Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dandu" data-source="post: 6201885" data-attributes="member: 85158">Nothing in the spell text says it applies universally. Rules of planar realms can prevent traveling to and from their realm via Gate. Evidently, they cannot prevent abductions. Like it or not, the Gate spell tells you under what circumstances the Calling function does not work, and the caliph not wanting abductions is not one of them.I agree, and I would go further to say that the rules should reflect this. Otherwise it would be like downloading a distro of Linux that requires the user to debug the program code before being completely usable. It is good that Linux is a highly customizable system that allows enthusiasts to tailor it to their own needs, but this diversity should arise because users are required to modify the source code because it is poorly written. And even though releasing a good distro requires combing through a mind numbing amount of code looking for every single possible problematic interaction, the fact remains that it is someone's job to do so if they want to release a serious product.I disagree based on the reason given above: the calling aspect tells you under what circumstances it cannot work, and the will of the caliph is not a factor.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences" target="_blank">Appeal to consequences</a>: Gate can't work like that because it would break the game. To plagiarize Wikipedia, this is a logical fallacy because the argument that concludes a hypothesis to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not make it true.To which I say: Yes, that's my point. The mechanics of Gate were not fully thought out, which requires DM adjuration where it should not exist if the spell was properly written.See my response to your second point.</blockquote>

Verification