I could totally see an alternative system where you just make one roll for how well you hit, and that translates into how much damage you do. All AC is damage reduction, so if you don't get past a certain threshold you don't deal any damage.
new WoD does this, and it is completely awful. Granted, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the idea is necessarily terrible, but I haven't seen any good implementation of this. One of the issues with this system is that if you also want one weapon to do more damage than another, it tends to mean that powerful weapons are also inherently more accurate. Which is silly.
A system that solves these issues, without being hideously complex, is a bit beyond me. But would be interesting to see.
|
I could totally see an alternative system where you just make one roll for how well you hit, and that translates into how much damage you do. All AC is damage reduction, so if you don't get past a certain threshold you don't deal any damage.new WoD does this, and it is completely awful. Granted, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the idea is necessarily terrible, but I haven't seen any good implementation of this. One of the issues with this system is that if you also want one weapon to do more damage than another, it tends to mean that powerful weapons are also inherently more accurate. Which is silly.
A system that solves these issues, without being hideously complex, is a bit beyond me. But would be interesting to see.
Good point about power vs. accuracy. Buy if you want to reflect that, you could have more accurate weapons roll several small dice, and more powerful weapons roll fewer large dice. For example, a sword might roll 2d4, and an axe might roll 1d12. The sword is more consistent, though the axe has a chance to hit harder.
Now, I'm the type of guy who likes rolling a fistfull of dice and adding them up. So this might be more fun for me than for some other folks. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis, ChaFirst off: Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha. Phew.
Secondly: What about them?
Ahem!
Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha. Oh, and Com.Note that quickness, per se, isn't even a stat in D&D. No stat has any effect on your movement speed or # of attacks.
The only thing that can be seen as quickness is your initiative, and how coord affects your juggling skill (you can juggle more objects with a higher juggling check). Heck, Quickdraw doesn't even have a Dex req, and 18 Dex or 10 Dex, you still draw the same number of arrows a round based on your BAB or feats. Even TWF, the flavor is the feat is about coordinating weapons, not making them move faster.
Coord is mostly just that - hand-eye coordination, perfection of bodily movement, doing the right thing at the right time. In D&D, true quickness is mostly about levels and BAB.
==Aelryinth
The correct inference is "So the Good that limits its course of actions to those of the highest moral AND ethical levels is the 'highest Good?'"The answer to that is 'yes.'
I disagree. Artificially limiting your means to doesn't make you the "Highest Good".
I'm not sure where you got the inference that a code like that limits you from saving people. Sounds like LE to me. Are you sure you know what LG is?I got it from simple logic that anybody can use. Are you denying that a Code limits your means so soon after already saying it does?
And I'm afraid that a Code that allows you to lie, cheat and steal while calling yourself 'Good' is definitely going to get my definition of "lowest Good" before a Code that does NOT let you do these fairly anti-social things.Why?
Lying, cheating, and stealing are not inherently bad things. NO action is inherently bad. It's intent and outcome that makes an action "aligned".
The LG person simply uses different, more straightforward options to accomplish the things that CG will use skullduggery for. The LG person will do it openly and forthrightly, the CG will do it from the shadows. The LG person will probably have to take responsibility for and deal with the consequences of his actions, the CG person will laugh snarkily and fade into the night.
The difference is in the means, and the LG will use more open and honest means, because that's what LG represents. CG is free to do the same, and they are free to be utterly sneaky bastards, break all sorts of social codes, mores, taboos, and, yes, laws, to accomplish what they want to.
Yes, he must be open and honest, thus limiting his means and restricting himself when it might count.
If the evil overlord can easily be poisoned from the shadows, his threat ended with little risk to the poisoner or those around him, the person who does that without letting petty "honor" get in the way of it...
Lying, cheating, and stealing are inherently anti-social things, and are part of the slippery slope that leads rapidly downhill. It's not about petty 'honor'...it's about upholding the highest moral and ethical standards, and making the choice NOT to act that way, despite the fact it would make life easier and simpler to do so.
