explosivecombat | NIETZSCHE; DEAD PHILOSOPHERS' INBOX

I can't think of much that I want to see destroyed, it's true.

Is it only the resurrection of the dead that takes limbs and organs, or are there other forms of creation that seize them as well? If it's a matter of equivalence, as you've told me before, then it seems as though anything sufficiently large enough might demand such an equally high cost, but surely you must have some idea of where the line roughly falls.

Well, alchemy adheres to a few laws of its own, different from the life-concepts or the laws of mankind; these are the laws of the world as a whole. The most important of these laws make up the structure of what we refer to as Equivalent Exchange.

Equivalent Exchange mandates that we can't create something from nothing, nor can we destroy so thoroughly that something is rendered into nothing. "Creation," as alchemy goes, is a bit of a misleading term - it might help to not think of transmutations as being strictly a means to create/destroy, but rather a way to turn one thing into another. To use the most common example, you're creating gold by sacrificing lead. If you try to create more gold than you have lead to sacrifice, that's when you're going to get a rebound.

The reason the resurrection of the dead invariably causes a rebound is due to the alchemist trying to create a human soul from insufficient materials; souls are invaluable and can't be created through artificial means, no matter how much you have in terms of physical materials. At least, I'm fairly sure that's the reasoning behind it.

Basically, as long as you have enough materials to balance out what you're trying to create, you should be fine. Of course, there are other forms of transmutations that work a bit differently, but those also adhere to Equivalent Exchange in their own way.

And you said there's a point at which the human soul can't be redeemed, no matter the price paid, so at that point even the offer of a soul in exchange would be futile.

But what if the hypothetical alchemist were able to reach the soul in question before that point — assuming there's such a thing at all? The alchemist by definition must have a soul herself. And if there's any sort of delay between the point of death and the point of irredeemability...then in theory at least, it should be possible for a committed enough alchemist with extraordinarily good timing to trade herself to resurrect another, soul and all, isn't it? At the expense of her own body and soul herself?

I won't get into the possibility of resurrecting bodies intentionally devoid of their souls, but given what you've described, that ought to also be an available option, shouldn't it. Not a palatable one by any means, perhaps, but theoretically possible, again.

Before I answer, I would like to make it clear now that anything I tell you in regards to this is purely theoretical in nature. I've had some things explained to me by someone far more skilled than I in this particular area of study, but he wasn't a teacher - he was the last individual, before I came here, to wield me as his weapon, and some knowledge of this sort of thing was necessary for what I would ultimately be required to do. However, I'll be the first to admit that the full potential of what can be done with one's soul is still a bit beyond me in some ways.

But as far as I understand it, what you're describing is entirely possible in theory, assuming that the soul had some sort of container that it could be placed in. This can be done via the usage of blood crests; it's not unheard of for it to be done that way, anyway, though it's an incredibly dangerous process and illegal besides due to those human transmutation laws we've discussed.

However, if she had some sort of container prepared, or if the body of the person in question hadn't taken a sufficient amount of damage or could be alchemically repaired to a point where it wouldn't just die immediately upon being reanimated, then what your hypothetical alchemist would want to do would be to inscribe a blood crest on the container to start the transmutation, then activate the array. The result of that should bring the alchemist before the Gate - all human transmutations end in a confrontation with a being known as Truth, whom I suppose is best described as the gatekeeper to God's domain. Truth is a sentient being; he can be spoken to, and should the alchemist be determined or clever enough, he can be bargained with.

Assuming, at that point, that the soul of the deceased has not already passed beyond the Gate, Truth should accept the soul of the alchemist in question in exchange for the soul of the deceased, which should be returned to the container inscribed with the blood crest.

...I think that's how it works, anyway.

Edited 2013-05-23 04:31 (UTC)

Rest assured, it's not a theory I'd ever want to test for myself. But part of understanding means exploring the hypothetical questions raised by the unaddressed aspects of the structures you're creating.

But Truth as a sentient being? One that can be bargained with? That seems...

It's not a concept I've heard before, let's put it that way.

It seems most haven't. I wouldn't suggest trying to bargain with him in any way, though, even if it is possible - from what I understand, Truth's idea of bargaining is being talked down from "taking all of your vital organs" to "taking a lung and both kidneys, along with your right leg up to the thigh, and calling it a day."

...At the risk of stating the obvious: some bargain that is.

Is that only a hazard in creation alchemy? If a rebound occurs for not having sufficient materials to create the thing you're attempting, destruction alchemy seems as though it'd be free of that particular concern — since you're not really creating anything, but simply changing the form of the existing thing you intend to destroy, correct?

