Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ

thejeff's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 21,668 posts (22,589 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters. 8 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 21,668 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Anzyr wrote:
HWalsh wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Remember people... you can 1. sacrifice your child's mother to 2. set off a terrible ritual with 3. the intention of committing genocide; and still be a good person, despite the evil act. Maybe even more good for it. Just ask one Harry Dresden. The "Good" a lot of people here are arguing for is dumb. And many of us believe that pretending good is ignorant and foolish is kind of insulting to "Good".

You don't understand Harry Dresden.

He never claimed what he did was good. We are also seeing that what he did actually may have made the situation in the world a lot worse. Even Harry admits that, though he didn't see another option, as, if he didn't then they were both going to die anyway and the only way to stop the big bad evil ENTIRE POPULATION OF RED COURT VAMPIRES was there. If he didn't then he dies, she dies, his daughter dies, and a lot worse happens.

Make no mistake though, even in the Dresden-verse what he did was NOT good and he carries the scars from it and there is a darkness in him and he's well aware of it.

Doing it *was* Good though. Not doing it would have incredibly Evil not to mention selfish. Good is all about personal sacrifice and what is more valuable then one's values? A person's values are certainly worth more then something as simple as their life. To sacrifice one's values, their purpose, their cause for Good is the highest Good, even if those values are Good values.

Is this the "To be good you have to do evil" argument?

Cause I ain't buying that one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Snow wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Ahahahaha... XD Yeah, thinking back, Jordan probably could have cooled off on the Men vs Women dynamic a bit. I mean, I'm totally fine with the "no weak women" thing going on, but there's a difference between having confident characters and ones that are deliberately ungrateful when they get help.

Bridgette did smack some sense into them over that.

"so he broke you out of the most impregnable fortress on the planet while it was being attacked by black veiled Aiel??!?!?!?!

"Well its not like he knew about the forsaken

"Right. And we TOTALLY had the black Ajah covered...

"...you...thank .. him.. NOW...

Correct me if I'm wrong, books and events do blend together when you read so much of them in such close proximity, but that was in Sanderon's era, right?

I think the entire discussion of the war of the sexes can pretty much leave the last three books out, in which it becomes almost a non-issue.

Don't think so. It was while they were in Ebou Dar, looking for the Bowl, IIRC.


Rob Godfrey wrote:

Their is also the issue that even a Paladin would be a horrifying genocidal serial killer in the real world, or rather if their actions where measured by our standards, they ARE basically Conquistadors after all :p. So is saying 'murdering all of those beings because Pala sense tingle is 'good', but killing those things is 'evil' even tho the actions they take are just as harmful (for instance killing orcs, as opposed to good aligned fey, one is tormenting the villagers because it's fun to drive people insane, the other is an evil race.) I cannot see the difference between them, they are both monsters in my eyes, so what gets good and evil is shown ot be arbitrary, in Golarion we get the added conflict of Cheliax being the most believable nation in the setting (admittedly I do not know to much outside the inner sea), as in it actually makes sense that it has not disintegrated into civil war of been crushed by some one far less soft, it acts like a Medieval nation actually did.

So yea, give the Punisher sense evil and he is a Pathfinder Grey Paladin, at least how some of them have been described in story. So to summarise: I do not see some of what the setting regards as 'good' to be anything more than genocidal, and some of what seems evil as completely arbitrary.

Of course, that only works if the paladin actually does go around arbitrarily killing anything that's evil, which would be a quick path to falling in any game I run.


Klara Meison wrote:


Well, yes, but Ashiel was arguing that point by herself already, so I decided to approach the topic from another direction(what's the point in two people saying pretty much the same thing?). Not only will paladin detect something that is pretty much unrelated to ethics, she wouldn't even be sure if what she detected is correct. I find that a little funny.

OTOH, if the paladin doesn't fall, it wasn't evil. If a smite works on it, it is. (Though it might or might not be hard to tell if smite actually worked.)


9 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
And I was born even earlier, because I come from a generation that still considers spelling correctly a thing.

And I'm ancient.

"tis a pore mynd that can only think of one wai to spel a wurd"


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I am glad we can have this conversation on the morality issues presented by the Star Wars prequel trilogy. As a follow-up question, what type of action was it when the Jedi rescued Jar-Jar Binks from being crushed in the first movie?

Evil, obviously.

They could have spared the world from more Jar-Jar.


Lau Bannenberg wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
Can you provide a quote from the PFS Guide or a FAQ that supports your assertion? I would actually argue to the contrary as 1) all boons are useable in subsequent scenarios, and 2) the Faction Journal Card is based on a continuity of character actions. In other words, things I did in a previous scenario can absolutely affect me in a current scenario.

These things you list are precisely things that you can and do record on paper. On a chronicle sheet or faction journal. There's a format for recording these things.

Not so for knowledge/monster event results. The GM running the next scenario can't look at your chronicle sheets and see what you learned about monsters.

But there is no rule or FAQ or anything else that you can quote to show this, right?

You're relying on common sense and your understanding of how it should work. Which is fine, but other people reach different conclusions. Thus this thread.


Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.
It's weird that you can respond to my post without acknowledging it's contents. The world from your perspective must be interesting.

Back to that talking past each other thing. :)

I consider my response relevant because the parts of the PF alignment system that really break are ones dealing with magic - spells or creatures, which don't exist in the real world so the analogy breaks down.

It a good thing I'm not making an analogy then. Spells and magic effects upon the nature and prevalence of evil or good changes how you look at those terms. If those effects are acknowledged(which they are. Everyone agrees that spells with the evil subtype are evil by the rules), then we need to redefine what evil means. If you need to redefine a word, then you have changed what the word means

In my opinion, that is a reasonable conclusion given the argument.

Well, you did say "analogous".

And yes, I guess we need to redefine what evil means: only to the extent we need to deal with these non-real world things. Generally in doing so, they've looked at the way cultures that believed in magic and undead and demons and the like thought about evil.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
thejeff wrote:

]But give it a few thousand or even hundred years?

