Is Warlock broken?

[Kaelik]

Wait, I love how his argument is that the FAQ is rules because it's on the site with other Rules like the "Rules of the Game" articles.     

SorO, do you think the Rules of the Game articles are rules? Are they more specific and thus override general rules for, as an example, polymorph?

[SorO_Lost]

Well, that was annoying. Really wish I knew how to delete posts hereabouts.

The dreaded double post? I'm not even sure how you guys create those.

Either you think I understand your claim in this area

...

So, that'd only leave the first premise as important to cover, and it is, as you've correctly pointed out, the hardest to prove.

...

Maybe. But these rulings aren't technically included in the rules themselves, but rather in a secondary source that only contains rulings.

...

I disagree. WotC does not treat the FAQ as game rules.Yes, the web page with the FAQ has "game rules" in it, but if you read further by a single word, then it's clear that these are frequently asked questions about the game rules, rather than game rules themselves. If that header just got lopped off the FAQ, then you'd get, "Official D&D Game Rule Update," and that'd support your point way more, but what we actually have there does not indicate that WotC thinks of these as rules.

I think you do understand the claim but you are having complications else where.

And one of those hang ups is your personal criteria for what or or isn't a rules source which appears to be erroneously based off a system for handling rule contradictions. In your post you reach back to the outdated primary/secondary idea, it is a concept was introduced and depreciated by the Errata over how to handle when two rules disagree with each other the more specific source becomes the "primary" entry and what it says holds priority over the rest. But that has nothing to do with what is or isn't part of the rule structure and this is also why getting into your fourth paragraph your points become less defined and try to latch on title wordings and implications.

Let's shift the topic. What gives the Errata the right to edit the PHB?
You might say because the text says it replaces the PHB, well what gave it the right to say it can replace that text?
You might say the book gave it's self the right to do that, but it didn't.
You might say the page you download the Errata from, except that's simply "D&D Updates". The only "rule correction" is the Errata for the 3.0 PHB which also contains a secondary PDF called "clarifications" that also houses a number of Errata entries (so is the errata an update or clarification or is asking just as rhetorical as asking if rulings are rules?). Even it's top nested pages, the game rule page, the Errata simply is an update to D&D products. And when your stance is not all products are inherently rules, then updating a product of D&D does not automatically mean the update is a rule either. The same problems you feel you have with the FAQ echo in relation to the Errata.

But you want to exclude the FAQ while still including the Errata but you don't know how because you do not have a clear understanding of what is, or is not, a rule's source. You have something to prove, a bias to deal with, and no amount of fallacies in between will be bad so long as they help you reach your goal. And that's what's getting in your way and why you're leading with desperation that comes from confusion. And that element has to be dropped before you can ever move forward and if you ever want to resolve your inconsistencies and regain your confidence in talking about the matter.

The Errata's authority to edit the existing books is issued to it by being included in the rules system by the game rule page. From there, it gains the official status to claim something like the text on PHB 123 should read "Where forever for". Now again, it's important to note that the Game Rule designation only enters it into the rule structure. You are in turn are to obey all rules set forth by the game.

This can become problematic when one rule says you may do something and another says you may not. You, by default, have no authority within the rules.  When something says yes and something says no you do not have an inherent claim to differentiate between the two, much like you do not have the inherent ability to claim what is or is not part of the rule structure. All you have is what the rules expressly give you, and the largest tenant of which is the Order of Rules Application.

And that tenant is where you are getting your primary/secondary stuff from except does not bestow you the ability to exclude something from the rules. Even if two things contradict them selves, the tenant does not remove one of them but designates which is more correct. So I feel like we have to talk about this area some more too, but later.

I feel like I've tossed up a lot of paragraphs here again and I'm bound to lose you by the first. So I guess I'll pause here.

[Solo]

You are in turn to obey all rules set forth by the game.

On pain of being branded a heretic and sentenced to the comfy chair?

[SorO_Lost]

You are in turn to obey all rules set forth by the game.

On pain of being branded a heretic and sentenced to the comfy chair?

Only if that's your kink. 

