Where we disagree is how I feel that one's personality would show through casual conversation, but until that character tried to influence someone else, it wouldn't matter.Being yourself is being yourself, it's when you go out of your way to try to sway someone to your side, or deceive them, or something like that that cha comes into play.
If I'm just hanging out and sharing a meal it doesn't matter whether my cha is 5 or 25
Being "yourself" is directly related to your stats. A high intelligence person reasons better than a low intelligence person. A low charisma could mean you lack a sense of self and as such are introverted and shy. Yes you can overcome these things with time, effort, and training. This is the RP aspect I speak of.
The 5 charisma guy is repulsive in magnetism. He lacks etiquette and belches at the table while picking his nose. The 25 charisma guy draws attention. Has attractive magnetism by telling compelling stories. The barmaids give him extra attention. He has etiquette, but still belches and makes light of it creating humor.
On int and reasoning I'll just drag over one of my posts from the other thread:
A 7 int isn't decisively "poor reasoning" though. Understanding the reasoning and motivations of others is sense motive, which is paired to wis not int. This is how you understand what is going on, your reasoning on what the situations ahead are and what motivates people.
Now your social reasoning, your ability to use others and further your aims is charisma and those related skills. There is no limit to the use of these actions in the rules--it does not say, even if you have a high charisma and a good bluff, if you don't have a good int your can't lie, cheat and totally do rings around people with your trickery. Int isn't the king here, when it comes to interaction skills its charisma and its skills, not int. Acting, reasoning and turning a social situation to your advantage is charisma.
Wis over int doesn't mean he just has "basic survival skills". Working out what is going on with those around you is sense motive, and the emotional intelligence skills and directing/manipulating others is charisma and its skills. Int is the most fuzzy ability score, and if your other two are high or excellent and the skills paired to those kept bolstered, int really slides from importance.
A dm could say, your character is too dumb to make a smart choice on character, or too dumb to trick others with your bluff, too naive to craft an argument with diplomacy, or too foolish to work out what is going on with sense motive, but all this is outside of the int stat, and int doesn't govern what actions you can declare.
Int is fuzzy and vague, and doesn't even cover all that there is to intelligence. Therefore its name isn't even correct.
Cheers all.
Cha7 with 1 skill in a class skill vs Cha10 with no skill ranks was the initial comparison. Straw men don't add much.It is not a straw man when one is clearly better in a comparison.
Arguments you don't like aren't immediately fallacies.
A form of straw man argument is exaggerating an example in an attempt to make another example irrelevant. It's what he did comparing a single skill point investment to a 9 level character difference.
Logical arguments 101.
Then you got logical arguments 101 wrong.
Why?
Because making a comparison isn't a straw man. He didn't exaggerate anything. He has got an easy win here with his point.
You poor thing- you say don't tell anyone how to roleplay, yet insist:then how can one argue that a low ability score shouldn't be role-played?
and that after graciously allowing characters with a high score need not role play however. At least won up to your own ideas. Of course it's not irritating to accuse me of "ignoring rules" when that's flat out untrue.
[edit = pardon the botched quotes, pls.]
You ignored the context of my post, EpicFail. I suppose the fact that I've consistently been pointing to the default rules when making such comments; and the plethora of instances where I specifically qualified that I respected the right of anyone to game as they wished within their group didn't count for anything in your eyes?
Is there ANY chance you'll pull back on the snide tone or trying to attribute to me positions I haven't claimed so we can simple continue with this debate? Or, if you're convinced I'm trying to "tell you how to game", would you rather we just ignore each other?
Yes!... in social interaction situations.Brass tacks: do all social interaction situations in Pathfinder fall within the range of the skills keyed to Charisma?
Disagree! :D
@ Khrysaor
Like I said, ignored (or rather, totally disregarded). *sigh*The Charisma ability score determines how great your character's (...) physical appearance are.You guys keep adding that "physical" like it's your job. There's no "physical" in there. It doesn't belong there. "Physical appearance" might be a part of "Appearance" (at least by some definitions, and only parts of those definitions interpreted a certain way), yes, but it doesn't make it interchangeable, like some people here are arguing.The sorceress hideously scarred by acid in too many spell duels, still has the immense force of charisma and personal power to draw spells from her very soul and unleash them outwards. She can also easily take charge in social situations and get her way, scars or no.
