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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FitzTheRuke" data-source="post: 8263669" data-attributes="member: 59816">I regret my knee-jerk post above (in my defense it was before coffee), so sorry if that was overly aggressive. I still disagree with you, though. By LAW, my friends count as BLIND. That's what legally blind means. Therefore "blind" does not always mean cannot see at all. Certainly "effectively" suggests that it has exceptions. But whatever, this is getting far too much of splitting hairs. I agree that "Blind" MOSTLY means you can't see, but the game doesn't appear to.We all understand this. I'll reiterate:When faced with rules that seem to contradict our fiction (or themselves) we have two choices:1) Change the rules.2) Change the fiction.We all do a little bit of both, all the time.This thread has only ever been describing another way to look at the Darkness Spell, that does a different mix of 1) and 2) than the standard Ink-Blot.If everyone had said, "Interesting interpretation, but I like Ink-Blot better!" it would have stopped many pages back, but instead, those of us who thought that it was interesting got:"That's impossible to imagine!" (It's not); "That's not RAW!" (It could be); "Now WALLS are invisibile!" (What?); "That's not how light works!" (Uh...it doesn't change light in our fiction.); etc, etc...(Man, I've said a lot on the subject for someone who meant to bow out what feels like 400 pages ago...)I'm not trying to convince anyone to adopt this way of looking at it (though I think I have at least once); I'm defending the choice (probably uselessly) and explaining it (because it obviously didn't make sense to a lot of people).</blockquote>

Verification