[Maelphaxerazz]

I think I need some historical context. Is there any particular reason to ignore the FAQ? I don't mean "are there builds that ignore the FAQ or groups that ignore the FAQ," since I am sure there are, but unless somebody at WotC outright said that the FAQ should be ignored, then it shouldn't be. Because if the FAQ was not meant to be used, then why on Earth would Wizards of the Coast even write it?

If someone chooses to ignore what was intended to be used, couldn't one also ignore whatever else, including the PHB? If the designers say that this is how the rules are supposed to work, then you can be sure that this is, in fact, how the rules are supposed to work.

D&D is a game written for ordinary folk, not software programs. The Law of Common Sense should come into play at some point.

[Kaelik]

I think I need some historical context. Is there any particular reason to ignore the FAQ? I don't mean "are there builds that ignore the FAQ or groups that ignore the FAQ," since I am sure there are, but unless somebody at WotC outright said that the FAQ should be ignored, then it shouldn't be. Because if the FAQ was not meant to be used, then why on Earth would Wizards of the Coast even write it?

Do you want to know why you should "ignore" the FAQ? (By which I mean, recognize that they are not official rules and only implement their suggestions as they deviate from the rules if they are good, just like every other houserule.)

Because the book sections are written by one person (usually) then reviewed and talked about by multiple people, then edited by other people, then go to publishing. Where the FAQ answers are written by one person with no editor but themselves and no one else looking over their shoulder and the published in the FAQ.

So unsurprisingly, the lower quality assurance produces shittier results in many circumstances, that's a great reason to recognize that they aren't rules.

So when one guy who didn't even write the spell in question answers a question about Freedom of Movement that contradicts the text of both Freedom of Movement and Hold Person, you should only implement that as a rule if it actually improves the game (Spoiler, it doesn't).

[Chemus]

I think I need some historical context. Is there any particular reason to ignore the FAQ?

It's not the whether or not the FAQ should be used at all that's the question being argued. The question being argued is 'does the FAQ take precedence over the rules as written?'

Some answer that with 'yes, it's specific vs. general' [SorO, for example], and others say 'no, it references the rules as written to back up its arguments; thus the actual rules take precedence' [myself, for example].

[eggynack]

The dreaded double post? I'm not even sure how you guys create those.

Clicked quote instead of modify, meaning a second post consisting of me quoting everything in the first post. Except, y'know, with better language use. Dunno how other people find themselves double posting, but I think that's always how I get there.

And one of those hang ups is your personal criteria for what or or isn't a rules source which appears to be erroneously based off a system for handling rule contradictions. In your post you reach back to the outdated primary/secondary idea, it is a concept was introduced and depreciated by the Errata over how to handle when two rules disagree with each other the more specific source becomes the "primary" entry and what it says holds priority over the rest.

How are the primary/secondary rules outdated? And, whatever the purpose of those rules, they seem to indicate that the FAQ is superseded by other sources where the two conflict.

But that has nothing to do with what is or isn't part of the rule structure and this is also why getting into your fourth paragraph your points become less defined and try to latch on title wordings and implications.

The reason my points become a bit less defined there is that there's really not that much to argue over. Aside from the title, nothing I'm aware of indicates that the FAQ is part of the fabric of the rules, or indicates that it's not a fabric of the rules.

Let's shift the topic. What gives the Errata the right to edit the PHB?

It's indicated by two of the things you list below, and you don't.

You might say because the text says it replaces the PHB, well what gave it the right to say it can replace that text?

Rules text inevitably has to give itself authority, because it's not going to come from anywhere more important. Had the FAQ such text, then I'd agree that it does qualify as a source of rules, or as something that's explicitly altering past rules. But it doesn't, so it is neither. It is a fundamental paradox of rules that the text is essentially giving itself authority to give itself authority, but that's the source of authority we have.

You might say the page you download the Errata from, except that's simply "D&D Updates".

Well, yeah. Updates to D&D. That's what the errata is. As I said before, a header of that sort instead of the one that exists for the FAQ would supply you a much better argument.

And when your stance is not all products are inherently rules, then updating a product of D&D does not automatically mean the update is a rule either. The same problems you feel you have with the FAQ echo in relation to the Errata.

