Of course, alignment itself is a sacred cow I hate because everyone has a different idea on how this morality thing works and where everyone should go on the scale.
Seriously though, lets not start another paladin alignment thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they are crusaders of "good and justice" they don't give a crap about local laws and will carry out their justice as they see fit.To be fair, the idea of a Lawful Good character with a code of conduct that promotes order and law, as well as justice, doesn't mean that he'll obey whatever the local laws are.
This is accurate.
Too many people think Lawful Good, or Lawfulness in general, just reduces to a facile "legal positivism" that amounts to upholding whatever positive law there may be, regardless of its content. Which is actually an internally inconsistent position to hold because even CE/NE societies have positive laws of some sort or another.
LG is about good and justice (plus much else), but here probably isn't the place to get on a high-horse about it. Beyond recommending the recent 'Chronicles of the Righteous," which is actually fairly good and broaden the understanding a lot of people have of what constitutes Lawful Good.
The mindset that Lawfulness(in an alignment sense) just reduces to a blind legal positivism is akin to believing that Chaotic means your character rolls randomly to determine what actions they take and is completely irrational because "that's Chaotic."
Of course, alignment itself is a sacred cow I hate because everyone has a different idea on how this morality thing works and where everyone should go on the scale.
Seriously though, lets not start another paladin alignment thread.
That would probably be for the best. But I thought I saw a cat wandering around here, and an empty bag.
The single patron god Sacred Cow is one that could easily go. The term henotheistic describes a person who worships one god primarily while also believing in other gods. The single god setup of D&D/Pathfinder doesn't take into account the henotheistic nature of D&D religion- if you worship and receive spells from Sarenrae and another cleric worships and receives spells from Asmodeus, you probably believe that Asmodeus exists.
I don't think the 'patron god" thing actually violates what you're saying.
Having a patron god can simply mean that is the one you're primarily devoted to, as, well, your patron, while recognizing all of the rest within their own spheres. One can venerate the entire pantheon, while still having a personal patron.
But people can disagree with this interpretation, and I will admit it's not always pulled off well in actual play.
That would probably be for the best. But I thought I saw a cat wandering around here, and an empty bag.
I'm trying to get that cat back in the bag, but she's rather slippery don'tcha' you know?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would probably be for the best. But I thought I saw a cat wandering around here, and an empty bag.I'm trying to get that cat back in the bag, but she's rather slippery don'tcha' you know?
IKR?
I caught her once, but she's wiry. Those things have a higher CMD than you'd think from their size!
Here's a few that annoy me:
.
.
.
.
- Rolling for hit points.
- Rolling ability scores.
- Leadership as a feat instead of a story development.
- The need for higher-level characters to gain iterative attacks.
- AC/Defense does not improve with level.
- The baseline assumption that everyone in the world who isn't an adventurer is 1st level.
- Spell Resistance.
See, I dig most of those and prefer they remain sacred cows. Plus a few of those have had standard alternatives for, what, 13 years that you could always use.
|
He will respect other laws that do not actively conflict with his own...that's what being Lawful means.
A CG paladin would ignore any code but his own unless it were in furtherance of his mission. respect of other lifestyles is not a part of Chaotic behavior, which is entirely individualistic.
A NG Paladin might acknowledge laws, might not. Depends if they are part of the solution or the problem, as he sees it. If they are a useless law with no purpose as he sees it, he'll likely ignore it as such.
A LG paladin puts up with the inconvenience of other laws because he believes most laws are good things for most people. If they CONFLICT with his own personal standards, however, he'll actively seek to get them changed and oppose them. If laws further evil, he'll oppose them outright and ignore or strike them down if possible.
The main difference is that a LG paladin will seek to change the laws, and NG and CG will just ignore or oppose them without needing to go beyond that point.
==Aelryinth
Not so sure that's true. I will admit that that is a possibility, but I think that a lot of the Lawful Alignment is about discipline, and putting the needs of the many above the needs of the few, without any issues of morality coming into it. Lawful suggests working within the system rather than against or in spite of it. In the older editions, and in 4E, LG was literally the most good of the good, which did apply to the Paladin. And I do think that the Paladin should be the standard of good, in a generic sense, (I do not however think that a Paladin should be seen as more good than a good Cleric, but that's a little bit of a different topic). My issue is that in the 3E/d20 system, LG is NOT the most good alignment, that is NG. NG will work within the law, and be disciplined, but is willing to set that aside IF that will not lead to the most good outcome for all, (in their point of view). LG has the stumbling block in that they serve 2+ masters, they serve order, and they also serve good, and they also serve their deity, (or their order or whatever), all three of which can be in conflict. Now that should rightfully mean that all Paladins should fall if they break any one of those. The same goes for CG, it holds that personal freedom and improvisation are just as important as "goodness". CG also generally means that the individual will only really involve themselves if they themselves (including family or friends) as affected. Only NG, who is willing to choose whichever on a case by case basis puts good above personal view or other alliances.
The other kind of cool thing about NG Paladins, is that it would open the door to a lot of the concepts that make so much sense, but are not mechanically allowed, such as Paladins of Pharasma hunting down necromancers and undead while disallowing others such as Abadar, whose focus is on civilization and advancement regardless of morality.
|
Rynjin, on page 19 of the core rule book, under the Generating Ability Score heading,
there are five ways listed to do so.
1) Standard: roll 4d6 drop lowest
2) classic: roll 3d6 add together
3) Heroic roll 2d6 add six
4) Dice Pool: each character has a pool of 24 dice to roll for his ability scores. the player choses how many dice to roll for each ability score, the minimum is three dice.
5) Purchase: each player has a certain number points to purchase his ability scores.
While many people use point buy. Pathfinder Society Organized Play uses point by. Many home games don't. The Standard method as it is called in the Core Rule book (4d6 drop lowest) is often used.
I wouldn't say point buy and arrays are the expected norm. I think that there is plenty of variation. Some gaming groups prefer point buy and arrays. Other groups prefer dice rolling to generate their ability scores.
See, I dig most of those and prefer they remain sacred cows. Plus a few of those have had standard alternatives for, what, 13 years that you could always use.
Different strokes for different folks, right? :)
My problem with several of the game-mechanics items I mentioned is that I feel they don't add anything beneficial to the game dynamics and in some cases can actually bog down gameplay. As far as the Leadership feat, lack of a Defense Bonus, and a 1st level populace go, they just seem very believable (or at least internally consistent in the context of a fantasy world) to me.
As far as alternate rules go, yes they exist, but a guy can dream about not having to go thru the trouble of having to customize every last little thing, can't he? ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, I dig most of those and prefer they remain sacred cows. Plus a few of those have had standard alternatives for, what, 13 years that you could always use.Different strokes for different folks, right? :)
<snipped>
As far as alternate rules go, yes they exist, but a guy can dream about not having to go thru the trouble of having to customize every last little thing, can't he? ;)
Yes but that's the issue with the "sacred cows one wants to keep as sacred cows" and "ones one wants to go, and I want a system that gets rid of the ones I don't like, so I don't have to customize every little thing."
I'm not saying either one is objectively wrong (these things are a matter of taste), just that any design effort that attempts to cater to the tastes of the one will alienate the other. And the more things they change, the more likely it is that they'll puncture ones you like, not just ones you don't care for.
Anyhow there's lots of other games that don't have these features. By which I do not mean "if you don't like it, play something else," what I do mean is "play 'em all and enjoy them for what they are, they're all going to be mixed bags of features one likes and features one can do without, and the people who play them will disagree about which are which."
Anyhow I don't mean to be a thread-downer. People can certainly dream about a game that fixes all the things they dislike while leaving all the things they like and not introducing any new things they grow to not like and wish were changed. After all, if we didn't like FRGPing, none of us would be here.
There are things I'd have changed, too, some of which other people see as sacred cows. But I don't confuse my preferences with the preferences of the majority and thus of what would make for a successful game and thus thriving gaming community. Which is why I'm mum; except for that vague hope I mentioned of reducing the caster-martial disparity.
Not so sure that's true. I will admit that that is a possibility, but I think that a lot of the Lawful Alignment is about discipline, and putting the needs of the many above the needs of the few, without any issues of morality coming into it. Lawful suggests working within the system rather than against or in spite of it. In the older editions, and in 4E, LG was literally the most good of the good, which did apply to the Paladin. And I do think that the Paladin should be the standard of good, in a generic sense, (I do not however think that a Paladin should be seen as more good than a good Cleric, but that's a little bit of a different topic). My issue is that in the 3E/d20 system, LG is NOT the most good alignment, that is NG. NG will work within the law, and be disciplined, but is willing to set that aside IF that will not lead to the most good outcome for all, (in their point of view). LG has the stumbling block in that they serve 2+ masters, they serve order, and they also...He will respect other laws that do not actively conflict with his own...that's what being Lawful means.
