-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
*I any not get into an argument over what Omnipotence means beyond "is infinity powerful and can do anything."
**May not point out that the existence of multiple individuals who meat that description would indicate that being unique is thus not a prerequisite for being Omnipotent.
***May not point out that if being Infinity powerful is one of the prerequisites for omnipotence and that if multiple individuals meat the definition of omnipotence than the existence of greater or lesser degrees of infinity would thus mean that some Omnipotent beings are more powerful than others.
****May not point out that I'm far from the first person to use this logic, citing decades of Cosmic Level superhero stories.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
*Unless we’re playing a Discworld campaign, I may not play a Cleric of Anoia, Goddess of Things that Get Stuck in Drawers.
**My Cleric of Anoia may not have a ladle-shaped mace.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rater202
*I any not get into an argument over what Omnipotence means beyond "is infinity powerful and can do anything."
**May not point out that the existence of multiple individuals who meat that description would indicate that being unique is thus not a prerequisite for being Omnipotent.
***May not point out that if being Infinity powerful is one of the prerequisites for omnipotence and that if multiple individuals meat the definition of omnipotence than the existence of greater or lesser degrees of infinity would thus mean that some Omnipotent beings are more powerful than others.
****May not point out that I'm far from the first person to use this logic, citing decades of Cosmic Level superhero stories.
***** May not postulate that if supposedly omnipotent beings can be lesser or greater in power, then perhaps omnipotence itself is a relative concept with no actual objective existence.
****** Sufficiently advanced power is not indistinguishable from omnipotence
******* someone is not insufficiently powerful if distinguishable from omnipotence
******** any power, no matter how weak is not omnipotence to those who don't understand it.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
* may not have a Samsaran whose Mystic Past Life was a gay headmaster sacrificed by faculty to stop an evil necromancer
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rater202
*I any not get into an argument over what Omnipotence means beyond "is infinity powerful and can do anything."
**May not point out that the existence of multiple individuals who meat that description would indicate that being unique is thus not a prerequisite for being Omnipotent.
***May not point out that if being Infinity powerful is one of the prerequisites for omnipotence and that if multiple individuals meat the definition of omnipotence than the existence of greater or lesser degrees of infinity would thus mean that some Omnipotent beings are more powerful than others.
****May not point out that I'm far from the first person to use this logic, citing decades of Cosmic Level superhero stories.
*****May not point that due to the definition of omnipotence that if there is multiple omnipotent people they can not oppose each other because then it would mean one of them was not omnipotent in the first place thus meaning that most "omnipotent" people in superheroes stories are not omnipotent in their story.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
*I may no longer tell people that facts don't give a damn about their feelings.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
*Any plan that begins with the phrase “When the smoke from the demolition charges clears enough for thermal-imaging goggles to see through” is vetoed.
*”Drawmij’s Instant Summons” has nothing to do with service of process.
**Lawyers do not register on the Paladin’s Detect Evil.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Rater202
*I any not get into an argument over what Omnipotence means beyond "is infinity powerful and can do anything."
**May not point out that the existence of multiple individuals who meat that description would indicate that being unique is thus not a prerequisite for being Omnipotent.
***May not point out that if being Infinity powerful is one of the prerequisites for omnipotence and that if multiple individuals meat the definition of omnipotence than the existence of greater or lesser degrees of infinity would thus mean that some Omnipotent beings are more powerful than others.
****May not point out that I'm far from the first person to use this logic, citing decades of Cosmic Level superhero stories.
***** I may not complain when The GM may point out that in mathematics you can two sets of numbers who are both infinite yet set A is larger than set B even though both are infinite. For example: set A all natural whole numbers, set B all natural even numbers. Thus proving logically that A can be more powerful than B yet both can be omnipotent.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pauly
***** I may not complain when The GM may point out that in mathematics you can two sets of numbers who are both infinite yet set A is larger than set B even though both are infinite. For example: set A all natural whole numbers, set B all natural even numbers. Thus proving logically that A can be more powerful than B yet both can be omnipotent.
There aren’t degrees of omnipotence the way there are different sizes of infinities in math; that’s not how omnipotence is properly defined in theology/philosophy, and so attempting to apply that mathematical principle to it is mistaken.
I’m oversimplifying a bit, but the short version is: “omnipotent” is generally understood in most theology and philosophy to mean one of two things—either (A) the ability to do absolutely everything whatsoever that is not logically impossible (e.g., could not create a triangle with greater than 180° total in its interior angles, because the result would not be a triangle by definition); or (B) able to do absolutely everything whatsoever without regard to the constraints of logical possibility (e.g., could create a triangle with greater than 180° total interior angles and the result would still be a triangle, even though a triangle with interior angles adding up to more than 180° is definitionally impossible).
