No Game No Life pledge 4:
As long as it doesn't violate pledge 3, anything may be bet, and any game may be played.
- What happens when we delete the hypothesis (aka assumption) 'As long as it doesn't violate pledge 3' ?
Of course, if we delete the hypothesis, then we might as well delete the 4th pledge altogether. Thus, pledge 4 may be restated:
I guess my question may be rephrased to ask for (counter)examples of bets or games that would violate pledge 3.
I actually feel there's some
This might be resolved by question 1, but if not, then what's going on?
Pledge 4 actually seems to point out that the 'game' and that which players bet in pledges 2 and 3 are kinda not quite defined at least in terms of the scope. I mean, what's the scope of the games or that which players bet? It seems pledge 4 is precisely defining the scope, but pledge 4 refers to pledge 3. My understanding is:
Pledge 2: All conflict in this world will be resolved through games, where games are defined in scope in pledge 4.
Pledge 3: In games, each player will bet something that they agree is of equal value, where games and that which players bet are defined in scope in pledge 4.
Pledge 4: The scope of games and that which players bet is that which does not violate pledge 3.
What am I misunderstanding?