Debate: Elan or Nale

[JackRackham]

Who is the elder twin?

[LrdoftheRngs]

Twin means that they were born at the same time. One of them would be a few minutes older, if that's what you mean. If that is the case, then I would assume Nale.

[Blisstake]

Considering there's just about no evidence that suggests either one, this isn't a really good debate topic.

[Esprit15]

If I remember right one flashback said "Nale! Stop hitting your little brother in his soft, underdeveloped head!" or something similar to that.

[Mutant Sheep]

I don't understand this thread. is it like a Vaarsuvius "vote counting" thread that was around a couple weeks ago?

[Dakaran]

If I remember right one flashback said "Nale! Stop hitting your little brother in his soft, underdeveloped head!" or something similar to that.

That's from comic 50 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html) and the quote is "Nale! Stop hitting your twin brother in his soft undeveloped baby skull!" Sadly it doesn't help the "debate" in either direction.

[Esprit15]

That's from comic 50 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html) and the quote is "Nale! Stop hitting your twin brother in his soft undeveloped baby skull!" Sadly it doesn't help the "debate" in either direction.
Dang, I thought that I had something. Oh well.

[Dakaran]

Dang, I thought that I had something. Oh well.

Ha, yeah. I was hoping to prove you right by looking it up. Oh well.

[legomaster00156]

Who is the elder twin?

:smallsigh:

[Esprit15]

:smallsigh:

That is a perfectly valid question. Or do you think that they both come out at the same time?

[Dakaran]

That is a perfectly valid question. Or do you think that they both come out at the same time?

Oof, that would be mighty painful for their mom. :smalleek:

[Esprit15]

Oof, that would be mighty painful for their mom. :smalleek:

I can only imagine how bad one child at a time is. Two would be cruelty.

[Mutant Sheep]

Who is the elder twin?
*cough*cough*

I think that this whole idea is bad and you should feel bad.
Wheres G-Man Graves when you need him? He's great at killing dumb threads.

[Kurald Galain]

Who is the elder twin?

Elan, because his name comes first alphabetically. And that's as good an argument as you're going to get in here.

[Cizak]

*cough*cough*

Wheres G-Man Graves when you need him? He's great at killing dumb threads.

While I agree that there aren't much evidence to make this a good debate, "who is the eldest twin" is a perfectly legit question. You don't believe they both come out together, do you?

[Zerg Cookie]

While I agree that there isn't a single friggin evidence to make this a good debate, "who is the eldest twin" is a perfectly legit question. You don't believe they both come out together, do you?

Fixed that for ya.
Also, no, I don't believe they came out together, but who's older makes no difference whatsoever

[Cizak]

{{scrubbed}}

[FujinAkari]

While I agree that there aren't much evidence to make this a good debate, "who is the eldest twin" is a perfectly legit question. You don't believe they both come out together, do you?

Age doesn't work that way. They were both conceived at the same time.

[The Dark Fiddler]

You don't believe they both come out together, do you?

We don't know they didn't. Magic and all.


Age doesn't work that way. They were both conceived at the same time.

Age is usually counted from when you're born, unless you're saying I should be telling people I'm 17 (conceived in January) rather than 16 (born in October)?

[Cizak]

Age doesn't work that way. They were both conceived at the same time.

Er, you count your age from when you are born, not when you are conceived. :smallconfused:

[derfenrirwolv]

Nale. the older sibling is always the evil one.

[Esprit15]

Nale. the older sibling is always the evil one.

I forgot that that's a common thing. So obviously since Rich doesn't want to be stereotypical he made them the opposite as that! [/conflict]

[Theodoriph]

Nale is older. Elan is genre savvy. He knows that traditionally older brothers are predominantly the ones who are evil/stupid/die young, while the younger brothers are traditionally the protagonists. He would have made sure to let Nale go first.

[Bedinsis]

Nale is older. Elan is genre savvy. He knows that traditionally older brothers are predominantly the ones who are evil/stupid/die young, while the younger brothers are traditionally the protagonists. He would have made sure to let Nale go first.

Furthermore, Tarquin is genre savvy. And Evil. So I believe in the choice of which child to keep, he would take the one he'd think would turn out evil, i.e. the older one.

But then again, perhaps he just saw that Nale hit Elan as an infant and deemed "he's more likely to turn up Evil.", regardless of which order they were born.

Regardless, I fail to see the point of this debate. It's not as if it will ever turn out to be important. (I think).

[factotum]

That is a perfectly valid question. Or do you think that they both come out at the same time?

Speaking as someone who *is* a twin, I have to ask: what relevance does it have? Unless one was born before midnight and the other one afterward, so they technically have different birthdays, does it matter which one is older?

[FujinAkari]

Er, you count your age from when you are born, not when you are conceived. :smallconfused:

In that case, they were born at the same time. I count my age from my birthdate, not my birthminute.

[Kish]

The concept of elder and younger twins is a common one; I'm puzzled that so many people in this thread seem to find it odd.

That said, there is no evidence, currently, of the answer to the thread-starter's question.

[Cizak]

In that case, they were born at the same time. I count my age from my birthdate, not my birthminute.

Ugh, even if you are twins it still means that one will be born before the other, therefore that twin is older. It's really not that hard to grasp.

[Esprit15]

Speaking as someone who *is* a twin, I have to ask: what relevance does it have? Unless one was born before midnight and the other one afterward, so they technically have different birthdays, does it matter which one is older?

