OOTS #1212 - The Discussion Thread

[Quizatzhaderac]

What I’d like to know is why the score is incremented by tens rather than ones? Have the snitch be worth 15 points and the « goals » 1 since there isn’t any other way to score points.

Maybe minor penalties cost your team eleven points and major ones 37? That way it's harder to tie if there are penalties.

What I do mind is declaring (against common sense and science) that basically a whole (taxonomical) kingdom of the living is a bunch of inanimate objects unless they can run around and attack stuff.

When I was following up the definition of "animate" I did indeed find that dictionaries do still list "alive, without qualifications" as a valid definition. I also did usages searches, and was unable to find one usage for a living, sessile object outside of a linguistics discussion. Plenty of usages for moving, non living objects. Also found usages for "inanimate" to describe sessile, living things.

Frankly I believe the dictionary is wrong, but that I don't expect people to respect my opinion on that matter.

As for the chauvinism,: yes, well classical languages tended to be chavanistic about one thing or another. Maybe the romans would have been more enlightened if they spoke of animalia motilia and animalia immotilia instead of animalia and vegetabilia, but changing language is hard.

You're generally not going accomplish anything other than personal frustration disagreeing with the way most people use words.

Would you take exception to me saying "plants and glaciers are sessile; animals and robots are motile."?

Also, preferring cladistics to morphological, behaviour-based etc. taxonomies is not some arbitrary choice. Stating that „[w]hen you ask why biologists use this system, you get answers that are only true in the context of modern biology” is like stating that genetical proximity only exists because this is the subjective perception of modern science.

I'm using "subjective" in the philosophical sense here, which means "true depending on the mind asking the question". Note that the mind is not necessarily remotely like you, or even human. Objective truths are essential to science, but all sciences deal with a large number of subjective truths.

The genetic proximity of various species is an objective (mind independent) fact. That genetic distance is the best way to organize information on living things is not and depends on what we consider "best" and what information we have.

Consider the question "should we have fishermen?" in light of the view "Cladistics is objectively (true for all people in all circumstances) the best way to organize organisms." Changing the name is possible, but at the end of the day, they are still catching a set of organisms which are determined by environment, not clade.

If cladistics is objectively best it doesn't matter what we call it or who's organizing animals. If it matters who is organizing animals, what they're trying to accomplish or what words are used to describe things.

[bunsen_h]

There are two ways out of here and neither is fun.

Now you're reminding me of a book, and I'm trying to figure out which one. William Sleator's Parasite Pig (sequel of Interstellar Pig), possibly?

[Fyraltari]

Now you're reminding me of a book, and I'm trying to figure out which one. William Sleator's Parasite Pig (sequel of Interstellar Pig), possibly?

Sorry, I wasn't (intentionnally) quoting anything.

[Riftwolf]

New Adventure Sourcebook "Escape From the Terrasque: No, Really. FROM the Terrasque"

I remember a campaign I wanted to put together; basically a doomsday cult wants to resurrect the Tarrasque. Your party has to locate the creatures remains, which legend say are in the heart of a mountain. Tarrasque body parts are like the alien from the Thing; when removed from the body, they have a life of their own (and can be regenerated). During the battle that destroyed the original Tarrasque, a tooth was ripped out, and that's what the cult are after.
At the heat of the mountain, you fight an enormous metallic snake with a spiky head. It isn't guarding the Tarrasques tooth, though; its the Tarrasques dental nerve. It's at that point you realise the mountain is the tooth, and the Tarrasque isn't something you fight; it's a marauding continent.

[Peelee]

Now you're reminding me of a book, and I'm trying to figure out which one. William Sleator's Parasite Pig (sequel of Interstellar Pig), possibly?

Spoiler: Shame Fyraltari doesnt enjoy Futurama.

Show

[Fyraltari]

Spoiler: Shame Fyraltari doesnt enjoy Futurama.

Show

That was funny, though.

