Posted by Lortaen on December 30, 2000 at 09:25:58:
In Reply to: Alright so posted by Imbrogno(VIP) on December 30, 2000 at 08:43:32:
> Why won't ragers wear a camouflage cloak? It's invisible they say, but it's quite obviously because of the camouflage. It's not so obvious that it's invisible because of camouflage. You could interpret it that way, but I don't see any reason you have to. You could say that if it were camouflage, it would actually be camouflage not invis (even though it's not a possibility with the current code, to my knowledge). And if it's called a camouflage cloak because it helps you camouflage, it should be completely visible until worn and used in the forest for that purpose. > And surely the medicinal properties of vitamins and other pills such as those that cure poisons and diseases must also not be magical. We have pills for curing diseases and neutralizing poisons in real life, surely they're not magical. And advancements in real life medicine have, at various times in history, been thought to be magic. Plants seem natural, pills have to be made, and I find it totally reasonable to believe that they were made into their current form using magic - pills of anti-toxin aren't naturally occuring in that form. > All I'm saying is that nothing can be explained as being magic or not magic except the spells themselves unless you resort to game mechanics. And I see perfectly logical explanations that can be used in these cases at least, to say that they are magic. You don't have to interpret them that way, but you can without using game mechanics. Though I agree there are some items were the arguments get tenuous at best.