OOTS #1216 - The Discussion Thread

[JonahFalcon]

So, what will Xykon do when he finds out the MitD was lying to him?

[danielxcutter]

So, what will Xykon do when he finds out the MitD was lying to him?

I'm pretty sure Team Evil still think he's not smart enough to actively rebel against them and chalk it up to incompetence at worst.

[JonahFalcon]

I'm pretty sure Team Evil still think he's not smart enough to actively rebel against them and chalk it up to incompetence at worst.

I... don't think so. There's an outside chance Xykon thinks Redcloak put him up to it, and you know what the Monster is supposed to do at the slightest hint of betrayal from him.

[understatement]

I... don't think so. There's an outside chance Xykon thinks Redcloak put him up to it, and you know what the Monster is supposed to do at the slightest hint of betrayal from him.

That logic doesn't check. If Xykon thinks Redcloak "put him up to it," then Redcloak would already be eaten. Currently Redcloak is looking considerably undigested, so voila, Xykon knows Redcloak didn't put the monster up to it, and he would be dumb to continue down that train of thought instead of just skipping the middle man and suspecting Redcloak directly.

[KorvinStarmast]

Joan of Aaargh?

Not sure about that. If she were a pirate she'd have been Joan of Aarrrrr ... close?

[Ron Miel]

So, what will Xykon do when he finds out the MitD was lying to him?

He may never find out.

Just for a start, there's a chance that this is one they really have done already.

If it turns out to be a falsely marked door, why would he think MITD did it? Most likely he'd think the Stickies did it. Or that it's part of the dungeon's magical defence, that makes marks on doors move around.

[Anitar]

Currently Redcloak is looking considerably undigested, so voila, Xykon knows Redcloak didn't put the monster up to it,

Considerably undigested? That's something we're measuring in degrees now? Should I be concerned, then, that you didn't label him as "completely undigested"?

[Worldsong]

Considerably undigested? That's something we're measuring in degrees now? Should I be concerned, then, that you didn't label him as "completely undigested"?

Well, Xykon has chewed Redcloak out at least once...

[danielxcutter]

Well, Xykon has chewed Redcloak out at least once...

...Okay I'll give you that one.

But yeah, I very much doubt the big X will jump right to "Redcloak did this, I'm going to kill him".

[arimareiji]

Considerably undigested? That's something we're measuring in degrees now? Should I be concerned, then, that you didn't label him as "completely undigested"?

Technically, I guess that depends on how demon roaches feel about eye candy?

[Metastachydium]

Technically, I guess that depends on how demon roaches feel about eye candy?

(Well,removing an eye from its socket can be a pain. The goo might very well have stayed inside Redcloak's.)

[WanderingMist]

Honestly, hard disagree. "Fruit" has an actual scientific definition describing the role it plays in the plant. It's the part that holds the seeds for reproduction.

Vegetable, meanwhile, does not have a hard definition beyond "it came from a plant and we eat it". Most of our lines about calling something a "vegetable" or not is based on culture and how we tend to prepare/serve it. If we went strictly by scientific/botanical terms, we wouldn't use the word "vegetable" at all.

Among things I generally see called vegetables, you got
Tomatoes (yes), peppers, cucumbers, and squash are all fruit
Carrots, beets, radishes, potatoes, parsnips, rutabagas, and turnips are all roots of some variety
Onions, garlic, and leeks are bulbs
Lettuce, spinach, cabbage, kale, and collards are all leaves
Rhubarb and asparagus are stems
Broccoli and cauliflower are part stem part flower
Peas, corn, and beans are seeds
Okra is a seed pod, apparently (they also look bizarre growing)

And yet "fruit" is the only one people quibble about, really. Occasionally someone in my family will argue against corn or potatoes as vegetables, but it's usually "fruit" when it comes up.

"Fruit" also has a cultural/culinary definition similar to "vegetable", which I'd probably peg as "part of the plant that is botanically a fruit but also significantly sweet or at least primarily used in sweet preparations". Your main oddballs there are lemons, and I'd still say they have high sugar content even if they are really sour.