It doesn't matter what gender Vaarsuvius is either but we have a debate thread for that. We ask because "Why not?"

[Temotei]

Ugh, even if you are twins it still means that one will be born before the other, therefore that twin is older. It's really not that hard to grasp.

Easy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1).

I think it could go either way. Nale would be very happy to get an opportunity to push his brother without repercussions, so pushing him out of the womb first would make Elan the elder. However, Nale's also into power. If being older than someone else means power over them to Nale, he's probably the elder.

Also, the argument of Elan making himself come out second because of genre savviness makes sense (in the twisted world of comic humor, anyway).

[Vent Reynolt]

I think that it was Nale that was born first. Tarquin would probably have wanted to pass on his empire to his eldest son, and therefore kept Nale by his side to pass the empire on to him.

Unless... Tarquin expected the evil twin's betrayal, and therefore made sure that the good twin was the elder one to pass the empire on to him instead.

Yes, I know this theory is kinda silly.

[Cizak]

Yeah, to get back on topic:


I think it could go either way. Nale would be very happy to get an opportunity to push his brother without repercussions, so pushing him out of the womb first would make Elan the elder.

I'm liking this idea. There's a very high chance that Nale was just born evil, so what is stopping that he was evil already in the womb? So it makes sense that when their home was suddenly opened and they could see a scary, bright light it would lie in Nale's insticts to push his brother out first, to save himself.

EDIT:

It doesn't matter what gender Vaarsuvius is either but we have a debate thread for that. We ask because "Why not?"
This. There's also no evidence whatsoever what gender V is, and that topic doesn't get bashed like this one did.

[FujinAkari]

Ugh, even if you are twins it still means that one will be born before the other, therefore that twin is older. It's really not that hard to grasp.

Please don't call me stupid.

And no, as a twin I find the idea that I'm not actually a twin -very- offensive. My brother and I were born at the same time in the same room, so neither of us are older. If one of us came out two minutes sooner... who he heck cares?

I have, honestly, never heard of this concept, and view it as an attempt to undo the very thing that -makes- twins special.

Possibly an over-reaction... but I still have a hard time comprehending the idea of an 'older twin.' Its like a deader corpse.


This. There's also no evidence whatsoever what gender V is, and that topic doesn't get bashed like this one did.

Not really. There is actually a -lot- of evidence for V's gender, it is just mostly circumstancial.

[Cizak]

[QUOTE=FujinAkari;11480545]Please don't call me stupid.

And no, as a twin I find the idea that I'm not actually a twin -very- offensive. My brother and I were born at the same time in the same room, so neither of us are older. If one of us came out two minutes sooner... who he heck cares?

I have, honestly, never heard of this concept, and view it as an attempt to undo the very thing that -makes- twins special.

Possibly an over-reaction... but I still have a hard time comprehending the idea of an 'older twin.' Its like a deader corpse.



Not really. There is actually a -lot- of evidence for V's gender, it is just mostly circumstancial.

1) I'm not calling you stupid, and I appoligize if you understood it as that.

I'm also not trying to be offensive. I'm not a twin, so I will never understand the bond between twins, but it's still a fact that the one who came first is older than the other one. Be it an hour our a minute. It's nothing to get upset about really, it's just a fact. If I'm born on July 1st 00:00, and another person is born on July 1st 23:59, I would be older than the other person. If he had been born one minute later, that is on July 2nd, then you would call him on day younger than me. But if he is born on July 1st 23:59, he is not? Yes he is. I know I'm being repetitive here, but technically the one born first is older.
EDIT: Furthermore, you are still a twin. Twins are two people who shared the same womb in the same woman.

2) "Who the heck cares?"
Well, apparently the OP. He thought it would make for a fun debate.

3) No, there isn't actually any evidence about V's gender. Evidence has to actually prove something, and nothing proves what gender V is.

[Esprit15]

Futhering the previous poster's answer, the only 'evidence' either way are a few loose trends and whether Rich had a good grasp on masculin and feminine suffixes.

[lio45]

3) No, there isn't actually any evidence about V's gender.

Actually, there's plenty of evidence.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evidence

Noun

evidence (usually uncountable; plural evidences)

1. Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.
(...)

[Cizak]

Actually, there's plenty of evidence.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/evidence

Noun

evidence (usually uncountable; plural evidences)

1. Facts or observations presented in support of an assertion.
(...)

Hmm. Not the way I've learned how to use the word, but if other people are using in such a way, then cool. I was wrong on #3.

[Mutant Sheep]

This. There's also no evidence whatsoever what gender V is, and that topic doesn't get bashed like this one did.

That's cause the Giant has mention V's gender as a " IT"S A SECRET I'M NOT TELLING!" situation. This just seems random, and I doubt Rich has spent a second thinking about this. I think.

[theinsulabot]

Not that I think the OP's question is actually important, but I must say I'm quite surprised there are people who have trouble with the idea of an elder and younger twin. I didn't know there was anyone who would fault the idea.

Its just as easy to say someone is 1 second, 1 minute, or 1 hour older as it is 1 day, 1 month, 1 year. The amount of time is just saying how much older, and in that sense is nearly irrelevant other then the basic premise of "older"

If elan came out first, he is the elder twin, if nale did, he is the elder.

Good lord folks this isn't a new concept, the eldest child gaining the thrown/crown/right to rule has been a standard for at least a thousand years, you don't think the subject has come up before? And that was almost always the deciding point.

