Did anyone find Roy's assumption to be kind of funny and satirical?

[paladinofshojo]

When Roy stated that if mortals weren't sure were they would end up in the Afterlife, he stated that there would be a lot less warfare. But look at us, we aren't sure where we'll end up after death but we manage to kill eachother just fine.........

[SPoD]

Yes, this is largely the entire point of the strip.

[Spiryt]

That crossed my mind.

Altough the thing is that many people who cause(d) violence seem to be pretty sure where they go after death.

[Bibliomancer]

Yes, this is largely the entire point of the strip.

Meta[gaming]physical irony...is there any better kind?

Note: this is not a rhetorical question. I am challenging the greatest minds of the forum to invent a better form of irony.

PS: the above statement might or might not be in itself ironic.

[Ancalagon]

Meta[gaming]physical irony...is there any better kind?

PS: the above statement might or might not be in itself ironic.

Sarcasm and cynicism. God, that was simple.

[y2kyle89]

http://www.lakewoodconferences.com/direct/dbimage/50104005/Electric_Steam_Iron.jpgy

I'm as clever as I am witty.

[Bibliomancer]

Sarcasm and cynicism. God, that was simple.

Personally, I find myself too jaded to appreciate cynicism.

[Conuly]

Note: this is not a rhetorical question. I am challenging the greatest minds of the forum to invent a better form of irony.

Well, Roy's sword is part iron (steel, anyway) and part starmetal, so you could call it "iron-y"... right?

[paladinofshojo]

Well, Roy's sword is part iron (steel, anyway) and part starmetal, so you could call it "iron-y"... right?

Fail................

[Conuly]

Oh gosh. You just rained on my wedding day :(

I guess it's like when you write a whole song about irony, and everybody points out that nothing in it is ironic at all. Isn't that ironic? Don't you think?

[Porthos]

Oh gosh. I guess it's like when you write a whole song about irony, and everybody points out that nothing in it isn't ironic at all. Isn't that ironic?

Irony: A word that, ironically enough, is fairly hard to define in simple terms. :smallcool:

[Bibliomancer]

Forum, I apologize. I retract the challenge.

[Random832]

Congratulations on getting the joke.

And thank you so very much for explaining it to me, I'd completely missed it :smalltongue:

[NerfTW]

Irony: A word that, ironically enough, is fairly hard to define in simple terms. :smallcool:

How so?


Irony: the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning

Also situations that convey something other than the expected result.

[Porthos]

How so?

Because the word "irony" is used in far too many situations that isn't ironic at all. That famous song, for one. But puttng that aside for a moment, over time the actual term "irony" has expanded to cover situations that weren't originally covered by the word. And above and beyond that, there are the competing basic definitons of the term. And when some people try to define the term, sometimes they'll flail about and end up using ironic situations as examples as opposed to actually defining the term in simple language.

All of this might, and I stress might, strike one as ironic. :smallwink:

Plus, you know, I was attempting to make a silly joke. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

I still like Terry Pratchett's

"It's like goldy and bronzy, only its made of iron." :smallamused:

[Pr0tag0nist]

i dont get it...

i m sure i for myself kill a lot less because i dont know what happens in afterlife with them or me...

if i kill now and get arrested like almost my entire life.. i propably ruined about every meaning my life could have by wasting it in a tiny little prison cell...

with an afterlife i would know that i cant really waste time when there is infinity of it after death... so what the hell?

[Harr]

How so?


Irony: the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning


That would actually be sarcasm.



Also situations that convey something other than the expected result.

Closer, but still no.

Irony is when you take certain action in order to avoid a specific result, and those actions that you took end up causing the very result you wanted to avoid.

For example, I'm having my party in Los Angeles tomorrow, but today I see some dark clouds in the sky. I really don't want it to rain on my party so I call everybody and make a huge effort to move the party to Sacramento. Next day, it is clear and sunny in Los Angeles, and pours a thunderstorm in Sacramento and on my party. That's irony.

