Quote from: Wrath of God on November 29, 2023, 06:01:07 AM

Quoteper·son
/ˈpərs(ə)n/
noun
noun: person; plural noun: people; plural noun: persons; noun: first person; noun: second person; noun: third person

    1.    a human being regarded as an individual.
    "the porter was the last person to see her"

Nice definition you found. The problem is I found definitions myself.
For instance this:

person (plural persons or (by suppletion) people)

1. An individual who has been granted personhood; usually a human being. [from 13th c.]
Each person is unique, both mentally and physically.
2. A character or part, as in a play; a specific kind or manifestation of individual character, whether in real life, or in literary or dramatic representation; an assumed character.
3. (Christianity) Any one of the three hypostases of the Holy Trinity: the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit.
4. Any sentient or socially intelligent being.
5. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) Someone who likes or has an affinity for (a specified thing). [from 20th c.]
Jack's always been a dog person, but I prefer cats.
6. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) A human of unspecified gender (in terms usually constructed with man or woman).
7. (in a compound noun or noun phrase) A worker in a specified function or specialty.
I was able to speak to a technical support person and get the problem solved.
8. The physical body of a being seen as distinct from the mind, character, etc. [from 14th c.]
9. (law) Any individual or formal organization with standing before the courts. [from 14th c.]
At common law a corporation or a trust is legally a person.
10. (law, euphemistic) The human genitalia; specifically, the penis.
11. (grammar) A linguistic category used to distinguish between the speaker of an utterance and those to whom or about whom they are speaking. See grammatical person. [from 14th c.]
12, (biology) A shoot or bud of a plant; a polyp or zooid of the compound Hydrozoa, Anthozoa, etc.; also, an individual, in the narrowest sense, among the higher animals[19th century].

QuoteLook, I love LotR but his poetry isn't going to change the definition.

Yes it does, because despite your utter authism in this area Geeky - dictionary definitions are not set in stone, objective rigid science.
And different dictionaries had different definitions. The one of your English teacher, or the one of dictionary you had in house in NO WAY trump accomplished philosopher like Boetius, or accomplished linguist like Tolkien. (And of course even their definitions are not really objective - because especially in philosophical/theological/abstract terms - there is no such thing.)

Congratulations, you found a lot of definitions not in use, a few that confirm what I am saying, eg: Dog Person (Do you happen to know of ANY Dog-Loving Martians?)

So you're not only wrong, you're so wrong you're in a different dimension.

Quote from: tenbones on November 29, 2023, 12:55:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on November 23, 2023, 03:09:20 PM

Quote from: tenbones on November 23, 2023, 01:13:14 PM
Look, everyone already knows we need people to stick our swords in, and whose heads demand splitting with our axes. And fantasy games need lots of them. So "evil races" exist.

They aren't going to kill themselves, boys.

Only humans can be people, because that's the definition. Other than that 1000% agreed.

Oh no, I was definitely saying that you can have human cultures in my games that deserve axes to their heads.

Some Human cultures do deserve an axe to the head, in my settings.

QuoteCongratulations, you found a lot of definitions not in use, a few that confirm what I am saying, eg: Dog Person (Do you happen to know of ANY Dog-Loving Martians?)

So you're not only wrong, you're so wrong you're in a different dimension.

No you see the point is - point I am making against your insane linguistic authism - that there is no OBJECTIVE CORRECT DEFINITION OF ABSTRACT TERMS.
And PERSON is philosophical abstract term. So screeching autistic-ally that ents are not people because MUH DICTIONARY won't help you.

Now in real world of course persons are limited to humans, angels and God, but well we're talking about fantasy, so I call bullshit on such logic.

In fact your argument of "non in use" which as usually is limited to your English teacher and your dictionary, is double ridiculous because indeed use, the usage nowadays, when disputing fantasy of course because that's specific context we dispute (after all there is no real elves and orcs) is like 99,999% against you. In all fantasy discussion all around world - there is 0 problem, ever in calling sentient, intelligent creatures of any kind - PERSONS or PEOPLE. Which is quite logical because use of Person came from philosophical/theological terms - Armchair Gamer gave excellent Boetius definition - and most fictional intelligent creatures are fullfilling conditions of traditional norm of personhood. The end.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 29, 2023, 03:17:45 PM

QuoteCongratulations, you found a lot of definitions not in use, a few that confirm what I am saying, eg: Dog Person (Do you happen to know of ANY Dog-Loving Martians?)

So you're not only wrong, you're so wrong you're in a different dimension.

No you see the point is - point I am making against your insane linguistic authism - that there is no OBJECTIVE CORRECT DEFINITION OF ABSTRACT TERMS.
And PERSON is philosophical abstract term. So screeching autistic-ally that ents are not people because MUH DICTIONARY won't help you.

Now in real world of course persons are limited to humans, angels and God, but well we're talking about fantasy, so I call bullshit on such logic.

In fact your argument of "non in use" which as usually is limited to your English teacher and your dictionary, is double ridiculous because indeed use, the usage nowadays, when disputing fantasy of course because that's specific context we dispute (after all there is no real elves and orcs) is like 99,999% against you. In all fantasy discussion all around world - there is 0 problem, ever in calling sentient, intelligent creatures of any kind - PERSONS or PEOPLE. Which is quite logical because use of Person came from philosophical/theological terms - Armchair Gamer gave excellent Boetius definition - and most fictional intelligent creatures are fullfilling conditions of traditional norm of personhood. The end.

