Incense of Meditation

[Pinotage]

The problem with your absolute approach is that language is a tool used and developed by human beings (at least as far as we know!), and human beings do not, as a overwhelming majority, think in absolutes. No language that I am aware of is set in totally absolute terms. There is connotation and denotation. When you read a sentence, you must take both into account. The English language is horribly imprecise in its general usage, and the same sentence can have two entirely different meanings depending solely on the inflection applied to the words. This has happened in the rules many times. It will continue to happen.

I agree completely. I was merely pointing out that if you don't interpret the language in any way, or read it in its most basic form without interpretation (getting the RAW by definition), you end up with the result that divine means only divine. RAW is bad! Language is always open to interpretation and the RAW stated by Scion and others is really interpretation not RAW (interpreting divine to mean including that subset that can include arcane and divine spellcasters, which is reasonble but still an interpretation), hence why I think intent is more important than RAW reading. Because who's to say, unless you're thinking in absolute, your RAW is not any different to somebody else's RAW. Ones of the ways to resolve that it to look at intent.

Yes, I agree that it could be a problem if certain players read it and interpret it as Scion and others have indicated. So I fall back on intent, or if you want true RAW, go for absolutes, and bugger the interpretation.

Pinotage

 

[Infiniti2000]

Look at it from the perspective of absolute truth. If a fireman and policeman says he's a fireman, he's lying, because that's not the whole truth. If a fireman says he's a fireman, he's speaking absolute truth. If you want to read language literally, you have to think in absolutes. There are no gray areas. Hence why I think RAW is often a bad thing.

That's not quite true, either, though, being just a fireman. He's probably also a father, a husband, a friend of Bob, a friend of John, etc. Where does it end? Does he need to provide his school records and also say he's a 'A' student? No, a policeman/fireman can say he's a fireman without it being a lie. It may or may not be sufficient, but it may be all that's necessary.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I hope my earlier post clarifies my position on this. From a game point of view I agree with the above. From a language point of view, where no interpretation is involved, no. If he says he's a fireman, he's a fireman. If a fireman and a policeman says his a fireman, he's lying. He's both. Which is not the same as being just one.

Look at it from the perspective of absolute truth. If a fireman and policeman says he's a fireman, he's lying, because that's not the whole truth. If a fireman says he's a fireman, he's speaking absolute truth.

That's bollocks.

If you ask our multiclass policeman/fireman "Are you a fireman?" and he says "Yes", he's replied with the absolute truth.

If you press him with "But are you a policeman and a fireman?", and he replies "I am a fireman", then he has still made no false statements, but there is a case for a lie of omission. He answered in such a way as to speak no falsehood, but to conceal the information you were looking for.

Let's look at it from your perspective of absolute truth. If I ask him "Yes or no - are you a fireman?", which answer is not, in your opinion, a lie? Yes, or no?

-Hyp.

 

[Pinotage]

That's bollocks.

If you ask our multiclass policeman/fireman "Are you a fireman?" and he says "Yes", he's replied with the absolute truth.

If you press him with "But are you a policeman and a fireman?", and he replies "I am a fireman", then he has still made no false statements, but there is a case for a lie of omission. He answered in such a way as to speak no falsehood, but to conceal the information you were looking for.

Let's look at it from your perspective of absolute truth. If I ask him "Yes or no - are you a fireman?", which answer is not, in your opinion, a lie? Yes, or no?

-Hyp.

You're missing the point. If a fireman/policeman comes up to you and says, 'I'm a fireman.', then as far as the hearer is concerned, that's the whole truth and the absolute truth. Nothing in that statement that he's a fireman indicates that he is even remotely anything else. So, if a divine spellcaster comes up to you and says he's a divine spellcaster, there's nothing there (language wise, not gamewise) to indicate that he is even remotely anything else. From a purely literal reading, he's a divine caster and that's it. Nothing more. Just from hearing 'I'm a fireman', you cannot assume anything else except that he's a fireman. Interpretation does not come into it.

Pinotage

 

[Ovinomancer]

Are we then to assume from his statement that, aside from basic human requirements, he does nothing else but be a fireman? That he performs no other tasks except those pertaining to being a fireman? That if he does anything additional to 'fireman'ing he is, by your definition, a liar because he did not mention that in his statement?