I mean, we've really only had that kind of travel for a few decades. And it's still very limited legally.

We've had oceanic trade for 500 , and while there's been a lot of mixing the groups are still discernibly there.

we only saw a glimpse of the age of legends at its height/end, so no way of telling how long it took to get there. Also if people are living to be 300 years old and society advances one funeral at a time...

Only the casters live longer.

They'd forgotten war, so it has to have been some time. Not all of it at the height of technology, but likely pretty advanced by the time they gave it up.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
We don't know how long the age of legends was at its peak. They did use sho carts/ flying cars , and not everyone could gateway around the world. So presumably it was like our world where its theoretically possible to have a mate from anywhere on the planet but you were still far more likely to get one close to home. and then the world ended, and you were back to homogenization.
Based on Rand's flashbacks to the Age of Legends in Rhuidean there were still a lot of movement between locations. Rand's ancestor left the service of Lanfear (then Mierin) before the bore was created because he wanted to marry someone far away.

Yes, but that isn't the sort of vast amount of movement you'd need to end ethnic groups. For THAT much ease of travel moving away wouldn't be an impediment at all.

Its like saying that there are people from India in michigan to work, so we should be done with ethnic groups by now right?

But give it a few thousand or even hundred years?

I mean, we've really only had that kind of travel for a few decades. And it's still very limited legally.


Lord Snow wrote:

it's the strangest thing, I actually remember the Two Rivers people described in the first book as having brown skin, although in later books it becomes apparent they are white. Also, many of the ethnicities in that setting are varied, right? From my recollection Tairen are halfway between Spanish and Chinese in appearance, and Taraboners are somewhat Turkish or perhaps Greek, Sea Folk resemble Caribbean, Seanchan are a crazy combination of Asian races (possibly analogous to the entirety of Asia) and the Aiel are somehow Irish Arabs. Oh and Borderlanders also draw upon features of various Steppe people, North Africa and Arabian characteristics.

I don't know if there are specifically many dark skinned ethnicities other than Sea Folk and Seanchan, but there's enough of a mix that, if the show stays true to these aspects, there will be diversity enough for anyone.

Another question comes to mind - how will they treat language? In the books the problem is sort of ignored as somehow everyone seems to speak the exact same tongue, but that was strange and I kinda hope they change it for the show.

I haven't really dug in and looked for descriptions, but I wonder how much of that is picking up culture details and internally writing your physical expectations based on that.


Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.
It's weird that you can respond to my post without acknowledging it's contents. The world from your perspective must be interesting.

Back to that talking past each other thing. :)

I consider my response relevant because the parts of the PF alignment system that really break are ones dealing with magic - spells or creatures, which don't exist in the real world so the analogy breaks down.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
We don't know how long the age of legends was at its peak. They did use sho carts/ flying cars , and not everyone could gateway around the world. So presumably it was like our world where its theoretically possible to have a mate from anywhere on the planet but you were still far more likely to get one close to home. and then the world ended, and you were back to homogenization.

Also, while it is sort of our world, it's Ages away from our world, so there's no real reason to assume our current racial patterns as the Age of Legends starting point.


Werthead wrote:
Quote:
Donnie Yen?

Exceedingly unlikely, but not a bad idea.

The WHEEL OF TIME is our world in the future. Not just that, but it's in the future of a time when people can travel across the planet in just hours (or instantly, via Aes Sedai gateways). Cultural and ethnic differences became utterly irrelevant during the Age of Legends. During the Breaking of the World that followed people were thrown together, scattered and mixed up all over the place. During the 3,000 years since the Breaking some re-homegenisation has taken place, but along cultural lines rather than skin colour or appearance.

Whilst going strictly by the books the entire main cast would be white and Caucasian until Tuon showed up, there's actually no real or dramatic reason why that needs to be the case. You could quite easily cast Nynaeve (who's always felt an outsider in the Two Rivers anyway) with an actress of colour with no bearing on the narrative at all. Or Lan, with more textual support as the Borderlands do seem to have attracted a lot of people in the WoT world of Asian descent.

The only people who do really need to be distinctive are the Aiel, who were actually the only race of people to retain their own appearance and culture even during the Age of Legends.

Whether it really makes sense or not, the various cultures, even within the main area, really do seem to have ethnic divisions. More along the lines of different European ethnicities than different races, but still distinct.

Aiel & Sea Folk & Seanchan even more so.
The main setting is essentially a European analog, so various forms of white caucasian might be best, though Jordan actually mixed features from different groups to avoid being too blatant about that.
Whether Nynaeve felt like an outsider or not, she shouldn't be too physically distinct from the rest of the Two Rivers people. Small insular villages don't tend to blend fairly quickly. Rand should stand out more than the others as half Aiel and not related at all to the rest of the village.

On the larger scale, while it would make sense for the population to be more homogeneous after the Age of Legends and the Breaking and not to have differentiated much, if that was the case, you likely wouldn't have white/Caucasian, but more vaguely brown. Not how the books treated it, as you say.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
HWalsh wrote:


Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

In universe it's evil. I certainly haven't disputed that. The only thing I suggest is that EVIL by the book is not analogous to evil in reality. It kind of seems like you get the conclusion before you get the premise, and it seems to me personally as a kind of Cartesian circle.

If you want me to agree that casting an Infernal Healing spell in reality isn't evil, I'll happily go along.

It'd be delusional, but not evil.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

As sort of an aside, getting more sucked into the Lashunta discussion than I really care about:

Quote:
From the backs of their terrible lizard steeds, the breathtakingly beautiful women of the Lashunta city-states maneuver for political position while banding together to keep the hordes of dangerous fauna away from their settlements."