Some arbitrary product isn't necessarily rules. An update to existing rules, however, is necessarily rules.

So, it's those two things. The language within the errata, which strongly implies that the errata takes precedence, it's the D&D update header, which, in a way that is not the case for the FAQ, implies that we're altering the rules here. And, critically, you don't. That last factor being, this is just what errata is. An FAQ is meant to adjudicate ambiguities, or, if there is no ambiguity, it's supposed to state the existing rules in a clear cut way. Errata, meanwhile, is by definition, a list of errors and their corrections. Errata is meant to correct the text in a way that an FAQ really isn't. In these ways, any asserted parity between the FAQ's rules status and the errata's rules status breaks down somewhat. They're different entities.

The Errata's authority to edit the existing books is issued to it by being included in the rules system by the game rule page. From there, it gains the official status to claim something like the text on PHB 123 should read "Where forever for". Now again, it's important to note that the Game Rule designation only enters it into the rule structure. You are in turn are to obey all rules set forth by the game.

Except it's not on any game rule page, for one thing. For another, whether this is part of the rule structure or not, it doesn't necessarily have any authority within the rule structure, as I will note below.

This can become problematic when one rule says you may do something and another says you may not. You, by default, have no authority within the rules.  When something says yes and something says no you do not have an inherent claim to differentiate between the two, much like you do not have the inherent ability to claim what is or is not part of the rule structure. All you have is what the rules expressly give you, and the largest tenant of which is the Order of Rules Application.

And that tenant is where you are getting your primary/secondary stuff from except does not bestow you the ability to exclude something from the rules. Even if two things contradict them selves, the tenant does not remove one of them but designates which is more correct. So I feel like we have to talk about this area some more too, but later.

Indeed, I personally have no exclusion ability with regards to the rules. The RAW moves between three states in the adjudication of a pair of contradictory rules. A can be right, if it has precedence, either by specificity or by primacy, B can be right, for the same reasons, and the situation can be ambiguous by RAW, if neither source has clear primacy or specificity. I do not have the ability to adjudicate anything beyond what is stated in the rules, but the rules do have exclusion ability with regard to themselves, and primacy is a part of those rules. You may read primacy as keeping the FAQ around, but never picking it, or you can read it as full exclusion, but either way the end result is the same.

So, in that sense, you might be right. Maybe the rules just don't include the FAQ, which is possible because of the header, or maybe they do, and every time the FAQ contradicts something it loses. I see the latter as a way more effective argument, so, to that end, how exactly does the FAQ win a fight? The RC can because it explicitly says it can, the errata can for all the reasons stated above, but how can the FAQ win? The way I see it, by this argument, is basically the way Link saw it earlier. The only way the FAQ could possibly alter the rules is if those rules were strictly ambiguous, because then it wouldn't have anything to contradict, but in those cases you'd have to prove that strict ambiguity. Does strict ambiguity exist as applies to warlocks? Maybe, or maybe not. It's a non-trivial thing to prove, in any case.

I think I need some historical context. Is there any particular reason to ignore the FAQ? I don't mean "are there builds that ignore the FAQ or groups that ignore the FAQ," since I am sure there are, but unless somebody at WotC outright said that the FAQ should be ignored, then it shouldn't be. Because if the FAQ was not meant to be used, then why on Earth would Wizards of the Coast even write it?

If someone chooses to ignore what was intended to be used, couldn't one also ignore whatever else, including the PHB? If the designers say that this is how the rules are supposed to work, then you can be sure that this is, in fact, how the rules are supposed to work.

D&D is a game written for ordinary folk, not software programs. The Law of Common Sense should come into play at some point.

There're a couple of reasons. The stuff I said above was important because it's the rules justification for ignoring the FAQ, but the "reasonable man" justification has a lot more to do with the fact that the thing just directly contradicts RAW. How am I supposed to take it when the FAQ is answering my theoretical questions with objectively wrong answers? Ostensibly, one writes an FAQ for the purposes stated above, adjudicating ambiguities and correctly re-answering questions already answered by rules. Unless stated otherwise, it's not meant to be a weird errata for errata. I don't have a great list of all the weirdnesses of the FAQ, but were it a less strictly wrong document in some cases, then I doubt we'd be having this argument.