If a fireman/policeman comes up to you and says, 'I'm a fireman.', then as far as the hearer is concerned, that's the whole truth and the absolute truth.

And is only a lie if the speaker intends to conceal information. If the statement is delivered during a fire, the speaker is merely passing along the most relevant information. If it is during a traffic stop, then it would be anecdotal information because his status as a police officer would be inferred from his uniform, badge, and police car. If it is in response to the question "what do you do for a living?," then perhaps the speaker feels that it is this job that most defines him, and that policework is not as important to him. None of these things change the dual nature of his choice of employment. Or are directly a lie.

Just from hearing 'I'm a fireman', you cannot assume anything else except that he's a fireman.

Nor can I assume that he is not. Nothing in this statement indicates an absolute. If the qualifier 'only' were inserted, then your assumption and his lie become obvious. This is lacking, so any assumption made is based on less than full information and is likely to be incorrect. Intent is one thing, forcing language to adapt to an inferred intent is a logical fallacy.

 

[Pinotage]

Nor can I assume that he is not. Nothing in this statement indicates an absolute. If the qualifier 'only' were inserted, then your assumption and his lie become obvious. This is lacking, so any assumption made is based on less than full information and is likely to be incorrect. Intent is one thing, forcing language to adapt to an inferred intent is a logical fallacy.

I don't want to get into everything again since it seems we're rehashing old arguments. You're trying to interpret things too much - yes, language is interpretable, but if you take it at face value, it says what it says without the need for interpretation. The moment you start assuming anything you're interpreting the information beyond what has been said. Don't assume that he's not only a fireman, or that he's lying, or that he's talking the truth. The only valid assumption is based on the fact you've obtained. In a literal hearing that is an absolute - if it's not, you're assuming things and interpreting beyond what was said. Anything else is assumption, not fact. The only fact you know is that he's a fireman. Don't go looking beyond that because then you're throwing in all sorts of interpretational additional information that is not the essence of the sentence.

We can, of course, go on to say that 'Is a fact a fact if it's not the whole truth' and 'Does there even exist a whole truth'? All this philosphy is making my brain ache!

Pintoage

 

[Infiniti2000]

Pinotage, I'm not sure you realize you're being hypocritical. When you say that a policeman/fireman says he's a fireman and that that statement is a lie, you're immediately applying an interpretation (that he might be something more than a fireman). You then go on to say that you shouldn't use interpretation in strict language reading. You can't have both.

I think what you intend to point out from all this hornswaggling is that when a fireman tells you he's a fireman, then that's all that's relevant. That's all that's necessary and sufficient. Interpreting that he might be something else is the fallacy. I.e. if someone tells you that he is a divine spellcaster, then interpreting that to mean he could also be an arcane spellcaster or a psionicist is the logical fallacy. You can't bring in that extra interpretation.

Fwiw, I agree with that.

 

[kjenks]

Pinotage,

Can a gnome cleric 10 use the incense? They cast certain 0 level spells in an arcane manner. According to your 'literal' reading, I'm afraid we now have to ban the little fellas from this particular item.

Well, in 3.5e, gnomes don't cast arcane spells; they have spell-like abilities with a fixed caster level (1st):

• Spell-Like Abilities: 1/day—speak with animals (burrowing mammal only, duration 1 minute). A gnome with a Charisma score of at least 10 also has the following spell-like abilities: 1/day—dancing lights, ghost sound, prestidigitation. Caster level 1st; save DC 10 + gnome’s Cha modifier + spell level.

This is different from the spellcasting abilities of the old 3e gnomes, but the old gnomes also had a fixed caster level (1st):

• Gnomes with Intelligence scores of 10 or higher may cast the 0-level spells (cantrips) dancing lights, ghost sound, and prestidigitation, each once per day. These are arcane spells. Treat the gnome as a 1st-level caster for all spell effects dependent on level (range for all three spells and duration for ghost sound).

There's no information about whether effects which increase caster level for spells also affect the caster level for spell-like abilities, so it's up to the DM to decide.