It's quite possible to take that, along with the other comments about battle and war-like, to mean that the (all or mostly) female cavalry is relegated to dealing with animals while for actually fighting wars, they turn (mostly) to the more war-like males.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:

For context, Inner Sea Races (the most recent word on the subject) had this to say:

Inner Sea Races wrote:

Yet for all their external differences, lashunta of both genders are united by a deep and abiding love of knowledge, believing that unlocking the mind’s full potential is the greatest achievement to which a mortal can aspire. Female lashunta are able to form empathic bonds with powerful saurian mounts, and practitioners of psychic magic are common among both genders—for more information on the occult traditions pursued by lashunta, see Pathfinder RPG Occult Adventures.

Lashunta society is matriarchal, though not categorically so: men of particular achievement are welcome to rise to positions of prominence, but most lashunta point to their women’s level-headed persuasiveness as better suited to leadership than the men’s brash violence. Similarly, while men are often seen as innately suited to physical combat, both genders are well represented among soldiers and adventurers. To a lashunta, gender may predispose, but it never prescribes.

You don't think, if someone said:

"most point to their men’s level-headed persuasiveness as better suited to leadership than the women’s emotional behavior."

That there wouldn't be calls for that guy's head on a plate followed by (well-deserved) cries of misogyny?

I stand by my statement. You divide people up along lines like gender, race, religion, etc. and it's going to breed contempt on both sides.

I wonder how it would work in a race with an even stronger biological gender divide. Is there a point at which it stops being prejudice and contempt and just starts being reality?

Are Formians misandrist, for example?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I never said he'd rather let Zod kill people than kill Zod. Just that he would give his own life before he would do so. Careful about putting words in my mouth.

Unless he's giving his life to permanently imprison Zod, or Zod is already imprisoned, this is kinda a distinction without a difference. I mean...once Superman is dead, Zod's pretty much got a 100% chance of killing others.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't like an idealistic version of Superman, but there are limits.

very much agreed and well said. Zod and other insane/evil kryptonians have been a problem storywise for a long time. Lots of hand waving and storyline torturing.

Basic serial heroic fiction problem. You want to reuse good villains, so you can't kill them off. And when you do, they just get brought back for some later storyline anyway.

Back in earlier comic days - Silver Age at least, villains died all the time. Mostly accidentally or at the hands of their own schemes. Mostly to provide dramatic endings. And then they'd show up in a few months or years with an implausible excuse. They backed off on that because it was becoming more of a joke than heroes coming back from the dead.

As for Zod & Superman, it's not as much a problem in the comics as in movies. Logically, even if Superman was dead, he's far from the only one on Earth who could take on Zod. Nor is Zod nearly the most powerful threat out there.
And even if Superman did go against his moral code and deliberately kill Zod (or anyone else), he'd still come back. Some later writer would want to do another Zod story. It would all be for nothing.
At least Batman's genre-savvy enough to know that. When the Joker breaks out of Arkham to go on a killing spree, he sometimes gets a call to let him know there's trouble. When the Joker's thought dead and comes back there's no warning. I don't think Superman has the same level of genre awareness though.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

The ruling caste are all women, are all beautiful, who can bond with powerful lizard steeds and the men are soldiers at best who are considered, at least as far as wisdom is concerned, inferior.

If that doesn't breed some amount of contempt between the two sexes NOTHING will.

Presumably the women look beautiful to humans, but since the purpose of beauty is to say "Look at the DNA i'm packing over here!" the men probably look handsome to the women of their species.

Though in the pulp inspirations for such races, that doesn't seem to be true.


Lord Snow wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Krensky wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Whenever the Hugos come around it makes me sad how I'm nowehre near qualified to vote in them, because I', lagging years and years behind current SFF publications. So much catching up to do, so many great books that were published in previous years. At this pace it feels like I'll never catch up, either. Other than Ancillary Mercy, which I might one day get to, the rest of the novels nominated all seem really great. The other categories don't interest me as much.
Buy a supporting membership, it comes with all the nominated works.
At least all the short works, but the novels can usually be found in libraries.
Well, if you live in an English speaking country, I guess...

Fair enough. I suspect it's still easier to track down the novels than it would be to find the shorter works without the nomination packet.


Lord Snow wrote:

On a (slightly) more serious note, I have the usual mix of trepidation and excitement at this. I just recently finished reading the series and I do believe there's a pretty good epic fantasy story you can tell based on it - it can even fit quite well into 6-8 seasons by simply cutting away most of the nonsense that is books 5-11.

The major issue, as others said here, has less to do with getting the characters and plot right, and more to do with getting the show to look good. With Game Of Thrones to compete with there's a rather high standard for epic fantasy in TV, and Game Of Thrones has way less fantastical elements. I mean, even something as simple as getting Trollocs and Halfmen right demands serious resources (even Peter Jackson went from dudes in customs and makeup to CGI when he transitioned from Lord Of The Rings to The Hobbit, presumably because of how resource-consuming getting people to look like convincing monsters is), and that's really just the very start - dozens of fantasy cities, earth shattering spells, gigantic fights - it's going to be a very real challenge.

On the casting front, I wonder if they are going to keep the characters as young as they are in the books. If I had free range, I would cast the wife from House Of Cards as Cadsuane, and a younger Julie Andrews to be Moiraine. The rest of the characters are not as important :P

Hell, just the "ageless" Aes Sedai look is going to be hard to pull. Needs to be subtle, but obvious.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
amethal wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
amethal wrote:


But there is no practical difference between "no reason that we can determine" and "no reason".
Actually, it's arguably the most single important difference in the history of mankind. It gave us, for example, the scientific method.

I don't think the scientific method allows the determination of things that cannot be determined.

(EDIT - I can't believe I'm adding this, but just to be clear, you do know what the word "cannot" means, right?)

It has certainly identified a lot of stuff that can be determined. We all know that (although a few people seem to think I don't).

Unless you can determine that something cannot ever be determined the difference remains moot.

There are plenty of things that we have determined through the scientific method, that once fell into "no reason we can determine".
I, and I think Orfamay, read "no reason that we can determine" as "we don't know" rather than "We know we can't ever know".

