That's true to an extent. It's more about avoiding arguments, though, and less about whether the view is orthodox.
For example, some views are so out there and unaligned that people will just think it's a joke and not fault you unless you start seriously arguing for it, like if you say murder should be legal.
On the other hand, some orthodox views would still get restricted because they're contentious. Like if you start talking about how you believe in equal rights, that's something most people agree with (at least in principle,) and it shouldn't be political. But it's going to ruffle some feathers anyways (especially if you get any more specific than that,) so it'd be restricted.
So basically, it either has to be so out there that people won't think you're serious, or so commonplace that people won't even consider that it could result in arguments.
Technically, yes, everything is political if you make it political. But you have to make it political first. Petting your cat isn't inherently political unless you bring up the government policies and economical structures that allow you to own the cat in the first place, or compare your attitude towards the cat to a political stance, or something else of that ilk.
In the same way, everything is scientific if you study it scientifically, and everything is theological if you consider it from a theological perspective. It's technically true, but that doesn't make it useful. It says more about the way you think than the nature of reality, especially as politics are a social construct.
In Pathfinder at least, they do have rules for spell research, and it's easier if it's pretty similar to a spell you already know, so "fireball but it's 10 ft wider and does d4s" is something you could get.
Or you could use metamagic feats. Widen Spell for AoE, Elemental Spell for damage type, and other properties. Though that can get expensive.
I do a thing where if someone lands a critical hit that takes a character from alive to dead*, they get a more descriptive kill based on the type of attack. A slashing attack might behead them. A cold attack could freeze them solid.
It's Pathfinder 1e, so death is when negative HP >= constitution score (not bonus.) I don't do it if they have room for bleedout and stabilization.
Sotuanduso @ Sotuanduso @lemm.ee Posts 2Comments 1,122Joined 2 yr. ago
That's true to an extent. It's more about avoiding arguments, though, and less about whether the view is orthodox.
For example, some views are so out there and unaligned that people will just think it's a joke and not fault you unless you start seriously arguing for it, like if you say murder should be legal.
On the other hand, some orthodox views would still get restricted because they're contentious. Like if you start talking about how you believe in equal rights, that's something most people agree with (at least in principle,) and it shouldn't be political. But it's going to ruffle some feathers anyways (especially if you get any more specific than that,) so it'd be restricted.
So basically, it either has to be so out there that people won't think you're serious, or so commonplace that people won't even consider that it could result in arguments.