[Jaziggy]

I remember a campaign I wanted to put together; basically a doomsday cult wants to resurrect the Tarrasque. Your party has to locate the creatures remains, which legend say are in the heart of a mountain. Tarrasque body parts are like the alien from the Thing; when removed from the body, they have a life of their own (and can be regenerated). During the battle that destroyed the original Tarrasque, a tooth was ripped out, and that's what the cult are after.
At the heat of the mountain, you fight an enormous metallic snake with a spiky head. It isn't guarding the Tarrasques tooth, though; its the Tarrasques dental nerve. It's at that point you realise the mountain is the tooth, and the Tarrasque isn't something you fight; it's a marauding continent.

That's great. I was just chatting with a friend about an actual adventure based on this 'Escape *from* the Terrasque' notion (as the Terrasque is a bit too small for an actual interior adventure)- the party finds themselves shackled on a slave ship on a dark and stormy night. A huge wave crashes down around them, and they awake in a strange, small room. As the PCs work their way through the dungeon, they discover they have been swallowed by a vast leviathan, and must escape using the detritus of the creature's historical feedings, each with centuries spanning between them.

[Fyraltari]

Terrasque

Terrasque

Terrasque

Terrasque

It's spelled (an pronounced) Tarrasque.

[bunsen_h]

Sorry, I wasn't (intentionnally) quoting anything.

That wasn't what I meant, sorry -- the phrase you used was evocative of something from a book.

Spoiler: Juvenile gross-out humour

Show

I seem to recall that the narrator ended up mind-linked to, or embodied as, something like an intestinal parasite. Which then had to escape. Or, possibly, enter.

[Peelee]

That was funny, though.

That line is indicative of the quality of Futurama after season 1.

I should note here than I'm not knocking season 1, but all the best episodes are in other seasons, IIRC, and I know you weren't impressed with the first few.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It's spelled (an pronounced) Tarrasque.

Tarasque is also correct (and the original) and, technically, so is torrasque.

Grey Wolf

[Jasdoif]

See now I want to stat up a Tarrasques Gut Flora.

Those are normally called "people".

New Adventure Sourcebook "Escape From the Terrasque: No, Really. FROM the Terrasque"

You could save a lot of time by skipping the Tarrasque and going for Dalmosh, who has a portal to a limited demiplane in his gizzard (which is probably related to him always being hungry).

[Ruck]

That line is indicative of the quality of Futurama after season 1.

I should note here than I'm not knocking season 1, but all the best episodes are in other seasons, IIRC, and I know you weren't impressed with the first few.

It's not even my favorite joke about, uh, this subject:

Spoiler: Futurama

Show

ZOIDBERG: We'll need to have a look inside you with this camera.
FRY opens his mouth
ZOIDBERG: Guess again.

[danielxcutter]

You could save a lot of time by skipping the Tarrasque and going for Dalmosh, who has a portal to a limited demiplane in his gizzard (which is probably related to him always being hungry).

Damnit, I got swordsaged.

[Metastachydium]

As far as game rules are concerned, sponges and the like simply do not exist. At best they are scenery as far as the rules are concerned, no one ever put pen to paper statting out sponges or non-monstrous insects. I do know of one module that has a swarm of flies mechanically treated as a trap though. I suspect sponges would be given the same treatment non-creature plants get.

And how, exactly, are „regular plants, such as one finds growing in gardens and fields” more relevant or central to the game experience?

You need both charisma and wisdom to be a creature, if you lack one of the two you still aren't one. And it's not true you have at least 1 point, the capacity to perceive your surroundings is the difference between having a wisdom score at all and having it as a nonability, you can still have 0 wisdom.

„Any creature capable of telling the difference between itself and things that are not itself has (…) Charisma” and I'd argue that a living being capable of pursuing its own interests and using its surroundings to that effect qualifies as such.

