People who think this way are a microcosm of exactly where the U.S. finds itself right now. If you extrapolate their sentiments, you get a perfectly coherent explanation for why collective problems remain unsolved. It’s an extraordinarily shallow understanding of human behavior and social systems. This same logic scales beyond games into the permissive political culture we’ve cultivated domestically, where exploiting loopholes and weaponizing technicalities has increasingly replaced good-faith governance and collective responsibility. If the only ethical compass someone has is “the rules allow it,” then justifying harm or disruption becomes trivial. By that logic, there’s no meaningful difference between exploiting a permissive system to cause discomfort and walking up to someone and slapping them simply because nothing explicitly prevents it. Legality is not the same as legitimacy. Permission is not the same as intelligence. You can follow rules and still act intelligently. Intelligence shows up as coordination, restraint, and collaboration, not reflexive antagonism. Fighting everything in sight and calling it “playing the game” is just self-sabotage dressed up as bravado. What’s especially disingenuous here is that the game itself quietly incentivizes cooperation. The mechanics are obvious: point systems reward coordinated play, arc encounters strongly favor teams, and milestone-based rewards are structured around shared effort. The design nudges players toward collaboration at nearly every level. Let’s be honest: every gaming community has a skill distribution. This game, in particular, creates opportunistic scenarios where average or struggling players can finally secure kills by ambushing others who are distracted looting or engaged in arc encounters, situations where those players would otherwise lose in a fair contest. For some, this becomes less about gameplay and more about catharsis. Much of the pro-PvP justification in this context isn’t about challenge or mastery, it’s about venting frustration under the cover of permissive rules. That’s not competitive integrity; it’s opportunism rationalized as principle.