RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Aaron · **09-10-2015, 08:10 PM**

No, I'm pointing out how that phrase is a fallacy and leads to confusion.

If everyone is so skilled no one is skilled -> means everyone is still normal so that defeats the purpose of asking what is too skilled for a character.

Being too skilled is something the masses cannot possess as it refers to something a singular entity posses (hence "too" skilled). If they do it's no longer too skilled but the average. The entire population can not be too skilled at something and still be equal.

Here I'll post an example.

Tim and Jimmy are both normal people with basic knowledge of sword fighting. Dave comes in and beats both Tim and Jim at the same time. Dave is too skilled for Tim and Jimmy.

Now Tim and Jimmy catch up and can stalemate Dave one on one. Now nobody is skilled right? Incorrect because here comes Tommy who beats all three now equally skilled people in a sword fight.

Being too skilled is like a ladder. There's no such thing as everyone being equal in skill at one point in time, because there's always a way or person who can andhas surpassed that cap.

It's like comparing the stuff in DBZ to anime in general, and then tossing Superman in the mix aka the famous (and painfully one sided) Superman vs Goku . It's a fallacy.

Aaron · **09-10-2015, 08:23 PM**

For reference if all this sounds circular (which I'm pretty sure it does)

If everyone is skilled, no one is skilled falls under the "Heroes All" category of fallacies. Which yes, there are fallacy categories.

Oli! · **09-10-2015, 08:26 PM**

(09-10-2015, 08:23 PM)Aaron Wrote: For reference if all this sounds circular (which I'm pretty sure it does)

If everyone is skilled, no one is skilled falls under the "Heroes All" category of fallacies. Which yes, there are fallacy categories.

The Heroes, All fallacy is actually just a form of this statement that is constructed in order to argue against the opposite of what this statement says.

"Heroes AllÂ (also Everybody's a Winner). A contemporary fallacy that everyone is above average or extraordinary. A corrupted argument from pathos (not wanting anyone to lose or to feel bad). Thus, every member of the Armed Services, past or present, is a national hero, every student who competes in the Science Fair wins a ribbon or trophy, and every racer is awarded a winner's tee shirt. This corruption of the argument from pathos, much ridiculed by American comedian Garrison Keeler, ignores the fact that if everyone winsÂ nobodyÂ wins, and if everyone's a heroÂ nobody'sÂ a hero. The logical result of this fallacy is that, as author Alice Childress writes, "a hero ain't nothing but a sandwich."Â See also "Soldiers' Honor." Â The counterpart of this is the postmodern fallacy of "Hero-Busting," under which, since nobody in this world is perfect, there are not and never have been any heroes: Washington and Jefferson held slaves, Lincoln was a racist, Martin Luther King Jr. had an eye for women, the Mahatma drank his own urine (ugh!), the Pope is wrong on women's ordination, Mother Teresa was wrong on just about everything, etc., etc. "

source

If you look closely, you'll actually see the phrase we're arguing is used to define the argument itself. It's not a fallacy at all.

Oli! · **09-10-2015, 08:31 PM**

(09-10-2015, 08:10 PM)Aaron Wrote: No, I'm pointing out how that phrase is a fallacy and leads to confusion.

If everyone is so skilled no one is skilled -> means everyone is still normal so that defeats the purpose of asking what is too skilled for a character.

Being too skilled is something the masses cannot possess as it refers to something a singular entity posses (hence "too" skilled). If they do it's no longer too skilled but the average. The entire population can not be too skilled at something and still be equal.

Here I'll post an example.

Tim and Jimmy are both normal people with basic knowledge of sword fighting. Dave comes in and beats both Tim and Jim at the same time. Dave is too skilled for Tim and Jimmy.

Now Tim and Jimmy catch up and can stalemate Dave one on one. Now nobody is skilled right? Incorrect because here comes Tommy who beats all three now equally skilled people in a sword fight.

Being too skilled is like a ladder. There's no such thing as everyone being equal in skill at one point in time, because there's always a way or person who can andhas surpassed that cap.

