Defense of Paladins: feedback please?

354 posts / 0 new
Last post
I fine it very easy to add Detect Evil in 5e. I think they might add  it later in the playtest when the paladin comes out.  

Many Shubs and Zuuls will know what it is to roast in the depths of the Sloar that day, I can tell you.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

You're pretty much clearly wrong.


Define Good.

Define Evil.



Would you like a definition from an in-game stand-point or a purely mechanical gamist definition? I can do either.


The definition you use when trying figure out whther or not Smit Evil/Good and Detect Evil/Good works.



Wow you can't figure that out?

If something is listed as Evil that means Smite Evil works against it. See, when the second part of the term "Smite Evil" refers to what is being smited. In this case it is "evil". Therefore, Smite Evil allows one to perform a smite against things that are evil.

This is why there are things like "Evil" listed in stat blocks. It lets you know what things are Evil.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

NOTE: None of Mr Customer's valid points in his intelligent, articulate post have been addressed. At all.

Because they're correct. And one cannot argue againts them.



Yes, well, it appears that people like crzyhawk can't have a discussion about alignment.  He thinks it's the worstest most baddest idea EVAR and that all should bow down to his opinions on the subject.


The fact that every topic about alignment and Paladins causes a major argument about what exactly each alignment really means, it does deserve at least making sure it's really needed.



So the existence of people ignorant of something that will still argue ceaselessly against it invalidates the thing they are arguing against?

Congrats, you are officially the same sort of people that argue against evolution. Good...for...you? I guess...

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Personally, I have absolutely zero problems with alignment until it starts affecting my character. If alignment is supposed to be a roleplaying guide, it should stay out of the mechanics.



You probably shouldn't like classes much then either huh?

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Sounds like it

Founder and figurehead of Just Say Yes!

Member of LGBT Gamers

Odds are, if 4-6 people can't figure out an answer you thought was obvious, you screwed up, not them. - JeffGroves
Which is why a DM should present problems to solve, not solutions to find. -FlatFoot
A game is a fictional construct created for the sake of the players, not the other way around. If you have a question "How do I keep X from happening at my table," and you feel that the out-of-game answer "Talk the the other people at your table" won't help, then the in-game answers "Remove mechanics A, B, and/or C, add mechanics L, M, and/or N" will not help either.
Sounds like it

Other players do sometimes try to control players via their choice of class or race, and that is out of line. For some reason, though, variablity in how one portays a given race or class seems to be more acceptable than variability in how one portrays a given alignment. If a class is tied to a lawful or good alignment, though, forget it: plan on being told how to run that character if you stray even a little bit outside of another player's understanding of it. Oddly, classes tied to chaos, neutrality and evil rarely seem to run into such problems.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Wow you can't figure that out?


Starting off a response to a reasonable question with an insult doens't bode well for the rest of your post.

If something is listed as Evil that means Smite Evil works against it. See, when the second part of the term "Smite Evil" refers to what is being smited. In this case it is "evil". Therefore, Smite Evil allows one to perform a smite against things that are evil.


Ok...what definition of Evil does that use? That's what I asked.

So not a very helpful post at all. Not surprised.
Sounds like it

Other players do sometimes try to control players via their choice of class or race, and that is out of line. For some reason, though, variablity in how one portays a given race or class seems to be more acceptable than variability in how one portrays a given alignment. If a class is tied to a lawful or good alignment, though, forget it: plan on being told how to run that character if you stray even a little bit outside of another player's understanding of it. Oddly, classes tied to chaos, neutrality and evil rarely seem to run into such problems.




Of course ALL of that is "IN YOUR OPINION" and no way universally true.

Face it, you've played with bad DMs. That is the end-all-be-all of your point of view.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Wow you can't figure that out?


Starting off a response to a reasonable question with an insult doens't bode well for the rest of your post.

If something is listed as Evil that means Smite Evil works against it. See, when the second part of the term "Smite Evil" refers to what is being smited. In this case it is "evil". Therefore, Smite Evil allows one to perform a smite against things that are evil.


Ok...what definition of Evil does that use? That's what I asked.

