Ethics merely failure of Charisma


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

No one yet prove me wrong. Please try!

Ethics merely failure of Charisma!

Ethics try make people happy. But really Charisma make people happy.

Laws try make people safe. But really people take risks for chance enjoy other person's Charisma.

Most social norms tests not rules. Pass test by break phony rule.

Someone with much Charisma have options bypass ethical dilemmas. (See first link two examples.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Your posts kind of read like Time Cube.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I have absolutely no idea what is being asked here.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Going by the definition of ethics as social norms...this seems fair. High Charisma characters are a bit more likely not to care about such things.

Morals and other actual guiding behavioral principles based on a coherent philosophy or one's own conscience are quite another matter, of course.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
Your posts kind of read like Time Cube.

Runes inscribed on Cubic Gates translate Police Box!

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Going by the definition of ethics as social norms...this seems fair. High Charisma characters are a bit more likely not to care about such things.

Can explain? We see it. But not obvious why or how Charismatic becomes Han Solo saying Scoundrel, I like that.

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Morals and other actual guiding behavioral principles based on a coherent philosophy or one's own conscience are quite another matter, of course.

Of course!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote:
Can explain? We see it. But not obvious why or how Charismatic becomes Han Solo saying Scoundrel, I like that.

To some degree Charisma represents overt self confidence. Self-confidence is one of the main things that allows one to relatively easily flout social norms. Also, charming people are more likely to get away with flouting such rules, and Charisma determines how charming you are. Not all Charismatic people will do so, but it's logically a bit easier for them.

It'd also be easier for those with high Wisdom (representing willpower and determination). Someone with high scores in both is pretty well-suited to doing what they feel is right and appropriate (or whatever they feel like) regardless of societal norms.

Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote:
Of course!

Glad we're in agreement. :)


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Glad we're in agreement. :)

Agreeableness part why me so charismatic!

Also sexy haircut, nose like limp carrot, and ears set way back on head so playful smirk wraps more half around face.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Perhaps, you are in need of advice?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

TROLLS!!!! ON THE FORUM!!!
TROLLS ON THE FORUM!!!

THERE ARE TROLLS ON THE FORUM!!!!

I thought you should know.

faints


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Perhaps, you are in need of advice?

Originally wanted counterexample.

Advice more long-winded.


Ah, but people can be "ethical" in a "non-ethical" place.

Example....

By upholding ethics and choosing not to shoot someone, you could piss off the mafia that insisted you did.

I'm probably not understanding the post, but nose like limp carrot guy is hard to read...

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
icehawk333 wrote:

Ah, but people can be "ethical" in a "non-ethical" place.

Example....

By upholding ethics and choosing not to shoot someone, you could piss off the mafia that insisted you did.

That's more morals than ethics as we're defining them here. Morals are what you believe is right. Ethics are what the society you are in believes are right. The mafia thus have their own ethics, which you're violating to preserve your own moral code.

I've heard those definitions reversed, but the ones above seem to be the ones in use here.

In any case, sticking to your guns on a moral issue is a matter of things other than stats...while flouting ethical principles that aren't morally relevant would fall more under what we're talking about.

icehawk333 wrote:
I'm probably not understanding the post, but nose like limp carrot guy is hard to read...

It can be tricky...

Scarab Sages

On Earth, ethics are a social construct, and mores only matter to the cultural that made them. A highly charismatic individual may be able break those values without consequence, or even change them for a while.

On Golarion, Alignment is a force of nature, and absolute. Peoples actions determine where they stand, regardless of whether other people forgive those actions.


Imbicatus wrote:

On Earth, ethics are a social construct, and mores only matter to the cultural that made them. A highly charismatic individual may be able break those values without consequence, or even change them for a while.

On Golarion, Alignment is a force of nature, and absolute. Peoples actions determine where they stand, regardless of whether other people forgive those actions.

Indeed. People forget this far too frequently. Morality is absolute and established forces of nature, a good act is always good and does not depend on culture. Evil acts are always evil, and do not depend on culture. On Golarion.

Liberty's Edge

Imbicatus wrote:

On Earth, ethics are a social construct, and mores only matter to the cultural that made them. A highly charismatic individual may be able break those values without consequence, or even change them for a while.

On Golarion, Alignment is a force of nature, and absolute. Peoples actions determine where they stand, regardless of whether other people forgive those actions.

