Magic vs. Essense, in character creation Options

[deek]

I just read a page and a have of posts regarding one poster "adding to his pile of evidence" on whether another poster quoted RAW verbatim.

Wow, it must be the holidays:)

[Mr. Unpronouncea...]

Yeesh...

I know it's not the pure mechanics, but from a character point of view:

(With the exception of latent awakening) you either are, or are not, a mage at birth, possibly even earlier...

Now...when did you get that cyber implanted?

[Morrigana]

And time is never mentioned within the context of this quote. It simply states the consequences of Essense below 6. There is no timing issues within the rule itself, you added them in when you reworded it.

Except the way it's worded, the loss is instaneous and permanent; that isn't a timing issue, but simply a case that the loss simply is. The idea it's also a one-time loss is also from how it's worded. Here, let me show you (using the expanded rule you posted):

For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.

Nothing there says it will be accounted for when they gain the magical quality; only that it is as essense is lowered. The issue itself comes from the words. Both "loses" and "is" are in the present tense; that, by the very nature of it, indicates something happening at current, not something that will happen. It also isn't indicating that these are items that happen all of the time, but merely something that happens now. Not the lack of terms that indicate it happens all of the time, such as words like "always." That's not something I'm adding to the rule itself, but something that was already there to begin with.

As I have stated, that is an admission that timing does not matter. There is, therefore, no addition at all since it is the literal interpretation of the rule. The rule never does mentions when Essense is lost. Just that that Essense is lost; if Essense less than 6, Magic is reduced by said amount. Not when Essense is lost, Magic is reduced by said amount.

Except that is adding a future timing event that the rule itself does not have. Nothing within it indicates this is an event that happens in the future, when you finally gain magical abilities. It indicates this happens now, at the time you lose the essense, and nothing about the wording makes this an event that is temporary or dependent upon whether or not an event comes true. In fact, there's only two dependency clauses. Here they are:

Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes

For each point or partial point of Essense below 6,

Neither of those is indicative or whether or not a character gains a Magic or Resonance attribute; they only deal with those who already have one. Your comment about it applying when they gain one is adding the idea that the rule should be worded like this in the first dependency clause related to magic:

Characters who have or will gain Magic or Resonance attributes

And while I agree that it should have been worded that way, I also must point out that it's not actually worded that way. Nothing within the wording deals with whether or not a person gains the attribute after the essense loss or that it will apply when they do.

As for the points being lost immediately? There's evidence for that as well. Let's look:

Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essense lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1.

Loses. Are subject. Not will lose. Not will be subject. Not always loses. Not always are subject. Not might lose. Not might be subject.

Where does it indicate, and I mean actually indicate instead of being interpreted to indicate, that any part of this will come about when someone gains their magical abilities? It doesn't. It indicates a loss that happened immediately when the essense loss happened.

The only question that remains, and this is a question that the rule does not answer, is if someone has to pay for the lost points. That question is answered by Magus's post.

Seeing that you have ceded the grounds, then it remains that you have not posted the rule to my strict standards. Indeed, in your links, all you have done is post your own interpretations, several partial quoting of the rule itself, and several quotes taken out of context and with their meaning changed entirely. There is no evidence in those posts that I will consider evidence at all, hence the bolded parts are proven.

In other words, you're tossing out evidence you don't like simply because it doesn't fit your conclusions. Didn't you accuse me of doing that earlier?

And, honestly, I think I've more than proven the strict standards to which I have limited myself in dealing with a literal interpretation of the rule. You have not; you've been adding actions, clauses, and dependencies to it which simply don't exist in the wording and couldn't be supported by the wording itself. And I've already proven that, in that evidence you don't like simply because it makes your argument look bad.

I claimed to have posted the rule and what I defined as posting of the rule. But I concede the point that I have not posted the rule to your standards previously. I have, however, proven that I have posted the rule, to my own earlier standards as well as later standards in view of your own.

At the time of the accusation itself, you had not actually posted it. Whether or not you posted it later and your attempts at wordplay to make it seem like you have ground to stand on do not matter; you claimed to have posted it verbatim and have been proven to have not. Whether or not you wish to redefine the meaning of "verbatim" to suit your own needs also does not matter. What matters is whether or not you did, and we both have proven you did not.