As a quick example, it'd be if someone were like, "I'm too lazy to check myself. when do fighters get their bonus feats, and how many do they get?" and then the answer given is, "I'm glad you asked. Fighters get ten bonus feats, one every odd level." How would you take that? The answer wasn't even saying, "While the original text said..." it's just coming out and saying outright incorrect information. Would you say, "Yeah, that thing in the FAQ, as opposed to the information visible directly before my eyes in the book, is probably right," or would you assume that the PHB has the right of it, and the FAQ just missed something? How do you even work through that? It's such a weird situation.

[Maelphaxerazz]

I see. Yet none of those answers hold true in this case: the FAQ clearly answered Xelights's question, and it would be a visible improvement to his game (one with a functional warlock instead of a broken one). And, because of the argument that the FAQ holds no authority, Xelights ended with a non-answer.

To Chemus: Some of the FAQ's answers are done by referencing the rules, as you said. In others, however, there's no clear conclusion in the rules, or the rules lead one to conclude an absurdity, so the FAQ says something that is not there in the rules, and does not always use rules to back that up. Thus, by the same line of thought you were saying, the FAQ does take precedence.

To Kaelik: the FAQ was written by people who work for WotC, and were among those people who inputted in the creation of the rulebooks. Thus their additions are an extension of that same many-people process: it isn't that the FAQ is made by one and the books were made by many, it is that the FAQ is further work in the same line as the rulebooks.
The idea that it has no person looking over their shoulder is nonsense: the FAQ gets read by thousands, and had updates: if it really did contradict what the editors wanted, the editors would say so. The Freedom of Movement example is a good one: Freedom of Movement is, in fact, too broad and unclear in its intent, and clarifying that it does not affect [mind-affecting] spells or petrification is a good improvement to the game. If your hang-up is over the segment "not spells that stop you from taking any action, as hold person does", on page 82, then your hang-up should not be with the FAQ but with the SRD, which says, and I quote:

The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech.

To Eggy: the thing is, the actual rulebooks have multiple cases where they are objectively wrong! They reference each other, they reference themselves, they have examples that are wrong and statblocks that weren't calculated correctly, and sometimes outright rules texts that are clearly in error but were never corrected. If one only accepts sources that have no errors, then one would have to drop D&D as a game altogether. As I said earlier, the law of common sense comes in to play. It is usually clear when a source (ANY source) has something that was a simple oversight.

[eggynack]

To Eggy: the thing is, the actual rulebooks have multiple cases where they are objectively wrong! They reference each other, they reference themselves, they have examples that are wrong and statblocks that weren't calculated correctly, and sometimes outright rules texts that are clearly in error but were never corrected. If one only accepts sources that have no errors, then one would have to drop D&D as a game altogether. As I said earlier, the law of common sense comes in to play. It is usually clear when a source (ANY source) has something that was a simple oversight.

That's a lot more expected when you're dealing with rule books, which are meant to introduce new rules which could plausibly contradict old ones. It's not so expected when dealing with an FAQ, which is meant to solve these sorts of problems, not just create new ones. What do you even do when a source meant to resolve ambiguities creates new ones? The FAQ's only job is to be careful about how the rules operate, and it failed utterly.

[Maelphaxerazz]

It hasn't failed utterly, Eggy. If it had failed utterly, then it would not be able to answer Xelights' question. The FAQ fulfilled its purpose: the rules are clearer with the FAQ than without it, both in the cases where it points out existing rules and where it writes new ones. The fact that the FAQ is not inerrant does not change this: it clarifies far more than it obscures.

Which part of the FAQ, exactly, makes you confused?

[eggynack]

It hasn't failed utterly, Eggy. If it had failed utterly, then it would not be able to answer Xelights' question. The FAQ fulfilled its purpose: the rules are clearer with the FAQ than without it, both in the cases where it points out existing rules and where it writes new ones. The fact that the FAQ is not inerrant does not change this: it clarifies far more than it obscures.

Which part of the FAQ, exactly, makes you confused?

