I am formally making the motion to instate a new argumentative fallacy...

Probably a subset of "false cause" type logical fallacy.

Are you just getting triggered because the picture is also on /pol/?

So logic doesn't matter below some ill define importance threshold? Preferably one you draw and move like you please.

Why absolve people from having to make sound arguments? What is the gain in that?
You just enable them to make more "shit tier genre fiction" or perpetuate low quality in whatever area.

RPG's are for manbabies.

Play an actual game with weight or something else where you can detach some neckbeard fantasy world from decent mechanics like Magic, chess, Android, X-Wing, etc.

Lorefags are the fucking worst

>"Uhhhhh my Aelfnard Wizard of Shaliboo uses the Rod of Namlinar to summon 1d15 Urks"

Not Op
But you are right, you are just being a dick about it. I'm not sure why you are so assmad

>Only if magic in the setting can actually do that and is actually being applied to do that. A mundane little girl lifting a mundane tree trunk will not work even in a high fantasy setting, unless the little girl has magic that allows it, the trunk has magic that allows it, or a third party has and utilizes magic that allows it.

>Herp de derp every setting ever has the same definition of "mundane"

"can't use even slightly aggressive wording or else you're perpetually assblasted. You have to talk like benign, limp wristed faggots"

-Veeky Forums

That's not a fallacy. A fallacy is when you try to pass an irrational and irrelevant argument as your point. "Magic exists" is just bad writing.

If there's some kind of extreme universal magic, that would fall under "the little girl has magic that allows it".

And to counter, most settings with magic still have mundane. In fact, they usually have a majority of mundane things that still follow the normal rules, with a small amount of magic capable things (Beings, items, places, ect) that can break some of those rules by using magic.

...

Why would an Aelfnard summon Urks? They hate Urks. Besides, by the time a Wizard of Shaliboo can actually use the Rod of Namilinar, he can probably summon something a whole lot scarier. Like a Torginog or a Dread Corzolith.

Not everything that's supernatural is magic.

If in this world, training hard enough lets a 9 yo girl lift tree trunks, and that's perfectly mundane, it's just how things are. Maybe the rules of physics are different (if they even exist in the same shape as in our world), or treetrunks are super light, or muscles are super dense, or whatever.

Being so fixated on what is and isn't magic, and what HAS to be magic just makes you look like a dullard.

You made me laugh.

Thanks Sherlock.

>Stating that one should ignore an inconsistency in a work merely because, usually unrelated to the subject at hand, the work involves something Magical
user, let me explain to you:

one thing is fantasy, another is logic. You can say that there are dragons on your world, but you cannot say dragons exist and don't exist at the same time.

I think what you mean is that people shouldn't confuse these two; if a 9 years old have the same level of strength as in the real world, you can't suddenly create one that doesn't without some kind of explanation.

>If in this world, training hard enough lets a 9 yo girl lift tree trunks, and that's perfectly mundane, it's just how things are. Maybe the rules of physics are different (if they even exist in the same shape as in our world), or treetrunks are super light, or muscles are super dense, or whatever.
If any of that is true, then that particular setting is not relevant to this argument, because "magic exists" is not the reasoning being put forth. "This specific, explicit difference in physics exists in this setting" is the argument being used, and that's just fine.

And lots of settings have other things that aren't considered magic, but still break the laws of physics of real life, because the laws of physics might be different there.

So if you call the fact that the fundamental rules of the setting are different 'magic', then sure, it's magic. But that still goes against your original fallacy. If everything is slightly magic due to being a fantasy world, then 'it's magic, don't gotta explain' applies just as well as anything else.

I think what you're complaining about more is having your suspension of disbelief broken. Which is fine for you, but it doesn't deserve its own logical fallacy. Doubly so because not everyone has the same level of suspension of disbelief.

Except, if some character did do that in a setting or work, then there clearly is a change in physics or some magic letting them do so. It's not an inconsistency, because they're clearly doing it. If I wasn't possible in that world, it wouldn't be happening.

