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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5582205" data-attributes="member: 22779">Well, the big deal would be that point of play is to examine the morality of an act of terrorism.  I would have no problems with adding "extreme", "illegal" or "violent" as descriptors, since that fits pretty much every possible act of terrorism I can think of.But, if you add "evil" to the descriptors, you've just answered the entire point of play.  See Doug McCrae's quote from DitV for a better worded answer than mine.Ahh, but now you see the problem.  If we define all acts of terrorism as evil, now we have to actually define whether or not a given act is actually an act of terrorism.  That shifts the point of play from an examination of morality to one of semantics.  All you have to do is look at the bajillion paladin alignment discussions on the Internet to see what kind of rabbit hole that is to dive into.Because, now, in order for an action to be considered evil, it has to fit the definition of terrorism.  IOW, it becomes all about semantics.  OTOH, if you don't pre-define terrorism as evil, then the discussion becomes about whether or not the given act is morally justifiable or not, not whether or not it's a terrorist act in the first place.Oh, and just a point about the railroading thing... railroading really isn't the right term here.  I totally understand why people don't consider it railroading at all.  But, basically, the GM, by playing God and defining a given act's moral dimensions, the GM has taken away the ability of the players to work towards a definition.It's only railroading if you kinda squint and tilt your head to the side.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification