Remember, we're all trying to apply real world mortal logic to fantasy concepts that are incredibly alien when dealing with Patrons.
I think the only reason Lyn, DB3, FCD, etc seem to have a bit of a better grasp on them is because they've been playing with and as them, for some time now.
Even then, their opinions and views are filtered through a mortal lens.
Seems to me trying to truly understand the Patrons via our real world knowledge is like explaining to an infant what quantum physics is, and expecting them to then write a college thesis on it....
"Inexplicable" is CE in pathfidner terms.
See cuthulu, and all dark tapestry gods, save two- the blind idiot god (thoughtless, CN. And one that is less inexplicable, and is just NE.)
If anything has mortal care in mind, it won't be morally inexplicable. That argument assumes the creature functions on logic different from humans, and even then, that doesn't change what alignment their acts are.
Icehawk, I don't particularly share that opinion of chaotic evil. As DB3 and Dalesman can tell you, I tend to play with 'fixed' morality a lot, showing how a single action can be perceived as many things depending on the viewers context. (I went back and read some of the old free form game while I was recuperating and you could definitely see this theme repeated a lot.) So you might find an angel committing a cruel act because it was necessary for the greater good or you might meet a sympathetic daemon who shows surprising compassion as long as it doesn't interfere with 'work'. In my mind alignments are averages not absolute all the time straight jackets to behavior. And I play that up a lot, always trying to subvert expectations. That's the narrative context in which the Patrons were created. Plus, alignment is only used in the very loosest sense in this game in the first place. I prefer a greater degree of complexity in matters of morality. Keeping the philosophical differences in mind might help ease those moments of dissonance when the narrative isn't marching your expectations of how game world morality is dealt with.
This Patron thing is, to me, just another display of the Universe at work. Fun stuff. Rarely do players like it when I introduce similar in past campaigns, the say I get too 'cosmic' and lose focus. Shame, really, but I suppose they want their peeps to be the focus of the campaign, which such topics *can* dishearten players when brought up/introduced.
If you dial in or out on the scope, it tends to just be repeating patterns of infinity.
Ohm...
Don't gaze too deeply. That's all, and if you do, it's your choice to do so with these rabbit holes.
I once saw a demotivational poster describing batman as every alignment
Just a reminder, this isn't some eldritch being beyond our comprehension
this dude is human
Well, that's just wrong. Batman's Chaotic Good.
Sorry if I've been stubborn or confusing.
I'm not quite sure how to express an opinion on such a matter properly.
I can't seem to say exactly what I mean.
I do know that alignment is not a straight jacket, unless you're a paladin.
Adon started as CG. In a few in game days, I moved him to CN.
Well, that's just wrong. Batman's Chaotic Good.I once saw a demotivational poster describing batman as every alignment
Just a reminder, this isn't some eldritch being beyond our comprehension
this dude is human
Well, that's just wrong. He's NE.
There are a lot of different Batmans. Batmen? Batmens.
Well, that's just wrong. He's NE.Well, that's just wrong. Batman's Chaotic Good.I once saw a demotivational poster describing batman as every alignment
Just a reminder, this isn't some eldritch being beyond our comprehension
this dude is human
He's actually whatever the current story writer wants him to be. He used to machine gun people way in the past from airplanes.
There are a lot of different Batmans. Batmen? Batmens.
Bruce Wayne, baby. Bruce Wayne.
Also... I am the worst programmer in the history of today.
He's actually whatever the current story writer wants him to be. He used to machine gun people way in the past from airplanes.Well, that's just wrong. He's NE.Well, that's just wrong. Batman's Chaotic Good.I once saw a demotivational poster describing batman as every alignment
Just a reminder, this isn't some eldritch being beyond our comprehension
this dude is human
The point of my statement was meant to be that "well that's just wrong." Is an argument that doesn't really work, due to lack of actual points to prove your... Err.. Point.
How so, I failed my intro to programming class (along with a third of my class)
Exaggeratory statement is Exaggeratory.
Did you know Superman once was able to pretty much throw planets back in the day?
Did you know that Beast wasn't always blue, furry and feline looking?
Or that both Havok and Iceman used to need to wear goofy ass looking costumes to help contain their powers?
Just because an old ass comic character did a stuff a long time ago, does not necessarily have any bearing on who they are today.
Batman lives by a code, never kill or use guns. He seeks to clean up the mess that is Gotham, by any means(save for those two above), yet works closely with the law when possible. He's even tried(and sometimes succeeded) to rehabilitate troubled or criminal youths, as well as villains.
What's evil in any of that? That he happens to usually beat up the bad guys? Or he often uses illegal means to fight them?
Robin Hood stole from the rich, and gave to the poor, but he's never been considered evil, despite routinely breaking the law. Heck, for all we know, its possible he even killed some of said rich people.
Also, Batman protects and helps the innocent, coming to their aid as opposed to harming or ignoring them. Sounds pretty good to me, yes?
Thank you for a proper presentation of your opinion.
^_^
I, personally, agree with the entire batman alignment chart.
I think the point is that different authors wrote batman in different ways, varying from timeline to timeline and author to author and alter ego to alter ego.
Saying every Batman from all of the decades of comics is the same is like saying every one of the Doctor's regenerations is just the same guy in a different suit.
There's angry doctor, funny doctor, sciency doctor. Just like there's scary batman, funny batman, dark batman, lawful batman, and so on.
This is my opinion.
Batman lives by a code, never kill or use guns. He seeks to clean up the mess that is Gotham, by any means(save for those two above), yet works closely with the law when possible. He's even tried(and sometimes succeeded) to rehabilitate troubled or criminal youths, as well as villains.
