The wording for the cleric changes the alignement restriction.
D&D:
A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful-chaotic axis or the good-evil axis, but not both). A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.
Paizo:
A cleric's alignment must be within one step of her deity's, either along the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis.
So, with Paizo, I would be Chaotic Evil and follow a Lawful Neutral god (because I am within one step on the good-evil axis). Is that the intent, or an unwanted side effect of reducing the verbage?
The reduced verbage is just reduced, it doesn't carry any semantic baggage. The "or" is exclusive in this case. So it already means "either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis but not both."
-Frank
The reduced verbage is just reduced, it doesn't carry any semantic baggage. The "or" is exclusive in this case. So it already means "either the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis but not both."
-Frank
If that is the intent, then additional words are needed. "Exclusive Or" means "one or the other, but not both". So I can be one step away on the good-evil axis and two steps away on the law-chaos axis. That would satisfy your exclusive or because I am one step away on one, but not both.
Perhaps you should say something like:
"A cleric's alignment must be no more than one step away from her deity's counting both the the law/chaos axis and the good/evil axis."
If that is the intent, then additional words are needed. "Exclusive Or" means "one or the other, but not both". So I can be one step away on the good-evil axis and two steps away on the law-chaos axis. That would satisfy your exclusive or because I am one step away on one, but not both.Perhaps you should say something like:
"A cleric's alignment must be no more than one step away from her deity's counting both the the law/chaos axis and the good/evil axis."
Dude, no. When it says you must be within one step on one axis or the other, it in no way implies that you don't have to be within one step on the other one. You are seriously looking for problems where there aren't any.
The game has plenty of explicit problems without requiring us to willfully misinterpret declarative statements. If you insist on interpreting all statements to mean things that they obviously don't mean the rules will never ever be large enough. How many black dragons does it say you can conjure by swinging a falchion? Are we to assume that the answer is twelve because it is not explicitly written?
If you have real problems please post them, but this is just sad.
-Frank
Could I get some feedback from some folks will more maturity and less troll? I am fairly confident in my grasp of the both the English language and boolean logic, but if the 'dude' is unequivocally right, then I suppose his disrespect is warranted...
Actually, Ki-Ryn is correct on the grammar here.
How about: "A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s (that is, one step away on the lawful-chaotic axis or the good-evil axis, but not both)."
And Ki-Ryn, I saw the thread where you were introduced to the boards. I think it's great that your group is interested in playtesting the new rules. Welcome, and I hope you like it here.
|
The wording for the cleric changes the alignement restriction.
A cleric’s alignment must be within one step of his deity’s (that is, it may be one step away on either the lawful-chaotic axis or the good-evil axis, but not both). A cleric may not be neutral unless his deity’s alignment is also neutral.So, with Paizo, I would be Chaotic Evil and follow a Lawful Neutral god (because I am within one step on the good-evil axis). Is that the intent, or an unwanted side effect of reducing the verbage?
A cleric's alignment must be within one step of her deity's, either along the law/chaos axis or the good/evil axis.
I think it's clear with the verbiage as written, regardless of how you read "or". The key point is that your alignment must be within one step of your deity.
A Lawful Neutral god can have priests that are N, LG, or LE because those are all one step away. A Chaotic Evil priest could not follow a Lawful Neutral god because the alignment is actually three steps away (2 steps from Lawful to Chaotic, 1 step from Neutral to Evil).
That's how I read it, anyways.
Dude, no. When it says you must be within one step on one axis or the other, it in no way implies that you don't have to be within one step on the other one. You are seriously looking for problems where there aren't any.
The game has plenty of explicit problems without requiring us to willfully misinterpret declarative statements. If you insist on interpreting all statements to mean things that they obviously don't mean the rules will never ever be large enough. How many black dragons does it say you can conjure by swinging a falchion? Are we to assume that the answer is twelve because it is not explicitly written?
If you have real problems please post them, but this is just sad.
-Frank
Frank,
This isn't about your ego. If you don't think this a concern, then don't post about it.
You, Frank, have done nothing here except make trouble for other people trying to contribute. Worse, you damage the entire process by passing your judgement where it's really Jason Bulmahn's call. Let Jason Bulmahn be the professional and sort out what needs to be corrected and what doesn't. BengalTiger is right, if a few words can correct can clarify a confusing statement, then that's a fix.
Your example of falchions and dragons is nonsense because you don't like the fact that someone didn't agree with you, when you decided for everyone else in the world it wasn't confusing. Well this isn't about you, or what how clever you think you are.
Don't ruin this process for this guy and other innocent posters who bring feedback. Act like an adult.