So not a very helpful post at all. Not surprised.



Your question makes no sense. How does one determine if they can target it with Smite Evil? It is a part of the mechanical part of the game that things can be determined to be Evil as verified by their alignment in their statblock...and if it is Evil you can Smite it.

How are you struggling with this?

The definition of Evil it uses is the definition of Evil that is outlined in the game that has been posted REPEATEDLY in other threads from pretty much every edition. That you have probably not read them basically falls in line with what I see seems to be your general understanding of alignment...you have not read up on it, you have not attempted to understand it...you've simply dismissed it.

Google "Dungeons & Dragons alignments" and you will get COUNTLESS references to the printed definitions of the alignments across the various editions. Again, that you are apparently not familiar with these definitions it makes your entire opinion regarding alignment pretty much invalid considering you never seem to have read a bit of the rules concerning it.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Wow you can't figure that out?


Starting off a response to a reasonable question with an insult doens't bode well for the rest of your post.

If something is listed as Evil that means Smite Evil works against it. See, when the second part of the term "Smite Evil" refers to what is being smited. In this case it is "evil". Therefore, Smite Evil allows one to perform a smite against things that are evil.


Ok...what definition of Evil does that use? That's what I asked.

So not a very helpful post at all. Not surprised.



"The first rule of Tautology Club is the first rule of Tautology Club."
How does one determine if they can target it with Smite Evil?


If it's Evil apparently. Something you still have yet to define for me.

It is a part of the mechanical part of the game that things can be determined to be Evil as verified by their alignment in their statblock...and if it is Evil you can Smite it.


So I can make a D&D fusion of Hitler and Skeletor immune to Smite Evil as long as I omit 'Evil" in his textbox, regardless of how many puppies he kicks or babies he eats? Makes perfect sense.

How are you struggling with this?


Because Smite EVil works on people who are evil, but what evil is is incredibly vague and different for everyone.


The definition of Evil it uses is the definition of Evil that is outlined in the game that has been posted REPEATEDLY in other threads from pretty much every edition.


And yet actually posting these definitions seems impossible for you.

That you have probably not read them basically falls in line with what I see seems to be your general understanding of alignment...you have not read up on it, you have not attempted to understand it...you've simply dismissed it.


I have read up on it. I've seen topics where people try to define evil, and then see that it gets about 50 different answers and people arguing who's is correct. Seems I'm not the one with the problem.

Google "Dungeons & Dragons alignments" and you will get COUNTLESS references to the printed definitions of the alignments across the various editions.


I have googled it, and every link I check has different definitions of evil.

Again, that you are apparently not familiar with these definitions it makes your entire opinion regarding alignment pretty much invalid considering you never seem to have read a bit of the rules concerning it.


So my opinion is invalid because you refuse to defend any of your points beyond "It's obvious so you know nothing." Sounds about on par from any discussion I've been in with you actually.
First off, I was assuming there was fluff description for abilities in monster stat blocks like the fluff in spells.  In this case I am incorrect.  So I editted to note that it was incorrect to imply there was more fluff.

What mechanical effect does the "evil" descriptor in the statblock have on the game.  I'm interested to hear*.



If something is listed as "Evil" those things that harm/detect/benefit "Evil" will harm/detect/benefit said Evil thing where as if it said anything other than Evil it would not. There, a mechanical effect. Awesome, no?

Also the point is you insisting that it IS fluff when clearly it isn't. There is no fluff in statblocks because they're STAT blocks.



Looks like I might have a bit to read, so lets start here.

First off find me a single thing in 4e that harms/detects/benefits something labeled as "evil". 

They are the only bit of fluff in the stat blocks, because they removed all the rules for them.  Really the argument here is to remove them from the statblock because, like you say, there should only be stats in those blocks.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Looks like I might have a bit to read, so lets start here.

First off find me a single thing in 4e that harms/detects/benefits something labeled as "evil". 

They are the only bit of fluff in the stat blocks, because they removed all the rules for them.  Really the argument here is to remove them from the statblock because, like you say, there should only be stats in those blocks.



Hey Imma let you finish, but first Wizards Of the Coast made the best alignment system of all time...

www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20...

Look. When in doubt, go here and figure out an alignment.

(ahhahaha...tragic)

As to actually address your statement...so your argument against Evil and Good being CLEARLY objective in Dungeons & Dragons and trying to state that this isn't possible for some reason, is to argue by referencing an edition that has the least alignment interactions? Brilliant. Well done. Why don't you just use Gammaworld as your examples from now on? That's about as disingenuous you're being.

And EVEN THEN, regardless, alignment is CLEARLY objective because things in-game are LABELED as Good and Evil. Since this is possible to do, it means the terms are OBJECTIVE in the game's default setting.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

Oh and here is what those alignments mean in 4th Edition.

Seriously, are you guys even familiar with the game of Dungeons & Dragons, including the edition you claim to play? I'm starting to think you're all playing Farmville and mistaking it for D&D or something.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Looks like I might have a bit to read, so lets start here.

First off find me a single thing in 4e that harms/detects/benefits something labeled as "evil". 

They are the only bit of fluff in the stat blocks, because they removed all the rules for them.  Really the argument here is to remove them from the statblock because, like you say, there should only be stats in those blocks.



Hey Imma let you finish, but first Wizards Of the Coast made the best alignment system of all time...

www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20...

Look. When in doubt, go here and figure out an alignment.

(ahhahaha...tragic)

As to actually address your statement...so your argument against Evil and Good being CLEARLY objective in Dungeons & Dragons and trying to state that this isn't possible for some reason, is to argue by referencing an edition that has the least alignment interactions? Brilliant. Well done. Why don't you just use Gammaworld as your examples from now on? That's about as disingenuous you're being.

And EVEN THEN, regardless, alignment is CLEARLY objective because things in-game are LABELED as Good and Evil. Since this is possible to do, it means the terms are OBJECTIVE in the game's default setting.

www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4...

Oh and here is what those alignments mean in 4th Edition.

Seriously, are you guys even familiar with the game of Dungeons & Dragons, including the edition you claim to play? I'm starting to think you're all playing Farmville and mistaking it for D&D or something.



Thats a good statement of what they are.

Neither one of them has any mechanical effect on the Evil alignment.

I've never argued against including alignment in the game.  I just don't want it in the mechanics, and it isn't.

Try again, still waiting for the explanation of how Evil is a mechanically signficant part of that stat block.

Edit:
If it is possible to be more clear it would be to say this: Don't respond with a couple articles of good fluff when someone asks you about mechanics.  Regardless of how good the fluff is, it isn't mechanics.  Not by a long shot.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Thats a good statement of what they are.

Neither one of them has any mechanical effect on the Evil alignment.

I've never argued against including alignment in the game.  I just don't want it in the mechanics, and it isn't.

Try again, still waiting for the explanation of how Evil is a mechanically signficant part of that stat block.



Here is a quote from the article you clearly didn't read yet still felt competent to comment on...

"For instance, a lawful good character can use a magic item that is usable only by good-aligned characters."

From a discussion about 4E from Wizards themselves.

So there ya go. If you aren't Good and there is a magic item that is usable only by good-aligned characters then you can use it...otherwise you can't. ZOMG Mechanical Interaction!

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Thats a good statement of what they are.

Neither one of them has any mechanical effect on the Evil alignment.

I've never argued against including alignment in the game.  I just don't want it in the mechanics, and it isn't.

Try again, still waiting for the explanation of how Evil is a mechanically signficant part of that stat block.



Here is a quote from the article you clearly didn't read yet still felt competent to comment on...

"For instance, a lawful good character can use a magic item that is usable only by good-aligned characters."

From a discussion about 4E from Wizards themselves.

So there ya go. If you aren't Good and there is a magic item that is usable only by good-aligned characters then you can use it...otherwise you can't. ZOMG Mechanical Interaction!



And that item would be?
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Nope because if you put him as Neutral then he starts kicking puppies and eating babies his alignment will shift to Evil then you can smite him. See? It's almost like the system works!


Except according to you, the only qualification is that he have "Evil" in his stat block. So I can make him as evil as I want, so long as I never put Evil in his stat block, Smite Evil has no effect.