Taking a powerful personal choice to be an example of above-the-board and trustworthy behavior and equating it to pettiness is not an alignment argument. It's resentment of what Lawful means.
and if the evil overlord can be poisoned from the shadows, the good monarch can be poisoned from the shadows. congrats, you've just proven you're as cowardly and untrustworthy as other assassins. LG, on the other hand, will march up to the evil overlord and put him to the sword, and everyone knows you don't have to worry about him slipping poison into your cup.
He's trusted. People who resort to ethically and morally dubious standards are not. And lying, cheating and stealing, while always hugely useful in 'the ends justify the means' thinking, also mean nobody is going to trust you like they will the guy who simply will not resort to those methods.
Is it any wonder people put LG on a higher pedestal when you compare them side by side? CG is all about not giving a hoot for the consequences of your actions. As long as you don't harm others, you're free to do whatever you like. "Harm" can be interpreted MANY ways, and people tend to prefer to deal with people who simply don't act that way, and yes, the correct wording is a 'higher standard'.
And that's why LG is seen as the 'highest good'. It's neither arbitrary, nor petty...it's a constant choice to not do things other people find easy and acceptable to do. Unlimited ability to do things and justify it as fighting Evil is what causes Good people to Fall.
==Aelryinth
Lying, cheating, and stealing are inherently anti-social things, and are part of the slippery slope that leads rapidly downhill.
Chaotic is the gateway drug to being evil? I would think that's an opinion. I don't think Rynjin was suggesting that you do it wantonly, but rather conservatively and as a last resort or when it honestly is the best way to do things, without harming others preferably if possible, though those acts are usually ones that do cause harm of some sort.
congrats, you've just proven you're as cowardly and untrustworthy as other assassins
Again, I think that's an opinion. Is it cowardly to put an end to tyranny, to question, to fight law where it becomes draconian and only serves to create problems. Is it courageous to charge the villain, or is it stupidity?
Context. Lots of questions of context, and again, opinions vary on these things.
CG is all about not giving a hoot for the consequences of your actions
I disagree. If your good of course you care about your actions! Stop that. Again, I think that's your opinion and that its being stated as though its a fact.
So, unrelated to all the arguing about alignment, I'm curious, has alignment changed much over the years and throughout the editions? I haven't played in 1st or 2nd edition, but I know in 4th there was a change. I know its a 'sacred cow' and that its been around and likely to stick, but I'd like to know how its evolved or if its remained stagnant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good point about power vs. accuracy. Buy if you want to reflect that, you could have more accurate weapons roll several small dice, and more powerful weapons roll fewer large dice. For example, a sword might roll 2d4, and an axe might roll 1d12. The sword is more consistent, though the axe has a chance to hit harder.
Now, I'm the type of guy who likes rolling a fistfull of dice and adding them up. So this might be more fun for me than for some other folks. :)
I'm not sure you'd save much if you still end up rolling a handful of dice, unless the point is to just be different for the sake of being different.
That said, I'm sure it could be done, thought it might get a bit 'fiddly'. Only thing I know for sure is that I didn't like the way nWoD implemented the idea. Made combat feel really flat and boring (aside from the more obvious issues like accuracy and whatnot).
I could totally see an alternative system where you just make one roll for how well you hit, and that translates into how much damage you do.
I did that in a homebrew game. Bludgeoning weapons did a lot of base damage on a hit, but the margin of success increased it only nominally thereafter. Piercing weapons did a very small amount of damage, but the damage increased dramatically with a higher margin of success. Slashing weapons were in the middle. This of course superseded the 3e crits system.
Hell, a knife hit to the dead center of the chest might be much more ineffective than the maimed foot if the guy's wearing armor.
|
|
Hell, a knife hit to the dead center of the chest might be much more ineffective than the maimed foot if the guy's wearing armor.Which is why if a knife attack overcomes an armor class by twenty points, it damn sure wasn't dead center on a breastplate.
Exactly. "Accuracy" means more than just a dead center hit, of course.
The normal 3.5 attack roll-damage roll system already kinda tries to model this, with things like sneak attacks and crits. But it ends up pretty clunky.
Think, for example, of a fighter with a monster to-hit bonus, but who might nevertheless barely deal any damage on a hit. What exactly does that simulate? He's really good at hitting...for barely any damage.
