there are still rape laws that simple don't include spouses. Simply put not every jurisdiction considers forcing your wife to have sex to be immoral.
Right, but that falls under exeptions to the rule, not the rule itself. Rape(or the equivelent) is still universally wrong, it's just whether or not forcing your wife is considered to be rape.
To get to my point on the man VS dog hypothetical, we would expect ANY human to respond the same way. That's a social contract for ALL of humanity.
This fails, though. I seriously doubt any of the millions of muslim extremists will swim out to save a westerner from drowing, where they would probably save the dog. The same goes for the citizens of many african nations when dealing with their neighbors or other ethnic groups. There really isn't some universal "I will save a human over a dog" contract." I personally would, but redneck Joe might not.
More relevantly when people do things like slaughtering thousands of innocent minorities we try the for crimes against humanity.
If we can. The reason for this is not some fantastical humanity is wonderful thing, but because in order to try someone for something done in a sovereign state over which we have no legal authority, we need to make it sound good. We have to justify to ourselves and others our actions in violating sovereign borders, and saying it is for all of humanity make the rest of the world less uppity about it.
While they may or may not have known about Cheney being a bad person, they as you have said, knew that giving contracts to your croneys was immoral. The morality of the act would not have changed for someone they liked. It may have been more forgivable for a good person, but that's about it.
Either: most people did think that the morality of an act did change for people they like, and therefore it did;
Or: something about the morality of the act didn't depend on what the morality of people thought.
You appear to be saying that morality depends on what the morality of people think when they make moral judgements consistently. There is an glaring problem there.
Both of those are great examples of social relativism at work. They both involve about half the country on each side of each issue saying that their side is moral and the other one isn't. Which ends up being the case will be decided in the future. 100 years ago both issues were completely immoral in the U.S.
That's not addressing the specific problem. The specific problem is the absurdity of saying that the morality of either question is determined right now by some majority across the country.
It's not actually a great example of social relativism at work. Firstly, the people involved by definition don't think that the rights and wrongs of the issue are determined by social relativism. They come to their opinions about the rights and wrongs for some other reason. Secondly, moral objectivists can explain what is happening just as well or better, because their explanations take the way people actually think into account.
Before there were nations, there were smaller social groupings that determined things. City States, townships, etc. In the modern era, Nations are it for most of the world.
Apart from the European Union? Or individual states in the United States? Or, say, you're in the Islamic north of Nigeria where they've just started using sharia law?
Suppose I'm an inhabitant of Scotland. Scotland has its own legal system and some functions of government. Other functions of government are controlled from the United Kingdom government. And then the United Kingdom is a member of the European Union and so the last court of appeal in some cases is the European Court of Human Rights. (For that matter, the legality of shopping on a Sunday depends on where I am in Scotland.) Which level determines morality?
It's essentiall the same thing. The majority DOES have the power to enforce it in virtually every country in the world.
Even in the modern world it seems to me that quite a lot of countries aren't democracies. Even in many democracies, the majority doesn't determine all the laws. Examples: Turkey is a secular constitution, with a majority which I should think wouldn't object to a more Islamic constitution. (The current government is Islamist. It is limited by the army, who enforce the secular constitution strictly.) In the past, I think there are numerous counterexamples. Apartheid South Africa springs to mind.
This is true. What happens is this, and I'll use the U.S as an example. When the U.S was colonized, it was colonized by people with much the same morals, so morality was determined not conciously by saying "Let's set down what is immoral.", but by what they all knew from what they were taught during childhood was immoral. They in turn taught their children and so forth. As the population grew through birth and immigration, these morals remained largely intact, being taught to children and told to immigrants. Occasionally, a viewpoint changed on something once thought to be moral such as slavery and women's rights. Even today, our American morality is taught to our children and enforced in some cases through law. Since most morality is not absolute, we have moral issues like abortion, gay rights and prostitution in the process of changing.
My italics.
There's a cartoon of a professor looking at a blackboard with workings on it, and half way through the workings is written Here a miracle occurs. The caption is, could you make this step more explicit.
Could you make the step in italics more explicit.
Let us imagine the mindset of an eager anti-slavery campaigner as she comes to believe that slavery is wrong. Does she wake up, calculate the number of people in her country who are opposed to slavery, and by making a glaring error in her calculations, underestimate the number of people who think slavery is ok by a factor of ten. So that the early anti-slavery campaigners thought that a majority of people in the country agreed with them?
