56 réponses à ce sujet

[Humanoid_Taifun]

moilami wrote...
(Please
mister answer to my "many questions fallacy" and explain how they were
bad. You can't just pull links out of your hat and say "now you did this
and that" without explaining. I am very curious to see more of this
wonderful new logic!)

I did. If you can't find your personal messages (that's what PM stands for), there should be a popup at the big "Home" button upper left corner, you can't miss it.
I will continue to send my answers as PMs. (if somebody else is interested in them, please tell me directly - no need to derail this thread further than necessary)

[suttree]

moilami wrote...t

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...h

Moganza wrote...e

Urdjur wrote...g

GrondO wrote...a

blobsy wrote...m

corey_russel wrote...e

moilami wrote...
So, if necromancer kills you and then animates you back as a corpsie (zombie), you have hitpoints, you live, and you never got killed?

After much thought, I think it's time to share my thoughts on this matter.  Indeed, as Mollami has asked: Is Stone Life?  That is: Whether our Intellect can Understand Corporeal and Material Things (Stone) by Abstraction from the Phantasmal (Life).  And so I proceed thusly -

Objection: It would seem that our intellect does not understand corporeal and material things (Stone) by abstraction from the phantasmal (Life).  For the intellect is False if it understands a thing otherwise than as it is.  Now the forms of material things (Stoneskins) do not exist in abstraction from the particular things represented by the phantasmal (Living Stones).  Therefore, if we understand material things by the abstraction of species from the phantasmal, there will be error in the intellect (Doublethink). Whence the Pacifist Challenge?

Reply: Abstraction may occur in to ways. First, by way of composition and division (reducing HP to 0) and thus we may undestand that one thing does not exist in some other, or that it is separate from it.  Secondly, by way of a simple and absolute consideration (Stone to Flesh); and thus we understand one thing without considering another.  Thus, for the intellect to abstract one from another things which are not really abstract from one another, does, in the first mode of abstraction, imply falsehood.  But, in the second mode of abstraction, for the intellect to abstract things which are not really abstract from one another, does not involve falsehood, as clearly appears in the case of the senses. Also, Necromancers.

For if we said that petrification is not in a petrified body, or that it is separate from it, there would be error in what we thought or said.  But if we consider petrification and its properties, without reference to the enemy which is petrified, or if we express in word what we thus understand, there is no error in such an opinion or assertion; for an enemy is not essential to petrification, and therefore petrification can be understood independetly of the enemy.  In the same way, the things which belong to the species of a material thing, such as a drow, or a lich, or a mind-flayer, can be thought without the individual principles which do not belong to the notion of the species (magic resistance).  This is what we mean by abstracting the universal from the particular, or the intelligible species from the phantasmal; in other words, this is to consider the nature of the species apart from its individual principles represented by the phantasmal. 

If, therefore, the intellect is said to be false when it understands a thing petrified otherwise than as it is, that is so, if the word "petrified" refers to the thing understood; for the intellect is false when it understands a thing to be otherwise than as it is.  Hence, the intellect would be false if it abstracted the species of a stone from its matter in such a way as to think that the species did not exist in matter, as Plato held.  But if it is not so, if the word "petrified" be taken as referring to the one who understands.  For it is quite true that the mode of understanding, in one who understands, is not the same as the mode of a thing in being; since the thing understood is immaterially in the one who understands, according to the mode of the intellect, and not materially, according to the mode of a material thing.

While I must admit my argument is not conclusive, I am, indeed, favourably inclined to the conclusion that STONE IS LIFE.

"His heart is as hard as a stone, Even as hard as a lower millstone."

<edit>corrected attribution
 

Modifié par suttree, 15 janvier 2011 - 05:25 .

[moilami]

suttree wrote...

moilami wrote...t

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...h

moilami wrote...e

Urdjur wrote...g

GrondO wrote...a

blobsy wrote...m

corey_russel wrote...e

Moganza wrote...
So, if necromancer kills you and then animates you back as a corpsie (zombie), you have hitpoints, you live, and you never got killed?

