Get pedantic on Feeblemind

[Pielorinho]

Given the cookie example above... the intent is the child has to finish dinner before before he gets a cookie. If the child is given a cookie before he finishes dinner does that automatically means he is finished with his dinner?

No; it means that the description of the child's circumstances were false. It was not the case that the child would not receive a cookie until he finished his dinner.

I agree. If you just read Break Enchantment and ignore the line in Feeblemind about what might remove the effect, then Break Enchantment would work just fine.

However, I'm not ignoring the line in Feeblemind about what might remove it. I'm not assuming it is wrong.

It does look to me as though you're assuming that Break Enchantment is wrong, then. Does Break Enchantment actually do what the spell claims that it does? Does it function exactly as it's written?

I was trying to make a distinction between discussing the rules as they are officially written and used...and discussing the rules as you feel they are intended to be used, despite what they specifically say. I'm sorry if it came out wrong.

I'm just not sure I see that this is a useful distinction. Can you point me to an official use of the rules? And are you certain that all official uses of the rules are consistent with one another?

As I understand language, words themselves say nothing: they communicate thoughts from one head to another with varying degrees of success. They are the goblets that hold the wine of meaning, not the wine itself. We therefore cannot establish a single meaning for a set of words; the closest we can come is to try to understand what their creator intended for us to understand.

Everyone here is trying to figure out the best interpretation of the rules, but as we can all see, intelligent people can reach different conclusions about what this best interpretation is--how we should best translate the squiggles of ink into meaning. I think that's inescapable, and it's worth keeping that feature of human language in mind in any discussion of game rules.

Daniel

 

[Pielorinho]

You way involves a judgement call. My way involves only the rules, no judgement calls at all, no splittiing hairs, no deciding what is included and what is not as a remedy except by what the rules state is a remedy.

I disagree. Both ways involve a judgment call; both of you are setting up a different heuristic for resolving the apparent contradiction. Either heuristic will work, but choosing which to use is a judgment call.

Daniel

 

[Felix]

I think the statement ""The subject remains in this state until a heal, limited wish, miracle, or wish spell is used to cancel the effect of the feeblemind" is incorrect ONLY if you think it was meant to be a complete list.

Feeblemind's "until" clause, along with the "No cookie until clean room" example, outlines a necessary element. It is necessary to have a clean room in order to get a cookie; it is necessary to cast one of those spells before the Feeblemind condition is removed.

Necessary conditions do not ensure the objective, they are merely prerequisites; if you clean your room, you still might not get a cookie, but you will not get a cookie if your room is not clean. In the "If X, then Y" example, Y is a necessary condition for X. You must have Y if you are going to have X.

Necessity is easily shown in feat chains. Power Attack is a necessary condition for Cleave. You cannot have Cleave without having Power Attack. The syllogism would run: "If Cleave, then Power Attack". There is no way to have Cleave without having Power Attack, but there is a way to have Power Attack but not have Cleave.

This syllogism is equal to "If not Power Attack, then not Cleave". "Combat Expertise" is equal to the term, "Not Power Attack", and so may be substituted: "If Combat Expertise, then not Cleave".

Of course, you may have both Combat Expertise and Power Attack, but it is only ever the Power Attack that allows Cleave, and never Combat Expertise.

This is both accurate and complete, and exclusivity has not been assumed: it has been shown as fundamentally part of the language.

So then the question is if the language in Feeblemind may be translated into a similar syllogistic construct. Let us define our terms:

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

Now, as Artoomis stated before, there is no argument that "Condition remains until [spells] are cast" may be translated into: "No [cure] until [spells]". Substitute our letters: No X until Y". This is equal to the statement: If X, then Y". This is then also equal to: If not Y, then not X. "Z" is equivalent to "Not Y", so substitute: If Z, then not X.

