Azira
Arcane
Well, yeah, why not? He's not one of the harem. I'm cool with a bit of "moderate physical pressure" to see what Fu Xia knows.
C
C
Er, what I was pointing out there is that we have evidence that Jiang Zheng could not have committed but Fu Xia was capable of. The first one pins Fu Xia to Xiaofang, the 2nd points out that the same person who did in Xiaofang did in Du Yao (so following the first one, it pins Fu Xia to Du Yao), the 3rd one just points out evidence that Jiang Zheng couldn't've done it while Fu Xia would have done this if he killed Du Yao. We all know we're lacking hard evidence (or the case would've already been solved), but the signs right now say "Fu Xia could've done all of this" and paint a highly plausible narrative. Xiaofang is the sticking point that singles out Fu Xia in particular.To be fair, of your three points, only 1 could point to Fu Xia. We know that Jiang Zheng isn't the killer anyways, so that's got nothing to do with Fu Xia. Also, his dislike of eunuchs is hardly incriminating - nobody seems to like eunuchs. If our personal experiences are anything to go by, they're mostly a bunch of cunts. Really, the possibility does remain that he's just an idiot who is a terrible detective. If that's the case, we've thrown an innocent man under the bus, which is exactly what you were hoping to avoid anyways.
Do you know of the Hempel's Ravens paradox? It stems from the logical equivalency of these two statements:To be fair, of your three points, only 1 could point to Fu Xia. We know that Jiang Zheng isn't the killer anyways, so that's got nothing to do with Fu Xia.
`I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
Ok, let's assume we have a priori knowledge that ravens exist (which is unnecessary for any statement about all ravens to be true) and that they have a color.Absinthe said:Then we can conclude that all ravens are black, so long as we know ravens exist, ravens have a color, and everything that is not black is not a raven.
Ok, but then you have to admit that an observation of a green apple also equally supports the theories of all ravens being yellow or blue. So the statement seem to confirm the theories that are mutually exclusive with each other. Reason that one out.Absinthe said:It's a damn roundabout way of proving something, but every so often proofs have to work by disproving everything other than the possible scenario.
I blame Xuezi for eating the witness before we could obtain its testimony.Stop wasting time guys, the duck did it.
Nope, (1) stays true. If ravens do not exist, any statement that concerns all of them is true. It is a case of a vacuous truth.Absinthe said:Actually this breaks up Hempel's Paradox as we can disprove logical equivalence by examining "ravens do not exist." If we prove "ravens do not exist" then we simultaneously prove (2) "all things that are not black are not ravens" and disprove (1) "all ravens are black."
Yes. You prove that ravens are black by searching for non-black ravens and finding none. You can either do this by checking the set of "everything that is a raven" and searching for a non-black or you can check the set of "everything that is not black" and search for a raven. Either way, by failing to find any non-black ravens (and assuming a priori knowledge that ravens exist) we find that ravens must be black, because they can't be anything else.Ok, let's assume we have a priori knowledge that ravens exist and they have a color.
You still have the fact that an observation of a green apple supports the theory of all ravens being black. That's fine by you?
There's nothing to reason out. You're correct. A green apple would also support the theory that all ravens are blue or yellow.Ok, but then you have to admit that an observation of a green apple also equally supports the theories of all ravens being yellow or blue. So the statement seem to confirm the theories that are mutually exclusive with each other. Reason that one out.
Vacuous truths are inconclusive. Yes, you can say "All ravens are black" but I can also say that "all ravens are blue" for this empty set because we are no longer looking inside the set of "things that exist" which we were when analyzing (2). Restricting ourselves to "things that exist," when "ravens do not exist," we can say there "all things that are not black are not ravens" and we can also say "there are no black ravens" (but I'm not sure if that helps us describe the empty set of ravens).Nope, (1) stays true. If ravens do not exist, any statement that concerns all of them is true. It is a case of a vacuous truth.
He doesn't care who gets the blame for this, so long as it's not him and he will be blamed if he can't produce a convincing scapegoat. B would be a tough sell even if we had 9 CHARISMA instead of our measly 7 with a speech skill of 6 (which are probably about the same stats as your average highschool debate team captain...if not less).“Perhaps the city simply is too insecure, allowing the assassin to escape,” says the garrison commander. “But I can see the appeal of obtaining a confession, in the absence of any other possible suspect.”
And is this guy full of awesome or what?Pang Xiaohu offers no insight, sharpening his axes in boredom.
