|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The basis of the idea of non-career politicians is that they are people like us. People we can identify with. People who understand the conditions we live under. People who would not betray the common man to enrich themselves.
It is a naive thought, of course. But still, it's not a good thing that almost every politician spent their entire lives in conditions that never intersect with those of common people. If the only options you ever get to vote for are excluded from all the problems you face, due to circumstances of their birth and their wealth, the idea of democracy is moot. During Saddam's last elections, the vote was between two parties, one a bit more liberal, the other a bit more conservative, both with Saddam at the helm. That is the logical endpoint of that system.
My view is simply that I have played standard kitchen sink settings for decades now. The standard D&D loadout of races in their standard roles comprising the population, and the PCs consisting of a freak show of exotic races picked for the numerical bonuses they get; been there, done that.
So, why not ever do anything different? Pick six or so races. Make them the available ones. Develop their cultures. Let a campaign explore that interplay of cultures. You know, the Pick five races for a setting thread. Do the same with classes: Make a setting where arcane magic is replaced by occult classes. Make a primitive setting and limit the classes and equipment lists appropriately.
The game can support very different campaigns... if we let it.
Or we can refuse to play in any campaign that will not let you play a trox alchemist, human wizard, or a vishkanya monk.
If it's the player's job, what resources does the player have?
"I happened to walk through a magic portal to... uhhh, wherever we were supposed to meet"?
Someone who actually decides to say "I have been walking for several months to get there", and gives a plausible reason why his samurai from Tian Xia decided to go to Falcon's Hollow is another thing, of course.
To answer the OP: No!!! I will not stand for this thread getting derailed! It is a matter of civility and justice that threads are not derailed! How can we look ourselves in the mirror, knowing we messed up another's thread just for fun? Therefore, I ask you all, are we good posters or evil derailers? It is time to take a stand! So, who is with me???
Well, no. If you don't have a group, you don't get to GM at all. Even so, choosing limitations doesn't by itself make you a poor GM.
I like to bring up the Warhammer games in this issue: Is the GM a poor GM because he wants the players to all play space marines in Deathwatch? Because he doesn't want a kender in the space marine group?
No. It's not the options given. It's what you do with them.
No. Good is not the same as pleasing etc. But the answer to not liking an objective morality system is not to pretend that Good is something otherworldly that we can never touch, while the good things we experience are nice or pleasing etc instead. In D&D, Good is also how people act on a day to day basis in a positive fasion toward one another.
Possibly so. That people are uncomfortable with it doesn't, however, mean that morality in D&D is relative.
You can houserule it, of course.
Note that it's not too far-fetched to claim an objective morality for real. See, when studies have been made to find out how other cultures have thought about it, the lists of good and bad actions are remarkably similar. It is almost as if we humans have a genetic dislike of being subjected to certain things and label them bad. Lies, theft, imprisonment, violence, force, and rape are, not very surprisingly, not popular anywhere.
PO: There is ONE cosmic truth in D&D. That is what "objective morality" means. To clarify, Good in D&D is objectively defined, which means that what any one person thinks that definition should be is meaningless. Likewise, even if every sentient being in the D&D world thought the definition of good should be different, it wouldn't matter one iota.
Like it or not, that is how it has time and time again been described, from Gygax forward. Relative morals could of course be pushed into the system or setting, but that would be a houserule.
All right. It is complicated. Let me try.
Mental disorders can result in people doing bad things. The classic two situations are when someone is psychotic (including manic) or confused. These situations are relatively rare as cause of violent crime, and as you say, the legal principle is that they shouldn't be held accountable if they were not of sound mind when it happened.
However, people get drunk all the time and do bad things. Typical reasoning is that people aren't unaware when drunk, and they are expected to know how badly they react to alcohol. The exception is the first time someone gets a bad reaction from alcohol, some countries allow for that. If so, see the above.
So far, so good. The next part is where it gets more difficult.
Empathy and functioning social behaviour is located in the mirror neurons of the frontal lobe. Not everyone has them. Those who do not generally fall into two groups: Autism spectrum disorders and antisocial personality disorder, with a few other groups added such as histrionic, narcissistic and borderline personality disorder (the rest of cluster B personality disorders, which is characterized by poor empathy). Among them, relating to other humans as relevant people with feelings and nuances is difficult. Note that the severity of this handicap varies. Legally, the personality disorders are often not treated more leniently, though the autists can be.
Finally, it is quite possible for people to convince themselves of all sorts of things. Nobody needs a mental disorder or neuropsychological handicap to become a fanatic. Generally speaking, fanaticism is ALWAYS a bad idea, and it is what happens when you stop doubting.
Point was just that doing that would still be evil if the genocide continued once the cultists were dead.
What do they want? To murder some countless innocents and everyone else, exterminating life itself.
Why do they want to do that? Because they have convinced themselves of some b&%#$$& tripe about how life is suffering.
Are there ANY mitigating factors? Yes, they are not doing it out of malice, they just do it because for every person, THEY think it's better that he dies than suffers.
Seriously? This is a discussion we even have to have, whether they are Evil? I smell troll bait. What's next, "hey my cult who enjoys torturing people for fun for extended periods until death, then revives them and does it again, oh and they only do it to children, are they really Evil, I mean they do it without malice and for a great reward they think their deity will give them?"
The only way they could be not utterly monstrous and Evil beyond the pale is if they stopped recruiting and started their genocide with themselves (all fully informed), ceasing once they were dead.
captain yesterday wrote:
They are ugly hacks. The rules cover a little, exceptions are everywhere, you use different rolls for similar things, rules apply differently, there are tables for the weirdest s&%~. And this imperfection of the rules WAS THE CAUSE OF "rulings, not rules". It was obviously useless to pretend it was seamless or streamlined or all-encompassing. There was no other option than trusting your DM.
Third changed all that. It was genuinely a better system. And with that came two innocuous guidelines: WBL and CR. The roper encounter in Forge of Fury was not repeated. Suddenly, a DM who did not follow those guidelines was suspect.
Yes, I liked third. It is usually not played a way I enjoy much (A series of level-appropriate encounters as the focus of the game) but that's not a necessity. And I like fifth because it lets DMs get some trust again.
I think perhaps the biggest difference between the editions of D&D is the idea of having a rule for everything vs expecting to houserule things. 1st and 2nd were hacks, but they were so knowingly, and it was seen as obvious that the DM was going to have to improvise how various situations were handled rules-wise. 3rd, and to an even greater degree 4th, actually tried to make rules for "everything". Both editions had little written about rules improvisation. The GM was more expected to be impartial, follow the rules, merely an arbitrator of the rules than before. And people under this paradigm consider it reasonable to have a single sheet or so of house rules. It is a symptom of little trust in the DM, I suppose. I grew up in 2nd edition DMing, which was significantly different. I love 3.X even so, but it makes me happy that 5th edition went back to previous models of DMing.
Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.