Or on the other hand, the eternal complaint [PLEASE DO NOT DERAIL THREAD!] about rogues' attack bonus problems. It might make sense for a precision-based attack to have a much higher chance of penetrating armor and getting in a good hit. Instead, there's a big gap between between a rogue's chance-to-hit and damage-per-hit.
But really, you could easily maintain whatever gaps you'd like to maintain between hit chance and damage chance in a single roll system: simply give flat bonuses (or dice) that apply only to overcoming AC, or only to damage. Boom, problem solved.
For example a Single-Roll rogue could get, say, 1d20+4, then if that beats AC, add +3d6 to damage for a sneak attack. And there might be circumstances where some or all of that extra damage bonus also applies normally overcoming AC (say, when attacking from stealth).
Why is it so difficult for players in one place to allow players in another place to play a Paladin the way that the Dungeon Master and Player in question want to play a Paladin?
Because this is the internet, and someone somewhere said something I think is wrong and I HAVE to correct them! Preferably with large rants that derail topics and about something that didn't even matter.
|
Why is it so difficult for players in one place to allow players in another place to play a Paladin the way that the Dungeon Master and Player in question want to play a Paladin?
Nobody can really stop you from playing a Paladin your way of course. I always thought that a person can benefit from multiple points of view.
The problem is that everyone i know has either been playing a Paladin as a Lawful Stupid one, or as a Anti-paladin in the making. I have seen rare true performances i would call Paladins.
** spoiler omitted **
So, unrelated to all the arguing about alignment, I'm curious, has alignment changed much over the years and throughout the editions? I haven't played in 1st or 2nd edition, but I know in 4th there was a change. I know its a 'sacred cow' and that its been around and likely to stick, but I'd like to know how its evolved or if its remained stagnant.
Lying, cheating and stealing are generally seen as chaotic behavior, and if done maliciously, ALSO evil behavior. They are not seen as Lawful, nor Good behavior.
notice a pattern here?
Assassinating a tyrant is STILL assassination. It's not challenging them to a fair fight and winning. You're ignoring the fact I said that such tactics are extremely useful and practical. It's just that you don't trust an assassin like you do a knight, because the former you won't see coming if he decides to kill you, and the latter you will, which gives you a MUCH better chance. You trust the latter more...he's walking in the day, where everyone can see him, not doing deeds in the shadows.
CG is about INDIVIDUAL good. CG does not focus on the Greater Good ...that is very specifically Law's shtick. Everyone do good in their own way, don't do evil...it's all at the individual level. And so CG is perfectly willing to do something society views as 'incorrect' and flark off the consequences for the deed if they do it for the right reason. It practically defines the alignment, butting heads with those who want to do things 'properly' and those who want to get the job done and don't give a hoot for 'proper methodology'. It's a freaking TROPE! And it's what makes CG what it is.
CG don't hold themselves to a higher standard. They hold themselves to their own standard, not one defined by others. That's what draws people to the alignment.
===============
Dangit, what's the command to hide something? Keep forgetting it.
Alignment hasn't changed all that much since the old days, it's simply gotten more defined. Good definitely had a harder edge in the old days, more ruthless...perfectly acceptable to commit genocide on inherently evil races, for instance, because they'd do it themselves, and an orc left alive would grow up to be another evil orc. Inherent evil was pretty much the rule for many monsters, and getting rid of all of them a Good thing.
Law vs Chaos was basically civilization vs savagery. Anybody who preyed on society was Chaotic, so that included most thieves' guilds. Chaos was rule by the strongest as far as their arm could reach, and not a bit further. It could be said the Law vs Chaos was more important in the early game then the good vs evil, as human empires were all lawful, and knightly orders had LG and LE knights working side by side. Still, LG was the shining example of goodness, defined by paladins. CG was an alignment for wanderers, trouble-makers, and rogues with a silver heart...good-hearted but unreliable. The heroic adventurer was either LG or not really so heroic and quite N or even E.
But alignments were hugely important, and there were even alignment languages! Chaotics simply did not work with Lawfuls, nor Good with Evil, and Neutrals were either shunned or preyed upon by all. It could be said all of Greyhawk/Oerth was just a seething sea of alignments rubbing against their neighbors. racial and national conflicts were just subsets of the greater alignment conflicts.
