Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 36 of 48 FirstFirst ... 11262728293031323334353637383940414243444546 ... LastLast
Results 1,051 to 1,080 of 1440
  1. - Top - End - #1051
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Bulldog Psion's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Wisconsin, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Good catch. It kills the idea, actually. A key provision was that the cherubim are the four-faced ones, rather than baby-looking ones, which is how the circus scene could gross out the public. That no longer works.

    Grey Wolf
    In a way, I'm pleased to actually contribute something useful to this thread. In a way, I'm saddened because Daggerpen found something that's immensely strong AND has access to wish, which is a pretty rare combination, IIRC.
    Spoiler
    Show

    So the song runs on, with shift and change,
    Through the years that have no name,
    And the late notes soar to a higher range,
    But the theme is still the same.
    Man's battle-cry and the guns' reply
    Blend in with the old, old rhyme
    That was traced in the score of the strata marks
    While millenniums winked like campfire sparks
    Down the winds of unguessed time. -- 4th Stanza, The Bad Lands, Badger Clark

  2. - Top - End - #1052
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    NinjaGirl

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Here.
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bulldog Psion View Post
    In a way, I'm pleased to actually contribute something useful to this thread. In a way, I'm saddened because Daggerpen found something that's immensely strong AND has access to wish, which is a pretty rare combination, IIRC.
    Heh. That was a good catch, and no worries. The cherub might not have worked, but I think it does show that it may be worth poking around in older Dragon issues again, if anyone has access.

  3. - Top - End - #1053
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    It did give me a thought, though.

    I was thinking about the MitD in the tower with the silver dragon. When the lantern archons were looking at him, they didn't recognize anything out of the ordinary.

    Now, I was hoping they had "Know Alignment" - because that would mean that they might recognize if he was inherently a non-evil creature. I suspect they'd have commented on that.

    They do have Detect Evil, though, and might have noticed if he didn't detect as evil like the rest of his party.

    Anyway - are there any points where someone with a supernatural sensing ability might have noticed something unusual, but didn't? If so, it would suggest (not prove) the presence or absence of a trait we haven't considered. Like not detecting as evil - even though the MitD doesn't seem evil by temperament, it should still detect as such if it had the "Evil" subtype, like a fiendish outsider would.

  4. - Top - End - #1054
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by SavageWombat View Post
    I was thinking about the MitD in the tower with the silver dragon. When the lantern archons were looking at him, they didn't recognize anything out of the ordinary.

    Now, I was hoping they had "Know Alignment" - because that would mean that they might recognize if he was inherently a non-evil creature. I suspect they'd have commented on that.

    They do have Detect Evil, though, and might have noticed if he didn't detect as evil like the rest of his party.
    They might have detected not-evil, but that doesn't mean much: Roy's judgement in the cloud shows that there is such thing as evil-by-association. "Hanguing out with a Lich" is probably bad enough for archons to attack you regardless of where you ping in the morality spell system. Besides, MitD then weirded them out by admitting to masochist tendencies. Any doubts in their mind about the evilness of MitD likely went out the window at that point.

    Grey Wolf
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  5. - Top - End - #1055
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Joerg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    "Celia isn't a deva or an angel; she's not an embodiment of Law or Good. She can mistakes and screw up, and she can fail to live up to her own ideals"

    The only way to read that is that devas and angels and other embodiments of Law and Good can't make mistakes and can't fail to live up to their own ideals.
    Since you set a great store in logic, I'll point out that this is not actually true logically. It's like saying "I don't have wings, therefore I can't fly". That doesn't say anything about creatures which have wings; and indeed there are some which have wings but can't fly either. In other words, having wings is a necessary condition for flying, but not sufficient.

    Likewise, being an angel or diva may be a necessary condition for "can't make mistakes", but not sufficient. So there may be angels which can make mistakes, too.
    Ares - Music and sounds system for roleplaying
    Avatar by Rich Burlew.

  6. - Top - End - #1056
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    Since you set a great store in logic, I'll point out that this is not actually true logically. It's like saying "I don't have wings, therefore I can't fly". That doesn't say anything about creatures which have wings; and indeed there are some which have wings but can't fly either. In other words, having wings is a necessary condition for flying, but not sufficient.

    Likewise, being an angel or diva may be a necessary condition for "can't make mistakes", but not sufficient. So there may be angels which can make mistakes, too.
    No. That would only be true if the phrasing was "Creatures that don't have wings can't fly". But that is not what it says. It says, "Unlike winged creatures, creatures without wings can't fly." The very fact that they are set in opposition means that the members of group A are the opposite of the members of group B with respect to the characteristic that differentiates them. By introducing Celia as a non-embodiment, we are told that those characteristics are what makes them different. Otherwise, there would be no need to set up the comparison.

    In a Venn diagram, a logic concept presented as opposition doesn't have an overlapping area. Otherwise, we get the situation in which Celia is like certain embodiments in that the both of them can make mistakes. Which is ruled out by the phrasing, so the overlap is empty. Which must mean that there are no embodiments that can make mistakes.

    If I said, as you suggest, "Roy isn't a bird; he's not an winged creature. He can't fly, and he can't hover" then I could point out that the logic there is wrong, since there are birds that can't do any of those things, too (emus). If Rich is correct, then the only logical conclusion is that embodiments can't make mistakes.

    Grey Wolf
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  7. - Top - End - #1057
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Joerg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    No. That would only be true if the phrasing was "Creatures that don't have wings can't fly". But that is not what it says. It says, "Unlike winged creatures, creatures without wings can't fly." The very fact that they are set in opposition means that the members of group A are the opposite of the members of group B with respect to the characteristic that differentiates them. By introducing Celia as a non-embodiment, we are told that those characteristics are what makes them different. Otherwise, there would be no need to set up the comparison.
    But the word "unlike" didn't appear in the quote. It is your interpretation. My interpretation is a 'therefore' between the two sentences: "Celia isn't an angel, therefore she can make mistakes". In logical notation, that would be "Celia isn't an angel" => "Celia can make mistakes". A statement of that form (A => B) does _not_ allow any deduction about things if its premise (A) is wrong (in this case, if Celia was an angel). In particular, it does not allow the deduction Not(A) => Not(B), which in this case would be "Celia is an angel, therefore she can't make mistakes", from which we could deduce "All angels can't make mistakes".

