures & synaptic nuances being added on as, one by one, they prove to be favorable through natural selection.

The M-R node, by contrast, just suddenly appears, with no real intermediates. If this were to happen in reality, it would constitute a major challenge to the modern synthesis of evolution (i.e. evolution as we understand it today).

For the most part, Alex is perfectly right.

And as far as the argument that the emergence of eximorphs or psychomorphs happening too fast; consider that in the past 10,000 years we've gone from a species that had just discovered agriculture to being able to shoot people to the moon and bring them back safely. My point is that, as species become more complex and developed, the range of their capabilities seems to grow exponentially.

Not so. The advancements you cite are behavioral, not biological advancements, and the difference is extremely important in a biological context. In fact, as species become more adapted to their environment, they tend to become less adaptable to any other potential environment. This is part of the reason why humble (at the time) mammals took over the earth at the end of the Cretaceous in a situation where mighty Dinosaurs fell, despite having only a toehold niche in the world's environment at the time.

To provide a better example, a bird is vastly more advanced than a bacterium, but take away the oxygen from a population and I'll put my money on the bacteria being the ones to adapt every time. Actually, bacteria are far more likely to suddenly start throwing around quantum manipulation than any vertebrate species is.

Further, the theory of "macroevolution" is currently not in vogue, but it's been in and out of scientific fashion several times over the years.

Yes, you're right about that. The objections to the spontaneous development of Aberrancy are the same objections to be raised against spontaneous macroevolution (or at least, against the idea that macroevolution can occur without microevolution as a mechanism for it). However, these objections are still quite good ones, and though it's easy to support an idea through the fact that scientists have supported it in the past, keep in mind that the idea of the Earth being flat has also gone "in and out of scientific fashion" throughout the years. ::huh

Oh... I have to agree that in general, evolution is slightly more likely to suddenly provide us with walking superheroes than time travel is, given that evolution has the advantage of existing at all. But in terms of plot development, I see nothing wrong with either approach, and each has its advantages and disadvantages.

[Centimane]

Cottus, your criticism is slightly valid in that Alex would have done better to phrase it as "relatively small and simple", but not otherwise....

Yes, but you're actually helping to make my point for me. An eyeball, like a Node, is formed rapidly from next to nothing using genetic information stored in fertilized egg cells, and - as Sky pointed out - the genetice information for the M-R Node was already present in the human genome and had been for some indeterminate amount of time previous. Apparently the genes for "-morphism" are recessive and need some kind of triggering event to activate. This however, as I'm sure you're aware, is actually somewhat the norm when dealing with mutations whether they're viable or not. And you know, now that I'm typing this out I'm realizing that some sort of provirus would make a very cool IC origin for the recessive genes that lead to eximorphs and psychomorphs.

Anyway, back on topic.

Since, according to canon, the genes have been there for millenia and novas have been erupting for millenia (albeit in much smaller numbers), this takes a great deal away from the "it's too complex" argument for a nova's node. ICly it's made pretty clear that at least a few of the ancient gods and heroes throughout human history were some kind of "morph". This means that what, in the 21st century, is known as the M-R Node had been developing within humanity for some indeterminate amount of time long before anyone realized it. Also, let's not forget that a Node has the benefit of an already extremely complex organism to develop out of. In case I haven't been clear enough yet, what I'm saying is; according to canon, many of the miraculous powers and abilities attributed to gods, heroes, mystics, and saints throughout all of human history and before, can be attributed to the slow development of the M-R Node and/or the genetic "switch" that leads to becoming a psiad. So it's really not all *that* sudden, it *is* a work of fiction, and it *could* happen within the laws of science and evolution (it's slightly off-topic, but I recently read one of Steven Hawking's books in which he was pointing out that mathematically speaking it's entirely possible that there's a black hole out there somewhere that spits out fully formed reclining armchairs - complete with tags and labeling - at regular intervals. Weird huh?)