The second part is true...but not all cultural mores/ethical constructs have a lot to do with alignment. Many, in fact, have basically nothing to do with it.

Say you have a culture where men are expected to fight do physical work and women expected to engage in more intellectual pursuits and dabble in magic. Those who violate these expectations are violating the ethics of their particular culture and society, but not necessarily doing anything that has an impact on Alignment. A more charismatic person might be more inclined to both violate expectations in this way, and to get away with it.

Which would be what's being discussed. :)


Claxon wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

On Earth, ethics are a social construct, and mores only matter to the cultural that made them. A highly charismatic individual may be able break those values without consequence, or even change them for a while.

On Golarion, Alignment is a force of nature, and absolute. Peoples actions determine where they stand, regardless of whether other people forgive those actions.

Indeed. People forget this far too frequently. Morality is absolute and established forces of nature, a good act is always good and does not depend on culture. Evil acts are always evil, and do not depend on culture. On Golarion.

Eh. This forum is basically the only place I hear that.


Claxon wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

On Earth, ethics are a social construct, and mores only matter to the cultural that made them. A highly charismatic individual may be able break those values without consequence, or even change them for a while.

On Golarion, Alignment is a force of nature, and absolute. Peoples actions determine where they stand, regardless of whether other people forgive those actions.

Indeed. People forget this far too frequently. Morality is absolute and established forces of nature, a good act is always good and does not depend on culture. Evil acts are always evil, and do not depend on culture. On Golarion.

I call B~$+#!++ on both Claxon and Imbicatus here.

Morality and ethics are flexible and changing developing through the ages and depend heavily on culture.
What we consider moral or ethical today differs greatly from what people considered moral and ethical a 1000 years ago.
Certain groups have vastly different morals and ethics now. Just think of most religions for example: Nearly all religions hold different morals and ethics for their own group vs. other groups. Just think of supporters of different sports team who are sometimes willing to fight each other over 'worshipping' a different team.
Justice in the middle ages of Europe gave vastly different punishments for the exact same crime as long as you were able to pay enough to escape real punishment. And the punishment were different as well, with the rack / vice, swallow or die, lashes of the whip / cane, beheading, burning on the stake, chopping of limbs, quartering someone and loads of other punishments we do not consider ethical or moral today. Torture was used as a means of confession and in very rare cases where someone didn't crack under torture (extremely rare but possible) they sometimes were unable to convict someone, because they hadn't confessed to the crime.
Certain groups consider stealing perfectly fine as long as you didn't steal from your own group (or get caught stealing from your own group).

On Golarion moral and ethics depend heavily on the location you are at. As some locations will allow slavery while other do not. Lot's of different gods all having their own code of moral and ethical behaviour.
In the same society different groups will have different morals and ethics depending on the own culture, history or rank in society.
Freeing a slave is a serious crime in a slaver town, but a very moral and ethical act in the eyes of town officials that do not support or allow slavery.

The reason we label certain actions as moral and ethical is because we look at Golarion through our own sense of ethics and morale. And even that leads to discussion and disagreement about what's moral and ethical! Just check the Paladin discussions.


"Deadmanwalking wrote:

Say you have a culture where men are expected to fight do physical work and women expected to engage in more intellectual pursuits and dabble in magic. Those who violate these expectations are violating the ethics of their particular culture and society, but not necessarily doing anything that has an impact on Alignment. A more charismatic person might be more inclined to both violate expectations in this way, and to get away with.

Sounds like the lawful/chaotic aspect of alignment.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowleopard wrote:


I call B!++~@+@ on both Claxon and Imbicatus here.
Morality and ethics are flexible and changing developing through the ages and depend heavily on culture.
What we consider moral or ethical today differs greatly from what people considered moral and ethical a 1000 years ago.
Certain groups have vastly different morals and ethics now. Just think of most religions for example: Nearly all religions hold different morals and ethics for their own group vs. other groups. Just think of supporters of different sports team who are sometimes willing to fight each other over 'worshipping' a different team.
Justice in the middle ages of Europe gave vastly different punishments for the exact same crime as long as you were able to pay enough to escape real punishment. And the punishment were different as well, with the rack / vice, swallow or die, lashes of the whip / cane, beheading, burning on the stake, chopping of limbs, quartering someone and loads of other punishments we do not consider ethical or moral today. Torture was used as a means of confession and in very rare cases where someone didn't crack under torture (extremely rare but possible) they sometimes were unable to convict someone, because they hadn't confessed to the crime.
Certain groups consider stealing perfectly fine as long as you didn't steal from your own group (or get caught stealing...