It's like comparing the stuff in DBZ to anime in general, and then tossing Superman in the mix aka the famous (and painfully one sided) Superman vs Goku . It's a fallacy.

This is all irrelevant, because the argument itself does not address this situation. It addresses that if Dave, Tim, and Jimmy are the only people in the universe, Dave is better, and then Tim and Jimmy attain his exact level of mastery, then everyone is therefore just as skilled as Dave was, and therefore no one is more skilled than anyone else, meaning that any notion of High Skill becomes impossible because there is no comparison.

Aaron · **09-10-2015, 08:34 PM**

A fallacy isÂ a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid..

So, to put it as simple as I can. In order for "everyone is too skilled so no one is skilled" to be a true factual statement, everyone on the planet would have to be an exact copy of one singular entity.

There's like how many extremely skilled artists in existence for example, yet how many actually get turned into legendary artists? Very few, because even though yeah there's plenty of skilled artists past and present, those that were made Legends had a particular skillset that set them above the rest.

So if everyone is special no one is special is true, what makes Leonardo da Vinci more skilled than any other artist on this forum? What makes Drake get crowds bumping that another equally apparently skilled rapper can't do?

Oli! · **09-10-2015, 08:44 PM**

(09-10-2015, 08:34 PM)Aaron Wrote: A fallacy isÂ a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid..

So, to put it as simple as I can. In order for "everyone is too skilled so no one is skilled" to be a true factual statement, everyone on the planet would have to be an exact copy of one singular entity.

There's like how many extremely skilled artists in existence for example, yet how many actually get turned into legendary artists? Very few, because even though yeah there's plenty of skilled artists past and present, those that were made Legends had a particular skillset that set them above the rest.

So if everyone is special no one is special is true, what makes Leonardo da Vinci more skilled than any other artist on this forum? What makes Drake get crowds bumping that another equally apparently skilled rapper can't do?

This is also irrelevant because the statement is one of logic, not of fact.

Logical statements do not have to be true when compared to a real-world situation, they merely have to be true within the confines of their stated parameter. "If everyone is <X>, no one is" does not claim to be true in a real-world situation, hence the 'if' at the beginning of the statement.

It is not saying that "this is how things work in the real world at this given time." It is saying, "assuming that everyone in the world were to be equally <Comparison-Based Parameter>, regardless of whether or not it is true, it would logically follow that <Comparison-Based Parameter> would cease to exist due to a lack of a comparison."

If logical statements had to be True when compared to the current observable state of reality, not only would the logic-based scientific speculation that got us to our point of technological advancement be "wrong," but market and political analysts, theoretical physicists, speculative mathematicians, artists and philosophers, Astro- and Xenobiologists, and just about anyone in any field that does not deal solely with what's immediately demonstrable in reality itself, would be absolutely worthless and always wrong according to that frame of thinking.

Aaron · **09-10-2015, 08:52 PM**

(09-10-2015, 08:44 PM)Â Oli! Wrote:
(09-10-2015, 08:34 PM)Aaron Wrote: A fallacy isÂ a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid..

So, to put it as simple as I can. In order for "everyone is too skilled so no one is skilled" to be a true factual statement, everyone on the planet would have to be an exact copy of one singular entity.

There's like how many extremely skilled artists in existence for example, yet how many actually get turned into legendary artists? Very few, because even though yeah there's plenty of skilled artists past and present, those that were made Legends had a particular skillset that set them above the rest.

So if everyone is special no one is special is true, what makes Leonardo da Vinci more skilled than any other artist on this forum? What makes Drake get crowds bumping that another equally apparently skilled rapper can't do?

This is also irrelevant because the statement is one of logic, not of fact.

Logical statements do not have to be true when compared to a real-world situation, they merely have to be true within the confines of their stated parameter. "If everyone is <X>, no one is" does not claim to be true in a real-world situation, hence the 'if' at the beginning of the statement.