As to what you said about the slow development of a human eye from the photoreceptive nerve ganglion of simpler organisms, you're absolutely correct but you're also missing my point. "Life" can't develop slowly over millions of years. It's either viable...or not. The first "living" organism to form in the primordial ooze formed "suddenly". And it formed far more suddenly than anyone has so far suggested the M-R Node did. Single-celled lifeforms may be simple compared to complex organs and the creatures they make up, but they're far from simple compared to any non-living, naturally occuring structure on this planet. And that was the point I was making. While I realize that the probability of *anything* from the Aeon continuum actually happening in RL is vanishingly small, this is supposed to be an essentially infinite universe we live in, meaning there's some chance of it happening *somewhere*.

,,

Yes, you're right about that. The objections to the spontaneous development ....

Actually, last time I checked, the Flat Earth Society was still alive and well (no that's not a joke, it actually exists - or did anyway). ::tongue

Seriously though, my point here was to point out that just because *current* scientific beliefs don't allow for some or all of the ideas being discussed here doesn't mean that none of them are valid. When my great grandmother was a girl scientists still thought that the Milky Way Galaxy comprised the entire universe, and they were quite surprised to realize that all those stars they were seeing way off in the distance were actually other galaxies. When I was a boy scientists placed the age of the universe at something like 4 billion years, now that's what they say the age of the Earth itself is (or is it 3 billion for the Earth?). Basically, everytime they turned up the power on one of their big telescopes and saw more stars they had to add more years to the age of the universe. So I see your point, but I hope you see mine as well. What was in scientific fashion a long time ago may come back in to fashion in the future, and what's in fasion now may be the laughing stock of the scientific community in 50 years, and there's no telling what will actually turn out to be scientific fact and what will be considered laughable fiction.

[Centimane]

When I was a boy scientists placed the age of the universe at something like 4 billion years, now that's what they say the age of the Earth itself is (or is it 3 billion for the Earth?).

::blush ....

Kids, this is what happens when you post late at night, and in a hurry. This should read "When my Father was a boy", not "When I was a boy". And actually, now that I'm thinking about it (and assuming my astrophysical history isn't completely off) it was something closer to 6 or 7 billion years when he was a kid.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled posting. ::happy

[metaphysician]

Most of the relevant facts and arguments have already been said, so, just a few bullet points:

-The boundary between "life" and "not life" is nowhere near as a big a hurdle as you might think. Its not a sudden jump from random chemicals to cells, but rather, a jump from random chemicals, to one or more random chemicals that happen to have the ability to form copies of themselves out of ambient chemicals. Proto-prions, essentially. All that requires is that you have ambient organic molecules in the environment, so that the proto-prion has suitable material to reshape and catalyse.

IOW, the first big hurdle just involves a particular chemical activity appearing at the molecular level. And we know that proteins and nucleic acids can form molecules through reshaping and assembly, because they do so every day.

-Random digression: Darwinian vs Lamarckian evolution. Anything that involves culture invokes Lamarck, which is a considerable advantage.

-Last I heard, time travel was still predicted by certain parts of relativity ( behavior of rotating black holes ), and forbade by the causal ordering postulate. This get changed recently?

[BlueNinja]

Since, according to canon, the genes have been there for millenia and novas have been erupting for millenia (albeit in much smaller numbers),

There is nothing "canon" that I can think of that says novas have been around for millenia. There is one thing in the front-of-the-book-flavor-text talking about a novel written in the Aberrant universe claiming that all of the important historical figures (Jesus, Mohammed, Joan of Arc, Leonardo da Vinci, etc) were actually no-taint novas.

[Alex Green]

There is nothing "canon" that I can think of that says novas have been around for millenia. There is one thing in the front-of-the-book-flavor-text talking about a novel written in the Aberrant universe claiming that all of the important historical figures (Jesus, Mohammed, Joan of Arc, Leonardo da Vinci, etc) were actually no-taint novas.

I think the APG says that novas show up at a rate of one or two a century and are usually much weaker than modern ones.

[metaphysician]

Yeah, I think Adventure also heavily implied that Inspired-level people tend to show up fairly regularly, relatively speaking. Just not at the rate they popped up in the pulp era.