Maybe minor penalties cost your team eleven points and major ones 37? That way it's harder to tie if there are penalties.
When I was following up the definition of "animate" I did indeed find that dictionaries do still list "alive, without qualifications" as a valid definition. I also did usages searches, and was unable to find one usage for a living, sessile object outside of a linguistics discussion. Plenty of usages for moving, non living objects. Also found usages for "inanimate" to describe sessile, living things.

Frankly I believe the dictionary is wrong, but that I don't expect people to respect my opinion on that matter.
As for the chauvinism,: yes, well classical languages tended to be chavanistic about one thing or another. Maybe the romans would have been more enlightened if they spoke of animalia motilia and animalia immotilia instead of animalia and vegetabilia, but changing language is hard.

You're generally not going accomplish anything other than personal frustration disagreeing with the way most people use words.

Frankly, I believe the dictionary is right. I did a few usage searches of my own. I found several examples of inanimate used to describe (e.g.) Frankenstein's monster (before it became „alive”), golems, garden gnomes and objects in Hardy's works with a semblance of life (and sometimes capable of motion) without actually being alive, i.e. examples of inanimate meaning `not alive`. I also found quite a number of examples for animate used with the meaning `alive`; in some cases the term was applied to plants.
This is not to deny that it is not the only possible meaning. However, declaring the primary, basic meaning inexistent just because you have the impression that some derivative meanings have more currency is somewhat bold.
As for the Romans, or, rather, Latin, vegeto, the base verb from which (among other things) vegetabilis derives means `enliven, animate`.

Would you take exception to me saying "plants and glaciers are sessile; animals and robots are motile."?

While this is not exactly correct (the vast majority of plants is a lot more motile than sessile animals), I would not take issue with such a statement.

I'm using "subjective" in the philosophical sense here, which means "true depending on the mind asking the question". Note that the mind is not necessarily remotely like you, or even human. Objective truths are essential to science, but all sciences deal with a large number of subjective truths.

The genetic proximity of various species is an objective (mind independent) fact. That genetic distance is the best way to organize information on living things is not and depends on what we consider "best" and what information we have.

Consider the question "should we have fishermen?" in light of the view "Cladistics is objectively (true for all people in all circumstances) the best way to organize organisms." Changing the name is possible, but at the end of the day, they are still catching a set of organisms which are determined by environment, not clade.

If cladistics is objectively best it doesn't matter what we call it or who's organizing animals. If it matters who is organizing animals, what they're trying to accomplish or what words are used to describe things.

Should we want to go all philosophical, we could as well apply the epistomological skepticism of modernist thought (or that of their predecessors in, say, the Platonic New Academy) to the problem and state that due to our mortal limitations we have(/had/will have) no direct access to objective realities (ever), and therefore we only have our limited perception of these to work with, which, in its turn, means that our assessments of what is objectively true have an equal chance of being valid or invalid at best. Or we may go one step further and postulate that thus our own conceptual constructs may very well be the most („objectively”) real things there are. But you know what? Let's not go that way.

[Riftwolf]

You could save a lot of time by skipping the Tarrasque and going for Dalmosh, who has a portal to a limited demiplane in his gizzard (which is probably related to him always being hungry).

One of the reasons for the Tarrasque is most d&d players know about the Tarrasque and I've heard players joke about how it's relatively weak for an epic encounter. As one player put it, 'Cast fly and throw rocks at it until we're bored'. Finding out the Tarrasque is so big if it stands on its hind legs it's heads in space and it can swallow entire cities makes it a bit more threatening.

That's great. I was just chatting with a friend about an actual adventure based on this 'Escape *from* the Terrasque' notion (as the Terrasque is a bit too small for an actual interior adventure)- the party finds themselves shackled on a slave ship on a dark and stormy night. A huge wave crashes down around them, and they awake in a strange, small room. As the PCs work their way through the dungeon, they discover they have been swallowed by a vast leviathan, and must escape using the detritus of the creature's historical feedings, each with centuries spanning between them.