Are we going to get ambushed, tied up and whipped before getting raped by her in the near future?“What?” Yunzi shoots up, slamming her palms on the table in surprise and attracting some looks from the nearby tables. Her fake beard almost drops off, and as she frantically readjusts it, you gesture at her to be more quiet and to sit down. Her expression continually changes as she tries to get to grips with the situation. “I… is he really… You’re lying, aren’t you?”
“We need proof, Holy Maiden. Let me contact Vahista at the Temple,” whispers Armaiti.
Without saying another word, you show Yunzi and Armaiti the ember – the small spark that the Flame had left within you. That finally convinces them.
Yunzi takes a deep breath, a vacant look in her eyes. “If that is the case, then… but… what if…” mumbles the girl unintelligibly, “…that means you are… and I have to… with you…” Life returns to her gaze, and together with it a very obvious blush as blood rushes to her head, the realization of her current circumstances striking home. “Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.” Letting out an awkward laugh, Yunzi stands up rigidly, knocking over a few dishes as she does so. “T-t-t-this is a bad joke, isn’t it?”
“Wait-“ Armaiti reaches out, but Yunzi has already run out of the restaurant, screaming. Turning to you, she gives you a quick, apologetic bow before going after her mistress.
You guess she won’t be helping you out after all; it looks like that revelation was too shocking and important for her to focus on any investigations at the moment.
I am sorry, I was not aware that capturing criminals is the responsibility of military commanders. I thought he was here to ensure Pang Xiaohu does not attempt anything.Lambchop19 said:Overthought arguments about logical fallacy from the same guy who is voting not to question the dude he agreed was probably a traitor in our midst in favor of trying to convince someone to commit career suicide in admitting he couldn't catch the criminal like he was supposed to:
We get this argument every time there is a tough task at hand. 'Oh, we can't get in the BDS. If only we had Kagemi'. 'Oh, but even with Kagemi we only have sneak at 7. If only we had 9, we could have tried to infiltrate the Fire Temple'.Lambchop19 said:B would be a tough sell even if we had 9 CHARISMA instead of our measly 7 with a speech skill of 6 (which are probably about the same stats as your average highschool debate team captain...if not less).
Then it's his fault. Hence why he wants to torture a confession out of him.“Perhaps the city simply is too insecure, allowing the assassin to escape,”
No he is not. The city is not run by him. He is accusing Du Yao's staff with that very sentence. He is replying to him:He's the garrison commander. He is responsible for the security of the city.
- Maybe we should torture him?“Perhaps a confession is in order,” continues the lieutenant.
“Perhaps the city simply is too insecure, allowing the assassin to escape,” says the garrison commander.
Uh, we did fail at sneaking into the fire temple. Ahura spotted us and tried to murder us, remember?'Oh, but even with Kagemi we only have sneak at 7. If only we had 9, we could have tried to infiltrate the Fire Temple'.
We always are just 2 points shy of being able to achieve success, and that always means that we are in for a terrible failure.
This is beginning to get old.
Baltika has the right idea about asking treave what on earth Jing will come up with.
No.Baltika has the right idea about asking treave what on earth Jing will come up with.
And here I thought you were brofisting me for the Yunzi BDSM rape. Which actually sounds kinda hot.
Still a success. People were arguing that Vairya will murder us and throw us out - and that is not exactly what happened.Absinthe said:Uh, we did fail at sneaking into the fire temple. Ahura spotted us and tried to murder us, remember?
Youxia City will do their best to stay out of this. They are not big enough of a faction to stand up to either of them.Absinthe said:But if the commander gives the finger to both Youxia City and the Bandit Kingdom by doing this (assuming we even convince him to do all this shit) then we can assume that Youxia City will join the Bandit Kingdom which means there's more than just Pang Xiaohu's dudes for the garrison to worry about.
Watch: B will result in some ridiculous megabluff by Jing, who ends up usurping all three thousand soldiers from the Commander and leading them to a glorious victory against Youxia and eventually the whole Bandit Kingdom, carving out a new realm for the Cult.Still a success. People were arguing that Vairya will murder us and throw us out - and that is not exactly what happened.Absinthe said:Uh, we did fail at sneaking into the fire temple. Ahura spotted us and tried to murder us, remember?
Failing a check does not necessarily mean that rocks will fall and everyone will die. There are quite a few of partial successes throughout the LP.