The problem is, if the FAQ is wrong about its rules assessments in some places, then that makes it a lot less trustworthy in other places. The thing's only job is answering questions, and it sometimes just answers them wrong. Perhaps it answered this question correctly, but maybe it answered it wrong. Once that doubt exists, it makes trusting these more reasonable answers way harder.

[Maelphaxerazz]

The job of all rules is answering questions, and all the rulebooks are subject to error. There is no inerrant, God-designed D&D we are trying to discover by sifting the holy words.* Therefore trust is never the issue.

I agree with Kaelik's assessment that we should only implement FAQ rulings if they are good, yet our differences come out when I say that the rules work the exact same way. The FAQ functions just like the rules: it is usually right, and sometimes wrong: yet looking at it as something less than that makes it nothing at all. If you can never trust the FAQ to be right, then you can never give a decent answer to questions like Xelights'. In this thread's case, the original source made a person hopelessly confused, while the FAQ made it right, thus proving that the FAQ is as good as rules. Probably better, since it is building on top of the rules and was written after the rules got their "field testing". 

You didn't answer the question, either: which part of the FAQ did you find confusing? Or modifying to current words, which parts did you find in error? Because I'm getting the feeling of hearsay, or making mountains out of molehills.

*Clarifying further, since tone doesn't carry: that was a joke.

[Samwise]

You may have just presented a conspiracy theory over 339's deletion given the user base's fascination with listing every mistake they could find towards the end. 

*shrug*

As I said, I've heard that straight from WotC designers.
No theory, conspiracy or otherwise, needed for me.

All rule updates are a form of stealth errata.

Not necessarily.
A new rule does not have to change the basic definition of an old rule. A new spell does not inherently correct an error in an existing spell. A new feat does not replace the text of an old feat.
Such may be so good they make previous spells or feats completely superfluous, but they do not directly alter their text.

Any rules update that does actually change the text of a rules item is overt errata, even when not directly called that.


Meanwhile, WotC did indeed treat the FAQ as rules.
From the Living Greyhawk Campaign Sourcebook:

FAQs and Errata
LG uses the official FAQs and errata for any books that are used in the campaign. These are available online at:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rules

Xen'drik Expeditions version:

Errata Policy
The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS website (www.wizards.com/dnd) hosts errata for required and optional material. We recommend you periodically check that site and keep up with errata, as XEN’DRIK EXPEDITIONS supports DUNGEONS & DRAGONS sources modified by errata.
Also, the Dungeons & Dragons Spell Compendium contains errata for the spells it reprints, as does the Dungeons & Dragons Magic Item Compendium for many magic items. The Dungeons & Dragons Rules Compendium clarifies many Player’s Handbook and Dungeon Master’s Guide rules. If a rules item allowed by the campaign is reprinted in a newer product, the newest printing is always considered errata and is used in XEN’DRIK EXPEDITIONS.

One might note how that just refers to such things as a whole with no distinctions made.
It also directly states the supremacy of the Rules Compendium.

I do recognize though that people prefer to argue about whether the FAQ counts, much as they love arguing about pretty much everything that might affect the text of some rule they prefer to interpret in a manner that enables their favorite optimization abuse, so this is just for reference.

[eggynack]

The job of all rules is answering questions, and all the rulebooks are subject to error. There is no inerrant, God-designed D&D we are trying to discover by sifting the holy words.* Therefore trust is never the issue.

No, the job of all rules is to tell you how the game works. This could be considered answering questions about how the game works, but the FAQ is the source for whom this sort of inconsistency correction would be an explicit job.

I agree with Kaelik's assessment that we should only implement FAQ rulings if they are good, yet our differences come out when I say that the rules work the exact same way. The FAQ functions just like the rules: it is usually right, and sometimes wrong: yet looking at it as something less than that makes it nothing at all. If you can never trust the FAQ to be right, then you can never give a decent answer to questions like Xelights'. In this thread's case, the original source made a person hopelessly confused, while the FAQ made it right, thus proving that the FAQ is as good as rules. Probably better, since it is building on top of the rules and was written after the rules got their "field testing".