Like Monstro from Pinocchio! I approve of this.

[KorvinStarmast]

New Adventure Sourcebook "Escape From the Terrasque: No, Really. FROM the Terrasque"

Heh, you may be on to something there. Of course, I have to name my character something link Pliskin, right?

[Goblin_Priest]

One of the reasons for the Tarrasque is most d&d players know about the Tarrasque and I've heard players joke about how it's relatively weak for an epic encounter. As one player put it, 'Cast fly and throw rocks at it until we're bored'. Finding out the Tarrasque is so big if it stands on its hind legs it's heads in space and it can swallow entire cities makes it a bit more threatening.

The Tarrasque's boons are not really in the offensive department, but at its difficulty to stop. It's quite fine that not all monsters be perfectly rounded, with every high CR enemies having nuclear options to attack the PCs. Though it's also fair to say that it might not really make the Tarrasque the most fun encounter if dealt with as a typical high CR enemy rolled on some random encounter table.

I kind of have the impression that the Tarrasque is better used as a plot device than as a foe to fight, in which case the CR is moot and it can be introduced when the party is at pretty much any level. "The Tarrasque has awakened and is devouring the nation" drives a completely different campaign at level 5 than it does at lvl 20. At low levels, it becomes basically interchangeable with "the evil empire's army", "a deadly magical plague", or "the universe breaking apart". In other words, things the PCs will try to oppose, without just charging into melee against it.

[danielxcutter]

It’s harder than it’s detractors imply, but the difficulty in cheesing it is so much less than facing it head-on that it’s where the joke came from in the first place.

[KorvinStarmast]

You're generally not going accomplish anything other than personal frustration disagreeing with the way most people use words.

Yeah, I've noticed that as well.

If it matters who is organizing animals, what they're trying to accomplish or what words are used to describe things.

Being sensible gets a lot of heat, but I think your approach here is sensible.

The Tarrasque's boons are not really in the offensive department, but at its difficulty to stop. {snip} I kind of have the impression that the Tarrasque is better used as a plot device than as a foe to fight,

Yeah; in a lot of ways, I think its role is as "a force of nature"

[RatElemental]

I kind of have the impression that the Tarrasque is better used as a plot device than as a foe to fight, in which case the CR is moot and it can be introduced when the party is at pretty much any level. "The Tarrasque has awakened and is devouring the nation" drives a completely different campaign at level 5 than it does at lvl 20. At low levels, it becomes basically interchangeable with "the evil empire's army", "a deadly magical plague", or "the universe breaking apart". In other words, things the PCs will try to oppose, without just charging into melee against it.

I remember reading a particularly awesome campaign log involving a wizard whose personal goal was to kill the tarrasque. Somehow in the course of the campaign the tarrasque awakened, became a wizard, and led a multidimensional invasion on a fort the players had set up as their base of operations.

By this point the wizard had invented an airship and was captain of it. He ended up firing the bridge of the ship through the tarrasque's head as a giant bullet with him still on it casting the wish spell needed to keep the thing dead. But the fight leading up to that point must've lasted at least a couple sessions, or one very long one.

Point being, if you give the tarrasque some class levels and intelligence, suddenly it becomes a very interesting fight

[danielxcutter]

It depends what you mean by “offensive capabilities” when talking about the Tarrasque. On the one hand, it has basically no special abilities and does very poorly against ranged attacks, which is why the “fly above it and throw rocks” thing even works in the first place. On the other hand, the damn thing hits harder than most dragons.

[Quizatzhaderac]

But you know what? Let's not go that way.

I'm arguing with your non-scientific belief that cladistics is best for D&D and questioning your ability to distinguish between objective and non-objective statements. Not "going that way" eliminates literally every tool to discuss the issue. Also, if you want to debate if something is or isn't scientific, that's also a philosophical debate.

Do you, or do you not, believe

1. Fishermen exist?
2. Fishermen should exist?
3. There should be a word to describe exactly the set of creatures they catch?
4. That the word should be "fish"?

