Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Artoomis]

Indeed it was. You get a cookie!


glass.

Is his room clean?? Did he eat his dinner??

 

[Artoomis]

A lot of focus is being placed on this statement being "incorrect". Incorrect is not a valid judgment of the sentence.

As the parent in this case, I was making the rules. Within the rules there is only one way to get the cookie, finish dinner.

While there may be other ways to get the cookie, none of them satisfy the requirements that I laid down when I made the rules. They would be cheating.

Or a simple oversight - even when I made that rule I probably knew that cookies miught be given out under other circumstances, but I did not state them (whoops - that's not really very precise, is it?).

Why was this allowed? Because an event that transpired after my declaration caused me to change the rules.

You did not change the rules, you simply forget to mention that you might get a cookie if an otherwise valid reason came up that was not excluded by the rule about dinner. That is always implied, btu rarely actually stated.

Now...bringing this back around to Feeblemind.

The author of Feeblemind clearly only intended for the four listed effects to cure the residual consequence of this spell. Those are the "rules".

Had Break Enchantment been intended to function, it would have to be included in this very specific list, because the publication of both are concurrent to one another, neither follows the other.

Now, after the fact, another spell (panacea) could be written that changes the rules, but it has to do so specifically.

Assuming the authors could not possibly make any errors, oversights or unresolved contradictions in the rules. That's too big an assumption for me.

 

[Cedric]

Oh, right. Got it. Thanks.

It appears that the effect of being killed by a death attack leaves you in a state other than simply "dead." You are in a state of, I guess, "dead by death attack" which appears to be different from simply "dead."

Note that, in this case, an otherwise valid remedy has been specifically excluded from working. There really should have been an explanation of why Raise Dead does not work, as this is somewhat unsatisfying, but, alas, that's the way it is.

Regardless, this along with Imprisonment sets the very clear precedent that consequences of an instantaneous effect can have specific removal requirements.

So that negates that part of your argument.

Still, you've not addressed my question as to why Break Enchantment, which is from the same publication as Feeblemind, Heal, Wish, Limited Wish and Miracle, should be allowed to function when it was not on the list of cures.

You have stated yourself that the list is redundant, there was no need to have both Limited Wish and Wish on the list, since Wish can copy Limited Wish. So, if the list is careful to be redundant in that regard, why would it leave out a possible cure from the same book...unless, that possible cure was not intended to function as a cure for Feeblemind?

If you can answer that to my satisfaction, I'll agree your argument has merit.

 

[Cedric]

Or a simple oversight - even when I made that rule I probably knew that cookies miught be given out under other circumstances, but I did not state them (whoops - that's not really very precise, is it?).



You did not change the rules, you simply forget to mention that you might get a cookie if an otherwise valid reason came up that was not excluded by the rule about dinner. That is always implied, btu rarely actually stated.



Assuming the authors could not possibly make any errors, oversights or unresolved contradictions in the rules. That's too big an assumption for me.

So have you given up arguing what the rules actually state? Now are you taking a stance on how the rule was intended, regardless of how it reads? Because...that's a WHOLE other discussion.

 

[Artoomis]

So have you given up arguing what the rules actually state? Now are you taking a stance on how the rule was intended, regardless of how it reads? Because...that's a WHOLE other discussion.

Not exactly. I am stating that unless an otherwise-valid remedy is specifically disallowed (especially for an instantaneous spell), the remedy remains valid.

This pretty much means that it is not really possible to make an exclusive list (especially for an instantaneous spell).

This further means that the list in Feeblemind is not an exclusive list - because it cannot really be so and, in common usage, the language used in the spell typically does not really mean to include every possibility.

 

[Pielorinho]

Sure it can be both accurate and incomplete. That's a function of the English language and the fact that normal, mortal beings write this stuff.

The cookie example isn't really such a big deal. But look at one where the statement makes a pretty big difference: "I promise to wait for you until you get back from the war." If my sweetheart makes me this promise (she'll stay in the state of waiting until I complete the act of getting back from the war), and I find out that three weeks later she hooked up with my best friend, I'm hardly going to accept her excuse that her promise to me was "accurate, but incomplete." I'm going to say that she broke her word.

Or try it a different way. I say, "Frank cannot eat a cookie until he finishes his dinner." Uncle Harry gives him a cookie before Frank finishes dinner. I look back and say, "Apparently, it is not the case that Frank cannot get a cookie until he finishes his dinner." Is this statement correct?