It is not saying that "this is how things work in the real world at this given time." It is saying, "assuming that everyone in the world were to be equally <Comparison-Based Parameter>, regardless of whether or not it is true, it would logically follow that <Comparison-Based Parameter> would cease to exist due to a lack of a comparison."

For the record, I'd like to thank you for indulging my petty semantics thirst Warren denied me (That dirty Highlander scum). I feel more than sated now lol.

And ah, I see what you're getting at. The initial reason I pointed it out is because generally when I see people say that phrase it always sounds like a cop out so everyone can have people play things beneath the level the phrase user is saying. And seeing as how majority of the people on this forum love putting some skeletal aspect of realism in this game you can see how I came to that observation.

In any case I think a more appropriate term when talking confines of parameters would be "Special always to some, never special to all." Because rpers generally always want to be more more skilled than others for the most part or stand out in something. It'll impress some but it'll never impress everyone.

Which again I guess this just reverts back to your earlier statement of it being all relative. Seems I was so into this discussion I got sidetracked myself trying to keep it going lol

Oli! · **09-10-2015, 09:06 PM**

(09-10-2015, 08:52 PM)Aaron Wrote:
(09-10-2015, 08:44 PM)Â Oli! Wrote:
(09-10-2015, 08:34 PM)Aaron Wrote: A fallacy isÂ a failure in reasoning that renders an argument invalid..

So, to put it as simple as I can. In order for "everyone is too skilled so no one is skilled" to be a true factual statement, everyone on the planet would have to be an exact copy of one singular entity.

There's like how many extremely skilled artists in existence for example, yet how many actually get turned into legendary artists? Very few, because even though yeah there's plenty of skilled artists past and present, those that were made Legends had a particular skillset that set them above the rest.

So if everyone is special no one is special is true, what makes Leonardo da Vinci more skilled than any other artist on this forum? What makes Drake get crowds bumping that another equally apparently skilled rapper can't do?

This is also irrelevant because the statement is one of logic, not of fact.

Logical statements do not have to be true when compared to a real-world situation, they merely have to be true within the confines of their stated parameter. "If everyone is <X>, no one is" does not claim to be true in a real-world situation, hence the 'if' at the beginning of the statement.

It is not saying that "this is how things work in the real world at this given time." It is saying, "assuming that everyone in the world were to be equally <Comparison-Based Parameter>, regardless of whether or not it is true, it would logically follow that <Comparison-Based Parameter> would cease to exist due to a lack of a comparison."
For the record, I'd like to thank you for indulging my petty semantics thirst Warren denied me (That dirty Highlander scum). I feel more than sated now lol.

And ah, I see what you're getting at. The initial reason I pointed it out is because generally when I see people say that phrase it always sounds like a cop out so everyone can have people play things beneath the level the phrase user is saying. And seeing as how majority of the people on this forum love putting some skeletal aspect of realism in this game you can see how I came to that observation.

In any case I think a more appropriate term when talking confines of parameters would be "Special always to some, never special to all." Because rpers generally always want to be more more skilled than others for the most part or stand out in something. It'll impress some but it'll never impress everyone.

Which again I guess this just reverts back to your earlier statement of it being all relative. Seems I was so into this discussion I got sidetracked myself trying to keep it going lol

The thing is, personal takes on what people use an argument for doesn't make it a fallacy. It's still a Logically True Statement, andÂ one that happens to relate to some capacity to what someone is saying. The post where I quoted the Heroes All fallacy is perhaps the most concise highlighting of why it isn't a fallacy.

Logical Statements are like tools. Although it may be used in a certain way, when examined properly, it will remain the same, as it is self-contained and still retains its stated meaning. You can use a hammer to bash someone's head in just as readily as you can use it to build a house, but that doesn't change the fact that it is, objectively, a hammer. You can describe it as a murder weapon or a construction tool, but when pressed for details, it will be a Hammer. Similarly, you can use a logical statement for one side of an argument, or another side of an argument, but when examined, the meaning and truth of it will be intact.

