NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BoldItalic" data-source="post: 6833827" data-attributes="member: 6777052">No we don't. We only know that they have the same Int score. You are conflating two different uses of the same word and pretending that they are the same. I am distinguishing them. I am distinguishing "intelligence" in the colloquial sense from "Intelligence" as a game score.If you work out the formal logic of that, it turns into "all PCs must be role-played as baboons". I don't think either of us would agree to that. Try this instead: "If it is good to role-play a genius PC as a genius, then the same applies to baboons and slugs."Yes, you've already said that and I understand that you reject it.On the contrary. Nowhere does it say that only the Int score measures what is colloquially called "intelligence". Nowhere. Indeed, it specifically says the opposite. It says, for example, that when you make deductions based on evidence, you make an Investigation check. You cannot therefore argue that Investigation skill has nothing to do with making deductions. Are you then going to assert that making deductions is not an aspect of what is colloquially called intelligence?A single counter-example is sufficient to break a generalisation. Dismissing the counter-example as a corner case in order to try to shore up your belief in the generalisation is a common enough mistake but that doesn't stop it being a mistake.A delightful mixed metaphor has just occurred to me: The ridicule is on the other foot <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing    :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" /></blockquote>

Verification