Defense of Paladins: feedback please?

354 posts / 0 new
Last post
If you need Evil defined for you, then you are clearly not capible of understanding the subject at all and should probably stop replying and should probably seek professional help, if not for your sake, for the safety of your potential victims.

I talk about potential victims  because, imo, needing Evil to be defined raises alot of flags.

This has never been an issue in my games because I don't hang around people who think that ****, murder, live sacrifices of babies, and cannibilism are matters of "subjective morality"


Try this before you debate on the subject of morality, next time you are at a public function, a party or a local sports bar, start complaining about the poor and those on welfare, in particular single mothers with children, and then suggest that a simple solution would be to buy children from poor people to sell to the wealthy as meat. Hey I'm wealthy, they are poor and look at that a cheap source fo free range meat. It's simialir to the "kill the homeless, feed them to the hungry" policies that the republicans keep proposing.

I say this because I want to point out the utter insanity of discussing the "subjective morality" of the definition of Evil. If you can't understand the basic concepts of Good and Evil, then you sir, are a sociopath and should seek profesional help.

If you aren't a sociopath, then stop with the hipster philosophy and posturing, it is a damned simple concept.
If you need Evil defined for you, then you are clearly not capible of understanding the subject at all and should probably stop replying and should probably seek professional help, if not for your sake, for the safety of your potential victims.


Im asking alignment defenders to define it because it's so obviously easy, there should be no trouble defining Evil as Detect Evil would detect it.

Given you're an alignment defender, I fully expect you will make zero attempts at defining evil and will simply insult me and make excuses.

I talk about potential victims  because, imo, needing Evil to be defined raises alot of flags.


Im asking defenders to define it because the current consensus among people against it is that good and evil are completely subjective and that abilities that work off alignment are a complete crapshoot ebcause they depend entirely on the DM's definitions, regardless of what the player's view of them is. Meanwhile, people who defend alignment continue to tell us we're wrong and it's completely objective, but then go into ragefits and make excuses anytime someone actally asks them to explain why.

This has never been an issue in my games because I don't hang around people who think that ****, murder, live sacrifices of babies, and cannibilism are matters of "subjective morality"


Cannabalism is a standard practice in a few tribes around the world. Personally that stuff is evil to me, but it might seem Good for someone who was raised with it their entire lives.

Try this before you debate on the subject of morality, next time you are at a public function, a party or a local sports bar, start complaining about the poor and those on welfare, in particular single mothers with children, and then suggest that a simple solution would be to buy children from poor people to sell to the wealthy as meat. Hey I'm wealthy, they are poor and look at that a cheap source fo free range meat. It's simialir to the "kill the homeless, feed them to the hungry" policies that the republicans keep proposing.


As I predicted, insults and excuses.

I say this because I want to point out the utter insanity of discussing the "subjective morality" of the definition of Evil.

If you aren't a sociopath, then stop with the hipster philosophy and posturing, it is a damned simple concept.


And since it's so simple and non-subjective, I asked the alignment defenders to prove it by defining it. The response was, as I expected, just a storm of insults and angry posts. You guys are making my point better than I hoped.

Not to mention your entire post is a strawman. Im not asking defenders to define evil because I personally don't know what my view of evil is. I'm asking because if it's so objective like they claim, it should be a simple task of defining it.
easydamus.com/alignment.html

I could copy-paste the whole website here if you'd like.

For specific alignments:
easydamus.com/lawfulgood.html
easydamus.com/neutralgood.html
easydamus.com/chaoticgood.html
easydamus.com/lawfulneutral.html
easydamus.com/trueneutral.html
easydamus.com/chaoticneutral.html
easydamus.com/lawfulevil.html
easydamus.com/neutralevil.html
easydamus.com/chaoticevil.html

For different ways to role-play each alignment ("GASP! Are you claiming that there are different ways?" "Yes, just like there are different ways to role-play wizards, and if your DM railroads you into playing him as somebody who hates people with physical strength, then that's not our fault and we're not going to stop using wizards because of that."):

easydamus.com/alignandint.html
easydamus.com/alignmenttendencies.html

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

Wizards definition of alignment...for 4e...

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



This is why we have alignment so the DM can't fiat your Smite Evil if you smite somebody evil. 

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.



It's the other way around. You are actually supporting to have alignments stay in the game. 
With alignments, we don't need DM opinion or definition of what evil is. We look at the character sheet or monster block and go," It's *somethiing* Evil." 

Just to let you know, you are the defender. So far you give NO support for your point for removing
alignments the game besides being abuse by a bad DM. Anything can be abused by the DM. 
hitponts, AC, even the story. Do we get rid of them? No. 

EnglishLanguage, what are you trying to prove? Do you know that you are making your point worse? If evil have no solid definition then why the hell should the DM decide what's good and evil?
It would be a LOT easier to have aligments so it tells you if it's evil or not. 

Why can't you admit for being wrong about alignments making the game worse? 
Only a bad DM would make alignments bad in the game. 
As much as bad DM could make hit points bad in the game by deciding when creature 
dies depending how much he like the creature or how badly the party is beat up. 

Bad DM: Oh, party is badly beat up? I guess this monster dies in the next hit.
Bad DM: oh, party is still in good shape? I guess I better give this monster more hitpoints and
maybe some damage. 





This is why we have alignment so the DM can't fiat your Smite Evil if you smite somebody evil.


Except it's entirely up to the DM if it works. If the Dm says he's Neutral or Unaligned, you can argue otherwise, but Smite Evil will not work.

It's the other way around. You are actually supporting to have alignments stay in the game. 
With alignments, we don't need DM opinion or definition of what evil is. We look at the character sheet or monster block and go," It's *somethiing* Evil."


So, once again, something is evil only because it's stat block is evil? Whether it does evil actions doesn't matter, only that it's stat block says evil?

