Why CompoundWord Monsters Don't Bother Me

[Dannyalcatraz]

Red-Veined Meadowhawk Dragonfly

Even for the RW, that one's pretty awful.

Someone stat one of those up for 4Ed, but also make it a "Giant Feywild" critter...STAT!

 

[kaomera]

Someone stat one of those up for 4Ed, but also make it a "Giant Feywild" critter...STAT!

"Giant"? What's that? Did you mean Bighuge?

 

[Scribble]

Conflating a comparison with an equation will lead you to all sorts of logical problems, since no analogy has a true 1:1 relationship with the things being compared. For instance, "Time flows like a river to the sea" is a common analogy (really, a simile, but that's mostly semantics, and the distinction is irrelevant for my purposes here). But time is not wet, cannot be swum, is not potable, has no "sea" destination, etc.

KM-

Once again it's not the use of analogy that's jarring, or what Aegeri or myself take issue with- it's the use of hyperbole.

Before you post yet another link, maybe take a moment to think about what the links say?

The idea of an analogy is essentially so that someone that knows absolutely nothing of one concept can use their understanding of a second concept to better understand the first.

Take the analogy you just posted: Time flows like a river.

What we know about a river:

A river moves in one direction.
A river won't suddenly start flowing backwards.
A river's course is hard if not impossible to divert with normal actions
A river never actually stops.

From this someone that knows nothing about our perception of time can surmise that we perceive that time time:

Flows in one direction.
Won't suddenly start going backwards.
cannot be diverted or stopped easily.
is forever moving onward.


Now let's look at your analogy:

"Yeah. Murders aren't that frequent, either, so I guess we should all stop paying attention to them."

You are essentially trying to get us to understand the importance of not ignoring silly sounding names by making us see the dangers of ignoring murder.

You really don't see the problem with this analogy?

Murders end lives
Murders alter the non ended lives forever
Theres no correcting a murder
Murder feels contrary to the very fiber of all rational human beings

Someone who knows absolutely nothing about D&D would get a pretty crazy idea about the dangers silly sounding names impose by following your analogy.

Silly sounding names destroy lives?
They alter the lives around us forever?
There's no correcting silly sounding names?
They feel contrary to the very fiber of our existence?

Sure- both of them might happen infrequently but because that one descriptor is such a small part of what murder as a whole is it causes a faulty analogy.

It's akin to if I were to try to talk to someone about puppies by using an analogy about child molesters because both of them like kids. It just won't work- The listener is going to end up with a REALLY distorted view of puppies.

By using them in the analogy the way you did I'm forced to either believe:

1. You used a bad analogy.

We call you on it (it happens to everyone at some point) and then we move on.

Faulty analogies are kind of a staple of comedy.

2. You are using hyperbole in order to "trick" your audience into seeing the dangers of ignoring your argument.

Everyone tends to overstate their position when debating. The problem lies when you go to far (ie Hyperbole) it tends to back fire.

Now instead of heightening the awareness of your argument, you're heightening awareness of it being unsound, and making it appear somewhat comical. (Faulty analogies being a staple of comedy.)

Again we call you on it, and then we move on.


OR:

3. You honestly DO believe the relationship of the two, and are therefore a non rational human being.

If this is the case I'm not sure if we can really continue to discuss things with you.


I'm thinking personally that you just tend to veer towards hyperbole and faulty analogies (like equating a company selling collectible cards to someone selling crack to little kids...)

I hope at least.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's a product of them having different types of each monster, each with its own name.

No.

That's a product of CloseTheLicense ProtectTheIP GamingSpeak.

And people compained about the names in the initial reviews of the 1e Fiend Folio, too.

"Careful now! That feywild feebleblow butterfly nearly did in the hybrid hexblade warpriest!"


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

KM, if it helps, I understood your clear and rational point with no difficulty whatsoever.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Another point against the meme that StupidName MultiMonster is a product of having different types of each monster:

RCFG, like 4e, has zombies. I know, big surprise there. RCFG, like 4e, has zombies that can do different things. In addition to the bog-standard zombie, RCFG has zombies with the following qualities:

Fast
Horrific
Infectious
Intelligent
Regenerating
Tough

Now, while "horrific" might not be obvious, I bet that the average reader can get a good idea what Fast, Infectious, Intelligent, Regenerating, and Tough mean.