After much thought, I think it's time to share my thoughts on this matter.  Indeed, as Mollami has asked: Is Stone Life?  That is: Whether our Intellect can Understand Corporeal and Material Things (Stone) by Abstraction from the Phantasmal (Life).  And so I proceed thusly -

Objection: It would seem that our intellect does not understand corporeal and material things (Stone) by abstraction from the phantasmal (Life).  For the intellect is False if it understands a thing otherwise than as it is.  Now the forms of material things (Stoneskins) do not exist in abstraction from the particular things represented by the phantasmal (Living Stones).  Therefore, if we understand material things by the abstraction of species from the phantasmal, there will be error in the intellect (Doublethink). Whence the Pacifist Challenge?

Reply: Abstraction may occur in to ways. First, by way of composition and division (reducing HP to 0) and thus we may undestand that one thing does not exist in some other, or that it is separate from it.  Secondly, by way of a simple and absolute consideration (Stone to Flesh); and thus we understand one thing without considering another.  Thus, for the intellect to abstract one from another things which are not really abstract from one another, does, in the first mode of abstraction, imply falsehood.  But, in the second mode of abstraction, for the intellect to abstract things which are not really abstract from one another, does not involve falsehood, as clearly appears in the case of the senses. Also, Necromancers.

For if we said that petrification is not in a petrified body, or that it is separate from it, there would be error in what we thought or said.  But if we consider petrification and its properties, without reference to the enemy which is petrified, or if we express in word what we thus understand, there is no error in such an opinion or assertion; for an enemy is not essential to petrification, and therefore petrification can be understood independetly of the enemy.  In the same way, the things which belong to the species of a material thing, such as a drow, or a lich, or a mind-flayer, can be thought without the individual principles which do not belong to the notion of the species (magic resistance).  This is what we mean by abstracting the universal from the particular, or the intelligible species from the phantasmal; in other words, this is to consider the nature of the species apart from its individual principles represented by the phantasmal. 

If, therefore, the intellect is said to be false when it understands a thing petrified otherwise than as it is, that is so, if the word "petrified" refers to the thing understood; for the intellect is false when it understands a thing to be otherwise than as it is.  Hence, the intellect would be false if it abstracted the species of a stone from its matter in such a way as to think that the species did not exist in matter, as Plato held.  But if it is not so, if the word "petrified" be taken as referring to the one who understands.  For it is quite true that the mode of understanding, in one who understands, is not the same as the mode of a thing in being; since the thing understood is immaterially in the one who understands, according to the mode of the intellect, and not materially, according to the mode of a material thing.

While I must admit my argument is not conclusive, I am, indeed, favourably inclined to the conclusion that STONE IS LIFE.

"His heart is as hard as a stone, Even as hard as a lower millstone."
 

Wow awesome reply! I want you to become Archmage in Tarkuul in one NWN server with me and Human_Taifuun as apprentices! A New World Order would certainly come as we spread the revised and detailed in-depth information around! The only thing what could cause problems would be all those paladins and druids refusing to understand the true nature of life!

[Moganza]

Ok guys please quote properly because i didn't say 'So, if necromancer kills you and then animates you back as a corpsie (zombie), you have hitpoints, you live, and you never got killed?' That was moilami.
To further this debate we need to set some rules. Are we using the game rules or real life rules because those are different debates completely. It's like saying vampires can be killed with sunlight but argueing that they can't because in Twilight it doesn't. You can't use 2 different universes and i suggest we use the game rules as the whole point of this new discussion is to prove whether you can complete the game without killing anyone right?

moilami wrote...

Moganza wrote...

Moganza wrote...
Flesh to stone technically doesn't kill someone because that person although in a different state still has hitpoints. I believe its the same thing with imprisonment as well because although that person has vanished his hitpoints are unchanged. Once again the same thing applies to Maze.

Moilami wrote...
So, if necromancer kills you and then animates you back as a corpsie (zombie), you have hitpoints, you live, and you never got killed?

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...
What does one have to do with the other? "still has his hitpoints" (meaning: you never lost them) = died (and lost all HP) and was reanimated as an undead?
Is this the infamous doublethink you warned us about?

I don't know if you agreed with i'm about to say Taifun but let me just explain myself. If a necromancer kills you then you effectively have 0 hitpoints (at this point your are DEAD) if he chooses to reanimate or you are ressurected your hitpoints are restored and thus you are once again alive. I don't know if you just failed to grasp this simple point, you lived you died and came back to life. It seems like you are being deliberately stupid in order to further your argument.