National laws are not intrinsically tied to Lawful as an alignment. Slavery as a practice is Lawful Neutral. Law is all about Order and having a rigidly defined status in all things. Chaos is about Freedom. The concept of freeing a slave is a Chaotic act regardless if the local laws support or outlaw slavery.

Slavery is also not intrinsically Good or Evil. Slavery may be used as a punishment to a crime as an alternative to imprisonment or death, or as an alternative to paying off debts. The treatment of the slave may lead to good or evil actions, but freedom is not inherently Good.

Likewise, stealing is inherently Chaotic, but may not be illegal if you steal from approved targets. This is what Privateering was all about.

Liberty's Edge

Belazoar wrote:
"Deadmanwalking wrote:

Say you have a culture where men are expected to fight do physical work and women expected to engage in more intellectual pursuits and dabble in magic. Those who violate these expectations are violating the ethics of their particular culture and society, but not necessarily doing anything that has an impact on Alignment. A more charismatic person might be more inclined to both violate expectations in this way, and to get away with.

Sounds like the lawful/chaotic aspect of alignment.

Depends. If you have a personal code of honor you never deviate from that says treating the genders differently is wrong, it's Lawful. If you just don't like being restricted, it's Chaotic.

The reasons you do things have a lot to do with whether they're Chaotic or Lawful.


Mordo the Spaz - Forum Troll wrote:

No one yet prove me wrong. Please try!

Ethics merely failure of Charisma!

Ethics try make people happy. But really Charisma make people happy.

Laws try make people safe. But really people take risks for chance enjoy other person's Charisma.

Most social norms tests not rules. Pass test by break phony rule.

Someone with much Charisma have options bypass ethical dilemmas. (See first link two examples.)

My hat... or whatever it is... off to you, sir Troll. Good job.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I'm aware this thread wasn't intended entirely seriously. I'm just having fun taking it that way. :)

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

You know, when I grasped that the crux of Mordo's position was "you don't have to obey laws, customs or moral codes if you're simply charismatic enough," my mind flew instantly to sixty or seventy examples who just happen to be past or present members of the United States Congress.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alright, OP are you saying that as a generalization, or do we get to consider cultists and serial killers.

Sociopaths are notoriously charismatic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PFSRD wrote:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

I would argue slavery is evil. It would constitute debasing and oppressing, and would not jive with respect and concern for dignity.

Indentured servitude could fly, which paying off debts or fines could involve, but not true slavery.

This is supported by Golarian as the slaving nation, Cheliax, has a LE alignment. (Yes nations have alignments)

Also +1 morality and ethics being more than social constructs on Golarion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Snowleopard wrote:
Claxon wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

On Earth, ethics are a social construct, and mores only matter to the cultural that made them. A highly charismatic individual may be able break those values without consequence, or even change them for a while.

On Golarion, Alignment is a force of nature, and absolute. Peoples actions determine where they stand, regardless of whether other people forgive those actions.

Indeed. People forget this far too frequently. Morality is absolute and established forces of nature, a good act is always good and does not depend on culture. Evil acts are always evil, and do not depend on culture. On Golarion.

I call B~+!@#$@ on both Claxon and Imbicatus here.

Morality and ethics are flexible and changing developing through the ages and depend heavily on culture.
What we consider moral or ethical today differs greatly from what people considered moral and ethical a 1000 years ago.
Certain groups have vastly different morals and ethics now. Just think of most religions for example: Nearly all religions hold different morals and ethics for their own group vs. other groups. Just think of supporters of different sports team who are sometimes willing to fight each other over 'worshipping' a different team.
Justice in the middle ages of Europe gave vastly different punishments for the exact same crime as long as you were able to pay enough to escape real punishment. And the punishment were different as well, with the rack / vice, swallow or die, lashes of the whip / cane, beheading, burning on the stake, chopping of limbs, quartering someone and loads of other punishments we do not consider ethical or moral today. Torture was used as a means of confession and in very rare cases where someone didn't crack under torture (extremely rare but possible) they sometimes were unable to convict someone, because they hadn't confessed to the crime.
Certain groups consider stealing perfectly fine as long as you didn't steal from your own group (or get caught stealing...