    In a Venn diagram, with this interpretation, there would be a large circle labeled "creatures", a smaller one completely inside that circle labeled "angels and divas", and another even smaller circle completely inside that one labeled "creatures which can't make mistakes". So only (some) angels can't make mistakes, and if you see someone who isn't an angel (like Celia), you know immediately that she can make mistakes -- which is what the quote said.

    [BTW, note that in such a diagram, there would also be no overlap between "creatures which are not angels" and "creatures which can't make mistakes". The difference is that your interpretation doesn't allow an overlap between "creates which are angels" and "creatures which can make mistakes" -- the _opposite_ of each group, corresponding to Not(A) => Not(B).]

    It is quite possible that your interpretation is the one that Rich intended. But saying (as you did) that your interpretation is the only possible one ... well, I don't agree with that.
    Ares - Music and sounds system for roleplaying
    Avatar by Rich Burlew.

  8. - Top - End - #1058
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    But the word "unlike" didn't appear in the quote. <snip>
    I added the unless to clarify my position. You are still ignoring the oppositional statement and concentrating on pure Aristotelian logic. It doesn't say "Celia isn't like some angels and devas." It says "Celia isn't a deva or an angel". If even one angel can make mistakes, then Celia is like that angel, and the whole statement collapses. Your Venn diagram is, therefore, wrong, since you cannot honestly say that "Celia isn't a deva or an angel" when she is, in fact, like all the angels and devas outside the "can't make mistakes" subgroup.

    Lets change the example: "Socrates isn't an elf. He will grow old and die" That is correct, by both language and Aristotelian logic. Compare that to "Socrates isn't an elf or dwarf. He will grow old and die". That statement is logically true, but unfortunately, does not follow. There would be no need for Rich to add a group that does not support his position to the statement and, in fact, would just muddy the waters. Aristotelian logic is good for a lot of things, but not for examining everyday conversation. If Rich wanted to convey that Celia and some devas can make mistakes, he would've. He didn't. He presented Celia on one side, and embodiments on the other, separated by the ability to make mistakes.

    Grey Wolf
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  9. - Top - End - #1059
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Crusher's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The sticks
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post

    This is just silly. Of course they have massive amounts of biblical mythology in this setting. All the angels we have seen are pretty much biblical. The entire sequence of Roy in heaven is very much a christian-based imagery. But this is also a ridiculous dangerous topic to go into, so if you want to disagree, by all means, but don't expect me to answer.

    The broader point is that regardless of the RL mythology that inspired D&D and Rich, angels exist in OotS. And they can be found in the actual world, since Xykon killed a bunch of them recovering his tower (and zombified them, too). There are also churches, and churches in general spend a lot of time putting the fear of hell and the desire for heaven in people, and that will include telling about the denizens of both (and decorating the walls with them). So if there are cherubim in OotS, they will be recognisable by a large chunk of the population, and thus if one was being displayed in a circus, it wouldn't be as the "Unrecognisable IT" since way too many people would not be impressed.

    Grey Wolf
    This is kind of academic as the cherub find makes the whole topic invalid, but I figure I may as well respond.

    I do disagree on the first paragraph, but I understand why you wouldn't want to get into it, so I'll just leave it at that.

    On the second paragraph, I think it could go in a variety of directions. Certainly, churches MIGHT want to scare people, but really, why would they need to? Their parishioners KNOW with perfect certainty that devils (and angels) exist and that there's an outside chance that at any moment one might show up and devour their soul. A church might go out of its way to terrify people by showing everything that could show up, but another church could certainly figure that the REALITY is terrifying enough. So, they might, but they also might not.

    And even if a church does decide to terrify its members, it doesn't necessarily imply that they would go out of their way to provide folks with an exhaustively complete bestiary on the range of existing angels. You're essentially arguing that, given a group of random peasants, at least one could be reasonably expected to have a visual familiarity with virtually any angel, even a potentially obscure one.

    If we assume the mage-looking guy has an even more comprehensive knowledge of monsters, how could ANYTHING be unknown to them? I mean, they live on the Prime Material Plane, so you'd likely assume their knowledge of its denizens would be better than their knowledge of Celestials, right?
    Last edited by Crusher; 2012-04-27 at 10:08 PM.
    "Its a setting less visitor-friendly than the Red Wedding." - 111balz

  10. - Top - End - #1060
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    On the second paragraph, I think it could go in a variety of directions. Certainly, churches MIGHT want to scare people, but really, why would they need to? Their parishioners KNOW with perfect certainty that devils (and angels) exist and that there's an outside chance that at any moment one might show up and devour their soul. A church might go out of its way to terrify people by showing everything that could show up, but another church could certainly figure that the REALITY is terrifying enough. So, they might, but they also might not.
    My argument is not a purely mental exercise. I am basing it in real, historical religious practice. It is not up for debate that religious buildings are decorated with religious teachings. In particular at times when most of the population couldn't read and thus were informed about the important things (from the PoV of their god) by a combination of preaching and wall carvings. If you want to disagree, you need to explain why this wouldn't be the case in OotS when it was in RL in every religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    And even if a church does decide to terrify its members, it doesn't necessarily imply that they would go out of their way to provide folks with an exhaustively complete bestiary on the range of existing angels.
    Again, this is not me giving a hypothesis. This is just a historical fact. Telling about heavenly hosts and infernal armies (or appropriate equivalents) is what religions do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    You're essentially arguing that, given a group of random peasants, at least one could be reasonably expected to have a visual familiarity with virtually any angel, even a potentially obscure one.
    Yes, because there is at least one place of worship on every village, and what little education they receive will be very comprehensive in that area, as it has been the case in the real world for centuries.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    If we assume the mage-looking guy has an even more comprehensive knowledge of monsters, how could ANYTHING be unknown to them? I mean, they live on the Prime Material Plane, so you'd likely assume their knowledge of its denizens would be better than their knowledge of Celestials, right?
    Because a random person from the 12th century would not be able to recognise beast from the next country over, having never travelled more than a mile out of their own village, but they would all have been to their local temple, and would have both heard the descriptions and seen the carvings.

    In RL, people called giraffes "camelopards" for centuries because the best description they had was "as tall as a camel and spotted like a leopard". When the platypus was sent to London for biological classification, a good number of very educated scientists thought is was a fake. But every single person that made those silly mistakes would have known what a cherub is and what it looked like.

    I am not even sure what your point is. Mine is that in the medieval times, knowledge of religion is far more pervasive than knowledge of natural history. We can discuss if OotS and RL diverge on this matter, but in general, it is safe to assume that for the regular non-PC, life is pretty much the same in RL and in D&D settings (unless you live in a crapsack world like Dark Sun or similar, of course).