No.
The eager anti-slavery campaigned either decided, if evangelical, that that all men(sic) were brothers(sic) and the Lord wanted all God's children to be free. Or else, if a deist, that all men(sic) were endued with rights to liberty even if deprived of these by tyrants and priests, and therefore slavery was wrong. But whatever they thought, they did not change their views because they can come to agree with the majority of their contemporaries.
Another problem for majoritarianism.
Suppose a hypothetical country. Opinions on abortion break down a bit like this:
35.1%: abortion is murder and always wrong.
10%: abortion is normally murder but permissible if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest.
5%: abortion is normally murder but permissible in the case of rape, or to save the mother's life.
15%: abortion is permissible in the case of rape, or if the child will have a serious disability.
34.9%: abortion is not a moral issue.
Now, what is the morality of abortion in this country? In this case, we can just about break it down into single yes-no issues (is it ok to abort in such and such a circumstance). In which case, as it happens, we end up with abortion being ok in the case of rape and to save the mother's life, which means that 5% of the population hold the correct opinion.
Or we could go with first past the post, which would mean that 35.1% of the population determine that abortion is absolutely wrong - but if only .2% of the population change their mind, the morality of abortion could swing from one absolute to the other.
The above question is an example of the fact that in any society with three or more blocks of opinion, where no uniform block has a clear majority, there is no unique good answer to the question of what is the consensus opinion. (As proved by Arrow's theorem.) So social relativism implies that a pluralistic society can have no morality.
This fails, though. I seriously doubt any of the millions of muslim extremists will swim out to save a westerner from drowing, where they would probably save the dog. The same goes for the citizens of many african nations when dealing with their neighbors or other ethnic groups. There really isn't some universal "I will save a human over a dog" contract." I personally would, but redneck Joe might not.
And the billions of ordinary Muslims would consider them immoral for doing so.
extremists aren't worth considering, they're outliers to the social norms. We really do have universal social norms.
My god, that's an incoherent sentence. What does "to the original point of the events" mean? You're not writing clearly.
Perhaps it is the way you are parsing it. Are you even TRYING to understand what I am writing, or just insisting on being arumentative? Maybe this will help (maybe not): When I use the phrase "a question of story", it is in response to the original point of the events that occur when a paladin breaks a god's commandments.
But not my me, so if you please, stop referencing "a question of story" when addressing my arguments. Nt only have you been unable to articulate what that means, or how it is pertinent, you appear to be arguing with somebody else (yet inexplicably doing it in responses to me).
Then perhaps, again, reading the thread is in order. I have responded to everyone in this thread that addressed my points, and have continued to allow concessions to prove my singular argument. The ONLY issue I have had with you is determining where YOU, personally, draw the line on house rules so that I might address yours. I have both articulated what a "question of story" means AND explained the pertinence (though I use the term relevance). NOTE: I have repeatedly asked why the need to attempt to disparage me personally - You claim I've made no sense. I printed the last comment out -- my 10-year old had no issue comprehending what was written, nor what was meant by "a question of story". That leads me to believe that you are either truly not sufficiently skilled in comprehension, or you are willfully misrepresnting me. I will ask again - be poliite.
They are not exclusive. Just because you are addresing something in your world as a "part of the story" dos not mean it is not also a house rule. The two issues (is something part of the story and is something a house rule) are independent questions. Defining something as a story element does not take it out of the universe of house rules.
I know they are not - and in MY world, I house rule (I stated as much, you may recall). However, it need not be a house rule as the HOW doesn't matter in this case (boy, that sounds familiar).
I assume that you meant to write "whether there is any consequence of a house rule". Otherwise your sentence doesn't make any sense. If I assume incorrectly, please let me know what you meant to write.
No - I meant it as written. A sentence that again, seems to make sense to all but you. Perhaps a more precise rendition, using the exact consequence in question will help: Whether removing the paladin's power (a specific instance of "any consequence") is a house rule.
However, that is not the issue. And this is a problem I see both you and Maxperson make often. When people come to this board and ask rules questions (such as whether paladins divine powers are impaired by violating their god's tenets) a response that is not clear about whether it is suggesting a house rule or an interpretation of the rules without house rules is deleterious to reasoned discussion. So whether something is a house rule is in fact quite important. In fact, I posit that it is crucial to allowing this forum in particular serve its primary function of being a place where DMs can get clear and useful advice.
