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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3049310" data-attributes="member: 18280">Is your playstyle the only playstyle which is fair?If you believe so, then we are obviously not going to agree.  If not, then you must believe that there are other playstyles which are fair.These things form a set.  Let us call it "Fair Playstyles".  If you do not believe that there are unfair playstyles, then the set is inclusive of all playstyles.  However, even if the set is empty or contains only one playstyle, we can create another set called "Unfair Playstyles".Now, I would argue that a playstyle in which the DM tries to kill the PCs, or a playstyle in which the DM tries to force the PCs to take actions he directs, are automatically part of the set of Unfair Playstyles.  In essence, I would argue that the set of Unfair Playstyles consists of those playstyles in which the intent is not to play fair.  YMMV.I would then argue that something which falls into the set of "Fair Playstyles" is either fair or an aberration (because anyone can make a mistake, even if their intent is to be fair).A thing can be unfair because it is not intended to be fair in the first place, or a thing can be unfair because it doesn't live up to the intent to be fair.  However, the context of fairness itself is the set of Fair Playstyles, not the subset of My Favorite Playstyle.I don't know.  Does the question mean that I never played in any other games, or that I was never given the opportunity to study logic, philosophy, and ethics?  If it means only the first, then I would imagine not.  It does not follow that because your game is fair, games that are not like yours are unfair.  One does not have to have experience of multiple playstyles to recognize the logical fallacy involved here:If my game is fair, then games unlike mine must be unfair. If a salmon is a fish, then things unlike salmon must not be fish.The problem is not that the statement is wrong per se.  The problem is that, because what makes a salmon a fish is not determined, you do not know how something must vary from a salmon in order to not be a fish.  Using this reasoning, one could easily conclude that sharks, skates, rays, eels, and even trout are not fish.  Yet they are all fish.As a salmon is an object in the set Fish, your fair game is part of the set Fair Playstyles.  If you define fairness in an example outside your game using the standard of your game rather the the standard of the set to which your game belongs, you are in the same position as the person who determines that eels are not fish because eels are in some ways dissimilar to salmon.Please.  If logic, study of ethics, and objectivity were more widespread, every advertising agency in the world would go bankrupt.  There is a reason why corrupt governments discourage and/or cut funding to education, you know.  I am hardly the final arbiter as to what is fair or not.  Anyone who bothers to examine the situation logically, and uses that examination to create a logical argument, is presumably capable of being objective.  OTOH, am I hardly likely to agree that you are right simply because you are strident.You claim, in effect, that the only determinant of fairness is "Because it will kill a PC in my game."  This is the very definition of subjectivity, and the antithesis of objectivity.  In other words, within this debate I am more objective than you simply because you choose to argue from a basis which is as strongly subjective as possible.RC</blockquote>

Verification