A CG paladin would ignore any code but his own unless it were in furtherance of his mission. respect of other lifestyles is not a part of Chaotic behavior, which is entirely individualistic.
A NG Paladin might acknowledge laws, might not. Depends if they are part of the solution or the problem, as he sees it. If they are a useless law with no purpose as he sees it, he'll likely ignore it as such.
A LG paladin puts up with the inconvenience of other laws because he believes most laws are good things for most people. If they CONFLICT with his own personal standards, however, he'll actively seek to get them changed and oppose them. If laws further evil, he'll oppose them outright and ignore or strike them down if possible.
The main difference is that a LG paladin will seek to change the laws, and NG and CG will just ignore or oppose them without needing to go beyond that point.
==Aelryinth
LG is the 'highest good'. NG is the 'purest good'.
LG is Good without the compromising of Ethics.
NG is Good without regard to Ethics.
The entirety of LG behavior can be undertaken by the LG.
The entirely of NG behavior is not allowed to the LG.
LG is the good with the most restrictions on what you can do. This set of restrictions makes it the 'highest' Good.
NG is Good without any restrictions, doing what is needed to advance the cause of Good. This makes it the 'purest' Good, as other considerations are only incidental to doing Good.
Even in 4E, LG was the Goodest of the Good on that 'height' scale. That doesn't mean NG isn't holy. IT's just that NG is far more willing to compromise to advance the cause.
LG will break, but not bend.
NG will bend, but not break.
CG will bend, and then poke you in the eye and break YOU.
And yah, sorry to muck up the thread with alignments.
==Aelryinth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, the Good that arbitrarily limits itself for no real reason is the "Highest Good"? I'd say it's the "Lowest Good" really.
Any Good character that would honestly let something as silly as a Code get in the way of saving people is not as Good as those that won't.
THe alignment system would break pretty quickly when trying to apply it to real world people and situations.
Alignment has lot of issues. Usually I get arguments about how people wouldn't know how to be good or evil without it, then arguments about what good and evil are, then about one player thinking something is something but another player doesn't think that something is that something, and my favorite is when people say they don't know who is the bad guy unless you put a big evil label on it because antagonist can't be neutral or good apparently...
Would the magic item treadmill quality for a sacred cow? Or does that only exist in 3.x and pathfinder?
Again alignment should have been tossed ages ago, but in a system like DnD it's kind of necessary because its integrated into the mechanics of the system.
Its not actually that integrated. I've tossed it out in 3.x and pathfinder games. It is however a forum hot topic! Took over this thread pretty well didn't it?
Really though, magical item treadmill, would that count? I'm honestly curious.
what do you mean by treadmill, that there's a ton of magic items or they're so easy to come by now that they have less value?
Well, there's an expectation on what you should have. Your +1's. +1's are boring imo, but they're a part of the system. Essentially, you end up working not for an artifact of cool, but for a magic item to replace your last magic item to keep you up to where your supposed to be to find the next magic item to do the exact same thing.(a treadmill!)
Similarly, your expected to carry certain items on you (Scrolls of neutralize poison), and some of these you wouldn't know about ever, but its an expectation the developer had had. I'm not a big fan of that either, but I'm not keen on the expectations throughout editions. I would rather neither of these carry onto the next editions and others.
LG will break, but not bend.Oh, I dunno; Lymnieris is probably pretty bendy. Some of the positions Lymnieris can get into, you would not believe. {^_+}
And yah, sorry to muck up the thread with alignments.
==Aelryinth
Too late, that cat is already wandering all over the thread in a disorderly fashion. *tuts*
And as alignment descriptions yours isn't. . .bad. Though Wes Scheider did object in a recent post to the mindset people have of "LG being the highest good," and your breakdown does confirm some theories of Chaotic Good (note: I am not claiming here I agree with this theory. But, when the glass slipper fits the foot. . .)
Law and "good" could contradict very easily.
What would a lawful good character do in the case of Antigone? Would they bury their brother or follow the law? "But that law wasn't just!"
There's that mindset that Lawfulness in the alignment sense = facile legal positivism, again.
If that is your mindset, then to be consistent you must also believe that chaos = breaking every law just to break it, and randomly rolling every decision irrationally, because "that's chaos."
Now, I would not interpret either alignment that way (for example, [but, again, after all, even CG, NE, and even most CE societies have positive law - without making them "Lawful," or implying that LN, much less LG, types must endorse their positive legislation).
