explosivecombat | NIETZSCHE; DEAD PHILOSOPHERS' INBOX

...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.

I never said that; I've made sacrifices for my craft, as everyone does. But any adverse effects I've suffered have long since been dealt with, and I consider the results to have been more than worth it; I put a lot of stock in the idea of 'adapt and overcome.'

Let's see, then. You've told me about the dangers of meeting the demands of equivalent exchange, the nature of rebounds, the possible consequences of certain types of reactions and why some are strictly forbidden as a result, and now the possible adverse effects of certain kinds of alchemy I might specialize in.

Sooner or later, you're going to run out of negative things to caution me about, and you'll have to start naming some of the positives instead.

Would I come off as too much of a stereotypical villain if I said that the power alone is more than enough of a reward?

Enough so to risk losing yourself a student because of it.

You really are no fun sometimes, you know.

But very well, then. Shall I tell you about the Eastern Sage? It's a far more positive story, I promise.

I'll indulge you a bout of maniacal laughter someday to make it up to you.

And I do like stories. Please do.

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