Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6883581" data-attributes="member: 42582">Getting too far into the metaphysics of darkness reminds me of a conversation I had with a housemate nearly 20 years ago, trying to understand the relationship between darkness as the privation of light, and a necromancer's darkbolt spell that is clearly a presence and not just an absence.But putting the scholasticism to one side, there is still the point about language - it is perfectly acceptable to say, of a flare of light, that it briefly dispelled the darkness. And [MENTION=6787503]Hriston[/MENTION]'s question is whether Sunburst can do this for natural darkness. The question is, I think, mostly rhetorical - everyone takes it as a given that it can. The point of the rhetorical question is to apply pressure to the notion that if one instance of a phenomenon is listed (in this case, the dispelling of magical darkness) then other instances are "automatically" excluded (in this case, the dispelling - however briefly - of natural darkness).I know that takes you into a discussion you'd rather avoid - namely, the interpretation of the fireball spell - and so I'll leave it at that.My knowledge of 3E is pretty variable, but I thought there was a whole issue with light spells and figments and the like that turned on this very contrast (between a spell that creates light, and a spell that creates a depiction of light).</blockquote>