Mr. Sin.
Those are not double standards.
Those are DIFFERENT standards.
And yes, absolutely, being Lawful is more restrictive on your actions then being Chaotic. Are you trying to argue against that? CN is the favorite not-evil evil alignment for a reason. If you're trying to argue LN is as free wheeling as CG...I have a few things to explain to you.
Are you trying to say that Good can do anything Evil can do? Because I'll trot out murder, rape, genocide, use poison, torture freely, and note that a Good person CANNOT DO THESE THINGS.
And an Evil person casting a Good spell is not going to become Good if he's using the Good spell for Evil purposes...as you are kindly once again biasing your example again.
yes, in terms of WHAT YOU CAN DO, the Good, and to a lesser extent, the Lawful alignments are LESS ATTRACTIVE TO PLAY. Why? They put additional rules and restrictions on people who don't want to be restricted.
You pick those alignments to play within the restrictions. You don't get rid of all alignments so that you don't have restrictions. Eesh. It's just a way of codifying how you want to play a character.
And (gasp) being responsible for adhering to an alignment is so very unrealistic, after all.
:)
==Aelryinth
Are you trying to say that Good can do anything Evil can do? Because I'll trot out murder
Which is why no adventurers are Good-aligned.
rape
Ya got ONE.
genocide
Please, tell me more about how goblins, orcs, and kobolds aren't usually killed on sight by even the goodiest of good adventurers.
use poison
Good characters can use poison just fine. Even LG characters. Just not Paladins.
torture freely
Nothing more inherently evil about torture than anything else.
and note that a Good person CANNOT DO THESE THINGS.
Oh?
And an Evil person casting a Good spell is not going to become Good if he's using the Good spell for Evil purposes...as you are kindly once again biasing your example again.
Incorrect as per the rules. Your own personal head canon doesn't count.
Kindly go into the rules and tell me where committing genocide (as opposed to making war), freely using poison, and torturing others are in the lists of actions taken by Good people.
And cite the pages, because I absolutely have got to read that.
Unfortunately for you, you are wrong.
Genocide is expressly a daemonic thing in Pathfinder. It is about the massest of mass murders. War is NOT genocide.
Using Poison freely is not and has never been a characteristic of any type of Good.
And Torture is presented as an Evil act in the rules, even if done for good purposes. It is definitely a step up from intimidation and a little roughing up...torture conveys malignity and deliberation in the infliction of pain.
===Aelryinth
Rynjin just posted examples of things. You then add details to what he said to make him look bad like the words "Freely". You also still demand people who are of an alignment just can't do certain things, even once, which is a little ridiculous and a straighjacket approach. Luckily chaotic or evil characters can do whatever right?
Btw, ravages from 3.5 are explicitly poisons for good aligned people. Also, poisons debilitate, but not kill. Poison being purely evil is mostly a western philosophy, but we sort of ignore that. Here's a wiki article(no clicking link, if you know what's good for you. No page for sub/inversions sadly.)
Torture, only rules for it are 3rd party, which is where the only mention of torture as an evil act occurs.
Mentions of "Evil": 0
Poisoner Prestige Class class alignment restriction: None.
Pathfinder society, where evil acts are discouraged and evil characters disallowed: Poison is allowed.
Though there is apparently a "legacy rule" (which I can find no mention of) that says it is, so if you can show me that I'll relent that it exists, but not that it's anything but stupid.
And people aren't "at war" with goblins and the like. There are no armies involved, it's just people kicking the s&&# out of the little green guys because they're "always evil".
If goblins aren't always evil, then it would be wrong to assume that a goblin means you harm. Let's make a really not PC example.
-Let's assume you were in the DRC and you witness a group of men with AK-47s and fatigues roll into a village, you hear screams and gunshots, women and children are running, you see a building on fire and the men throw a baby into the fire...
-The next day, in another village you see a truck with men dressed the same pull up....I think you can assume 99% that the people who dress like this, and do this are evil. Yeah, you didn't ask them, but I'm pretty sure if you killed them on sight, you'd be doing a few million people a favor.
-Memebers in certain organizations are evil, because the organization is evil, the the organization does evil things. Goblins aren't evil because they are evil. Goblins are evil because they love torture, are greedy, and destory beauty and innocent life.
My examples to Rynjin are in the same spirit he's posting. He is NOT posting qualifiers. Therefore, if Good people can use poison, he's inferring they can use poison 'without restriction'. I'm merely pointing out that's the example he is using, tyvm.
And I don't agree with him on it.