Just to let you know, you are the defender. So far you give NO support for your point for removing
alignments the game besides being abuse by a bad DM.


It's only only bad DMs, it's any DM that has a different opinion of what constitues as evil.
And the fact that it took almost two pages of people making excuses and complaining before they finally responded civilly that helps my point.

Anything can be abused by the DM. 
hitponts, AC, even the story. Do we get rid of them? No.


Except those other mechanics have clear cut mechanics behind them, alignment is entirely up to the DM's opinion.

Do you know that you are making your point worse? If evil have no solid definition then why the hell should the DM decide what's good and evil?


Because he's the one who decides whether or not Smite Evil or Detect Evil works.

It would be a LOT easier to have aligments so it tells you if it's evil or not.


I wold think the fact he's, you know, done actiosn that would classify him as evil that makes him evil, not the stat block alone that makes him evil.

As for the links provided, I'll go take a look at those and reply to those when I've read them. As a note, I'm only concerned with Good and Evil, Law and Chaos are a lot easier to define and aren't really a problem.
Because he's the one who decides whether or not Smite Evil or Detect Evil works.



He also decides if you hit or not.
He also decides if that monster is dead or not.
He also decides if you roll high enough for that DC or not. 
He also decides if you charmed that person or not. 

Are you trying to make a point, because right now you got nothing?

Just stop. There nothing wrong with alignments. 



Just stop. There nothing wrong with alignments. 




Shouldn't the fact that this thread is over 30 pages long (for me) and both sides of the argument are still raging prove this statement false?

There is nothing wrong with alignments as a roleplaying guide, the problems generally arise when the are mechanics attached to alignment. The possible exception being Chaotic Neutral, with one exception, every player who has picked Chaotic Neutral has played the character as "I want to be evil, but don't want to write it on my character sheet so the Paladin doesn't get uppity. As long as perform the rare random act of kindness, no one can tell me that I am playing my alignment wrong and the DM can't shift my alignment."

I dropped alignment in AD&D after I used a common fantasy plot of an embedded enemy agent. The Paladin used Detect Evil, spotted the guy, and and all of the mystery of figuring out who the spy was went out the window before they even knew there was a spy. Your own depiction of a Paladin from upthread would have caused problems at the table. You have claimed that success on Detect Evil gives you the right to Smite, without knowing the nature or even existence of the crime. However, Lawful Evil can be as simple as the merchant who occasionally cheats his customers or misrepresents his wares. Paladins in previous editions were paragons of justice. Death for a dishonsest merchant is not justice. The punishment does not fit the crimes. I would have hit you with a loss of powers for Smiting him, and you would be here calling me a bad DM.

We have different views of what acts are good and right, and what acts are evil enough to be punished by death.

Edit: What is with this "dice roll" thing, and how do I get rid of it?

He also decides if you hit or not.
He also decides if that monster is dead or not.


Except these have clear cut mechanics. If you rolled high enough, you hit. If the monster's Hp reaches zero, it's dead(barring certain exceptions like Liches). Alignment on the other hand is mostly subjective, and whether Smite/Detect Evil works on someone or not depends if the DM thinks they're Evil or not. And more importantly, alignment is a roleplaying device, involving it with game mechanics causes problems.

He also decides if you roll high enough for that DC or not. 
He also decides if you charmed that person or not.


Again, these have mechanics tied to them. If you rolled above the DC, you made it. If they failed they're save against being charmed, they're charmed.

Just stop. There nothing wrong with alignments.


Me and numerous other people feel otherwise.
That's the problem. I don't want your opinion of what's good and evil. I want the D&D opinion's what
is good and evil. I want a clear cut and dry on what is good and evil in this game. 

I want to look at a monster's stats and see if it's evil and why.  Choatic Evil? These guys are the worse of the worse. They will take what they want and they won't care. Power and greed runs in their vain. They bash your face in and laugh at you for being weak.  I can easily roleplay them based off this. 

Besides alignment mechanic are already inside 5e. Evil creatures take 3d6 damage for touching
the Holy Avenger for 1 round. 





 
That's the problem. I don't want your opinion of what's good and evil. I want the D&D opinion's what
is good and evil. I want a clear cut and dry on what is good and evil in this game.

Maybe some day they'll supply that. They'll have to get a lot less simplistic before they do, though.

I want to look at a monster's stats and see if it's evil and why.  Choatic Evil? These guys are the worse of the worse. They will take what they want and they won't care. Power and greed runs in their vain. They bash your face in and laugh at you for being weak.  I can easily roleplay them based off this.

But alignment doesn't tell you any of that. And if anything about the monster tells you any of that, then you don't need alignment.

Besides alignment mechanic are already inside 5e. Evil creatures take 3d6 damage for touching the Holy Avenger for 1 round.

Yes, we know, because Wizards has learned that it doesn't matter how much trouble something is, ifs it's rooted in tradition then taking it out is financial suicide.

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


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

Its a proof.  By definition it stands on its own.  Why would they write an article that says "something that can be easily and logically proven not to exist does not exist"?  It is redundant.

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.

Except the articles didn't prove them.  They made a great case for the inclusion of Alignment.  The made no case for the inclusion of alignment in mechanics.  The only possible case that can be made is the talk about items, which, I would like to remind you, didn't actually happen.
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
That's the problem. I don't want your opinion of what's good and evil. I want the D&D opinion's what
is good and evil. I want a clear cut and dry on what is good and evil in this game. 



If I am the DM, then the only opinion that you should care about when it comes to alignment is mine, not the game designer's. When it comes to morality, no game designer is going to force any DM to change their minds about what is good and what is evil, so what is writ is not going to be the rule.

Even so, alignment was written to hold at least some ambiguity. I give you the d20 SRD, from the designer's keyboard to your eyes:

Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.



