Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

Would you please define your terms. If you do not it becomes frustrating arguing with you because we might have different definitions on what X is and what Y is. Please....

It makes no difference. Logic is logic is..., well,... logic.

Logically: If X then Y has no bearing at all on what else might get you Y. For that you need an IFF X than Y.

Also, If X then Y does not mean If not X then not Y.

Okay, now to translate:

If <listed spell> then Cure. (True enough)
If NOT <listed spell" then NOT Cure. (False - not correct logic. Only true if you ALREADY ASSUME the list is exclusive).

Moving on...

If <listed spell> then Cure. (True enough)
If <Break Enchantmetn> then Cure (True enough by spell description).

Thus you REALLy have:

If <listed spell> OR <Break Enchantment> Then Cure.

Not that even that last statement is NOT an "IFF" - other solutions MAY exist.

You logic ONLY works if you START with an assumption that the list is exclusive. Assuming an "IF" is exclusive (an "IFF") is a common error in logic by the way.

 

[Pielorinho]

I personally feel a discussion on whether BE should deal with Feeblemind (in terms of balance and desired difficulty in dealing with the challenge) would be far more constructive than one on whether the rules say it does or doesn't, given the ambiguity. Which was why I tried to get to the "it is open to interpretation" point, so that folks could perhaps move on. Silly me

I agree with this entirely, and so I'll stop devil's-advocating and instead analyze the rules as I think they ought to be analyzed.

Namely, what should Break Enchantment "look like," and what should Feeblemind "Look like"? As I see it, Feeblemind turns someone into an idiot: it's changing their brain around. It's pretty close to a curse in its feel. Break Enchantment is the most powerful specific magic to get rid of curses. It somehow "knows" what a person's uncursed state used to be (thus its ability to get rid of instantaneous effects), and restores folks to that former shape. I say it should work.

Furthermore, I think that feeblemind is clearly not intended to make someone immune to wisdom-damaging poisons or to death or to any other effect that changes their ability score. That makes me think that the line about "X unless Y" is poorly phrased; they should have written it permissively, as in, "If Y then X."

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

... Which was why I tried to get to the "it is open to interpretation" point, so that folks could perhaps move on. Silly me

Don't be a spoil sport! Such extended arguments (with very little true redeeming value for D&D once the issues are understood) are what helps me stave off Alzheimer's disease. An active mind is a healthy mind.

 

[Umbran]

Let us also specify that Z is not an element of Y.

Well, if you want to go there, we still have the hanging assumption: the set Y was completely defined by the authors at the time of writing.

If you accept the assumption, then as others have noted, later spells that say they deal with Feeblemind actually don't. If you don't accept the proposition, then the set Y is surely not complete, and so Z may or may not be part of Y.

 

[Pielorinho]

Try Sudoku.

 

[Felix]

It makes no difference. Logic is logic is..., well,... logic.

It makes a difference if I define X=beans, Y=fart, and so I say "If X, then Y" and you define them the other way round. Because then I'm arguing that eating beans make you fart, and you're arguing that farts make you eat beans.

I was asking you to please define your terms when you use them, unless you make clear that you're using my assumptions. Otherwise we could be eating beans for the cause of us having farted.

Also, If X then Y does not mean If not X then not Y.

You'll be pleased to notice that I did not make that novice mistake. Perhaps you misread it.

If X then Y does indeed not translate into If not X, then not Y.

But what it does translate into is: "If no Y, then no X". Which is what I did, and why it does exclude, "If Z, then Y".

Because the only way for
If no Y, then no X
and
If Z, then Y
to both simultaneously be true is for Z to be an element of X.

I personally feel a discussion on whether BE should deal with Feeblemind (in terms of balance and desired difficulty in dealing with the challenge) would be far more constructive than one on whether the rules say it does or doesn't, given the ambiguity. Which was why I tried to get to the "it is open to interpretation" point, so that folks could perhaps move on.

Arguing what the rules should be in terms of balance is indeed a worthy discussion; my first post in this thread admitted that I might very well allow BE to cure Feeblemind.

But I think it is important to know what the rules are as they are written, be they written well or poorly, before you move on to reasons of balance and intent. Which is why the exclusivity of this list figures large, and why a logic transformation into "[cure] only if [spells]" is signifigant.

 

[Felix]

Well, if you want to go there, we still have the hanging assumption: the set Y was completely defined by the authors at the time of writing.

If you accept the assumption, then as others have noted, later spells that say they deal with Feeblemind actually don't. If you don't accept the proposition, then the set Y is surely not complete, and so Z may or may not be part of Y.

Oh, certainly. I completely understand that spells not yet written were not included in the list of possible cures for Feeblemind, and were a spell (like the spell Panacea mentioned earlier) to be written that explicitly stated it cured the Feeblemind condition, I would allow that spell to work, and add it to the set of spells "Y".

That willingness to expand "Y" does not extend to Break Enchantment; it was present when "Y" was written, and as I have shown, the list provided is exclusive.

So Y is a complete list until that time when other spells that explicitly cure Feeblemind are accepted into the game. At which point they will be an element of "Y", and that set will again be complete.

 

[Artoomis]

...You'll be pleased to notice that I did not make that novice mistake. Perhaps you misread it.

If X then Y does indeed not translate into If not X, then not Y.

But what it does translate into is: "If no Y, then no X". Which is what I did, and why it does exclude, "If Z, then Y".
...

Edit:

Text removed because I do not want it quoted AGAIN. No longer relevant anyway.

 

[Artoomis]

...That willingness to expand "Y" does not extend to Break Enchantment; it was present when "Y" was written, and as I have shown, the list provided is exclusive...

So far you have failed to prove exclusivity. Your logic is built upon the very assumption you are trying to prove and it is thus an invalid proof.

 

[Felix]

So far you have failed to prove exclusivity. Your logic is built upon the very assumption you are trying to prove and it is thus an invalid proof.

My logic is built on the translation of this:

The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind.

Into this:

Remains in state until [spells].

And thence into the form I use to make logical transformations from, this:

No [cure] until [spells].

At this point you've not raised any problems with this translation. By all means, do. If you have a problem with it, or if I've made a mistake, then have at it.

But as soon as you get to this:

No [cure] until [spells].

Formal logic transformation will inexorably lead you to the list of spells being exclusionary.

---

What you have argued is: If X, then Y does not exclude If Z, then Y.

This is true.

But take a look at how I'd defined the terms.

If "X" means [spells], and "Z" means Break Enchantment, then you're right. These are not exclusionary. But that is not how I've defined the terms.

Again:
X: [cure]
Y: [spells]
Z: Break Enchantment

If you use your argument of:

If X, then Y does not exclude If Z, then Y

What you've done is say:

"If [Cure], then [spells]" does not exclude "If Break Enchantment, then [spells]".

And that doesn't make sense! Which is why I'd like you to define your terms when you argue the logic; as it is, it is true that If X, then Y does not exclude If Z, then Y, but unless you define what you're talking about, your rebuttal makes no sense for those who have defined the terms, and deceptive to those who haven't been paying close attention.