Appearance is entirely fluff.
Can you please at least respond to my post and my points instead of the single word that the other poster seized on? If you did, you'd see that physical appearance doesn't matter to me and isn't a necessary point to debate where this topic is concerned.
|
A form of straw man argument is exaggerating an example in an attempt to make another example irrelevant. It's what he did comparing a single skill point investment to a 9 level character difference.
Actually, I was correcting your own flawed comparison.
You can't argue using a character that invests skills into something vs. one that doesn't and say that makes up for it. This is like saying a 3/4 BAB class is better at combat than full BAB if they invest in all combat feats while the full BAB takes all skill focus.No, it's like saying a 10th level Bard with a 10 Str will be better at combat than a 1st level Fighter with an 18 Str. Which is pretty true actually.
You were talking about investing in skills vs just using ability scores. But your comparison with BAB was not equal to the differences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, there must be war Phoebus!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bull s&#!. A human being can't be condensed down into numbers
Of course not. Just like real combat can't be condensed to Pathfinder mechanics.
You're conflating Int with intellect
in·tel·lect
ˈintlˌekt/Submit
noun
the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract or academic matters.
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.
He's not conflating anything...
BULL S@$!! don't you dare tell me what my character does. That is my job and mine alone.
...
Again you're telling me what my character does or how he is. That is not right.
You need to relax, kyrt-ryder. Nothing anyone has said in this topic merits your implied reaction.
The clarifying fluff isn't the reality of the rules, that is what I am getting at.
To use your cha and wis skills doesn't require reasoning checks.
Books on debating? Go to the source mano, you want books on rhetoric.
Nearly all interaction can be reflected in skills, and even that high number goes up when a particularly important interaction is to be resolved. Before the introduction of skills, however many editions ago, the way social questions were resolved were either sheer force of a given player's will in real life or a high Charisma score. Now with Intimidate, Bluff, et al we can develop our guys all kinds of ways.
So "nearly all interaction" in your game boils down to lying, negotiating, putting on disguises, training animals, intimidating people, putting on performances or using magical items?
I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm interested in how that range of interactions can go up in your game. Are you, e.g., tying in seduction to Bluff or smooth-talking your way to the front of the line with Diplomacy?
Because you aren't reasoning?The clarifying fluff isn't the reality of the rules, that is what I am getting at.
To use your cha and wis skills doesn't require reasoning checks.
Remember, reasoning on the reasoning of creatures and compatriots is not reasoning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, there must be war Phoebus!
Spears shall be shaken, shields will be splintered!
;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Remember, reasoning on the reasoning of creatures and compatriots is not reasoning.Because you aren't reasoning?The clarifying fluff isn't the reality of the rules, that is what I am getting at.
To use your cha and wis skills doesn't require reasoning checks.
Reasoning: the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way
Common sense under the wisdom entry would be the only thing relative to logic based on experience. The others have no grounds in reasoning including all of charisma.
Understanding the complex motivations of external actors is not just common sense.
Yup. Any time one character tries to directly influence another a check is to be called for. The VAST majority of the time that falls under one of the cha-based skills. Once in a rare while it's a straight cha check.No check, no difference.
That's fair. But of course it brings us back to our philosophical distinction: a skill allowing you to succeed at (e.g.) negotiating despite not being charismatic, versus the numerical value of the ability being meaningless and the dice roll indicating the character's [insert personalilty trait or what have you here] worked out.
People don't react differently to others based on appearance? Most men will be overly polite and helpful to a "beautiful" woman vs. providing less help to someone of lesser attraction. The very presence of a person can warrant a reaction. By doing nothing they're influencing others.Nearly all interaction can be reflected in skills, and even that high number goes up when a particularly important interaction is to be resolved. Before the introduction of skills, however many editions ago, the way social questions were resolved were either sheer force of a given player's will in real life or a high Charisma score. Now with Intimidate, Bluff, et al we can develop our guys all kinds of ways.So "nearly all interaction" in your game boils down to lying, negotiating, putting on disguises, training animals, intimidating people, putting on performances or using magical items?
I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm interested in how that range of interactions can go up in your game. Are you, e.g., tying in seduction to Bluff or smooth-talking your way to the front of the line with Diplomacy?