Considering I've NEVER had an issue with alignment...well..yes objectively YOU are the in fact the one with the problem because you're incapable of DMing well enough to use alignment well. It's unfortunate but...well...sorry I suppose.


You act like I'm the only one who's had a problem with alignment.

I don't want to call you a liar...but since I know you're one, I can thankfully leave it unsaid.


So you tell me to google it, then what I tell you I did, you tell me I'm lying. yep, that's some good discussion right there.

You're not interested in discussion. Or you're incapable of it.


As I recall, you're the one who spent msot of the post refusing to back up your points, telling me to google them myself, then when I did, told me I didn't and said I was lying.
And that item would be?



Perhaps one that never saw the light of day since 4E had its plug pulled.

Regardless, it is clear discussion of the mechanical nature of alignment.

And, again, this doesn't change the fact that there are COUNTLESS examples of the mechanical nature of alignment in previous editions thereby proving that Good & Evil are not subjective.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

And that item would be?



Perhaps one that never saw the light of day since 4E had its plug pulled.

Regardless, it is clear discussion of the mechanical nature of alignment.

And, again, this doesn't change the fact that there are COUNTLESS examples of the mechanical nature of alignment in previous editions thereby proving that Good & Evil are not subjective.



So your arguement is "It doesn't exist but it would have" as your justification.

Lets make that clear.  The basis for the argument that Evil isn't just fluff in 4e is that what you can use for support never existed.

So it is far more likely that one author was revealing one of the underlying design goals of 4e that never got implemented due to time restraints than it is that they took part of that section and copy-pasted it from an older edition discussion.

And again, you are directing the argument away from the fact that you clearly stuck your face into a bear trap.  You are wholy wrong on the mechanical impact of "alignment" as being part of every edition of DND (which until now has been your stated position).  I know it has to be really saddening when you are proven wrong, but just going "well I haven't been proven objectively wrong in a way even I can admit about This other topic" doesn't really make you look like you are having this discussion in good faith.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
So your arguement is "It doesn't exist but it would have" as your justification.



An "argument" implies the ability to be wrong. I am stating fact. An employee of Wizards of the Coast discusses a mechanical interaction possible with alignment in 4th edition. Fact.

Lets make that clear.  The basis for the argument that Evil isn't just fluff in 4e is that what you can use for support never existed.



So you are "arguing the exception" eh? Yeah let's flip this. Prove right now that the part of the monsters and characters STAT BLOCKS regarding alignment is fluff. Prove it. Now. Preferably with back-up from articles by Wizards themselves that discusses the subjective nature of the alignment portions of stat blocks. Go. Do it.

I won't hold my breath.

So it is far more likely that one author was revealing one of the underlying design goals of 4e that never got implemented due to time restraints than it is that they took part of that section and copy-pasted it from an older edition discussion.



Ah! Complete wishful thinking and grasping at straws! Well done!

And again, you are directing the argument away from the fact that you clearly stuck your face into a bear trap.  You are wholy wrong on the mechanical impact of "alignment" as being part of every edition of DND (which until now has been your stated position).  I know it has to be really saddening when you are proven wrong, but just going "well I haven't been proven objectively wrong in a way even I can admit about This other topic" doesn't really make you look like you are having this discussion in good faith.



Seriously, any one reading your posts at this point should simply be shaking their head in mild amusement or disappointment.

The entire discussion was that Good & Evil are OBJECTIVE in the default assumptions of D&D and that the fact that it is tied mechanically into the game across MULTIPLE editions and is a part of monsters stat blocks in ALL editions (with NOTHING in stat blocks being FLUFF or otherwise non-mechanical) backs up the fact that Good & Evil are OBJECTIVE.

That is the discussion at hand. You are having trouble following it because you're trying to shift goal-posts so fast and so far that you can't even follow your own statements. Also you've been refuted and proven wrong at about every turn even by WIZARDS THEMSELVES. Unless you'd care to link to some articles that IN ANY WAY back up what you're claiming.

Again...I won't hold my breath.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
So your arguement is "It doesn't exist but it would have" as your justification.



