Posted by Tired of seeing his name on posts. on August 25, 2000 at 09:52:03:
In Reply to: My opinion. posted by Proud Blade(VIP) on August 25, 2000 at 09:10:25:
Suppose it is a matter of roleplaying. Suppose Narlock's player actually is playing the role of a Medieval Cardinal, claiming that he and the ruling Master elite know all there is to know on magic. Suppose he does roleplay someone like that rationalizing gaps in his own logic as opposed to seeking out new explanations for it. The attitude you're discussing might very well be of design. In game, the Tower might very well have stagnated, and is no longer a place of radical theories and learning. Why should he, the character, have to think about open mindedness if this is the case? Could we be doing a disservice to this roleplaying twist by discussing it on the board? Isn't there some sort of validity to interpreting the leadership of master in this way? Couldn't your well-stated opinion be expressed to Narlock the character, in the game (and then to others after your character has suffered the consequences?). Am I making sense? If anything, this turn of events makes the Tower much more interesting.