Or, I buy a pair of pants for a job interview tomorrow. I look at the small bag that the clerk is going to put my pants in and, not wanting to get them all wrinkled for my interview, say "Never mind, I'll just wear them home." On my way home, I slip and fall in a puddle, ruining the pants. That's irony.

For comedic irony you can look at Jon Stewart: "So we're going to fix the economy... by giving billions of dollars to the people who broke it?" Dilbert: "Your assistance is required in a meeting where we will discuss the need to have less meetings." Groucho Marx: "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member."

=====

As for the comic, yeah it's probably meant to satirize the fact that people in this world supposedly don't know what's in the afterlife... EXCEPT that the people in our world causing the most war by far are precisely people who believe that they know 100% for sure exactly what they will get in the afterlife.

I won't say more than that because then the thread will start to veer off into politics/religion and get locked.

[Conuly]

Actually, Harr, the word "irony" has several meanings, some of which you just rejected.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Nerf's defintion is one of the primary definitions given in Merriam-Webster.

[Harr]

But puttng that aside for a moment, over time the actual term "irony" has expanded to cover situations that weren't originally covered by the word. And above and beyond that, there are the competing basic definitons of the term. And when some people try to define the term, sometimes they'll flail about and end up using ironic situations as examples as opposed to actually defining the term in simple language.


True, but only in casual, everyday conversation with people who don't write for a living. Which is of course the most common situation... but "irony" as a literary device is still very well-defined and recognizable.

[Porthos]

Continuing the discussion of the term "irony", look at how much fun Wikipedia has with the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony

Yes, yes, I know. Wikipedia. Still (the point stands).

I think this part of the entry describes what I was getting at with my original post:


Henry Watson Fowler, in The King's English, says “any definition of irony—though hundreds might be given, and very few of them would be accepted—must include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same."

It's the part that the definition of the word is somewhat elusive and morphic which is what I was referring to in my original post.

[Harr]

Actually, Harr, the word "irony" has several meanings, some of which you just rejected.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

Nerf's defintion is one of the primary definitions given in Merriam-Webster.

Well, I can't argue with a dictionary obviously, but it sounds to me like they are describing sarcasm, not irony.

[Conuly]

Well, I can't argue with a dictionary obviously, but it sounds to me like they are describing sarcasm, not irony.

That's because language changes. Definitions of words expand to take in new meanings, or contract to lose old meanings.

I don't know how lexicographers do their arcane craft, but I tend to trust their judgment.

[Porthos]

True, but only in casual, everyday conversation with people who don't write for a living. Which is of course the most common situation... but "irony" as a literary device is still very well-defined and recognizable.

Yes, but, and not to get on too meta of a level here, words get their meaning from everyday conversations and usage. If the General Public consistanly over time use a word differently from "dictionary definiton" the actual "dictionary definition" will eventually morph to the "accepted" usage by the General Public. This has happened time and time again.

Language evolves. Sometimes slowly, sometime not.

Or to put it another way, I am quite sure that there are plenty of writers that use "irony" in the casual "synonym for incongruous or coincidental" meaning.

Shoiuld they? That's where I get off the meta train and leave such discussions to literary types. :smallwink:

[Porthos]

Ironically enuf, the posters in this thread (myself included) seem to be making several near identical points simultaneously. :smallwink:

Ah, the wonders of Internet Communications. :smalltongue:

[NerfTW]

Because the word "irony" is used in far too many situations that isn't ironic at all. That famous song, for one.

The song is called Ironic because it's ironic that a song so named has no actual irony in it at all. Straight from the horse's mouth. (Or Alanis Morrisette, as it were)

[averagejoe]

Well, I can't argue with a dictionary obviously, but it sounds to me like they are describing sarcasm, not irony.

Sarcasm is generally characterized as having a more hostile or hurtful tone, where the tone of irony is more neutral. They are very similar things, however.

Also, no one has mentioned the best kind of irony-DRRRRRRRAMATIC irony!

[Porthos]

The song is called Ironic because it's ironic that a song so named has no actual irony in it at all. Straight from the horse's mouth. (Or Alanis Morrisette, as it were)

I'll take your word for it. Suffice to say I ain't exactly a fan of Alanis (personal reasons that I shant get into here) and so I can honestly say that I never really looked into the whole thing.

