OOTS #1088 - The Discussion Thread

[Quibblicious]

Pretty sure the undead can't get drunk.

They can be drunk. If you liquefy them properly.

Even if he expects the unexpected?

Especially if he expects the unexepected.

After reaching level 16 or so as an adventurer, Durkon should expect The Spanish Inquisition and everything else.

But No One expects the Bardic Exposition!

So he'll probably get lectured on something....

Q

[Chei]

Calling and binding fiends requires some space.

That could be it, couldn't it. Durkula with level 8 spells? Greater Planar Ally? Why not summon a death giant straight from Hel's domain?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Why not summon a death giant straight from Hel's domain?

Because the ceiling will be too low? It wouldn't be a great ally if it is constantly suffering -4 to attack due to squeezing through corridors, not to mention what would be an abysmal movement speed.

GW

[Chei]

Because the ceiling will be too low? It wouldn't be a great ally if it is constantly suffering -4 to attack due to squeezing through corridors, not to mention what would be an abysmal movement speed.

GW

Yeah those are pretty good points. Well, I don't know enough about the undead/death-aligned bestiary to come up with better examples; I just went off what has been shown in-comic. Durkula could most likely summon the same devils that Redcloak did to crush the Resistance (or was it the Rebel Alliance?), and they operated well enough in caverns.

[Kardwill]

No problem. It also leaves the hanging question of what the "work" he's talking about is. It sounds ominous to me.

With the way they're talking about "it's done" and the fact they're parading among dead clerics like they're in conquered territory, I'm starting to think the town might have already suffered greatly from them, as in "Town in ruin, surviving populace holed up in the temple of Thor's consecrated grounds, and those dead clerics outside died buying time for the civvies to get inside and close the doors"

[GreatWyrmGold]

What he said seems reasonable to me. Durkon is dead--the thing walking around, that looks like him and sounds like him, is a corpse. Why would the brain of said corpse be working any better than the lungs, which we know from strip #982 aren't functioning?

Empirical evidence. If the soul's cognition is different than the brain's cognition, a de-brained soul (like Durkon is now) would act differently than a soul with a brain. We have seen no evidence of this, nor that Durkon's emotions are different now that his endocrine system is down. Ergo, the mind of a soul functions the same way as its mind did when it was alive.

[Peelee]

If the soul's cognition is different than the brain's cognition, a de-brained soul (like Durkon is now) would act differently than a soul with a brain. We have seen no evidence of this

Speak with Dead

[Stuff]

You grant the semblance of life and intellect to a corpse, allowing it to answer several questions that you put to it.

[Other stuff]

This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.

I would argue that this means that the brain is responding to the inquiry; a de-souled brain would act differently than a brain with a soul. Which, if that is taken to separate brain cognition from soul cognition, means that it goes both ways.

[8BitNinja]

Pretty sure the undead can't get drunk.

Also, the sky is blue and water is wet.

[factotum]

Empirical evidence. If the soul's cognition is different than the brain's cognition, a de-brained soul (like Durkon is now) would act differently than a soul with a brain. We have seen no evidence of this, nor that Durkon's emotions are different now that his endocrine system is down. Ergo, the mind of a soul functions the same way as its mind did when it was alive.

But that wasn't what you were arguing earlier? You were suggesting that Durkula might be getting the memories from Durkon's brain rather than his soul, and I suggested his brain might not actually be functioning right now--e.g. it's just the two souls in there that are doing the thinking, with no brain involved.

[goto124]

Because the ceiling will be too low? It wouldn't be a great ally if it is constantly suffering -4 to attack due to squeezing through corridors, not to mention what would be an abysmal movement speed.

The giant can crush the ceilings and walls... wait, that may end up an advantage for the Order. Back to the drawing board.

his brain might not actually be functioning right now--e.g. it's just the two souls in there that are doing the thinking, with no brain involved.

I wonder about that in every setting where souls are a thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

Also, the sky is blue and water is wet.

On some days, the sky is wet and the water is blue.

[danielxcutter]

On some days, the sky is wet and the water is blue.

Those are not mutually exclusive.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I would argue that this means that the brain is responding to the inquiry; a de-souled brain would act differently than a brain with a soul. Which, if that is taken to separate brain cognition from soul cognition, means that it goes both ways.

