Why CompoundWord Monsters Don't Bother Me

[Nemesis Destiny]

"Taint" is a slang term for "perineum." Google it if you like (potentially NSFW).

In N.D.'s defense, buddy is one of my people, and "taint" just isn't a common slang word at all for that region of the anatomy once you get north of the border (I had NEVER heard it used to mean the perineum until I moved to FL).

We have other words/phrases for that (A.B.C., gootch, etc.....of course, the former I have never heard outside of Manitoba/Northwestern ON).

Cheers,
Colin

P.S. Sorry mods if we're treading dangerously close to offending Eric's grandma.

Ah, when you put it THAT way, yes, I can see how that might be laughable. I have heard that slang used before, but it's not my default definition, and it isn't in common usage up here, though it is known. It really depends on your social circle here.

Also, [MENTION=16979]13garth13[/MENTION] I tried to xp you for helping cover my ignorance up here, but I have to spread more around first.

 

[Stoat]

Whatever else you want to say about it, "Fell Taint" isn't a compound word.

 

[billd91]

Thing is, some folks seem out to portray the very use of compound words as intrinsically bad. Which seems to ignore both the many, many silly names seen in the game since its inception, as well as how subjective such opinions are.

I'm cool with people disliking them, but sometimes it seems like there is a desire to claim they are objectively bad names, and I don't buy that. Particularly since the usual practice of pointing this out is to invent some especially egregious examples that don't actually exist in the game.

It's not that compound words are inherently bad. They can, in fact, be effective when used well. Axebeak, Mirrormere, Sabertooth tiger. What do you think of? A bird with a large and dangerous looking beak. A highly reflective lake. A predator with long teeth.

It's the frequency with which they come up that makes one turn to satire. And 4e writers certainly seem to have an affection for compound words. As pointed out above, one in six monster entries in the monster manuals 1 and 2 have them just as modifiers. Several of them have them as species name and there are some again who have both. And then there are other setting and character options incorporating them.

 

[billd91]

Whatever else you want to say about it, "Fell Taint" isn't a compound word.

True. Nor is Mind Flayer.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You are so right- Murder and silly sounding names are totally on the same level.

Wow. Okay.

I used the awesome power of ANALOGY to formualte a reductio ad absurdum argument against the OP's core position that because compoundword monsters are not numerous, they are therefore not a problem. By the OP's logic, things that are not numerous should not be a problem. Murders are a small fraction of crimes, but they are, most folks would agree, a problem. Therefore, the logic that "because something is not numerous, it is not a problem," fails. I went on to elaborate on the point by demonstrating that the problem with CompoundWord monsters is that they can sound very very silly, even when the game element they are labeling is not supposed to be silly. This is a problem in and of itself, regardless of the frequency of the occurance, as murders are a problem in and of themselves, regardless of the frequency of their occurance.

Of course, I absolutely, and, I thought, clearly, did not equate the two on a moral continuum. I wasn't making a moral point in the slightest. That's a misrepresentation of my position, and therefore, a strawman.

You must have been mistaken about my position, and I hope the above paragraph has given you some insight into my intended message. I apologize if I was unclear in communicating my ideas, but I did make the assumption that it was obvious that no rational actor would compare the two things on a moral continuum and come to a conclusion that they were equitable, as you said I did. You must think I am somehow mentally damaged!

The alternative is that you just wanted to win Internet Bonus Points by being sarcastic and condescending, simultaneously dodging addressing the actual point I made (that frequency of an event should not alone dictate our reaction to the event, in case you missed it), and obfuscating it for future posters. In that case, I hope you quit being a jerk so that we can have a constructive conversation about our actual issues instead of a game of crude catchphrases and tired old arguments.

To the topic: Do you agree that a quantity of occurance should not dictate our reaction? If not, why do you think that I should agree with you instead?

 

[Scribble]

Wow. Okay.

I used the awesome power of ANALOGY to formualte a reductio ad absurdum argument against the OP's core position that because compoundword monsters are not numerous, they are therefore not a problem.

Yes- my comment was not on your analogy, rather on your use of hyperbole.

I understand what you were trying to do, but using hyperbole in that fashion is jarring, and as a result ultimately undermines any kind of rational argument you might have- however well thought out it might be.

In other words instead of thinking - "Hrmm good point." I'm thinking "WTF??? He seriously just equated (Analogy or not) murder with a silly D&D name??? Really???"

