Annotated 15-18
Laughed out loud at “MAGICK!,” first time I read this.
Phil is way more qualified than I am to render people in the midst of partaking, but from what I gather it’s a bit like drinking in that it’s a very different experience depending on the personalities involved. E-Merl’s getting a combo of the ramblies and munchies while Bandit slows down a bit. That seems in line for both of them. I sorta wish we’d removed Bandit’s “accent” for the rest of this scene to bring that home a bit more. Meantime, Frigg gets pretty quiet for her and Scipio gets… even quieter. Curiously, Rachel’s personality seems almost unaffected, but there may be subtle differences; we’ll get to those.
If they were invited, Byron would decline due to the meds he’s already on and Gravedust would abstain, but Syr’Nj, well, that’s 50-50. She might be too annoyed at Bandit for dipping into the supplies to condone it, but if it didn’t feel like abandoning Byron, she might be curious enough to experiment. And if she did, she’d probably get more rambly than anyone else here and impair the relaxed vibe of this gathering, so leaving her out was a win-win for Bandit, really. I mean, you think she likes to talk about science while SOBER…
I feel Syr’Nj wouldn’t be here enjoying this because she’s too much of a
tight assresponsible, strong leader at this point to do so. At the start of this adventure, when she was a very gullible, wide-eyed girl that had alcohol for the first time and had fun with everyone doing so: For sure.It’s really cool how this scene keeps the yellow+purple chromatic themes of the previous page even though the sources of colour are different. Kudos again, John!
Thank you again!
Heh. Just noticed what looks like a yellow exclamation point above E-Merl’s head. Is he a quest giver now? ;-D
Believe that’s the door to the guild hall sitting ajar. As good as any place for a quest marker.
Yeah that makes sense. I figured it was something like that. But I couldn’t quite place it.
As a point of interest: A number of “recreational” drugs hit neurological receptors that don’t actually have any defined purpose. The result is that the effects vary (sometimes wildly) from person to person.
This is why things like Cannabis work extremely well medicinally for some people and not at all for others.
Unfortunately this means that statistically “proving” effectiveness of such compounds is practically impossible.
Statistical biases will still crop up since there’s a limit to variation in a finite sample size. Which is really all they want, is to find them.
They’re not actually looking to prove effectiveness as an across-the-board thing. Or nothing would ever be considered effective.
Evolution’s “reserved” input fields. Fascinating.
Now I’m curious as to what the non-cannabis “things like cannabis” you’re referring to are.
Nothing of the sort. Evolution is not design. It’s blind.
What these things are acting on is coincidental effects of that blind rambling.
Just ask any hacker : If you build a machine for one purpose, there’s going to be some weird “put an apple in the intake and it poops out an orange” effects that no-one intended, even if there was a designer trying to avoid such effects.
And evolution is not a designer and doesn’t try to avoid weird corner cases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_protein-coupled_receptor
You can think of these receptors as forming in bundles, with certain triggers always wired to the same outputs, but a whole bunch of triggers that aren’t actually used by the body under normal circumstances and that get attached to random outputs. There are lots of medicinal compounds that have predictable results because they hit the predictably-wired receptors, but there are also lots of other potential triggers that hit the random or semi-random ones.
Like the last page, I completely missed the vibe here until I read the comments. I got no drug feel at all from this, although I have no experience so maybe I just don’t recognize what was being portrayed.