When ordinary people talk about "fruits and vegetables", they almost certainly mean the cultural definitions, unless they're pulling out a "did you know tomatoes aren't really vegetables?". When botanists talk about "fruits", they're probably using the scientific one, unless they're grocery shopping.

And yes, you did hit my one pedant button. My apologies :P I'm also now realizing that you, yourself, may have been using a cultural definition of fruit. If that's the case, my bad, but I'm still posting this because I find the topic interesting and I'm still a pedant.

I don't see how your list disagrees with my post. You listed the botanical fruits, and then proceeded to list a bunch of plants that aren't fruits which everyone would call vegetables (at least, I've never heard anyone not call those other things vegetables). Except maybe corn if they're being super-pedantic because that's technically a "grain", but I would argue still a vegetable because it is not a fruit, it is the thing contained by fruit. I was going by scientific definitions, because "fruit" (ripened plant ovary) does have an exact botanical meaning while "vegetable" doesn't. While culinarily, it basically just depends on flavor, which is why tomatoes, cucumbers, and squash get lumped in as vegetables by normal people. Oddly enough, I don't think I've ever heard of the other way around, a "botanical" vegetable being called a culinary fruit.

[Ron Miel]

Oddly enough, I don't think I've ever heard of the other way around, a culinary vegetable being called a botanical fruit.

Did you mistype that? I think you meant to say "I don't think I've ever heard of the other way around, a botanical vegetable being called a culinary fruit."

If so, I give you rhubarb, which is usually sold as a fruit. Also seedless grapes. Also bananas, which are botanically herbs, at least the seedless ones you're likely to buy in a shop are. And carrot jam is popular in Portugal. Carrots are legally classed as fruit when used in jam.

The most useful definition I've heard is: vegetables are eaten with the main course, fruit is eaten for dessert.

[WanderingMist]

Did you mistype that? I think you meant to say "I don't think I've ever heard of the other way around, a botanical vegetable being called a culinary fruit."

If so, I give you rhubarb, which is usually sold as a fruit. Also seedless grapes. Also bananas, which are botanically herbs, at least the seedless ones you're likely to buy in a shop are. And carrot jam is popular in Portugal. Carrots are legally classed as fruit when used in jam.

The most useful definition I've heard is: vegetables are eaten with the main course, fruit is eaten for dessert.

Oh, yeah. I forgot rhubarb existed, but that's basically the only example you could find, isn't it? Seedless fruit are still fruit. I don't know how they make them seedless, but they're still the correct part of the plant. Also, bananas are botanically berries. If we're gonna argue about what an herb is, then I'd say it's something you grind up into a powder form for flavoring things, which bananas wouldn't fit.

[Goblin_Priest]

Did you mistype that? I think you meant to say "I don't think I've ever heard of the other way around, a botanical vegetable being called a culinary fruit."

If so, I give you rhubarb, which is usually sold as a fruit. Also seedless grapes. Also bananas, which are botanically herbs, at least the seedless ones you're likely to buy in a shop are. And carrot jam is popular in Portugal. Carrots are legally classed as fruit when used in jam.

The most useful definition I've heard is: vegetables are eaten with the main course, fruit is eaten for dessert.

Rhubarb as a fruit is a legal aberration. Stuff needs to be classified for tax and rule purposes, and other administrative stuff like that, and in those contexts I've seen "rhubarb" classified as "fruit". I've never heard of a single person say the same thing, though.

I'd be curious to hear your argument about a seedless grape being a "herb"...? The presence of a viable embryo or not doesn't really change anything to the fact that a grape is a berry, stemming from a ripened ovary.

[Skull the Troll]

...Okay I'll give you that one.

But yeah, I very much doubt the big X will jump right to "Redcloak did this, I'm going to kill him".

Particularly as he needs Redcloak more than Redcloak needs him. There is only one cleric in the entire world that can cast the ritual. There's at least a few wizards/sorcerers.