Yup. Any time one character tries to directly influence another a check is to be called for. The VAST majority of the time that falls under one of the cha-based skills. Once in a rare while it's a straight cha check.
No check, no difference.
And the dm can factor that in, but when it comes to the actual skill checks...
It would be entirely houseruling to say, that diplomacy you succeeded on doesn't work because you are ugly.
This comes down to the character creation process. Unless you're house-ruling the stated trait measurement that is at the core of abilities, then the GM and the players need to figure out how the numerical values of the abilities express themselves. A GM who leaves it up to his player to figure out how that Charisma of 5 translates until after the campaign started has put himself in a predicament.
You poor thing- you say don't tell anyone how to roleplay, yet insist:then how can one argue that a low ability score shouldn't be role-played?
and that after graciously allowing characters with a high score need not role play however. At least won up to your own ideas. Of course it's not irritating to accuse me of "ignoring rules" when that's flat out untrue.
[edit = pardon the botched quotes, pls.]
You ignored the context of my post, EpicFail. I suppose the fact that I've consistently been pointing to the default rules when making such comments; and the plethora of instances where I specifically qualified that I respected the right of anyone to game as they wished within their group didn't count for anything in your eyes?
Is there ANY chance you'll pull back on the snide tone or trying to attribute to me positions I haven't claimed so we can simple continue with this debate? Or, if you're convinced I'm trying to "tell you how to game", would you rather we just ignore each other?
I'm not ignoring what you said- you are possibly ignoring what you said however. You talked about the greater leeway high scores get which is implicit that low scores lack such leeway for role play purposes. I'm simply showing what you wrote, like:
"...then how can one argue that a low ability score shouldn't be role-played?"If you don't want to own up to tour own thoughts, don't make things up about what I'm doing. If you want to clarify that indeed you don't proscribe for others how to play say a 7 or 5 Charisma player, then let's hear it. If you can flat out say that, then my conclusions will be shown to be in error.
Nearly all interaction can be reflected in skills, and even that high number goes up when a particularly important interaction is to be resolved. Before the introduction of skills, however many editions ago, the way social questions were resolved were either sheer force of a given player's will in real life or a high Charisma score. Now with Intimidate, Bluff, et al we can develop our guys all kinds of ways.So "nearly all interaction" in your game boils down to lying, negotiating, putting on disguises, training animals, intimidating people, putting on performances or using magical items?
I'm not trying to be snarky. I'm interested in how that range of interactions can go up in your game. Are you, e.g., tying in seduction to Bluff or smooth-talking your way to the front of the line with Diplomacy?
Bluff is not simply lying nor is Diplomacy simply what happens at the negotiations between states level. At the risk of being overly defensive, you are reducing skills and asking "you do that?" So yes, in our games skills *nearly* always cover those things. Context and past interactions count as well of course and sometimes are the most important aspect. Yet skills are the motor that tries to drive the interaction along.
But under his argument the DM couldn't make an NPC unfriendly based on his 5 charisma indicating unpleasantness because he always role plays as a very pleasant person.
If by 'his' you mean my argument, you are profoundly off base. If you meant someone else, carry on, please.
The 5 charisma guy is repulsive in magnetism. He lacks etiquette and belches at the table while picking his nose.BULL S@#&! don't you dare tell me what my character does. That is my job and mine alone.
The 25 charisma guy draws attention. Has attractive magnetism by telling compelling stories. The barmaids give him extra attention. He has etiquette, but still belches and makes light of it creating humor.Again you're telling me what my character does or how he is. That is not right.
Here it is, the crux of the problem summed up. 12 pages of back-and-forth complaining over this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not ignoring what you said- you are possibly ignoring what you said however. You talked about the greater leeway high scores get which is implicit that low scores lack such leeway for role play purposes. I'm simply showing what you wrote, like:
"...then how can one argue that a low ability score shouldn't be role-played?"If you don't want to own up to tour own thoughts, don't make things up about what I'm doing. If you want to clarify that indeed you don't proscribe for others how to play say a 7 or 5 Charisma player, then let's hear it. If you can flat out say that, then my conclusions will be shown to be in error.
