Of course it's not a natural species ... it was created by an ancient deity long ago precisely to allow us to one day have a long discussion on the possibility of (and for some, fervent desire for) Half-Snake Lesbian Sex ScenesMaster TMO wrote:
Of course, the obvious answer is: This isn't a "natural" species, but one created somehow (even way back in ancient pre-history or by a deity of some sort), and the physical attraction is a leftover from one of the original species.
Look, once we start getting petty little things like "plot" and "biology" and "common sense" involved, the Half-Snake Lesbian Sex Scene is never going to happen.Borys wrote:If Yuan-Ti can't feel love, what feels white Kin towards angry Kin?
Trueseeing? Or however they call it?
Or it's just an excuse for upcoming half-snake lesbian sex?
"Life always...finds a way."DrinksTooMuchCoffee wrote:As you crest the ridge, you spot a herd of wild mules...
My long-neglected blog.Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
Er...left.BuildsLegos wrote:Fool! That was Harrison Ford, not Jeff Golblum...right?
My long-neglected blog.Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
This reminds me of one of those Funny 'cause it's true jokes...Glemp wrote:Lesbianism is not required.Oh, then I had no idea there were so many lesbians around here. I guess I'll try to behave myself so they don't hurt me.
The second line of the answer is superfluous, just fyi. It amounts to explaining the joke, which is never a good way to make it funny. With that line removed, the joke is hilarious.Reads_Books wrote:What's the difference between a Fantasy Lesbian and a real lesbian?
A fantasy lesbian will let her boyfriend watch.
My long-neglected blog.Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
Wouldn't that make her technically bisexual?Reads_Books wrote:A fantasy lesbian will let her boyfriend watch.
And my own dragons are here. The hatched ones like the clicks! 
I second this. This all went amusingly ridiculous pretty quickly!T' Northerner wrote:You know the theory that any word or phrase can become hilarious if it's repeated often enough. I've just read 'half snake lesbian sex' so many times that I can't not giggle with every extra post it appears in. This one included.
A deity's craftsmanship is the definition of supernaturally made. As in made outside the realm of the natural world.BuildsLegos wrote:Maybe I'm just being a stinky religious type, but I'm pretty sure a deity's craftsmanship is the definition of naturally made.
More to the point, it would make her not-a-lesbian. [/explainingthejoke]LooksAndSmiles wrote:Wouldn't that make her technically bisexual?
My long-neglected blog.Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
Master TMO already explained it better.RocketScientist wrote:A deity's craftsmanship is the definition of supernaturally made. As in made outside the realm of the natural world.BuildsLegos wrote:Maybe I'm just being a stinky religious type, but I'm pretty sure a deity's craftsmanship is the definition of naturally made.
If your definition of "better" is "incorrectly," then sure. There's nothing natural about a supernatural being. The answer is not "yes" in any realm, with or without gods.BuildsLegos wrote:Master TMO already explained it better.RocketScientist wrote:A deity's craftsmanship is the definition of supernaturally made. As in made outside the realm of the natural world.BuildsLegos wrote:Maybe I'm just being a stinky religious type, but I'm pretty sure a deity's craftsmanship is the definition of naturally made.
I'm not wrong! You are! (j/k - had to throw in the immature childish response for fun)RocketScientist wrote:If your definition of "better" is "incorrectly," then sure. There's nothing natural about a supernatural being. The answer is not "yes" in any realm, with or without gods.
So, the original creator is neither supernatural nor unnatural, but the very definition of natural, whether that creator is sentient or not. Then your difference with RocketScientist is a matter of definitions, and neither your definition nor hers is invalid.Master TMO wrote: What I believe I was getting at was that if there is a supreme being responsible for the creation of the world/universe, any result of that original creation would be considered 'natural', as they came about through the natural interplay of the various laws, rules, and original state of the setting. I'll even throw in some leeway in that if the creator being goes back in and tweaks something, we can call that 'natural'.
Couldn't agree more.T' Northerner wrote:Pfft, this is the internet, we'll have none of that 'agreeing to disagree' around here.
I agree with pretty much everything except the last line. If the creator is a clockmaker god who just sets everything in motion, and lets it run without interference, you can call that "natural" by such a definition. But any change that was directly made by a sentient being, interfering with the operation of the mechanism after it has begun, that would be artifice. The difference is that nature is not something you can stop and start again; once you wind it up and let it begin running, you have to let it continue operating indefinitely until it burns itself out, or else you're interfering. It's like how (even according to the most radical pro-life definition) choosing not to breed at your absolute first biologically-possible opportunity, with the first possible sex partner you happen to meet after becoming fertile, is not considered "killing" the child you could theoretically have had. At some point thereafter, depending on who you ask, the life has "naturalized", and at that point, any human action that ends its life cannot be called "death from natural causes".Master TMO wrote:What I believe I was getting at was that if there is a supreme being responsible for the creation of the world/universe, any result of that original creation would be considered 'natural', as they came about through the natural interplay of the various laws, rules, and original state of the setting. I'll even throw in some leeway in that if the creator being goes back in and tweaks something, we can call that 'natural'.
Again, that last clause is the part I don't agree with. Just because you raised a bird from the egg before releasing it doesn't mean that it's your property, or that you have the right to capture it again. Once something has been free for the first time, you can never again enslave it without infringing upon that freedom. This applies even if the "egg" in question hatched an entire cosmos; once you put your universe "in the wild", you no longer have the right to interfere with it, the way you could if it was still "domestic".But if someone else comes along and makes changes outside the creator's scope, that's typically what we can call 'unnatural' or 'supernatural', depending on who it is. The beings making these changes could range from a mere wizard to a supernatural being of some sort, just not the original creator.
My long-neglected blog.Glemp wrote:To some extent, you need to be arrogant - without it, you are vulnerable being made someone's tool...for Herbert's sake, have the stubbornness not to submit to what you see instantly, because you can only see some facts at a time.
Added a link to the quote (it's where I heard/read it first).Glemp wrote:Couldn't agree more.T' Northerner wrote:Pfft, this is the internet, we'll have none of that 'agreeing to disagree' around here.
This is important.
Someone is wrong
on the Internet.
Correct. IRL, I'm not religious myself, but in this setting we know there are beings called gods. We have the MoM sword and Herbert as proof. If we assume that one of them (or several working in concert) created this world, they'd stand in that supreme being position. Conversely, if no sentient being was responsible, presumably the laws of physics would stand in for it.Jochi wrote:So, the original creator is neither supernatural nor unnatural, but the very definition of natural, whether that creator is sentient or not. Then your difference with RocketScientist is a matter of definitions, and neither your definition nor hers is invalid.Master TMO wrote: What I believe I was getting at was that if there is a supreme being responsible for the creation of the world/universe, any result of that original creation would be considered 'natural', as they came about through the natural interplay of the various laws, rules, and original state of the setting. I'll even throw in some leeway in that if the creator being goes back in and tweaks something, we can call that 'natural'.
Tell that to Rocket, s/he's the one being rude here.Jochi wrote:So, the original creator is neither supernatural nor unnatural, but the very definition of natural, whether that creator is sentient or not. Then your difference with RocketScientist is a matter of definitions, and neither your definition nor hers is invalid.Master TMO wrote:What I believe I was getting at was that if there is a supreme being responsible for the creation of the world/universe, any result of that original creation would be considered 'natural', as they came about through the natural interplay of the various laws, rules, and original state of the setting. I'll even throw in some leeway in that if the creator being goes back in and tweaks something, we can call that 'natural'.
