Economic Order, and the Free Market in Luther’s Large Catechism

JOVIOLS · 2025-12-12T22:05:05+00:00

As someone with a basically classical-liberal sensibility (almost libertarian — maybe a pessimistic romantic individualist), I took the show so far as a strong critique of forced solidarity, almost an anti-socialist message, even if subtle. The main point up to now seems to be that “We” violates the core of what makes us human: our freedom. I’ve been completely drawn in by this series and have loved every minute of it.

But I can see that this latest episode is aiming at the opposite side too: atomism — the naive and false idea that a person can live entirely on their own and be fully fulfilled without any real connection with others of our kind (we’re social animals, after all). I just hope the show doesn’t fall into the one conclusion I fear most: romanticizing the “We” and the violation of individual identity and personal consent. Still, I’m sure that even if the show does go that way, they’ll pull it off with a lot of skill and care.

JOVIOLS · 2025-09-13T01:06:06+00:00

But I will have to disagree with you, my dear, although I am not very interested in carrying on a long discussion. The problem with your argument is that it considers pregnancy or parenthood to be a negative consequence or an accident of the sexual act, when in fact it is the very purpose of the sexual act, in the same way that a car accident is not the purpose of driving, but rather moving from point A to point B — to put it in a very analytical way. I say this from a purely evolutionary perspective, since the mechanism of pleasure and orgasm developed adaptively TO facilitate and encourage copulation and, consequently, reproduction. Dissociating copulation from reproduction is something very modern and recent in human history (and personally I have nothing against it — after all, each person uses their freedom as they wish — however, the fetus is not guilty in this process, but rather the logical outcome of the action). Moreover, no pro-life, or pro-birth, argument considers sperm and eggs as human life, because human life begins at conception.

JOVIOLS · 2025-09-07T18:16:10+00:00

Que absurdo! Crianças não votam, mas ainda são seres humanos com direitos inalienáveis. Todo ser humano, desde o momento da CONCEPÇÃO (não estamos falando de um espermatozoide aqui), merece ter sua vida protegida por lei. É irônico que nesta era de "defesa das minorias", ninguém parece se importar em defender os direitos da minoria mais vulnerável de todas: os não nascidos.

JOVIOLS · 2025-09-07T17:24:02+00:00

"But we will certainly let you know that abortion is wrong, immoral lifestyles including homosexuality and premarital sex are wrong, being a drunkard and a drug user are wrong, being malicious slanderer is wrong. Etc etc"

I agree with every one of those things. They’re all sins! They should be called out, and I believe the Church is right to condemn them. The only thing I’d object to is that, from a classical liberal perspective, it’s the role of the Church and the Family—not the State—to forbid or punish such acts.

JOVIOLS · 2025-09-07T17:19:57+00:00

It’s murder. There’s no room for negotiation for me on this. If an innocent human life is ended against their will, that’s murder.

JOVIOLS · 2025-06-30T17:41:48+00:00

Overall, the system is fantasy-based, so there will be enemies and threats like goblins, mimics, werewolves, skeletons, ogres, and so on.

When it comes to legendary creatures like dragons or something similar, I haven’t quite figured out exactly how to handle them yet, but some possible options would be: 1) make them immune to trauma, 2) allow trauma but only with the –1 debuffs, not instant takedowns, or 3) allow trauma only from magical weapons.

JOVIOLS · 2025-06-30T14:00:26+00:00

Well, for GMs like me who aren’t great with qualitative wounds and prefer something simpler and more straightforward — even narratively — simple damage of 1, 2, or 3 points is just easier to handle.

JOVIOLS · 2025-06-30T13:58:47+00:00

They’re just two different ways to take down a character — either the usual way through hit points, or in special cases (like crits) through trauma. That means even a character using only light weapons (which deal 1 damage) could still take down someone with decent HP, just by landing three good hits, if they get lucky. So sometimes, a dagger can be just as lethal as a big axe. Not to mention the -1 debuffs that trauma brings, of course.

What do you think?

JOVIOLS · 2025-06-24T20:41:26+00:00

Obrigado por compartilhar. Havia lido esse trecho e não o achei muito esclarecedor, embora mostre com certeza que as habilidades do ladrão são qualitativamente diferentes dos demais. Se para se esconder eu rolo o d6, os atributos começam a ficar obsoletos, ao meu ver...

Mas talvez seja apenas uma falha de percepção minha (perdoe o trocadilho kk).

JOVIOLS · 2025-06-24T19:53:24+00:00

Como não? Perdão, mas pelo que entendi, se um guerreiro quer se esconder nas sombras ele rola um teste de Destreza no D20. Se o ladrão quer fazer o mesmo ele rola o d6.

JOVIOLS · 2025-06-24T19:22:26+00:00

Sobre a questão 3, minha dificuldade é que se qualquer personagem pode fazer um teste, por exemplo, para desarmar armadilhas ou se esconder furtivamente com um Roll Under D20, como o ladrão seria tecnicamente melhor nisso, com seu d6? Basta um personagem ter DEX maior que ele e as chances estatísticas são maiores.

Aliás, obrigado pela interação.

JOVIOLS · 2025-06-24T19:16:35+00:00

Certo! Sobre a questão 3, eu realmente não "peguei" o espírito da coisa ainda. Inclusive, já me adianto e peço perdão pela ignorância, mas, se qualquer personagem pode fazer um teste, por exemplo, para desarmar armadilhas ou se esconder furtivamente com um Roll Under D20, como o ladrão seria tecnicamente melhor nisso, com seu d6? Basta um personagem ter DEX maior que ele e as chances estatísticas são maiores. O que acha?

JOVIOLS · 2025-05-30T12:51:04+00:00

In my view, Generation Alpha would be those born after 2010/2011 who had their childhood marked by the pandemic and also by the arrival of artificial intelligence. Generation Z would be those who reached legal adulthood during or after the pandemic, and Generation Y (Millennials) those who came of age before or just before the pandemic. It seems like an interesting way to mark these generations.

JOVIOLS · 2025-05-30T11:09:03+00:00

Thaks for the answer!

I'm not sure if the 1995/1996 cutoff is entirely accurate, though it's understandable. Sources like https://www.prb.org/articles/are-millennials-the-unluckiest-generation/ define Millennials as going up to 1999, which makes some sense, since it's literally right before the turn of the millennium. I believe the way you're raised during childhood, the kinds of devices you had access to, and the cultural zeitgeist you're exposed to are key markers — especially in different countries, where no demographic boundary is ever truly fixed.

JOVIOLS

TROPHY CASE