There are certainly rebounds that can be caused by destructive alchemy as well; if anything, sometimes the limits are harder to see when it comes to alchemy that's intended to destroy. Again, this depends on the method one is intending to use - sometimes it's simply changing forms, yes, but that isn't how most choose to do it.

Wouldn't that be easiest? If I wanted to level a building, why wouldn't I just alchemize it into a pile of its component materials?

[...WOMAN...]

And how many individuals do you know that happen to have the knowledge of chemistry required to pull that off, consistently, with everything they might happen to want to destroy?

If I were planning to destroy a building, I'd make sure to do my homework first.

And if you were in a warzone, you wouldn't have the time, and you would have to construct a different transmutation circle every time.

I don't make it a point of frequenting war zones. Nor do I anticipate leveling many buildings.

It would still be ridiculously impractical, and you'd have to deal with...whatever it is you'd broken it down into. Remember, no rendering into nothing.

What would be the better way of doing it, then?

Bear in mind that State Alchemists are usually soldiers, and as such most of the destruction-based alchemy I've seen is both highly efficient and easily weaponized. Among the methods I've seen:

- Undermining the stability of the building somehow, usually by destroying large amounts of the ground directly beneath the building itself.
- Causing some sort of chemical reaction that would render the air around the alchemist flammable, and then setting it ablaze. I've seen this used in ways that were either widespread or incredibly targeted, from the same alchemist; his control was impressive, I'll admit.
- Forcing an unstable reaction within the materials provided, causing the materials themselves to explode.

Of course, there are also forms of destructive alchemy that aren't driven toward the destruction of property - there was one alchemist that was said to be able to destroy your soul itself, and another who was able to kill you through touch by freezing or boiling all the water in your body.

Destructive alchemy is never clean, Locke.

When you put it that way, I find myself remarkably disinterested in any of the available options. But I've also never wanted to be a soldier, and I hate weapons.

Present company excluded.

Duly noted, and consider me honored.

Although I admit that I do find it interesting that you haven't asked your teacher exactly what it is he specializes in.

I had to solicit you earlier for interest in me. Maybe I'm just returning the favor.

My guess is that your specialty is destructive alchemy, and one of the methods you named is your own. Would I be wrong?

You would be correct.

Any further guesses?

Yours is either the second or the third of the ones you named. You seem to have too much respect for the value of a soul to be a person who'd destroy it in someone else, and freezing or boiling the water in someone's body...that strikes me as a little too personal, somehow. I see you as the type to strike from a distance; maybe that's just my bias in perspective, given the way we communicate, but it is what it is.

Of the remaining three, I don't see you favoring the first — you strike at the targets you're given directly, as opposed to undermining them and letting them fall as they may. Which leaves the last two, and I think that comes down to a question of your arrogance.

My inclination is the second, but playing coy and implicitly lauding your own abilities — that's something I would do, not you. So while I think the second sounds more like your method of choice, the dicta makes me doubt that's so.

Of the two that you narrowed it down to, the man who favored the second method was a rival of mine. His viewpoints were overly idealistic at best, disgustingly self-flagellating at worst; I could respect his power as an alchemist, and I'll admit that he was incredibly intelligent, but his potential was greatly hindered by those viewpoints and I never did respect him as a person.

The third method is mine, however, you're right.

I hope you're not drawing an implicit comparison between him and me, just because of what I said.

What made you choose explosions? I assume you chose them, given the variation in method from alchemist to alchemist.

Of course not; I wouldn't still be talking to you now if I believed there were any comparisons of the sort to be drawn.

And of course I chose them; anyone who claims that the method "chooses" the alchemist is either lying or greatly romanticizing the process. However, what I've told you so far doesn't give a proper indication of what it is I do, and for that I apologize - my specialty isn't so much "making things explode" as it is energy conducting and manipulation. It's a discipline that's largely unexplored and incredibly difficult to utilize without running the risk of killing the alchemist.

With that in mind, it was the challenge in doing something unique, something that no one else had done, that drew me to it at first. The explosions came later, and were admittedly accidental at first; as my own drafts and theories progressed, I found ways to weaponize them. My methods are entirely unique, much to the interest of my country's military; as of this point, my efficiency and power have yet to be replicated by anyone else, and I remain the only person to have mastered the discipline.

[That might be because channeling large enough amounts of energy to blow up a city block through one's own body is generally recognized as a really bad idea by most, but details...]

[Yes, well, dangerous or not, she can certainly understand the draw of aiming to do something no one else has before. And it's kind of comforting to hear out of Nietzsche now; even if he doesn't always seem to have that passion and ambitious drive now, at least he had it once, and that's something.]

And yet you've managed to master it with no adverse effects? Consider me impressed with my teacher.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject