Talk:Jailor/@comment-5498154-20151007164045/@comment-25709350-20151027212323

Ozanoz, jailor isn't OP because it's unique. It's potentially unique because it's OP'. 'Correlation is not causation, and even when it is, the cause potentially can be either object correlated with the other. Logic in this case says that it can't be OP due to uniqueness, via both inductive and deductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning (specifically, argument by example) states that mayor is unique, yet not OP (mayor isn't OP due to the fact that the town doesn't cooperate with him, and he dies quickly due to the fact that he's useless until he's revealed). Deductive reasoning, with premises that some entity decides which roles are unique due to only the fact that the rules of the game are created by said entity, and that whether or not something is overpowered is determined by it's characteristics alone, states the following:

1. Whether or not something is overpowered is determined by its characteristics alone.

2. Some entity decides which roles are unique due to only the fact that the rules of the game are created by said entity.

3. The rules of the game are not a characteristic of any one of the game's roles, since the general can not be a characteristic of a specific subcategory within the general.

4. The role(s) of the game are not the creator(s) of the game, since nothing can create itself.

5. Since whether or not something is overpowered is determined by its characteristics alone, and since the characteristics of the role(s) are neither the rules of the game nor being the creator(s) of the game, a role being overpowered can not be due to its uniqueness.

A simplified version of above syllogism is: What comes after can not be the cause of what comes before.

However, let us not jump to the conclusion after just this logic that a role is unique due to its OPness, lest we be committing the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. It could always be caused by a third variable.