Tho for the curious (i.e not me :smalltongue:) here's the Wiki entry on the song:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_(song)

[Conuly]

The song is called Ironic because it's ironic that a song so named has no actual irony in it at all. Straight from the horse's mouth. (Or Alanis Morrisette, as it were)

I always figured that she made that "fact" up after she started getting flak for not being as ironic as she thought.

[sam79]

I still like Terry Pratchett's

"It's like goldy and bronzy, only its made of iron." :smallamused:

PEDANT ALERT.

I think that this is a Blackadder quote (though do visit Pratchett for much employment of irony).

Well, to be even MORE pedantic, it is a Baldrick quote. He says it to Blackadder in fact, when asked if he knows what irony is. And, clearly, he does.

[hamishspence]

yes- Blackadder probably employed it first, though I thought I saw a very similar quote, referring to the total lack of ability to get irony, that dwarves have in Discworld.

[King of Nowhere]

This world isn't exactly happy fun sunshine land, but any fantasy setting is much, much worse.

[NerfTW]

I always figured that she made that "fact" up after she started getting flak for not being as ironic as she thought.

Entirely possible, but if that were so, wouldn't there have been at least one instance that was ironic in there? It seems too avoid an actual example too well to be unintentional.

Especially since it hits all the things people normally confuse with irony. Serendipity, coincidence, bad luck, etc.

[sam79]

Ah, I stand corrected; that Discworld-Dwarf-irony thing rings a bell with me now, so I'm sure you're right that it is in there somewhere.

[Conuly]

There are a few borderline examples in there.

A death row pardon two minutes two late *is* kinda ironic, isn't it?

[Moriarty]

to get back at the original topic



When Roy stated that if mortals weren't sure were they would end up in the Afterlife, he stated that there would be a lot less warfare. But look at us, we aren't sure where we'll end up after death but we manage to kill eachother just fine.........


i think is was supposed to be ironic, but is it?

yeah, we have war in the real world, but it's because poor people have problems and entire countries seeing no other way to continue (at least in our "modern" times), not because its easier to kill somebody than earn something on your own?

i mean Roy comes out of an intact family, his father paid for his college and he goes around killing things because it lives in dungeons. When was the last time you went into a bakery and slaughered every one there because you were hungry?

or to keep the "always evil", do you go to a law agency and start killing until you find someone who wears that tie you want?

[Mastikator]

When Roy stated that if mortals weren't sure were they would end up in the Afterlife, he stated that there would be a lot less warfare. But look at us, we aren't sure where we'll end up after death but we manage to kill eachother just fine.........

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Demographics
"2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 11.9% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.3%. This figure did not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists."

The vast majority of people in the world do believe they're going to an afterlife and do believe in deities.
Lots of these people are very sure of their beliefs.

If you're uncertain of your spritual beliefs then you're in a very small minority.

[BarroomBard]

I really saw this strip as an answer to Celia's objections in earlier strips. She represented a completely logical and normal reaction to the wanton murder and violence common in role-playing worlds.

Roy's statements are the philosophical justification of that ethos. I mean, what would morality look like in a world where death has almost no meaning and your ultimate reward is a guarantee.

***
And, fyi, sarcasm is probably better defined as a tone of voice with which to convey irony. Which is why sarcasm doesn't exist on the internet.

[paladinofshojo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Demographics
"2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 11.9% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.3%. This figure did not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists."

The vast majority of people in the world do believe they're going to an afterlife and do believe in deities.
Lots of these people are very sure of their beliefs.

If you're uncertain of your spritual beliefs then you're in a very small minority.



We don't have plainshifts or ressurection spells to gaurantee we know where we are going

[hamishspence]

And, fyi, sarcasm is probably better defined as a tone of voice with which to convey irony. Which is why sarcasm doesn't exist on the internet.

On TV, in subtitles, its usually done as (?) for a sarcastic question or (!) for an exclamation.