For Lawfulness, in the alignment sense, one starts with a principle and then just law follows from it. LG types would thus endorse good law (law that flows from a conception of good & justice), LN types would be "neutral towards conceptions of the good," flowing from some principle of social order, and so on. Positive legislation that contradicts this - or, even more tellingly, is internally contradictory (and thus inconsistent/violative of sound order) would be objectionable.
It's not really that hard; people just make it hard by not wanting to properly understand the alignments they don't identify with. Or wanting to treat the alignments they do identify with as open-ended justifications for whatever behavior they want (many - not quite all, but many - people who play CG define "good" as "whatever me and those I like want," and the chaos part as a justification for instrumental utility: achieving their chosen ends by any means necessary & efficient to them. Note I am not saying, here, that is the proper interpertation of CG. But it is the interpretation that often sees play at tables, and thus creates the notorious "inter-party conflict," which usually stems *not* from the LG types being lawful, but from then being good, while the CG types are behaving as evil-under-another-description).
Most people who object to the alignment system do so just because they want to get away with more. Fine, play an "anti-hero." I really have no objection to that. Just don't say "my character is still good, it's just the D&D alignment system is too much of a straitjacket because it doesn't let me do exactly as I please and still call myself good."
I'm not even going to read all this .That's openmindedness, thoughtful consideration of all perspectives, and empiricism, for you.
This is a naturalist view of law that most people would strongly disagree with.Most people haven't thought these things threw or done the research. Which doesn't mean this is right, but it does mean your dismissal of it is ill-considered
I suggest looking into some Comparative Law classes because there are radically different views on what law is and what good is to different people
I have (this is one reason why I also said that even non-Lawful societies will have positive law/written legislation, but not be "Lawful" in the alignment sense; but note that taking these courses does not mean accepting positivism blindly just because "that's what the teacher and the textbook sez." Though I do concede that various people will believe various things - which, to get back to the game mechanics, is why there are a variety of alignments, the adherents of which will all believe theirs is correct, or at least the best, or at least the best for them, if they know their alignment). I'm also familiar with Rawls, among other social constructivist theories, &tc. Noting that all of these, which do not claim to be naturalist, start with some principle (and their reason(s) for holding it) and then work things out from there.
So your response to me isn't even wrong. Which I guess is to be expected from someone who refuses to even read things he pre-judges he won't agree with, and airily dismisses them. . .then suggests someone else be a scholar who examines arguments on the merits (and demerits).
But your response is entirely beside the point to the game.
P.S.
. . .most people would strongly disagree with. . .I suggest looking into some Comparative Law classes because there are radically different views on what law is and what good is to different people
Whatever happened to "Questioning Authority" and not "blindly following the herd of consensus" btw? I guess I'm the member of the small, dwindling band that actually does. . .
Everyone's concept of what good is is going to be different.
Maybe it is. But on a lot of basic stuff...not as much as you might think (see the end of this great Yale Law Review article, for example - an article I think you'd enjoy. See? I do consider your perspective worthy of respect. I think you'd also enjoy this one by the same author).
In any case, that is why there *are* three alignments for good, and 6 other alignments, and, in my personal opinion, in-between-alignments (I always liked the "Great Wheel" which, in effect, doubles the alignments: there's not just CG, but CNG and CGN; not just LG, but LGN and LNG, &tc). And as I mentioned elsewhere the other day, there can be conflicts/disagreements among good, and, again as I just mentioned, everyone who holds the alignment they hold believes their position is correct (and thus, good, under some definition of the word good - which does not make it actually good, at least not from a game standpoint; and not from a IRL standpoint either, unless one is an absolute and total subjectivist, in the vulgar sense, which in practice no one is. Except maybe Stanley Fish. Except not even him).
Indeed, as I also mentioned in another post, LG is broader than a lot of people's understanding of it. Which indicates I, at least, accept it as holding variety in it.