Thing is, with philosophy you can twist things until EVERYTHING is subjective.

But language, to be the tool we use to communicate with, needs ACTUAL definitions.

As for your Ad Populum, well, that's just a logical fallacy.

QuoteThing is, with philosophy you can twist things until EVERYTHING is subjective.

Kinda, but not exactly. Reality is objective. Language is not. Language is based on custom and usage - if it was objective then your jab that some meanings I quoted being outdated would be obviously false - because what's once objective, is always objective.

QuoteBut language, to be the tool we use to communicate with, needs ACTUAL definitions.

No i does not. I mean maybe for aspies, but thanks Lord you are small minority of people. Most languages across untold millenia never were based on ACTUAL DEFINITIONS. They were based on common usage, intuition, and generally social abilities and desire of people to communicate.

And if you want strict definitions - then honestly considering term PERSON is derived from philosophical jargon of Catholic Church - then the closest to OBJECTIVE definition of personhood gonna be Boetius definition quoted by Armchair.

QuoteAs for your Ad Populum, well, that's just a logical fallacy.

No it's not when we talk about language, because language is created ad populum. It's born from usage of people, not from some uni intellectualists trying to define things. Not from dictionary writers. From USAGE. That's why it change, sometimes in directions we do not like, and yet never in history change stopped. So good luck with objective definitions bro.

PS. Also because person has such muddled meaning we have two plurals: persons and people - used in different contexts. Fun!

My favorite part of this thread is the guy who can barely speak English trying to lecture us about language

Well if this jab was directed at Geeky, then he is just aspie.
If it was directed at me, then indeed I can get really clunky with this unholy French-German hybrid jargon, nevertheless things disputed here does not rely on my linguistic abilities whatsoever.

At least it was discussion, something you are clearly unable to understand, as proven by basically every post you've made on this boards so far.

Something that really bugs me about this, specific to RTS video games.

I want to play evil campaigns in RTS. Something like Destroy All Humans! but with armies. If I'm playing a brutal war simulator, then I might as well embrace the brutality in all its naked horrific glory.

Unfortunately, I run into two problems here.

Firstly, there aren't many evil campaigns and they all suck ass. In warcraft you play as a disposable patsy for some demons. In starcraft you play a psycho succubus with boyfriend issues. Blegh! I want cool villains, not stupid ones. The writers are incompetent and it's obvious their heart isn't really in it.

Secondly, RTS writers and players keep telling me they want everyone to be good guys. So they give the orcs, demons, space bugs, etc redemption stories so now they're good guys who sing kumbaya and rescue kittens from trees. It's stupid and I hate it.

RTS stories suck since video game stories in general mostly suck, but it's especially bad regarding evil campaigns and evil races.

Warcraft is widely considered the best RTS story ever, but it's mediocre at best. The writing is clumsy and incompetent, not surprisingly because the writer had no experience writing before. He later went on to write Starcraft and we all know how terrible that story is. People today still tell me how amazing they think it is. It's like listening to Twilight fans gush about how hot the creepy stalker Edward is and just as cringy.

Note that when I say "evil" I'm using it as a shorthand for "doesn't give a flying fuck what a goody two shoes thinks," not cartoon villains who carry literal villain cards and constantly talk about how evil they are.

Warhammer Fantasy & 40,000 are the only RTS settings that don't suck and don't try to be bland and inoffensive like the above examples, but that hasn't had a decent RTS since 2005.

Quote from: Wrath of God on November 29, 2023, 09:39:18 PM

QuoteThing is, with philosophy you can twist things until EVERYTHING is subjective.

Kinda, but not exactly. Reality is objective. Language is not. Language is based on custom and usage - if it was objective then your jab that some meanings I quoted being outdated would be obviously false - because what's once objective, is always objective.

QuoteBut language, to be the tool we use to communicate with, needs ACTUAL definitions.

No i does not. I mean maybe for aspies, but thanks Lord you are small minority of people. Most languages across untold millenia never were based on ACTUAL DEFINITIONS. They were based on common usage, intuition, and generally social abilities and desire of people to communicate.

And if you want strict definitions - then honestly considering term PERSON is derived from philosophical jargon of Catholic Church - then the closest to OBJECTIVE definition of personhood gonna be Boetius definition quoted by Armchair.

QuoteAs for your Ad Populum, well, that's just a logical fallacy.

No it's not when we talk about language, because language is created ad populum. It's born from usage of people, not from some uni intellectualists trying to define things. Not from dictionary writers. From USAGE. That's why it change, sometimes in directions we do not like, and yet never in history change stopped. So good luck with objective definitions bro.

PS. Also because person has such muddled meaning we have two plurals: persons and people - used in different contexts. Fun!

From where does a dictionary (used to) take the definitions/meanings of a word?

After you answer that, go back and read the definitions of: Person and People.

Have fun.

I agree on one thing: Domina is just a Troll.

I am good, thus everything and everyone different to me is evil.

There, I'm glad I could clear this up for people.

Why should I care about some random stranger's opinion of how I should run a campaign in which he will never participate?

Quote from: Wrath of God on December 09, 2023, 08:06:27 PM
Well if this jab was directed at Geeky, then he is just aspie.
If it was directed at me, then indeed I can get really clunky with this unholy French-German hybrid jargon, nevertheless things disputed here does not rely on my linguistic abilities whatsoever.

At least it was discussion, something you are clearly unable to understand, as proven by basically every post you've made on this boards so far.

No, your ability to communicate definitely does depend on your ability to use the language you're writing or speaking in.