    Grey Wolf
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  11. - Top - End - #1061
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    CloakedDancer's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    I'm kind of surprised that the cherubim got such a lively discussion. I'd found them back when I was looking through for suggestions, but I didn't post it because I felt they had too many cons. Interesting to see the board collectively come to the same conclusion... though for a slightly better reason.
    Awesome avatar courtesy Cealocanth.

    Spoiler
    Show
    69
    it's a crab and a cancer... just ask the zodiac...
    At the end of the KICKSTARTER pledge drive the number of unclaimed signed packages was 69 ! It's like my signature knew all along...

  12. - Top - End - #1062
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Joerg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    I added the unless to clarify my position. You are still ignoring the oppositional statement and concentrating on pure Aristotelian logic.
    It's your interpretation that it is an oppositional statement. And yes, I mentioned in the first post that I was focusing on logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    It doesn't say "Celia isn't like some angels and devas." It says "Celia isn't a deva or an angel". If even one angel can make mistakes, then Celia is like that angel, and the whole statement collapses.
    Not so. Compare again that wings/fly example. To say "Socrates isn't a winged creature. He can't fly." is perfectly valid and doesn't collapse just because there are some winged creatures (e.g. emus) that can't fly either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Your Venn diagram is, therefore, wrong, since you cannot honestly say that "Celia isn't a deva or an angel" when she is, in fact, like all the angels and devas outside the "can't make mistakes" subgroup.
    You can of course honestly say "Socrates isn't a winged creature" even though some creatures have wings but can't fly, that is, even though he is "like" all those creatures which have wings but can't fly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Lets change the example: "Socrates isn't an elf. He will grow old and die" That is correct, by both language and Aristotelian logic. Compare that to "Socrates isn't an elf or dwarf. He will grow old and die". That statement is logically true, but unfortunately, does not follow. There would be no need for Rich to add a group that does not support his position to the statement and, in fact, would just muddy the waters.
    That example only works because all elves don't grow old; if not all angels can't make mistakes, it is no longer equivalent to the original quote. In that quote, Rich didn't arbitrarily add another group; he just may not have bothered to expicitly exclude the sub-group of angels which actually can make mistakes.

    Let's a assume such a sub-group existed and its members were called "fallible angels". Then, to set up truly disjunct groups, Rich would have to write "Celia isn't an angel or deva (except fallible angels). She can make mistakes." Would he actually do that? Of course not, because Celia is not a fallible angel either. At most, she is "like" a fallible angel, but the word "like" didn't appear in the original quote either.

    Edit: changed "doesn't have wings" to "isn't a winged creature" to make the equivalence more clear.
    Last edited by Joerg; 2012-04-29 at 04:53 AM.
    Ares - Music and sounds system for roleplaying
    Avatar by Rich Burlew.

  13. - Top - End - #1063
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    It's your interpretation that it is an oppositional statement. And yes, I mentioned in the first post that I was focusing on logic.
    Then we are done. "Focusing on logic" and ignoring semantic meaning is like insisting that I can travel through time if I "focus on the science" and ignore the engineering. Once you decouple a tool from the real world, and logic is but a tool, then it looses all significance.

    I could restate my argument that they are in opposition, but since you have not bothered to try to counter them, just stated that they're wrong, I won't bother. Just this: the phrase "Celia isn't a deva or angel" is semantically useless if you are right, and could be dropped entirely without altering the meaning conveyed by Rich. If, on the other hand, it is an statement of opposition, separating outsiders from embodiments, then it is needed there.

    Grey Wolf
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  14. - Top - End - #1064
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    The IFCC members include an Embodiment of Law and an Embodiment of Chaos- yet they don't entirely match those alignments.

    Being an embodiment of anything doesn't make you immune to making some mistakes, though they might not be moral mistakes.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  15. - Top - End - #1065
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    The IFCC members include an Embodiment of Law and an Embodiment of Chaos- yet they don't entirely match those alignments.

    Being an embodiment of anything doesn't make you immune to making some mistakes, though they might not be moral mistakes.
    I thought I had specified that. Yes, I agree. I interpret Rich's words to mean that they can make mistakes, just not of the moral kind. As in, if angels are going to combat their enemies, they may pick the wrong kind of weapon (flaming swords against fire-poof demons, for example), but they wouldn't make a moral mistake (torturing their prisoners).

    This, in part, is because as embodiments of their moral plane, it can be argued that whatever they do, ipso facto, is the standard to which that moral alignment is measured to. If angels kill demons mercilessly, everyone that wants to be Good would know that mercilessly killing demons is Good. The angels, after all, embody the alignment.

    That raises the ugly question of free will. Braver souls than I can examine that if they want; I am not itching for that discussion. That said, if someone seriously wants to look into it, and they suspect it might get out of hand, I'd ask to please open a new thread for it. If they post a link, I may drop by to follow the discussion (and maybe participate), but I'd rather not go that far in this thread.

    Now, the IFCC is an interesting case. Rich has told us that they can only veer away from their Law-Chaos orientation only slightly, and only because they are strengthening their other alignment (i.e. accept collaboration to promote Evil). I believe someone looked through the comics* and saw that it is always the Legal IFCC the one that tells the truth, and the Chaotic one the one more willing to bend it or outright lie - so they are still being true to their respective alignments, even when collaborating.

    It raises the interesting mental exercise of how a Good-Evil alliance would work out, to promote the cause of Legal or Chaos. Possibly if the Chaos side thought that the world was being stifled into stasis, or for the Legal side if anarchy was becoming a little too out of hand. Still, again, a little too far afield from this thread's purpose.

    Grey Wolf

    *Hearsay; it may be wrong. Haven't checked myself.
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  16. - Top - End - #1066
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Joerg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    smile Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    I could restate my argument that they are in opposition, but since you have not bothered to try to counter them, just stated that they're wrong, I won't bother.
    I didn't state they are wrong, I stated that this is just your interpretation, and not the only possible interpretation. You have as yet not bothered to say why my interpretation would be invalid, just stated that your interpretation was the right one and that logic couldn't be applied to show that there could be another valid interpretation.

    And to clarify again: there is an opposition here, but it is not necessarily the opposition you are seeing. There may just be the opposition between "creatures which are not angels or devas" and "creatures which can't make mistakes"; but not your opposition between "creatures which are angels or devas" and "creatures which can make mistakes". The negation is an important difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Just this: the phrase "Celia isn't a deva or angel" is semantically useless if you are right, and could be dropped entirely without altering the meaning conveyed by Rich. If, on the other hand, it is an statement of opposition, separating outsiders from embodiments, then it is needed there.
    It is also needed in the interpretation "she isn't an angel or deva, therefore she can make mistakes". You can't leave out the first part, because then the second part wouldn't follow.

