Search results

You've dodging the main issue, which is the assumption that if someone disagrees with you about a subjective assessment of DL, it means they must not be as well-read as you are. It doesn't really matter how many books are required to be "well informed" because you have no idea how many books...

The context here is a difference of opinion about the "thematic core" of DL, which is a subjective assessment. You cannot be "flat-out wrong" about a subjective assessment. So this is a red herring.

No, the idea that if someone disagrees with you about the thematic core of DL it means that they haven't read enough DL is gatekeeping. It's ironically the sort of "just because they disagree" approach that you're decrying here. Just because someone disagrees with you about DL doesn't mean they...

While it's true that we should not assume that our own experiences are universal, there's also a principle of charity that helps online discussions go more smoothly. That is, read posts in a charitable light. For example, rather then assuming someone means literally everyone when they use that...

The gatekeeping in this thread is getting tiresome.

Please keep real-world religion out of the discussion.

People with a ton of power who use it to kill untold thousands of people to accomplish a goal that they had the power to accomplish without such egregious loss of life can only be described as evil. That's the point. It's not that they're not always perfectly good. It's that they comitted an act...

By your own Kingpriest argument, he wasn't evil, he was DOING evil things. Everything you said about the Kingpriest also applies to Thanos.

So did Thanos. Killing half of the universe was still a very evil act.

Great minds...

Important point. There should NOT be a balance between helping people and harming them. If you believe that harming people is as important as helping them, you are evil.

So destroy the Kingpriest and these thousands of clerics and paladins.

A big part of the issue is that the archetype filled by the D&D druid does have an appropriate name, but it's already in use elsewhere. From a folklore point of view, what do you call a person with magic shapeshifting ability, and healing, and a connection with nature? You call them a wizard...

That's an exceptionally reductionist take. Moreover, it's entirely irrelevant. The fact that the gods intervened at all is what would negate free will. How they did it is not the issue. That they did it is. If they did it in a way that did not result in massive loss of life, they would still be...

I suspect the idea is that any being worthy of being called a god is too powerful for the Trolley Problem to actually be a problem for them. They don't have to choose which way the trolley will go - they can just stop the trolley entirely using their own power.

Of course not. Most people are easily able to maintain two or more different versions of the same thing in their minds at the same time. Ask any comic book fan. Just as you had no reason to look elsewhere when the original version was "thrust in your face."

Good thing that's irrelevant, and I don't think anyone argued that here anyway. But new takes certainly can be better. And there's no chance of them being better if they're not allowed to be tried.

In a game where a "druid" is a shapeshifting naturist who is allergic to metal for some reason, any concerns about historical accuracy seem terribly misplaced.

What a bizarre question. One answer leaps to mind. "So they can make it into something I do like."

Surely a huge part of the reason that there is far more strategy in combat is because there are detailed rules for it. If you only had very basic rules for it, the possibility for strategy (or tactics, rather) would be greatly reduced.