As in:

"Yes, (insert character here)'s behaviour was completely reasonable (!)"

or "Really, you think (insert character here) would do that (?)"

It would be nice to see these in more use. Though smileys might sort of fit the "not serious comment" version of sarcasm.

[Porthos]

Though smileys might sort of fit the "not serious comment" version of sarcasm.

Well, if one doesn't wish to be subtle, there's always this one :smalltongue::

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a35/BuckGodot/Icons/icon_sarcasm.gif

[Berserk Monk]

I didn't find it so funny. I get the joke, but it didn't make me laugh.

[Ichneumon]

We don't have plainshifts or ressurection spells to gaurantee we know where we are going

Most people would say they don't need that to "know" or "feel" they are right.

[Forbiddenwar]

Altough the thing is that many people who cause(d) violence seem to be pretty sure where they go after death.

This. Quoted for truth. Which is why, in my opinion, belief in an afterlife, is one cause of violence.

[Keshay]

We don't have plainshifts or ressurection spells to gaurantee we know where we are going


Christians believe Christ was ressurected after death. Muslims believe that Mohammad and several others ascended directly into heaven.

Just because not everybody gets to do it does not mean that people don't believe in it. So maybe we do have Resurrection and Plane Shift, but no actual Clerics of a high enough level to cast the requisite spells.

[Acero]

if people could be revived in this world, it would be disasterous.

im assuming the OOTS universe has a much lower population than earth.
there are over 6 bill people in this world, and an estimated 3bil by 2020.

if people could be brought back, earth would be even more overpopulated than it is now. some diamonds themselves cost upto $5,000, (dont know gp-dollar ratio) so raising dead would be availible. actually, it would be whatever the user valued as a certain amount. diamonds would eventually run out, along with our food. wars would be even worse. Sotomyor(sp) would be supreme court judge forever. true, certain people could benifit society, but a society destined for destruction from within.

and i would be stuck going to some movie where a due dies and his wife uses the engagement ring to revie him.:smallyuk:

[Porthos]

Sotomyor(sp) would be supreme court judge forever.

Considering we have no idea what type of Justice she will be, I fail to see how this is exactly equivalent to all of the other things you list. If you're going to name Supreme Court Justices, I can think of at least a couple that make much more sense. :smallwink:

But, hey, that's a Real Life Political Discussion. So maybe we shouldn't even go there in the first place. :smalltongue:

[Jonathan327]

Yes, this is largely the entire point of the strip.

Spod has it right.

[Ozymandias9]

Closer, but still no.

Irony is when you take certain action in order to avoid a specific result, and those actions that you took end up causing the very result you wanted to avoid.

For example, I'm having my party in Los Angeles tomorrow, but today I see some dark clouds in the sky. I really don't want it to rain on my party so I call everybody and make a huge effort to move the party to Sacramento. Next day, it is clear and sunny in Los Angeles, and pours a thunderstorm in Sacramento and on my party. That's irony.

Or, I buy a pair of pants for a job interview tomorrow. I look at the small bag that the clerk is going to put my pants in and, not wanting to get them all wrinkled for my interview, say "Never mind, I'll just wear them home." On my way home, I slip and fall in a puddle, ruining the pants. That's irony.

For comedic irony you can look at Jon Stewart: "So we're going to fix the economy... by giving billions of dollars to the people who broke it?" Dilbert: "Your assistance is required in a meeting where we will discuss the need to have less meetings." Groucho Marx: "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member."

Actually, he was right. Sarcasam is actually a form of formal verbal irony (in fact, the most extreme form and generally taken as the crudest). A more general definition would be "An incongruity between what is intended (or expected) and what is understood (or results)." The parenthesis are there to cover situational irony. A more formal definition would limit to the situation in which you have a double audience to recognize the disparity between the two.

What you're defining is tragic coincidence, and only qualifies as irony if you presume some cosmic double audience that would be, for some reason, expecting that outcome. Even if such a presumption is made, most prescriptivists would require an explicit expectation that the event runs counter to.