Did you mistype that? I think you meant to say "I don't think I've ever heard of the other way around, a botanical vegetable being called a culinary fruit."

If so, I give you rhubarb, which is usually sold as a fruit. Also seedless grapes. Also bananas, which are botanically herbs, at least the seedless ones you're likely to buy in a shop are. And carrot jam is popular in Portugal. Carrots are legally classed as fruit when used in jam.

The most useful definition I've heard is: vegetables are eaten with the main course, fruit is eaten for dessert.

There is not such term in botany as "vegetable" or "botanical vegetable" By the way you may find this interesting. (which I pinched from bitdefender) "In the 1893 United States Supreme Court case Nix. v. Hedden, the court rule unanimously that an imported tomato should be taxed as a vegetable, rather than as a (less taxed) fruit. The court acknowledged that a tomato is a botanical fruit, but went with what they called the "ordinary" definitions of fruit and vegetable — the ones used in the kitchen."

[Ron Miel]

Rhubarb as a fruit is a legal aberration. Stuff needs to be classified for tax and rule purposes, and other administrative stuff like that, and in those contexts I've seen "rhubarb" classified as "fruit". I've never heard of a single person say the same thing, though.

Go to your local supermarket. If they sell fresh rhubarb, it will probably be in the fruit section, not the vegetable section. And if you find tinned rhubarb, it will certainly be on the tinned fruit shelf, and not the tinned vegetable shelf.

I repeat, the most useful definition of fruit is that you eat it for dessert.

I'd be curious to hear your argument about a seedless grape being a "herb"...?

I didn't say that, I said that bananas are botanical herbs, although usually sold in the fruit section. Now, I'm not a botanist, but it's what I've always heard.

https://www.thedailymeal.com/cook/ba...ly-giant-herbs

[Metastachydium]

I repeat, the definition of fruit is that you eat it for dessert.

(I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to do that with (Japanese) quince or sandthorn.)

[Ron Miel]

(I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to do that with (Japanese) quince or sandthorn.)

I'm not familiar with either of those. But if you are saying that you wouldn't eat them for dessert, then they presumably aren't found in the fruit section of stores.

[Petrocorus]

Well, Xykon has chewed Redcloak out at least once...

Only once?

Because there the big one in SOD.
But i think there some lesser example in the comic proper. The eye-tax is the one that come to mind.

[Arathorne]

I repeat, the most useful definition of fruit is that you eat it for dessert.

Which makes the case for carrots interesting, you can have raw carrots on your salad, cooked carrots with the main course, and carrot cake for dessert, all in ONE meal?? Interesting when trying to use that definition.

[danielxcutter]

You guys are weird.

[Metastachydium]

I'm not familiar with either of those. But if you are saying that you wouldn't eat them for dessert, then they presumably aren't found in the fruit section of stores.

Quince is. I'd venture the guess that it happens to sandthorn as well (although I'd probably look for it in the health-nut section instead). No store that I know of sells Japanese quince.

You guys are weird.

That's an interesting way of spelling discussing matters of great import.

[Doug Lampert]

You guys are weird.

Based on your join date you've been here for more than four years.

You're just noticing this now?!?

[danielxcutter]

Based on your join date you've been here for more than four years.

You're just noticing this now?!?

Saying that grass is green doesn't suddenly make it blue with orange and lavender spots like that Shel Silverstein poem.

[Goblin_Priest]

Go to your local supermarket. If they sell fresh rhubarb, it will probably be in the fruit section, not the vegetable section. And if you find tinned rhubarb, it will certainly be on the tinned fruit shelf, and not the tinned vegetable shelf.

I repeat, the most useful definition of fruit is that you eat it for dessert.




I didn't say that, I said that bananas are botanical herbs, although usually sold in the fruit section. Now, I'm not a botanist, but it's what I've always heard.

https://www.thedailymeal.com/cook/ba...ly-giant-herbs

Bananas are very much fruits. Banana trees, on the other hand, sure, are herbs. False-stems like that are called "stipes" in French or "estípite" in Spanish". I don't know if there's an English equivalent, probably is. Your article actually does state both this, and the fact that what we eat is a fruit (and a berry, to be more exact).