In real life yes, Golairon no. Good and evil are absolute, so sayeth the multiverse. It doesn't change depending on your location or who you are interacting with. Various groups may respond differently to it, but that doesn't change it's position. Just because some groups are indifferent to murder doesn't make it less evil.

Ethics and alignment are two separate entities. In real life ethics determine good and bad, in Golarion there are absolute sources of good and evil. Now, as people we may have different opinions on what the "absolute source" would say is good or evil on a particular issue, but it should never change because of who you're interacting with or where you go. And that's the absolue part.


Belazoar wrote:

Alright, OP are you saying that as a generalization, or do we get to consider cultists and serial killers.

Sociopaths are notoriously charismatic.

Huh? You ask what Troll considers sociopathic?


Imbicatus wrote:
Snowleopard wrote:


I call B!++~@+@ on both Claxon and Imbicatus here.
Morality and ethics are flexible and changing developing through the ages and depend heavily on culture.
What we consider moral or ethical today differs greatly from what people considered moral and ethical a 1000 years ago.
Certain groups have vastly different morals and ethics now. Just think of most religions for example: Nearly all religions hold different morals and ethics for their own group vs. other groups. Just think of supporters of different sports team who are sometimes willing to fight each other over 'worshipping' a different team.
Justice in the middle ages of Europe gave vastly different punishments for the exact same crime as long as you were able to pay enough to escape real punishment. And the punishment were different as well, with the rack / vice, swallow or die, lashes of the whip / cane, beheading, burning on the stake, chopping of limbs, quartering someone and loads of other punishments we do not consider ethical or moral today. Torture was used as a means of confession and in very rare cases where someone didn't crack under torture (extremely rare but possible) they sometimes were unable to convict someone, because they hadn't confessed to the crime.
Certain groups consider stealing perfectly fine as long as you didn't steal from your own group (or get caught stealing...

National laws are not intrinsically tied to Lawful as an alignment. Slavery as a practice is Lawful Neutral. Law is all about Order and having a rigidly defined status in all things. Chaos is about Freedom. The concept of freeing a slave is a Chaotic act regardless if the local laws support or outlaw slavery.

Slavery is also not intrinsically Good or Evil. Slavery may be used as a punishment to a crime as an alternative to imprisonment or death, or as an alternative to paying off debts. The treatment of the slave may lead to good or evil actions, but freedom is not inherently Good.

Likewise, stealing is inherently Chaotic,...

And here we have it.

Imbicatus is actually making a case for slavery not being evil!! News flash: Owning another human being as property is EVIL no matter what the circumstances. Imprisonment or laboring of a debt is not slavery (although it borders on slavery and can become slavery)

Stealing is although indeed unlawfull (in most countries) usually quite evil, although there are exceptions which make the act forgivable or unpunishable. But in it's basic form it is taking something from someone else without permission and that's evil. Is stealing the most evil thing in the world?? No usually not, but it is definetly not a neutral or good act.


Claxon wrote:

In real life yes, Golairon no. Good and evil are absolute, so sayeth the multiverse. It doesn't change depending on your location or who you are interacting with. Various groups may respond differently to it, but that doesn't change it's position. Just because some groups are indifferent to murder doesn't make it less evil.

Ethics and alignment are two separate entities. In real life ethics determine good and bad, in Golarion there are absolute sources of good and evil. Now, as people we may have different opinions on what the "absolute source" would say is good or evil on a particular issue, but it should never change because of who you're interacting with or where you go. And that's the absolue part.

There are Paladin codes that will clash heavily with each other. And they are all supposed to be lawful good, so your argument fails for Golarion.

The most basic Paladin code suggest allowing your enemies to retreat if they so ask, treat your prisoners fairly and accept surrender normally.
There is a specific paladin code that specifically states to take no prisoners and pursue any fight to the death of your opponent.
Those two codes do not mix and they are both of lawfull good paladins so explain to me again how absolute the Good / Evil is???

