Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AuraSeer" data-source="post: 693068" data-attributes="member: 1331">Re: Ambrose BierceIf you interpret it literally, then yes, it's a contradiction. But as a figure of speech, it means something slightly different than what it says.A clearer wording might be, "the exception that proves the rule exists." That is, in order for something to be an exception, you need to have a rule in the first place. If you point out a flying elf as unusual, that means the usual case (the "rule") is that elves don't fly. If there were no such rule, then all elves would fly, and the one you pointed out would not be an exception. Get it?Back on topic...The general rule is that the caster of a spell is not immune to its effects. If you drop a Fireball at your own feet, you get burned. The only exceptions are spells that explicitly say so (like Wail of the Banshee), or ones that imply it by their very nature. (Antilife Shell hedges out living creatures, and doesn't explicitly say the caster is immune. But because the caster is defined as the center of the effect, it's logically impossible for him to be outside it. Therefore the caster must not be affected.)Holy Word does not state that the caster is immune, and nothing in the nature of the spell requires that the caster be unaffected. Therefore, it follows the general rule, and is able to affect the caster.</blockquote>