    I'll make another example, perhaps that will make more clear my interpretation. Look at the following sentences:

    "Durkon isn't a wizard or sorceror. He can't cast Fireball."

    This sets up some kind of opposition between wizards and sorcerors on the one side and clerics on the other side. Is it absurd to write something like this? Can you leave out the first sentence and have the same meaning? Does the first sentence collapse completely because there are many wizards and sorcerors which can't cast Fireball? Would you assume, reading these sentences, that every wizard and every sorceror can cast Fireball?

    Or perhaps just that Durkon would have to be a wizard or sorceror to cast Fireball, but that even this may not be enough? In the same way that Celia would have to be an angel or deva so that she couldn't make mistakes, but even this may not be enough?
    Ares - Music and sounds system for roleplaying
    Avatar by Rich Burlew.

  17. - Top - End - #1067
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    Kish's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2004

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    But angels and devas can make mistakes.

    Edit: Oh I see. I agree with Grey Wolf that the implication is that angels and devas cannot be...let's say "out of tune with what is good," but Celia can zap Nale and Thog even though, if she had been asked as a thought exercise, "Is it ever justified to throw a lightning bolt at two helpless, bound captives?" her answer would almost certainly have been "No."
    Spoiler
    Show
    "The really unforgivable acts are committed by calm men in beautiful green silk rooms, who deal death wholesale, by the shipload, without lust, or anger, or desire, or any redeeming emotion to excuse them but cold fear of some pretended future. But the crimes they hope to prevent in the future are imaginary. The ones they commit in the present--they are real." --Aral Vorkosigan

    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    This, in a nutshell.
    Yes, exactly.

  18. - Top - End - #1068
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    I didn't state they are wrong, I stated that this is just your interpretation, and not the only possible interpretation. You have as yet not bothered to say why my interpretation would be invalid, just stated that your interpretation was the right one and that logic couldn't be applied to show that there could be another valid interpretation.
    Wrong. I told you that you were wrong by concentrating exclusively on logic and ignoring semantics, i.e. meaning and purpose. You admitted to it, in fact. Now, you have moved slightly away from it, so I'm willing to continue this conversation, but you are still concentrating way too much on Aristotelian logic and ignoring the broader meaning of the very sentences we are discussing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    And to clarify again: there is an opposition here, but it is not necessarily the opposition you are seeing. There may just be the opposition between "creatures which are not angels or devas" and "creatures which can't make mistakes"; but not your opposition between "creatures which are angels or devas" and "creatures which can make mistakes". The negation is an important difference.
    Again? Last time you were assuring me there was no opposition.
    "It's your interpretation that it is an oppositional statement" ~Joerg

    Also, wrong. The opposition is between Celia and "angels and devas". Your position (that some angels and devas can make mistakes) requires there to be two types of angels and devas, those that can make moral mistakes and those that can't. Go ahead and explain how this can be, because it makes no sense to me. As I explained in my last post, all angels and devas are embodiments of Good and Law. That means that they both are and represent the moral positions of Good and Law. Whether you opt for the interpretation that they lack free will to make the mistakes, because they are simply extensions of the morality (i.e. what "embodiment" means) or they do have free will, but can't make mistakes because anything they do is automatically what a Good and Lawful creature would do, the end result is the same: all angels and devas are the same in this respect.

    Otherwise, you need to explain where the difference lies, what makes some of them different, and what evidence you have for it. Mine is the parsimonious position: that when named as a group of embodiments, they all share the same characteristic. Remember my example with elves being immortal, and how that didn't quite work when I threw in dwarves, even though the logic continued to be perfect? Same thing.

    Now, by only concentrating on the Aristotelian logic of the sentence, yes, I could agree that you have a point. But that is a position that is wrong because you are ignoring the context of the quote, and by context I mean the meaning of the sentences that you are reducing to "A U B->C". As I explained, the moment you decouple the tool from reality, your conclusions are likewise decoupled from reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    It is also needed in the interpretation "she isn't an angel or deva, therefore she can make mistakes". You can't leave out the first part, because then the second part wouldn't follow.
    I don't see what you mean by this. The original line was:
    "Celia isn't a deva or an angel; she's not an embodiment of Law or Good. She can mistakes and screw up, and she can fail to live up to her own ideals"

    Now, I read that line to indicate that there is something special about angles and devas, who are embodiments of Law or Good. You, on the other hand, don't think that angels and devas are special, that only some are. In which case, mentioning them is a red herring, and the accurate phrase would be ""Celia can mistakes and screw up, and she can fail to live up to her own ideals" - that is all that the phrase can convey, according to you.

    But I believe that Rich would not double the length of the phrase without a reason. In his mind, angels and devas of OotS are embodiments of morality and thus an oppositional statement to Celia (and, by extension, outsiders).

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    I'll make another example, perhaps that will make more clear my interpretation. Look at the following sentences:

    "Durkon isn't a wizard or sorceror. He can't cast Fireball."

    This sets up some kind of opposition between wizards and sorcerors on the one side and clerics on the other side. Is it absurd to write something like this? Can you leave out the first sentence and have the same meaning? Does the first sentence collapse completely because there are many wizards and sorcerors which can't cast Fireball? Would you assume, reading these sentences, that every wizard and every sorceror can cast Fireball?
    Yes, I would. Every wizard and sorceror we meet in OotS might cast a fireball, if he is of enough level. He may not have learned it, but it is within his abilities, just as he could jump, even if he never does.

    But your broader point is a false comparison, since "knowing how to cast a fireball" is not the same as "being an embodiment of Good". One is something you must learn, the other is inherent. Wizards and sorcerers and clerics get choices of what the can and cannot do. Being an embodiment of a morality plane is what you are.

    Grey Wolf
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  19. - Top - End - #1069
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Hardcore's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Given the purpose of the thread it is amazing the complexity of some of the discusions:P.