Any GM has their own ideas about good and evil and you are subject to their interpretation of good / evil. Allthough it's unlikely that the concept are seperated that far for most people, Imbicatus just tried to defend that slavery is a neutral act!! And I can assure you that it isn't as should anyone else.

Scarab Sages

Snowleopard wrote:

And here we have it.

Imbicatus is actually making a case for slavery not being evil!! News flash: Owning another human being as property is EVIL no matter what the circumstances. Imprisonment or laboring of a debt is not slavery (although it borders on slavery and can become slavery)

Stealing is although indeed unlawfull (in most countries) usually quite evil, although there are exceptions which make the act forgivable or unpunishable. But in it's basic form it is taking something from someone else without permission and that's evil. Is stealing the most evil thing in the world?? No usually not, but it is definetly not a neutral or good act.

I'm saying it's not evil in game. I'm not saying that it's just to the slave, but in most cases, it's going to preferable than the other option (death).

News Flash: Slavery was an acceptable practice in all cultures at various points in time, and the idea that slavery is universally evil is a modern invention. Ownership of a person is only one step removed from the duties of citizenship.

I am NOT saying that slavery in the real world is good.

But Slavery in Alignment terms is neutral. It's the treatment of Slaves that is good or evil, and in most cases, the treatment is going to poor, and the resulting alignment will shift to evil.

Freedom is not a value of Good. Good is about helping others. It isn't about if they are free to do what they want.

Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos are separate, unrelated scales.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Imbicatus wrote:
Freedom is not a value of Good.

Heh.

Freedom definitely not value of Good.

Most Good religions claim Freedom impossible or illusionary.

[a] Your "old conscience" ruled by evil thingy, but faith can give you "new conscience" ruled by good thingy -- pick your lord!

[b] This plane has suffering and slavery-to-desires but faith can show you way out


Are you implying this about freedom or absolute freedom?


Trolly forum troll is trolly.


Imbicatus wrote:

I'm saying it's not evil in game. I'm not saying that it's just to the slave, but in most cases, it's going to preferable than the other option (death).

News Flash: Slavery was an acceptable practice in all cultures at various points in time, and the idea that slavery is universally evil is a modern invention. Ownership of a person is only one step removed from the duties of citizenship.

I am NOT saying that slavery in the real world is good.

But Slavery in Alignment terms is neutral. It's the treatment of Slaves that is good or evil, and in most cases, the treatment is going to poor, and the resulting alignment will shift to evil.

Freedom is not a value of Good. Good is about helping others. It isn't about if they are free to do what they want.

Good vs Evil and Law vs Chaos are separate, unrelated scales.

Slavery in any civilisation has always been a debate if it was a valid option and the discussion stopped when the huge amounts of money involved in the slave trade and the free labor came to the correct persons.

The fact that slavery was an acceptable practice in cultures at various points and places in time doesn't make the practice acceptable.
The very notion you claim that slavery is one step removed from the duties of citizenship is a lie and the fact that you do not realise that is dangerous indeed.
Citizenship is a choice and if you do not want to be a citizen then you can leave town and be free of all protections and duties that the citizenship provides and demands.
Slavery is the practice of holding fellow human beings captive against their will by threat of force. You are able to sell your property as you wish or even let them be part of an inheritence. Nothing in that description passes as anything but evil. And the fact that some treatment of masters to their slaves may be considered good doesn't make the practice neutral or good.
And freedom is definetly a value of good and the fact that slaves are not able to do as they please is definetly a value that can be described along the good evil scale and their masters are responsible for that situation.


Sissyl wrote:
Trolly forum troll is trolly.

Me?

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
And freedom is definetly a value of good

Not in the D&D/PF alignment scale. It's a value of chaos there.

PRD wrote:

Alignment

Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Hmm. No mention of freedom, liberty, or anything else related to those concepts. Let's check the other axis.

PRD wrote:

Law Versus Chaos

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Chaos implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has some respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is generally honest, but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

Well. There it is.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Snowleopard wrote:

There are Paladin codes that will clash heavily with each other. And they are all supposed to be lawful good, so your argument fails for Golarion.

The most basic Paladin code suggest allowing your enemies to retreat if they so ask, treat your prisoners fairly and accept surrender normally.
There is a specific paladin code that specifically states to take no prisoners and pursue any fight to the death of your opponent.
Those two codes do not mix and they are both of lawfull good paladins so explain to me again how absolute the Good / Evil is???