The debate is basically only over whether (B) is possible at all. If (B) were actually possible, (A) would not be a valid definition of “omnipotent” anymore.
Regardless of which definition, (A) or (B), applies, if there were two beings that exist, let’s call them X and Y, and Y was in any way more powerful than X, X would not be “omnipotent” by definition, because X would necessarily have some other limitation that Y does not, and thus X would not be able to do “absolutely every possible thing whatsoever.”
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
* May not use the wealth from the dungeon to hire accountants just to determine how destabalised I'm making the economy.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JAL_1138
There aren’t degrees of omnipotence the way there are different sizes of infinities in math; that’s not how omnipotence is properly defined in theology/philosophy, and so attempting to apply that mathematical principle to it is mistaken.
I’m oversimplifying a bit, but the short version is: “omnipotent” is generally understood in most theology and philosophy to mean one of two things—either (A) the ability to do absolutely everything whatsoever that is not logically impossible (e.g., could not create a triangle with greater than 180° total in its interior angles, because the result would not be a triangle by definition); or (B) able to do absolutely everything whatsoever without regard to the constraints of logical possibility (e.g., could create a triangle with greater than 180° total interior angles and the result would still be a triangle, even though a triangle with interior angles adding up to more than 180° is definitionally impossible).
The debate is basically only over whether (B) is possible at all. If (B) were actually possible, (A) would not be a valid definition of “omnipotent” anymore.
Regardless of which definition, (A) or (B), applies, if there were two beings that exist, let’s call them X and Y, and Y was in any way more powerful than X, X would not be “omnipotent” by definition, because X would necessarily have some other limitation that Y does not, and thus X would not be able to do “absolutely every possible thing whatsoever.”
The reason why you can not have an omnipotent being wanting to defeat an omnipotent being and be unable to do so instantly is that it would mean the former was not omnipotent.
And if an Omnipotent being wanted to defeat a second omnipotent being and succeeded it would mean that the latter either was in agreement with being defeated(and so it was not a real defeat) or was not omnipotent since else the latter would have been able to know the other was going to try to defeat him and would have been able to prevent that.
So each time there is conflict between two omnipotent beings we can conclude at least one of them was not omnipotent.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JAL_1138
(A) the ability to do absolutely everything whatsoever that is not logically impossible (e.g., could not create a triangle with greater than 180° total in its interior angles, because the result would not be a triangle by definition); or (B) able to do absolutely everything whatsoever without regard to the constraints of logical possibility (e.g., could create a triangle with greater than 180° total interior angles and the result would still be a triangle, even though a triangle with interior angles adding up to more than 180° is definitionally impossible).
The debate is basically only over whether (B) is possible at all. If (B) were actually possible, (A) would not be a valid definition of “omnipotent” anymore.
Actually, B is possible, just not on a plane. We can do it with a sphere with ease (North Pole, 1 mile South, 1 mile West, 1 mile North is 270 degree triangle
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noob
The reason why you can not have an omnipotent being wanting to defeat an omnipotent being and be unable to do so instantly is that it would mean the former was not omnipotent.
And if an Omnipotent being wanted to defeat a second omnipotent being and succeeded it would mean that the latter either was in agreement with being defeated(and so it was not a real defeat) or was not omnipotent since else the latter would have been able to know the other was going to try to defeat him and would have been able to prevent that.
So each time there is conflict between two omnipotent beings we can conclude at least one of them was not omnipotent.
Slightly conflating omnipotent with omniscient, but otherwise spot on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMS
Actually, B is possible, just not on a plane. We can do it with a sphere with ease (North Pole, 1 mile South, 1 mile West, 1 mile North is 270 degree triangle
Consider my triangle examples to have the addendum “within a Cartesian coordinate system/Euclidean geometry” then. Or ignore the examples. The example is far, far less important than the definition.
Definition (A) is “limited only by logical possibility” and definition (B) is “not even limited to the logically-possible.”
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JAL_1138
Slightly conflating omnipotent with omniscient, but otherwise spot on.
Consider my triangle examples to have the addendum “within a Cartesian coordinate system/Euclidean geometry” then. Or ignore the examples. The example is far, far less important than the definition.
Definition (A) is “limited only by logical possibility” and definition (B) is “not even limited to the logically-possible.”
If you can do everything you want then you can remember any true information of any moment so you are omniscient.
Or you can give yourself omniscience immediately.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JAL_1138
*”Drawmij’s Instant Summons” has nothing to do with service of process.
**Lawyers do not register on the Paladin’s Detect Evil.
*** Not even evil ones.
**** ESPECIALLY not evil ones.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
noob
If you can do everything you want then you can remember any true information of any moment so you are omniscient.