Neutral was considered both apathetic and shifty, simply because it wouldn't take sides, and would take up arms to prevent lasting dominance by any one faction. So Neutrals weren't nominally trustworthy, either. Allies of convenience, as it were. 'The Balance', which is a Moorcock derivation, was central to the advanced Neutral philosophy.
The focus today is more on the Good vs Evil, and so all the good alignments get more time to shine. FR really brought CG into center stage, as most of the major players, and definitely the default heroic adventurer alignment is CG there, and it defines the Harpers. The Neutral alignments as a molding force are basically absent...they are bystanders and survivors, not molders and shapers.
I would like to say PF is more NG in its aims. The civilized vs barbarian conflict is minimized and in the past, subsumed more by racial conflict then alignments clashing. It's there, but it's a minor part of the setting. LG vs CE is likewise compartmentalized, and CG vs LE doing the same. Heroes are basically those rising up above these background conflicts to provide their own stories and tales, with goals independent of grand alignments, and of more practical bent. It ignores the great clash of alignments for the goals of individuals and how they can change things...the view points of heroes, not the metagame.
==Aelryinth
Charisma as an ability score.
Now, now, Mr. Sin, you're using a double standard.
No. No I'm not. I haven't made any statements about LG or about the intent, the purpose, or whatever. I have stated numerous times, that perspective and context greatly change things. I've also stated that several things are entirely opinion.
Why do you have to be right and make an argument about this? Why do you have to enforce your opinion on others? There isn't a right answer, there isn't a need to argue. Its pretty off topic. Talk about what makes it a sacred cow, but you don't have to tell other people their ideas about morality are wrong or that yours are superior.
|
Dangit, what's the command to hide something? Keep forgetting it.
[spoiler=____ [ /spoiler]?
I want to interject a point about LG being the shtick of the greater good, but at the same time I don't want to go much more into the Paladin/Alignment debate, so I'll refrain, and just say I don't think that's fully accurate.
sacred cows we should drop
- the way point buy scales for attributes
if it were Point for Point. Classes could afford to be a little MAD.
when that 18 STR costs 8 of your 25 points. you could put a 16 in DEX and CON for 6 points apiece, and still have 5 points to put a 13 in int and a 12 in Wis while having a 10 CHA. you could always afford extra points for dumping CHA if you desired.
in fact, Capping starting baseline stats (after modifiers) at a Minimum of 3 and Maximum of 18 becomes feasible.
now, you created a point buy chart that penalizes MAD a little less
- Vancian Casting
hate it, would prefer a spell point system with a progressive recharge mechanic.
- the long period of time and heavy resources invested into healing between encounters
maybe some form of rapid out of combat healing would lessen the need for wands of cure light wounds, and some form of in combat swift action second wind mechanic would be nice for removing the need for healing wands.
- and maybe, improving the effectiveness of in combat healing (such as spending one turn healing enough damage to heal the damage inflicted by 2 enemy full attacks from a CR=APL foe with a level appropriate spell from a slightly further range would be appropriate and make a 'white mage' themed class suck less.)
@Aelyrinth: I think where our opinions differ is whereas you think "doing everything out in the open" makes something a "higher Good" I merely see it as a DIFFERENT Good.
Really, you just want more points to spend then. I can understand wanting simpler math tho.the way point buy scales for attributes
if it were Point for Point. Classes could afford to be a little MAD.
more points and simpler math.
PCs are in my opinion, not intended to be Generic Guard #24
they are intended to be exceptional individuals
Sun-Tzu
Miyomoto Musashi
Chun Hiyang
Wong Fei Hong
Hercules
Beowulf
Lu-Bu
Chu-Cuulainn (did i get the spelling right?)