Don't jump too eagerly into conclusions you wish to make in order to escape reality. Or can you claim you are alive as mindless zombie even if you would have all HP in the world? Or would your body just exist in the world like whatever renaimated corpse? Or like whatever statue in case Flesh to Stone was used on you? Hmm? How it is? Who can't grasp what now?

Are you really saying you would be alive with all the HP you had if you were a reanimated zombie or a statue made of stone? Do you deny in case of zombie there would be only your corpse, and in the case of statue there would be only a statue made of stone, which by all means does not live xDDDD

GL living as a statue after Flesh to Stone preservation treatment. GL living as a reanimated Zombie too. I guess I can't anymore kill undeads in RPGs because I would kill real human beings instead of abused corpses.

Zombies are classed as living dead and so tell me this, if a zombie isn't alive then how can you kill it. If you go by the game rules, zombies have hitpoints and when it nears 0 they become 'near death' so the game rules acknowledge zombies to be alive. I don't claim that zombies are alive, the game does and this should be a non-negotiable fact. The same thing applies to Flesh to Stone. As far as i'm aware the person still has hitpoints until you destroy the statue of him. No one can be turned to stone in real life the same way someone is turned to stone in the game (its not the same as pouring cement onto someone) and so please stick to game rules when making your point.

Why would you be killing human beings? Zombies are not human beings anymore. They may have been created from humans but they themselves have become a different monster which is why the process is irreversible so although zombies are created from corpses they are magical beings and thus are alive. 

Please use game rules to further your argument otherwise we would be here forever and please lay out definitions of death etc (which should be game definitions) also and not just your opinion of what you think death is.

[moilami]

I am not interested to discuss this subject. It is all the same for me what you think of the subject. I have got very good inspiration to crazy/evil mage RP from this thread, of which I am happy, and of which I want to say my biggest thanks to Suttree and others.

[lroumen]

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

lroumen wrote...
Actually, none of the game effects are described as kills but rather as unconsciousness, entrapment or immobilization, just to keep the player from questioning these kind of things.

As opposed to killing spells, which have the very clear effect of death. I don't think anyone ever confused Finger of Death for just another disabling spell.

True. I think that went without question, but I should have added the note.

Humanoid_Taifun wrote...

lroumen wrote...
If you go by "non-beating heart" then even stun and web for instance
kill you too. This discussion is way too complicated for just enjoying
the game in a new fashion

I know that your animation freezes ingame, but I don't really think that means Web and Stun actually stop your heart. But even if they do, it doesn't really oppose my line of arguing of
"if A (something questionable) = true then A' (something rather ridiculous) = true; therefore A = not true"

As I said, it depends on how you interpret the spells and their effect. We do not know if these spells are supposed to just freeze actions or freeze everything and could be considered as temporary death.
I agree with your final comment, but since my observation was meant as rhetorical should it be clear that I was not attempting to do an if A etc.
You have nice examples and rhetorics in following posts. Very clear on what your point of view is.

[Phototoxin]

Guys... breathe!



I think petrification is a good 'grey area'. It's more of a permanent disabling. I'd leave stone to flesh scrolls nearby so that RP-wise people could return them to normal.



Anyway on the topic of fun parties .....



Make a necromancer and have NPCs that you reskin to a skeleton, skeleton warrior, zombie ghould and mummy with shadowkeeper. Make them true neutral fighter except for the zombie who is a monk and the skeleton warrior who is a wizard slayer. The other skeleton could be a thief/swashbuckler if really necessary. Essentiall the necromancer can 'spake' through them accounting for their abilities to speak / reason. However no healing would make it interesting.



My other thought was something similar with oozes/slimes and a transmuter. Make all of the PCs monks (so 5 monks 1 transmuter) which could be odd and fluffy.



Or a 'solo' ranger/druid with an 'animal' companion. So there's really 2 of you but one has int/wis/cha of 9 with matching creature stats. (So a wolf is a fighter or maybe berserker with piercing weapons)

They can use potions (tankard like a st bernard?)