It's only a strawman if it isn't an actual argument someone is making. So by saying this, you are right back to having to defend Fatr, or admit that you are wrong.Mechalich wrote:Besides, arguing something actually reasonable is far more useful than having both side erect and subsequently demolish a whole bunch of absurdist straw men.
Kill-On-Sight Enemies
Moderator: Moderators
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
I don't think humanoids/quasi-humanoids/demi-humans a la orcs and goblins should be treated as "kill on sight", and I don't think it's necessarily too much of a hardship for the DM to demonstrate that they're evil and you should kill them without having them actively eating babies or raping halflings or whatever. You don't have to get creative if you don't want to: shit, have them run straight at you with the intention to kill YOU and take YOUR stuff. Then it's just self defense.
Now, creatures that are supernaturally innately evil like, say, demons, devils, and evil outsiders? I am totally fine with a kill-on-sight mentality towards those. They are from fucking hell (or strictly speaking if we're talking D&D, hells).
Now, creatures that are supernaturally innately evil like, say, demons, devils, and evil outsiders? I am totally fine with a kill-on-sight mentality towards those. They are from fucking hell (or strictly speaking if we're talking D&D, hells).
Last edited by Neurosis on Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
For a minute, I used to be "a guy" in the TTRPG "industry". Now I'm just a nobody. For the most part, it's a relief.
Trank Frollman wrote:One of the reasons we can say insightful things about stuff is that we don't have to pretend to be nice to people. By embracing active aggression, we eliminate much of the passive aggression that so paralyzes things on other gaming forums.
hogarth wrote:As the good book saith, let he who is without boners cast the first stone.
TiaC wrote:I'm not quite sure why this is an argument. (Except that Kaelik is in it, that's a good reason.)