|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 3:55PM
#311
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
When anyone asks me from now on why alignment usually doesn't work, I'm going to refer them to this thread and, specifically, the back and forth between Max and Zaramon.
To be fair, Zaramon is new and does not realise that Max can not be reasoned with by using facts and logic.
Eh, he looks like he's holding his own just fine. Credit where it's due and all...
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 3:56PM
#312
|
|
|
Eh, he looks like he's holding his own just fine. Credit where it's due and all...
I am just waiting for Zaramon's chaotic nature to take over and he starts to argue on the other side.
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 4:04PM
#313
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
All words in all contexts have definitions. If there isn't a RAW definition, then if it's and English word we can safely assume dictionary. The first definition of the word innocent boils down to "not evil." Evil in the sense of moral evil. Since the word innocent was used in context of alignment, it must mean, "not alignment evil."
So you interpret the english definition to be #1. I don't. Fred doesn't agree with either of us. Larry uses #5. Which of the myriad of definitions are we to "assume"? RAW certainly doesn't tell us.
You said it was an example. I said prove it.
That works boths ways. You have no proof that RAW wants to railroad very narrow alignment restrictions down out throats, either. Nothing in RAW says that there is no other way than the example shown. There is no line that says, "The following is exactly how you must play all alignments with no deviation allowed." Without that, you are just assuming that the examples are the one true way, and assumption fails.
Prove it. Prove that a single line railroads all LG people into opposing evil without mercy.
"Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation, is lawful good." So, the evidence we have for how lawful good handles evil, shows that it fights it without mercy.
The single example given shows that, sure. Those examples are as clearly examples as the sky is blue. Look at the sky for your proof. Look at the examples for your proof. Nothing in RAW says those are the absolute only way to play given alignments.
If groups want to re-define how the alignments function, that is their business.
There isnt any need.
Let me ask you this. What alignment is poison use?
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 4:18PM
#314
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2012
|
When anyone asks me from now on why alignment usually doesn't work, I'm going to refer them to this thread and, specifically, the back and forth between Max and Zaramon.
Exactly. It is next to impossible to clearly define the appropriate administration of alignment except with the following:
What the DM perceives as the appropriate administration of the alignment mechanics is what goes in a playing session. The players have a way of letting the DM know when they feel the way he or she rules is highly questionable. If that persists for too long and in too extreme a manner, the players stop having fun. When the players stop having fun, they typically leave. If players are ok with the way that Zaramon handles his sessions and alignments, then that really is the only thing that matters. I don't think Maxperson is enslaved and required to participate in Zaramon's game sessions by law. If I am wrong on this, shame on you Zaramon for being evil/lawful 
On the other hand(not sure if Maxperson DMs, is a player, or both), if Maxperson is DM of a session and carries out his session under his interpretations and they are good with it, then that is all that matters. If Maxperson is a player, describing his and his DM's shared philosophy or tolerates the differences, then that is what matters.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 4:38PM
#315
|
Date Joined:
Nov 12, 2012
|
As ironically as it sounds, poison use does not have an alignment with regards to good/evil on its own...probably chaotic though. You have to specify how that poison is being used to decide(this is again my opinion and I am not stating this as fact).
The evil baron has called a group to a gathering. You intercepted some correspondence and know that he is going to have them executed. You know that there are a lot of good people there that don't deserve to be put to death. The gathering is taking place in the castle which is incredibly secure. With the time that you have left and the means of entry, you can probably get to the castle kitchen. You got a vial from an assassin you killed earlier that is identified as a deadly poison. You can poison his food, provided you don't get caught by the kitchen staff or guards. He is going to announce the execution order after dinner...do you poison his food? This would be a good/chaotic action if you did in my book...others would disagree though(and that's ok)...
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 6:22PM
#316
|
|
|
You're twisting things. He was talking about killing 1000 to save 1. That's far different from what I was talking about.
Think about it though...aren't you mass-murdering to kill 100 to save 10,000? It's the same ratio that you said was acceptable in your own example for the "greater good".
So what. It's still for the greater good at that point. When I was talking mass murder, it was clearly about killin 100 or 1000 to save 1. You are twisting things.
Is that the exact ratio?
What about killing 6 billion to save 6 billion and 1?
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. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
My blog and stuff http://dmingtowin.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 6:47PM
#317
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
Take my earlier example. You have a burning building and can either save 1 person and let 50 die or save the 50 and let the 1 die but you have no way of knowing that the 1 was on the edge of a medical breakthrough that would save the lives of millions. The path that would lead to the most good would be to save the one and thereby save millions of live rather than just 50, but then that would be something that you could not possibly know.
"He was doing what he thought was best, to the limit of his abilities - including his ability to judge what was best."
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 7:03PM
#318
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2003
|
When anyone asks me from now on why alignment usually doesn't work, I'm going to refer them to this thread and, specifically, the back and forth between Max and Zaramon.
To be fair, Zaramon is new and does not realise that Max can not be reasoned with by using facts and logic.
Eh, he looks like he's holding his own just fine. Credit where it's due and all...
While I am normally of the opinion to agree with Shasarak regarding Max, and I also normally agree with Zaramon in many things, I have to agree with Hocus here, at least as far as this last page is concerned. Being as that's all of this thread I have read, I will not make any assumptions regarding anyone's behavior prior to this.
You know Hocus, I agree with almost everything I have ever seen you post. Almost.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 7:19PM
#319
|
Date Joined:
Apr 12, 2008
|
You know Hocus, I agree with almost everything I have ever seen you post. Almost.
Well, if you agreed with everything I posted it'd be kinda creepy.
In fond memory of Mark "Wrecan" Monack.
|
|
|
|
6 months ago ::
Nov 19, 2012 - 7:21PM
#320
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2003
|
You know Hocus, I agree with almost everything I have ever seen you post. Almost.
Well, if you agreed with everything I posted it'd be kinda creepy.
No, I'm not a creeper.
Your curtains are very hard to see through, by the way. Could you open them a bit more?
|
|
|