An "argument" implies the ability to be wrong. I am stating fact. An employee of Wizards of the Coast discusses a mechanical interaction possible with alignment in 4th edition. Fact.

So its a fact, except that what you need to show it is fact doesn't exist.  That doesn't sound a lot like a fact to me.  Did someone say it was possible?  Yep.  Did it ever actually happen? Nope.

Lets make that clear.  The basis for the argument that Evil isn't just fluff in 4e is that what you can use for support never existed.



So you are "arguing the exception" eh? Yeah let's flip this. Prove right now that the part of the monsters and characters STAT BLOCKS regarding alignment is fluff. Prove it. Now. Preferably with back-up from articles by Wizards themselves that discusses the subjective nature of the alignment portions of stat blocks. Go. Do it.

Things in the books are either mechanical or fluff.  Mechanical is defined as something in the books that has rules implications that directly effect the playing of the game and how it operates within the rules. Fluff is defined as extra information that has no mechanical effect on game play that is meant to help guide players into the roleplaying experience.  
There is no mechanical effect of the evil.  Evil is in the rulebooks.  Evil is Fluff.  QED.


So it is far more likely that one author was revealing one of the underlying design goals of 4e that never got implemented due to time restraints than it is that they took part of that section and copy-pasted it from an older edition discussion.



Ah! Complete wishful thinking and grasping at straws! Well done!

Admittedly I should have ended that with a "?".  It was intended as a question. 

And again, you are directing the argument away from the fact that you clearly stuck your face into a bear trap.  You are wholy wrong on the mechanical impact of "alignment" as being part of every edition of DND (which until now has been your stated position).  I know it has to be really saddening when you are proven wrong, but just going "well I haven't been proven objectively wrong in a way even I can admit about This other topic" doesn't really make you look like you are having this discussion in good faith.



The entire discussion was that Good & Evil are OBJECTIVE in the default assumptions of D&D and that the fact that it is tied mechanically into the game across MULTIPLE editions and is a part of monsters stat blocks in ALL editions (with NOTHING in stat blocks being FLUFF or otherwise non-mechanical) backs up the fact that Good & Evil are OBJECTIVE.

That is the discussion at hand. You are having trouble following it because you're trying to shift goal-posts so fast and so far that you can't even follow your own statements. Also you've been refuted and proven wrong at about every turn even by WIZARDS THEMSELVES. Unless you'd care to link to some articles that IN ANY WAY back up what you're claiming.

Again...I won't hold my breath.

Just because you restate your red herring doesn't make it any less of a red herring.  The issue is still that Evil, in 4e, is fluff only.  It is non-mechanical in nature.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Maybe the problems of alignment will be solved with another thread about alignment.

This thread is off-topic. Does anyone know where I can find another thread about alignment on the forums? Or maybe one of you can start one? We can take the discussion there.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Just because you restate your red herring doesn't make it any less of a red herring.  The issue is still that Evil, in 4e, is fluff only.  It is non-mechanical in nature.



Ignoring your entire post to point out this utter lie...

The discussion has NOTHING to do with 4E since alignment has very little presence in 4E (yet is still present in stat blocks, meaning it is still a mechanical part of the game).

The discussion is about "problems" with alignment and I outright stated that almost universally those arguments and problems start from not understanding that Good & Evil are OBJECTIVE in every D&D edition's default setting. Again, the fact that Evil can be ASSIGNED to things in a stat block means it cannot be subjective. This is, of course, even true in 4th edition since alignments are part of stat blocks (non-fluff) and the alignments are all defined by Wizards themselves and they are not described as subjective at all.

Until you move the goal posts back, I am going to just keep restating this.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

And that item would be?



Perhaps one that never saw the light of day since 4E had its plug pulled.

Regardless, it is clear discussion of the mechanical nature of alignment.

And, again, this doesn't change the fact that there are COUNTLESS examples of the mechanical nature of alignment in previous editions thereby proving that Good & Evil are not subjective.



And then D&D grew up and began to embrace the complexities of motivation. It didn't go far enough in my opinion, but I have houseruled alignment out of every edition since AD&D.