And under the Pathfinder rules, there are far more tools for directly investigating evil than there are in the real world. Which certainly changes the "can we determine it" question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jessica Price wrote:
HWalsh wrote:

I also think we have to dispense with the notion that because a group hates everyone that means they aren't misogynists or misandrists. All that means is that they hate someone for their gender. That doesn't mean that they don't hate everyone else for some other reason.

So in Pathfinder, I'd have to say the following groups are likely misandrists:

Note:
I am denoting the ones most likely to be misandrists, one of the main criteria is any matriarchal society that doesn't explain, or mention, their male counterparts. The reason for this is simple, if they don't warrant a mention at all in their society then it is safe to assume, in my opinion, that there is discrimination going on. I would assume the same for any patriarchal society that doesn't mention women at all.

1. Drow
This is a no-brainer. They berate men for being men and they classify men as second class citizens. They are the definition of misandrists.

2. Lamia
There are no known instances of Lamia males. So we don't know, we can assume though since it is a purely matriarchal society with no mention of men what-so-ever that it is a high likeWe tell stories about things the lihood.

3. Lashunta
Though not said to mistreat, or look down on, males again this is a matriarchal society with absolutely no mention what-so-ever about the males.

Hags.

Harpies.

But I think when you get to a species of only women using males of other species to reproduce you're talking something more basic than misandry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:


PT.B=The Devil wrote:
My players reminisce about the time they played a ranger who became a city vigilante. They talk about the time their Bard became Baron of a small wilderness country. They talk about fighting dragons, old ones, and beholders. They never ever talk about their stats. Ever. I guess that explains why PB isnt seen as "cookie cutter" or "unearned" by me and the homies.

That's awesome - but I think you missed the point. If you use PB, why would a player ever tell stories about their stats? "Dude, do you remember that time I bought an 18? That was really smart on my part."

For the record, up until the last few years and some online play, I've always played with rolled stats - at least in D&D style games.

I don't recall any stories about stats. Not since my middle school days, but we were mostly cheating those stats anyways.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Weirdo wrote:
Finally, because I think this was dismissed too easily earlier in the discussion, I do believe that the stereotype of incompetent dads is a form of misandry. It might be limited in scope and softened with a sort of tolerant affection, but there's a dose of contempt here of the same sort as seen here. Of course, this doesn't disprove Ms. Price's overall point. The "dumb dad" is yet another example of a scornful attitude that developed in order to support a sexist system by assigning the duties of homemaking to women - because a man "can't" do them right. Predictably, this leads to career sacrifices for many women. As an added "bonus", hostility towards male

I would agree, but I wouldn't call it misandry. It's contempt for a feminine role and contempt for a man who attempts to fulfill it. It's toxic masculinity.

There have been societies that implemented gender roles successfully, but that doesn't mean it was the right system—they just never ran into trouble because they were small civilizations (like the "isolated tribes" Drahlianna somewhat contemptuously cited) and gender roles hadn't yet begun to take on disproportionate weight. Having women in charge of nurturing and having them voice the "peaceful" mindset during wartime negotiations didn't cause a meaningful problem for the same reason a hippie commune works: It's small and there's less chance for things to get f*&*ed up. There were probably still tons of examples of unhappy Kalinago women who wanted to work on boats or fight in battles, though, as well as men who weren't interested in the roles they'd been assigned.

It was an unsustainable system. Had those relentless bogeymen the Europeans not intervened and forced their transphobic, racist, mysoginist agendas on everyone else, I'm confident that most of these civilizations would have gone through their own cultural revolutions in time, coming around to have more enlightened views on gender and sexuality just as we are theoretically trying to do now. Many of them probably would have come by it much sooner than we have, really, and with much greater success, since they'd already developed a good chunk of the way there.

We can recognize that a culture implemented gender roles without incident without a) reducing that culture to some sort of "obscure isolated incident", and b) determining that this is proof institutionalized gender roles can work or are healthy.

It's at least as likely that those small groups with more equality, but strong gender roles would have developed into less equal societies as they grew into large, more citified societies. At least, that's the only pattern we see in the historical record. Or wiped out/taken over by other societies that had taken that route.

OTOH, to the best of my knowledge before modern times, that's the only pattern we have for even semi-gender equality. I know of no societies that haven't had strong gender roles. I definitely support our "more enlightened views", but it's worth remembering that this really is an experiment. It hasn't been done before. Ever. Anywhere. There's no real reason to believe it's actually sustainable. Absolutely worth trying, but very, very radical.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thejeff wrote:
That's sort of an aside though, I really wanted to suggest looking outside the well known larger cultures, particularly the Christian and Islamic ones. I know there were some tribal cultures that shocked Europeans at contact with how differently their women were treated. I believe most still had strong gender roles, but I'm not sure how much that translated into dominance of one over the other or into hate.

Incidentally, I'm reading right now about Caribbean cultures. Apparently, aside from the Kalinago people (dubbed the "Caribs" by the Europeans, a term which quickly became a catchall term for "natives who don't like us and I bet they eat people, Tim's brother's girlfriend said she heard from her launder that they do, it's probably true"), women and men were fairly equal in many of the societies. While male chiefs were more common, female chiefs were not an aberration. It sounds like they might have been about where we are now, really.

That's not an uncommon narrative when discussing non-European cultures, really: Things start out fairly egalitarian, Europeans get involved, warrior cultures get promoted and women/non-gender binary/non-heterosexual people get degraded. And apparently there used to be female samurai in Japan before a big wave of patriarchy broke on the island.

It sort of makes you worry, really. Equality isn't a new invention—it's an old concept that keeps getting stamped out where it surfaces.

Or even older European cultures. Weren't a lot of the Gallic and Germanic much more egalitarian than the Roman conquerors? Or the Christian influence that followed?

OTOH, many of those early European contact accounts are skewed. They were more interested in "civilizing" or exploiting the locals than in understanding them. How closely the records reflect reality isn't clear.

The point I was actually trying to get at in that post though is that in at least some of those much more egalitarian cultures, there were still strong gender roles.

Edit: Very much that last bit you added. It's almost funny how the anti-feminist message especially is always the same. From the suffragist days down to today's MRA, it's the same damn emotional arguments.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
KarlBob wrote:
A novel that specifically explores different approaches to marriage is Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. The version I remember most clearly is known as a line marriage. Under this system, every man in the line is married to every woman in the line. This type of marriage evolved in a penal colony, to avoid legal wrangles over inheritance. If the entire line owns property, then the death of the oldest members of the family doesn't open up the property to "reclamation" by the colonial government/wardens.

Heinlein explored a number of different forms of marriage (and other relationships) in his books.

Unfortunately, it often seemed mostly a kind of creepy way of having his characters have lots of inappropriate sex. I just reread Glory Road a little while back and that one scene was a lot creepier than I remembered it being. Different perspective than when I read it in my youth.


Patrick C. wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Agreed. Sort of. They showed negative emotions leading to the Dark Side. They said emotion led to the Dark Side. The Jedi preached and practiced detachment.

Vader spent half the trilogy trying to get Luke to give in to anger against him and the Emperor, so that Luke would turn to the Dark Side and join them. That's not "selfish anger even though the person didn't really do anything wrong". Anger at Vader and the Emperor is completely justified. Righteous, even.
But somehow it would still lead to joining them.

The idea of "righteous anger" points to "reasonable". "Reasonable anger", anger that can be understood and even approved of. But see, it presupposes a reasons, that is above anger, that sits in judgement of anger, that validates or condemns anger.

But someone who's angry is not always reasonable. That's why we have expressions like "seeing red". Once you let anger flow, it's very easy to simply follow it, lose control, and ride the high. Anger breaks serenity, but it's serenity that authorizes "righteous" anger in the first place.

That's why the Light Side preaches that emotion is dangerous. Anger can be righteous, yes, but in itself, it doesn't discriminate between deserving and undeserving. It just wants to punish and destroy. Luke's anger against the Emperor and Vader could easily be turned to the Empire itself - all the bureaucrats, soldiers, citizens, functionaries that, even if not completely innocent, wouldn't deserve death. And he would become a sort of a vigilante.

Except it's pretty clear that he wouldn't. That's why they were trying to goad him to anger. He would keep fighting them, but more indiscriminately and with Dark Side powers, he'd come to their side. They were trying to turn him.

Your position is a perfectly reasonable argument against letting anger control you, but it's not what was going on in the movies.


Terquem wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Neriathale wrote:
I assume no one uses Method V...?
Might help if you actually explained what that is.

In 2E it was the standard 4d6 drop 1, arrange as desired.

There was no Method V in AD&D, though 4d6-1 was Method I.
Nay nay nay, 1st edition dmg had several methods for rolling stats, I don't remember correctly but I think V was 36 rolls

Method I - 4d6 drop 1 in any order

Method II - 3d6 12 times keep the highest 6 in any order
Method III - 3d6 6 times for each stat, in order
Method IV - roll 3d6 in order to generate 12 characters. Pick one.

I'd forgotten another method was introduced in Unearthed Arcana.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick C. wrote:
thejeff wrote:
People in the real world who believe in objective morality generally don't talk about particles, but about God.
Not necessarily. See Aristotle.
I did say generally, but point taken.
Patrick C. wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

Passion is a conduit to the Dark Side, because it clouds reason, makes serenity impossible, and thus, good judgement. It's not "emotion" in itself. Luke

The Expanded Universe had made that pretty clear with the New Jedi Order before f-ing Disney decided to throw all in trash.

The EU added a lot of stuff that wasn't in the original movies, as I think I said earlier. Often while trying to explain or justify the exact kinds of things we're talking about in this thread.

Patrick C. wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Whereas even love or righteous anger leaves you a servant of the Emperor, for reasons I've never understood.

*sigh* Let's go.

It was not love that drove Anakin to the Emperor. It was the fear of loss. Anakin didn't want to lose Padme, and that eventually drove him to slaughter children for the promise of eternal life/ressurection.

Compare Luke. He loved Leia. The Emperor tried to use Leia as a bait to make him feel wrath, despair and fear and turn over to the Dark Side. It didn't work.

The only "love" that leads to the Dark Side is the kind that says "I'd rather watch the world burn than lose you".

The Dark Side is all about emotions, because it's all about "me". It's selfishness without any consideration for the other. If I feel angry, it doesn't matter if the person didn't mean to offend me, or that it wasn't even a offense to begin with. In fact, it doesn't even matter if this person really offended me or someone that looks a lot like her. I feel offended, and thus angry, and I am entitled to let it loose.

If I want something, it's mine. If I despise something, it has no right to exist. And so it goes.

Agreed. Sort of. They showed negative emotions leading to the Dark Side. They said emotion led to the Dark Side. The Jedi preached and practiced detachment.

Vader spent half the trilogy trying to get Luke to give in to anger against him and the Emperor, so that Luke would turn to the Dark Side and join them. That's not "selfish anger even though the person didn't really do anything wrong". Anger at Vader and the Emperor is completely justified. Righteous, even.
But somehow it would still lead to joining them.
Quote:
thejeff wrote:
Along with the whole "bring balance to the force" thing meaning they need more Dark side, less Light side control.
Considering that the prophecy is fulfilled when Anakin gets rid of the Emperor and of Vader (By repeting his actions as a Sith), that's a pretty... creative idea.

Well, it's certainly not original to me. And I agree it wasn't what Lucas meant. But what sense does it make in the over all series?

The prophesy is introduced in the prequels. When the Jedi run everything and aren't even aware of the existence of a Sith Lord, but still think it means something.
Then Anakin helps Palpatine wipe out the whole Jedi Order, then years later kills himself and the Sith Lord, leaving only one half trained Jedi apprentice. Is that supposed to be balance? Wiping out both sides counts, I guess.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Frankly - I liked the books (at least until the last few) but I don't think it would translate well to TV. Fantasy that high-powered really doesn't. It'd probably end up as cheesy as The Sword of Truth did.

OTOH, the tech is getting better (and cheaper) fast.

It might be more doable than we think.

I'd really love to see high powered fantasy on the screen.


Orthos wrote:
Cole Deschain wrote:

Our group tends to go with "roll 4d6, drop lowest, arrange as you see fit."

With an additional house rule that rolling four 6's gets you a 19, and rolling four 1's gets you a 2- and you can always claim a lower number than you rolled, if you're so inclined.

I always thought "reroll 1s" was implied in any roll-stats option but apparently that's not a default assumption?

So I guess I need to append that to my group's thing.

"Roll 4d6, reroll all 1s, drop lowest; all arrays are then collected and each person can choose the array they like most from the pool, and arranges the six numbers as they prefer."

Lord no, that's not assumed. It's not actually suggested in any of the official variants on stat generation that I'm aware of.

It really bumps up you averages, probably more than you expect. It's actually one of the approaches that really bothers me about most of the rolling variants, since it's usually justified as avoiding really bad scores, but what it does is give another shot at a high one. Makes rolling a 1 better than a 2 or maybe even 3.
For just helping the really bad rolls, I prefer just treating the ones as twos.


Orthos wrote:
Neriathale wrote:
I assume no one uses Method V...?
Might help if you actually explained what that is.

In 2E it was the standard 4d6 drop 1, arrange as desired.

There was no Method V in AD&D, though 4d6-1 was Method I.


Nice review. Lucien's Guides may be my favorite LoG&S books. You could build entire campaigns around some of these hints. Or just drop them in as hints to mystify and terrify the players.

If I ever get around to running it, I'm stealing the broken section of the Stair as part of a second Grand War against the Dwimmerlaik campaign. Maybe from their point of view, you're on the broken off part.


strayshift wrote:

My games I run we use 4d6 take best 3 in a 'grid' system, this tends to give a good set of stats with some control but not optimised (in the current game I run the lowest charisma in the party is 14, the last point buy game I played in I had the highest charisma at 10).

The people I play with are experienced and the grid system helps martials and MAD characters like Monks, but also means that most caster don't tend to start with a 20 casting stat. Also if someone has say a 28 point buy equivalent compared to a 23 point one we don't get hung up about it, one will probably play a more MAD class, one a more SAD class. Players still have choices.

I'd like to point that despite that being one of my big problems with rolling, I don't complain about a 28 PBE vs a 23 PBE. I complain when it's more like 35 vs 15. Doesn't always happen, but I've seen some serious extremes.

Or as in the quick set of 6 stats below from 28 to 7

stats:

4d6 ⇒ (3, 4, 3, 1) = 11=10
4d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 6, 1) = 10=9
4d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 4, 2) = 9=8
4d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 5, 3) = 16=13
4d6 ⇒ (1, 4, 6, 6) = 17=16
4d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 4, 4) = 17=14 == 15

4d6 ⇒ (4, 4, 5, 2) = 15=13
4d6 ⇒ (5, 3, 2, 5) = 15=13
4d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 2, 3) = 12=11
4d6 ⇒ (3, 5, 5, 2) = 15=13
4d6 ⇒ (6, 6, 3, 4) = 19=16
4d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 4, 4) = 19=15 == 27

4d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 4, 5) = 14=13
4d6 ⇒ (1, 6, 3, 6) = 16=15
4d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 1, 4) = 7=6 (treated as 7)
4d6 ⇒ (1, 5, 3, 4) = 13=12
4d6 ⇒ (5, 6, 5, 1) = 17=16
4d6 ⇒ (5, 5, 2, 6) = 18=16 == 28

4d6 ⇒ (4, 1, 2, 6) = 13=12
4d6 ⇒ (4, 6, 2, 5) = 17=15
4d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 4, 2) = 14=12
4d6 ⇒ (2, 3, 3, 2) = 10=8
4d6 ⇒ (3, 3, 1, 2) = 9=8
4d6 ⇒ (2, 6, 1, 2) = 11=10 == 7

4d6 ⇒ (5, 3, 3, 3) = 14=11
4d6 ⇒ (4, 5, 2, 5) = 16=14
4d6 ⇒ (2, 2, 2, 5) = 11=9
4d6 ⇒ (6, 5, 5, 2) = 18=16
4d6 ⇒ (5, 3, 4, 2) = 14=12
4d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 4, 6) = 20=16 == 27

4d6 ⇒ (1, 1, 6, 4) = 12=11
4d6 ⇒ (1, 2, 2, 1) = 6=5 (as 7)
4d6 ⇒ (6, 4, 3, 5) = 18=15
4d6 ⇒ (3, 6, 2, 4) = 15=13
4d6 ⇒ (2, 5, 3, 4) = 14=12
4d6 ⇒ (6, 3, 2, 5) = 16=14 ==14


Adjule wrote:

I am one of the strange ones, I guess, in that I never really have a concrete concept of a character when starting out. I prefer the random "chaos" that rolling brings, and usually allow that to start the creativity going.

I would do a completely random character if I could (roll the stats, roll the race, gender, and class as well), and see what comes from it. Honestly, that sounds like a much more fun game to me than everyone having a concept set in stone and fiddling with the numbers until they come out with a powerhouse of their chosen class.

Don't get me wrong, I find nothing wrong with that style, and have done that type before. Yet, something like what I mentioned seems to be demonized by many people now. But like I said, I must be a strange freak.

Often I find that even when I don't have something firmly in mind, that kind of approach quickly clarifies what I don't want to play.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Forgive the stupid question, but how would the philosophizing make the Jedi just as villainous as the Sith?

In summary - it's because taken to the extreme

emotions = bad

greater good = only good

etc.

can end up with Jedi being a sort of Big Brother sort of thing. After all - freedom = bad anyway, so if they have to take away yours for the greater good...