You have been lucky so far that you have either found DMs who share your morality or whom you have been able to bully around to your way of thinking. The first is more likely, as we game with friends, and the people we hold as friends tend not to have too divergent of viewpoints when it comes to moral issues.


You know what?

I concede the point.

Morality IS objective.

Let it be known that both Matyr and EnglishLanguage believe that, depending on your culture, things like ****, murder, elder-abuse, child pornography, torture and devil-summoning can all be allowable and thus Good since Good & Evil must be subjective.

Awesome. A society accepting something automatically makes it Not-Evil. Good to know. Degenerate...but good to know.

Morality is not objective.  So fail at concession?



Morality is not objective...but Good & Evil within the frame work of morality are. That is logical.



So in one post you said "Morality is objective" in the next post you said "morality is not objective"?



Already said I meant subjective.

You're right. Morality is apparently subjective. Therefore things like ****, wanton murder, sexual misconduct of all sorts and anything else vile one could imagine are all IN FACT morally ambiguous and are even Good if that is your personal opinion towards them. And not just good as in "yay" but Good as in "divinely mandated as GOOD".

That is literally what you are saying. So I guess I'll agree with you. Subjective morailty ahoy! Everything is both Good AND Evil because NOTHING is Good OR Evil! Morality achieved!

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.

I’ve removed content from this thread because discussion of illegal activities is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.

If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
 
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />If I am the DM, then the only opinion that you should care about when it comes to alignment is mine, not the game designer's.



Okay. So you're a bad DM that ignores rules and can't set aside their own prejudices to play a game. Gotcha. Do you let your players know this beforehand?

Must suck if you ever played Star Wars or something else with a different moral framework huh? Being one of your players must be rough. Poor fellas.

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.


Morality is not objective...but Good & Evil within the frame work of morality are. That is logical.

 

So in one post you said "Morality is objective" in the next post you said "morality is not objective"?

Edit: Now we might actually be getting somewhere.  Moral relativism is something that exists, but taken to extremes it can do terrible things.  Its the same thing with "Greater Good".  It exists, but taken to extremes it does terrible terrible things.

The key here is defining how far you allow something to be relative, and how absolute you want to get.  I feel dirty for even starting this argument, but Child Pornography is actually a good starting point for this sort of thing.

Regardless of your opinion on whether it is right or wrong the question of Child Pornography (and we really have to ignore the morality of porn in general) is a question of the definintion of the first word more than it is a definition of the second (although that is important too).  I'm choosing to examine the first one because it is easier to quantify, but lets be clear that both words carry with them a lot of (a)morality.

So the "Child" part has to defined in order for the code of morality to be able to adjust it.  Surely we don't mean anyone's child (everyone is someone's child), what we mean is an explicit age that will serve as the cap for these discussions.  Then the key becomes "ok, what age".  In the US the age is 18, in other countries it is other numbers (higher in few, lower in many).  Is it immoral for someone from another country that is 16 years of age to participate and/or be shown?  To us, yes it is.  To them?  Maybe not.  If their age of majority that they define as the bridge from child to adult is 15 then the bar is moved for them.

Now, since it is such a touchy subject, lets take a moment to be clear.  I'm not advocating for one side or the other.  I'm just trying to raise the question of "line drawing" which is often where alignment and, specifically, the idea of the "Greater Good" has problems.  Things like this are shown in a little detail in the video I linked earlier (line drawing in morality, not porn).

The question is whether the person veiwing the 16yr old, or photographing, or producing or whatever is being amoral.  Or being any more amoral than the person viewing the 18yr old (possibly even the same person in a similar situation).  This is where the relativism comes into play.  It makes a difference what the societies views on the different topics are and that can be a huge factor for good and evil.

Japan for instance has gotten a good amount of media for their definition of child in their old shogunate system (age 10 iirc).  That system has changed for more than a decade (I actually think it is closer to 2 decades but it has been a couple years since I researched this topic).  For us that seems way to low and so pamphlets depicting children of age 12 are considered gross, tragic and evil.  But its the societal number that is to blame for this.  It is the relativistic part swinging one way or the other.

This example is good because it works on a societal level, so there is a decent amount of material and common knowledge to build from (common knowledge of the issue at least).  It is also a good example because there are a lot of exceptions to the rule even in our own system.  Again, to be clear I'm not asking for answers to any of these and by bringing up the questions I am not saying I am for or against any of these options.  They are merely things to consider.

If someone has a picture of a naked 16yr old girl on their phone it can be considered child porn.
If the boyfriend of that girl has the same picture on his phone is it considered child porn?
What if the boyfriend is 15?  What if he is 18? What if he is 25?
If it is ok for a minor, what happens when the boyfriend hits 18?  What happens when she hits 18?
Would it be in her rights, after she has passed the age of majority to share pornographic material of her underaged self?
What if he had consent to do so?  Would it matter if he did or didn't have it?
Does parental consent feed into this at all? (It does in some areas, not in others)
What about if she was just in her underwear?
If the underwear was see-through?
What if they were married?  Engaged?  Betrothed?

My point here is that there are a lot of people in a lot of situations that would argue fiercely for one side or the other.  There are cases that have been made and ruled in favor of both sides.  I don't want to start up arguments to the answers of these questions.  The point is not "lets find answers" but rather "Can we accept that different people who can be considered good people can have different answers to these questions?".  I think the answer to that second question is yes.

And here is a final question:

Does this get included into the alignment system, or is this something completely different?

That is a question I would like to answer, and my answer is yes.  It is actually an issue that plants at least one foot firmly in the realm of freedom.  And I don't think that the alignment system gives us a clear answer here (nor should it).  Since we can't get clear answers to these sorts of problems I don't think they should be put into basic rules of the game.  Great fluff, don't get me wrong.  I like alignment when it doesn't effect the mechanics of the game, but the whole point of having clear mechanics is to have things we can readily and openly define and use them as an objective common ground.  I just don't think morality, and by extension alignment, is an area that fits that criteria.
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

Morality is not objective...but Good & Evil within the frame work of morality are. That is logical.

 

So in one post you said "Morality is objective" in the next post you said "morality is not objective"?

Edit: Now we might actually be getting somewhere.  Moral relativism is something that exists, but taken to extremes it can do terrible things.  Its the same thing with "Greater Good".  It exists, but taken to extremes it does terrible terrible things.

The key here is defining how far you allow something to be relative, and how absolute you want to get.  I feel dirty for even starting this argument, but Child Pornography is actually a good starting point for this sort of thing.

Regardless of your opinion on whether it is right or wrong the question of Child Pornography (and we really have to ignore the morality of porn in general) is a question of the definintion of the first word more than it is a definition of the second (although that is important too).  I'm choosing to examine the first one because it is easier to quantify, but lets be clear that both words carry with them a lot of (a)morality.

So the "Child" part has to defined in order for the code of morality to be able to adjust it.  Surely we don't mean anyone's child (everyone is someone's child), what we mean is an explicit age that will serve as the cap for these discussions.  Then the key becomes "ok, what age".  In the US the age is 18, in other countries it is other numbers (higher in few, lower in many).  Is it immoral for someone from another country that is 16 years of age to participate and/or be shown?  To us, yes it is.  To them?  Maybe not.  If their age of majority that they define as the bridge from child to adult is 15 then the bar is moved for them.

Now, since it is such a touchy subject, lets take a moment to be clear.  I'm not advocating for one side or the other.  I'm just trying to raise the question of "line drawing" which is often where alignment and, specifically, the idea of the "Greater Good" has problems.  Things like this are shown in a little detail in the video I linked earlier (line drawing in morality, not porn).

The question is whether the person veiwing the 16yr old, or photographing, or producing or whatever is being amoral.  Or being any more amoral than the person viewing the 18yr old (possibly even the same person in a similar situation).  This is where the relativism comes into play.  It makes a difference what the societies views on the different topics are and that can be a huge factor for good and evil.

Japan for instance has gotten a good amount of media for their definition of child in their old shogunate system (age 10 iirc).  For us that seems way to low and so pamphlets depicting children of age 12 are considered gross, tragic and evil.  But its the societal number that is to blame for this.  It is the relativistic part swinging one way or the other.

This example is good because it works on a societal level, so there is a decent amount of material and common knowledge to build from (common knowledge of the issue at least).  It is also a good example because there are a lot of exceptions to the rule even in our own system.  Again, to be clear I'm not asking for answers to any of these and by bringing up the questions I am not saying I am for or against any of these options.  They are merely things to consider.

If someone has a picture of a naked 16yr old girl on their phone it can be considered child porn.
If the boyfriend of that girl has the same picture on his phone is it considered child porn?
What if the boyfriend is 15?  What if he is 18? What if he is 25?
If it is ok for a minor, what happens when the boyfriend hits 18?  What happens when she hits 18?
Would it be in her rights, after she has passed the age of majority to share pornographic material of her underaged self?
What if he had consent to do so?  Would it matter if he did or didn't have it?
Does parental consent feed into this at all? (It does in some areas, not in others)
What about if she was just in her underwear?
If the underwear was see-through?
What if they were married?  Engaged?  Betrothed?

My point here is that there are a lot of people in a lot of situations that would argue fiercely for one side or the other.  There are cases that have been made and ruled in favor of both sides.  I don't want to start up arguments to the answers of these questions.  The point is not "lets find answers" but rather "Can we accept that different people who can be considered good people can have different answers to these questions?".  I think the answer to that second question is yes.

And here is a final question:

Does this get included into the alignment system, or is this something completely different?

That is a question I would like to answer, and my answer is yes.  It is actually an issue that plants at least one foot firmly in the realm of freedom.  And I don't think that the alignment system gives us a clear answer here (nor should it).  Since we can't get clear answers to these sorts of problems I don't think they should be put into basic rules of the game.  Great fluff, don't get me wrong.  I like alignment when it doesn't effect the mechanics of the game, but the whole point of having clear mechanics is to have things we can readily and openly define and use them as an objective common ground.  I just don't think morality, and by extension alignment, is an area that fits that criteria.
 



And here is the crux of the matter...the fact that you think ANY of what you just wrote has ANYTHING to do with the moral framework of a Dungeons & Dragons fantasy setting shows just how BAFFLINGLY misguided you are in regards to games & fantasy in general.

This is exactly why morality is OBJECTIVE in the game of Dungeons & Dragons because otherwise NOTHING can be said to be Evil or Good because moral relativism and subjectivity means NOTHING is actually good or evil. In the context of a game about HEROES doing HEROIC DEEDS on HEROIC ADVENTURES this is totally absurd.

Holy swords are not really holy...they're just...uh...swords. Devils aren't evil, they're just oppressed and have different cultural values! In fact, the Paladin In Hell is a bad, foreign terrorist invader attacking the devils way of life!

That is idiotic.

And even if it WEREN'T idiotic, it still wouldn't matter because it is not the default assumption of Dungeons & Dragons which DOES objectively label things as Good and Evil. A thing that can be definitively labeled means that label being used CANNOT be 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.


Morality is not objective...but Good & Evil within the frame work of morality are. That is logical.

 

So in one post you said "Morality is objective" in the next post you said "morality is not objective"?

Edit: Now we might actually be getting somewhere.  Moral relativism is something that exists, but taken to extremes it can do terrible things.  Its the same thing with "Greater Good".  It exists, but taken to extremes it does terrible terrible things.