If so, we've got a world in which P and not P are both true (assuming you equate "accurate" with "true"). That's the very essence of a fatal exception error.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

Regardless, this along with Imprisonment sets the very clear precedent that consequences of an instantaneous effect can have specific removal requirements.

So that negates that part of your argument.

Still, you've not addressed my question as to why Break Enchantment, which is from the same publication as Feeblemind, Heal, Wish, Limited Wish and Miracle, should be allowed to function when it was not on the list of cures.

You have stated yourself that the list is redundant, there was no need to have both Limited Wish and Wish on the list, since Wish can copy Limited Wish. So, if the list is careful to be redundant in that regard, why would it leave out a possible cure from the same book...unless, that possible cure was not intended to function as a cure for Feeblemind?

If you can answer that to my satisfaction, I'll agree your argument has merit.

First, if the list was so carefully redudant to list both Wish and Limited Wish, it should have also listed Mass Heal to be truly complete, if its intent was to be a full and complete list and exclude break Enchatment. That's pretty strong evidence of an oversight.

Second, the lists of "specific removal requirement" are, in fact, a list of things that can work and do not prohibit other possible solutions, if they are otherwise valid.

For example, let's make up a new spell.

William's Uncontrollable Tapping Finger.

Level: Brd 1, Sor/Wiz 2
Components: V, S,
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Close (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels)
Target: One creature; see text
Duration: Ten minutes per level
Saving Throw: Will negates
Spell Resistance: Yes

This spell afflicts the subject with uncontrollable urge to tap a finger on whatever surface is handy. The game effect is that spell casters require two hands be used for casting spells with somatic components, since one hand is forced to make motions that are not part of any somatic gesture.

The effect remains until a "William's Cease Tapping" spell is used upon the victim.

Note that this spell did not explicity exclude the otherwise-valid remedy of "Dispel Magic." Therefore, Dispel Magic works because it works on all permanent spells of this spell level unless otherwise prohibited.

Note also the the effect also ends when the spell duration ends, which is another remedy (the passage of time).

One cannot assume an "until" clause is totally compete to the point that it excludes all other valid remedies.

I submit that my example is poorly worded (just as with Feeblemind) in that I should have specifically addresed by the spell duration running out and Dispel Magic in the "until" clause.

 

[AuraSeer]

Yep, because it's not open to interpretation. The intent and the rules are clear.

That's the most obviously incorrect statement anyone has made so far in this thread.

If the intent and rules were clear, I wouldn't have had to ask this question in the first place, and we certainly wouldn't have 5 pages of arguments about it. =b^)

 

[Artoomis]

The cookie example isn't really such a big deal. But look at one where the statement makes a pretty big difference: "I promise to wait for you until you get back from the war." If my sweetheart makes me this promise (she'll stay in the state of waiting until I complete the act of getting back from the war), and I find out that three weeks later she hooked up with my best friend, I'm hardly going to accept her excuse that her promise to me was "accurate, but incomplete." I'm going to say that she broke her word.

Or try it a different way. I say, "Frank cannot eat a cookie until he finishes his dinner." Uncle Harry gives him a cookie before Frank finishes dinner. I look back and say, "Apparently, it is not the case that Frank cannot get a cookie until he finishes his dinner." Is this statement correct?

If so, we've got a world in which P and not P are both true (assuming you equate "accurate" with "true"). That's the very essence of a fatal exception error.

Daniel

I submit that "I promise to wait for you until after the war" is incomplete, too. What if he/she never returns (marries another wnile overseas, for example)? Unstated was, at least, "unless you marry another while you are gone."

Now I do agree, of course, that without any of the unstated (but implied, perhaps) conditions being met that marrying another would be breaking his/her word.

To me when faced with an apparent "fatal exception error," the first thing to do is to see if there is a way to interpret the language to avoid the "fatal exception error." That's pretty much what I've done here, I think.

Anyway, let's say there is a "fatal exception error" here, for argument's sake. Now what?

 

[Artoomis]

That's the most obviously incorrect statement anyone has made so far in this thread.

If the intent and rules were clear, I wouldn't have had to ask this question in the first place, and we certainly wouldn't have 5 pages of arguments about it. =b^)

I'm pretty sure that statement was tongue-in-cheek. As was, perhaps, you response?