But what does it mean for an FAQ ruling to be "good"? You might have the idea that it's in situations like this one, but as Soro said, we don't have any real influence at all about how the RAW works. We know approximately how to adjudicate differences between sources. It's a lot harder when you're adjudicating differences between a source and some sort of external clarifying entity. The pesky internal factors that make the FAQ not really able to make changes also extrapolate out into the real world, in that we don't want the FAQ to make changes.

As I keep saying though, this might be a situation were the ruling could be considered good, because there could just be no answer within the FAQ. By my claim, perfectly unambiguous ambiguity would be the situation where the FAQ could have some rule power behind it. If there are situations where the FAQ can do something, that'd be the criteria for such a situation.

You didn't answer the question, either: which part of the FAQ did you find confusing? Or modifying to current words, which parts did you find in error? Because I'm getting the feeling of hearsay, or making mountains out of molehills.

Didn't know what you meant by confusing. The most egregious error I'm aware of is the following: "Arcane Thesis reduces the total spell level of a metamagic affected spell by one, regardless of the number of metamagic feats applied." This directly contradicts the PHB II errata, which states, "Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3)." Kaelik apparently has some sorta thing involving FoM. I wasn't personally involved in the history of the FAQ though, so I don't know all of the inconsistencies. Mostly just that one I said here, which is a super weird one.
 

[Chemus]

To Chemus: Some of the FAQ's answers are done by referencing the rules, as you said. In others, however, there's no clear conclusion in the rules, or the rules lead one to conclude an absurdity, so the FAQ says something that is not there in the rules, and does not always use rules to back that up. Thus, by the same line of thought you were saying, the FAQ does take precedence.

This may smack of moving goalposts, if so, I apologize. My intent with saying that 'the FAQ references rules' was that the rules it references are its authority. If the FAQ misstates a rule or interprets it incorrectly, the rule as written takes precedence. This is not the case with errata, which specifically replaces rules. Errata's authority comes from the fact that it is specifically rules text.

This is akin to legislated and recorded laws, versus a ruling by a judge. The judge's authority stems from the law, and if the judge misrepresents or misinterprets the law, then his ruling, in that instance, should be overturned. (These rulings are the FAQ). If a law is found to be incorrectly written or in need of change, then replacement legislation (sometimes) gets passed that either replaces sections or completely replaces the law. (These replacements are errata).

Regarding the FAQ's recommendation on freedom of movement, the very wording of the answer shows its authority:

...The spell becomes much more manageable if you just look at it as something that ignores any physical impediment to movement or actions. If you assign this restriction, then it makes sense that...

Emphasis mine.

The Sage is making recommendations throughout the FAQ; these are reasonable rulings, interpretations of the rules, and generally good house-rules. Most of the FAQ is correct in its recommendations, but some of it is not, or can be taken as more far-reaching than it is.

For example: FoM specifically states that it allows the subject to ignore magical paralysis. The Sage fails to recognize this, and makes an error; hold person states that it paralyzes the target, then gives a quick description of what paralysis does. The general rule of paralysis is not specifically superseded. Indeed, you posted the section of the hold person spell that reflects the full rules of paralysis:

The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech.

Hold person paralyzes its target, freedom of movement allows its target "to move and attack normally for the duration of the spell, even under the influence of magic that usually impedes movement, such as paralysis, solid fog, slow, and web."

The Sage makes recommendations, and sometimes is wrong. Errata changes the rules. And sometimes sucks.

[Kaelik]

To Kaelik: the FAQ was written by people who work for WotC, and were among those people who inputted in the creation of the rulebooks. Thus their additions are an extension of that same many-people process: it isn't that the FAQ is made by one and the books were made by many, it is that the FAQ is further work in the same line as the rulebooks.

If you just make up nonsense lies and declare them to be true, sure all that can be true. But back here in reality, I was making a factual statement about how the FAQ is produced. It's written by one guy with no editor, and when it's wrong, no one ever corrects (except sometimes that one guy, or the new single guy when he takes over) because why bother because it's just the FAQ. There is no quality control process, and the fact that one times Andy Collins wrote something dumb in the FAQ does not mean that a bunch of editors signed off on that, because they factually didn't read it.

