Just because your morals and beliefs differ from other peoples does not give you the right to say other people's views are ridiculous.
True, it doesn't give me the right; I already have that right and nothing can take that away!
Jemal, right there is the part of your post that I have the most problem with. I have the right to say whatever I want. Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights. The more that people invoke 'moral' or religious beliefs, the more important it is
to be able to ridicule and denounce those beliefs. Speech can be countered with more speech; never with a denial of the right to speak.
Perhaps what you
meant to say was more along the lines of "Just because your morals and beliefs differ from other peoples does not mean you are correct in saying other people's views are ridiculous."
I don't know if you did mean that but it's problematic as well: Obviously only an idiot would say that a view is ridiculous
just because it differs from his own and for no additional reason. So if that's what you meant you were merely insulting me, not trying to deny my ability to speak.
While I believe and say that many views are ridiculous, I do so only for the ones that deserve it.
And yes, the example of not using PAO because it's "too deadly given your morals" does deserve ridicule - it's neither deadly, nor of much moral weight compared to the outcome of a high level battle which typically affects many lives.
Respect is a reaction, not a choice; there is no way I could "choose to" respect a view that seems foolish to me.
Unless they're into scientology.. then they just crazy..
While I agree about scientology
, the difference between that remark and what I said is that I did not get personal. I attacked the view, not the person holding it - that's the way to do it.
It has nothing to do with justification. Can it end the battle in one stroke? Yes, but it has a higher tendency to do absolutely nothing.
Suppose we catch the big bad in his private room by surprise. We can attack to do damage, but we know we can't take him down in one or two rounds. Given the chance, he will escape, heal, buff himself, and return with his main allies. Would it not be foolish to pass up even a 15% chance to take him down in one stroke? Many similar scenarios come to mind.
In any case, the party we ended up with is not balanced in power. I guess we'll have to see how it plays out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
... followed by a short adventure through Braham's desert on our way back ...
For a desert adventure, how about this: A river was drying up, and we needed to conduct a ritual to summon a powerful water genie in order to restore it. Enemies of the nearby city, Gebe, sent bands of monsters and adventurers to try to stop the summoning, and we had to fend them off while continuing the ritual. It's an inversion of the
so-often-used "PCs have to stop the evil summoning" plot