If there's an actual in-setting difference that allows it, then there's no problem.
But most of the time, when someone uses the "magic exists" argument, there is no established difference.
"Some people in this setting can see the future sometimes, therefore, my little girl should be able to pick up a tree trunk and use it like a club" is the "it's magic" stupidity. "Little girls get ridiculously swole with a little effort in this setting, therefore, my little girl can pick up a tree trunk" is not.
Having an actual reason is fine. "Magic" by itself is not a reason.

>then there clearly is a change in physics or some magic letting them do so.
And if there is, then that's fine, as I said. It's a problem when someone who isn't the author or GM or whatever decides that they get to change the physics or add magic on their own to enable something "because magic exists".

>If any of that is true, then that particular setting is not relevant to this argument, because "magic exists" is not the reasoning being put forth. "This specific, explicit difference in physics exists in this setting" is the argument being used, and that's just fine.

Well, okay, let's go with OP's example then.

Do dragons pop out of existence if they enter an anti-magic zone? Or at least stop being able to fly, breath elemental stuff, and possibly fold over themselves because of the square cube law.

They don't?

Then the physics of that world allow "mundane" (since those things are explicitly non-magical, unless they stop working in an AMZ) muscle and sinew to bypass the limitations of our world's "mundane".

So this is less about magic, and more about a player saying something stupid that isn't in the setting as it's established.

If you should ever find yourself stranded in a far-flung fantasy realm, it can be helpful to consider your predicament scientifically. That is, approach situations with as few assumptions as possible, accept solid evidence when it is presented, and always be willing to admit you are wrong, and adjust your mindset accordingly.

This is actual science, which a tragically high number of strandees confuse with "acting like the world they're stranded in adheres to the exact same physical principles as their own". More than a few survivalists have been lead astray by compasses going haywire, several fledgling empires have been cut short when their founders discovered (too late) that their guns didn't work, and many, many would-be adventurers have gone to their graves saying "no dragon could fly with wings that smaAAAAAAAAAAAH!"

Don't be like those poor souls. Be smart. Be safe. Assume nothing.

Yeah, pretty much.

Okay, one, you're deliberately misrepresenting a generalized argument (magic justifies things not found IRL) in such a fashion as to easily dismantle it. That's strawman.

Two, this isn't a 'new' argument. People have argued about the internal consistency of fiction for literal goddamn ages, you just haven't deigned to stick your thick head into the fray.

Three, point one does not hold, because you literally contradict yourself within the statement.
>Thing doesn't happen this way, except when it happens this way
You're deliberately making your statement ambiguous in order to make it impossible to oppose. Also, it's so vague that I could literally say, "Magical things happen because I say so" and use it to state beforehand and therefore justify any time magic acts without influence- which is the entire reason you're mad.

Four, point two isn't even necessarily true, because things happen that are literally impossible to justify with biology. I don't care who the fuck you are, you don't heal overnight after being stabbed in the back where the blade goes all the way in without some sort of supernatural healing. Healing overnight from such wounds is an actual mechanic in D&D, and requires no magic.

Point three is the only point that might actually hold water, but I'm really close to dismissing it out of hand. Magic may or may not, depending on the author, serve as a tool to explain internal consistencies by making them consistent as part of the rules of the universe. Complaining that the thing that makes a situation consistent by its existence is inconsistent is like saying that ice's expansion is a defiance of physics because it 'doesn't make sense'. No, it does fucking make sense, that's just HOW THINGS WORK IN THE GAME WORLD.

If you should ever find yourself stranded in a far-flung fantasy realm and decide to throw yourself off a cliff because you saw a man in a funny hat throw a fireball and now think you can fly "because magic exists", please reconsider until you find out if and how you can actually utilize flight magic.

So why not construct a logical fallacy actually pertaining to that that can be used more generally? Such as assuming power armor exists because spaceships do, or assuming guns were invented because cars are around.

This would probably work better as a 'Tech Tree' Fallacy, being the idea that just because two inventions were developed and coexisted in the real world, does not mean a fictional setting may follow the same timeline of inventions. This can also apply to things like biological evolution, assuming certain species do or don't exist based on other wildlife, or to supernatural phenomena, assuming that the existence of some supernatural creatures must mean the inclusion of others.

