Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7149471" data-attributes="member: 16814">Sorry, cannot agree with the 'your problem, fix it or your ditched' dichotomy you've set up.&nbsp; In normal social interaction, if someone expresses a strong dislike for performing a group activity, the group can also bend.&nbsp; You've set up a situation where individuals must always subsume themselves to the gestalt, where there is also the outcome of a group accommodating the individual.&nbsp; I can't tell if you're only advocating for the extreme persistent pattern, which I could agree with you and falls within such broad social rules as Wheaton's, but then you keep using examples that seem to indicate that any action that causes a situation that must be resolved should always result in the individual acquiescing to the group.The example of the paladin being asked by the party to lie for their benefit despite lying being expressly against his code (a code well known to the group and previously approved as acceptable to the group social contract) is an example of where I would say that it's incumbent on the group to acknowledge and alter their behavior as the problem and not the player of the paladin.&nbsp; Yet your formulation would place this on the paladin's player to change their character or leave the group.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7149471, member: 16814"] Sorry, cannot agree with the 'your problem, fix it or your ditched' dichotomy you've set up. In normal social interaction, if someone expresses a strong dislike for performing a group activity, the group can also bend. You've set up a situation where individuals must always subsume themselves to the gestalt, where there is also the outcome of a group accommodating the individual. I can't tell if you're only advocating for the extreme persistent pattern, which I could agree with you and falls within such broad social rules as Wheaton's, but then you keep using examples that seem to indicate that any action that causes a situation that must be resolved should always result in the individual acquiescing to the group. The example of the paladin being asked by the party to lie for their benefit despite lying being expressly against his code (a code well known to the group and previously approved as acceptable to the group social contract) is an example of where I would say that it's incumbent on the group to acknowledge and alter their behavior as the problem and not the player of the paladin. Yet your formulation would place this on the paladin's player to change their character or leave the group. [/QUOTE]

Verification