Achilles
Arthur Pendragon
Merlin
Any of the 13 Round Table Knights
Alexander the Great
Socrates
Plato
Moses
Jesus Christ
Joan of Arc
Anonsi
Rasputin
Blackbeard
Dread Pirate Roberts
Son-Wukong
Now for some movie Examples of PCs
Li-Mu-Bai
Zen-Yi "the X-Blade"
Jack Knife
The Titular Character of the "Man with the Iron Fists"
Jack Sparrow
John Mclain
Zorro
Now For Some Anime Examples of PCs
Ichigo Kurosaki
Uryu Ishida
Yasotora "Chad" Sato
Orihime Inoue
Enma Ai (Jigoku Shoujo)
Edward "Fullmetal" Elric
Alphonse Elric
Inu-Yasha
Sakura Kinomoto
Kenshin Himura
Sanosuke Sagara
Kaoru Kamiya
Roger Smith (Big-O)
Jin (Samurai Champloo)
Mugen (Samurai Champloo)
All 5 of the Main Puella Magi
Yoshika Miyafuji (Strike Witches)
Reimu Hakurei (Touhou, technically a bullet hell shooter.)
Marisa Kirisame (Touhou, Technically a bullet hell shooter.)
Video Game Examples of my View of what PCs should be comparable to
Dante (DMC)
Lightning (FFXIII)
Cecil Harvey (FFIV)
Rydia of mist (Finally, a loli example)
King Laharl, and His Closest Vassals; Etna and Flonne (Disgaea)
Alphonse the Dragonborn, Destroyer of God (Luminous Arc 1)
Kratos (God of War)
I could totally see an alternative system where you just make one roll for how well you hit, and that translates into how much damage you do. All AC is damage reduction, so if you don't get past a certain threshold you don't deal any damage.new WoD does this, and it is completely awful. Granted, I wouldn't go as far as to say that the idea is necessarily terrible, but I haven't seen any good implementation of this. One of the issues with this system is that if you also want one weapon to do more damage than another, it tends to mean that powerful weapons are also inherently more accurate. Which is silly.
A system that solves these issues, without being hideously complex, is a bit beyond me. But would be interesting to see.
In fairness, NWOD is trying to do a different thing with it than Pathfinder is.
I think if pathfinder wanted to de-emphasize combat and strip it down to a quickly resolved set of mechanics that further the narrative (like NWOD), then a one-roll setup would work in its favor. But since a huge portion of Pathfinder is combat-ability/wargaminess, I think it's a bad idea for this particular game.
** spoiler omitted **
So, unrelated to all the arguing about alignment, I'm curious, has alignment changed much over the years and throughout the editions? I haven't played in 1st or 2nd edition, but I know in 4th there was a change. I know its a 'sacred cow' and that its been around and likely to stick, but I'd like to know how its evolved or if its remained stagnant.
Originally it was just Law and Chaos. The Good-Evil axis (and increase from three to nine alignments) happened in "1st Edition" ie AD&D. The nomenclature of the various editions is a little odd, since they chose to label 2nd Edition number 2 even though it was the third (or possibly higher, depending on which you count) iteration of the rules.
.All that aside - originally it was just Law vs Chaos.
They are intended to be whatever the group prefers, and have sliders for Guard #24 to Hercules.PCs are in my opinion, not intended to be Generic Guard #24
they are intended to be exceptional individuals
if you wished to play Guard #24. that is what GURPS, Fudge, and Savage Worlds are for.
D&D has been about the more Grandiose things for decades, just that they didn't execute it right.
Just don't mix your Guard #24 with my Wong-Fei-Hong. either Guard #24 dies to normal CRed monsters due to his underpowered and more generic build, or everything is no Match For Wong-Fei-Hong because everything has to be drasticallly scaled down for Guard #24 to survive.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
if you wished to play Guard #24. that is what GURPS, Fudge, and Savage Worlds are for.They are intended to be whatever the group prefers, and have sliders for Guard #24 to Hercules.PCs are in my opinion, not intended to be Generic Guard #24
they are intended to be exceptional individuals
D&D/Pathfinder is for whatever I damn well please.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Aelyrinth: I think where our opinions differ is whereas you think "doing everything out in the open" makes something a "higher Good" I merely see it as a DIFFERENT Good.
Here's a RL example, skinned for this:
The NSA secretly eavesdropping on everyone to protect them against terrorist threats is, let us say, a 'good thing' (let's take the high ground, not defending it!)
And yet, when it is revealed, there's immediate backlash.
Telling everyone that their conversations are being monitored for signs of terrorist activity would have been instantly challenged by individual rights (CG defenders!)