Quite unlike those who boil it down to facile and blind legal positivism, endorsing whatever written laws might exist (which I do not think is something you *actually* do, either; you consider some things "false" and dismiss them out of hand without considering the full merits of why someone might hold a perspective you don't share. Which is fine. It just makes talking about "comparative law and not everyone holding the same concept of the good" rather ironic). So even you think there is a "correct" and "incorrect," a "good take on things" and a "bad," and objectively so, which why you close your mind to arguments that, at least in the game, there might be objective standards - or at least entire alignments of people who believe in them (those would be all the good alignments - including CG, IMO - it's just that they disagree, perhaps, on what the content of that objective good. Though, in practice, not as much as you might think. At least when it comes to the truly good, rather than those who just want to rationalize whatever their preferences are as "good for them and their associates, and thus good," and pursue them with instrumental utility. There are other alignments in the game suitable to such people. . .I'll refrain from saying which ones, and I'll definitely refrain from attempting to do something I have not attempted to do here at all, which is say this applies to the real world. On those things, I'll keep my council to myself, as entirely irrelevant to the game. As I've said in other contexts, "realism" is only relevant to a FRPG if it's also "reasonable").
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So would derailing threads by beating dead horses such as the paladin code and alignment be considered lawful or chaotic behavior?
I can see a lawfully-minded person engaging in such discourse because of a dogmatic need to uphold their views and dispel what they see as misunderstanding. Yet when the result is that the order of an existing conversation has been destroyed and subverted, I'm inclined to think the result is chaos itself...
|
|
Id actually argue that they are very similar, though there are some cultural (not religious) views that seperate the two as well.
Anyway, I wasnt trying to have an alignment debate per se as much to to quantify my opinion in regards to the Paladin specifically. I also do not my statements to be universal or all encompassing.
But without taking into account any prior editions, the Paladin to me reads as very much NG, doubly so if you take into account PFs little exception for "the greater good", which in all honesty I think has probably caused even more issues with Paladins than it was meant to have solved. But again, it talks about working with evil (not chaotic) allies to accomplish a good outcome. Seems pretty NG, again, in my opinion.
So would derailing threads by beating dead horses such as the paladin code and alignment be considered lawful or chaotic behavior?
The thread had already been derailed, alas.
I do think all good people, regardless of whether they're L, N, or C, would agree with Arthur Koestler's saying that "One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up."
But perhaps that makes me "Lawful." In any case, like I said, that cat had already been dragged up and down this thread screeching. I suppose it's just that people don't want me to comment with my own views if they are at variance with what was already being said here, ad nausium (literally).
If people want to take Alignment discussions out of this thread, then that will be fine with me. I'll stop commenting on it here, too. But I won't be told to not comment on my views regarding it, while they hold forth on theirs.
tl;dr: If it got derailed, it wasn't by me. . .
Id actually argue that they are very similar, though there are some cultural (not religious) views that seperate the two as well.
Anyway, I wasnt trying to have an alignment debate per se as much to to quantify my opinion in regards to the Paladin specifically. I also do not my statements to be universal or all encompassing.
But without taking into account any prior editions, the Paladin to me reads as very much NG, doubly so if you take into account PFs little exception for "the greater good", which in all honesty I think has probably caused even more issues with Paladins than it was meant to have solved. But again, it talks about working with evil (not chaotic) allies to accomplish a good outcome. Seems pretty NG, again, in my opinion.
I do want to clarify that I didn't comment or contradict this at all.
I may prefer Paladins to stay lG (or may not), but this is a "taste" thing and people's tastes will vary.
I think you make a fair case for the position that Paladins should be NG. My reaction to that would probably be better if I wasn't *used* to them being LG (even though that isn't the case in all editions, I know). Not patting myself on the head for self-understanding here, but I knowledge my taste on that is not "objectively better" than your argument that they should be NG.
On that I'll just refer to something I said elsewhere (before it being implied that I believe my way is right and the rest of the world is wrong): the fan base has varied tastes, any significant change they make will please some and turn off others, the more changes they make the more people they will probably turn off, and whatever new features are introduced will please some and displease others, the target audience will disagree on which changes are good/necessary and which changes are bad/they-changed-it-now-it-sucks, and any game is going to be a mixed bag of things one really likes and things one can do without, and the people who play it are going to disagree on which is which.
Probably - and this is just a "probably," if the Paizo staff were designing a PF-NEXT from scratch, without their ever having been LG Paladins, they would probably make Paladins NG. Probably (it's just a SWAG based on my limited understanding of their perspective on the alignments, which I think is close to yours. But there is probably disagreement among the staff, too: they aren't a hive-mind. Just the general consensus seems closer to what you're saying here).
But they're not, and any revised new edition of PF won't be starting from scratch, either. So it'll be a matter of them deciding, from the point of view of keeping the game selling and keeping a thriving community, and not breaking the base too much, how many radical changes they introduce. . .should they ever even decide to do a PF2.0 (which is probably inevitable, but hopefully not soon. Note I'm not implying I think or suspect they have any current plans for a revision).