[JackRackham]

Lol. This wasn't supposed to be important. It's just a thought that occurred to me. The elder twin supposedly tends to be slightly stronger, they'll often be minutely taller, etc. And this is why they come first (again, supposedly. I don't know THAT much about the biology involved). It struck me as a mildly interesting question. That's all. For the record, I'd guess Nale is older.

[Cizak]

Not that I think the OP's question is actually important, but I must say I'm quite surprised there are people who have trouble with the idea of an elder and younger twin. I didn't know there was anyone who would fault the idea.

Its just as easy to say someone is 1 second, 1 minute, or 1 hour older as it is 1 day, 1 month, 1 year. The amount of time is just saying how much older, and in that sense is nearly irrelevant other then the basic premise of "older"

If elan came out first, he is the elder twin, if nale did, he is the elder.

Good lord folks this isn't a new concept, the eldest child gaining the thrown/crown/right to rule has been a standard for at least a thousand years, you don't think the subject has come up before? And that was almost always the deciding point.

Pretty much my thoughts, though I may have been expressing myself badly. I also can't understand how the concept of an elder and a younger twin could "try to ruin what make twins special" and "telling a twin that he/she is not a twin". Again, I'm not a twin (but I do know a pair of twins), but isn't the special thing about a twin that he/she is a sibling that you shared a womb with, i.e. you have been together all of your life? Also it makes me wonder, if two people shared a womb and one is born 1/7 23:59 and one is born 2/7 00:01, are they no longer twins? It just baffles me that this should be a thing to discuss.

[Goosefarble]

All the guy is asking is which one popped out a few minutes before the other, Jesus Christ you guys.

[The Dark Fiddler]

All the guy is asking is which one popped out a few minutes before the other, Jesus Christ you guys.

And all the rest of us are saying is (a) it doesn't matter and (b) there's no way to tell. No need to get snippy.

[Kibble Sage]

And all the rest of us are saying is (a) it doesn't matter and (b) there's no way to tell. No need to get snippy.

Well, not all the rest. There's one poster here who seems to have taken the question -- and indeed the idea that one twin is a couple minutes older than the other -- to be some kind of personal affront and general insult to twins.

I'm not going to comment on that attitude, but I will say that it's objectively and undeniably true that one twin is going to be a few seconds or a few minutes older than the other. It's basically the idea that there's a door that only one person can fit through at a time, and you have two people going through it, one of them is inevitably going to be through it first. Just a physical necessity without teleportation, nothing to get any type of garments in a twist about.

With that said, I like the theory that Nale would shove Elan out first to see what happened to him. :smallbiggrin:

[Klear]

With that said, I like the theory that Nale would shove Elan out first to see what happened to him. :smallbiggrin:

I like the idea that Nale wanted to get out there first more. Wow! A whole new wide world! I want to be there first and take over it!

On the other hand, I'd guess that Nale is older, but that's obviously an effect of Elan being so childish.

BTW, writing Elan and Nale all the time is kinda weird with the names reveresed as they are.

[super dark33]

With that said, I like the theory that Nale would shove Elan out first to see what happened to him. :smallbiggrin:


I like my theory of Nale pushing Elan out to have all the Womb for himself.
too bad his reign over it wasnt as long as he exepted. :smallbiggrin:

[FujinAkari]

Well, not all the rest. There's one poster here who seems to have taken the question -- and indeed the idea that one twin is a couple minutes older than the other -- to be some kind of personal affront and general insult to twins.

I am quite sure no one feels that way.

[Cizak]

And all the rest of us are saying is (a) it doesn't matter and (b) there's no way to tell. No need to get snippy.

Again, both those points also apply to V's gender, and that topic doesn't get trashed.

[Cizak]

I am quite sure no one feels that way.

Well, I hate to keep arguing, but:



And no, as a twin I find the idea that I'm not actually a twin -very- offensive. My brother and I were born at the same time in the same room, so neither of us are older. If one of us came out two minutes sooner... who he heck cares?

I have, honestly, never heard of this concept, and view it as an attempt to undo the very thing that -makes- twins special.

[martianmister]

Elan is a real unisex name, but Nale is backwards of the same name. So, I think Elan is the older brother. Tarquin and his wife probably named their unborn child as Elan in the first place.

[Theodoriph]

Elan is a real unisex name, but Nale is backwards of the same name. So, I think Elan is the older brother. Tarquin and his wife probably named their unborn child as Elan in the first place.

Nale is a real name too. As is Nail. I'm not too sure why you'd think it wouldn't be real. :p

[FujinAkari]

Well, I hate to keep arguing, but:

I thought the fact that I replied saying I didn't feel that way made it pretty self-evident that I didn't feel that way...

I even say -in the part you quoted- that I belong to the "who cares" camp, which is especially ironic since you say that "Not everyone thinks it isn't answerable or doesn't care..."

[Cizak]

I thought the fact that I replied saying I didn't feel that way made it pretty self-evident that I didn't feel that way...

I even say -in the part you quoted- that I belong to the "who cares" camp, which is especially ironic since you say that "Not everyone thinks it isn't answerable or doesn't care..."

You obviosuly do care.

EDIT: And when have I ever said that "not everyone thinks it isn't answerable or doesn't care" when talking about whether a twins can be different ages or not?


Well, not all the rest. There's one poster here who seems to have taken the question -- and indeed the idea that one twin is a couple minutes older than the other -- to be some kind of personal affront and general insult to twins.