Or you can give yourself omniscience immediately.
Maybe. That depends on several factors, such as your epistemology, the definition of omniscience, whether the future is predetermined and/or definitively knowable, potentially including whether free will exists and how it’s defined if it does, whether causality will continue to hold true, etc., etc., so on and so forth, and depending on the answers to such considerations, whether omnipotence is constrained by limits of logical/metaphysical possibility or isn’t, among various and sundry other issues.
Omnipotence and omniscience might even be mutually incompatible with each other, depending on your definitions—if you have perfect knowledge of what will happen in the future, can you act in a manner inconsistent with that knowledge? If you can, do you truly have omniscience (because your knowledge of what would happen was wrong, because you either acted in a way you didn’t predict, or were unable to predict what your choice would be even if you knew the outcomes of all possible choices except for which one you’d choose)? If you can’t, can you be considered omnipotent (because your actions are predetermined)? Short answer: depends on your definitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sporeegg
*** Not even evil ones.
**** ESPECIALLY not evil ones.
***** ”Evil lawyer” is not redundant.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
I would like to add this to the omnipotence discussion.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JAL_1138
Maybe. That depends on several factors, such as your epistemology, the definition of omniscience, whether the future is predetermined and/or definitively knowable, potentially including whether free will exists and how it’s defined if it does, whether causality will continue to hold true, etc., etc., so on and so forth, and depending on the answers to such considerations, whether omnipotence is constrained by limits of logical/metaphysical possibility or isn’t, among various and sundry other issues.
Omnipotence and omniscience might even be mutually incompatible with each other, depending on your definitions—if you have perfect knowledge of what will happen in the future, can you act in a manner inconsistent with that knowledge? If you can, do you truly have omniscience (because your knowledge of what would happen was wrong, because you either acted in a way you didn’t predict, or were unable to predict what your choice would be even if you knew the outcomes of all possible choices except for which one you’d choose)? If you can’t, can you be considered omnipotent (because your actions are predetermined)? Short answer: depends on your definitions.
***** ”Evil lawyer” is not redundant.
Free will is not about being unpredictable it is about making choices freely.
If it was impossible to predict which way rocks falls it would not make them have free will.
Would you say "that human do not have free will because I can predict his actions" and then say "Now that I gave this human a dice and mind controlled him in always following the result of this dice I can not predict the actions of that human (because I can not predict the results of that dice) and so he do have free will"
I mean saying free will is about not being predictable would mean that you would consider some humans are lacking free will during short moments because you can over short moments have quite accurate predictions of his behavior(Example: you gave that human a hat and he is in a culture where it is considered polite to not use the gift until you left and so you know this human is not going to wear the hat until you leave).
Free will is about having choices and not about being unpredictable.
Omniscience is about knowing everything.
So it includes knowing what would be the future if you do X or Y so being able to act does not makes you less omniscient.
It also include knowing every false thing and every true thing.(which basically means it is not very informative)
And of course if you are omnipotent you can remove omniscience from yourself: you would just stop being omnipotent because you would be unable to remember everything but omnipotence never says you have to stay omnipotent.
Future do not have to be predetermined for someone to know the future: ten year later there was only one future for ten years ago so no matter which way it was obtained there was only one future for ten years ago so if we take an infinity of people and give them each a different memory of the "future" in such a way that all combination of possibility is included then necessarily one of them have the future that will be the only true future ten years later.
Unless you go around and say there was multiple pasts but did you ever see someone seriously say "past is not predetermined in fact there is multiple potential different pasts none of them being more likely than the others" even through it is symmetrical it is much rarer to see people truly believing the latter than seeing people believing the former.
If you say free will is the ability to foil omniscience then there is no omniscience in the first place if someone have free will since omniscience is not "knowing everything unless something prevents you from knowing that thing" because else you can say every human is omniscient since with the latter you can say that "limited capacities of the brain" and "limited ability to obtain information" and "unreliability of the memory" are the things that prevents knowing stuff outside of what you know and that in fact you are omniscient with those three limitations.
Or maybe you meant "nothing ever had free will" which is something I can agree with if your definition of free will is about making choices that can not be predicted.
*Forbidden to think about phoenix wright and then turn a phoenix into a wight and send it in court to defend the accused.(and turn everyone into wights)
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Interesting as this omnipotence thing has proven, it might be worth taking to its own thread by this point.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Debatra
Interesting as this omnipotence thing has proven, it might be worth taking to its own thread by this point.
Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XIII: Don't bring up the Omnipotence Paradox
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
*champagne mud-wrestling is not a commonly practiced sport anywhere.