CG 'ruler' says do it, it's not going to be used to hurt the people, it's there to protect them. CG citizen says you're trampling on my rights (i.e. legal things!)
NG ruler says do it, it's not hurting anything, and as long as nobody knows, laws that are supposed to stop this sort of thing can be worked around. The CG citizens are still going to go ape when it's revealed, and the NG types will at the least be troubled. LG might trust in the government and not worry about it. (this is kind of what happened here).
'Truly' LG ruler says he can't do it without violating legally enshrined rights, puts it out there for debate, and it is struck down by CG citizens banding together against this intrusion on their rights. NG is probably willing to 'try' it, LG would trust the ruler and not be concerned as much. The other alignments - variable reactions, depending if they are government or people.
Of the three Goods, which held themselves to the highest moral and ethical standards? The two rulers which violated the trust of their CG citizens, but did the 'right thing', or the LG guy who tried to protect them but got struck down because the people decided their rights were more important then being defended, and voted their hearts?
Which ruler do you think they'd trust more? Which one do you think held himself to a higher standard in the eyes of EVERYONE?
This is why people trust more when things are done out in the open. As soon as you start introducing secrecy, trust starts going out the window. Its true in ANY relationship, you can't get around it. Doing stuff without people knowing can be seen as everything from paternalistic meddling to outright manipulation, and people don't see that stuff as 'Good' in the overarching scheme of things.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm afraid that a Code that allows you to lie, cheat and steal while calling yourself 'Good' is definitely going to get my definition of "lowest Good" before a Code that does NOT let you do these fairly anti-social things.Why?
Lying, cheating, and stealing are not inherently bad things. NO action is inherently bad. It's intent and outcome that makes an action "aligned".
No. A good action, to be a good action, must comply strictly with three criteria.
The reasons behind the action are good.
The action in itself is good.
The consequences of the action are good.
Any non-good actions done for a good purpose do not become good. Lying, cheating and stealing are wrong in and of themselves, and while they may become tools for a good outcome, remain being inherently bad.
My 2cp, based on a drastic summarizing of a minor in ethics and philosophy.
|
|
Wait, what??? Im sorry, Aelrynth, but I really think you are heavily mixing up the alignments with that one, even in a perception from others. That isnt to say that a person of any of those alignments would not ever act in such a way, but it does seem very odd and also much more along the lines of special circumstances influencing their choice.
Wouldnt LG/LN be mostly for it regardless of what people generally wanted if they felt like it would be better and safer for everyone? While CG would pretty much be absolutely against it even if they felt it might do some good, that probably isnt moe important to them than people's freedom? And wouldnt NG be the one that would weigh both sides, particularly in this case if the amount of safety was more important than if it was strictly legal or more important than people's sense of trusting their leaders with their rights?
No. A good action, to be a good action, must comply strictly with three criteria.The reasons behind the action are good.
The action in itself is good.
The consequences of the action are good.Any non-good actions done for a good purpose do not become good. Lying, cheating and stealing are wrong in and of themselves, and while they may become tools for a good outcome, remain being inherently bad.
My 2cp, based on a drastic summarizing of a minor in ethics and philosophy.
Does it also follow that, to be evil, an action must meet similar criteria?
The reasons behind the action are evil.
The action in itself is evil.
The consequences of the action are evil.
If not, for example an "or" is sufficient, then you're setting up a moral imbalance that's really unfair, particularly in a moral structure for a game. In other words, the standards for being or doing good are simply too high while the standards for being or doing evil are too low.
No. A good action, to be a good action, must comply strictly with three criteria.The reasons behind the action are good.
The action in itself is good.
The consequences of the action are good.Any non-good actions done for a good purpose do not become good. Lying, cheating and stealing are wrong in and of themselves, and while they may become tools for a good outcome, remain being inherently bad.
Here's the problem with this post:
Lying, cheating and stealing are wrong in and of themselves
Actions are not good and evil in and of themselves. Period. Neither from a religious nor secular standpoint is that true.
It is entirely intent and final outcome that determine the morality of an action. There's no magical "Good, Evil, Neutral" label for any given action you take in a day. Walking isn't Neutral. Murder isn't Evil. Saving someone's life isn't Good.