I'm going to offer you a chance to agree to disagree and we both walk away. I don't have to; at this point, I've just begun to prepare my argument. But, others are getting tired of it, I don't think you want to continue to argue this, and I know it would be nice to get back to entirely the lighter hearted posting I prefer to do. If you agree to it, even if you post a reply to what I've argued here, we'll both just walk away and let it drop. If not, then we continue.

[Mäx]

Neither of those is indicative or whether or not a character gains a Magic or Resonance attribute; they only deal with those who already have one. Your comment about it applying when they gain one is adding the idea that the rule should be worded like this in the first dependency clause related to magic:

No they do not.
Only think those sentences say is that if you have magic or reconance and your essence is less then 6, the rules that follow apply(ie. you lose magic/resonance)

[Morrigana]

No they do not.
Only think those sentences say is that if you have magic or reconance and your essence is less then 6, the rules that follow apply(ie. you lose magic/resonance)

Do you realize you just restated exactly what I had said in your reply to it? In effect, you told me it didn't say that, then turned around and restated my own comment, in a different form.

Edit: And, because I'm feeling evil at the moment:

Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essense lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. The maximum rating for Magic is 6 + initiation grade (see Initiation, p. 189); for Resonance the maximum rating is 6 + submersion grade (see Submersion, p.238).

Does it state people who already have the attributes with what I bolded? Yep. Nowhere in there does it state anything about them gaining it; "with" in this case is the same thing, in usage, as "who have" for all intents and purposes of actual meaning. There's no indication of a future event, only an indication of effects upon the present.

This post has been edited by Morrigana: Dec 24 2008, 10:53 PM

[Mäx]

Do you realize you just restated exactly what I had said in your reply to it? In effect, you told me it didn't say that, then turned around and restated my own comment, in a different form.

No i didn't.
I said that it doesn't matter if you have a magic or resonance when you lose essence, only that when you do finally have magic/resonace and your essence is less the 6, all the rules that follw those two tatements are in effeckt and the character loses a point of magic/resonance for every partial point of essence below 6.

And becouse you ninja edited:Yes you are absolutly right about it tating that it only affeck people who allready have magic/resonance it has no effeck on mundanes.
so when character gets magic/resonace you check his essence and if it's less then 6, they lose magic/resonance points.

I cannot understand where does your confusion gome from.

[Morrigana]

No i didn't.
I said that it doesn't matter if you have a magic or resonance when you lose essence, only that when you do finally have magic/resonace and your essence is less the 6, all the rules that follw those two tatements are in effeckt and the character loses a point of magic/resonance for every partial point of essence below 6.

You do know that this argument is about the literal interpretation of the RAW about essense and what it literally means and not about how it actually works and how it was intended to function, right?

Under a literal interpretation of it, there's no indication of future events, such as someone finally having a magic attribute, being effected; it's purely an effect now. It's purely what happens now. Someone who comes along later and gains a magical attribute may have to pay for the points they lost now, but the entire rule itself is written to affect the present. And as long as it remains indicative of current actions and not future ones, and interpretation of changes wrought upon the person when they gain a magic attribute are adding interpretations to the rule that are not supported by the actual wording.

[Mäx]

You do know that this argument is about the literal interpretation of the RAW about essense and what it literally means and not about how it actually works and how it was intended to function, right?

yes

Under a literal interpretation of it, there's no indication of future events, such as someone finally having a magic attribute, being effected; it's purely an effect now. It's purely what happens now. Someone who comes along later and gains a magical attribute may have to pay for the points they lost now, but the entire rule itself is written to affect the present. And as long as it remains indicative of current actions and not future ones, and interpretation of changes wrought upon the person when they gain a magic attribute are adding interpretations to the rule that are not supported by the actual wording.

And if you get your character a piece of ware and then make her a mage, then the present situation is that you have magic and your essence is les then 6. Then both conditions for magic loss are fullfilled and you lose magic.

[Morrigana]

yes

Just making sure. The argument itself is kinda fuzzy. And, from a less literal standpoint, you're exactly right; if anything, I'd argue that a pure literal interpretation of the rules itself is automatically in the wrong due to how the very rules are written. However, it's a more literal interpretation of the rules that caused the problem that started this topic, so that's what I'm working with.