There are some of us who like alignment to simply be another piece of the character motivation puzzle, and not a mechanical subsystem.

Sacred cows make darned tasty burgers. Sad that some folks seem bent on resurrecting them. Tradition is no reason to hold on to outdated ideals that have no place in modern times.

If you are successful in your efforts, I'll just have to reinstate "no alignments" to my list of houserules.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Just because you restate your red herring doesn't make it any less of a red herring.  The issue is still that Evil, in 4e, is fluff only.  It is non-mechanical in nature.



Ignoring your entire post to point out this utter lie...

The discussion has NOTHING to do with 4E since alignment has very little presence in 4E (yet is still present in stat blocks, meaning it is still a mechanical part of the game).

The discussion is about "problems" with alignment and I outright stated that almost universally those arguments and problems start from not understanding that Good & Evil are OBJECTIVE in every D&D edition's default setting. Again, the fact that Evil can be ASSIGNED to things in a stat block means it cannot be subjective. This is, of course, even true in 4th edition since alignments are part of stat blocks (non-fluff) and the alignments are all defined by Wizards themselves and they are not described as subjective at all.

Until you move the goal posts back, I am going to just keep restating this.



Take your ball and go home then, cause if you keep arguing that "All DnD uses alignment mechanically" while ignoring an entire edition that used it as fluff then we can go nowhere about the discussion that it doesn't need to be used mechanically.

Edit: So about this having nothing to do with 4e...  A casual glance at, say, the first page of this thread takes that line of thought and chucks it out a window. 
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Take your ball and go home then, cause if you keep arguing that "All DnD uses alignment mechanically" while ignoring an entire edition that used it as fluff then we can go nowhere about the discussion that it doesn't need to be used mechanically.





Me:

Also no one ever bothers to address the fact that peoples ACTUAL issue with alignment always occur when they fail to realize the objective nature of Good & Evil in the game.

That is universally the case as far as I've seen. It's also pretty much the starting point of every argument I've seen regarding alignment. One side (typically anti-alignment) are immediatelywrong because they don't even start from a correct premise...they start with the faulty notion that Good & Evil are subjective somehow in the game world when they clearly never have been.


Then you:


Except that Good and Evil are subjective.   It might be easier to make an argument off the inverse, or easier to base your decisions on the inverse, but it also is untrue.


This is the discussion at hand


And I'll stay right here, thank you very much...WITH my ball. And while I'm here I'll keep proving how you're trying to shift the goal posts and outright misrepresent what was being discussed.


Also THIS is precisely why the vast majority of players (pretty much all of 'em I've ever met in person) don't take you anti-alignment folks seriously...when caught with your pants COMPLETELY DOWN using the words of the designers of the games themselves you stick your heads in the ground and insist that it can't be the case and that the problem is still with alignment and not with your pantless selves.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

And that item would be?



Perhaps one that never saw the light of day since 4E had its plug pulled.

Regardless, it is clear discussion of the mechanical nature of alignment.

And, again, this doesn't change the fact that there are COUNTLESS examples of the mechanical nature of alignment in previous editions thereby proving that Good & Evil are not subjective.



And then D&D grew up and began to embrace the complexities of motivation. It didn't go far enough in my opinion, but I have houseruled alignment out of every edition since AD&D.

There are some of us who like alignment to simply be another piece of the character motivation puzzle, and not a mechanical subsystem.

Sacred cows make darned tasty burgers. Sad that some folks seem bent on resurrecting them. Tradition is no reason to hold on to outdated ideals that have no place in modern times.

If you are successful in your efforts, I'll just have to reinstate "no alignments" to my list of houserules.




Basically this.  It was all black and white, then came gray.  It has been wonderful living in a shaded world since then.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here


And then D&D grew up and began to embrace the complexities of motivation. It didn't go far enough in my opinion, but I have houseruled alignment out of every edition since AD&D.

There are some of us who like alignment to simply be another piece of the character motivation puzzle, and not a mechanical subsystem.

Sacred cows make darned tasty burgers. Sad that some folks seem bent on resurrecting them. Tradition is no reason to hold on to outdated ideals that have no place in modern times.