Is that what you're trying to say?

That in itself begs the question of what an anti-magic zone is and does - because it's not a zone that explicitly finds and removes all sources of magic with no margin of error in all settings.
Magic might not be dispellable when it's interwoven with life. Magic might not be able to dispel stronger magic. Anti-magic fields might not dispel certain kinds of magic. Your argument assumes the "anti-magic zone" to be an absolute that has the exact same effect from setting to setting, and with this definition that you made up yourself, you supersede the intent and worldbuilding of the author because you're mad.
If a wizard casts an anti-magic field in a world where magic is a primal force of life and creation, does the universe collapse in on itself? Does existence itself vanish? Does everything living cease to exist?
Absolute arguments don't work in general questions. You seem to have a stiff and absolutist view of magic and "anti-magic" - that is, magic is everything ever that allows anything that's not 100% scientifically proven to happen, and the existence of any kind of rule, setting element or plot device that bypasses conventional physics proves the existence of magic with infinite capability that can be deployed anywhere without any explanation because it's a part of the universe (which amounts to more rules for magic than the entire Harry Potter franchise has, and you're claiming to discuss magic as a whole).
You also seem to think that "anti-magic" is a concept that exists in every setting and inherently returns everything to the Universal Standard, which is inherently non-magical (ignoring the hundreds of settings in which magic is a fundamental part of the universe or can't just be dispelled).
You've put together a setting inside your own head that you think everyone else is using, and you collapse in a frothing heap of wailing, blubbering frustration when you learn that not every author in the world writes according to your Great Unified Setting.

And you've completely missed the point of the example. The point was that if dragons can still exist without magic diffusing them, then the laws of physics are clearly different. If it's a setting where magic is everywhere and so an anti magic field makes no sense, then it's more likely a random littler girl could also be magic.

If for some reason Dragons and only dragons are the only source of magic in the world, then that again cycles back to what happens of a dragon managed to dispel the magic from a weaker dragon. Or the possibility of dragons being able to grant power or breed with humans, resulting in other explanations for magic.

>So why not construct a logical fallacy actually pertaining to that that can be used more generally? Such as assuming power armor exists because spaceships do, or assuming guns were invented because cars are around.
>This would probably work better as a 'Tech Tree' Fallacy, being the idea that just because two inventions were developed and coexisted in the real world, does not mean a fictional setting may follow the same timeline of inventions. This can also apply to things like biological evolution, assuming certain species do or don't exist based on other wildlife, or to supernatural phenomena, assuming that the existence of some supernatural creatures must mean the inclusion of others.
I think this is an association fallacy.
>Premise A is a B
>Premise A is also a C
>Conclusion Therefore, all Bs are Cs

Dude.

Chill.

I made one post. I'm not sure who you are angry at, but I'm not that guy. You seem to be projecting really hard for some reason.

Ah, so this fallacy does exist, but OP just wanted to be smug about it? That explains everything.

Yeah, I think so.
So what OP should probably say is
>Magic not being consistent with our physics in some situations doesn't excuse it to be inconsistent in all situations
But he's still up for the witch-burning for trying to present his version of how fantasy realms works as the end all be all.

I feel like your examples are not particularly good examples, beyond the club one, because it's asking for an ignorance of physics or something rather than how people tend to use a 'magic exists' argument, which is more generally ignoring anything that seems illogical or impossible, rather than as some sort of justification for something not happening or to get around some rule (as implied by the last example).

>Okay, one, you're deliberately misrepresenting a generalized argument
No he's not. I've literally seen people on Veeky Forums make this argument before.

>Three, point one does not hold, because you literally contradict yourself within the statement.
No it doesn't.
>Magic happens with an external force
>Or Magic will affect these things prestated
There's nothing ambiguous there at all.

>Four, point two isn't even necessarily true,
Even if that were the case, excusing such mechanics as "lol magic exists" is just as bad, if not worse. And there are many games, including D&D, that only heal 1 HP per rest.

In short: You're a retard, please kill yourself.

>I dun now whut ferrie tails r
You are a fucking moron.