And no, as a twin I find the idea that I'm not actually a twin -very- offensive. My brother and I were born at the same time in the same room, so neither of us are older. If one of us came out two minutes sooner... who he heck cares?

I have, honestly, never heard of this concept, and view it as an attempt to undo the very thing that -makes- twins special.

Possibly an over-reaction... but I still have a hard time comprehending the idea of an 'older twin.' Its like a deader corpse.

The "deader corpse" is by the way a pretty ridiculous statement. You can't be more dead than dead, but you can certainly be older than someone else.

[Klear]

The "deader corpse" is by the way a pretty ridiculous statement. You can't be more dead than dead, but you can certainly be older than someone else.

Not in a DnD setting. After his fight with Xykon, Roy was certainly deader than all the animated corpses in Xykon's army.

[Cizak]

Not in a DnD setting. After his fight with Xykon, Roy was certainly deader than all the animated corpses in Xykon's army.

Nope, you cannot be "deader" or "deadest". You can only be dead. A dead person is a dead person, one cannot be more dead than the other. Even if include zombies and undead in that, it's still true. If you are dead, you are dead. Not deader than anything else.

[VanBuren]

Please don't call me stupid.

Please don't put words in someone else's mouth.


And no, as a twin I find the idea that I'm not actually a twin -very- offensive.

My father is a twin, and he and his brother are both open about the fact that one of them came out first, and that if it hadn't been a C-section, it would have been the other one.


My brother and I were born at the same time in the same room, so neither of us are older. If one of us came out two minutes sooner... who he heck cares?

Some people are interested, obviously. And for what it's worth, I could ask you the very same question.


I have, honestly, never heard of this concept, and view it as an attempt to undo the very thing that -makes- twins special.

I'll be honest, I never thought that Twins were special because they simultaneously came out of the birth canal. Now, I'm thinking of identical twins at this part, but I would have imagined it was the identical appearance and DNA and the shared experiences that resulted as a consequence, potentially resulting in bonding were what made it special.

[FujinAkari]

You obviosuly do care.

No, for the third time, I don't. Leave me alone.

I had an over-reaction, like I said in the first post, I'm not sure why you continue berating me over it, but stop.

Also, the rediculous of "deader corpse" was pretty much my whole point.


Please don't put words in someone else's mouth.

My father is a twin, and he and his brother are both open about the fact that one of them came out first, and that if it hadn't been a C-section, it would have been the other one.

See what I mean?

People, leave me alone, I already said it was an over-reaction and I don't think that. Geez.

[Cizak]

No, for the third time, I don't. Leave me alone.

I had an over-reaction, like I said in the first post, I'm not sure why you continue berating me over it, but stop.

Also, the rediculous of "deader corpse" was pretty much my whole point.


See what I mean?

People, leave me alone, I already said it was an over-reaction and I don't think that. Geez.

I continued discussing it with you because you never actually stated that you didn't care. In your posts, you sounded like you still had issues with the subject. There's a big difference between "Possibly an over-reaction... but I still have a hard time comprehending the idea of an 'older twin.' Its like a deader corpse." and "I over reacted, and I don't actually think you're hating on twins by stating these things.".

But fine, if we're done, then we're done.

[lio45]

Again, both those points also apply to V's gender, and that topic doesn't get trashed.

It doesn't get trashed because there is enough evidence to fuel a discussion. Same thing in MitD's case. I hope you don't really think it's mere happenstance that those two threads have reached hundred of pages, while this one probably won't get beyond two...

The differences:

1) Rich stated there IS an actual answer
2) There are actual cues in the comic (very early ones for V, later ones for MitD)
3) There are elements of evidence to be found on the forums (mostly from Rich's posts)
4) There are elements of evidence in the books commentaries




Edit to avoid double post:

Nope, you cannot be "deader" or "deadest". You can only be dead. A dead person is a dead person, one cannot be more dead than the other. Even if include zombies and undead in that, it's still true. If you are dead, you are dead. Not deader than anything else.

Sure you can! If you're at -12 hit points, you're deader than if you're at -11 hit points... and at -20 HP, deader still.

[Fitzclowningham]

The convention that you only start counting someone once they're born (and therefore which twin came first means something) is due to the fact that many children died during birth in olden times. It's an old truism that you don't count them until they're hatched.

[Cizak]

It doesn't get trashed because there is enough evidence to fuel a discussion. Same thing in MitD's case. I hope you don't really think it's mere happenstance that those two threads have reached hundred of pages, while this one probably won't get beyond two...

The differences:

1) Rich stated there IS an actual answer
2) There are actual cues in the comic (very early ones for V, later ones for MitD)
3) There are elements of evidence to be found on the forums (mostly from Rich's posts)
4) There are elements of evidence in the books commentaries

Ugh. Please don't compare V's gender to MitD. Just don't.



Edit to avoid double post:


Sure you can! If you're at -12 hit points, you're deader than if you're at -11 hit points... and at -20 HP, deader still.

Nope, you cannot. Those are just numbers. If you are dead, you are dead. You heart has stopped beating. Your heart can't stop beating more.

[Klear]

Nope, you cannot. Those are just numbers. If you are dead, you are dead. You heart has stopped beating. Your heart can't stop beating more.

In real life? Sure. But if you were confronted by a zombie standing over a standard corpse, I'm sure you'd think one of the is deader.

At least that's how I'd describe it. Obviously there are no rules for this since it never happens in real life.