Go back and read my first post on the subject - my answer was valid, and I included ways to use the customization rules to enact it. Moreover - your answer has been (to paraphrase - correct me if I'm wrong) "if you customize, you are house-ruling". I would counter that such an answer only serves to deter DMs from customizing their campaigns, and thus limiting the story. The game continually fosters such customization and even gives examples of how (back to the fire archon). My points, contrary to what you have claimed, have been repeatedly clear on the subject - and I've even gone so far as to delimit which customization rules could (by RAW) be employed to enact such.
Too often people write their table rules down as if they were gospel, thereby giving inaccurate and often unhelpful advice. So, no there are no consequences to using a house rule in your own games. But these forums aren't about your table rules, or my table rules. They are about the game in general. And there are consequences to giving someone advice to house rule without clearly letting them know whether what you suggest is a house rule. And for that reason it's imperative that people be clear.
It's a good thing I didn't then. What I have done, again repeatedly, is use the customization rules to explain how such an effect can be brought about. The main difference between your argument and mine is that I claim that using the customization rules is NOT house ruling, it is part and parcel of creating the campaign. I have even stated that I do such in response to my players' desires.
And you'll note that I couldn't care less how many story ideas you put forth as long as you don't try to claim that they are expressly contemplated by the rules. The games have a default setting. They have a set of basic rules. I did not get involved when people were simply discussing what they do in their independent game. I got involved when people claimed that what they do in game doesn't alter the rules of the game.
And there it is, yet again. If they are not "expressly contemplated by the rules", then why the fire archon example? This is clearly altering the "rules" of the game. However, it is done NOT by adding a house rule, but by customizing a class's powers by replacing keywords.
No, you didn't. You are trying (quote blatantly) to get me infolved in a discussion of whether flavor are rules (which is off-topic) and you are not actually discussing whether changing the powers of a monster is a house rule (which is on-topic).
No - I am blatantly trying to express that regardless of what one would consider house rules, a DM may enact a particular consequence (denial of powers) upon a paladin WITHOUT resorting to such. (i've stated as much either directly or through the suggestion of an alternative means in just about EVERY response to you)
We touched on it at all only because you keep trying to jam it into this discussion like a square peg into a round hole. It's been apparent quite some time that you are uninterested in discussing the topic, which you appear to be uneasy about, and are trying to shift this topic to reflavoring, which you feel more comfortable. But I have no desire to discuss reflavoring, for the reasons I've stated numerous times.
Then you truly are not comprehending anything I've posted, as I've attempted no such thing. I've stated the purpose each and every time for touching on it. You are, again, not even attempting to discern what I've been stating.
I have never opines (and in fact have refused to opine) as to whether reflavoring is a house rule or not because it is irrelevant to this discussion. So you gather incorrectly. And the fact that are you trying t glean irrelevant information from my statements only highlights how you've been inappropriately trying to derail this conversation for some time.
hehe - need I state my reasoning yet again? apparently so - I am trying to determine what you consider a house rule SOLELY to express a fitting alternative that meets the condition of NOT being considered a house rule BY YOU, that will still enact the same consequence (denial of powers) for a paladin breaking a god's commandments. ANY ATTEMPT to derail this into something else is NOT of my doing. IN FACT - I have on at least two occassions, specifically stated that I'd prefer NOT to use such terms as refluff and reflavor and stick to that presented in the rules - customization.
Show me where it is defined that a rule concerns only the effect that can be enacted independent of what character is enacting such an effect. That is the premise of your argument that you have never displayed.
No, and you have mistaken my premise. Let me attempt (yet again) to clearly explain it to you. Assuming, of course, you are using premise in the context of logical discourse - I have made the following assertion "such a consequence is enacted through story, and requires NO house ruling", to support the proposition (the premises) I've shown various methods to achieve such using the customization rules. For you, however, the use of much of what is created through customization you consider house ruling. As such, I have added the additional premise (proposition to support my argument) that a creature directly from the Draconomicon (a core book - RAW, not house ruled by your definition) can be used to produce the desired effect. I have displayed all that is needed to support my argument. QED
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
This thread seems to have run its course and changed subjects. I am closing it for VCL review. This thread may be re-opened, a new thread created or remain closed depending on their decision.