If you are successful in your efforts, I'll just have to reinstate "no alignments" to my list of houserules.




Yup..."grew up". Uh huh. Grim & gritty and shades of gray! So grown up!

Please. That was immature by the time I was half-way through high-school. Growing up and reading comics in the 90s was all one needed to do to see the complete ridiculousness of thinking "morally gray" somehow means "more mature". They are completely seperate from one another and in no way linked. A piece of work can be as morally black & white as can be and still be totally mature just as something can be as morally gray as someone wants and still be Rob Liefeld's Wild C.A.T.S.

Know what I'm going to laugh at? When a bunch of standard D&D stuff DOES come back and a bunch of people start FLIPPING OUT that it isn't like 4th Edition, in effect becoming the grognards they so constantly rail against. Now THAT will be funny.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Take your ball and go home then, cause if you keep arguing that "All DnD uses alignment mechanically" while ignoring an entire edition that used it as fluff then we can go nowhere about the discussion that it doesn't need to be used mechanically.





Me:

Also no one ever bothers to address the fact that peoples ACTUAL issue with alignment always occur when they fail to realize the objective nature of Good & Evil in the game.

That is universally the case as far as I've seen. It's also pretty much the starting point of every argument I've seen regarding alignment. One side (typically anti-alignment) are immediatelywrong because they don't even start from a correct premise...they start with the faulty notion that Good & Evil are subjective somehow in the game world when they clearly never have been.


Then you:


Except that Good and Evil are subjective.   It might be easier to make an argument off the inverse, or easier to base your decisions on the inverse, but it also is untrue.


This is the discussion at hand




Except for that hasn't been the discussion you were focusing on at all until you were proven wrong about statblocks?  I mean if you look at the quotes back and forth thats kinda obviously not been the topic for a while.  And it wasn't really the topic that started the whole debated anyway.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Basically this.  It was all black and white, then came gray.  It has been wonderful living in a shaded world since then.



Again, this all boils down to the fact that your DMs (or yourselves) are poor narrators that can't engage you with nuanced, interesting events while still maintaining a world of Good & Evil.

Seriously, it's like I'm watching people rush to buy-up "Image Comics" issues all over again. "Oh my god! This is so much cooler! no more black & white heroism! It's all morally gray! Anti-heroes yeah! I'm so grown up!"

Please...

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Except for that hasn't been the discussion you were focusing on at all until you were proven wrong about statblocks?  I mean if you look at the quotes back and forth thats kinda obviously not been the topic for a while.  And it wasn't really the topic that started the whole debated anyway.



So then you agree that Good & Evil are objective in D&D and that your previous statement to the contrary was wrong?

Edit: Also feel free to repost the quotes where you somehow proved something about stat blocks. Still waiting on those links to articles by Wizards that in any way back up your claims, by the way. Really glad I didn't hold my breath cuz I'd be dead by now! Come on this should be a simple task, right?

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Everyone--please calm down.  There are differences in opinion--no need to get so hostile.
Except for that hasn't been the discussion you were focusing on at all until you were proven wrong about statblocks?  I mean if you look at the quotes back and forth thats kinda obviously not been the topic for a while.  And it wasn't really the topic that started the whole debated anyway.



So then you agree that Good & Evil are objective in D&D and that your previous statement to the contrary was wrong?

Edit: Also feel free to repost the quotes where you somehow proved something about stat blocks. Still waiting on those links to articles by Wizards that in any way back up your claims, by the way. Really glad I didn't hold my breath cuz I'd be dead by now! Come on this should be a simple task, right?



Just because it isn't the current argument doesn't mean you are correct about anything you say. We are talking about alignment, that doesn't mean the stars are made from the souls of slain squirrels.  Those two topics aren't related.

Response to the edit:
There was a simple proof up above?  It doesn't need support, its very simple.
This general thing is defined as either A or B.
A =  This defintion
B = Not This definition

X is called into question.  X is not followed by "This definition".  X=/=A.  Thus X=B.

Edit: it its hard to follow check this little guide:
www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Logic/PandNo...
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Everyone--please calm down.  There are differences in opinion--no need to get so hostile.