[Cizak]

In real life? Sure. But if you were confronted by a zombie standing over a standard corpse, I'm sure you'd think one of the is deader.

Then you'd be wrong. A corpse is a corpse. A non beating heart is a non beating heart. The most realistic explanation of zombies I've heard is that zombiefication is a virus that gives slight function to the brain, but only on an instict-level. The rest of the body is still dead. Equally dead to the non-moving corpse.

[lio45]

Ugh. Please don't compare V's gender to MitD. Just don't.

Why not? (when talking about V's original gender)

The main difference is that one answer WILL be delivered to us in due time, while in the other case it almost certainly won't ever happen.

Doesn't change the fact that there is a decent amount of evidence to elaborate upon in both cases... enough to fuel a discussion, as I've said. And that last part is fact, because there ARE discussions that have been going on for several years on the forums here.




Nope, you cannot. Those are just numbers. If you are dead, you are dead. You heart has stopped beating. Your heart can't stop beating more.

In the wise words of Elan... Roy could kill Redcloak dead, or Roy could also kill Redcloak extra dead. QED.

If you're a PC with positive hit points, and get knocked down to -11 by a hit, you're dead.

If you're a PC with positive hit points, and get knocked down to -50 by a hit, then one could say you're deader... In any case, you certainly got over-killed.




Then you'd be wrong. A corpse is a corpse. A non beating heart is a non beating heart. The most realistic explanation of zombies I've heard is that zombiefication is a virus that gives slight function to the brain, but only on an instict-level. The rest of the body is still dead. Equally dead to the non-moving corpse.

The rest of the body couldn't be dead, and certainly not as dead as a non-moving corpse! Biologically, you'd need that body to somehow function (even if it's on a limited level) for the zombie to move.

[Velaryon]

Even if there's no real evidence whether Elan or Nale is the older twin, it's a valid question, and there's no harm in speculating. After all, the Sibling Seniority Squabble (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SiblingSenioritySquabble) is a fairly often-used trope.


Speaking as someone who *is* a twin, I have to ask: what relevance does it have? Unless one was born before midnight and the other one afterward, so they technically have different birthdays, does it matter which one is older?


I have, honestly, never heard of this concept, and view it as an attempt to undo the very thing that -makes- twins special.

Possibly an over-reaction... but I still have a hard time comprehending the idea of an 'older twin.' Its like a deader corpse.

I bet you guys are just saying that because you're the younger twin. :smallbiggrin:

[Cizak]

Why not? (when talking about V's original gender)

Because one of them has no importance on the story whatsoever and will never be reveiled, and one of them is one of the biggest mysteries in the story that has importance and will be reveiled.


In the wise words of Elan... Roy could kill Redcloak dead, or Roy could also kill Redcloak extra dead. QED.

If you're a PC with positive hit points, and get knocked down to -11 by a hit, you're dead.

If you're a PC with positive hit points, and get knocked down to -50 by a hit, then one could say you're deader... In any case, you certainly got over-killed.

In the wise words of... common sense, no. If you are dead, you are dead. You cannot "die more". It is, in fact, impossible. If your heart has stopped beating completely and none of your internal organs are no longer in function, you are dead. And dead is all you shall remain as. You cannot "die more".



The rest of the body couldn't be dead, and certainly not as dead as a non-moving corpse! Biologically, you'd need that body to somehow function (even if it's on a limited level) for the zombie to move.

Indeed the rest of the body could be dead, and indeed just as dead as a non-moving corpse. Because that's what they both are. Dead corpses. One of them is not "more dead", because "more dead" isn't something you can actually be! There is no such thing as "deader" or "deadest".

And biologically speaking, there's no such thing as a zombie. Also, there's no such thing as "deader" or "deadest". Did I mention that?

[Andorax]

To those objecting to the original question...I would have to say that you're less genre-savvy than even Nale is. I'm genuinely surprised that actual twins wouldn't know more about how twins appeared in both history and in literature.

Barbaric as the concept may seem today, who the OLDEST child is has been considered a very important issue throughout most of human history. The oldest child stands to inherit the most significant portions of the father's estate, whether that's a herd of goats or an entire kingdom. The youngest child usually gets less...often quite a bit less, especially if the estate (say, a kingdom) isn't readily divisible.

Seriously...Man in the Iron Mask anyone?


So yes, there is such a thing as an 'oldest' twin, even if it is by a few minutes, because it's considered important. Honestly, that's why I would suspect that Nale is the eldest, simply because he's the one daddy took with him. If you want to argue that dad claimed him because he was already showing signs of being "more evil", I'd turn that around and say that daddy probably lavished more attention (limited though it may have been) on his eldest child...that the evilness in Nale was nurtured at an early age.

I'm sure that, had they both been raised by their father, Elan would have been taught to betray his older brother when he showed any sign of weakness...but instead he learned about how fulfilling cross-class skills are.

[FujinAkari]

To those objecting to the original question...

No one is objecting to the original question.

[Vent Reynolt]

Of couse you can be deader than dead, after all, Xykon is more dead than the zombies he makes or even those paladins he killed because unlike them he is dead on the inside...figuratively of course. :smalltongue:

Also, in Magic: The Gathering, there is dead, then there is Removed from Game, and then there is absolutely-removed-from-the-freaking-game-forever (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=74231). :smalltongue:

P.S. I actually do agree that you can't be deader, but what this conversation has to do with older twins is beyond me.



I think I like the idea of Nale pushing Elan out first.

