Actually you're wrong about something for sure there CJ, if not all of it. Here's one for you that's universally accepted by any group of decent gamers everywhere. Therefore actually if you don't like the rule, it can make it not the rule, maybe not in overall context but certainly at a lot of gaming tables you'll find the same rules are ignored because why? Because they're arbitrarily unfun.
This is so absurd I do not know where to begin. This is even more absurd than yelling "Rul3 0!!!!11!!1one!1!"
This crossed the line from being wrong to being downright idiotic.
I am ORCutus of Borg, 3 of 6. Resistance... is futile. Your life as it has been... is over. From this time forward... you will service... us.
It is in fact the only correct rule in ANY rpg. White Wolf Published it as Rule 0 actually. It's more sensible than Rule 0. This is an arguement you cannot win, so go ahead.
It is in fact the only correct rule in ANY rpg. White Wolf Published it as Rule 0 actually. It's more sensible than Rule 0. This is an arguement you cannot win, so go ahead.
Wrong. I do not see any passage in the DMG saying "Ignore all rules you feel like cuz lulz."
Now, I understand you are having a little trouble with this "rules" concept, so I'm being patient, but this is getting ridiculous. It's like you know you're wrong, but think you'll "win" by being annoying rather than simply admitting you were wrong.
I am ORCutus of Borg, 3 of 6. Resistance... is futile. Your life as it has been... is over. From this time forward... you will service... us.
Have you got a condition CJ? If so I'm sorry. If not... get diagnosed.
You're stuck on at least three arguements that nobody agrees with you on.
Regarding the whole Magic Items as Constructs being immune to AMF. I've been thinking more on that. It's simple really, the key phrase indicates that the magic item can activate its own abilities. It does NOT indicate that the construct creature gains those abilities as special attacks. That would make them untyped abilities, as stated it is as simple as a Use Activated, Command Word, etc ability and that cannot be activated even by a construct that has it built in (say a warforged with enchanted plating, or a component that's enchanted to use X spell Y times/day).
Regarding Alignment, it's all arbitrary and nobody plays entirely by those rules. Everyone changes something to make it easier to deal. If you can get a group of more than 1 to agree with you that they do not I'll be proven wrong here. It's like multiclassing XP loss, the vast majority of the community that still plays ignores those rules altogether. Sure the rules there, but who gives a flying f***.
Regarding the whole Magic Items as Constructs being immune to AMF. I've been thinking more on that. It's simple really, the key phrase indicates that the magic item can activate its own abilities. It does NOT indicate that the construct creature gains those abilities as special attacks. That would make them untyped abilities, as stated it is as simple as a Use Activated, Command Word, etc ability and that cannot be activated even by a construct that has it built in (say a warforged with enchanted plating, or a component that's enchanted to use X spell Y times/day).
Yes, it does. They are constructs. The magic ability has no type, and is therefore untyped.
Regarding Alignment, it's all arbitrary and nobody plays entirely by those rules. Everyone changes something to make it easier to deal. If you can get a group of more than 1 to agree with you that they do not I'll be proven wrong here. It's like multiclassing XP loss, the vast majority of the community that still plays ignores those rules altogether. Sure the rules there, but who gives a flying f***.
Irrevelent. They are still the rules. Now, are you finally going to concede the alignment rules are totally disfunctional, or are you going to pull out more absurd idiocy?
I am ORCutus of Borg, 3 of 6. Resistance... is futile. Your life as it has been... is over. From this time forward... you will service... us.
Only self-supporting constructs. Okay, that's fine. Now where, exactly, are the rules about somehow needing to upkeep your intelligent magic items? Plug them into a wall socket? Because I haven't seen any rules for a +5 Anarchic Burst USB Adapter.
The only kind of support it could possibly be talking about is magic, as the relevant sentence of the spell indicates by mentioning that the constructs which are unaffected were imbued with magic during their creation and self-supporting thereafter.
