If Shar-Teel can kill everything that bleeds, it does not mean that she cannot kill things that don't bleed.
If I say I can eat all things made from fish, that doesn't mean I can't eat a hamburger.
That's not right. She said, "IF it bleeds, I can kill it". Rearranging it and saying "I can kill it, if it bleeds*" can give a different meaning.
*But I can kill other things.
That is right. The statement "if it bleeds, I can kill it" means that she can kill everything that bleeds. It doesn't mean that she cannot kill things that don't bleed.
Rearranging words can produce a different meaning, of course. If you say:
*Only wyrms have wings.
That has a different meaning from a different arrangement of the same words:
*Wings only have wyrms.
Just stick to the original language without rearranging things, and you'll see the if/then logic doesn't in any way limit her ability to kill non-bleedy things.
Plus I have hard evidence that Shar-Teel crushes pretty much everything she sets her mind to (other than Tiax and the PC).
Hmm, Shar-teel has killed Khalid quite a few times in some of my playthroughs. Unintentionally, of course, I was actually hoping that she would go after Kivan.
skeletons have bone marrow to bleed, slimes can ooze slime out like jellys also, fire elemental can bleed lava, water elemental bleeds on its own. SMART ASS!
In D&D skeletons, slimes, oozes, and elementals are not able to be harmed by spells that target blood in a creature. I would have to assume it's because they don't have blood, especially since most of those spells are Necromancy or Conjuration spells.
@AHF The keyword is IF. Like, "If you make me a sandwich, you can have a potato". Sounds to me like he won't give you a potato unless you make im a sandwich".
Can you not find it within yourself to get off your high perch and laugh once?
@AHF The keyword is IF. Like, "If you make me a sandwich, you can have a potato". Sounds to me like he won't give you a potato unless you make im a sandwich".
Can you not find it within yourself to get off your high perch and laugh once?
Hmm... no again.
Nothing here says that I couldn't have a potato if I made something else, like a hotdog.
@Cloutier I don't know why people think it's their job to come and assert their own expertise over something. It serves no point for you and multiple other people to continually correct me with your own particular type of pseudo-intellectual scold.
There are things that really matter in this world and all you people want to do is bicker and displace other people with your childish need to be more 'smart' than the other person. You can't even laugh when somebody INVITES YOU CLEARLY to laugh.
@Ward I don't feel specially smart for mentioning something that is common knowledge. I don't find particularly funny something that is based on a clear mistake either, but I don't blame you for doing so. Finally, I'm not taking this discussion seriously, I'm just poking fun at your points with daily life examples. "But honey, if I make you a hotdog instead of a sandwich, I can still have a potato?" doesn't sound like anything heavy or hideously intellectual to me.
Please don't take offense and consider that I wanted to be light hearted just like you.
@Cloutier The smile face at the end of your teary plea of innocence does little to fill the void in my heart that you and multiple people on this thread have left by correcting me over my apparent lack of A|\|gl_i$l-l instead of rotfling.
I begrudgingly forgive you though. I will meet you half way and make you a sandwich with a weiner in it.
So....I just wonder can she kill a rare or even blue steak. It still has a lot of blood right? And if she can, does it mean that she can kill someone twice? Because steak have been killed allready?
So....I just wonder can she kill a rare or even blue steak. It still has a lot of blood right? And if she can, does it mean that she can kill someone twice? Because steak have been killed allready?
This reminds me of a time the halfling cleric in a P&P party I was in decided to get revenge on the party's dwarf warrior who had been bothering her by casting an animate dead spell on the boar he was eating during dinner. Fun dinner that one, the screams of the patrons running away from the zombie boar, escaping the city without being arrested, fun times
@AHF The keyword is IF. Like, "If you make me a sandwich, you can have a potato". Sounds to me like he won't give you a potato unless you make im a sandwich".
Can you not find it within yourself to get off your high perch and laugh once?
I actually did laugh at the thread. I wasn't trying to be an a** - just wanted to defend Shar-Teel's natural killing instincts. If I ran into an Iron Golem, for example, I like her odds of bashing it into something resembling a garbage can a lot more than Khalid or Kivan, etc.
After I made the original point, I have been arguing the coherence of my original statement against the idea that I made a gaffe in my description of the basic logic. I can sound like I am on high perch in that situation probably more than I should - at least on the internet without the context of a laugh and smile as in a face-to-face conversation!
I can sound like I am on high perch in that situation probably more than I should - at least on the internet without the context of a laugh and smile as in a face-to-face conversation!
The Internet can be a harsh place indeed, I don't recommend using it..
Comments
If it doesn't bleed we can use duct tape and explosives and kill it Mythbusters style, which come to think of it is more fun.
*But I can kill other things.
Rearranging words can produce a different meaning, of course. If you say:
*Only wyrms have wings.
That has a different meaning from a different arrangement of the same words:
*Wings only have wyrms.
Just stick to the original language without rearranging things, and you'll see the if/then logic doesn't in any way limit her ability to kill non-bleedy things.
Plus I have hard evidence that Shar-Teel crushes pretty much everything she sets her mind to (other than Tiax and the PC).
"If it bleeds, I can kill it" implies that unless it bleeds, she can't kill it.
Alternatively also "I can kill it, if it bleeds" can imply the opposite.
Both are interchangeable and so I guess what she can kill is decided by who reads the sentence.
Not a big deal.
Just look at the truth table here and it may help you understand the fact that the statement in no way implies she can't kill things that don't bleed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Material_conditional
Bottomline:
If it bleeds, I can kill it logically means:
If I can't kill it, it doesn't bleed.
It does not mean:
If it doesn't bleed, I can't kill it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition_(logic)
Can you not find it within yourself to get off your high perch and laugh once?
Nothing here says that I couldn't have a potato if I made something else, like a hotdog.
Logic often does not contradict natural language expectations.
There are things that really matter in this world and all you people want to do is bicker and displace other people with your childish need to be more 'smart' than the other person. You can't even laugh when somebody INVITES YOU CLEARLY to laugh.
Just be cool.
Please don't take offense and consider that I wanted to be light hearted just like you.
I begrudgingly forgive you though. I will meet you half way and make you a sandwich with a weiner in it.
And if she can, does it mean that she can kill someone twice?
Because steak have been killed allready?
After I made the original point, I have been arguing the coherence of my original statement against the idea that I made a gaffe in my description of the basic logic. I can sound like I am on high perch in that situation probably more than I should - at least on the internet without the context of a laugh and smile as in a face-to-face conversation!