[Berserk Monk]

I gotta say the Giant's comments in the last comic came off kind of condescending. The fact is some people actually believe they know what happens after death, and some people are just so hate filled or revenge driven they have no problem taking a life whether they know what'll happen to them or not.

[paladinofshojo]

Christians believe Christ was ressurected after death. Muslims believe that Mohammad and several others ascended directly into heaven.

Just because not everybody gets to do it does not mean that people don't believe in it. So maybe we do have Resurrection and Plane Shift, but no actual Clerics of a high enough level to cast the requisite spells.




Yes but believing in an afterlife because it's part of your faith and believing in it because you're able to prove it is totally different...... And does our world even have skillpoints?

[Yiuel]

And does our world even have skillpoints?

Well... What about Diplomas?

[paladinofshojo]

Well... What about Diplomas?



Then most of us wouldn't even get passed the third level..............asides, you can easilly obtained forged or unacreditted diplomas, how does that workout if we had a skillpoint system?

[Casey]

Actually, he was right. Sarcasam is actually a form of formal verbal irony (in fact, the most extreme form and generally taken as the crudest)

Indeed, Merriam-Webster defines "sarcasm" as "irony designed to cut (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm)"...

...And we're back to Roy's sword.

-c.

[paladinofshojo]

Can we STOP talking about the definition of irony please?

[JaxGaret]

But look at us, we aren't sure where we'll end up after death but we manage to kill eachother just fine.........

Actually, most humans are pretty sure about where they'll end up after death.

Being sure about something doesn't mean that your assumption is correct, of course.

[Nimrod's Son]

I'll take your word for it. Suffice to say I ain't exactly a fan of Alanis (personal reasons that I shant get into here) and so I can honestly say that I never really looked into the whole thing.

Tho for the curious (i.e not me :smalltongue:) here's the Wiki entry on the song:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironic_(song)
And, for balance, here's Ed Byrne railing against it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg).

[sam79]

Can we STOP talking about the definition of irony please?

Given the content of the strip, it seems hard to talk about anything else substantial without breaking forum rules. This thread is sailing pretty close to the wind as it is.


The fact is some people actually believe they know what happens after death, and some people are just so hate filled or revenge driven they have no problem taking a life whether they know what'll happen to them or not.

That's the whole point; they believe they know. This is not the same as knowing, and which is why religions are based on faith and not reason.

And yes, some people are so filled with hate or revenge that they will kill; these people would thus not be acting logically, which was the premise of Roy's statement.

[Forbiddenwar]

I gotta say the Giant's comments in the last comic came off kind of condescending.

Never confuse a character's opinion with an author's.
It's like saying Giant is Okay with mass murder because Nale does it all the time.

[Yiuel]

Then most of us wouldn't even get passed the third level..............asides, you can easilly obtained forged or unacreditted diplomas, how does that workout if we had a skillpoint system?

Maybe a simpler case would be having passing grades. This could let you have as much skillpoints as you want, any level being based on the difficulty of that grade.

As for forged grades, what about them being illusion, up until you epically fail?

[Pronounceable]

Then most of us wouldn't even get passed the third level..............asides, you can easilly obtained forged or unacreditted diplomas, how does that workout if we had a skillpoint system?

It shows that you have points in forgery instead of whatever profession or craft is written on the diploma.

[paladinofshojo]

Maybe a simpler case would be having passing grades. This could let you have as much skillpoints as you want, any level being based on the difficulty of that grade.

As for forged grades, what about them being illusion, up until you epically fail?

Then what type of class variety will we have?

[Optimystik]

I gotta say the Giant's comments in the last comic came off kind of condescending. The fact is some people actually believe they know what happens after death, and some people are just so hate filled or revenge driven they have no problem taking a life whether they know what'll happen to them or not.

You missed the Giant's point if you think he is speaking his views through Roy's mouth here. The message is a lot more tongue-in-cheek than that; he is pointing out that two groups of people that otherwise have nothing in common (in this case, inhabitants of the real world and Outsiders in a fantasy setting like Celia), yet still arrive at the same life philosophy.

