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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9481092" data-attributes="member: 6790260">A rule can still "not apply to everyone" and yet not be an exclusionary, "if you don't have this you cannot do this" rule.Consider: "We are offering a discount on green cars." This does not mean the dealership cannot offer a discount on cars that are not green, nor that the only way to get a discount is to buy a green car. All it means is that you don't have to negotiate for a green car.Or, since legal stuff is already injected into the thread, consider the idea of an "absolute defense" against a particular alleged act. An absolute defense is something that, if demonstrated in the court, constitutes a guaranteed success for the defendant against a particular charge. There are several examples. Self-defense is one of the most commonly discussed absolute defenses; so long as certain criteria are met (usually regarding the need for force and the proportionality, e.g. striking someone with your car when they're armed with only a knife is probably not proportionate!) Another common one is demonstrating the truth of an allegedly defamatory statement. You cannot defame someone by saying true things about them, so if it is true and can be shown to be true, that's pretty much a slam dunk victory for the defense. Others exist in other areas of law, I'm sure.Point being: does the existence of the self-defense doctrine thus mean that if you weren't acting in self-defense, you automatically lose? Hell no! It's just one guaranteed successful defense, IF you qualify for it.That's how class rules should be understood in D&D. They are not, in general, rules of the type "the President has the right to veto laws" (a special dispensation which cannot and will not be allowed to anyone else). Instead, they are generally "if what you said was true, then it cannot be defamatory" type: you can still win against a claim of defamation despite not showing the truth of the statements, it just requires more effort and other factors in play. It is a guaranteed path to success, but not the only path to success.That's why I keep harping on this. Snarf basically just said, "hey, this principle happens a lot, so that's exactly what's going on here"....but never actually defended why that principle should be applied, rather than the alternative where negotiation is always possible but sometimes unnecessary.</blockquote>

Verification