Here goes:
Please don't take this as me saying you can't do whatever you want in your game. That's the last thing on my mind. It seems as if we're discussing what is actually stated in Chapter One of the Core Rulebook... and in that sense you'll excuse me if I respectfully disagree with your argument. :)
Try presenting a scenario with any other stat and (most likely) I will debate with you until I'm blue in the face on the subject, because I refuse to reject a player's right to breath life into a character without being held back by the stats.I'm not saying you should! :)
Not quite. I'm pointing out that your style of game - as described - is contingent on ignoring a part of the game system. And that's your prerogative! :)Meaning, if you tell me "I don't care what Chapter One of the Core Rulebook has to say about abilities; this is how my group plays," I will wholeheartedly recognize your group's right to play the way that is most fun for you.
That, however, doesn't mean that the abilities don't matter, though - or that there isn't a qualified and quantified difference between a high ability score and a low one.
I assure you, I don't think anyone here - based on their stated positions - is being a munchkin.
At "worst", I simply think they are not correct when they say that abilities and ability scores don't matter and have no bearing on a character's portrayal, period. Everyone is entitled to their own style at their own table, but that view is one that disregards the game's "default" position. As such, I'll admit to feeling a tad "troubled" (well, insofar as one can when referring to an ultimately irrelevant debate) when kyrt-ryder describes it as "overly-literal" and as valid grounds for him to walk away from a gaming table.
That's all. :)
I'm trying to be nice here: please don't put words in my mouth. Despite my disagreement with kyrt-ryder, I have consistently stated to him that I respect whatever he chooses to do in his gaming table.
Either way you cut it, though, this game imposes limitations to what you can play. You're of course free to House Rule-away those parts you don't like, but that's what it ultimately is: a House Rule.
You know what's ironic? So many of these were addressed to you, EpicFail.
My position is, "What you're doing is a house rule; I respect your right to play as you like, but this is what the book says, and I don't think it's unreasonable to play by it."
You're conflating it with, "You have to play this way".
So, once more: will you dial back the tone and stop attributing to me positions that I don't subscribe to?
...My position is, "What you're doing is a house rule; I respect your right to play as you like, but this is what the book says, and I don't think it's unreasonable to play by it."
You're conflating it with, "You have to play this way".
So, once more: will you dial back the tone and stop attributing to me positions that I don't subscribe to?
It's nice to have someone dripping with condescension trying to be 'nice.' That's very big of you- like allowing those with higher scores to play the way they want without saying they're breaking 'the rules.' Nice try at having one description in the CRB try to trump an entire section on skills in the service of what you believe to be the one true way to play. In your magnanimity you will allow us poor slobs to play by so-called house rules where people interpret and develop their own guys.
If you don't want to own up to tour own thoughts, don't make things up about what I'm doing. If you want to clarify that indeed you don't proscribe for others how to play say a 7 or 5 Charisma player, then let's hear it. If you can flat out say that, then my conclusions will be shown to be in error.
I see you cannot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no "condescension" going on. I don't know how many times someone can qualify their position for you to understand that you're simply off on your estimation.
You asked me to " clarify that indeed [I] don't proscribe for others how to play say a 7 or 5 Charisma player, ..." In return, I posted six instances where I had already qualified that the last thing on my mind was to tell people what to do in their game; that they shouldn't be held back by the stats; that ignoring a part of the game system is their prerogative; that everyone was entitled to their own style at their own table; that I didn't think anyone here was a munchkin; etc.
Despite this, you say I cannot clarify this. I can only assume that this discussion has reached an emotional point for you.
Nice try at having one description in the CRB try to trump an entire section on skills in the service of what you believe to be the one true way to play.
I at one point or another quoted the pertinent text indicating what each ability measures. I also pointed out that the various racial entries in both the Core Rulebook and the Advanced Race Guide indicated that ability modifiers do play a role in how a character is portrayed. E.g., dwarves have a racial bonus that gives them better than average Constitution and are described as "tough"; elves have a racial penalty that gives them a worse than average Constitution and are described as "frail". That pattern continues through the various entries where a race gets a bonus or a penalty to specific abilities (as opposed to, say, Humans or Half-Orcs, where there is no specific ability bonus/penalty for them to get a specific descriptor).
So when you're talking about "one entry", you're simply incorrect.