[Shining Sadist]

if people could be revived in this world, it would be disasterous.

im assuming the OOTS universe has a much lower population than earth.
there are over 6 bill people in this world, and an estimated 3bil by 2020.

if people could be brought back, earth would be even more overpopulated than it is now. some diamonds themselves cost upto $5,000, (dont know gp-dollar ratio) so raising dead would be availible. actually, it would be whatever the user valued as a certain amount. diamonds would eventually run out, along with our food. wars would be even worse. Sotomyor(sp) would be supreme court judge forever. true, certain people could benifit society, but a society destined for destruction from within.

and i would be stuck going to some movie where a due dies and his wife uses the engagement ring to revie him.:smallyuk:

There are some real flaws with this logic. One, you can't raise people dead from old age.
Two, it is not, in fact financially viable.
A gold piece is weighted at around 1/3 of an ounce, the price of gold is $936 per ounce.
Each goldpiece is worth $312, so a diamond worth 5,000gp costs $1,560,000.
I could be completely wrong, but it seems that raise dead wouldn't change much besides protecting world leaders from assassination.

[wootage]

That's because language changes. Definitions of words expand to take in new meanings, or contract to lose old meanings.

I don't know how lexicographers do their arcane craft, but I tend to trust their judgment.

The instant slanguage made it into the dictionary, I lost all faith in lexicographers. The old saying "Words have meaning" comes to mind...

[AstralFire]

The instant slanguage made it into the dictionary, I lost all faith in lexicographers. The old saying "Words have meaning" comes to mind...

Slang was defining language long before dictionaries reared their heads. And cosmic irony, which is a fairly old definition of irony, actually matches pretty closely to the way many complain irony gets overabused.

And I'm sticking to this side conversation because I'm worried about the thread topic veering into scrubbing territory. I like keeping my posts red text free. :smalleek:

[Ghastly Epigram]

The instant slanguage made it into the dictionary, I lost all faith in lexicographers. The old saying "Words have meaning" comes to mind...

Hmm, that makes me wonder...what with the shifting nature of language, will looking back on things written in the past become difficult for future generations? Maybe we have a duty to preserve the language! :smalltongue:

[snafu]

Each goldpiece is worth $312, so a diamond worth 5,000gp costs $1,560,000.


How many diamonds are there in the world that are so valuable? There are a small number of unique, named diamonds with astronomical pricetags, and presumably there are lesser gems around the right mark, but still surely there can't be more than a few thousand such gems in the world.

Can one use multiple diamonds of lesser value adding up to a total of 5000gp? That would be a lot easier, if the spell demanded only a particular total carat weight which happens to correspond to about 5000gp.

But then again, if it were possible to use diamonds to bring back the dead, the demand for diamonds would soar beyond the wildest dreams of De Beers' marketing department. Soon enough, they'd all be worth a fortune.

[snafu]

Hmm, that makes me wonder...what with the shifting nature of language, will looking back on things written in the past become difficult for future generations? Maybe we have a duty to preserve the language! :smalltongue:

Well, unless you want the great comic tales of today to end up reading something like this:


"Alas!" quoth Absolon, "and well away!
That true love ever was so ill beset:
Then kiss me, since that it may be no bet,
For Jesus' love, and for the love of me."
"Wilt thou then go thy way therewith?", quoth she.
"Yea, certes, leman," quoth this Absolon.
"Then make thee ready," quoth she, "I come anon."
And unto Nicholas she said full still:
"Now peace, and thou shalt laugh anon thy fill."
This Absolon down set him on his knees,
And said; "I am a lord at all degrees:
For after this I hope there cometh more;
Leman, thy grace, and, sweete bird, thine ore."
The window she undid, and that in haste.
"Have done," quoth she, "come off, and speed thee fast,
Lest that our neighebours should thee espy."
Then Absolon gan wipe his mouth full dry.
Dark was the night as pitch or as the coal,
And at the window she put out her hole,
And Absolon him fell ne bet ne werse,
But with his mouth he kiss'd her naked erse
Full savourly. When he was ware of this,
Aback he start, and thought it was amiss;
For well he wist a woman hath no beard.
He felt a thing all rough, and long y-hair'd,
And saide; "Fy, alas! what have I do?"
"Te he!" quoth she, and clapt the window to;
And Absolon went forth at sorry pace.
"A beard, a beard," said Hendy Nicholas;
"By God's corpus, this game went fair and well."