[sblock]Substitute our letters: No [cure] until [spells]". This is equal to the statement: If [cure], then [spells]". This is then also equal to: If not [spells], then not [cure]. "Break Enchantment" is equivalent to "Not [spells]", so substitute: If Break Enchantment, then not [cure].[/sblock]

Z is not a sufficient condition to produce X because Y is necessary and Z does not provide, nor is an element of Y.

[sblock]Break Enchantment is not a sufficient condition to produce [cure] because [spells] is necessary and Break Enchantment does not provide, nor is an element of [spells].[/sblock]

Y is a necessary condition for X. You must have Y if you want X. Yes, you can have both Y and Z, and that will result in X, but you will have X only because you first have Y.

[sblock][spells] is a necessary condition for [cure]. You must have [spells] if you want [cure]. Yes, you can have both [spells] and Break Enchantment, and that will result in [cure], but you will have [cure] only because you first have [spells].[/sblock]

Sure it can be both accurate and incomplete.

Language can be both accurate and incomplete. Bestow Curse is an example of it. The language runs: "Bestow Curse cannot be dispelled, but it can be removed by

• ".
  
  This language results in: If
  • , then [removed]
  • .
    
    That language is both accurate and incomplete. It is also not the language used in Feeblemind.
    
    IF the langugae in Feeblemind translated into: "If [spells], then [cure]", I would be the first to agree with you; that syllogism does not prevent other spells from producing a cure.
    
    Unfortunately, this is not the case. Feeblemind does not say "If [spells] then [cure]". It says: "If [cure] then [spells]", and that language is complete, it is accurate, it is exclusive, and no amount of dissembling about how imprecise a language can be will change it. This language happens to not be imprecise. Else I wouldn't be arguing with you.

 

[Artoomis]

...Break Enchantment is not a sufficient condition to produce [cure] because [spells] is necessary and Break Enchantment does not provide, nor is an element of [spells]...

That, of course, is assuming that the list is actually and truly complete and not, in error, incomplete. If so, neither Mass Heal nor Panacea can work, either.

Mass Heal and Panacea are both indeed otherwise valid remedies, but made to be invalid choices by not being on "the list." The list does NOT allow for Mass Heal or for any future spell, not matter how that spell happens to be worded, because the spell is simply not on the list. It does not matter if the spell states it can "cure" Feeblemind or not, it's not on the list of those than can. This is the inevitable result of Felix's logic chain.

If that's the path you want to go down, then indeed Break Enchament will not work, of course, neither will Mass Heal, Panacea or any other possible future spell, no matter what the designer's might be unless they also issue errata for Feeblemind.

It is unavoidable that the list simply is not complete, unless you prohibit Mass Heal and Panacea. If you allow those (and I think there is no argument there), then the ONLY question is to what degree the list is incomplete.

On that question there can be at least a couple of answers.

At this point I move from facts to opinion:

I personally feel the best approach is to take the two seemingly contradictory interpretations (Break Enchantment can't work because it is not on the list and Break Enchantment can work because Feeblmind is a instantaneous enchanment) and see if there is a rules interpretation that makes it all work together.

If so, it seems to me like that would be the better choice.

Indeed there is such an interpretation: Simply accept that the list is not a truly complete list. We know that's factually true anyway (to at least some degree, see above), so just allow Break Enchantment to be addded to "the list " by virtue of the Break Enchantment's spell descirption and all is right with the world.

 

[Cedric]

So you decided what the exceptions are to "unless." By doing you you proved the the "unless" clause is flawed.

Now, having done so, it is only a question of degree. You can make a judgement call on that as you have, or you can assume that any other valid remedy will work (which really only brings in Break Enchantment in addition to Mass Heal and Panacea).

You way involves a judgement call. My way involves only the rules, no judgement calls at all, no splittiing hairs, no deciding what is included and what is not as a remedy except by what the rules state is a remedy.

And yet you feel your way is more closely following the rules. Correct?

Go figure.

The funny thing is, I believe this to be a fundamental staple of how the rules function in this game and almost any other rules based activity in the world...and it works like this.