If he wants restrictions on usage, HE is the one that has to clarify such things. 'Rarely, good people do use poison, for certain exceptional circumstances' means something MUCH different then 'Good people can use poisons.'
Ravages are no more poisons then holy water is acid, they come from the exact same metaphysical source as a paladin smiting. The effect is different, the source is the same. Using holy effects against Evil people, while Evil people are free to use poison against you which isn't so discriminating.
And poisons can definitely kill, because varieties can deal both Con damage and hit point damage, both of which are lethal. Also, paralysis and sleep are generally fatal consequences of submitting to poisons (a stat reduced to 0 essentially makes you helpless).
And I seem to think the Goblins like stirring up trouble, by, like, eating babies, gutting dogs, hamstringing horses, and setting everything on fire that they can. They've got this wonderful song about all the stuff they want to do to you.
Now, do we just like to kill them, or are we getting rid of something that would kill our children, burn down our homes and slaughter our pets the first chance they got? Gleefully? singing?
And Rynjin, I don't see anything there that says "Good people can use poisons." I see 'use of poison isn't expressly restricted to Evil people', but that's not the same thing.
Ditto the torture and the genocide. Pretty sure somewhere it got laid out that deliberate torture was an evil act, and genocide, well, the whole race of daemons kinda put claim to that.
==Aelryinth
My examples to Rynjin are in the same spirit he's posting. He is NOT posting qualifiers. Therefore, if Good people can use poison, he's inferring they can use poison 'without restriction'. I'm merely pointing out that's the example he is using, tyvm.
So he didn't post the qualifiers, so its okay to use hyperbole? That's not actually fair. Its actually pretty deplorable... Worse if your saying it is in fact his argument(the hyperbole.)
Rynjin, I don't see anything there that says "Good people can use poisons." I see 'use of poison isn't expressly restricted to Evil people', but that's not the same thing.
So, its not explicitly good, its not explicitly evil, so its obviously... evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Holy crap! I'm way too drunk for alignment threads. G'night, all!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holy crap! I'm way too drunk for alignment threads. G'night, all!
Does that mean if I get a few drinks I can leave? I should get on that...
G'night!
And Rynjin, I don't see anything there that says "Good people can use poisons." I see 'use of poison isn't expressly restricted to Evil people', but that's not the same thing.
Yes. It is exactly the same thing.
If I told you "Everybody is allowed to open this door" would you then assume that you were forbidden to open the door?
"All people can use poison" implies "Good people can use poison" unless you're trying to say Good people don't fit into the category of "All people" somehow.
And I seem to think the Goblins like stirring up trouble, by, like, eating babies, gutting dogs, hamstringing horses, and setting everything on fire that they can. They've got this wonderful song about all the stuff they want to do to you.
Ah, so genocide IS okay if you have a reason for it.
You are so consistent it hurts.
But it's not your fault. Morality is an inherently flexible thing, so trying to shove it into a box of absolutes is obviously going to lead to flaws in logic right off the bat.
genocide, well, the whole race of daemons kinda put claim to that.
Hitler ate sugar, you know.
My examples to Rynjin are in the same spirit he's posting. He is NOT posting qualifiers. Therefore, if Good people can use poison, he's inferring they can use poison 'without restriction'. I'm merely pointing out that's the example he is using, tyvm.So he didn't post the qualifiers, so its okay to use hyperbole? That's not actually fair. Its actually pretty deplorable... Worse if your saying it is in fact his argument(the hyperbole.)
Rynjin, I don't see anything there that says "Good people can use poisons." I see 'use of poison isn't expressly restricted to Evil people', but that's not the same thing.So, its not explicitly good, its not explicitly evil, so its obviously... evil?
To be hyperbole, it has to be exaggeration. If it has no qualifiers, it has to include all possibilities. If he can't see the end results of his language, I am making it apparent to him and everyone else, illuminating the weakness of his position.
In short, if he wants qualifiers and restrictions, he has to put them on there, and I'll respect them. Not doing so, but 'assuming' everyone is going to put them there is...deplorable.
And poison has been associated with evil throughout all of D&D. Gods who endorse poison use are Evil. The main class that employs it, the assassin, is Evil. It's used over and over in conjunction with evil people, and Evil classes.
How many Good classes are there that employ poisons as a class feature? The only one that even has an option might be the Alchemist, and that's...iffy.
is the POISON evil? no. But the reasons people use poison is. And thus, poison usage freely, evil.