People screaming what they believe without taking the time to know what they are talking about. Sometimes some restraint should be exercised and other points of view considered instead of ruthlessly putting forth an agenda and looking for facts to support opinions.
I was not the person who refused to read someone's entire post as soon as I got to something I considered false, and then started attacking someone personally (I stayed on the merits, and even offered you friendly links to law review articles that I genuinely - no trolling - think you'd enjoy).
This post, which is essentially an ad hominem*, has a tinge of irony to it. An unfortunate tinge, as I had hoped you would at least thoughtfully consider a point of view different from your own rather than hurling these less-than-veiled insults and brickbats at me.
All in the name of civility and understanding, of course.
Restraint? Cleric, heal thyself.
No one attacked you personally. If you do, in fact, read my posts in their entirety you would have seen this:
Then what is it doing in this thread where you go on in this vein, after, in your replies to me, going on in a similar vein?
See my "Spoiler" re "plausible deniablity."
At minimum, you're smart enough to know this is bound to be inflamatory.
And this in "not reply" to someone who, throughout this thread, most recently in reply to Devil's Advocate, and, if you want to go back to before we had this little disagreement (and thus untainted by anything that might seem to be just self-serving pandering in trying to pretend to be "the reasonable one"), url="http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pvnv?Sacred-Cows-of-DD-and-Pathfinder#14" ]here[/url] and and then more extensively here, my main observation has been that people have (legitimately) varied tastes, I don't consider mine "better" than those of others, and thus refrained from even mentioning what they were (other than the desire for reducing the Caster-Martial-Disparity, which is probably mostly non-controversial, though, I admit, not entirely so), and yet I get castigated by you (ok "not-castigated by you, you were just posting these non-relevant observations in this thread in obvious responses to me but not related to your opinion of me as someone who needs to go back to school and learn the correct view, they were just...there.").
Now, I'd rather have a civil if pointed discussion with you and everyone else here (many, many forum threads are both civil and pointed, full of strong disagreements, so I dk why I should be "called out" here - ok, non-called-out-here, if you insist; I'll play along).
Now, as far as I'm concerned, we can continue to have a civil if pointed disagreement, or it can be taken entirely out of the thread, and I'll admit I took a bit of umbrage at your suggestion that my I need to go back to school because my views are so false they do not even merit thoughtful consideration. . .all said while arguing for considering various points of view. Which was actually what I have been the one doing, and I am the one arguing that Lawful is not as narrow as you suggested, it's a broader concept than simple legal positivism, which is basically a nullity because that can be anything or nothing and I said - which given your overall position, I would think you would agree with - that all in-game societies would have legislation that they would think of as appropriate/correct, but that does not make them Lawful in the alignment-sense of the term, thus nor does it mean Lawfuls will endorse all legislation. But now I'm digressing back to substance, and, sure, refuse to consider this position, but please don't do so in the name of "considering all points of view." I guess that's the tone I objected too, even more than the suggestion I was so far from knowing what I was talking about that I needed to go back to school and learn Orthodoxy (correct-thought) to correct my false-doctrines, again in the name of consideration of all points of view. I Just always find it hard to wrap my head around that trope, even though, yes, that is current Orthodoxy.
Anyone need free digital cookies/hugs.
Anyone. . .
Cookies and hugs! Nom!
Me plox!
So this was a thread about those "sacred cows" that DnD has but refuses to change, and now its about cookies and hugs?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's too mainstream otherwise.
Cookies and hugs should be sacred cows.
Does that mean we can't eat them?
Or does it mean that we can add the sacred cow to the dinner menu?
Nom...beef...
Cookies and hugs should be sacred cows.Does that mean we can't eat them?
Or does it mean that we can add the sacred cow to the dinner menu?
Nom...beef...
I think it means you eat them extra often, bad for your waistline, good for morale. Can we get a hugs and cookies option just like favorites now?
I consider the thread productive. I've changed my view on WBL, in some ways it is a good thing but it results in the "Magical Treadmill" effect of needing certain items (attribute boosts and cloaks of resistance). In 1st and 2nd ed getting a magic item was a big deal. 3rd ed's wealth by level was cool because you were guaranteed magic items, but now it's pretty much assumed that characters will have certain items.
I'm sure there are a few ways around it, though some more complicated than others.
So it sounds like there's a consensus that some Sacred Cows are good for/essential to the game, and some could/should be updated.