Rule A - Functions to declare a specific consequence or event, and has a specific set of circumstances by which that consequence or event can be overcome or avoided.

Rule A may only be circumvented by:

- The specific circumstance listed in Rule A.
- A specific circumstance, listed elsewhere that precisely assumes the role of the circumstance listed in Rule A.
- An update, errata, or FAQ entry detailing a different reading or understanding of the rule.
- A subsequent release of rules that clearly and unequivocally provides a different, new solution.

I think this functionality is a fundamental part of understanding and successfully using any rule based system that has situational exceptions.

Cedric

 

[Felix]

So you decided what the exceptions are to "unless." By doing you you proved the the "unless" clause is flawed.

Now, having done so, it is only a question of degree. You can make a judgement call on that as you have, or you can assume that any other valid remedy will work (which really only brings in Break Enchantment in addition to Mass Heal and Panacea).

The language within Feeblemind is not flawed; it is accurate and complete.

The reason spells that are not on that list may cure Feeblemind results from how the internally consistent language of Feeblemind interacts with the rest of the rules set.

• Re: Mass Heal. This spell says it functions "as Heal" specifically. Feeblemind allows Heal, and so because Mass Heal functions as Heal, Mass Heal works. The rules set remains intact.

• Re: Wish and

• Limited Wish

• . There is no language in Wish that says it functions "as Limited Wish", and so were Wish not specifically mentioned, it would not function, Unless you used Wish to emulate the lower-level spell, Limited Wish; it would not be able to cure Feeblemind on its own merits. Therefore the presence of Wish on Feeblemind's cures list does not imply an oversight in the list's construction. The language of the relationship between Wish and Limited Wish is fundamentally different from the relationship between Heal and Mass Heal.

• Re: New Spells. Any new spell written that specifically states it cures Feeblemind is an alteration to the rules, as that rule was formerly not present, and yes, it would alter the list of possible cures in Feeblemind. But the mere possibility that an alteration in the rules might occur does not mean that the current rules are incomplete. To suggest such would imply that because a future Amendment to the constituion might be written to allow dogs to vote, the current complete list of eligible voters is in fact incomplete, and that uneligible voters should be able to vote because of its incompleteness. I reject this argument.

There is no "matter of degree" here. The list is complete, accurate, and exclusive.

The language posesses those properties regardless of intent, balance, or opinion.

The discussion on what the language should be, and how the spell should be ruled is something altogether different.

A is A, and Break Enchantment doesn't work on Feeblemind.

My way involves only the rules, no judgement calls at all, no splittiing hairs, no deciding what is included and what is not as a remedy except by what the rules state is a remedy.

• You call Feeblemind's language incomplete when it is demonstrably not.

• You suggest the relationship between Wish and Limited Wish is identical to that of Heal and Mass Heal, when the language shows this to be patently untrue.

• You assume an error into the language of a spell with specific text in order to subordiante it to an errorless general text of another spell.

• You dissemble when faced with ironclad syllogistic translations of the language.

No, Artoomis, your way involves the rules only in that you wish that they were otherwise.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually, you DID make a novice logic mistake.

If X then Y does NOT lead to :

If no Y then no X

If beans then fart, does not mean:

If no fart then no beans.

Actually, it means precisely that. You'd better go back to logic class.

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, it means precisely that. You'd better go back to logic class.

You must have missed the comment on that. I've already admitted my error. But thanks for pointing it out.... again!

 

[Felix]

That, of course, is assuming that the list is actually and truly complete and not, in error, incomplete.

Wheras you would rather assume that the text is in error.

If so, neither Mass Heal nor Panacea can work, either.

So are you saying that if I can show that both Mass Heal and Panacea can work while the list in Feeblemind remains accurate and complete you will throw your hat in with me?

Because if that's the case I will be off for a while composing that post.

 

[KarinsDad]

You must have missed the comment on that. I've already admitted my error. But thanks for pointing it out.... again!

I was reading through from the beginning of the thread. I didn't get to the part where someone corrected it.