Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7744791" data-attributes="member: 29398">You say this, but then you say this... ...which is in complete contradiction to what you just said.If someone says they don't want the orc killed everyone else at the table has just lost the ability to kill it...or even successfully argue for its death.  That's a major compromise of agency.Why waste the effort making an argument the table mechanics have already banned me from winning?What agreement?  I haven't agreed not to kill it, that's my point.Well, we could keep it alive long enough to question it - maybe even very painfully - but assuming orcs in this campaign are sworn enemies of civilization the last thing we want to do is leave it alive afterwards.Is this agreement binding forever, by the way?  Can I arbitrarily slit its throat during the following night, for example?What would really foul this system up (and at the same time make it way more fun!) would be someone playing a very-low-wisdom character properly, and leading the party into stupid action after stupid action because the table mechanics wouldn't allow anyone to change its mind or prevent its actions.  Utterly unrealistic, mind you... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Lanefan</blockquote>