**i should not be surprised when i draw a crowd when i do it.
***passing popcorn to curious and/or stunned onlookers is not proof that everyone is enjoying the spectacle.
*the dm giving up and giving me a climbing speed of 4x my walking speed should not be taken as him agreeing with my concept of subtle movement.
**it is depression, not acquiessing.
***i can't complain it's arriving too late as we're going to hell next session.
*no more getting paladins drunk for any reason.
**paladins are not low-key child molestation victims.
***no more making paladins cry they want their mommy. once was twice enough.
*i can't haggle my way out of sticky situations by blaming the bard everytime. sometimes, it's the paladin's fault too.
**sometimes, albeit rarely due to my bluff check dd's, it's my fault too.
*** my name is inquisitor josyiah rosépine, aka josé. i can't just tell npc's they'll get my name as soon as my team blames me for everything.
*the proper way to summon a god is to pray hard and be devout. not start a bum-fight in expensive booze and go "hey caydin, you've got to check this dumpster fire out!"
**even though it worked. sort of.
***accidentally summoning cayden caillean's daughter while trying to summon her brother will force san checks on everyone involved. goddess included.
****apparently, even goddesses need something medicinal to drink after my shenanigans.
*brofisting pc's who finally popped their cherry? never happened.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
*The proper response to Barovia and Curse of Strahd is not “Burn it down!”
**This goes double for the human villages.
***Fire is an acceptable tool when you attack a coven of CR 5 hags at third level.
Some real life ones from a game I just played in, that will have some very strange tactics. Our group’s only melee are the 3 Rogues, meaning that we can hold our own against melee well above our weight class, if we play smart, and start out in the open.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMS
*The proper response to Barovia and Curse of Strahd is not “Burn it down!”n.
* The proper response is to shout “For Borodzo and Borovia!”
** Burning down the village occurs accidentally whilst playing “throw the old witch”.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Guizonde
*the proper way to summon a god is to pray hard and be devout. not start a bum-fight in expensive booze and go "hey caydin, you've got to check this dumpster fire out!"
**even though it worked. sort of.
***accidentally summoning cayden caillean's daughter while trying to summon her brother will force san checks on everyone involved. goddess included.
****apparently, even goddesses need something medicinal to drink after my shenanigans.
* May not point out Cayden is such a bro name. It ruins the mystical mood.
** Not even when it is entirely fitting to the personality of said god.
*** Cayden's daughter might just be his son in drag, think about it.
I hope I didn't just ruin your joke.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
*There is more to Bardic magic than Counterspell and Swift Quiver.
**Those aren’t even on the bard spell list!
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sporeegg
* May not point out Cayden is such a bro name. It ruins the mystical mood.
** Not even when it is entirely fitting to the personality of said god.
*** Cayden's daughter might just be his son in drag, think about it.
I hope I didn't just ruin your joke.
Who's Cayden...?
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
danielxcutter
Who's Cayden...?
PF’s CG deity of freedom, revelry and drinking - So, Yes, god of frat boys.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sporeegg
* May not point out Cayden is such a bro name. It ruins the mystical mood.
** Not even when it is entirely fitting to the personality of said god.
*** Cayden's daughter might just be his son in drag, think about it.
I hope I didn't just ruin your joke.
no you didn't ruin the joke, basically we're in a campaign where the gods are dying off. cayden caillean desperately created tais and caydin his daughter and son, and my merry band ended up worshipping both of them equally as cayden caillean finally died off.
and knowing cayden's son, yeah, he'd totally do that drag routine.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
* I may no longer have the chaos marine molasses smuggler call the cops when the PCs try to hijack his spelljammer while docked in Sigil.
* I must put the wolf-shaped werewolf in the pound when he bluffs the police. I am not allowed to sell him to a dog breeder who also happens to be the NPC for his Enemy and Hunted hinderances.
* The suave, sophisticated, greater warp daemon cannot team up with the rogue secondus modron (copy/fax) to cut a deal with the cops to sell the PCs for medical experimentation.
* The medical experimentation cannot include moving the PCs brains down into their chests to make room for fake brains so that the PCs can be infiltrated into the mind flayer stronghold as exotic snacks.
-
Re: Things I May No Longer Do While Playing XII: A Thousand-Yard Stare is not Permiss
*I may no longer attempt to open a planar portal to 'Transsexual, Transylvania'
**I may no longer have my necromancer wear a corset and garter belts
***Said necromancer cannot make 'hot flesh golems'
****I may no longer reference 'rocky horror' in any way
*I may no longer nuke a town before even entering it
**Even if the dm gave us a nuke
***I also may no longer kill the main villain in disguise because I find him annoying
***Even if the gm has him turn his back and no one is watching