An action is of an alignment or it isn't. Those are the rules. Period. There are no rules that state burning down an orphanage and devouring the babies is any more evil than swatting a misquito.
If that's true, then it's impossible for an exalted character to do any evil by killing in self-defense, since self-defence is a neutral act and thus cannot contain any elements of evil (as it's not an action of evil alignment). It is neutral and cannot be anything else since "An action is of an alignment or it isn't."
But that wouldn't even be a functional system; without a recognized difference in degrees of alignment there would be no way to change between alignments, since no single action could cause an alignment shift on its own and the alignment itself could never be more than just a single state so you could never accumulate the effect of multiple actions in order to eventually produce a change.
The fallout is of vital importance, since if everything is "selfish", then there is no real distinction in the term, and nothing is truly selfish (it's only a valid state if it's possible to be in some other state).
Consequently, no-one can be selfish if it's determined on that level, making it impossible to suffer any ill-effects from it.
Those are the rules. Any attempt to claim otherwise is just as incorrect as claiming that Epic Spellcasting is a first-level Fighter class feature.
From the Player's Handbook, page 104, from the section on "The Nine Alignments": "Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts."
Even the Book of Vile Darkness includes a section on how intent and context are important, which it immediately follows with a section noting that there are still going to be grey areas, even with the most black-and-white, objective approach to good and evil. That's in the section on "Defining Evil", immediately before the section on "Evil Acts".
Notably that section on evil acts doesn't appear to state self-interest or self-protection as a reliable basis for evil. In fact, it even states that killing a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as a chromatic dragon, is not evil, even when done for personal gain.
Because a rule has mechanics, and a "rule" is pointless text in the area where the rules should be.
And how do you determine which sections are "actual rules" and which are not? For example, you've mentioned the presence of mechanics, so exactly which segments of the descriptions of evil acts are mechanics?
If you have some other criteria, please explain that criteria, preferrably with an example. I would suggest quoting a paragraph or two from the evil acts section of the Book of Vile Darkness and pointing out which segments are rules, which are not, and your reasons for making the distinction.
Killing for any selfish reason is Evil. Period. Tempting others to Evil is Evil. Period. Those are the rules.
I suggest you read the Book of Vile Darkness more carefully. Only the temptation of good individuals is described as an evil act (accidental cases of temptation notwithstanding, as the section before "Evil Acts" describes), not tempting creatures of any other moral alignment. And in addition to not stating the mere existence of selfishness as the basis of evil, it also directly describes a circumstance in which killing another creature for personal gain is explicitly not evil.
Are you being intentionally slow? I cannot think of any way to make this any simpler.
Fortunately I am happy to attempt some further predigestion of the material if the moral roughage is a little too harsh for your mental stomach.
For any game purpose, Pelor is either evil or he is not. There is no "evil but not Evil" or the reverse, nor any other kind of difference in the standards of moral alignment within the game world (at least within the simplest determination of Good/Neutral/Evil). You can either judge that by the immutable statement of the game material that he is good, or you can apply real-world morality, possibly determining that he is evil and voluntarily choosing to regard his stated alignment as incorrect, despite it being an official part of the rules. In terms of alignment he cannot be both, since enacting acts of evil as your general behaviour is incompatible with having a good alignment.
The kraken stirs. And ten billion sushi dinners cry out for vengeance. - Good Omens
= My most popular campaign item; for all your adventuring convenience.Show
Zauber's Mutable Rod: This rod has a number of useful functions that make it easier to live in the wilderness. It is made of polished wood, with five studlike buttons on one end. Each button produces a different effect when pressed. Unless otherwise noted, the rod’s functions have no limit on the number of times they can be employed. • When button 1 is pressed, one end of the rod produces a small flame, equivalent to a candle. • When button 2 is pressed, the rod unfolds into a two-person tent, complete with bedrolls and warm blankets. • When button 3 is pressed, the rod becomes a one-handed hammer, suitable for pounding pitons into a wall. • When button 4 is pressed, the rod becomes a sturdy iron spade. • When button 5 is pressed, the rod becomes a wooden bucket able to hold 2 gallons of liquid. Once per day, it can be commanded to fill with fresh water. If the rod is seriously damaged or broken in any of its alternate forms (button 2, 3, 4, or 5), it reverts to its basic rod form and cannot be activated for 24 hours. Moderate conjuration; CL 9th; Craft Rod, minor creation; Price 375 gp; Weight 2 lb.