Likewise, giant ants might be Jumping, Spraying, Venomous, or have Trap-Jaws. That Trap-Jaw is close to a 4e-ism, I suppose, but also reflects (1) a real-world property of some ants, and (2) is used to actually describe, rather than to make something GlassTransparently IP-Protected.

Some of the 4e compound words are actually cool and are worthy (IMHO) of appearing in future editions of D&D: Shadowfell and Gravehound, for example. In some cases, these are not really 4e-isms, except for putting the words together. A grave hound existed long before the gravehound zombie, for example.

If the current level of DumbSounding NameStuff doesn't bother you, or you don't think it is DumbSounding, then, obviously, you are good to go. DumbSounding is subjective, after all. But, if you are not bothered, it doesn't therefore follow that no one else should express that they are (if they are).



RC

 

[I'm A Banana]

You are essentially trying to get us to understand the importance of not ignoring silly sounding names by making us see the dangers of ignoring murder.

Actually, I'm demonstrating the absurdity of relying on rarity as the sole criteria for if there is a "problem" or not.

The OP postulated that the reason they don't have a problem with CompoundWord monsters was because such things weren't actually very common, and my goal was to show that this logic is faulty by an analogy with another thing that is uncommon, and seeing if the fact that it was rare made it not a problem.

I chose murder, because that illustrates the absurdity of the position in a way that, say, "Getting hit by lightning" or "getting Mono" doesn't as much, and yet it is less hyperbolic than, say, "Genocide," or "The heat death of the universe."

Note that, because of the use of a comparison, none of these things are being equated. They share one similarity: They are rare things that are also problems, despite the fact that they are rare.

Thus, the OP's central point -- CompoundWord monsters are rare, and therefore, should not be a problem -- is undermined, since rare things are problems even though they are rare.

Someone who knows absolutely nothing about D&D would get a pretty crazy idea about the dangers silly sounding names impose by following your analogy.

Only if they missed my central point: Rare things are problems even though they are rare (as demonstrated by the fact that murders are problems, even though they are fairly rare).

Sure- both of them might happen infrequently but because that one descriptor is such a small part of what murder as a whole is it causes a faulty analogy.

It is a small part, but that's how we demonstrate the absurdity of relying on one feature (in this instance, rarity) to determine if someone should have a problem. If this is not true in all instances, it cannot be a good way of determining if someone "should" have a problem.

I understand that not everyone reading my post is familiar with the use of analogy contained there, so missing the point is understandable. Not everybody has English as a first language, not everybody readily understands analogy, not everyone can easily think in metaphor. So I don't mind clarifying. But I do think I've certainly re-iterated the point enough by now for it to be pretty clear.

Rather than trying to find fault with my analogy and winning Internet Bonus Points for "calling me on it," it might be more constructive to discuss the actual point, assuming you understand it, rather than trying to "win" by discrediting me.

 

[Fifth Element]

No.

That's a product of CloseTheLicense ProtectTheIP GamingSpeak.

No. If that were the case, such names would be much more common.

 

[Fifth Element]

Thus, the OP's central point -- CompoundWord monsters are rare, and therefore, should not be a problem -- is undermined, since rare things are problems even though they are rare.

Aboslutely. Some rare things are extremely problematic, in the real world where things really matter.

My point is merely that the attention given to these names is far out of proportion to the frequency. There is the unstated assumption that the specific terms used to describe certain fictional creatures causes no real harm regardless of what they are. Given that, rarity is relevant.

Which is to say, yuor analogy is deeply flawed by conflating things that cause real harm in the real world, and words used in a fantasy RPG, which have nothing to do with the real world.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No. If that were the case, such names would be much more common.

(1) You placed arbitrary limits on "how common" they are when you counted.

(2) They don't have to be "more common" to protect IP than they are; they just have to exist in relation to enough common or popular monsters, classes, and setting elements that WotC can control their usage. And they are more than sufficient for that purpose.

(3) MePersonI OnlyJust DesiredWanted to AddInclude a NumberNumber ThreeHere.


RC