 

[I'm A Banana]

In other words instead of thinking - "Hrmm good point." I'm thinking "WTF??? He seriously just equated (Analogy or not) murder with a silly D&D name??? Really???"

As that dictionary link points out, an analogy is not an equation, it's a comparison of one specific aspect.

Conflating a comparison with an equation will lead you to all sorts of logical problems, since no analogy has a true 1:1 relationship with the things being compared. For instance, "Time flows like a river to the sea" is a common analogy (really, a simile, but that's mostly semantics, and the distinction is irrelevant for my purposes here). But time is not wet, cannot be swum, is not potable, has no "sea" destination, etc.

Similarly, in my analogy, murder is a fairly rare (but existant) event, as is, by the OP's criteria, CompoundWord monsters. However, the OP's logic would dictate that rare events should not be a problem for an individual because of their rarity. By postulating an event that is rare, but still a problem, I endeavored to show the absurdity of the logic employed.

The degree of hyperbole is debatable, as there are events that are rarer (say, the heat death of the universe?) that I could have employed had I wished to make dramatic use of hyperbole. It would have been difficult to show the absurdity of the OP's logic without employing an absurd conclusion, so of course a casual observer would have to see that the conclusion is absurd. A dramatic event serves thus as a rhetorical device, representing the absurdity of the OP's logic emotionally.

If you don't fully understand the concept, I understand, which is why I endeavor to explain it. A new concept such as analogy can be something that is difficult to casually grasp, especially when employed on a medium without context or relation. However, I think it's pretty important to understand, especially if you hope to have constructive conversation, so I hope you find the information useful, and we can resume a constructive conversation around the OP's topic.

So, to reiterate, I feel that the OP is wrong when he (or she) assumes that because CompoundWord Monsters are rare, and thus should not be a problem. Rare things can still be problematic, even catastrophic, things. The problem lies within the thing itself, and not within its frequency. To argue that rarity should dictate the level of problem is absurd. Thus, I find the OP's initial point to be invalid, and dispute the conclusions he or she comes to based on those initial points.

I hope you can see that, now.

 

[Aegeri]

Your argument is so terribly silly Kamikaze. Murders are infinitely more serious than compoundwords are and are serious, regardless of their actual rarity. By trying to equate murders and compoundwords, you lose any possible viable position in the debate and your argument is severely undermined. I find it hard to take compoundwords as a serious problem of any sort in the first place. Comparing them to things like murders just makes me think you're even more unreasonable and blowing something completely minor, very much out of proportion. Compoundwords are something that is inherently silly, but their rarity matters because you have hundreds of monsters and if the vast majority of them don't use it - then it's just not a big issue (as every edition does). Murders are serious regardless of their rarity (even 1 is majorly serious).

I mean all I think now is that you have less of a legitimate position now than you did originally.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Murders are infinitely more serious than compoundwords are and are serious, regardless of their actual rarity.

Yes. This was how I demonstrated that the logic is absurd: a clearly absurd proposition follows from the logic's use. I could have chosen another rare event of some sort, but I assumed that murders were something that most any observer could agree were things that were not OK.

By trying to equate murders and compoundwords,

I am not equating them, and if you were confused in my initial post, you should not be now, after I have demonstrated the difference between a comparison and an equation. If you continue to insist that I was equating them, I'm afraid I must conclude that you are denying reality, and thus that you are not interested in having a conversation, and so cease conversing with you.

Again, "analogy" can be a difficult concept to grasp. When someone says "That hurt like hell!" they are not making a literal 1:1 equation between their current pain and the possible pain of a realm of eternal torment, even though I'm sure it can sound like that! I've worked with a few kids with Aspergers who have no trouble pointing out that "THAT'S NOT TRUE!" when someone says that! It's an important point to understand about human interaction, though, that a lot of us speak in metaphor, analogy, allusion, comparison, and simile, rather than in equation.

I find it hard to take compoundwords as a serious problem of any sort in the first place.

I don't really disagree with you, myself, but I can see how it certainly ruins the mood in some games. And it's hilarious.

 

[Henry]

The sunflower starfish, spiny beaded starfish, Pondhawk dragonfly, and the Red-Veined Meadowhawk Dragonfly all think compound animal names are stupid; they told me so.