The idea that it has no person looking over their shoulder is nonsense: the FAQ gets read by thousands, and had updates: if it really did contradict what the editors wanted, the editors would say so. The Freedom of Movement example is a good one: Freedom of Movement is, in fact, too broad and unclear in its intent, and clarifying that it does not affect [mind-affecting] spells or petrification is a good improvement to the game. If your hang-up is over the segment "not spells that stop you from taking any action, as hold person does", on page 82, then your hang-up should not be with the FAQ but with the SRD, which says, and I quote:

The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech.

You clearly didn't do a good job reading that entry. He was asked if stun is blocked by Freedom of Movement, and he said that it was just like Hold Person as a mental thing, since like, 99.999% of stuns are not mind affecting, that means it is now your job as a DM, as the FAQ writers have informed you, to invent a "mental vs physical" distinction that doesn't exist anywhere in the rules and doesn't have anything to do with Mind Affecting tags, and then classify everything in the game into one or the other.

That's crazy talk. Now, you can totally just write "Freedom of Movement lets your actions not be impeded, but doesn't give you actions when you wouldn't have them" and that would be a great thing to say, and hey, it would even work correctly with how one of the specifically named FoM effects is Paralysis immunity.

Now, as to Hold Person, Hold Person does say "1) You are Paralyzed. 2) You can't take actions." but also, in the very last sentence that apparently you didn't read, and the FAQ reader also obviously didn't read, it defines the action of taking a new saving throw as a full round action. Now, without any FAQ addressing it, you can argue lots of things, and it's clearly not perfect, and you can even argue that it should be addressed in the FAQ. But if it was, I want it to be addressed by a question about Hold Person, not by a guy fishing through his memory for "mental effects" that Freedom of Movement can't prevent (Even though, damn, you'd think a spell called Hold Person that specifically references Paralysis, a condition that Freedom of Movement specifically says it bypasses would be something you would want Freedom of Movement to cover. In Fact, the 3.0 FAQ specifically calls out "Held" as something that FoM negates.) WHO CLEARLY DIDN'T EVEN READ THE ENTIRE SPELL ENTRY! It says in the spell that you have to take actions to get the saving throw, so if you can't take actions, then you can't make that saving throw. Is that an intentional buff to Hold Person to completely negate the one and only change from 3.0 to 3.5 intentionally? Or is it just that some guy didn't even read the entire spell and just answered after reading two sentences a question that had nothing to do with Hold Person, using Hold Person as an example, and somehow magically cannonized that 3.5 Hold Person doesn't give you a new save?

[Maelphaxerazz]

The Sage is making recommendations throughout the FAQ;

I disagree. The way this is placed, he is making a recommendation in this instance. If his words at the end of the Freedom of Movement question were meant to be applied to the entire FAQ, it would either say so, or be in the introduction to the FAQ, or included with every question. He is explicitly making Freedom of Movement more restrictive than it would be otherwise, in order to make it more clear. He is not saying that the entire FAQ is the same.

And no, he makes no error in saying Hold Person does not allow any actions. The quote from the description of Paralysis says "A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions." The quote from Hold Person says "It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech." While I think Hold Person should just be paralysis, that isn't what the spell description actually says.

As for Eggy: I'm sure that is simply because he'd not known it was errata'd (or maybe answered the question before the errata was made), and was giving an accurate explanation of the pre-errata'd rule.

And to Kaelik: this is a case of specific trumps general, within a single spell. It says that the person affected by Hold Person
1. is paralized,
2. cannot take any actions
3. may take another saving throw as a full-round action each round on his turn
So, the specific that he may take this full-round action trumps the general that he cannot take any actions. So, a person affected by Hold Person may take that full-round action and no other action whatsoever. And that's all within the spell text, no external sources required.

As for physical vs mental, that is not such an arduous task. Stun says you can't take any actions: unlike paralysis, which says you can take purely mental actions. That you cannot take mental actions shows that it is not a purely physical impediment. So, the author's use of Hold Person is apt: Hold Person and the Stunned condition both prevent you from taking any actions, physical or mental, and so are beyond Freedom of Movement's ability to help.