You can't slap silly labels like that on real world actions. The world doesn't work that way.
My 2cp, based on a drastic summarizing of a minor in ethics and philosophy.
As I told my philosophy teacher (though admittedly I only took the one class, because it was required), I hold little stock in a formal education of such things. At best, they make you more competent at arguing your individual beliefs, but what you're taught in a classroom about stuff like that isn't some universal truth about morality.
You can't slap silly labels like that on real world actions. The world doesn't work that way.
But we do and therefore the world does work that way. Because we make it do so when we can.
Ultimately, determining morality by the intent and outcome is no more valid than tying it to the action itself. If I went back in time and put a bullet in Baby Hitler's brain intending to prevent his rise to power and doing so successfully prevented the Holocaust, I've still put a bullet in a baby's brain long before he became the person who grew to deserve such treatment. I may have been able to channel his development in other ways to prevent the same atrocity.
The reality of this hypothetical is that there are multiple outcomes to consider. I've ended a baby's life long before it could make moral choices, I've deprived a mother of her child and thus contributed to her misery, I've deprived the Nazi movement of a particularly effective politician, I've prevented this particular person from becoming a very powerful and bloody-minded dictator, I've prevented for formation of the United Nations with programs like UNICEF and the World Health Organization, and I've probably prevented the death of Joseph Kennedy's eldest son which probably, in turn, keeps JFK from becoming senator and president. Which outcome do I use to judge the morality of an action?
|
|
{EDIT @ kmal2t} Not so much. Alignment is not subjectve. That is to say that justifications do not change what an act is. Actually neither does the outcome, for that matter. If two evil murdering brutal armies go to war and masacre each other (leaving the world without that much more evil), its still an evil act to murder and cause as much pain as possible.
{EDIT - inreference to 3E/PF game only, not talking RL here}
You can't slap silly labels like that on real world actions. The world doesn't work that way.But we do and therefore the world does work that way. Because we make it do so when we can.
Your going to hate me for saying so, but that's more of a society and culture gig. Morality itself is a construct by man, though not the worst or best in the world by any means. There are things that most people are probably going to agree on(especially since usually people who play together are from the same society), but creating absolutes such as "Killin is always evil! Always always always!" is where you run into a problem. If that's the case plenty of adventurer's are just downright evil people. If taking things off dead people is always evil, then inheritance is always evil too. This is sort of why I use context and perspective and all those other words, and avoid using words like always when I talk about morality.
So... about them sacred cows?
As far as I can tell you did nothing but prove my point by extrapolating it like that.
You can't put a simple label like "Good" or "Evil" on an action that can have such complex effects.
Sure, it could go the way you say. Or perhaps the UN (or something like it) comes together anyway over something different, along with said organizations.
Or perhaps killing Hitler gives rise to a German leader still bent on conquering, but with a better tactical mind, resulting in their victory.
Or perhaps in a few thousand years aliens will see records of the Holocaust and blow up the planet in disgust.
You can't KNOW any of that. What you can know, however, is the immediate and near-future consequences of any given action, which should determine your own personal feeling of the morality of said situation.
Not by using words like "Good" or "Evil" because those concepts are wose than meaningless in a realistic context, but by how they personally affect you and those around you.
Certainly, killing the burglar that broke into your house and tried to rape your wife may mean that the son of that union who would have grown up to be some messianic figure who united the world is likely a bad thing. But you can't KNOW any of that. In your eyes you rid the world of a useless piece of scum and saved you and your wife a great deal of heartache. Nothing of value was lost, as far as you know.
You can't KNOW any of that. What you can know, however, is the immediate and near-future consequences of any given action, which should determine your own personal feeling of the morality of said situation.
Not by using words like "Good" or "Evil" because those concepts are wose than meaningless in a realistic context, but by how they personally affect you and those around you.
Taking the part of that I cared for, this is how I usually run my games. No good or evil, I don't think that should be the sole thing that determines an action. That's why I don't play paladins in pathfinder. I feel it takes away from a three dimensional character and makes them more 2 dimensional.
Now all of that said, its a different game without it. Better or worse is an opinion, and there are a few tweaks here and there to be made.(smite for instance.)