The key here is defining how far you allow something to be relative, and how absolute you want to get.  I feel dirty for even starting this argument, but Child Pornography is actually a good starting point for this sort of thing.

Regardless of your opinion on whether it is right or wrong the question of Child Pornography (and we really have to ignore the morality of porn in general) is a question of the definintion of the first word more than it is a definition of the second (although that is important too).  I'm choosing to examine the first one because it is easier to quantify, but lets be clear that both words carry with them a lot of (a)morality.

So the "Child" part has to defined in order for the code of morality to be able to adjust it.  Surely we don't mean anyone's child (everyone is someone's child), what we mean is an explicit age that will serve as the cap for these discussions.  Then the key becomes "ok, what age".  In the US the age is 18, in other countries it is other numbers (higher in few, lower in many).  Is it immoral for someone from another country that is 16 years of age to participate and/or be shown?  To us, yes it is.  To them?  Maybe not.  If their age of majority that they define as the bridge from child to adult is 15 then the bar is moved for them.

Now, since it is such a touchy subject, lets take a moment to be clear.  I'm not advocating for one side or the other.  I'm just trying to raise the question of "line drawing" which is often where alignment and, specifically, the idea of the "Greater Good" has problems.  Things like this are shown in a little detail in the video I linked earlier (line drawing in morality, not porn).

The question is whether the person veiwing the 16yr old, or photographing, or producing or whatever is being amoral.  Or being any more amoral than the person viewing the 18yr old (possibly even the same person in a similar situation).  This is where the relativism comes into play.  It makes a difference what the societies views on the different topics are and that can be a huge factor for good and evil.

Japan for instance has gotten a good amount of media for their definition of child in their old shogunate system (age 10 iirc).  For us that seems way to low and so pamphlets depicting children of age 12 are considered gross, tragic and evil.  But its the societal number that is to blame for this.  It is the relativistic part swinging one way or the other.

This example is good because it works on a societal level, so there is a decent amount of material and common knowledge to build from (common knowledge of the issue at least).  It is also a good example because there are a lot of exceptions to the rule even in our own system.  Again, to be clear I'm not asking for answers to any of these and by bringing up the questions I am not saying I am for or against any of these options.  They are merely things to consider.

If someone has a picture of a naked 16yr old girl on their phone it can be considered child porn.
If the boyfriend of that girl has the same picture on his phone is it considered child porn?
What if the boyfriend is 15?  What if he is 18? What if he is 25?
If it is ok for a minor, what happens when the boyfriend hits 18?  What happens when she hits 18?
Would it be in her rights, after she has passed the age of majority to share pornographic material of her underaged self?
What if he had consent to do so?  Would it matter if he did or didn't have it?
Does parental consent feed into this at all? (It does in some areas, not in others)
What about if she was just in her underwear?
If the underwear was see-through?
What if they were married?  Engaged?  Betrothed?

My point here is that there are a lot of people in a lot of situations that would argue fiercely for one side or the other.  There are cases that have been made and ruled in favor of both sides.  I don't want to start up arguments to the answers of these questions.  The point is not "lets find answers" but rather "Can we accept that different people who can be considered good people can have different answers to these questions?".  I think the answer to that second question is yes.

And here is a final question:

Does this get included into the alignment system, or is this something completely different?

That is a question I would like to answer, and my answer is yes.  It is actually an issue that plants at least one foot firmly in the realm of freedom.  And I don't think that the alignment system gives us a clear answer here (nor should it).  Since we can't get clear answers to these sorts of problems I don't think they should be put into basic rules of the game.  Great fluff, don't get me wrong.  I like alignment when it doesn't effect the mechanics of the game, but the whole point of having clear mechanics is to have things we can readily and openly define and use them as an objective common ground.  I just don't think morality, and by extension alignment, is an area that fits that criteria.
 



And here is the crux of the matter...the fact that you think ANY of what you just wrote has ANYTHING to do with the moral framework of a Dungeons & Dragons fantasy setting shows just how BAFFLINGLY misguided you are in regards to games & fantasy in general.

This is exactly why morality is OBJECTIVE in the game of Dungeons & Dragons because otherwise NOTHING can be said to be Evil or Good because moral relativism and subjectivity means NOTHING is actually good or evil. In the context of a game about HEROES doing HEROIC DEEDS on HEROIC ADVENTURES this is totally absurd.

Holy swords are not really holy...they're just...uh...swords. Devils aren't evil, they're just oppressed and have different cultural values! In fact, the Paladin In Hell is a bad, foreign terrorist invader attacking the devils way of life!

That is idiotic.

And even if it WEREN'T idiotic, it still wouldn't matter because it is not the default assumption of Dungeons & Dragons which DOES objectively label things as Good and Evil. A thing that can be definitively labeled means that label being used CANNOT be subjective.



A tiny step forward and then a giant leap back.

There goes those hopes.  And it does objectively label "Freedom" as something good.  So the girl has the "Freedom" to show those pictures at any age to anyone anywhere?  Would that be good?  That is what I'm trying to say.  If you want to put heroic deeds into it make her the son of a noble who is trying to get the heroes to save the girl from herself or something.  It isn't hard to put morally ambiguous things into a heroic situation. 
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
I label you a self-perpetuating nonsence-creating loon'.

Doesn't make it true, but in this case... 
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
If I am the DM, then the only opinion that you should care about when it comes to alignment is mine, not the game designer's.



Okay. So you're a bad DM that ignores rules and can't set aside their own prejudices to play a game. Gotcha. Do you let your players know this beforehand?

Must suck if you ever played Star Wars or something else with a different moral framework huh? Being one of your players must be rough. Poor fellas.



Unblocked to respond to this because I caught it in the sidebar. Don't bother to reply or quote, because I won't do so again.