[Tenebrais]

How many diamonds are there in the world that are so valuable? There are a small number of unique, named diamonds with astronomical pricetags, and presumably there are lesser gems around the right mark, but still surely there can't be more than a few thousand such gems in the world.

Can one use multiple diamonds of lesser value adding up to a total of 5000gp? That would be a lot easier, if the spell demanded only a particular total carat weight which happens to correspond to about 5000gp.

But then again, if it were possible to use diamonds to bring back the dead, the demand for diamonds would soar beyond the wildest dreams of De Beers' marketing department. Soon enough, they'd all be worth a fortune.

Judging by the stolen diamonds (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0649.html), multiple diamonds adding up to the value of 5000gp seems to be valid. That said, measuring diamonds by value as a spell component seems... illogical. Eventually, as diamonds are consumed by the spell, even the rather large stocks of diamonds in the world (they're more common than their price implies) will dwindle, increasing the value of diamonds and thus decreasing the amount required for the spell. So why couldn't that latter amount be used in the first place?
Personally I'd have gone by weight, or something. But there's no real point in criticising the system now.

[Skorj]

Real world: synthetic diamonds are cheap and plentiful. Diamonds remain valuable only by combination of good marketing (effectively restricting synthetic diamonds to industry) and dramatic restriction of the rate at which natural diamonds are allowed to enter the marketplace.

D&D world: if gems were consumed as spell components, eventually there would be no gems. That aspect of D&D never made sense to me. The only way it can possibly work is if there's a Create Diamonds spell, and the market price of diamonds merely reflects that spell's material component cost (something I've houseruled before).

[Thanatosia]

Hmm, that makes me wonder...what with the shifting nature of language, will looking back on things written in the past become difficult for future generations? Maybe we have a duty to preserve the language! :smalltongue:
Language is a living evolving thing... trying to make an embalmed mummy out of it won't get you anywhere. Read something writtain in english a couple hundred years ago, it can be quite difficult to understand. Linguistic shift is nothing new, and although high-brows have always looked down on it, it's normal.

[Conuly]

although high-brows have always looked down on it

Actually not true. There was a period where high-brows considered that THEIR form of English was OBVIOUSLY superior to that spoken in the past.

Also, as most high-brows are citified, the fact is that much of the language change they decry is actually older than the forms they prefer. It's stigmatized not because it's new, but because it's spoken by poor people. This is justified as "Well, it's just slang" and "They're changing it from perfection!", but in truth language in cities changes faster than language in other areas, and many innovations are ignored while other, historically accepted variations from language (such as singular they and aks-for-ask) are falsely considered novel.

Which just goes to show that people who try to "defend language" are usually so poorly educated on what their language actually does that there's no use talking to them in *any* language.

[Chameon]

D&D world: if gems were consumed as spell components, eventually there would be no gems. That aspect of D&D never made sense to me. The only way it can possibly work is if there's a Create Diamonds spell, and the market price of diamonds merely reflects that spell's material component cost (something I've houseruled before).

Mmmk, I usually think about it as "The 50,000 gp in diamonds have been traded to the (insert deity here) in exchange for the returning of the faithful(or otherwise) (Insert name here), the deity has no real use for the gem so places it in (insert dungeon crawl/temple/etc. here)"

That's how it seems with resurrection anyway. Really, other spells it would be easiest to believe the gems break down to a gaseous state and spread throughout the world, thus simply damaging the short-term supply without removing the resource.

Of course, this may or may not be complete BS, seeing as to how I'm mostly thinking of how carbon can become a diamond, and I'm not very good with other stones. Also, it's up to the DM/maker of game to really set the rules on that one. Furthermore, I suck at chemistry.