In your magnanimity you will allow us poor slobs to play by so-called house rules where people interpret and develop their own guys.
My only point where "house rules" is concerned is exactly what I told kyrt-ryder: that he's more entitled to do what he wants, but that I don't think that anyone who simply wants the "by-the-book" approach is overly literal or restrictive by default.
If you genuinely feel slighted by my stance - that ignoring the numerical values of one's abilities when describing their character's actions, capabilities, and personality (among other things, situation-dependent, of course) is a "house rule" - there's nothing I can do for you. I could offer you that I don't think there's anything wrong with house rules, and that me citing the pertinent text from "Getting Started" in regards to house rules should be an indicator of that, but I honestly don't think you'll care. I sincerely think that you'd much rather we either cease speaking to one another or continue having a hostile discussion because that would reinforce your opinion that everyone here who simply doesn't agree with you is trying to push some "One Way".
If you seriously think that I'm playing false with you and with everyone else with whom I happen to have a simple difference of opinion then let's simply agree to cease interaction at this point. I honestly don't feel like having my integrity questioned over something as trivial as what two different people like to do in two different games.
...many words that are flatly contradicted by the preivous quote, "What you're doing is a house rule; I respect your right to play as you like, but this is what the book says"...
so when you're talking about "one entry", you're simply incorrect.
I stand corrected. You used the general guide that abstracts out an entire race. To have that jump to people who don't play a certain way with their specific, unique guy is laughable to me, but you did use that. I agree with the CRB's description under the stat heading. I agree with the description of the races. Where we disagree is how that general info is then used in the game. Specifically for role playing purposes.
You can say house rules mean whatever to you, I don't really care. Your wordy and shaky foundation of having a -2, or - 3 say, describe how a critter 'should' play by 'the rules' is hilarious when one skill rank in a class skill would turn that fragile insight on its head. The former -2 is now at a relative +2.
I honestly don't feel like having my integrity questioned over something as trivial as what two different people like to do in two different games.
You poor aggrieved thing. If you presume to tell others how to role play, even by the gracious offer to let them play by house rules, maybe some will take offense at your presumption. I'm not trying to be anything but clear.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly believe that no tabletop RPG is playable without house rules. If nothing else, all the printed text (for any game) is generally insufficient to determine every situation that may come up so some interpretation of intent or "what ought to be" is necessary to actually play the darn thing with actual humans. It takes a dedicated group of experienced RPers approximately 5 minutes to come up with something that the rules don't cover. Just last week I had my group try to invent the Limited Liability Company in the setting...
I don't think "house rule" is really a pejorative, since the interpretation of the system that the players need to assume in order to actually play the game is going to be specific to them. Simply in the act of playing the game, one creates house rules even if they are not vocalizing them specifically as such.
Which is to say, everybody's interpretation of the game is specific to themselves, it's just a matter of compatibility with other people who are playing the game.
The one thing I'm confused about is about the people who take great offense to being told how to play; isn't this inherent to the premise of many campaigns? Like "in this campaign you are all pirates" or "in this campaign you are all playing evil characters". Doesn't the GM set the basic framework for the characters a lot of the time to begin with? And the players tacitly agree to whatever framework the GM lays out in advance by showing up to play? So like if I ran my faerieland campaign where low CHA characters are all ugly (and high CHA characters are all beautiful) are people going to be really upset by that, or are they going to say "well, that's the premise of this particular game, so I have to deal with it or not play?"
...many words that are flatly contradicted by the preivous quote, "What you're doing is a house rule; I respect your right to play as you like, but this is what the book says"...
I'm not sure how I contradicted myself given that I'm repeating myself. I can only assume that besides the fact that you think it's condescending, you also think that me saying "this is a house rule" also equates to me saying "You should play my way, instead."
I stand corrected. You used the general guide that abstracts out an entire race. To have that jump to people who don't play a certain way with their specific, unique guy is laughable to me, but you did use that. I agree with the CRB's description under the stat heading. I agree with the description of the races. Where we disagree is how that general info is then used in the game. Specifically for role playing purposes.
Correct. We established that some pages ago (or maybe it was kyrt-ryder).