I would guess you believe 1-3. If so, why do you believe fishermen may categorize organisms by a means other than clade, but D&D may not?

[Metastachydium]

I'm arguing with your non-scientific belief that cladistics is best for D&D and questioning your ability to distinguish between objective and non-objective statements. Not "going that way" eliminates literally every tool to discuss the issue. Also, if you want to debate if something is or isn't scientific, that's also a philosophical debate.

Do you, or do you not, believe

1. Fishermen exist?
2. Fishermen should exist?
3. There should be a word to describe exactly the set of creatures they catch?
4. That the word should be "fish"?

I would guess you believe 1-3. If so, why do you believe fishermen may categorize organisms by a means other than clade, but D&D may not?

You know, calling any naive classification of living entities a taxonomy is a bit of a stretch (while these not being scientifically accurate should be self-evident). But that's not really the crux of the issue. The thing is, such naive attempts at describing the world and labeling up the entities and phenomena within it are not quite as harmless as you'd have them be.
Surely, disregarding the fact that fishes form a paraphyletic group under certain circumstances (in, say, colloquial speech) or defining cavalry as `mounted troops` (and thus including, say, camelry under this umbrella term, making a confusion between a camel rider and a horseman) is unlikely to bring about catastrophal consequences. However, accepting such systems as valid (or, at any rate, as valid as any taxonomical system backed up by a wide scientific consensus) can also lead to undesirable results. Such reasonings form the basis of such misconceptions as ”mammals evolved from the more primitive reptiles” or ”if evolution, then your grandparents are chimpanzees.” This is how a great many stereotypes are born. Such simplified, naive „taxonomies” form the basis of asymmetric counter-concepts (the distinction between, say, hellenes and barbarians is itself a naive classification of living beings which makes perfect sense for a hellene because of how a hellene (subjectively) perceives the world, but it is fundamentally wrong and dangerous (as well as a structural analogue of another example Kosselleck brings up for these pairs of concepts: human and non-human)).
A system which gives undue weight to animals while negligently lumping together complex multicellular organisms that are not animals and explicitly describing some of these as inamite objects is something I would see as such a non-harmless scheme of classification, since it mirrors certain real, unhealthy conceptual biases and reinforces, in its turn, the same convictions that created it.

[KorvinStarmast]

A system which gives undue weight to animals while negligently lumping together complex multicellular organisms that are not animals and explicitly describing some of these as inamite objects is something I would see as such a non-harmless scheme of classification, since it mirrors certain real, unhealthy conceptual biases and reinforces, in its turn, the same convictions that created it.

This may be a topic for another thread or a PM, but I fail to see the harm you refer to. *scratching head* Language and terms are used by all people, not just specialists and not just scientists.
As a calibration point: I say this having spent no small amount of time in two professions (military aviation and engineering) where the clear meaning of terms and their proper use can have life threatening consequences when not adhered to. I also spent some time (it was very painful) on the development of military doctrine, a field which inundated with its own jargaon, sub-language and need for both terminology and meaning to be very clear.

[ijuinkun]

We don't, though, go by Harry Potter rules. :P

How is a horse, an already mighty and dangerous beast in and of itself, with the extra frigging horn on its forehead, considered "defenseless"?

And to add my own what-ifs, what if you try to defend a unicorn from someone trying to kill it, and he lands a blow that makes its blood spray onto your lips? Huh!? HUH!? :P

It's largely a matter of intent. It has been stated explicitly in HP that wantonly murdering a sapient being literally tears one's own soul (and indeed, performing such a murder is a required part of fragmenting one's own soul in order to create a Horcrux with the fragment). Similarly, the Unforgivable Curses (especially the Avada Kedavra, whose sole function is to kill a target) require sincere intent in order to cast successfully--you can only cast the Killing Curse if you sincerely want the target to be dead, for example.