==Aelryinth
Classes with poison use:
Poisoner Rogues (no alignment restriction)
Alchemists (no alignment restriction)
Ninjas (no alignment restriction)
Daggermark Poisoner (no alignment restriction)
Assassin (any non-good)
Classes that can use poison with no repercussions:
Everyone except a Paladin.
is the POISON evil? no. But the reasons people use poison is. And thus, poison usage freely, evil.
Make up your mind. Is it absolute morality or not.
If it is, poison is inherently evil and makes anyone who uses it more evil.
If it isn't, then some people's intent when using it does not color the act itself.
Hey look, people arguing over whether the analogy is truly "correct" instead of addressing the concept the analogy was trying to convey.
Analogy is not defined by being "identical". An analogy is "partial similarity".
Races with poison use or poison related gift or resistance
Drow (PC race) (PC Race No Alignment Restrictions)
Vishkanya (PC race, no alignment restrictions)
Duergar (PC race, no alignment restrictions)
Dwarves (PC race, no alignment restrictions)
Hey look, people arguing over whether the analogy is truly "correct" instead of addressing the concept the analogy was trying to convey.
Analogy is not defined by being "identical". An analogy is "partial similarity".
Analogy: equivalent to, it is (the it is pronouncement is often a stretch).
Simile: similar to, partial.
You're still not addressing the point instead of arguing semantics.
So what is the point then?
I don't know, I'm not bothering to read this train wreck.
Well that's why I asked you!
Full round attack, it is the only way to be sure.
|
The alignment system is one single system whose game rules apply to all of the alignments equally.
If the rules say that casting a spell with the [alignment] descriptor moves your current alignment closer to [alignment], then those rules are equally true no matter what particular alignment gets put in the brackets.
Simply replace [alignment] with [Lawful], [Good], [Chaotic] or [Lawful], and the alignment rules apply equally.
It would be a double standard to apply these rules differently to [Good] than you would to [Evil]. They are a single set of rules that apply to nine alignments, not nine different rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not drunk enough for alignment threads...
The concept the analogy was trying to convey was false and when what's stated is not analogous it should be pointed out instead of saying it wasn't meant to be a 1:1 comparison. Do we have to go over SAT questions with you for you to know the difference?
No, you addressed specifics of his analogy. You took a specific detail in his analogy and applied to in reverse. The problem with doing that is not every detail in an analogy is going to be applicable.
When debating the validity of an analogy, if you have to rely on a specific within that analogy to debunk it, you've already failed at basic comprehension of the purpose an analogy serves.
An analogy:
Him: I hate cars, I got run over by a blue one once.
You: But not all cars are blue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, if the alignment system were to disappear and never be referred to again from this day forth, I would remember and celebrate this day every year.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we move the alignment bickering somewhere else? Please?
It already was, but as the most recent iteration of Superman teaches us, some people prefer to duke it out where they stand instead of considering everyone else around them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
These aren't all necessarily undesirable, but I thought of a few more things that could be considered sacred cows that define D&D/Pathfinder...
.
.
.
.
.
- Random Encounters
- The surprising frequency with which intelligent foes' morale entries read "Will fight to the death"
- Needing to have a d12 in your dice pouch
- Dark elves / Drow
- Chromatic vs Metallic Dragons
- Negative vs Positive Energy
- Zombies and Vampires [by default] do not 'reproduce' by infecting a living person (the way their pop fiction counterparts do)
BTW, if the alignment system were to disappear and never be referred to again from this day forth, I would remember and celebrate this day every year.
You'll have to celebrate carefully to avoid the paradox.
An analogy has to be VALID to support the point you are trying to make. All his analogy did was hurt the point he was trying to make. To prove an analogy false is not semnatics . If I argued the word "is" that would be semantics. Learn the difference.
"Marauding gangs in Congo are in trucks and with guns killing people. If you see people in trucks with guns you'll probably kill them"
Except no one does it in the game based on clothing or other association of group. They do it BASED ON THEM BEING A GOBILN (as we've discussed) WHICH IS RACIAL. The comparison to his analogy would be killing people based on being black/African/Congo(nese?).
All you did was repeat what you said earlier, but now with CAPS. Strangely enough, my opinion of what you're saying has not changed. Lets conduct an experiment, I'll do the same thing, you tell me if it changes your mind.
You're still addressing specifics WITHIN the analogy, not the concept BEHIND the analogy.
BTW, if the alignment system were to disappear and never be referred to again from this day forth, I would remember and celebrate this day every year.You'll have to celebrate carefully to avoid the paradox.