( if nothing else, Jack Tallon seems to have been Inspired well before Hammersmith, as did Mercer )

[Centimane]

I think the APG says that novas show up at a rate of one or two a century and are usually much weaker than modern ones.

The article mentioned by BN is on pgs. 46-49 of the APG, followed by one page of posts from people who've supposedly read the book. Pgs. 51-53 are the "canon" part where it states, categorically, that there have been novas throughout human history, but that the developers will leave it up to individual STs to decide which historical figures (if any) were novas. Pg. 52 starts off with the heading "Important Eras" with the bullet-heading "Prehistoric Times" (10,000-5000 B.C.) just underneath that. So yeah, millenia.

-Last I heard, time travel was still predicted by certain parts of relativity ( behavior of rotating black holes ), and forbade by the causal ordering postulate. This get changed recently?

No it hasn't been changed. Wormholes could allow travel both backwards and forwards in time, and in theory you could skip to the end of everything by entering a black hole for what would seem to you to be only an instant in time, then reemerging just in time to watch whatever happens when the universe dies. However the construction of a time-travelling wormhole requires that first you generate a "normal" wormhole (i.e. one that just takes you from point A to point B, but not through time), and then you take one "end" of the wormhole (let's say point A) and send it off at something near the speed of light. As end A travels at relativistic speeds away from end B the relative amount of time for end A becomes less and less than what has passed for end B. Eventually anyone who walked through end A would emerge from end B several centuries into the future, while anyone walking through end B would emerge several centuries in the past. The major drawback is that end A would have been traveling at relativistic speeds and would therefore most likely be many dozens (if not hundreds) of light-years away from end B, and vice versa.

BTW, "wormhole" is the popular name for a rotating black hole with a Kerr metric.

The idea of a nova having closed a timeloop of some sort by traveling backwards in time and sparking the first eruption is, IMHO, a perfectly good solution to the origin of eximorphs. However, IMHO, so is simple evolution.

[Blue Thunder]

Imagine running a Conan-like campaign with 6 NP characters (two dots in Mega-Attributes, basically), where the villain is a 10 NP "black magic sorcerer." Awesomeness.

Out of known historical figures, who do you think would make sense as a low-level nova? Aleister Crowley? Sun Tzu? Zhuge Liang? Joan of Arc? Alexander the Great? Rasputin?

[metaphysician]

Imagine running a Conan-like campaign with 6 NP characters (two dots in Mega-Attributes, basically), where the villain is a 10 NP "black magic sorcerer." Awesomeness.

Out of known historical figures, who do you think would make sense as a low-level nova? Aleister Crowley? Sun Tzu? Zhuge Liang? Joan of Arc? Alexander the Great? Rasputin?

This is. . . ever so vaguely like the campaign I'm currently playing in. Its not low end, though. Its more. . . Greek epic. Set in the pre-classical period, mostly.

Unless somebody complains, I'm posting the campaign premise document later.

[Centimane]

This is. . . ever so vaguely like the campaign I'm currently playing in. Its not low end, though. Its more. . . Greek epic. Set in the pre-classical period, mostly.

Unless somebody complains, I'm posting the campaign premise document later.

I know I won't, that sounds real interesting actually.

Out of known historical figures, who do you think would make sense as a low-level nova? Aleister Crowley? Sun Tzu? Zhuge Liang? Joan of Arc? Alexander the Great? Rasputin?

Ooh...good pics. I'd have to go with Zhuge Liang, he's already semi-mythical (not that the others aren't) and anyone with the nickname "sleeping dragon" deserves at least low-level nova status. Actually...those are all really good pics...now I can't decide. ::glare

A 6np campaign like you were talking about sounds seriously fun now that you mention it. Except I'd probably put 3 of the points into oodles of skills and the other 3 into a mega-att. Probably mega-stamina with adaptability or resurrection so I could play the John Carter/Phra the Phoenician rip-off. ::biggrin

[metaphysician]

You know, we might actually be encountering Zhuge Liang soon. . .

( our next adventure involves, basically, helping an exiled claimant to the imperial throne overthrow the current emperor, both for idealistic and pragmatic reasons )