  20. - Top - End - #1070
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Joerg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Wrong. I told you that you were wrong by concentrating exclusively on logic and ignoring semantics, i.e. meaning and purpose. You admitted to it, in fact.
    I said I was focusing on logic. If that means "I'm totally ignoring semantics and meanings" instead of "I'm looking at things first in the context of logic and then considering how the logic can be applied to find additional possible meanings", then I used the wrong word. Anyhow, you've still not convinced me that logic can't be applied here at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Again? Last time you were assuring me there was no opposition.
    "It's your interpretation that it is an oppositional statement" ~Joerg
    I apologize for that. It was a wrong formulation; it should have been "it's your interpretation that it is such an oppositional statement (and not a different kind of opposition)". With "again", I refer to my second posting on the subject, where I already explained the difference between the two kinds of opposition -- albeit in the logical notation, which may be difficult to map to oppositional statements if you aren't accustomed to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Also, wrong. The opposition is between Celia and "angels and devas". Your position (that some angels and devas can make mistakes) requires there to be two types of angels and devas, those that can make moral mistakes and those that can't. Go ahead and explain how this can be, because it makes no sense to me.
    You may be right there. But you are changing tack; I was opposed to your position that the statement about Celia proves that all angels can't make moral mistakes. If you now want to argue that their existance as embodiments of Good proves that they can't make mistakes, go ahead, but I won't take part in that kind of discussion because the whole D&D alignment thing is a bit strange to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    I don't see what you mean by this. The original line was:
    "Celia isn't a deva or an angel; she's not an embodiment of Law or Good. She can mistakes and screw up, and she can fail to live up to her own ideals"

    Now, I read that line to indicate that there is something special about angles and devas, who are embodiments of Law or Good. You, on the other hand, don't think that angels and devas are special, that only some are. In which case, mentioning them is a red herring, and the accurate phrase would be ""Celia can mistakes and screw up, and she can fail to live up to her own ideals" - that is all that the phrase can convey, according to you.
    No, my interpretation is that Celia would have to be an angel or deva so that she can't make mistakes. Because she isn't an angel or deva, she can make mistakes. In the same way as with the Durkon / Fireball example or with the Socrates / flying example. I don't really understand why you can't see that equivalence. To try again: yes, there is something special about angels and devas: only members of that group can't make mistakes. But that doesn't automatically mean that all members of that group can't make mistakes. In the same way that only wizards and sorcerers can cast Fireball, but not all of them can. In the same way that only creatures with wings can fly, but not all of them can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Yes, I would. Every wizard and sorceror we meet in OotS might cast a fireball, if he is of enough level. He may not have learned it, but it is within his abilities, just as he could jump, even if he never does.
    Oh, come on. If he is of enough level, if he has learned the spell, if he hasn't barred evocation as a specialist wizard ... those are all additional requirements. It is precisely my point that not all those requirements have to be mentioned: it is enough to know that Durkon is not a wizard or sorceror, and it immediately follows that he can't cast Fireball.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    But your broader point is a false comparison, since "knowing how to cast a fireball" is not the same as "being an embodiment of Good". One is something you must learn, the other is inherent. Wizards and sorcerers and clerics get choices of what the can and cannot do. Being an embodiment of a morality plane is what you are.
    Again, if you want to argue from that "embodiment of Good" point of view, fine. But then you don't need the statement about Celia and the opposition of angels and outsiders at all. For that argument it is enough to have the line "angels and devas are embodiments of Good", which may even be D&D canon (I don't know). In my view -- as mentioned, I'm not particularly knowledgable about the alignments -- there could well be an additional requirement for embodiments of Good so they can't make moral mistakes (e.g. "must still have an active connection to a Good plane" or something like that).
    Ares - Music and sounds system for roleplaying
    Avatar by Rich Burlew.

  21. - Top - End - #1071
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    I am sorry but where did the idea that Celestials and Infernals or Demons couldn't make mistakes come from?

    They can and have strayed from their alignments in D&D and other stories many times.

    Angels fall and I do believe some demons have been redeemed. It's harder to make them shift but it does happen.

  22. - Top - End - #1072
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Devonix View Post
    I am sorry but where did the idea that Celestials and Infernals or Demons couldn't make mistakes come from?
    Word of Rich:
    "Celia isn't a deva or an angel; she's not an embodiment of Law or Good. She can mistakes and screw up, and she can fail to live up to her own ideals, as she does later when she finds herself cheering while Haley shoots people."

    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    I said I was focusing on logic. If that means "I'm totally ignoring semantics and meanings" instead of "I'm looking at things first in the context of logic and then considering how the logic can be applied to find additional possible meanings", then I used the wrong word. Anyhow, you've still not convinced me that logic can't be applied here at all.
    OK, that accusation is a little insulting. You are essentially claiming that the only person using logic is you and not me. I resent that. I am using logic (in conjunction with semantics), I am just not exclusively using aristotelian logic. Aristotelian logic looks exclusively at the flow of True Statements. I.e. if A is true and B is true then A + !B is false, etc. What A and B mean is not important to Aristotelian logic.

    But I cannot afford, in this thread, to narrow my focus that much. Case in point:
    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    To try again: yes, there is something special about angels and devas: only members of that group can't make mistakes. But that doesn't automatically mean that all members of that group can't make mistakes.
    From an Aristotelian logic PoV, that argument is ironclad. To write it out:
    C: Celia
    A: Angels and Devas
    E: Embodiment of Good
    c: belongs to/is a
    !: not
    M: Make moral mistakes
    ->: Then

    The phrases we are discussing can be reduced to:
    Cc!A
    Cc!E
    C->M

    From these logical statements, no conclusion can be drawn about Angels and Devas, since they are merely a group Celia doesn't belong to. Strictly speaking, from a logic standpoint, they cannot even be tied to embodiments of Good.

    But that ignores semantics. There are words that Rich has not spelled out that are implicitly there - like the fact that angels and devas are embodiments of good, something you have assumed right along with me. We just disagree on the next implicit assumption, as far as I can tell.

    Now, if all you want is my assurance that the logic argument is correct, then rest assured you have it. My disagreement is not with the logic itself, but with the semantics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    Again, if you want to argue from that "embodiment of Good" point of view, fine. But then you don't need the statement about Celia and the opposition of angels and outsiders at all. For that argument it is enough to have the line "angels and devas are embodiments of Good", which may even be D&D canon
    Couple of things here: First about the D&D canon. You may have noticed several people (Kish & Devonix being the latest) have disagreed with this. So would I. Nothing in D&D itself gives angels and devas any special moral dispensation. I even had the agreement with, I believe, DaggerPen that in other works angels can make moral mistakes, fall, etc. There is even extremely circumstantial evidence that suggest that, even if Rich said otherwise, his angles and devas can make moral mistakes (more about that in a second). But at the end of the day, this thread is about MitD. Moral plane entities (i.e. demons and angels in all their varieties) pop up a lot since they tend to have access to wish, a very parsimonious explanation for the escape. So this issue needs to be examined. The base state is that they should be candidates. That is countered by Rich's statement, which is what we are discussing.