And yes, this does bring us back around into Subjectivity.

(I also happen to play some dirty highlander scum.)

Warren Castille · **09-10-2015, 09:27 PM**

Nerds.

Oli! · **09-10-2015, 09:33 PM**

(09-10-2015, 09:27 PM)Warren Castille Wrote: Nerds.

[youtube]gZEdDMQZaCU[/youtube]

strident · **10-09-2015, 02:53 PM**

I personally take the route of "One field of expertise, one field where they know what they're doing but not an expert, then one or more minor talents" For my character Colson, for example, his expert skill is Conjury, his skilled but not expert field is carpentry, and his misc talents include first aid and basic cooking. He know's how to wrap a wound and cook 1 or two recipies, but he's not a master doctor or a Bismarck chef.

SicketySix · **10-09-2015, 04:57 PM**

I'm not really sure I have an answer to this.

Much as in real life, I would assume our characters could be pros at multiple things. Now sure we don't go around punching out dragons with our fists, but we still have the capability to learn well, pretty much anything we want, as long as we put in the effort.

I do not have a problem with people who are weapon masters with the spear, sword and bow. Those are skills required for war and conflict which seem to be rather abundant in FFXIV.

My rule of thumb would just be that I could make him as skilled as I wanted, as long as it didn't turn me into the God of Eorzea, and expect me to beat anyone my character would be in conflict with.

Solenne · **10-09-2015, 06:23 PM**

This is a subject I've been thinking about a lot while I've been developing Solenne. She has two very different branches of skills - conjury on the one hand, and skills associated with her background in espionage on the other. So even though most of the world knows her in her capacity as a healer, she is also proficient at lockpicking, pickpocketing, acting, and to a lesser degree, assassination. She can wield a pair of knives in combat if she has to, but it's certainly not ideal - poisoning, or creeping up behind a victim and quietly slitting their throat, would be much more her style. I don't thinkÂ that's overpowered - combat is a last resort for her since it's not her forte, and she doesn't really have any other major skills - but it is something that I've been chewing over a lot.

I have a history of creating aggressively ordinary, underpowered characters. I assumed that this gave me extra RP cred, but it backfired when I realized that I was getting bored with those characters. Solenne is my first major attempt to develop a character who is a little out of the ordinary, and I'm more enthusiastic about RPing her than I have been about any character in a long time.Â

So anyway, I think a balance is necessary. Characters need plenty of room to grow, but they also need a chance to shine. As an RPer, I want to interact with characters that are fascinating in some way, whether it's because of a diverse skill set, an unusual personality trait, or creative background story elements. I don't mind if people want to make their characters a little exceptional. Most of us aren't trying to play average citizens, after all.

Zetchryn · **10-09-2015, 06:35 PM**

I stick to something I've seen true in a lot of people. The P+H+D category.

What is your profession?

What is your hobby?

What is your dream?

People who choose a lifelong profession or vocation are, generally, quite skilled at it. In this example, we'll use my character Rhaya, who is a businesswoman. She is a skilled trader, specifically a manager and broker for a team of crafters, and while she's not the best in the world, it's how she puts food on the table.

Her hobby is music. Not like a bard, per se, but she knows how to play the piano quite well, and can play the violin passably. As this is something she enjoys doing, she practices it whenever she gets a chance, as it is what she does to relax.

Her dream is to save people. Specifically, to heal people. Her natural inclinations towards a conjurer help with that, and as it is her dream, she fervently seeks out more knowledge to this. If she became a powerful enough conjurer, she might drop her profession for her dream.

She has weaknesses, of course, but I'm not a fan of the whole idea of someone min/maxing, as it were, saying that BECAUSE they're flawed in x and y, then they're really good at z.

Now, some people might have overlap in those three fields, which is fine. But that's the formula I've found to work.

Kellach Woods · **10-10-2015, 09:09 AM**

I just do what I want.

And what I want is to be a bumbling fool with flashes of brilliance.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (6): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »

When is a character too skilled?

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes