Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TYPO5478" data-source="post: 3782073" data-attributes="member: 37531">The problem is that all of those items you mention have specific definitions in the English lexicon.&nbsp; The etymology of their names isn't relevant, but their definitions are.&nbsp; If I used the phrase &quot;coffee hangar,&quot; would you assume it had anything to do with coffee and/or hangars?&nbsp; Probably, since both of those words by themselves have specific definitions in English, but the combined phrase is nonsense.Now, in this case, we're dealing with a much smaller context than the English language (specifically, the D&amp;D ruleset) which has its own set of definitions.&nbsp; As Hyp pointed out, a Monstrous Humanoid is different than a Humanoid.&nbsp; The reason is the definitions provided for each type.&nbsp; If there were no definition for Monstrous Humanoid, we wouldn't assume that it's some distinct yet undefined type of being.&nbsp; We'd assume that &quot;monstrous&quot; was simply an adjective used to describe a member of the Humanoid type.Now assume that the word &quot;Monstrous&quot; in and of itself had its own definition (maybe like a template).&nbsp; If the definition for the Humanoid type specifically required exclusion from the Monstrous template, then the term Monstrous Humanoid would make no sense.&nbsp; It's something that can't exist within the context of the rules.We've got the same situation here.&nbsp; The term &quot;dead creature&quot; has no formal definition, but the individual terms &quot;dead&quot; and &quot;creature&quot; do.&nbsp; The definition for &quot;creature&quot; precludes anything so described from being dead.&nbsp; The phrase &quot;dead creature&quot; loses its meaning.[Dead creature] does not have a specific game definition, so we have to assume it's a combination of two separately defined terms (a [dead] [creature]).&nbsp; For something to be a longsword, it must fit the description of a longsword.&nbsp; For something to be a creature, it must fit the description of a creature.&nbsp; Anything dead doesn't fit the description of a creature.Yes, sharpening a club (for instance) means that it is no longer a club.&nbsp; But that doesn't mean it becomes a longsword (or any other sharp instrument).&nbsp; At best, it would be an improvised weapon.&nbsp; At worst, you've ruined your club.You know, it's interesting that you mention that.Living items can be objects.&nbsp; Why can't dead items be creatures?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TYPO5478, post: 3782073, member: 37531"] The problem is that all of those items you mention have specific definitions in the English lexicon. The etymology of their names isn't relevant, but their definitions [B]are[/B]. If I used the phrase "coffee hangar," would you assume it had anything to do with coffee and/or hangars? Probably, since both of those words by themselves have specific definitions in English, but the combined phrase is nonsense. Now, in this case, we're dealing with a much smaller context than the English language (specifically, the D&D ruleset) which has its own set of definitions. As Hyp pointed out, a Monstrous Humanoid is different than a Humanoid. The reason is the definitions provided for each type. If there were no definition for Monstrous Humanoid, we wouldn't assume that it's some distinct yet undefined type of being. We'd assume that "monstrous" was simply an adjective used to describe a member of the Humanoid type. Now assume that the word "Monstrous" in and of itself had its own definition (maybe like a template). If the definition for the Humanoid type specifically required exclusion from the Monstrous template, then the term Monstrous Humanoid would make no sense. It's something that can't exist within the context of the rules. We've got the same situation here. The term "dead creature" has no formal definition, but the individual terms "dead" and "creature" do. The definition for "creature" precludes anything so described from being dead. The phrase "dead creature" loses its meaning. [Dead creature] does not have a specific game definition, so we have to assume it's a combination of two separately defined terms (a [dead] [creature]). For something to be a longsword, it must fit the description of a longsword. For something to be a creature, it must fit the description of a creature. Anything dead doesn't fit the description of a creature. Yes, sharpening a club (for instance) means that it is no longer a club. But that doesn't mean it becomes a longsword (or any other sharp instrument). At best, it would be an improvised weapon. At worst, you've ruined your club. You know, it's interesting that you mention that. Living items can be objects. Why can't dead items be creatures? [/QUOTE]

Verification