But check if the setting your DM is using allows for it

As an inquisitor, follow the letter of the law, not the spirit.

I thought inquisitors were of the say "the end justifies the means"?

Ah, the spirit is good. But any deviation from either the law or the spirit is something abominable and has to be punished.

They were (not that real life inquisition is a good measure of how DnD inquisition is) but at the same time you're asking about poland, eh?.

ooh right

and distrustful

oh god no

:/!!!

they are distrustful and follow the letter of the law, not the spirit

well real life inquisition is based on "you must trust that god existst, you must conform". D&D usually has some sort of polytheism where the gods are demonstrably real, so the inquisitor is more like... like...

I see, like a stern beurocrat

Think the world owes you something. Feel inferior to others, and think you need to prove yourself to be in the first world. When you realise it doesn't work like that be angry.

not really either

it's more like...

"it's what it says and I don't care what you think"

The law says "do not wear swords in the city", but this other law says "swords are weapons with a sharpened blade and a crossguard and a hilt". My sword has no crossguard, therefore it's not a sword, it's just a big knife, I'm taking it into the city

ooooh I see

the spirit is totally subverted, but the letter holds

so they take laws 100% literally

precisely, and look for loopholes.

they also take everything else literally?

and look for loopholes!

of course not :)

I see I see

goodnight, people

sleep tight

docs.google.com/document/d/…

Alternative idea for roleplaying a Pole: be the old Pope. XD

I wrote it some time ago

heh

I'm copying it for my character sheet

"No one should drink and drive! But when I did it, it was just one beer, it totally doesn't count"

that's hypocrisy then

well maybe thatìs not good for the inquisitor. Unless it's because he IS the law

Now, if you think that these are 100% of a person, that's stereotyping and racism. These are just cultural predispositions, which are very slightly more common among my nation than some others.

I'm keeping "Grzegorz" as his name, though

k

it's a common name too

it sounds really good IMO

I hope I wasn't offensive on the course of this conversation!

no, not at all

@Golokopitenko It's not unlike American Exceptionalism: the notion that the rules don't really apply to you because of a mitigating factor which means the world owes you preferential treatment.

I'm also quite realistic on how my nation is viewed by the rest of the world.

hey, I chose to roll as a Polish because of the mighty hussars and religious fervor, not to mention the amazing names and language

In Exceptionalism, it's about being so awesome and powerful that you get to decide the rules in the first place, so you can decide if they apply to you or not. The way @eimyr is describing Poland, it's about being dealt such a lousy hand on the world stage that the rules should be bent in order to give you a chance--and if the rules won't bend on their own, well, bend 'em on your own.

"it's about being dealt such a lousy hand on the world stage that the rules should be bent in order to give you a chance"

amazing analogy

There's a sense of justice to it: a perception of inequality which is made right by modifying the rules of the game to favour the underdog. Like a handicap in bowling, except the rules are so unfair you have to add the handicap yourself.

@Golokopitenko Religious fervor? You are only looking at modern times, my friend. Poland was Christianised for purely political reasons (to stop Holy Roman Empire from justified border disputes), never really crusaded, then we fought a huge war against the Teutonic Knights and after we won we were known in Europe as "country of no stakes" as no-one burned at it. We had state-established religious freedom and many Orthodox, Jewish and Muslim communities, back when Europe was busy hunting witches.

well, now I am ashamed of my ignorance

We actually made a point of NOT joining the Hussite Wards, despite having every reason to do so.

I thought it had a strong christian tradition?

Yes, it does.

But in the times others were totally crusade-happy, we were the tolerant bunch.

I see, fervor was not the right word at all

eh... strong sense of tradition

only recently (XIX-XXI century) we became much more extremist

As someone whose religion does everything it can to be simultaneously fervent and non-fanatical, it's an important but sometimes fuzzy distinction.

that's mostly due to the fact during the Partitioning of Poland religion was just about the only thing the occupying nations didn't actively tried to oppose, so Catholicism became the "safe" way of demonstrating polish-ness. Then, we had a brief secular period between the World Wards and after inclusion of the Eastern Bloc, we became religious again, for exactly the same reason.

Currently, religion influences far too many aspects of life in Poland, so it is easy to think we were always a country like that.

@eimyr I suspect something similar happened with Chamorro Catholicism on Guam during the post-WWII American assimilation efforts.

there's also Wojtyla

I hear his figure is very important in Poland

@BESW I don't know Guam well enough to comment on that. Maybe, maybe it's different.

@Golokopitenko Yeah, he was and still is a national hero. Only veeery recently his policies became critiqued, but it's still taboo to say he might have been gasp a bad pope

It's definitely different in the details, as Catholicism was originally forced on the locals by the Spanish until they assimilated it, and later suppressed along with all the rest of their culture by the occupying Japanese.

he was very popelar (heh) everywhere else though

he was very charismatic, I think

as a Spanish I was used to see him in the news

He did a great job establishing a discourse between Catholicism and other big religions. He also totally dropped the ball on trouser issues - both zipper and pocket-related.

My Jesuit theology teachers were very mixed about him.

I think people sometimes give too much importance to head figures

But then, it's the Jesuit mandate to be simultaneously loyal to the Pope and critical of him.

as good or bad as he was, his actions were constrained by the church itself, and by the time he lived

this applies to every big figure

Jesuits would be the kind of priests who would not agree with all his policies.

@Golokopitenko Does it? The Pope generally has the power to do anything, as he is considered infallible. The only thing he might fear is not waking up one day.

"The only thing he might fear is not waking up one day." well that sounds very constraining

But it's true for all leaders.

Pope has just about no-one above him.

Pope Francis and Pope John XXIII are great examples that you CAN go against the current.

yeah, although I do wonder if it's all a PR stunt and in reality nothing changes

The Pope is only infallible ex cathedra, which is a lot more limiting than most folks realise. In reality it's a very political position, with the people around him very influential in making his desires practicable on the world, and with the need to avoid alienating the world congregation--which is like herding cats.

for instance, I'm sure funds will be keep being diverted

They will be. Pope's power reaches as far as his friends' does.

Many bishops are not Pope's friends.

Movements like the Neocatechumenate are a good example of the fractious nature of the Church.

(The NCW is a majorly divisive subject over here.)

E.g. polish bishops blatantly ignore or dismiss Pope's directives, saying they are unrealistic, inappropriate or misinterpreted.

@BESW Same with Lefebvrists.

aren't the chastized?

eg. a bishop marrying gay couples?

Sorry, I'm starting to doze off. ttfn

same here

good night eimyr

nighty nighty you two ^_^

@nitsua60 I'm flattered, but you shouldn't equate faster with better. The 2 users you mention handle deep, complicated questions - I just answer simple questions quickly.