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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5498378" data-attributes="member: 18280">Exactly so.  It is strange, isn't it, how someone who accuses everyone else of semantics games wants to define "human" in a way that precludes general uses of the term.<img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/ponder.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":hmm:" title="Hmmm    :hmm:" data-shortname=":hmm:" />And yet still somehow ignores the obvious conclusion that, if Bond has a victory in OHMSS, he suffers a loss in CR.  Conversely, if he has a victory in CR, he suffers a loss in OHMSS.  It doesn't really matter what kind of victory, the conditions are mirrored.  He is on either side of the same divide.I notice that, with his rhetorical dance, he has no answer to that.  Just further insults.  Wonder why that is?Well aware of it.  And the goalposts for what "some farmer just off the turnip truck" means have been shifting ever since, as time and again it was demonstrated that a 1st level fighter could, indeed, have been some farmer just off the turnip truck.I mean, we've gotten so far now as to suggest that if Batman or James Bond, at the height of their careers, are not just some farmers off the turnip truck, neither could a 1st level Fighter be.I.e., no Jack from Jack in the Beanstalk for you, my friend.  Uh uh.  Apparently, the game can't support it.If I say X can be Y, it requires (to a rational mind) only one example of X that is Y to prove the point.  No examples of X that are not Y actually disprove that X can be Y.This thread reads as though I said "Some animals can be mammals" and then a bunch of folks jumped up with examples of animals that were fish, or insects, or crustaceans, and thought that somehow proved that animals cannot be mammals.  On top of that, they brought up the platypus, the kangaroo, and the echidna, and decided that they were not mammals, either, because they have different characteristics from raccoons.We have, effectively, a "There's no such thing as raccoons!  THE END!", but when it is demonstrated that there are raccoons, the response is, effectively, "Well, you're an ignorant poo-poo head, so no there are no raccoons."You are right in your statement about the general case in, for example, 1e AD&D.  But you are not right to extend that general case to include all cases.  Obviously, a 1e 1st level fighter can also have a 12 Strength and 2 hp.You are also wrong that normal humans don't have stats (in the sense that they don't have measurable Strength, Charisma, etc.).  You mistake a bookkeeping convenience for a truth about the universe.  Even when counterexamples of normal humans with stats are given, you seem unable to see beyond the statblock.Most normal humans have stats in the average range.  They don't carry a bonus or a penalty.  They are unremarkable, so they are not remarked upon.  It is not uncommon to list only the unusual stats, because they are what affect gameplay.Likewise, the standard statblock might not list that an NPC has hair, but that doesn't mean he isn't a bigfoot-in-training.Likewise, if a statement is made that X never Y (Bond never loses, for example), it requires only one counter-example to demonstrate that to be untrue.  That isn't pedantry; and the statement isn't "close to truth".  It disproves the statement.When a line of reasoning requires the statement to be true (Bond is superhuman because Bond never loses), it also disproves the line of reasoning.From a rational standpoint, it doesn't disprove the conclusion (which may or may not be true for reasons other than those expressed by the line of reasoning).  It does help to establish that the person putting forth a line of reasoning that is based on being knowledgeable about a subject (for example, what Bond can or cannot do, or what Bond movies are like) probably doesn't know as much as he might wish you to believe he does.  And, if he cannot admit as much and adjust to the obvious error, it might tell you something about future lines of reasoning as well.  Specifically, a person who cannot admit to error when the error is clearly demonstrated is unlikely to be that careful about differntiating his or her facts from convenient fiction in other discussions.  One should take his or her input with a very large grain of salt.Moreso if the person, rather than admitting to a clearly demonstrated error, responds with insulting the person for making said clear demonstration.  The size of that grain of salt (to the rational mind) becomes even larger.That is the gist of it.And I think it is blatantly obvious that D&D can handle that backstory pretty darn easily.  Obviously, YMMV.RC</blockquote>

Verification