It was differences of opinion.  Then it was stated as fact.  Then that fact was disproven.  Then the topic was changed and the argument made that the new topic in fact made the disproving of the old fact irrelevant.

Which is a lot of silliness for one thread.

Edit: Night all 
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Everyone--please calm down.  There are differences in opinion--no need to get so hostile.



It is perfect example of why it is good 4e removed alignment mechanics. Imagine this same conversation at the gaming table. It happen quite a lot in many different groups over many years. Alignment mechanic are things we can do without. And the arguments, too.
Everyone--please calm down.  There are differences in opinion--no need to get so hostile.



Differences of opinion? 

When your opinion is wrong, but you won't admit that you are opinion, it turns into a fight.

Right now I see two people fighting right now and it won't end until one of them admits they are
wrong. 

Right now Yagami is explaining why alignments are used in D&D and why it shouldn't be removed
because somebody had a bad DM experience. 

I like alignments, because it what makes D&D D&D. I surely don't want it removed because some
DM abuse your character. 



Except for that hasn't been the discussion you were focusing on at all until you were proven wrong about statblocks?  I mean if you look at the quotes back and forth thats kinda obviously not been the topic for a while.  And it wasn't really the topic that started the whole debated anyway.



So then you agree that Good & Evil are objective in D&D and that your previous statement to the contrary was wrong?

Edit: Also feel free to repost the quotes where you somehow proved something about stat blocks. Still waiting on those links to articles by Wizards that in any way back up your claims, by the way. Really glad I didn't hold my breath cuz I'd be dead by now! Come on this should be a simple task, right?



Just because it isn't the current argument doesn't mean you are correct about anything you say. We are talking about alignment, that doesn't mean the stars are made from the souls of slain squirrels.  Those two topics aren't related.

Response to the edit:
There was a simple proof up above?  It doesn't need support, its very simple.
This general thing is defined as either A or B.
A =  This defintion
B = Not This definition

X is called into question.  X is not followed by "This definition".  X=/=A.  Thus X=B.

Edit: it its hard to follow check this little guide:
www.math.hawaii.edu/~ramsey/Logic/PandNo...



Still waiting on articles from Wizards that support anything you're claiming.

Again...I posted articles supporting my own claims and pretty much outright proving them...care to do the same? I mean this current post I've quoted here says precisely nothing. It just says it in a really round-about way.

I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end. If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it.

 

Proudly playing in many wrong ways. I'm not afraid of playing wrong according to the rules. Why are you?

 

100 Crack Reply of the Yagamifire. You are already wrong.

Nope because if you put him as Neutral then he starts kicking puppies and eating babies his alignment will shift to Evil then you can smite him. See? It's almost like the system works!


Except according to you, the only qualification is that he have "Evil" in his stat block. So I can make him as evil as I want, so long as I never put Evil in his stat block, Smite Evil has no effect.

Considering I've NEVER had an issue with alignment...well..yes objectively YOU are the in fact the one with the problem because you're incapable of DMing well enough to use alignment well. It's unfortunate but...well...sorry I suppose.


You act like I'm the only one who's had a problem with alignment.

I don't want to call you a liar...but since I know you're one, I can thankfully leave it unsaid.


So you tell me to google it, then what I tell you I did, you tell me I'm lying. yep, that's some good discussion right there.

You're not interested in discussion. Or you're incapable of it.


As I recall, you're the one who spent msot of the post refusing to back up your points, telling me to google them myself, then when I did, told me I didn't and said I was lying.


As expected, Yagami refuses to respond as soon as I poke holes in his argument.

I would also love to point out Yagami's hilarious tirade against me started because I asked him to define Evil.
define Evil.



You first, since you are such an expert on the subject.

define Evil.



You first, since you are such an expert on the subject.



Except my argument is that evil is different for everyone, so whether the DM lets Smite Evil work on someone is a complete crapshoot.

It's your point that would be better off trying to define Evil. My point is that evil has no solid definition, so the longer this topic goes without someone trying to define it, the better my point is.
Sign In to post comments