|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm amused that objective morality would shatter anyone's verisimilitude in a game with literal gods and demons.
Except the "gods" in Pathfinder are nothing of the sort. At least not in the modern western understanding. They're not omnipotent, they're not omniscient, and they didn't create the universe. They're mostly just people with a bigger stick.
"Atheists" in Golarion don't deny the obvious evidence that those beings exist; they deny that those beings are worthy of worship.
All we really know is that the spell is evil. That's all we've got in the rules. Why it's evil is left undefined.
Which is the whole point, really. No one is disputing the rules say those spells are evil. They're pointing out that it an arbitrary designation that doesn't bear any relationship to the already established meaning of the word "evil."
The rules could state that love is evil. All that would accomplish is chaos (as is the case here).
Patrick C. wrote:
And what is there to justify about enslaving a third (ok, let's be kinder and do it to only a fifth) of the population so the rest could live comfortably?
Also the title of this thread is itself inflammatory, because it presupposes one sides holds an irrational position ("evil being good").
Add to that getting figuratively knifed by the normally-rational for merely stepping into the thread, and you know what is starting to look objectively evil to me? Alignment threads. >:(
Patrick C. wrote:
Except this isn't about the ends justifying the means. There is literally nothing to justify about raising skeletons to do good deeds. No one is harmed. It's only "evil" because the rules say it is, in defiance of any reasonable definition of the word in any other context.
"Helping people whilst harming NO ONE is bad...because reasons."
Seriously, though...1-20 covers people that can kill hundreds with a melee weapon, teleport between planets, and bring people back from the dead without so much as a molecule of the corpse. If you want more than that, perhaps you should be looking at something like Mutants & Masterminds?
Ross Byers wrote:
The easiest answer to this is that while 'Good' and 'Evil' (and 'Law' and 'Chaos') are absolutes, 'Right' is subjective. After all, Evil clerics don't think they're wrong - they get their power because they believe they are Right.
That's about as pedantic a dodge as I've ever seen.
Objective good is the entire issue!
You forgot to drop the mic at the end.
Edit: Would a mic drop require the Technologist feat? :P
Since, per strict RAW, one cannot hop, check out this special preview of my new book, Ultimate Ambulation:
You can move around using a only one leg.
Prerequisites: Dex 13
Benefit: As a move action, you can move at 1/4 your normal speed, even if one leg is somehow impeded or restrained. If you are damaged while moving this way, you must make a DC 15 acrobatics check or fall prone. You may not run while using this feat. Stealth checks made while hopping suffer a -5 penalty.
The problem is that that "feat" looks like a adjudication guide to existing use of Diplomacy! The UI skill section has to go out of its way to constrain the diplomacy skill to "make room" for this feat.
Unfortunately, now that it is a feat, the PFS GM has two choices:
1. Continue to allow the person who has diplomacy, but not the feat, to call for a truce. This is unfair to the player who took the feat.
2. Disallow calling a truce without the feat, thereby reducing the utility of the diplomacy skill for everyone else.
To me, this is a pretty clear cut case of excessive rules curtailing options, then even more rules "selling" those options back in the form of a feat tax. Worse, as far as I can tell, feats like this exist solely to sell more books by padding the feat count. After all, mechanics sell.
Blech. No thanks.
Every single time I see this topic online or in real life, people give themselves very high int, moderately high cha, and low wis. This is the first time I've seen the majority of people give themselves high wis and low cha instead. Maybe it's due to the TTRPG gamer demographic becoming older, more self-reflective, and realizing that they're introverted nerds.
I think people who would understand, let alone answer, this particular question probably have a higher than average Int and lower than average Cha.
For myself, My IQ has been empirically measured to be at least 130 on multiple occasions. I've tested into MENSA, scored in the 89th or 90th percentile of the LSAT with almost no preparation, and excelled in honors and "gifted" courses throughout my academic career.