:nale:: *Kicks Elan out* At last, I have this place all to myself! Victory is mine!

[Klear]

And biologically speaking, there's no such thing as a zombie. Also, there's no such thing as "deader" or "deadest". Did I mention that?

And there's no such thing as magic. Obviously there is nothing like deader in real life. But we are not talking about real word, we are talking about the setting of OOTS. I've made that clear in the post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11487143&postcount=54) started this argument.

[disregardauthor]

I think that the question as to which twin is older is actually interesting, as our culture (and indeed basically all cultures) have been intrigued by the older twin/younger twin dichotomy, and mythology dating back to before civilization reflects this. It's pretty difficult to deal with twins in storytelling without evoking the imagery of Romulus and Remus, or Castor and Pollux (the Gemini twins; in some versions, Pollux is sired by Zeus and therefore a demigod, while Castor was sired by a mortal). Even if the archetypes associated with older and younger twins in religion and folklore may be inaccurate, it must be admitted that they are ingrained into our culture; anyone with any kind of access to the stories and myths universally told throughout the Western World is aware of them. I'm 100% certain that other cultures have parallel stories that I am merely unfamiliar with, though I gather that Castor and Pollux like many Greek myths may have Vedic precursors. My two younger brothers are twins, and "which is the older" is pretty much the first question anyone asks when meeting them for the first time.

That being said, Nale definitely strikes me as the Esau to Elan's Jacob, though the Giant may very well have decided to defy genre expectations and make Nale the younger one. It's possible that he hasn't concretely decided, since it doesn't seem to be a major plot point, but if he's at all fluent in some kind of human language he's aware of the distinction made between older and younger twins, and of the mythological/cultural/literary implications regarding which is the older. Like many of us, he may simply not care - it hasn't come up in the comics so far, for one - but I don't find it likely that a presumably well-read writer like the Giant is simply ignorant of tales like Jacob and Esau or Romulus and Remus.

Edit: Twins aren't special, and there's nothing that makes them "special" anymore than say, a blonde is special because blonde hair happens to be rarer than other colors. Twins are just people like anyone; they are entitled to the same rights and consideration, no more and no less.

[sims796]

There is such a word for deader than dead....

"Cadaverific!"

[disregardauthor]

And there's no such thing as magic. Obviously there is nothing like deader in real life. But we are not talking about real word, we are talking about the setting of OOTS. I've made that clear in the post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11487143&postcount=54) started this argument.

He's making the case that metaphysically speaking, animated corpses are as dead as regular corpses to the extent that they're both corpses; i.e., have ceased biological functions. He is correct insofar as undeath takes the form of a virus/magic spell/what-have-you which merely takes over the organs of an already dead creature, providing a corpse with mobility; in this case the corpse would indeed be dead.

You make a valid point in stating that the real world and the world of OOTS are different, however. You'll have to excuse me for making broad statements as my experience with DnD is limited to online research/conversation undertaken for my own curiosity, but in my opinion, the main distinction to make with fantasy settings would be the existence of souls/spirits. A corpse that is animated as a mindless ghoul, but whose soul has actually moved onto whatever afterlife the setting provides, would arguably be in a difference state of death than a ghoul whose soul or consciousness has been forcibly trapped within its body, as per Warcraft, or a lich whose soul was contained within a phylactery, like Xykon.

From one perspective, these creatures can all be described as biologically dead, as indeed they are; but I'm compelled to believe that if you were raised in a world where something akin to spirits or souls demonstrably inhabited all beings and provided them with their consciousness, than the cessation of heartbeat (for those fantasy creatures that have hearts to begin with) wouldn't really play into the equation at all. It would be entirely reasonable to define the dead as those whose souls have moved onto the afterlife, and the living as those whose souls still inhabit their bodies. This definition, in fact, would be rather more appropriate and concrete than something as arbitrary as heart or brain function.

If, for example, a generic mage in some ridiculous world were to stop his own heart after developing a magical way to bypass blood and deliver oxygen directly to his cells, while wizarding away any complications that might arise from such an arrangement, one would not call him dead. One would especially not call him dead if he knew that spirits existed, that spirits can move onto the afterlife, and that spirits can be called back to this world, at which point they will reinhabit their old bodies or even reconstruct one out of thin air (depending on the setting, the spell employed, whether or not the old body still "exists" without having been completely disintegrated, etc.) And in such a magical setting, those whose bodies have "died," or ceased biological functions, but whose souls have not gone on to an afterlife, for whatever horrid and unnatural reason, might reasonably be said to occupy a state which is neither life nor death. Hence the need for the term undead: something which is not dead, in the sense of having found an afterlife, yet which cannot entirely be described as alive.

Now in our world, consciousness derives from and is dependent on the material existence of the brain; ghosts don't talk to us, nobody has gone to the 666th level of the Abyss and been resurrected to tell us about it, spirits don't exist as far as we can tell, etc. So we need a convenient point at which we can safely declare a person is dead. While a person's heart beats (or his brain functions, or whatever) we say he's alive. After that's stopped, we say he's dead, and there's no state in between. In OOTS, however, we are not called upon to make such a distinction; that distinction has already been made for us, as the state of being alive, the state of being dead, and those states in between - i.e., the state of undeath - are built into the fabric of the cosmos. In the end it's a matter of semantics; we call an arbitrary point the moment of death as a matter of convenience, but in the OOTSverse, the necessity (or even the privilege) of defining death does not exist, as death takes a more concrete form in that world. In fact, it's often a conscious entity in the form of a god or a supernatural skeleton or whatever.