You can say house rules mean whatever to you, I don't really care. Your wordy and shaky foundation of having a -2, or - 3 say, describe how a critter 'should' play by 'the rules' is hilarious when one skill rank in a class skill would turn that fragile insight on its head. The former -2 is now at a relative +2.
Correct. I have no problem with this. My position has been consistent on this. Training can absolutely help a character overcome ability-based limitations in certain social situations. You and I obviously disagree just how wide a range of those situations the skills encompass.
You poor aggrieved thing. If you presume to tell others how to role play, even by the gracious offer to let them play by house rules, maybe some will take offense at your presumption. I'm not trying to be anything but clear.
Full disclosure: I asked you three times to dial back the tone. I flagged your post for the insulting tone you've affected toward me throughout this thread. I'm doing the same with the other two posts wherein I asked you to change your tone.
I can only assume you felt your tone was warranted. Clearly I don't agree with this take, just as you don't agree with me saying that I have never intended to be condescending and that I am not trying to tell anyone how to play this game. Since we are clearly not going to overcome this difference of opinions regarding our tone/stance, I recommend that you in turn flag those posts of mine that you feel inform your attitude towards me. I'm sure the moderators will take any action they feel is appropriate.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not trying to tell anyone how to play this game
I think the "stop telling me how to play the game" argument is coming up again and again as a straw man, since no one has anything of the sort through twelve pages of this. If you play a CHA 7 INT 7 character as brilliant and charming, at worst I would judge you of committing some poor roleplaying. Considering that everybody is constantly judging the acting of everybody at the table (it's just part of tabletop game experience), considering someone to be doing poorly is not the worst thing in the world, and "offering advice to do it better" ought not be taken with hostility.
But nobody is telling anybody else how to play the game, so can we please stop making that assumption? Saying you believe one way is better than another is not to say that one way is right and the other is wrong. All anybody has done here is really express a perspective and a preference, and nobody's preference or perspective invalidates anybody else's.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not trying to tell anyone how to play this gameBut nobody is telling anybody else how to play the game, so can we please stop making that assumption? Saying you believe one way is better than another is not to say that one way is right and the other is wrong...
Saying the rules dictate that you should play character a certain way or you'll be outside said rules is exactly what's going on.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am not trying to tell anyone how to play this gameI think the "stop telling me how to play the game" argument is coming up again and again as a straw man, since no one has anything of the sort through twelve pages of this. If you play a CHA 7 INT 7 character as brilliant and charming, at worst I would judge you of committing some poor roleplaying. Considering that everybody is constantly judging the acting of everybody at the table (it's just part of tabletop game experience), considering someone to be doing poorly is not the worst thing in the world, and "offering advice to do it better" ought not be taken with hostility.
But nobody is telling anybody else how to play the game, so can we please stop making that assumption? Saying you believe one way is better than another is not to say that one way is right and the other is wrong. All anybody has done here is really express a perspective and a preference, and nobody's preference or perspective invalidates anybody else's.
There has been a lot of "that's a house rule" or "You're not playing according to the rules if..." going about. It's not accusing people of badwrongfun, strictly speaking, but it definitely carries an unpleasant whiff of it.
I'm not sure how I contradicted myself given that I'm repeating myself. I can only assume that besides the fact that you think it's condescending, you also think that me saying "this is a house rule" also equates to me saying "You should play my way, instead."...many words that are flatly contradicted by the preivous quote, "What you're doing is a house rule; I respect your right to play as you like, but this is what the book says"...
You are saying your interpretation of the rules says one needs to play a certain score a certain way. I'm not into the 'flag' thing btw at least for something so trivial. Enjoy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Saying the rules dictate that you should play character a certain way or you'll be outside said rules is exactly what's going on.I am not trying to tell anyone how to play this gameBut nobody is telling anybody else how to play the game, so can we please stop making that assumption? Saying you believe one way is better than another is not to say that one way is right and the other is wrong...
I dunno. In a lot of cases it's equally possible to read what people are saying as "I feel the rules are telling me this, and that's how I prefer to play."
It's certainly a fine line, but it's also an important distinction (as weird as it sounds to put those two together.)
Some people are certainly crossing the line, but it's important not to treat everyone else on the other side of the argument the same way just because of a small number of people bringing hostility and onetrueway[tm]ness into the conversation.