I've even heard an argument that that's why the tech in the old republic in KOTR etc is pretty much the same as 1000+ years later: their culture & technology have stagnated.

Along with the whole "bring balance to the force" thing meaning they need more Dark side, less Light side control.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:

Yeah..using the Lashunta race write-up (which isn't even IC) as evidence for misandry is reaching at best. Those descriptions are also literally correct given the racial stat-mods, which makes treating them like you would subjective or prejudiced commentary is both odd and inappropriate.

Their actual in-world description in People of the Stars very much emphasizes that both sexes go out and become warriors and adventurers...or pursue scholarly pursuits (which the culture values highly). The only difference mentioned in terms of roles is that the women are usually leaders and the word 'matriarchal' is used. So...only female politicians. Other roles open to anyone.

And even there, the Lashunta are stated as matriarchal only in the sense of mostly having female leaders...but given that, as compared to male Lashunta females have +2 Wis and +2 Cha, that'd be true even in a completely meritocratic society.

Now, my suspicion is that the Lashunta aren't completely meritocratic and a male with higher Wis than most females would still not wind up in charge...but calling them misandrist is pretty clearly way harsher than they deserve. Especially since it's explicitly a Good aligned culture, and bad traits in Good aligned cultures tend not to be to severe or the aren't Good.

You do have to understand that from some viewpoints any society where man aren't dominant is going to be perceived as misandric. Again the bipoloar viewpoint which only allows for a dominant/submissive viewpoint.

I'm sure that's true for some, but I don't think it's relevant in this discussion. Even the Lashunta writeup is a long way from just "men aren't dominant". It's actually a pretty good reversal of the usual "Men tend to run things, but women aren't actually prevented from doing anything so it's ok" setup.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HWalsh wrote:

I also think we have to dispense with the notion that because a group hates everyone that means they aren't misogynists or misandrists. All that means is that they hate someone for their gender. That doesn't mean that they don't hate everyone else for some other reason.

So in Pathfinder, I'd have to say the following groups are likely misandrists:

Note:
I am denoting the ones most likely to be misandrists, one of the main criteria is any matriarchal society that doesn't explain, or mention, their male counterparts. The reason for this is simple, if they don't warrant a mention at all in their society then it is safe to assume, in my opinion, that there is discrimination going on. I would assume the same for any patriarchal society that doesn't mention women at all.

1. Drow
This is a no-brainer. They berate men for being men and they classify men as second class citizens. They are the definition of misandrists.

2. Lamia
There are no known instances of Lamia males. So we don't know, we can assume though since it is a purely matriarchal society with no mention of men what-so-ever that it is a high likelihood.

3. Lashunta
Though not said to mistreat, or look down on, males again this is a matriarchal society with absolutely no mention what-so-ever about the males.

Lamia may just not have males. It's not actually clear from the bestiary writeups. I don't know if there's more info out there.

The Lashunta write up does mention it being matriarchal, but then goes out of its way to stress equality - both become warriors, both are equally intelligent and value scholarship.


Krensky wrote:
Lord Snow wrote:
Whenever the Hugos come around it makes me sad how I'm nowehre near qualified to vote in them, because I', lagging years and years behind current SFF publications. So much catching up to do, so many great books that were published in previous years. At this pace it feels like I'll never catch up, either. Other than Ancillary Mercy, which I might one day get to, the rest of the novels nominated all seem really great. The other categories don't interest me as much.
Buy a supporting membership, it comes with all the nominated works.

At least all the short works, but the novels can usually be found in libraries.


Hitdice wrote:
What people aren't allowed to take the world-building and metaphysics more seriously than Lucas did, just because he made up the story? :P

You're allowed to do whatever you want.

My real point is that Star Wars works despite not being even vaguely rigorous about this kind of thing.
I'm not at all sure that the kind of philosophizing that makes Jedi just as much the villains as the Sith (or as the Emperor, since the Sith were basically just a word until the prequels) actually improves the story.
Mind you this would be a better argument had the prequels lived up to the original trilogy, but I'm still pretty sure that's not why.

In much the same way, Pathfinder works as the adventure game it's designed for despite (and possibly because) of its failings at world simulation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I'm more concerned with the idea of a solid idea. How do you make something that's metaphysical physical without loosing all sense of the thing in the first place.
I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but I suspect it's more of that talking past each other again.

Well, evil is objective in this universe right? Demons and devil's are made of the stuff apparently. What is solid idea? How does the idea of evil become a sentient creature. What changes about an idea when it becomes something that is explicitly not an idea anymore?

Is that more clear?

Are they actually made out of evil? They are evil. They are, at least in most cases, born from mortal souls.

But more generally, whether they're actually made of evil or not, evil isn't an just an idea in the setting. There are places, lower planes, that are evil. It's not that the idea of evil becomes a physical thing and somehow changes. We get our poor understanding of evil (your idea) from that real pre-existent thing. Think Platonic ideals.

Alternately, it's not clear to me what "solid" even means in the context of the outer planes. Souls go there and can be directly interacted with - tortured for example. Souls aren't ideas, but they also aren't physical things. In the outer planes though, they seem to have physical existence. Does that mean some other body is built up out of some planar matter around the soul or is the nature of those planes and the creatures there more like souls already?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

But that's just more arbitrary words. Why do you need rage to use force lighting? Why does emotion lead to the Dark Side?

Which also pushes the "Is the Dark Side evil?" question.

Going by the lore and the RPG materials, essentially to be a proper Light Side Force user, you essentially have to be going for the Vulcan ideal of Kohlinar. Emotions,both positive and negative are a distraction from the Light Side's ideal of serenity. The method of Force Lightning involves feeding off your internal rage, so that's about as Dark Side as you can get.

Being of the Light side has nothing to do with being good. A Force-using assassin who maintains a cold level-headed demeanor can be just as much a light-sider as Ben Kenobi.

Whereas even love or righteous anger leaves you a servant of the Emperor, for reasons I've never understood.