[VanBuren]

Then you'd be wrong. A corpse is a corpse. A non beating heart is a non beating heart. The most realistic explanation of zombies I've heard is that zombiefication is a virus that gives slight function to the brain, but only on an instict-level. The rest of the body is still dead. Equally dead to the non-moving corpse.

Nah, you've got it all wrong.

See that corpse over there? It's dead.

See that horde of zombies breaking down my front door? They're undead.

...

I should probably leave.

[Cizak]

Nah, you've got it all wrong.

See that corpse over there? It's dead.

See that horde of zombies breaking down my front door? They're undead.

...

I should probably leave.

Undead = A moving corpse

A corpse = Dead

:smalltongue:

[Klear]

Undead = A moving corpse

A corpse = Dead

Dead => Not moving

We have a paradox!

[Cizak]

Dead => Not moving

We have a paradox!

Unless it's a zombie or other form of undead.

No paradox.

[Careless]

But you could have your soul bound in someway so that a simple True Resurrection won't bring you back, so you'll STAY dead, making it less likely you'll be brought back.
Begin ramble: Unless PCs find you, then the person with the bound soul is more likely to be brought back, because clearly that person is important enough that they're worth saving... I should have the BBEG kill everyone in a village with an important person, and bind some random person's soul but not the important persons...

[VanBuren]

Unless it's a zombie or other form of undead.

No paradox.

In which case it's "undead" and not "dead". "Undead" is made up "dead" and the prefix "un-" which literally means "not".

Mutually exclusive, in other words.

[Occasional Sage]

Speaking as someone who *is* a twin
*snip*




And no, as a twin *snip*


Out of curiosity: do either of ya'll's twins post on GitP?



Sure you can! If you're at -12 hit points, you're deader than if you're at -11 hit points... and at -20 HP, deader still.


Do you also believe that something can be "more unique"?

[factotum]

Out of curiosity: do either of ya'll's twins post on GitP?


Mine certainly doesn't...I doubt he knows this place exists, and I don't think he'd enjoy it here if he did!

[FujinAkari]

Out of curiosity: do either of ya'll's twins post on GitP?

Mine doesn't... and as above, I doubt he'd enjoy it. I seem to have ended up with all the brains :P

[sims796]

In which case it's "undead" and not "dead". "Undead" is made up "dead" and the prefix "un-" which literally means "not".

Mutually exclusive, in other words.

That always confused the hell out of me. Isn't undead like...alive? So he was dead, but now he's not anymore, so...he's alive agina? Like, resurrected alive?

[VanBuren]

That always confused the hell out of me. Isn't undead like...alive? So he was dead, but now he's not anymore, so...he's alive agina? Like, resurrected alive?

I think I understand the logic. It's not alive, otherwise we'd call them alive. Life is the opposite of death.

When you deal with a shambling corpse that wants braaaaaaiiinnns, you're clearly not dealing with something that's really alive. But it's obvious that you're not dealing with something that's quite dead either.

Even if it's not alive, you can kinda agree that it's not dead. So you invent a third category that defines it by what it isn't rather than by what it is. Hence: Undead ("not-dead")

[sims796]

I think I understand the logic. It's not alive, otherwise we'd call them alive. Life is the opposite of death.

When you deal with a shambling corpse that wants braaaaaaiiinnns, you're clearly not dealing with something that's really alive. But it's obvious that you're not dealing with something that's quite dead either.

Even if it's not alive, you can kinda agree that it's not dead. So you invent a third category that defines it by what it isn't rather than by what it is. Hence: Undead ("not-dead")

Ok, lemme get this straight...

If Nale and Not-Nale had knotted knots around their necks, and Nale died, but Not-Nale was not dead, then Nale would be dead, and Not-Nale would be alive. But if Nale (Nale, not Not-Nale) was ressurected with the knotted knot not around his neck, then he would be alive like Not-Nale who is without a knotted knot knotted around his not knotted neck. But if Nale was not resserected and not dead like Not-Nale, but revived as a zombie not like Not-Nale, then he would be Undead.

Do I have this right?

[Kibble Sage]

I think I understand the logic. It's not alive, otherwise we'd call them alive. Life is the opposite of death.

When you deal with a shambling corpse that wants braaaaaaiiinnns, you're clearly not dealing with something that's really alive. But it's obvious that you're not dealing with something that's quite dead either.

Even if it's not alive, you can kinda agree that it's not dead. So you invent a third category that defines it by what it isn't rather than by what it is. Hence: Undead ("not-dead")

Precisely, and I think that's part of what's supposed to make them creepy. Because your mind can't neatly classify them, the undead are something bizarre, a literal abomination or "thing that should not be".

If you could explain exactly what they were, in my opinion, it would actually deflate their impact a bit. Because they are a violation of the natural order and are more or less inexplicable, it hints strongly that there is some deep, dark, terrible secret that we don't know and perhaps can't know, but which threatens those around it and is, perhaps, something we ourselves could fall victim to.

Which is why I'm willing to suspend my disbelief in movies, books, and games with the undead in them, because the fact that they can't really be satisfactorally explained -- they're quite clearly corpses, yet they're moving, speaking, and action -- is what makes them so unsettling and sinister. Which also makes them fun, from a storytelling/mood setting point of view. :smallsmile:

[Cizak]

In which case it's "undead" and not "dead". "Undead" is made up "dead" and the prefix "un-" which literally means "not".