Rhubarb isn't really sold much over here, mostly just grown in gardens, so I can't say where they'd place it in the stores, canned or otherwise. Not really a "fruit" vs "vegetable" division either, anyways, both are typically fairly mixed. Tomatoes are usually on a stand on their own, or maybe with avocados. Apples, pears, and plums will be together. Berries are often next to leafy greens. I'd probably imagine rhubarb being right there, between the small berries and the iceberg lettuce.

Which, imo, isn't the point anywhere. Just because grocery stores organize things according to potential culinary uses (among other factors), doesn't mean it would be any less aberrant to call rhubarb a fruit. You don't really need to call it a vegetable, either, or anything else. If it must be categorized, such as for a recipe, it can simply be included in the broader category of "ingredients". The uninitiated will otherwise call it a leaf, while someone more knowledgeable would refer to it as a petiole, as that's the part of the leaf we actually consume.

If "fruit" could be best used as simply a synonym for "dessert", then you wouldn't need the word "fruit" at all, you could just use the way less confusing "dessert". But they are. Who would classify chocolate as being "fruit"? Pastries? Ice cream?

The more useful definition of a word is one which gives it distinct meaning. The botanical definition of the term gives is precise and clear meaning, leaving much less place to interpretation, than any definition based off culinary cultures.

As for quince, think of lemons. Except super hard, less sweet, and with a much more acidic bite (malic acid instead of citric acid). I'm not sure what his point is, I wouldn't find quinces in grocery stores here either, but you could very well use it in cooking, to make beverages, or to bake deserts. The taste and aroma are exquisite, if you do something to tone down the incredible acidity.

[Yirggzmb]

I don't see how your list disagrees with my post. You listed the botanical fruits, and then proceeded to list a bunch of plants that aren't fruits which everyone would call vegetables (at least, I've never heard anyone not call those other things vegetables). Except maybe corn if they're being super-pedantic because that's technically a "grain", but I would argue still a vegetable because it is not a fruit, it is the thing contained by fruit. I was going by scientific definitions, because "fruit" (ripened plant ovary) does have an exact botanical meaning while "vegetable" doesn't. While culinarily, it basically just depends on flavor, which is why tomatoes, cucumbers, and squash get lumped in as vegetables by normal people. Oddly enough, I don't think I've ever heard of the other way around, a "botanical" vegetable being called a culinary fruit.

My main point was that every vegetable is something else botanically. If things can be roots or leaves and still be vegetables, things can be botanically fruits and still be vegetables. It's not mutually exclusive.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Well, this whole "diplomatic excursion" is still a horrifically dumb idea that never should've happened and ruined OotS's element of surprise.

But at least the clerics managed to keep it from turning into the the worst case scenario of OotS losing both clerics right before the big fight with a lich...

I think it's pretty much a sure thing this is a dungeon that's not been cleared and was marked X by the MitD (where is he, anyway? I guess hanging out w/ the paladins....)
It's also very likely this is the "true" dungeon. But not a certainty, if Rich wants to stretch this out longer.

Guess Belkar's Ranger skills are gonna be handy for figuring out where the heck the clerics went.

I like how this time it was the lawful one who figured out the shell game.

On both sides! The lawful dwarf clerics thinking of playing the shell game, and the lawful evil cleric immediately figuring out what was going on.

[bunsen_h]

Who would classify chocolate as being "fruit"? Pastries? Ice cream?

Chocolate is a vegetable.

[Jaziggy]

Idle fruit thought: figs are not botanically a fruit, they are an inflorescence- a dense cluster of flowers and seeds contained inside a bulbous section of stem.

Because of this, figs require a unique pollinator, the fig wasp. It's fascinating science.

https://www.esa.org/esablog/research...ned%20quarters.