secularmerlin

(Naw that was the casting)

The underlined text is the command. Sorry that's why the spell name and the text were both underlined.

For your convenience You must help us destroy it.

@Buddamoose @Drafterman 

We must heal this temple Snerp.

Fool, if he has been turned then he is no longer your son. (In primordial casting suggestion) Let your fear and indecision flow into Zud that you may act directly and as required. (Back to common) That creature doesn't love you. It is evil and it hungers for your blood and your soul. You must help us destroy it so that your son can be at peace

When the man yells about monsters and invaders Eikka spins arround crossbow in hand expecting to see hordes of undead behind her. When there seems to he no threat she turns back arround visibly displeased. (Though she isn't actively trying to be intimidating she has a scowl on her mug that might call for an intimidation roll).

You haven't established freewill yet. I mean what is the mechanical/chemical process and why do people do anything?

You haven't established freewill yet. I mean what is the mechanical/chemical process and why does the robot do anything?

How is the second robot making descisions? How does it differentiate between different directions?

Eikka does indeed stride into the church towards the sound of prayer.

(Yeah and she's headed for church with bearded Macaulay Culkin.)

(It's Tim Curry from Rocky horror.)

(Nice, play to your strengths. Plus I like the sneakyness.)

(Right on, guesz I do have it prepared then.)

I have suggestion available. Not prepared though I don't think.

Nope, sure doesn't but loving the truth is unnecessary to accepting what appears to be true which is what garners all the benefits you included in your last post. Acceptance of the scientific method and practical application of the knowledge that we gain from science.

Unless I have misunderstood you when you say The Truth you do not necessarily mean what appears to be true so what you are reffering to is divorced from the practical benefits of accepting what is verifiable true.

(How do you not already have That? It's right up Snerp's alley.)

(My next cantrip spare the dying would probably be Eikka's choice but I really want sacred flame so I'm not sure if I'll go with my choice or hers.)

(Resistance is a cantrip too. +1d4 to the next saving throw.)

(Yeah, all hail Zud am I right?)

(Guidance is a cantrip. +1d4 to the next skill roll.)

I'm sorry is your definition not the ability to act differently in similar circumstances? I am willing to refine my understanding of what you mean.

@Buddamoose @Drafterman 

(Looks like we are equally qualified in religion but if any talking is involved you will have advantage. You make the roll and I will) cast guidance on Snerp and assist in his roll.

(Sorry I wasn't trying to interupt. But hey welcome to my outing. Ready to smooth talk some village priests?)

(If you can dual wield you already have two daggers.)

Grahf would you like me to include anything in my prayers?

@Buddamoose

@kindertina 

(In primordial)I'll be back soon try not to get in trouble.

@Drafterman 

I seek out the church and try to speak with the clergy as a traveling priestess. Who is prominently worshipped here? How many clerics live in the church (or just non class priests)? Does the church provide any services (magic or otherwise) and what kind of "donation" is expected in return? (Roll for religion?)

Such philosophies cannot be discounted as if they were true our universe would look identical. It is still more convenient to behave as though everything I perceive is an accurate reflection of reality and in accepting that, even if only as a convenience, I must also accept certain propositions based on observation of the scientific method. One such proposition is the apparent extreme age of the observable universe.

(It didn't respond to detect magic.)

The student that is smarter and or applies themselves better to their studies. What they love has little to do with it though it might factor in determining the better student in a small way. 

You still haven't adequately explain the difference between the two relationships or addressed what you feel I need to be saved from. 

I shall have to think of a name for you. Spoken to the cat.

I check on and feed the kitten.

(I don't guess I have a problem with that.)

What do you mean by save? Save us from What? Also it isn't the rock and reality at large I don't see a difference between it is the relationships human holds with an inanimate nonliving object and a reality that appears likewise to be nonliving.

Eikka's eyes widen in surprise. She turns her head slowly and suspiciously toward the drow and speaks in primordial. You speak the language of the elementals?

(Slow down cowboy. Let's talk about how we can best use the gold as a party.)

I want answers. We need to find some people to question.

A rock is a part of reality and niether shows any observable sign of any emotion, love included, so yes I'm curious what the difference is. Let's say hypothetically that someone loves a rock with every fiber of his being and proudly proclaims rock=God, how is their relationship with the rock different from your relationship with reality?

Does that mean you don't have an answer?

That more than one course of action is possible does not mean that freewill is being exercised. As an example picture a computer that makes descisions based on the decay of sub atomic particles. Let us assume there is a fifty percent chance that any given particle will decay within ten minutes and a fifty percent chance that any given particle will take more than ten minutes to decay. The computer would be capable of doing either A or B depending on the decay of sub atomic particles. If what you say is true then not only the computer but the particles have freewill because both may react in different ways in similar situations.

Can anything be magically mended?

(And Snerp is turned into a toad.)

What is the practical functional difference between the two? In neither case is there any observable indication that the relationship is more than one sided.

(If we can even get back.)

I am not even implying that it is impossible to go with A or B equally. I am saying that you prefer one over the other and that in the absence of a reason not to you will go with that preference. You do not control your preferences so going with your preferences is not indicative of freewill and if you have a reason not to then there is a cause (the aforementioned reason) and descisions based on cause and effect are not indicative of freewill.

There is plenty of evidence that cause and effect shape our descisions but no evidence that we have freewill. I cannot be certain that there is no such thing as freewill because one cannot prove a negative but I am unable to maintain a belief in the absence of evidence.

Now let's say you do manage to do something for litteraly no reason. You don't prefer one outcome or course of action over another and niether will help you avoid negative consequences or emotions (whatever you consider to be negative) no one is telling you what to do and you aren't trying to prove anything. That would be a random descision and random events are not indicative of freewill either.

Hold your breath elf. Having found the way forward Eikka does not hesitate.

All things being equal don't you generally go with your preferences in any given situation? That is don't you generally do whatever brings you the most immediate happiness unless there is a reason not to?