And if you get your character a piece of ware and then make her a mage, then the present situation is that you have magic and your essence is les then 6. Then both conditions for magic loss are fullfilled and you lose magic.

Mmm. No argument from me. The question then becomes, do you have to pay for the lost magic points? The rule itself doesn't cover this; neither does anything else the book. However, thanks to Magus's post, we know the answer, so it cannot be argued that you can get away with not paying the points without going with a pure literal interpretation RAW stance.

[Mäx]

Mmm. No argument from me. The question then becomes, do you have to pay for the lost magic points? The rule itself doesn't cover this; neither does anything else the book. However, thanks to Magus's post, we know the answer, so it cannot be argued that you can get away with not paying the points without going with a pure literal interpretation RAW stance.

If you don't buy extra points of magic, your magic atribute is 0 or less and your a burnout.
So you have buy more points if you want to be able to use magic in game. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/cyber.gif)

[toturi]

Characters with Magic or Resonance attributes are subject to penalties if they have an Essense lower than 6. For each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. The maximum rating for Magic is 6 + initiation grade (see Initiation, p. 189); for Resonance the maximum rating is 6 + submersion grade (see Submersion, p.238).

Does the rule not apply when one has a Magic rating? Does it not apply when one has Essense less than 6? Do you not have a Magic rating and is your Essense not less than 6? Is there any time when this rule does not apply, if your Essense is less than 6 and have either Magic or Resonance? The literal interpretation of the rule is that for each point or partial point of Essense below 6, the character loses 1 full point from her Magic or Resonance and the maximum for that attribute is reduced by 1. The line preceding this rule tells us who this rule applies to. This rule applies to those with Magic or Resonance attributes.

Neither of those is indicative or whether or not a character gains a Magic or Resonance attribute; they only deal with those who already have one.

Again there is no "already". The 2 clauses you indicate only deal with those who have one. Not those who "already have one" but simply those "with Magic or Resonance". You added in the "already". I did not.

Your comment about it applying when they gain one is adding the idea that the rule should be worded like this in the first dependency clause related to magic:
Characters who have or will gain Magic or Resonance attributes

You are incorrectly interpreting my words and putting words where none has existed. At no time, have I used "characters who have or will gain Magic or Resonance", if I did, please quote these exact words, apart from this instance.

In other words, you're tossing out evidence you don't like simply because it doesn't fit your conclusions. Didn't you accuse me of doing that earlier?

I am tossing out nothing. There is nothing but your own interpretations, several partial quoting of the rule itself, and several quotes taken out of context and with their meaning changed entirely. I think I've more than proven the strict standards to which I have limited myself in dealing with a literal interpretation of the rule. You have not; you've been attributing timing and dependencies to it which simply don't exist in the wording and couldn't be supported by the wording itself. And I've already proven that, in that evidence you don't like simply because it makes your argument look bad.

At the time of the accusation itself, you had not actually posted it. Whether or not you posted it later and your attempts at wordplay to make it seem like you have ground to stand on do not matter; you claimed to have posted it verbatim and have been proven to have not. Whether or not you wish to redefine the meaning of "verbatim" to suit your own needs also does not matter. What matters is whether or not you did, and we both have proven you did not.

At the time of the accusation itself, I have posted it. What matters is I have proven that I did, while you are insisting that I did not.

And if you get your character a piece of ware and then make her a mage, then the present situation is that you have magic and your essence is les then 6. Then both conditions for magic loss are fullfilled and you lose magic.

Thanks, Max, essentially what I have been trying to say.

No argument from me.

Since you have no argument with Max's post, you'd get no argument from me. Since essentially, you are agreeing with what I am saying. I thank you for ceding the argument and will bow out gracefully.

[Morrigana]

Thanks, Max, essentially what I have been trying to say.

You know, this could have ended pages ago if it had been stated that simply (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Since you have no argument with Max's post, you'd get no argument from me. Since essentially, you are agreeing with what I am saying. I thank you for ceding the argument and will bow out gracefully.

Aye, I cede. I admit my utter defeat and must bow to the master.

Now, I have a signature addition to make...

[Fortune]

Shrug. I don't.