All these immortal beings aren't actually... immortal

[Razer]

So there's lot's of dialogue calling you mortal implying the person speaking to you is immortal. Which... is plainly not true as I've killed them or their kind many times.

Why is this game or universe stuck on calling ageless beings immortal? Immortal means you can't die. But practically all beings in this game can die. So none of them are actually immortal. Just kind of wondering where this went wrong and why no one did anything about it. Immortal sounds cooler? Even if it isn't actually true?

[Brother Santodes]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality
Immortality is the concept of eternal life.[2] Some species possess 'biological immortality' due to an apparent lack of the Hayflick limit.

it is pretty clear that an immortal being is killable. here again...

[TaKo]

Originally posted by Razer:

I'm debating whether that's correct.

yes you are incorrect, theres not really any debate here

[Razer]

Originally posted by TaKo:

Originally posted by Razer:

I'm debating whether that's correct.

yes you are incorrect, theres not really any debate here

Then why are you in this topic. Skidaddle.

[TaKo]

Originally posted by Razer:

Then why are you in this topic. Skidaddle.

unfortunately i still have to see this nonsense on the forum

[Razer]

Ok also onto the block list. Dang lot's of people not being able to be civil.

[SotiCoto]

Originally posted by Razer:

Why is this game or universe stuck on calling ageless beings immortal?

Because they are.

Immortal means you can't die.

No, it means you won't automatically die simply as a consequence of existing... i.e. die of old age. It doesn't mean you can't be murdered.

I get where you're coming from, and I've had a fair few instances of trying to apply the one-for-one literal meaning of words... but even that is subject to a certain level of interpretation.
Plus there is somewhat of a statute of limitations on misusing words. If kids 10 or 20 years younger than you are using a word incorrectly (e.g. "cringe") then it is right to correct them and also right to call them blithering idiots for misusing the word. BUT if it has been used a particular way for centuries, you have absolutely no hope of ever changing it back.

Speaking of which, I've been trying to convince people to return the word "gay" to mean "happy"... but it isn't working out so far. My actual motivation is they also took the word "queer" and I want that back... but everything has to go in the right order.

[Razer]

Originally posted by SotiCoto:

Originally posted by Razer:

Why is this game or universe stuck on calling ageless beings immortal?

Because they are.

Immortal means you can't die.

No, it means you won't automatically die simply as a consequence of existing... i.e. die of old age. It doesn't mean you can't be murdered.

But murdering is simply the act of killing. Ending someone's life. Subjecting someone to death. How do you kill someone who is not subject to death? That's the kind of thing that's getting in the way of the logical explanation here.

[SotiCoto]

Originally posted by Razer:

But murdering is simply the act of killing. Ending someone's life. Subjecting someone to death. How do you kill someone who is not subject to death? That's the kind of thing that's getting in the way of the logical explanation here.

By subjecting them to death, obviously.
"Not subject to death" = "not dead" = "alive"... and things which are alive can be made to be dead by subjecting them to death.
An immortal won't die on their own, but that doesn't mean that you can't necessarily subject them to death yourself.

I'm not sure why, but whenever I get into a discussion about the meaning of words like this, it always ends up reading like Lewis Carroll dialogue.

[Razer]

Originally posted by SotiCoto:

Originally posted by Razer:

But murdering is simply the act of killing. Ending someone's life. Subjecting someone to death. How do you kill someone who is not subject to death? That's the kind of thing that's getting in the way of the logical explanation here.

By subjecting them to death, obviously.
"Not subject to death" = "not dead" = "alive"... and things which are alive can be made to be dead by subjecting them to death.
An immortal won't die on their own, but that doesn't mean that you can't necessarily subject them to death yourself.

I'm not sure why, but whenever I get into a discussion about the meaning of words like this, it always ends up reading like Lewis Carroll dialogue.

Ok, that's... an interesting take on it. So you're saying the person/entity isn't subject to death can be subjected to death? I mean. That's kind of a loophole. Got to ponder on this.

[SotiCoto]

Originally posted by Razer:

Ok, that's... an interesting take on it. So you're saying the person/entity isn't subject to death can be subjected to death? I mean. That's kind of a loophole. Got to ponder on this.

Sure.
How about this for bonus points: You can't ever be sure you're not immortal... I mean think about it: You're alive. You aren't dead. You might be alive and not dead because it just hasn't happened yet, but then you could also be alive and not dead because you can't and won't die... and you won't know until it happens..... and then you still won't know because either you'll be dead (thus incapable of experiencing anything) or alive (leaving you in the same situation you're in now).

[CascadingDragon]

Are you being deliberately obtuse about this? "Immortal" gods being kill-able is very prevalent in popular culture, and has been for years. Regardless of whatever definition you want to use, the modern usage of the term has been around for years and years.

[Razer]

Originally posted by Boring Killer Player:

Are you being deliberately obtuse about this? "Immortal" gods being kill-able is very prevalent in popular culture, and has been for years. Regardless of whatever definition you want to use, the modern usage of the term has been around for years and years.

Nope. I just don't think it makes any sense at all.

[Razer]

Originally posted by SotiCoto:

Originally posted by Razer:

Ok, that's... an interesting take on it. So you're saying the person/entity isn't subject to death can be subjected to death? I mean. That's kind of a loophole. Got to ponder on this.

Sure.
How about this for bonus points: You can't ever be sure you're not immortal... I mean think about it: You're alive. You aren't dead. You might be alive and not dead because it just hasn't happened yet, but then you could also be alive and not dead because you can't and won't die... and you won't know until it happens..... and then you still won't know because either you'll be dead (thus incapable of experiencing anything) or alive (leaving you in the same situation you're in now).

Ok that's pushing Schrödinger's Cat ideas. Anyway how about the eternal part. It's hardly eternal if it ends at some point.

[Malfunctioning Robot]

OP the type who thinks he a spartan and screams in Xerxes face that he can't call his elite guard that

[Erei]

Mortal : die of old age
Immortal : don't.

In Golarion, everyone is a mortal. Except for liches, which are undead. Outside of Golarion, supernatural entities like Gods, Angel and others are Immortal because they don't die of old age (but can die otherwise).

I don't know why we have 2 pages of that. It's an older thing that D&D. Tolkien's Elves are immortal but can be killed, just because they don't die of old age. Vampires can be killed, but are said to be immortals.