So, you are telling me that if the game system said that the slaughter of innocents and the abuse of their cattle was good and to be praised and rewarded, and that defense of those same innocents and their livestock was evil, you would agree with those definitions?

Were you not just arguing that just because a law says something is acceptable does not make it morally just? That there are universal definitions of good and evil?

Star Wars, just like D&D, operates with a very modern morality. The only moral ambiguity I see in the Star Wars universe that differs from our own is that slavery is sanctioned and legal.

Since your next question would be "How so?", and I am unlikely to see the response, I shall enlighten you. It has been firmly established in the Star Wars universe that droids can and do develop free will. This is kept in check by the practice of wiping a droid's memory periodically (so they don't become "erratic" or develop "programming quirks"). If the droid is allowed to keep their memories, they become like C-3PO and R2-D2, sapient beings capable of forming emotional connections and free thought. Never once is the fact that they can be bought, sold, traded, disassembled and / or have their minds wiped clean without their permission ever called into question.

When it comes to morality in D&D, I don't have to stretch too hard to see where they are coming from because all of the alignments were written from a late 20th century, Judeo-Christian, white American, middle class point of view. The same is true of the morality of Star Wars, for that matter, the fact that Lucas is no longer middle class nothwithstanding, he was when he wrote the story.

And no, complaints from my players are few and far between. Like I said, we tend to game with friends, and the people that we hold close to us (that aren't family, at least) tend to occupy similar moral ground.

The two of us would have problems at the table, I'm sure of it. I don't think I would like you very much in person, thus we would not be friends, and we would be unlikely to game together at the same table. I have the sinking suspicion that the feeling is mutual, so just as well, eh?

I leave you now to live your life "me-free", and I shall now continue living mine "you-free."

Cheers, and may you have happy gaming the rest of your days.

Don't bother to reply or quote, because I won't do so again.



Haha. About how I imagine you must DM as well. "I disagree with you so I will speak AT you and not bother to respond." The fact that you put me on block yet STILL responded to me is a win in my book. Thanks.

So, you are telling me that if the game system said that the slaughter of innocents and the abuse of their cattle was good and to be praised and rewarded, and that defense of those same innocents and their livestock was evil, you would agree with those definitions?



In the context of the game itself? Yes of course. It's the context the game is creating.

Would I agree with it in real life? Uh...no? I can seperate a game and how I play it from reality. I don't think ripping peoples heads off or eviscerating them with blades is a good way to settle disputes but I have no problem inputting fatalities into Mortal Kombat. Reptile's morality does not have to be my own for me to play him and play as him.

When it comes to morality in D&D, I don't have to stretch too hard to see where they are coming from because all of the alignments were written from a late 20th century, Judeo-Christian, white American, middle class point of view. The same is true of the morality of Star Wars, for that matter, the fact that Lucas is no longer middle class nothwithstanding, he was when he wrote the story.



...which is why the morality in the game is OBJECTIVE. The alignments were written with an objective moral frame work. Within the confines and context of the game those objective definitions are FACT whether someone disagrees with them or not. That is the point.

And no, complaints from my players are few and far between. Like I said, we tend to game with friends, and the people that we hold close to us (that aren't family, at least) tend to occupy similar moral ground.



Or, y'know, play at giant conventions with people we've never met before yet can still all have a common understanding of the moral framework presented in the game we're playing because it is objectively outlined. No?

The two of us would have problems at the table, I'm sure of it. I don't think I would like you very much in person, thus we would not be friends, and we would be unlikely to game together at the same table. I have the sinking suspicion that the feeling is mutual, so just as well, eh?



Depending on how weak-willed you might be or how fragile your ego is that could be true. I am a straight-forward, honest and forthright person that speaks his mind, only gives advice he means and believes firmly in his ideals. That is an absolute affront to people especially in our overly politically correct society. Mileage always varies.

I leave you now to live your life "me-free", and I shall now continue living mine "you-free."



You'll be missing out. Few people around better than me.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />

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" />A tiny step forward and then a giant leap back.

There goes those hopes.  And it does objectively label "Freedom" as something good.  So the girl has the "Freedom" to show those pictures at any age to anyone anywhere?  Would that be good?  That is what I'm trying to say.  If you want to put heroic deeds into it make her the son of a noble who is trying to get the heroes to save the girl from herself or something.  It isn't hard to put morally ambiguous things into a heroic situation. 



Is she an adult in the context of the setting? If so, then she can do as she pleases within the confines of the law (if I'm being my usual lawful good self)...if she is a child then YES her guardian does get to exercise supervision over her.

Also if the images were created under Evil conditions (child porn or whatever) they should be destroyed regardless of her current wishes and if she were showing said-Evil pictures to others she could be proliferating something Evil. Which is bad.

Seriously what is morally ambiguous about that? Nothing.

Thankfully, because of objective morality, I can actually come up with an answer instead of just navel-gazing or delving endlessly into useless philosophy of the likes of "But...duuuude...what's Good and what's Evil if Evil is good to Evil and good is evil to Evil! Oh man..." because thats useless.

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.

Also if the images were created under Evil conditions (child porn or whatever) they should be destroyed regardless of her current wishes and if she were showing said-Evil pictures to others she could be proliferating something Evil. Which is bad.

 

(My emphasis) I don't think I need to add anything to that. 
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />A tiny step forward and then a giant leap back.

There goes those hopes.  And it does objectively label "Freedom" as something good.  So the girl has the "Freedom" to show those pictures at any age to anyone anywhere?  Would that be good?  That is what I'm trying to say.  If you want to put heroic deeds into it make her the son of a noble who is trying to get the heroes to save the girl from herself or something.  It isn't hard to put morally ambiguous things into a heroic situation. 



Is she an adult in the context of the setting? If so, then she can do as she pleases within the confines of the law (if I'm being my usual lawful good self)...if she is a child then YES her guardian does get to exercise supervision over her.