But I'm pretty sure that interpretation exists only in the EU stuff, not in the original conception or movies. Probably largely because of fan arguments like this one. :)

Yoda does caution against strong emotion in Empire; it kind of gets immediately rolled over by fear leading to hate and hate leading to the dark side, but it's there. I would have loved it if the prequel trilogy had explored the Jedi code as repression is the key to enlightenment, but we got space hippies instead.

Why is my first post on the thread about Star Wars? Because I've been following it for all 9 pages and I still can't tell if we're discussing players not understanding the repercussions of their characters' actions, or whether or not an evil alignment is a valid character choice.

Yeah, it's hinted at, but as you say, only negative emotions are actually addressed. And it's never explicitly stated, but the Dark Side is definitely presented as evil and the Light as good.

Because the movies are basically straightforward space opera/epic fantasy, with little focus on ethical implications or deep philosophical underpinnings. Black and white. Good guys and bad guys. Fall and redemption.
The fans and some of the EU authors took all the world-building and metaphysics far more seriously than it was ever intended.
As we're doing here.

as far as this thread, I don't think we're discussing either.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

I still have no idea why I should care about this.

I think the answer is 'I should not' because I have no interest or investment in the Hugos.

Well, then you shouldn't, I suppose.

Some of us do.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Now...if you want to debate *why* having your soul coated in evil tends to make you behave in a vile manner, then we have an interesting conversation.

Perhaps evil is like a heavy metal for the soul. Evil poisoning being equivalent to lead poisoning. Chaos to mercury poisoning.

We've touched on bits of that earlier, but foundered again on "The rules don't actually say that it does".
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

But that's just more arbitrary words. Why do you need rage to use force lighting? Why does emotion lead to the Dark Side?

Which also pushes the "Is the Dark Side evil?" question.

Going by the lore and the RPG materials, essentially to be a proper Light Side Force user, you essentially have to be going for the Vulcan ideal of Kohlinar. Emotions,both positive and negative are a distraction from the Light Side's ideal of serenity. The method of Force Lightning involves feeding off your internal rage, so that's about as Dark Side as you can get.

Being of the Light side has nothing to do with being good. A Force-using assassin who maintains a cold level-headed demeanor can be just as much a light-sider as Ben Kenobi.

Whereas even love or righteous anger leaves you a servant of the Emperor, for reasons I've never understood.

But I'm pretty sure that interpretation exists only in the EU stuff, not in the original conception or movies. Probably largely because of fan arguments like this one. :)


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Now...if you want to debate *why* having your soul coated in evil tends to make you behave in a vile manner, then we have an interesting conversation.

Perhaps evil is like a heavy metal for the soul. Evil poisoning being equivalent to lead poisoning. Chaos to mercury poisoning.

We've touched on bits of that earlier, but foundered again on "The rules don't actually say that it does".
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

But that's just more arbitrary words. Why do you need rage to use force lighting? Why does emotion lead to the Dark Side?

Which also pushes the "Is the Dark Side evil?" question.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
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.

I wish more people understood this.

Reminds me of the gods in Dragaera, since I just read one of those. The Easterners worship them, the Dragaerans respect their power and sometimes serve them, but do not worship them.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
In an objective alignment world, are there aligned subatomic particles?

I suppose in theory there could be. I think that's something like what pH unbalanced was describing.

It's certainly not necessary. It's far more of a pseudo-sciencey explanation than I like with my fantasy.

People in the real world who believe in objective morality generally don't talk about particles, but about God.

In a fantasy setting, you can just talk about evil without bringing pseudo-science into it. It's not like midichlorians made anyone happier about the Force.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
I'm more concerned with the idea of a solid idea. How do you make something that's metaphysical physical without loosing all sense of the thing in the first place.

I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but I suspect it's more of that talking past each other again.


pH unbalanced wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

People..."evil" has a meaning. Applying the label in a way that ignores the definition of the word is no more useful than declaring that rocks are happy.

"See? It says rocks are happy right there in the rules!"

Still meaningless. :P

Positive and negative have meanings with moral connotations, but we still use them to describe electrical charge. It doesn't make electrons bad.

Maybe we should change the names of the alignments to make this easier. Good and evil could be top and bottom, and law and chaos would be charmed and strange.

I'd much rather just ditch them entirely.

But I don't have any problem with the current setup.

I suppose you could call them top, bottom, charmed and strange and then give them the same descriptions the equivalents have now, but I doubt it would change the arguments. We'd just get "What does the [bottom] spell descriptor have to do with "hurting, oppressing, and killing others"? This spell doesn't do any of that.
Without using the same descriptions it just becomes different flavored teams.

I see this as conflating two different things.

The [bottom] spell descriptor creates bottom particles. People who hurt, oppress, and maim tend to attract bottom particles. (Who knows why? Some kind of psychic attraction.)

Now, we have a spell that detects bottom particles -- but we also notice that people who have the most bottom particles are usually people we would call evil. So colloquially we call the spell Detect Evil, and refer to those particles as evil, because it's efficient and that's the way language works. But the danger is that you start confusing cause and effect.

I don't know...this just seems like a way that makes the whole alignment system hang together better than it otherwise does.

I guess. Sort of.

Wouldn't work at all for me. Just breaks everything even more, since now we've established that the actual alignment mechanics don't work on real alignment, just on something that tends to correlate with alignment. So the [evil] we detect isn't really evil, it just tends to be. And paladins can smite people who aren't evil, but are [evil] and can't smite those who are evil, but aren't [evil]. (Note, some of these things can currently be fooled by various magic means, though I don't think smite can.)

We have a completely coherent objective mechanical system that doesn't actually solve any of the moral questions.

Unless we establish that having a lot of the [evil] particles also changes how you think and behave, but then we're pretty much back where we started. And we still don't have any better reason behind what spells attract [evil] particles than we do now which spells have the evil descriptor.

1 to 50 of 21,668 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2016 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, 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.