It's possible to teach people things without telling them what you're teaching them.
An analogy has to be VALID to support the point you are trying to make. All his analogy did was hurt the point he was trying to make. To prove an analogy false is not semnatics . If I argued the word "is" that would be semantics. Learn the difference.
"Marauding gangs in Congo are in trucks and with guns killing people. If you see people in trucks with guns you'll probably kill them"
Except no one does it in the game based on clothing or other association of group. They do it BASED ON THEM BEING A GOBILN (as we've discussed) WHICH IS RACIAL. The comparison to his analogy would be killing people based on being black/African/Congo(nese?).
All you did was repeat what you said earlier, but now with CAPS. Strangely enough, my opinion of what you're saying has not changed. Lets conduct an experiment, I'll do the same thing, you tell me if it changes your mind.
You're still addressing specifics WITHIN the analogy, not the concept BEHIND the analogy.
Are you seriously unable to see the difference between "I hate these people because they're well armed and in the uniform of people who previously attacked us" and "I hate these people because they're of a different race, some of which attacked us"?
This is not a matter of semantics or roughly similar concept, this is the difference between "I hate Nazis" and "I hate black people" which is a pretty big leap.
Black Nazi stormtroopers?!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
An analogy has to be VALID to support the point you are trying to make. All his analogy did was hurt the point he was trying to make. To prove an analogy false is not semnatics . If I argued the word "is" that would be semantics. Learn the difference.
"Marauding gangs in Congo are in trucks and with guns killing people. If you see people in trucks with guns you'll probably kill them"
Except no one does it in the game based on clothing or other association of group. They do it BASED ON THEM BEING A GOBILN (as we've discussed) WHICH IS RACIAL. The comparison to his analogy would be killing people based on being black/African/Congo(nese?).
All you did was repeat what you said earlier, but now with CAPS. Strangely enough, my opinion of what you're saying has not changed. Lets conduct an experiment, I'll do the same thing, you tell me if it changes your mind.
You're still addressing specifics WITHIN the analogy, not the concept BEHIND the analogy.
Are you seriously unable to see the difference between "I hate these people because they're well armed and in the uniform of people who previously attacked us" and "I hate these people because they're of a different race, some of which attacked us"?
This is not a matter of semantics or roughly similar concept, this is the difference between "I hate Nazis" and "I hate black people" which is a pretty big leap.
I'd like you to note, I never made that claim. I even challenge you to quote and bold the part where I did make that claim.
Let's try this again:
a·nal·o·gy
/əˈnaləjē/
Noun
1. A comparison between two things, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.
2. A correspondence or partial similarity.
Notice that nowhere in the word does the definition "two identical things or situations" appear. Therefore, pointing out that a difference exists between an analogy, and the thing trying to be explained is a semantic argument. By it's very nature, an analogy with ALWAYS have something different that makes it not identical to the thing being discussed. Harping on that difference misses the point the person originally making the analogy was trying to make.
So I agree, there are differences between African armed thugs and goblins. That agreement is inherent in my recognition of the African armed thugs being presented as an analogy, due to the definition of the word analogy.
Here's an analogy:
Person 1: what color hair does your brother have?
Person 2: He and I are very similar.
Person 1: But you're different people.
Person 1's response is technically correct, but fails to grasp the important information being conveyed by Person 2. Nitpicking about the differences in analogies is quite similar (hence why this is also an analogy).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except, as you've already (quite condescendingly, which I find funny coming from the person failing to grasp the concept) pointed out, an analogy relies on fundamental similarities to be recognizable.
Political/Armed forces affiliation (something which generally determines how you will act in a given situation) and race (something which has little to no bearing on your attitude or actions) are fundamentally dissimilar things. There is no analogy to be made between the two.
This is the point you stubbornly refuse to see and then keep assuming it is everyone else who is missing it.
Discrimination against someone because they are affiliated with (dressed in the same uniform as) a group of terrorists is vastly different between discriminating against someone based on their race.
One is a justified reaction to seeing other members of a group which has a tendency to take orders from the same person, generally meaning they have similar intent as the last group.
The other is an unjustified reaction based on a coincidence of birth, that has no connection at all to whatever wrongdoing was done to you by that other person.
Again, "My village was destroyed by <Insert Uniformed Military Group>, now I am wary of people in the same uniform" is much different from "A bunch of Mexicans blew up my village, now I am wary of all Mexicans" on a very important level. There are only superficial similarities between the two scenarios, and superficial similarities alone do not make an analogy.