I typically describe Batman as Lawful Neutral with good tendancies when explaining alignment to new players due to all the reasons you just mentioned, where you said that was Chaotic Good.
Just pointing out that even with the same definitions you can end up with wildly different answers based on perspective.
Also, if you can ignore historical context then the same logic applies - Batman will eventually shift away from the "Dark Knight" era Batman and will become something else again, which is what I think Damiani and Icrhawk's point was. Frank Miller's Batman is definitely Evil, in my opinion.
Adam West is NG.
He's funny batman.
I think the point is that different authors wrote batman in different ways, varying from timeline to timeline and author to author and alter ego to alter ego.
Saying every Batman from all of the decades of comics is the same is like saying every one of the Doctor's regenerations is just the same guy in a different suit.
There's angry doctor, funny doctor, sciency doctor. Just like there's scary batman, funny batman, dark batman, lawful batman, and so on.
This is my opinion.
The main difference here is that the Doctor actually is a totally different person each time he regenerates. Its why they change actors, despite not necessarily needing to(Matt Smith could easily still portray him, for example), and also why some people call for a woman Doctor.
Batman is always Bruce Wayne, except in alternate universe, which don't count. Otherwise, he's also been a vampire, a Victorian, Clark Kent, and all sorts of other stuff....
Please don't let this discussion chat devolve into an alignment thread...
|
I think the point is that different authors wrote batman in different ways, varying from timeline to timeline and author to author and alter ego to alter ego.
Saying every Batman from all of the decades of comics is the same is like saying every one of the Doctor's regenerations is just the same guy in a different suit.
There's angry doctor, funny doctor, sciency doctor. Just like there's scary batman, funny batman, dark batman, lawful batman, and so on.
This is my opinion.The main difference here is that the Doctor actually is a totally different person each time he regenerates. Its why they change actors, despite not necessarily needing to(Matt Smith could easily still portray him, for example), and also why some people call for a woman Doctor.
Batman is always Bruce Wayne, except in alternate universe, which don't count. Otherwise, he's also been a vampire, a Victorian, Clark Kent, and all sorts of other stuff....
Personally, I find the Batman Cult hilarious.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was watching an anime while waiting for the pressure cooker (I'm canning applesauce). It's called Okami-San and her Seven Companions. Memorable quotes from the first episode include
"Never try to court a lady by calling her a hot guy"
"Hormones are more powerful than reason"
"Getting punched while naked must suck"
So much inspiration for funny/awkward scenes...;)
Funny thing about that I have a character I started to model after that. that was a while ago.
found the link with the character and asking the GM about the gloves
I'm not actually a Batman cultist, but in this case, I will fight for my view.
Heck, I wrote a whole long ass argument of how Dr Doom is basically everything Batman is, but even better. Its here somewhere on Paizo, in some superhero thread.
I'm a Marvel guy, big time, especially after New 52. I like my heroes and villains relatable, interesting, and layered.
DC started down that path, to an extend, with Identity Crisis and 52, but then Countdown and Infinite Crisis and all that came after kinda destroyed such foundations. Then New 52 hit, and I hoped on the nope train to nopesville.
Foul... did you see Lang's post? message for you there...
I think valentines day is coming up...
Lynora, quick question (or a few questions) for you since I'm rather interested in how Time Lords are in this universe:
1. When I instigated the "I hate time travel" discussion accidentally, you mentioned that canon time travel in this universe is the theory that every time you change something in the past, you create a splinter reality in which you are trapped in. The only exception is Chronos-approved time travel, which Ephebe uses to clean up time-related messes. My question is: how did Time Lords circumvent this? Do they have approval from Chronos for some reason? Or did they invent technology to circumvent this? Even if they did that, though, Ephebe or one of the other Champions would've used Chronos Travel to erase that.
2. This second question is more of a pertinent question to gameplay, which Edward will hopefully like me asking as it will help flesh out Mel a bit more: Why doesn't Ephebe know about Mel being a Time Lord? Is this because her personal timeline, which is connected to the Last Great Time War, is timelocked do to being in contact with that event? Or some other cause? I'm putting this question out here, but you should PM Edward the answer.
Jacob: I'm not sure how much of the backlogs you've read, but Ephebe at very least knows that there's something up with Mel. Ephebe asked Vai to watch her after all, when they became roommates. I realize that doesn't wholly answer your question, but itbhas been touched on in gameplay.
Jacob, since it's going to be a plot point, I'm not going to answer your question right now. I do have this particular question thought out and it's going to make sense, but I don't want to ruin an upcoming scene either. Sorry for being so evasive on this.
Mmkay.
I understand :)
Ok... Is there something I should know about?
Lang she did see it,
Her heart sank. It was just as well that Lang decided to assist her landing.
Likewise I did see your post, I'm trying to think up what to post, that and pack for vacation
Feel free to move on
ok thanks I was in a rush when I posted.. I should have read that...
where you going on vacation?
Disney
My
Family won tickets (and plane tickets) in a raffle, which I'm really excited about as it'll be my first time flying since being an infant (which I don't remember)
Eh. Flying's rather mediocre, IMO.
Mel, your go on convo. :)
So, I have a question:
Is resurrection an overall gain for Death or Life, seeing that if a person is resurrected, he lives more life but gets to experience death again?
Ok... Is there something I should know about?
You wanted to be more involved with the plot right? ^.^
So, I have a question:
Is resurrection an overall gain for Death or Life, seeing that if a person is resurrected, he lives more life but gets to experience death again?
It's neutral. And Death is probably the least competitive patron of all...of course, he doesn't really have to be. I mean, everything dies. He doesn't really have to try very hard to keep his edge as it were.