Alright, first off, you're taking D&D rules, asserting a specific metaphysical interpretation of them, and then asserting that OotS follows that interpretation, despite the fact that it completely ignores the rules whenever it would get in the way of what the story/humor/etc needs/wants/etc. I hope I don't have to go into more detail about why this is fallacious.
Second, even if we accept your logic both as internally consistent and germane to the discussion, it's irrelevant to the discussion. You assume that a desouled brain working differently than an ensouled brain proves that a debrained soul works differently than a brained soul, when it completely fails to touch on the workings of the soul at all. If it was the only evidence I had and I was forced to guess, I'd guess that the debrained soul probably worked differently, but that's not the same as actually proving anything.
Third, I'd argue that the corpse being unable to learn new information is less due to it not having a soul and more to it being, you know, a corpse. Dead brains with dead sensory organs don't exactly modify themselves to account for new information the way that live brains with live sensory organs do.

But that wasn't what you were arguing earlier? You were suggesting that Durkula might be getting the memories from Durkon's brain rather than his soul, and I suggested his brain might not actually be functioning right now--e.g. it's just the two souls in there that are doing the thinking, with no brain involved.

....Erm, no? I was pointing out how people IRL have memories, which involves the brain, and then other people pointed out that Durkon's brain isn't involved, therefore they can assume it has to work in whatever way they like. Which, incidentally, reminds me of a quote from the Giant:

But really, the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?

[Peelee]

Third, I'd argue that the corpse being unable to learn new information is less due to it not having a soul and more to it being, you know, a corpse. Dead brains with dead sensory organs don't exactly modify themselves to account for new information the way that live brains with live sensory organs do.

Dead brains with dead sensory organs don't exactly modify themselves to account for old information the way that live brains with live sensory organs do, either. And yet, with magic, they suddenly do. It's not like there wasn't reason to put that clause in there.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Dead brains with dead sensory organs don't exactly modify themselves to account for old information the way that live brains with live sensory organs do, either. And yet, with magic, they suddenly do. It's not like there wasn't reason to put that clause in there.

..."Modify themselves to account for old information"? They don't need to modify themselves (or use sensory organs)—that's what makes it memory and not senses.

[Peelee]

..."Modify themselves to account for old information"? They don't need to modify themselves (or use sensory organs)—that's what makes it memory and not senses.

Lungs expel air, vocal chords vibrate, mouth moves. Speak with Dead, by necessity, involves the dead in question speaking.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Lungs expel air, vocal chords vibrate, mouth moves. Speak with Dead, by necessity, involves the dead in question speaking.

And...what does this have to do with the spell also being able to read soulless brains?

(Also, what about my other points?)

[Peelee]

And...what does this have to do with the spell also being able to read soulless brains?

(Also, what about my other points?)

You said, "I'd argue that the corpse being unable to learn new information is less due to it not having a soul and more to it being, you know, a corpse. Dead brains with dead sensory organs don't exactly modify themselves to account for new information the way that live brains with live sensory organs do."

Despite that dead brains with dead sensory organs do explicitly modify themselves to account for information. Or, hell, zombies. Dead brains with dead sensory organs that explicitly modify themselves to account for new information (in a zombie's case, the guy that suddenly entered the room there is new information, and it modifies itself by moving towards and attempting to kill/eat-the-brain-of/what-have-you the guy that suddenly entered the room.

You want your other points addressed? OK.

Alright, first off, you're taking D&D rules, asserting a specific metaphysical interpretation of them, and then asserting that OotS follows that interpretation, despite the fact that it completely ignores the rules whenever it would get in the way of what the story/humor/etc needs/wants/etc. I hope I don't have to go into more detail about why this is fallacious.

I assume that OotS follows that interpretation (and by interpretation, I mean" what the rule books say as applied to what you're trying to claim") because OotS follows D&D rules until they don't. If you can prove they don't without the "they don't have to follow the rules, so I can assume they are not following the rules here, which proves they are not following the rules here," I'd be all ears to hear it.

Second, even if we accept your logic both as internally consistent and germane to the discussion, it's irrelevant to the discussion.

First off, describe how my logic is internally inconsistent.

Second off, I don't think you know what "germane" means.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Despite that dead brains with dead sensory organs do explicitly modify themselves to account for information.