    Second thing: that I'm arguing from "the embodiments PoV" as you put it. This is the MitD thread. I do not have the privilege of ignoring parts of the argument for the sake of a pure look at logic. I need to consider the whole thing, because it will change the outcome of the thread, which I'm in charge of maintaining.

    Third: "For that argument it is enough to have the line "angels and devas are embodiments of Good""

    If only I had that line. But I don't. I have this:
    "Celia isn't a deva or an angel; she's not an embodiment of Law or Good. She can mistakes[...]"

    Nothing there says that angels and devas are embodiments of good. It also doesn't say that embodiments can't make mistakes. Not if we stick to logic. But that's where semantics steps in. The meaning intended by the phrase is that Celia is being compared three times to the same group: first by name, then by category, and finally by ability. That is what I meant by opposition, and it seems you have felt I was changing my tune, when I wasn't. It has been my argument from the start that Celia has been set in opposition to the same group three times, and thus that even if strictly speaking the logic doesn't work, the semantics makes it work. The way it is phrased implies that angels and devas are a part of the bigger group of creatures who are embodiments of moral planes, and that such groups cannot make moral mistakes.

    First revisited: there is one grey spot in OotS canon about moral mistakes in angels. When Roy is being examined, the angel says that "[she] didn't think [her] superiors would blink if [she] kicked [Roy's] case over to the Neutral Good afterlife". The fact that she has superiors implies that there is an overview process, which in turn could mean that the deva could make a mistake that needs to be caught.

    As I said, this is very circumstantial evidence, since there are two very big assumptions there. The first and most obvious is that the supervisors are there to catch moral mistakes and not, simply, administrative ones. As someone that works with databases, I know plenty of people who save information to the wrong tables and put files in the wrong places (the deva is using a computer, so presumably they have something of that kind of storage). Those are not moral mistakes, even if in some cases it might result in a moral issue when someone ends in an afterlife they don't belong in. The supervisors are there to revise every case, to make sure that no non-moral mistakes were made, and if Roy had ended in the Neutral Good, the supervisors wouldn't see any mistakes there - only if the deva had mistakenly sent the file too far, and Roy had ended in the Chaotic Good afterlife instead.

    The second, less clear answer, is that there might be a hierarchy because that's how it is written in the Book even if it is not needed, and thus even if the deva can't make a mistake when judging, they still need to set a good example to morally imperfect humans and have the whole supervisor thing in place.

    Grey Wolf
    Last edited by Grey_Wolf_c; 2012-05-01 at 10:37 AM.
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  23. - Top - End - #1073
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Joerg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    OK, that accusation is a little insulting. You are essentially claiming that the only person using logic is you and not me. I resent that.
    I am sorry if you feel that way. No insult was intended. I didn't mention it previously, but I also found it a little insulting when you claimed I was totally ignoring semantics. I'll not go further into the distinction of aristotelian logic and other logic because it would only derail the thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Now, if all you want is my assurance that the logic argument is correct, then rest assured you have it. My disagreement is not with the logic itself, but with the semantics.
    It's a start, and I am glad that you agree with the logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Couple of things here: First about the D&D canon. You may have noticed several people (Kish & Devonix being the latest) have disagreed with this. So would I. Nothing in D&D itself gives angels and devas any special moral dispensation.
    My question was more whether angels are embodiments of Good in D&D. It is clear that you consider "being an embodiment of Good" and "not being able to make moral mistakes" the same thing, but I am not so sure about that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Nothing there says that angels and devas are embodiments of good. It also doesn't say that embodiments can't make mistakes. Not if we stick to logic. But that's where semantics steps in. The meaning intended by the phrase is that Celia is being compared three times to the same group: first by name, then by category, and finally by ability. That is what I meant by opposition, and it seems you have felt I was changing my tune, when I wasn't. It has been my argument from the start that Celia has been set in opposition to the same group three times, and thus that even if strictly speaking the logic doesn't work, the semantics makes it work. The way it is phrased implies that angels and devas are a part of the bigger group of creatures who are embodiments of moral planes,
    I would agree with all of that so far ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    and that such groups cannot make moral mistakes.
    ... but I would continue with "and that only members of such groups cannot make moral mistakes". The possibility of this subtly different semantic has been shown by the logic on which we now agree. Why would, in your opinion, this different semantic be impossible? From your previous posting, I assume because you state that an embodiment of Good automatically can't make moral mistakes. Well, that may be the case; as I said before, I'll not argue about these D&D alignment things.
    Ares - Music and sounds system for roleplaying
    Avatar by Rich Burlew.

  24. - Top - End - #1074
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    My question was more whether angels are embodiments of Good in D&D.
    No idea. I'm not a D&D expert. Gut feeling is that in D&D there isn't such thing as an embodiment of anything except in fluff ("embodiment of hate" "anger made flesh" etc.) and as such no rules that control their behaviour, being instead up to the DM.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    It is clear that you consider "being an embodiment of Good" and "not being able to make moral mistakes" the same thing, but I am not so sure about that.
    No, I don't. I consider them equivalent in the context of OotS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joerg View Post
    ... but I would continue with "and that only members of such groups cannot make moral mistakes". The possibility of this subtly different semantic has been shown by the logic on which we now agree. Why would, in your opinion, this different semantic be impossible? From your previous posting, I assume because you state that an embodiment of Good automatically can't make moral mistakes. Well, that may be the case; as I said before, I'll not argue about these D&D alignment things.
    No, you are conflating my conclusion ("embodiments can't make moral mistakes') with my rationale. If that were my logic, then I would be using a circular argument, which is a fallacy. Let me try and walk you through my argument once more:

    We start with the subject:
    "Celia isn't a deva or an angel; she's not an embodiment of Law or Good. She can mistakes and screw up, and she can fail to live up to her own ideals, as she does later when she finds herself cheering while Haley shoots people."

    This is three distinct sentences, literally unconnected by anything stronger than a semicolon:
    Celia isn't a deva or an angel;
    [Celia i]s not an embodiment of Law or Good.
    [Celia] can mistakes and screw up[...]

    The only canon context I am considering, beyond this, is fragments of the conversation Roy's Archon mentions. In brief, that the further up the mountain you go, the more spiritual you become, and (presumably) eventually you become one with the plane. This is one of the standard D&D cosmologies (there are others), And since Rich uses the word embodiment, it implies that angels and such are made out of the plane, fueled by the souls becoming the plane.