EDIT: and while we're at it, we should talk about tone. Just because I did not quote the entire spell, does not mean I did not read it. You assuming other people are less than yourself is not going to get you anywhere. I am not hostile to you, so please, try to be civil.

[Kaelik]

And to Kaelik: this is a case of specific trumps general, within a single spell. It says that the person affected by Hold Person
1. is paralized,
2. cannot take any actions
3. may take another saving throw as a full-round action each round on his turn
So, the specific that he may take this full-round action trumps the general that he cannot take any actions. So, a person affected by Hold Person may take that full-round action and no other action whatsoever. And that's all within the spell text, no external sources required.

That is one of the many ways you can argue it should be read, but that also isn't what the FAQ says. So does the FAQ answer to a question about Freedom of Movement and Stun more specifically answer the question of what Hold Person does than the Hold Person spell says? Do you see why I brought up Hold Person as an example of how SorO's claim that "any debate about the rules is always ignoring the rules" is basically nonsense?

(Personally I would point out that "you can take no actions" does not contradict "if you take this action, you can remove the effect" whatsoever, so your ruling itself is based on declaring a contradiction that doesn't exist, and then picking the thing that you want as the more specific thing.)

As for physical vs mental, that is not such an arduous task. Stun says you can't take any actions: unlike paralysis, which says you can take purely mental actions. That you cannot take mental actions shows that it is not a purely physical impediment. So, the author's use of Hold Person is apt: Hold Person and the Stunned condition both prevent you from taking any actions, physical or mental, and so are beyond Freedom of Movement's ability to help.

Making up whatever you want to justify the statements made by the two things mentioned in the FAQ entry isn't much work, but that's not what you have to do. What he recommends is specifically that you make up that distinction, and apply it to literally every effect in the entire game going forward. So right off the bat, you now have to decide what all of these are: http://www.d20srd.org/indexes/conditions.htm A particular favorite of mine is Nausea. Is that physical or mental, and is Freedom of Movement curing Nausea what the Sage was actually thinking about, or did he just make up a bullshit distinction in reference to stun with no possible idea what all the effects of his distinction are going to be?

Then do the same thing again to every spell that imposes a condition that isn't on that list, then do it again for every monster ability that isn't on that list. Man, this sure is a lot of work when it would have made a lot more sense to just say "Freedom of Movement doesn't allow you to take actions when you otherwise can't (And also prevents being Held by the Hold Person spell, which by the way, we totally incorporated into the 3.5 FAQ in the header which specifically says that FoM prevents being Held by the Hold Person spell)." But the reason they didn't say that is because one guy was spitballing some nonsense without thinking it through and no one ever read it and told him to think harder until after it was published.

[eggynack]

As for Eggy: I'm sure that is simply because he'd not known it was errata'd (or maybe answered the question before the errata was made), and was giving an accurate explanation of the pre-errata'd rule.

Sure, entirely possible. But the fact remains that the person answering our questions doesn't necessarily know what they're talking about. And, beyond that trust issue, mistakes like this one raise a lot of hard questions. Why would the FAQ have rule altering power over the normal books, and not have it over the errata? And, the other way, if the FAQ doesn't have the ability to alter the errata, then why would it have the power to alter the books? To what extent can it alter the books? If the books are unambiguous about something stupid, like monks lacking proficiency with their unarmed strikes, and the FAQ says otherwise (which it might, but I don't recall), then do we call that a "good ruling" because it squares with intent, or do we ignore that ruling like we would for the arcane thesis entry? Where do we draw the line between a good ruling and one that should be ignored, and how do we systematize those differences in a way that squares with actually being rules?

Mistakes make things weird, in other words. They force us to consider that other things might be mistakes, and they blur the line between rule change and weird inaccuracy. As Chemus noted, with errata, you know where you stand. The errata always wins, because it has ultimate correction power. With the FAQ, anything could mean anything. And that's a lot of why someone wouldn't want the FAQ as a source of rules at all. Because it creates some really complicated problems that lack RAW solutions. The reasons we could actually say the FAQ doesn't have much RAW impact are in the argument with Soro. And, y'know, the fact that there's a RAW justification for the FAQ not being a part of RAW is a pretty good reason to not be a part of RAW too.