Search results

No that post really does not make that assumption, I promise, lol. I never assumed or said that "evil campaigns mean PvP". Both evil campaigns and PvP are kind of taboo to players so I was speaking of them in the same tangent, of course because the person I was responding to described an evil...

And of course little Redford needs big Trixie girl to play with: Lol sorry somehow my toes snuck their way in.

Oh, I figured you might have called your cat Harlequin because the Harlequins in WH40K dance around their enemies, while slashing them to ribbons.

This still labors under the assumption that only one rule can come into play at a given time.

Why define pure order as the lowest definition of law? What even is "pure order"?

Okay but which perspective about the law is correct then? What I'm trying to suggest is that when you say 2+2=4 that has to mean that it isn't true that 2+3=4, the two claims are mutually exclusive. In order for some perspective on the law to be right, surely another perspective which opposes...

If they both are objectively wrong then how can there be a right answer? Surely the PCs actions are either lawful or not, so the town guard must either be rightfully arresting him out wrongfully so.

Too preoccupied with cats ATM to describe the eating, pooping, and sleeping involved in the other 10%?

The guard doesn't think it depends on who's powerful in that moment. The PC doesn't either. The guard believes he is right and the PC believes he is right. From their own individual perspectives there's nothing uncertain about it.

By a round square I meant that something can't be a circle and a square at the same time. It's kind of a common expression? I don't know. The most important reason that I asked that question is you might think they're both being lawful, basically, but the town guard definitely does not think...

How can they both be right? They're standing there in front of each other, disagreeing. Justice/Law isn't a round square, is it?

Okay but who is it that says society should be that way? If only one person or some people understand and follow that moral framework then what? Is that Justice/Law now?

I enjoyed reading your perspective and am not trying to downplay anyone's perspective here about it. It's super interesting reading and interacting with people, that's good enough for me. I'm just being candid about how I think, too. So when I read you saying here what makes someone lawful in...

The literal definition of a "social more" or "moral" has to do with culture so it kind of doesn't make sense theorizing how something can be non-cultural when its very basis is in culture.

Well you can't exactly come up with a "right" definition for something that is nothing more than a matter of culture, and how one person or one group defines it. Thinking that there's one, monolithic answer doesn't work, because it's not like anyone can prove "hey this is what Justice, Law...

This reflects pretty well my general experiences with PvP. Usually when it's come to dice rolling that doesn't mean character death is on the table, or the party is splitting up or anything else crazy. There's some tension, things are getting spicy, and it's getting resolved.

Sorry I can't comprehend the idea of Planescape (literal fantasy heroin) not being amazeballs, as usual. If they put a dress on it I'd marry that setting.