Village Destruction and Labels
Given how utterly evil the forces of evil are in most fantasy, I don't really worry about racism/speciesism in my games. It is my experience that against any threat, half way through a campaign the pcs will loathe them if they have been deadly enemies.
On analogy, if there aren't fundamental similarities, it is a stretched analogy.
The tiger leapt as a rabbit.
Er no, tigers and rabbits jump and move very differently.
|
I think it's funny that you guys think saying someone is Mexican (the Mexican Race!!!), someone is Hispanic, and someone is an elf or Orc are all equivalent ideas.
Also funny that the jump was from hating nazis to hating blacks, instead of hating whites (white nazi storm troopers) which is an easy leap to make and has been made by plenty of people.
In my games, Drow and Orcs are born irredeemably evil and only change through divine intervention. If orcs burned your village, it really is because all orcs are pig faced bastards and should be killed.
That works for you. In my wirlds, it's not that starkly black and white. I prefer non fairy tail settings...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
-Since we're all bored, the point I was trying to make is that all members of roving death squads are bad. All goblins , in RAW written, are members of roving death squads. There is no possible real analogy as there are no cases of 'every member of human ethnic group A is bad, no exception.' Fantasy worlds simply have evil races. Call it racist, but its like trying to put a triangle and a circle through the same hole on a pegboard.
-Hama is right to say he doesn't like it to be that starkly black and white, which is why I generally have mostly magical beast, aberations, and undead, enemies. I don't find the idea of civilizations that exist as purely evil as an ethnic group accurate. However, I have also found that some DMs who would sound like Hama, end up using the game as a way to punish players who hold to traditional morality. For example, repeatingly trying to make a Paladin fail, or who offer up rediculous moral dillemas such as "You can save the virgin from a horrible sacrifice, or you can join in the dark ritual and gain a 500xp!"
-At the end of the day, it boils down to what kind of game are you and the players most happy with.
I think it's funny that you guys think saying someone is Mexican (the Mexican Race!!!), someone is Hispanic, and someone is an elf or Orc are all equivalent ideas.
Also funny that the jump was from hating nazis to hating blacks, instead of hating whites (white nazi storm troopers) which is an easy leap to make and has been made by plenty of people.
In my games, Drow and Orcs are born irredeemably evil and only change through divine intervention. If orcs burned your village, it really is because all orcs are pig faced bastards and should be killed.
Brother. How many orcs have thine slain?
The king will be most pleased, and the border guards relieved to not be dying like the weak flies they are. This is good work we do, driving back the green mountain barbarians.
|
|
-Hama is right to say he doesn't like it to be that starkly black and white, which is why I generally have mostly magical beast, aberations, and undead, enemies. I don't find the idea of civilizations that exist as purely evil as an ethnic group accurate. However, I have also found that some DMs who would sound like Hama, end up using the game as a way to punish players who hold to traditional morality. For example, repeatingly trying to make a Paladin fail, or who offer up rediculous moral dillemas such as "You can save the virgin from a horrible sacrifice, or you can join in the dark ritual and gain a 500xp!"
Those GMs are horrible and should not run games if they can't put a good moral dilemma that will challenge a Paladin player without forcing the paladin to fall immediately. It's childish, immature and ridicuolous.
I played with a few GMs who love punishing players. I am not even friends with those people.
I like most sacred cows myself they define D&D. However, I do have one that I can not stand and am glad I ditched years ago. Experience points. I swear every time I hear a player say, "We cant go there! We are not high enough level yet" I die a little inside.
This might sound strange, but I like the idea of XP, even though I don't really care for it anymore in my games. If PF 2 were to come out I would use it until I got a better feel for the game.
On alignment and elves, some are apparently NG, but arrogance, dickery and snootiness to other races doesn't strike me as pure good.
I can agree with this. If a world's history has a reason for race X to trust another race I can understand, but being an elf should not be enough make you dislike another race.
Here's a sacred cow that's been on my mind lately: the round based combat system.
The system leads to the implication that firing an arrow, stabbing with a dagger, swinging a greataxe, drinking a potion, and casting a spell all take the same amount of time--which makes the knife fighter severly handicapped to the point of unplayablility.
A rolling initiave count (similar to the one used in Hackmaster) would allow for variable "reset" times for different actions without adding too much complexity to the game.
It would also give developers one more knob to tweak when balancing weapons, spell, and other combat actions against each other.
I would not mind a rolling init system if it could be done without making things to complicated. I have never played hackmaster so i dont know how that would work in PF.