    Semantic analysis:

    I assume Rich was not giving three sentences to just convey the idea that Celia can make mistakes, particularly since that is patently obvious from the comic itself. No, context makes it clear that even if Celia is an outsider from a different plane of existence (elemental plane of air, to be exact), that doesn't make her the same as an outsider from a morality plane. Rich goes on to specify how this distinction works: she isn't an angel, she isn't an embodiment, and she can make mistakes.

    Taken at face value, as I explained in my last post, there is no logical connection between those three sentences. But if Rich wasn't wasting our time, there is a semantic connection: Celia is being described by opposition. This is a classic literary use of the technique, whereupon you tell the audience what something is not, with the clear meaning that there is a strong division between them. It is further semantically strengthened by the even more classic technique of rule of three: rather than just telling us what she can't do, we are told three times what she is not, with the implicit semantic content that all three things are one and the same.

    So, Celia is not an angel, not an embodiment, makes mistakes. The implicit semantic connection is one of consequence:
    Celia is not an angel, therefore she is not an embodiment, therefore she can make mistakes.

    Now, you suggested that instead it should be read as:
    Celia is not like some angels, which are embodiments, and thus cannot make mistakes.

    The difference is that I am not assuming a division between angels. Your logic depends on there being two types of angels, those that can make mistakes and those that can't, and Celia being compared to those that can't. Now, you could make the division between embodiments and making mistakes instead (i.e. all angels are embodiments, but some embodiments can make mistakes and some can't), but for the purposes of this discussions it is irrelevant since my point is that you don not have the evidence to make a division in the first place, neither in the angels group nor in the embodiments group. This is the issue I showcased with the "elves and dwarves" example, which you will remember but I will write out again, with the same rule of three:

    Celia is not from the material plane; she isn't an elf or a dwarf. She is not ageless, she will grow old and die.*

    This showcases my problem with your assumption: that there is a division in angels and devas, or amongst embodiments, such that some do have the last characteristic (no moral mistakes) and others don't. This is an appropriate example since intuitively you can feel something is off. Rich wouldn't write that, because the mention of dwarves, while logically correct, is a red herring that throws off the semantic message.

    So my position, instead, is that all angels and all devas share the characteristic of being moral embodiments, and that all moral embodiments [in OotS] cannot make [moral] mistakes. They may have other characteristics that distinguish them, but not this one.

    Evidence for my position:
    First and foremost, the "elves and dwarves" argument. If there are two types of angels, or two types of embodiment, the logic checks out but the whole is semantically suspect. Rich would know this, would spot the problem, and would clarify. He didn't, thus, there is no such division, unlike between elves and dwarves.

    Second, the meaning of embodiment of good and law. It literally means "good and law made flesh". Combined with Roy's Archon's comments, it strengthens the idea that there aren't divisions between angels, because they are all made of the same stuff: Good and Law made feathery flesh.

    Third, the fact that there are two diametrically opposed conclusions, one of which is based exclusively on [aristotelian] logic examination and the other based on semantic examination. Semantics, in this case, has the upper hand. Rich wasn't writing a logic puzzle, he was describing in a commentary how Celia could claim to be a pacifist after having blasted subdued prisoners with lightning. Here, his intention lies on the meaning. In other circumstances I could rule the other way round, but not here.

    Hopefully that clarifies my position, Joerg. Do let me know if I need to go into further detail in any of the steps.

    Grey Wolf

    *It occurs to me that sylphs may actually be ageless; lets assume for sake of argument that they are not
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  25. - Top - End - #1075
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Joerg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Germany
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Taken at face value, as I explained in my last post, there is no logical connection between those three sentences. But if Rich wasn't wasting our time, there is a semantic connection: Celia is being described by opposition. This is a classic literary use of the technique, whereupon you tell the audience what something is not, with the clear meaning that there is a strong division between them.
    OK. So far, all of that can also be applied to my interpretation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    It is further semantically strengthened by the even more classic technique of rule of three: rather than just telling us what she can't do, we are told three times what she is not, with the implicit semantic content that all three things are one and the same.
    Now you have indeed an argument which only fits to your interpretation. I don't consider it a very strong argument, though, because the 'three' here is rather implicit and there is no evidence that Rich wanted to refer to that literary technique in his commentary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    So, Celia is not an angel, not an embodiment, makes mistakes. The implicit semantic connection is one of consequence:
    Celia is not an angel, therefore she is not an embodiment, therefore she can make mistakes.

    Now, you suggested that instead it should be read as:
    Celia is not like some angels, which are embodiments, and thus cannot make mistakes.
    Argh. No I didn't. There is no 'like' in my interpretation at all. My interpretation is exactly the 'consequence' one: Celia is not an angel or a deva, therefore she's not an embodiment, therefore she can make mistakes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    The difference is that I am not assuming a division between angels. Your logic depends on there being two types of angels, those that can make mistakes and those that can't, and Celia being compared to those that can't.
    No. My logic depends on there not being a comparison ("like") but a consequence ("therefore").

    I have the feeling that this discussion doesn't go forward any more, and that I won't find another different way to express my position. So I will probably bow out now. Thank you for your time anyway.
    Ares - Music and sounds system for roleplaying
    Avatar by Rich Burlew.

  26. - Top - End - #1076
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Crusher's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The sticks
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    So I was procrastinating (still am, in fact), when I came across a listing of all the monsters written up in Dragon magazine so I started going through some of them (the author admits the list probably isn't exhaustive, but there are a LOT of monsters on it. Its here if anyone feels like spelunking http://www.enworld.org/forum/general...ter-index.html).

    Anyway, I've found one good enough to discuss:

    Black Troll (http://creaturecatalog.enworld.org/c...CreatureID=506) Dragon issue 141 (1989).

    Basically, its a fiendish troll, descended from regular trolls that somehow ended up in the Abyss. Its pretty straightforward, but a progressed one actually matches up fairly well and its got one extremely handy surprise ability.

    The base Black Troll is Large with 7d8+49 HP and a 23 STR. But they can scale up to Huge, at which point they can jump all the way up to 15-21 HD. I'm kinda fuzzy on how monster advancement works, but I think its something like +4 STR for each size increase and another +1 STR for each 4 HD. That would put its STR right around 30.