Mutually exclusive, in other words.

Undead is a moving corpse, the "living" dead. Undead creatures are dead.


When you deal with a shambling corpse that wants braaaaaaiiinnns, you're clearly not dealing with something that's really alive. But it's obvious that you're not dealing with something that's quite dead either.

Even if it's not alive, you can kinda agree that it's not dead. So you invent a third category that defines it by what it isn't rather than by what it is. Hence: Undead ("not-dead")

I disagree.

[VanBuren]

Undead is a moving corpse, the "living" dead. Undead creatures are dead.

So ghosts aren't undead?


I disagree.

With me or with what the words mean?

[Cizak]

So ghosts aren't undead?

Well okay, ghosts are obviously not a corpse. But are you trying tell me a ghost is not dead? :smallconfused:


With me or with what the words mean?

I disagree with this:

When you deal with a shambling corpse that wants braaaaaaiiinnns, you're clearly not dealing with something that's really alive. But it's obvious that you're not dealing with something that's quite dead either.

Even if it's not alive, you can kinda agree that it's not dead.

I don't agree that zombies are not "quite dead", and I cannot kina agree they are not dead. As I have expressed in the past, in my opinion zombies are definately dead.

[VanBuren]

Well okay, ghosts are obviously not a corpse. But are you trying tell me a ghost is not dead? :smallconfused:

Yes, I'm telling you it's undead. Undead cannot be dead, by virtue of the very word itself literally meaning "not dead".



I disagree with this:


I don't agree that zombies are not "quite dead", and I cannot kina agree they are not dead. As I have expressed in the past, in my opinion zombies are definately dead.

Dead things don't move, so I obviously can't agree in the slightest.

[hamishspence]

If you cast Animate Object, rather than Animate Dead, you get something that's very dead- not even a near-mindless, malevolent spirit inside a la Libris Mortis, and yet, it still moves.

[Cizak]

Yes, I'm telling you it's undead. Undead cannot be dead, by virtue of the very word itself literally meaning "not dead".

Right. Except that undeads are corpses/spirits. Corpses/spirits=Very much dead.
And if undead means "not dead" then it means "alive", and since undeads are certainly not alive, they are dead.


Dead things don't move, so I obviously can't agree in the slightest.

In the real world, sure. In fantasy settings we have zombies (walking corpses (walking dead guys)).

[VanBuren]

Right. Except that undeads are corpses/spirits. Corpses/spirits=Very much dead.
And if undead means "not dead" then it means "alive", and since undeads are certainly not alive, they are dead.

Except they'd be called "alive" which they're not. "Undead" creates a third category of "not dead, not alive" which also underscores how unnatural it all is.



In the real world, sure. In fantasy settings we have zombies (walking corpses (walking dead guys)).

Right, undead.

[HalfDragonCube]

This is derailing and starting to get ridiculous.

The 'dead and deader' stuff:

Depends on your definition of 'dead', whether you think it is an analogue variable or not.

The 'undead<>undead' stuff:

This also depends on your definition of 'dead'. Dead could be 'not like the living', which undead are, or it could be 'not up and around doing anything', which undead aren't.

Living: Powered by positive energy.
Undead: Powered by negative energy.
Corpses: Not powered.
Forumites: Powered by Mountain Dew

[Cizak]

Except they'd be called "alive" which they're not. "Undead" creates a third category of "not dead, not alive" which also underscores how unnatural it all is.

Except that undeads are clearly dead corpses walking around/spirits of the dead flying around.


Right, undead.

Right! So:
zombies=undead=walking corpses=walking dead guys=dead guys=dead.

[Nevereatcars]

Right! So:
zombies=undead=walking corpses=walking dead guys=dead guys=dead.


Undead don't have to be walking corpses. They could be ghosts. Or flying zombies, like Xykon made from the corpses of dead angels.

[rolling 4]

Male because the older always hurts the younger

[Cizak]

Undead don't have to be walking corpses. They could be ghosts. Or flying zombies, like Xykon made from the corpses of dead angels.

Ghosts=undead=spirits from dead guys=dead guys=dead.

Flying zombies=undead=flying corpses=flying dead guys=dead guys=dead.

[Klear]

Ghosts=undead=spirits from dead guys=dead guys=dead.

Flying zombies=undead=flying corpses=flying dead guys=dead guys=dead.

So... my grandmother is a flying zombie?! Because she is dead and you say that dead=dead guys=flying dead guys=flying corpses=undead=flying zombies...

[Cizak]

So... my grandmother is a flying zombie?! Because she is dead and you say that dead=dead guys=flying dead guys=flying corpses=undead=flying zombies...

Maybe. How should I know?

What I am saying is, the undead are dead.

[lio45]

So... my grandmother is a flying zombie?! Because she is dead and you say that dead=dead guys=flying dead guys=flying corpses=undead=flying zombies...

FWIW, you can't invoke the symmetric property of equality when it's used that way...

Let's say my friend Jim is blond, so I tell you literally "Jim = blond" in a written online forum discussion. (I think the limitations of that statement are clear enough.)

You can't then reverse that equality to claim that I've said all blond humans are named Jim...

Not that I'm taking Cizak's side in the discussion (I'm definitely not), just pointing out that his "=" should actually all be read as "=>" if you wanted to get a bit more formal.

(Edit: just to be clear, I mean the arrow, not "equal or greater" :P)