Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 3162332" data-attributes="member: 3929">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. <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Re: Wish and</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Limited Wish</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">. 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.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul>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.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You call Feeblemind's language incomplete when it is demonstrably not.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">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.</li> </ul> <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You dissemble when faced with ironclad syllogistic translations of the language.</li> </ul>No, Artoomis, your way involves the rules only in that you wish that they were otherwise.</blockquote>

Verification