D&D 5E So 5 Intelligence Huh

[Ovinomancer]

Your post is long, and has math, so it seems authoritative to me.

We are truly a triumvirate of authority, and need to quickly migrate to Skopje with our poodles.

Since I am authoritative to the authority, I have decided to approve your request to rule Skopje with your poodles.

Carry on.

 

[iserith]

Okay, so why do you think they're doing that? What do they gain by being dishonest in avoiding the topic, as you see it?

Those questions aside, you do realize that you just said that you think people are intentionally distracting to avoid their being wrong about their opinions on how to play the game, and that, if they are wrong on that, you're establishing an objective measure of what a non-incorrect game would look like? I get disagreeing, even vehemently, but is telling others they're wrong about how they play instead of just disagreeing that that isn't for you and saying good luck the correct approach?

You know very well my position is against those who are saying there's an objectively correct way to roleplay and nothing more. Is that somehow confusing to you?

 

[BoldItalic]

We are truly a triumvirate of authority, and need to quickly migrate to Skopje with our poodles.

And there to establish the Skopje School of meta-linguistic philosophy, of which the motto is "Verbere ludo ergo sum" - I play with words therefore it is 1 AM<sup>*

*</sup> oogle translate, a lot to answer for has.

 

[TwoSix]

And there to establish the Skopje School of meta-linguistic philosophy, of which the motto is "Verbere ludo ergo sum" - I play with words therefore it is 1 AM<sup>*

*</sup> oogle translate, a lot to answer for has.

If a poodle could speak, we could not understand him.

 

[BoldItalic]

If a poodle could speak, we could not understand him.

That's because we only have an Int of 5, as assessed by the average poodle. What that corresponds to in IQ is debatable. Can a human even take an IQ test designed by smart poodles?

 

[TwoSix]

That's because we only have an Int of 5, as assessed by the average poodle. What that corresponds to in IQ is debatable. Can a human even take an IQ test designed by smart poodles?

Sure, but it doesn't tell us whether or not we're only as third as smart as a smart poodle, just that you're in the bottom group, as the test only tells you rankings. Trust the poodles, they're the authorities.

 

[Manbearcat]

Sure, but it doesn't tell us whether or not we're only as third as smart as a smart poodle, just that you're in the bottom group, as the test only tells you rankings. Trust the poodles, they're the authorities.

So...LOGICALLY...

 

[Ovinomancer]

You know very well my position is against those who are saying there's an objectively correct way to roleplay and nothing more. Is that somehow confusing to you?

I don't know, and you've yelled at me for assuming what you think in the past, hence the very reason I asked. However, since you've asked me to guess, I would guess that you find them guilty of wrongthink and wish that they would admit publicly that you have proved them incorrect.

You haven't, though, you've just made a compelling case for your opinion. I disagree in part, largely because we have a different set of base assumptions about what playing D&D entails. That's fine, though, and I don't have any need to force consensus on the issue.

 

[iserith]

However, since you've asked me to guess

I did?

 

[Maxperson]

But an appeal to Authority isn't fallacious merely because it's an appeal to authority. It BECOMES fallacious if the authority is making claims on subjects on which he/she is actually not an authority.

Pointing out your own standing as an authority is actually part of making a legitimate argument of authority.

And if you don't trust me, just look it up on Wikipedia. That seems authoritative.

The wiki is wrong in that claim and actually contradicts itself. The form of the fallacy which it lists a bit down the page is correct. Other research will also show you that an appeal to authority applies to real authorities. Below is the form of the fallacy from the wiki which you seem to value so much. Note how that's exactly what Pemerton did. He held that a claim was true because he was an authority on the subject. He later claimed a consensus of authorities agreed. Lawyers and philosophers. Never mind that lawyers and philosophers disagree all the time.

X holds that A is true.
X is an authority on the subject.
The consensus of authorities agrees with X.
There is a presumption that A is true.

Now, the reason that it's a fallacy is that authorities very, very often will disagree on positions. Something that lawyers know very well since they hire experts (authorities) to swear under oath that the other experts (authorities) are wrong about what they are swearing under oath. To further illustrate the point, it takes 10,000 hours to become an authority (expert) on something. Many, if not most of us here are authorities on D&D.

As someone with waaaaaaay more than 10,000 hours in D&D, I am declaring that I am right about int. The thread is over, right? Wrong. As this thread and every other thread here and on other forum shows, just being an authority doesn't mean you are correct, so any claim of correctness based on authority, even real authority, is an Appeal to Authority and therefore invalid. If you want to argue that you are correct, you need more than a claim of authority to make the argument valid.