Science/Natural Philosophy, Electricity and DNA

[fusangite]

From what I've seen, D&D is content to use the most basic of "real-world" sciences, and leave the rest behind. This holds true from microcosms of DNA to macrocosms such as space.

This is an interesting idea. I like it. That way one doesn't have to come up with crazy alternative models for things like falling.

I can't remember if it was Aristotle or Ptolemy who said that our world was surrounded by a large crystal shell, which is what we saw at night...but that became the basis for Spelljammer.

It is Aristotle who originally articulated this. Ptolemy just created the mathematical models for it.

Likewise, Darwinism isn't out-and-out said to be untrue, but most races, such as elves, orcs, dwarves, etc., all hold that they were brought into being in the image of their deity/deities. Humans, for the most part, seem to hold vaguely true to this also, although there are still examples of more primitive humans about, but nothing that'd be called truly sub-human.

That's my take too.

For issues such as a shocking sword underwater, I'd modify that to be that electric attacks underwater are like fireballs...they take effect as a sphere that damages everyone in, say, a 30' radius or so with electric damage. Likewise, fire attacks can't be used underwater, etc. Beyond that, simple is best.

Given your other statements, I'm surprised you're taking this position. There's nothing in Aristotelian natural philosophy to explain electricity behaving like that and modern explanation of electricity is all about electrons.

 

[Angcuru]

if the planes of fire and the prime material are overlapping realms, then if you strike a match, are you opening a TINY rift between the two?

 

[Alzrius]

Given your other statements, I'm surprised you're taking this position. There's nothing in Aristotelian natural philosophy to explain electricity behaving like that and modern explanation of electricity is all about electrons.

That position is actually a holdover from 2E, though I'm not certain what book (Combat & Tactics I think). That said, I don't think its that apart from my previous statements. Aristotelian natural philosophy doesn't talk about electricity behaving that way because (AKAIK) electricity hadn't been harnessed back in Aristotle's day. He didn't know about it to talk about it. Even if he had known about it, it still would have behaved that way, so he would have come up with a naturalist reason why. To reiterate, had Aristotle known of electricity, and how it worked in water, he would have given us a naturalist reason why it behaves that way. We just have to put ourselves in Aristotle's shoes when coming up with such a reason for D&D.

 

[s/LaSH]

That position is actually a holdover from 2E, though I'm not certain what book (Combat & Tactics I think). That said, I don't think its that apart from my previous statements. Aristotelian natural philosophy doesn't talk about electricity behaving that way because (AKAIK) electricity hadn't been harnessed back in Aristotle's day. He didn't know about it to talk about it. Even if he had known about it, it still would have behaved that way, so he would have come up with a naturalist reason why. To reiterate, had Aristotle known of electricity, and how it worked in water, he would have given us a naturalist reason why it behaves that way. We just have to put ourselves in Aristotle's shoes when coming up with such a reason for D&D.

Electricity wasn't harnessed, by and large, except for ancient Egyptian gold electroplating cells (used acid and stuff to create a mild current in a solution, I believe). However, the word Electricity is rumoured to be based on the Greek Electros, or amber, because when rubbed with lambskin it generated static electricity. So the Greeks knew something about electricity, but probably only associated it with friction.

Is there any way to make that relevant?