Also if the images were created under Evil conditions (child porn or whatever) they should be destroyed regardless of her current wishes and if she were showing said-Evil pictures to others she could be proliferating something Evil. Which is bad.

Seriously what is morally ambiguous about that? Nothing.

Thankfully, because of objective morality, I can actually come up with an answer instead of just navel-gazing or delving endlessly into useless philosophy of the likes of "But...duuuude...what's Good and what's Evil if Evil is good to Evil and good is evil to Evil! Oh man..." because thats useless.



A lot of that depends.  Because, as previously stated, adult can mean a lot of things.  And it isn't set up in Alignment what "adult" means.  Also, it could be different in different places in the game world (like it is in ours).

Also "She could be doing something evil.  Which is bad"  If you take all the "They could be evil" arguments... yeah thats just way to crazy zealous for me.

There are a lot of things morally ambiguous about that section.  Thats the point.

And you said that freedom is one of the things that defines good, yet she doesn't have the freedom to govern what she does with her own body?  That doesn't sound very free to me.  Does that end at some arbitrary age or are we going by the definition that she never has any rights?  That all sounds pretty not-good to me. 
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
That's the problem. I don't want your opinion of what's good and evil. I want the D&D opinion's what
is good and evil. I want a clear cut and dry on what is good and evil in this game. 

I want to look at a monster's stats and see if it's evil and why.  Choatic Evil? These guys are the worse of the worse. They will take what they want and they won't care. Power and greed runs in their vain. They bash your face in and laugh at you for being weak.  I can easily roleplay them based off this.

 




Happily, you're in the minority. Just because you draw al your inspiration from the label a fat guy in a cubicle gives a monster dosen't mean the rest of us have to do somethign as dull as that.
"The real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development." -Albert Einstein Resident Left Hand of Stalin and Banana Stand Grandstander Half of the Ambiguously Gay Duo House of Trolls, looking for a partner Wondering what happened to the Star Wars forums?
Show
Star Wars Minis has a home here http://www.bloomilk.com/ and Star Wars Saga Edition RPG has a home here http://thesagacontinues.createaforum.com/index.php
Show
141722973 wrote:
And it wasn't ****. It was subjectively concensual sex.
57036828 wrote:
Marketing and design are two different things. For instance the snuggy was designed for people in wheel chairs and marketed to people that are too incompetent to operate a blanket.
75239035 wrote:
I personally don't want him decapitated.
141722973 wrote:
And do not call me a Yank. I am a Québecois, basically your better.
And the greatest post moderation of all time...
58115148 wrote:
I gave that (Content Removed) a to-scale Lego replica. (Content Removed) love to-scale Lego replicas. (ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)
That's the problem. I don't want your opinion of what's good and evil. I want the D&D opinion's what
is good and evil. I want a clear cut and dry on what is good and evil in this game. 

I want to look at a monster's stats and see if it's evil and why.  Choatic Evil? These guys are the worse of the worse. They will take what they want and they won't care. Power and greed runs in their vain. They bash your face in and laugh at you for being weak.  I can easily roleplay them based off this.

 




Happily, you're in the minority. Just because you draw al your inspiration from the label a fat guy in a cubicle gives a monster dosen't mean the rest of us have to do somethign as dull as that.



Someone poke you under your bridge?

Also minority? Considering the sales of previous editions of Dungeons & Dragons and its previous dominance of the genre, nope I'd say YOU'RE probably in the minority.

Though I do love the attempt at a "superiority complex" towards a fellow player of a game that boils down to lets make pretend with rules. Classy.

Oh also it's a classic invocation of the "You're doing it wrong!" argument that you guys so love to try and accuse other people of using, no? Oh wait, when you do it its okay right? OMG! I think I figured out why you guys are so in love with subjective morality! That way when YOU do something it can be okay but when someone ELSE does it you can say its bad! Good strategy!

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" />A lot of that depends.  Because, as previously stated, adult can mean a lot of things.  And it isn't set up in Alignment what "adult" means.  Also, it could be different in different places in the game world (like it is in ours).

Also "She could be doing something evil.  Which is bad"  If you take all the "They could be evil" arguments... yeah thats just way to crazy zealous for me.

There are a lot of things morally ambiguous about that section.  Thats the point.

And you said that freedom is one of the things that defines good, yet she doesn't have the freedom to govern what she does with her own body?  That doesn't sound very free to me.  Does that end at some arbitrary age or are we going by the definition that she never has any rights?  That all sounds pretty not-good to me. 



...Sweet Pelor...

Exact clarity of the situation would require rules concerning what is or is not child-pornography within the context of D&D. Good luck waiting on that one.

Also...freedom to do WHAT with her body? If she is an ADULT showing pictures of herself as a child she is taking action with the PICTURES not with her body. And if she is a child doing what she wishes you're basically advocating that children should do WHATEVER they want.

And yes it ends at the arbitrary age of adulthood...which BY THE WAY is codified IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS!

Humans - 15
Dwarf - 40
Elf - 110
Gnome - 40
ETC ETC ETC

ZOMG!

Until then you are a child as far as the mechanics of the game are concerned.

I'm really starting to think you guys aren't particularly familiar with ANY of the rules of D&D.

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.

Exact clarity of the situation would require rules concerning what is or is not child-pornography within the context of D&D. Good luck waiting on that one.

Actually it requires there to be a lot more than that.  It requires for there to be a system of stated morality that actually effects mechanics (laws, codes, rules, etc) that detail these types of things if they are meant to be taken as hard and fast rules.  They aren't meant to be taken that way, they are fluff, just like the rest of the morality that alignment is based upon.  And since they are fluff we can just ignore it when talking mechanics and building mechanical things.