Only self-supporting constructs. Okay, that's fine. Now where, exactly, are the rules about somehow needing to upkeep your intelligent magic items? Plug them into a wall socket? Because I haven't seen any rules for a +5 Anarchic Burst USB Adapter.
The only kind of support it could possibly be talking about is magic, as the relevant sentence of the spell indicates by mentioning that the constructs which are unaffected were imbued with magic during their creation and self-supporting thereafter.
And I fail to see the rules for a +2 thundering wall socket. I see no evidence that a sentient +6 Belt of Magnificence isn't "self-supporting."
An action is of an alignment or it isn't. Those are the rules. Period. There are no rules that state burning down an orphanage and devouring the babies is any more evil than swatting a misquito.
If that's true, then it's impossible for an exalted character to do any evil by killing in self-defense, since self-defence is a neutral act and thus cannot contain any elements of evil (as it's not an action of evil alignment). It is neutral and cannot be anything else since "An action is of an alignment or it isn't."
Wrong. Killing in self-defense is Evil. Period.
But that wouldn't even be a functional system; without a recognized difference in degrees of alignment there would be no way to change between alignments, since no single action could cause an alignment shift on its own and the alignment itself could never be more than just a single state so you could never accumulate the effect of multiple actions in order to eventually produce a change.
Now you're catching on. The alignment system ISN'T functional.
The fallout is of vital importance, since if everything is "selfish", then there is no real distinction in the term, and nothing is truly selfish (it's only a valid state if it's possible to be in some other state).
Incorrect. Nice try, though.
Consequently, no-one can be selfish if it's determined on that level, making it impossible to suffer any ill-effects from it.
Wrong, yet again. "All the cool kids are doing it" doesn't change where an action is, alignment-wise.
Those are the rules. Any attempt to claim otherwise is just as incorrect as claiming that Epic Spellcasting is a first-level Fighter class feature.
From the Player's Handbook, page 104, from the section on "The Nine Alignments": "Use these descriptions as guidelines, not as scripts."
I think you need to reread that section.
Also note that BoVD and BoED don't contain that passage. So, even if it were relevent(Which it's not, if you'll pay attention to the context of that passage), it wouldn't apply to most of the issues.
Even the Book of Vile Darkness includes a section on how intent and context are important, which it immediately follows with a section noting that there are still going to be grey areas, even with the most black-and-white, objective approach to good and evil. That's in the section on "Defining Evil", immediately before the section on "Evil Acts".
And I see no crunch in that section. Exactly where are the rules for these "shades of grey?" Oh, right.There aren't any. Evil is Evil, period.
Notably that section on evil acts doesn't appear to state self-interest or self-protection as a reliable basis for evil. In fact, it even states that killing a creature of consummate, irredeemable evil, such as a chromatic dragon, is not evil, even when done for personal gain.
Okay, so killing fiends and Chromatic Dragons isn't evil. Give any more specific examples? See, if it isn't specifically called out as having that property, then it doesn't, and so killing it for self-interest is Evil.
Because a rule has mechanics, and a "rule" is pointless text in the area where the rules should be.
And how do you determine which sections are "actual rules" and which are not? For example, you've mentioned the presence of mechanics, so exactly which segments of the descriptions of evil acts are mechanics?
If you have some other criteria, please explain that criteria, preferrably with an example. I would suggest quoting a paragraph or two from the evil acts section of the Book of Vile Darkness and pointing out which segments are rules, which are not, and your reasons for making the distinction.
