jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf talk amongst themselves

[Rystil Arden]

Okay.

As an analogy - diseases affect 'characters'. 'Character' is used synonymously with 'creature'. When you die, you are no longer a 'living or otherwise active being' (the definition of a creature), therefore not a creature, therefore not a character, therefore unable to be infected with a disease, right?

Initial diseases therefore end with death; new diseases can occur after you're alive again.

Does that tally with your perception?

-Hyp.

Ooo, I see where this is going...

 

[jgbrowning]

It may not be making the armour-wearer hot, but the spell is still active. Its just rendered impotent

How is the spell still active? On what metal is the spell still active? What you're saying is that heat metal can effect things other than metal. If that was the case I think one could target something that wasn't metal but that there just wouldn't be any effect when it was done.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Okay.

As an analogy - diseases affect 'characters'. 'Character' is used synonymously with 'creature'. When you die, you are no longer a 'living or otherwise active being' (the definition of a creature), therefore not a creature, therefore not a character, therefore unable to be infected with a disease, right?

Initial diseases therefore end with death; new diseases can occur after you're alive again.

Does that tally with your perception?

-Hyp.

I don't know, why do you ask?

joe b.

 

[Rystil Arden]

How is the spell still active? On what metal is the spell still active? What you're saying is that heat metal can effect things other than metal. If that was the case I think one could target something that wasn't metal but that there just wouldn't be any effect when it was done.

joe b.

I believe that your argument assumes your conclusion. In other words, it is begging the question.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't know, why do you ask?

Isn't it a fair analogy?

Heat Metal needs metal to target. Devil Chills needs a character to target.

You maintain that if the metal that Heat Metal is affecting becomes not-metal, the spell is gone.

Does that not require you to believe that if you character that Devil Chills is affecting becomes a not-character, the disease is also gone?

-Hyp.

 

[sullivan]

My favourite example

-Hyp.

Unfortunately a completely flawed example in that any of this new magicalisity (i love making up words EDIT: why? so if people can't say i misspelled the word ) of the weapon is the direct intended effect of the spell, and is assumed to occur on each and every casting (that is successful). You know, the first line of the description? (EDITTED the last part of this paragraph to make my intention clearer) It is reasonable to have such an exception implicit to allow WotC to keep the size of the rule text from ballooning as a trade off for not pandering to the wankers that would argue that the spell always cancels itself (or blinks on and off at a frequency approaching infinately if you assume that an invalid target doesn't make the spell go away, but supresses it temporarily).

Now in the example given becoming a giant is not a direct result of the Dominate.

So surely you could come up with something a bit better for reasoning? There are more than the two option you give.

 

[jgbrowning]

I believe that your argument assumes your conclusion. In other words, it is begging the question.

I want to know why you think the spell is still active as opposed to no longer active. I was using the targeting aspect to show why I think it is not there as opposed to not active, but still there.

joe b.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Unfortunately a completely flawed example in that any of this new magicalisity (i love making up words EDIT: why? so if people can't say i misspelled the word ) of the weapon is the direct intended effect of the spell, and is assumed to occur on each and every casting (that is successful). You know, the first line of the description? Unless you are to assume that the spell has no meaning ever, you are directly lead to see that the exception is implicit. Of course they could have put the text in there to explicitly note the exception, but fortunately (to my way of thinking) they didn't balloon the size of the rules text in consideration for the wankers that couldn't see this.

Now in the example given becoming a giant is not a direct result of the Dominate.

So surely you could come up with something a bit better for reasoning?

I hate to be the guy who keeps bringing up the logical fallacies, but you are begging the question as well. Your argument about spell's direct effect is only relevant if you assume that Smurf must be wrong about targeting.

 

[jgbrowning]

Isn't it a fair analogy?

Heat Metal needs metal to target. Devil Chills needs a character to target.

You maintain that if the metal that Heat Metal is affecting becomes not-metal, the spell is gone.

Does that not require you to believe that if you character that Devil Chills is affecting becomes a not-character, the disease is also gone?

-Hyp.

I was asking why you posed the question. I think it's a socratic one where I'm supposed to agree and then you'll say, "Aha, but X and Y are..."

I was just wanting to get to the part that you disagreed with as opposed to the set up.

joe b.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I want to know why you think the spell is still active as opposed to no longer active. I was using the targeting aspect to show why I think it is not there as opposed to not active, but still there.

joe b.

Why is it still active? Because its duration has not yet expired. I don't want to sound facetious, but I think the burden of proof lies on you to prove that it isn't active.