Actually, they explicitly don't. What was that the SRD said?

The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.

Ah, thank you. So tell me again how the dead brain is modifying itself to account for new information?

Or, hell, zombies. Dead brains with dead sensory organs that explicitly modify themselves to account for new information (in a zombie's case, the guy that suddenly entered the room there is new information, and it modifies itself by moving towards and attempting to kill/eat-the-brain-of/what-have-you the guy that suddenly entered the room.

If it was the dead brain doing the recognition and choice-making, I would think the zombie's mental stats would be based on the living creature's instead of being universally Int -, Wis 10, Cha 1. Regardless, I'm not sure what they have to do with Speak with Dead or vampires.

I assume that OotS follows that interpretation (and by interpretation, I mean" what the rule books say as applied to what you're trying to claim")...

Let's go back to that passage.

This spell does not let you actually speak to the person (whose soul has departed). It instead draws on the imprinted knowledge stored in the corpse. The partially animated body retains the imprint of the soul that once inhabited it, and thus it can speak with all the knowledge that the creature had while alive. The corpse, however, cannot learn new information.

From this we know that the original soul isn't in the body, but an "imprint" of the soul somehow helps with getting knowledge out of it. From this, you interpreted that "the brain is responding to the inquiry," and that a de-souled brain would act differently than an ensouled brain. I'm not sure how you got the idea that that was the likeliest interpretation, let alone explicitly stated.

...because OotS follows D&D rules until they don't. If you can prove they don't without the "they don't have to follow the rules, so I can assume they are not following the rules here, which proves they are not following the rules here," I'd be all ears to hear it.

Remind me, what's your point? Recall, the original discussion was about if Durkon's memories should be how he sensed them and not how they're displayed in the comic.

First off, describe how my logic is internally inconsistent.

Second off, I don't think you know what "germane" means.

I did in the other points.
It means "relevant to the discussion," and I'm still not sure what mostly-desouled brains have to do with debrained souls.

[Peelee]

Actually, they explicitly don't. What was that the SRD said?

Ah, thank you. So tell me again how the dead brain is modifying itself to account for new information?

Ya know what? It's ok. We can work through this slowly, if it helps you.

I claim that the SRD says that dead brains with dead sensory organs do explicitly modify themselves to account for information. You claim that the SRD says that dead brains with dead sensory organs cannot learn new information. Which is completely correct, and not at all what I claimed. I fully agree with this. I never disagreed with this. Find a place where I say, "corpses can totally learn new information," and I'll be pretty damned impressed and apologize.

You claimed that dead organs didn't modify themselves. I countered that, for the spell to work, they clearly did (eg. mouth moving, lungs expelling air, etc).

From this we know that the original soul isn't in the body, but an "imprint" of the soul somehow helps with getting knowledge out of it. From this, you interpreted that "the brain is responding to the inquiry," and that a de-souled brain would act differently than an ensouled brain. I'm not sure how you got the idea that that was the likeliest interpretation, let alone explicitly stated.

You cannot speak to the person, but you can get information the person knew, which is imprinted on the body. This sounds an awful lot like "you can't talk to the soul, but you can pick its brain."

It means "relevant to the discussion,"

Great! Now, do you realize the silliness of you saying, "if we assume that your logic is relevant to the discussion, then it's not relevant to the discussion?" Because if not, I can always try to explain it.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Ya know what? It's ok. We can work through this slowly, if it helps you.

I claim that the SRD says that dead brains with dead sensory organs do explicitly modify themselves to account for information. You claim that the SRD says that dead brains with dead sensory organs cannot learn new information. Which is completely correct, and not at all what I claimed. I fully agree with this. I never disagreed with this. Find a place where I say, "corpses can totally learn new information," and I'll be pretty damned impressed and apologize.

You claimed that dead organs didn't modify themselves. I countered that, for the spell to work, they clearly did (eg. mouth moving, lungs expelling air, etc).

That's...that's not "modifying themselves," that's "being moved by magic". I have several questions about why you phrased it the way you did and continued to do so up until this point, but if you're trying to equate "magically reanimating someone so they can talk" with "the brain can do stuff," I don't see any reason to continue this discussion. Your claims aren't worth it.