On the other hand, in the unlikely event that anyone doubts my Cha of 7, I invite them to review my posting history. ;-)
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
It's entirely possible for 90% of a population to be above average. If you don't see why, you are very likely confusing mean and median. Don't feel bad, it's a common mistake...even for someone with an Int of 14+. ;-)
Cole Deschain wrote:
Given the sheer amount of pirated material I have personally seen over the years, I think a certain reluctance to embrace easily-transferred electronic formats for new releases intended to generate fresh revenue is hardly incomprehensible.
What's incomprehensible is the persistence of the idea that not releasing PDFs somehow impedes piracy.
But dead horses and all that...
The sad thing is these same people would be complaining if various NPCs were named John or Bob or Jane. You know, easily-pronounced names.
Because the "problem" is them? Nice. >:(
Let's be honest...Paizo has come up with some pretty bad names. That's kinda unavoidable, though, given the volume of stuff they create. For some people, some of those odder names can server as an amusing shared experience. It's no problem if you don't share those experiences, but this thread doesn't have to be about criticizing -- or defending -- Paizo. There is nothing "sad" here. This is not SERIOUS BUSINESS(tm).
Probably Desna or Cayden, if I were to actually worshiper someone. I'm not a religious guy here on Earth so more than likely I wouldn't be on Golarion but if I was going to worship, it'd be one of the above two.
Interesting that you feel that way. I'm a "hardcore" atheist, but on Golarion I wouldn't be. Although, perhaps "venerate, respect, or serve" might better describe my behavior than "worship." Of course, that gets into the question of whether Golarion's gods are really capital-g Gods according to a contemporary U.S. point-of-view.
But that's another thread. :P
Wow, that's too meta. Seriously, though, you have a point. If the goal is to change people's behavior, I should probably avoid that sort of language.
But here's the thing: The older I get, the less I engage with people. Because the older I get, the easier it is for me to tell when people want a conversation (rarely) and when they want a fight (almost always). The unfortunate truth is that many (most?) people simply aren't worth interacting with, and a refusal to even try to understand the other guy's position is a big red flag. More than once I've taken the time to understand someone's argument to their satisfaction, but when I've asked them to pay me the same courtesy, they reply with "why should I want to understand your argument? It's stupid." Never mind that they just admitted they didn't understand the thing they were rallying against, but they've demonstrated that real communication was never the goal.
To me, that really is simply doing it wrong.
TDLR; Lots of people just want to win, and anything that lets an old curmudgeon like me quickly identify (and subsequently avoid) those people -- like them arguing in bad faith -- is a win. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!
But then you can just try again. If the other party is arguing in good faith, they will be open to this. If they're aren't, well then they just outed themselves, didn't they? :P
First of all, credit where credit is due: This is a big step in the right direction. Maybe they're learning.
Personally, however, I will not be moving to 5E until a complete, non-proprietary digital version of the rules is available. I'm simply unwilling to hitch my wagon to a system that could go out-of-print at any time. I'm done putting myself at the mercy of publisher whims as to how/when I can view what I've purchased....especially in a world in which pretty much every other publisher routinely offers digital versions.
If/when they wise up and offer PDFs (or equivalent), I would be hard pressed to not jump. I like the system itself quite a bit.
Aren't there a number of dead systems like that? Isn't that the basis of things like FATE or Fudge? Personally I went through a phase of homebrewing a system when I felt like moving to Fighting Fantasy feels but wanted diversity. It was kind of derivative of Macrolite d20 but functioned until that group moved on to other things in life.
That's just it, though, I don't want a "dead" system. I want one with continued activity on the adventure and setting front, but not the mechanical front. In a way, that's why Paizo was so ideal in the 3E days.
Like I said, I appreciate that people don't agree with me, but not that some of them feel the need to tell me my (subjective) preferences are objectively wrong. As if they need to make the Internet safe for their point-of-view, or something. :P
Alternatively, maybe they could go with a system that doesn't require computer assistance to be manageable. ;-)