What do you mean? Are you really incapable of telling a rule from flavor text? Remind me never to even talk about a TCG with you. [
Killing for any selfish reason is Evil. Period. Tempting others to Evil is Evil. Period. Those are the rules.
I suggest you read the Book of Vile Darkness more carefully. Only the temptation of good individuals is described as an evil act (accidental cases of temptation notwithstanding, as the section before "Evil Acts" describes), not tempting creatures of any other moral alignment. And in addition to not stating the mere existence of selfishness as the basis of evil, it also directly describes a circumstance in which killing another creature for personal gain is explicitly not evil.
So some very fringe examples of otherwise Evil acts not being evil. I fail to see how this is relevent.
Are you being intentionally slow? I cannot think of any way to make this any simpler.
Fortunately I am happy to attempt some further predigestion of the material if the moral roughage is a little too harsh for your mental stomach. For any game purpose, Pelor is either evil or he is not. There is no "evil but not Evil" or the reverse, nor any other kind of difference in the standards of moral alignment within the game world (at least within the simplest determination of Good/Neutral/Evil). You can either judge that by the immutable statement of the game material that he is good, or you can apply real-world morality, possibly determining that he is evil and voluntarily choosing to regard his stated alignment as incorrect, despite it being an official part of the rules. In terms of alignment he cannot be both, since enacting acts of evil as your general behaviour is incompatible with having a good alignment.
Do try to keep up. Evil(Capital E, for the purposes of this discussion) is an objective in-game fact. I am using evil(Lower-case e) as what it is if real morality would be applied to it. Hence, you can get Evil acts that are not evil(Such as not going on a suicide rush into the Abyss just 'cuz there are fiends there), and non-Evil acts that could very easily be percieved as evil(Such as attempting to massacre all Chromatics, despite 1 in 20 being not Evil).
I am ORCutus of Borg, 3 of 6. Resistance... is futile. Your life as it has been... is over. From this time forward... you will service... us.
CJ, I know it's hard for you to accept, but you lost this argument days ago. And you've just plain lost it with that last post. A) If it's in the 3.5 PHB, why does it need to be stated in the 3.0 BoVD or -ED? B) Who made you the final arbiter of what is and is not relevant in the books? I know it's hard to understand, but it's considered bad form to ask for citations, receive them, and promptly dismiss them as "irrelevant". C) It seems that you're the one having trouble understanding the difference between crunch & fluff. And seriously, dood; quit trolling.
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice
"My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan
This user has been brought to you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Buttler of the House of Trolls
CJ, I know it's hard for you to accept, but you lost this argument days ago. And you've just plain lost it with that last post. A) If it's in the 3.5 PHB, why does it need to be stated in the 3.0 BoVD or -ED?
Because that passage would only apply to the section its in. Not complicated.
B) Who made you the final arbiter of what is and is not relevant in the books? I know it's hard to understand, but it's considered bad form to ask for citations, receive them, and promptly dismiss them as "irrelevant".
The fact that I appear to be the only one here who understands the damned game, and I'm surrounded by people who think utter crap like Swiftblade, or shining examples of mediocrity like Ultimate Magus and Wyrm Wizard are powerful classes, and who seem to not understand that some parts of the game(Like the alignment system) simply don't work.
C) It seems that you're the one having trouble understanding the difference between crunch & fluff.
Not at all. If something is explictly declared as a rule, in a coherent fashion, it's a rule. Random irrelevent vagueness isn't a rule. See Rope Trick and the nonexistent "hazards" of extradimensional storage.
And seriously, dood; quit trolling.
I am not trolling. I am right, and have little patience for people who don't understand the basics, despite everything being spelled out.
I am ORCutus of Borg, 3 of 6. Resistance... is futile. Your life as it has been... is over. From this time forward... you will service... us.