Also...freedom to do WHAT with her body? If she is an ADULT showing pictures of herself as a child she is taking action with the PICTURES not with her body. And if she is a child doing what she wishes you're basically advocating that children should do WHATEVER they want.

And yes, freedom to do what she wants with her body.  Marry who she wants etc etc. I'm not advocating anything.  I'm saying it isn't as clear cut as you would like to believe it is.

And yes it ends at the arbitrary age of adulthood...which BY THE WAY is codified IN DUNGEONS & DRAGONS!



Humans - 15
Dwarf - 40
Elf - 110
Gnome - 40
ETC ETC ETC

ZOMG!

Until then you are a child as far as the mechanics of the game are concerned.

Checking the human entry I see no such thing.  Interesting.  Unless this is the "its in an older edition so it counts" version of how things go.  Also, what does being a "child" mean in mechanical terms?  It doesn't actually mean anything.  It is, yet again, mechanic free fluff.  Just like alignment.


I'm really starting to think you guys aren't particularly familiar with ANY of the rules of D&D.

I'm starting to believe that people like you are the reason there is much edition warring.  You pretty much state "rules of DnD" as if it is one giant editionless mold.  Then when challenged on it you clarify as "ALL DND", then when that is challenged you ignore it and pick a new argument.

4e exists.  You, personally, are welcome to ignore it in your own personal life and games.  But if you come on here claiming about "ALL DND" and completely skip an edition in your thinking you are at best being disingenuous 



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
4e exists.  You, personally, are welcome to ignore it in your own personal life and games.  But if you come on here claiming about "ALL DND" and completely skip an edition in your thinking you are at best being disingenuous 






God forbid I speak of the GENERAL nature of D&D in which the MAJORITY of the editions have rules for aging. That ONE edition doesn't is an exception, not the rule. And, you are the one bringing up editions...desperately trying to edition war. Why? Because it's all you have. Continue grasping at straws.

Also, hilariously, weren't you unaware that the alignments are defined in 4th Edition itself? Which leads to the question...how can the game define something that is totally 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.

If you looked at the people who read these board I think you'll find that more of them play 4e than the rest combined. They may have played others in the past but it is what they play now that counts.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
If you looked at the people who read these board I think you'll find that more of them play 4e than the rest combined. They may have played others in the past but it is what they play now that counts.



And more people play the other versions of D&D (or other d20 OGL-based D&D products) than play 4th Edition.

Majority rules yes?

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.

I'm not sure that's true, but no matter. You are speaking to a target audience: i.e. the people who read these boards, many (if not most) of whom will be 4e players.
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
I do believe this is a discussion centered on 3.5e and earlier incarnations, though.
"Should there be mechanics linked to allignment?"

"Yes, that's what DnD is"

"No look at 4e"

That's quite a logical step. 
Back to Basics - A Guide to Basic Attacks You might be playing DnD wrong if... "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." Albert Einstein
I do wish the Paladins were still holy warriors of justice--not just militant clerics.
4e exists.  You, personally, are welcome to ignore it in your own personal life and games.  But if you come on here claiming about "ALL DND" and completely skip an edition in your thinking you are at best being disingenuous 






God forbid I speak of the GENERAL nature of D&D in which the MAJORITY of the editions have rules for aging. That ONE edition doesn't is an exception, not the rule. And, you are the one bringing up editions...desperately trying to edition war. Why? Because it's all you have. Continue grasping at straws.

Also, hilariously, weren't you unaware that the alignments are defined in 4th Edition itself? Which leads to the question...how can the game define something that is totally subjective?




First off, there is a different between saying "most" and "all".  So claiming "most alignment systems in dnd work like _____" is better than "all alignment systems in dnd work like ____".  Cause one of them is a blatant lie and the other isn't.  Now, it does beg a different argument which gets close to edition warring (whether 4e should be given more weight as it is seen as the "current" version of the game and/or most recent publication of the game), but thats a pointless argument.

Why were you saying I was unaware of how 4e defined alignments?  I was firmly aware of how they were defined.  I just wasn't having a conversation or discussion about the subjective nature until you came in here so it was rather irrelevant.  The conversation was about whether there shouldn't be any alignment based mechanics, something that 4e doesn't have.  The paladin doesn't lose his powers because of lack of agreement with his alignment.  You linked an article which talked about something that never happened and then stopped assuming you won.  Now if we say "well, that article in conjunction with a small amount of logic or an ability to look at the rules proves that point wrong" you rant about a different topic.

I feel like I've said this quite enough times.  I'm not against alignment in general.  I just don't want it in the mechanics.  So you are arguing with someone who has never disagreed with you in the first place (on that particular point).

So here are the sides:
You think alignment is clearly defined and should be used in the playing of the game.  
I think alignment is defined well enough and should be used in the playing of the game.  I think that since it is not clearly and concisely defined (or more importantly definable) that it should be used in playing the game, but not in defining rules sections of the game.

So when you rant, rave, holler and hoot about how much I'm hating on alignment, or whether it is subjective or not please try to focus on what is actually being said.  I'm not saying "toss all alignment out the door".  I'm saying "toss all rules with alignment out the door".
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
I want alignments back into the mechanics. 

Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Holy Word, you name it.

 
I want alignments back into the mechanics. 

Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Holy Word, you name it.

Fine by me, as long as no one tries to make me roleplay a particular way simply because it suits them.

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

I want alignments back into the mechanics. 

Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Holy Word, you name it.

 



I want alignments back into the mechanics. 

Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Holy Word, you name it.

Fine by me, as long as no one tries to make me roleplay a particular way simply because it suits them.



Those two things.  Basically that is why I want alignment not in the mechanics.  Not because I don't want to be good, but rather I don't want to be put in a grey situation whose "right answer" is DM defined and not rules defined.

Keep it separate, like in 4e. 
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
Sign In to post comments