There are Paladin codes that clash, to an extent. But the parts that clash aren't usually on the good/evil axis, but the law/chaos axis. And it's really more the law/law axis. And lawfulness is more about having a code, a prescribed modus operandi. To that extent it is fine, each has different codes they must comply with. But all are lawfulf or doing so. I admit though, at times it is difficult to separate law from good, and choas from evil. They are very easy to conflate, and because of the way alignment functions (mostly opinion) not easy to agree upon between people.

In your example, Torag's code (the one you're referring to) is supposed to be applied to the traditional dwarven enemies that threaten their existence, not everyone (though it is often taken as this meaning). The idea being that for orcs and goblins are such evils, such dangers to dwarves that they should be exterminated without hesitation for the good of all dwarves and "good" races. This can be extended to any major enemy who threatens the "goodly" races, but wouldn't for instance justify refusing surrender from a fellow dwarf.

However, this action doesn't fall on the scale of good and evil, and also has a lot of built in assumptions to it, such as goblins and orcs are wholesale evil and irredemable. Mostly true for canon golarion sources (to my knowledge), but becomes problematic when GMs change the expectation.


Belazoar wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Trolly forum troll is trolly.
Me?

No, the OP. Masterful baiting to start another alignment debate, I am afraid.


Sissyl wrote:
Belazoar wrote:
Sissyl wrote:
Trolly forum troll is trolly.
Me?
No, the OP. Masterful baiting to start another alignment debate, I am afraid.

Well to be fair, it's right there in his name.


Oh, indeedy me.


I made a different post, from this one. I hope no one read it, and I hope no one was going to respond to it. I deleted it. I'm sorry, I’m in a terrible state of mind right now, and I really do not want to argue with anyone about anything.

I disagree with the initial post’s premise, but I have no desire to try to prove you wrong. I won’t try. Your challenge, to me, is meaningless, but I think I want to tell you this.

You win.

There, happy now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:

You win.

There, happy now?

Me ignore win and lose. Look at experiments and growth instead.

Always happy. Outcome independent. And have treasure.

Sorry you had terrible state of mind then.


Sissyl wrote:
Masterful baiting to start another alignment debate, I am afraid.

No. Troll experiment. Others steer thread into "Advice"? Or thread moved. Was moved.

Also, perhaps rude call person master baiter.

Also, for Terquem: best to conceal it from the bonze! (Vancian Coup de Grace funnier than Vancian magic system.)


Masterful baiting, not baiter. It was a compliment, Mordo.


Orthos wrote:
Quote:
And freedom is definetly a value of good

Not in the D&D/PF alignment scale. It's a value of chaos there.

PRD wrote:

Alignment

Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Hmm. No mention of freedom, liberty, or anything else related to those concepts. Let's check the other axis....

Good implies respect for life!!! Slavery is no respect for someone else's life.

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
I see so a master oppressing his slave by forcing him/her to stay with the master, suddenly is not evil??? I don't think so, it's evil and the fact that you too didn't see that makes me very wary of your character.
You were trying to hide slavery behind the Law and that's what all slave owners were trying. And they did so because they tried to avoid the discussion about slavery being evil and the easyest way to avoid that discussion was claiming that the law allowed this and therefor it wasn't evil.

Next time spend time actually reading the descriptions of good and evil.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

*headpat*

"Multiple exclamation marks are a sure sign of a diseased mind." ~ Terry Pratchett


Hm. I have played with people who would in practice believe what mordo is implying. It was funny, but not exactly fun.


.....


Other discussions try define Charisma but fail.

Maybe for Golarion define Charisma as "Magic In Me Causes Me Flaunt Social Norms".

Everything makes sense!

Bards and Oracles clearly defy norms.

Sorcerers all wacky. Y'all not play them acting ruled by blood. Messes with their minds. Know anyone in Golarion with Sorcerer best friend? See.

Summoners -- well, their best friend oddball outsider. Past four years old not normal spend time with imaginary friend, even if it real.


Sissyl wrote:
Masterful baiting, not baiter. It was a compliment, Mordo.

As was mine, acknowledge your wordplay.

Freehold DM wrote:
It was funny, but not exactly fun.

Like Trolls charging at party!

1 to 50 of 56 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Ethics merely failure of Charisma All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.