    Three Scenes:

    Circus Scene - Meh, its weakest part. Its a fiendish "demon troll" with green eyes and red horns. The "oddly human-like physique" helps make them less troll like but doesn't necessarily make it more "like nothing I've ever seen".

    Tower Scene - As noted above, could have a 30 STR. Also, 21 HD+147, DR10 (though admittedly its just 10/+1. Maybe Miko's using normal weapons?) and 5 Regeneration makes it pretty sturdy.

    Escape Scene - Teleport without Error (aka Greater Teleport as of 3.5)! Why a fiendish troll with an INT and CHR of 10 would randomly be able to cast this (and chain lightning) like a 9th level sorcerer (but otherwise with a standard troll/giant skill set) I have no idea, but it can.

    Pros
    - Only speaks Giant and Abyssal so a surprise it can speak common
    - An outsider, so pretty surprising to see one in a jungle, and not surprising that it'd be familiar with the Astral plane
    - Not sure what its upgraded CR would be, but I'd guess 17-18 which is a little low but about right

    Cons
    - Has to be Huge to be strong enough, and that presents size issues
    - Its a fiendish descendant of trolls, so while that means it presumably has a dad out there somewhere and its not a living embodiment of Chaotic Evil, its alignment IS defined as "Always Chaotic Evil"
    "Its a setting less visitor-friendly than the Red Wedding." - 111balz

  27. - Top - End - #1077
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Crusher's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The sticks
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    There are some decent ones on that list though relying on Google to find out what they are makes it slow going. Someone with a huge stack of back Dragons should really check these out.

    If Crystalle wasn't 22' tall and with fluff describing him as being unique, (though he's not actually listed as such, nor is he a god or anything) he'd probably be a forerunner. Hmm. Could a "Son of Crystalle" work out somehow?

    http://creaturecatalog.enworld.org/c.../crystalle.htm
    "Its a setting less visitor-friendly than the Red Wedding." - 111balz

  28. - Top - End - #1078
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Grey_Wolf_c's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    Tower Scene - As noted above, could have a 30 STR. Also, 21 HD+147, DR10 (though admittedly its just 10/+1. Maybe Miko's using normal weapons?) and 5 Regeneration makes it pretty sturdy.
    She's not. Her weapons became disenchanted when she fell, which implies they had at least some form of magic beforehand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    its alignment IS defined as "Always Chaotic Evil"
    That doesn't really mean anything. I wouldn't call that a con. Its low defences are an issue, though. And so is needing to be advanced. MitD is very lazy, RC has commented in his lack of level-gaining, which MitD didn't dispute. I'd rather stick to vanilla creatures: advancement is already considered in the augmentation section, although I could add this one there as an example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crusher View Post
    There are some decent ones on that list though relying on Google to find out what they are makes it slow going. Someone with a huge stack of back Dragons should really check these out.

    If Crystalle wasn't 22' tall and with fluff describing him as being unique, (though he's not actually listed as such, nor is he a god or anything) he'd probably be a forerunner. Hmm. Could a "Son of Crystalle" work out somehow?

    http://creaturecatalog.enworld.org/c.../crystalle.htm
    This guy, on the other hand, is intriguing. Its main problem, of course, is that elementals don't sleep. But it explains the escape, and how it can't be repeated (he greyed his ioun wish stone with the escape). Being made out of crystal it could mean he is made out of the black gem needed for resurrecting undead (for RC's threat of using him as material), it is well strong enough, has decent defences, etc.

    Question: what magic level weapons are expected around level 15? +5? That could be a problem, because Miko would presumably have about that level, and that would be beyond this guy's defences.

    Grey Wolf
    Interested in MitD? Join us in MitD's thread.
    There is a world of imagination
    Deep in the corners of your mind
    Where reality is an intruder
    And myth and legend thrive
    Quote Originally Posted by The Giant View Post
    But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?
    Ceterum autem censeo Hilgya malefica est

  29. - Top - End - #1079
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Crusher's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    The sticks
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Got another one and this one might be quite good.

    Baku (large good outsider) http://creaturecatalog.enworld.org/c...CreatureID=643

    They're large, outsider semi-elephants, described as a "... weird amalgams of different animals. Their heads resemble those of elephants, with a pair of tusks that thrust upward from the lower jaw and curve backwards slightly. The trunk is only four feet long, and prehensile. The bakuís forelegs are stout and similar to those of a rhino, while the rear legs are clawed and resemble a lionís. The body and short tail are reptilian, and scaled with horny plates like dragons."

    Like the Black Troll they're a little weak at their base level, but they scale up dramatically. They start at 12HD but can get up to 24HD while still merely Large and can get all the way up to 36HD as Huge.

    Circus Scene - CHR of 15 but as described above its pretty strange looking. Also, at Large it would be awfully small to be an elephant. Plus it has Metamorphosis at will.

    Tower Scene - Base STR of 28 plus another 3-4 from gaining another 12 HD and we're into the low 30s. If we went with a 36 HD, Huge Baku we'd have size problems, but its STR would be up into the mid-high 30s. Defenses are overall pretty flimsy (mediocre AC, no DR or Regeneration), but it also can turn invisible at will (and spends most of its time invisible) and its also got a metric ton of old psionic abilities, most of them usable at will and I'm not sure what they all do. Maybe something like Body Control or Ectoplasmic Form?

    Escape Scene - Probability travel

    Pros
    - Outsiders but their alignments can be all over the place. They're usually Neutral Good, but it specifically says there are even evil ones out there.
    - Its Trumpet ability might explain the Shout scene.

    Cons
    - They're outsiders, but spend a lot of time on the Prime Material Plane and their favorite place is, unfortunately, tropical forests.
    - They're powerful psionicists, so while it might be a surprise it spoke instead of did something telepathic-ish, they're known to spend a lot of time around humans (though they're invisible a lot of the time so aren't frequently spotted) and certainly understand common.
    "Its a setting less visitor-friendly than the Red Wedding." - 111balz

  30. - Top - End - #1080
    Retired Mod in the Playground Retired Moderator
     
    Savannah's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Texas. It's too hot here.
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: MitD V: MitD and the Templates of Doom (Please Read the First Post)

    Quote Originally Posted by Grey_Wolf_c View Post
    Question: what magic level weapons are expected around level 15? +5? That could be a problem, because Miko would presumably have about that level, and that would be beyond this guy's defences.
    Per the official 3.0 -> 3.5 update rules, the DR 25/+3 would become DR 15/magic. So, yeah, she'd easily be cutting through the DR.
    Knowledge is power.
    Power corrupts.
    Study hard.
    Be evil.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •