Paizo doesn't usually retcon their stuff, and if they do, it's solely to avoid copyright laws from other publishers (such as Wizards of the Coast). Otherwise, the setting has remained mostly consistent. There are some lore changes due to results of previous adventure paths reaching their canonical end panning out in the lore, but that's about all the changes there are.
https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t9d7?Lets-collect-retcons
I'm not even saying I disagree with the changes made, but I'm the type of person that likes changes to a setting and it's lore to be acknowledged within that lore.
Is it really? The book tells you examples of common behaviors with certain alignment types. Odds are, the behaviors done that aren't spelled out in those alignment types can be associated with the most similar alignment. Asking for common sense (yes, I'm aware it's an oxymoron) from player actions isn't the same as having to hammer it out for new players, it's a sanity check for your fellow group. If they can't grasp "Killing an entire village of people just to do so is Evil," you have far bigger issues at the table than "This person doesn't understand how alignment works," and hiding behind that as a reason for "Alignment is Broken" isn't really a sensible argument to be had.
My issue would involve characters written in such a way that they could be seen as different alignments depending on which ethical philosophy one believes in. A character could be morally upstanding from a Deontological standpoint but neutral or even evil from a Utilitarian perspective and a Nihilistic perspective would ask if it can be proven that morality even exists and if anything in the universe even has free will.
Not only does Neutral Damage sound silly and is even more ambiguous than alignment-based damage, the idea that mortals are considered Neutral until they die and become one with the planes isn't one that makes sense within the current narrative of the setting, which is that the planar energies themselves are charged and are affected by their antithetical effects, not the PCs being equally affected by both types transforming into "neutrality" when coming into contact with them. The aligned energy isn't written to work that way. Just as well, it's established in the setting that characters of certain upbringings and power emanate an aura of a given alignment that they represent, so the idea that mortals are considered Neutral until dead is also debunked if they can emanate alignment-based energies.
I wasn't thinking of Neutral-damage as the third flavor of alignment-based damage, but I can understand how that is what you understood from that. What was intended was that alignment damage is doubled against opposing beings (Angels dealing double damage to Demons), base damage to unaligned beings (Divine Lance used on a non-aligned being), and no damage when used against an aligned being. You can also think of it as normal damage, halved damage, and no damage if that's easier.
Because it's quite clear from the setting that Asmodeus, while he's the God of Contracts, also isn't the God of Everything by being the God of Contracts, and the writers didn't write the setting that way for obvious reasons (one being that this is extremely boring monotheism for a fantasy setting).
Who says he got everything his way? Just because he claims it favors him doesn't mean that it does in every detail.
Is it? And does it? The entirety of the alignment discussion I had with my players when we started our current campaign was "No evil characters." End of conversation on that topic. In fact, it wasn't even a conversation, it was that single line of text in the document I provided to them before they made characters. We've played just fine without any further discussion about alignment.
I've played plenty of characters where people could easily question if the alignment on the sheet is correct for that character.
In a hybrid 3.x/Pathfinder campaign I played a CN Cleric who was devoted to a female personification of death and had Planning as one of his domains. His end goal was to, near the end of his natural life, transform himself into an undead creature to forever carry out his Goddess's will on the mortal plane and in this, he planned meticulously. However, he also lived the rest of his mortal life to the fullest being a bisexual hedonist who would indulge his whims five days a week, a man who visited temples and shrines and learned the teachings of every religion he came across on another, and who gave of himself to heal the sick and give to the poor on the final day. He didn't balk at the unsavory things he had to do to move him little by little closer to undead, but he also didn't revel in it.
I tried to write him as a slightly insane but useful ally with a complicated and detailed moral code that seemed utterly insane to any outsider. It could be argued fairly that he's actually lawful due to his logical and well-informed plans or that his actions towards good are, while sincere and genuine, still token enough that on balance he's evil. I chose CN because I felt it generally described his actions from an outside point of view.
That's your issue you are trying to apply philosophy to something that already told you how to apply the rules.
It does not matter what philosophical framework you use if you are benevolent you are good, if you are malicious you are evil, if you are neither you are neutral. You need literally zero knowledge of philosophy to run alignment as described in the rules. Heck you don't even need to be from the same cultural is historical group to know how to run it.
Aligned damage didn't need to have special rules in the first place, you can just have creatures have resistance and weakness vs the relevant damage type. You are falling for the same mistake.
If you had to assign an alignment to Mother Teresa what would it be? In a variation of the trolley experiment where one track contains middle-aged men and the other contains young children can throwing the switch ever be a good act? Is Superman actually neutral because he chooses to limit his influence when he could solve many issues plaguing his world? Is destroying an oil-pipe line to protect treaty rights a lawful act or a chaotic one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Teresa is clearly good, as she sacrificed for the benefit of others.
To quote the woman herself:
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
There's also the issue of unwished for baptisms:
"Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a 'ticket to heaven'. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend that she was just cooling the patient's head with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptising him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptising Hindus and Muslims."
I don't know that we can call her good in any meaningful sense of the word.
Planning by itself is not a lawful trait.
The character followed his weekly schedule when in civilzation and was very strict about doing so, but the plans for any given day were generally up to his whims at any given moment. On his day in religious study he followed all the tenents of the faith he studied under that he was able to without renouncing his own faith.
Giving is by itself not a good trait. It is only good if you value the well-being of other individuals.
He geniunely wanted to help and atone for the dark things he'd done in his quest for undeath and in the service of his diety. Even on his days carousing he would usually prepare a few cure disease and cure wounds spells to mend any harm he might cause.
The question isn't if he did good deeds for good reasons but if they offset evils such as raising undead as servants and and desecrating holy sites to prepare the reagents needed for his ultimate goal.
The $100 question here is why?
Mostly his motivation was to drink in all of life that mattered to him while he yet lived while spending the quiet hours of the evening in preparation for his eventual transformation.
And neither of these quotes is relevant to her alignment.
She thought the world was being much helped by the suffering of the poor people. She literally thought suffering was a virtue and you don't think that sounds just a little bit evil? To my mind, her mission was one of religious conversion and very little else.
There's also the question of whether preaching the church's stance against contraception during the AIDS outbreak should count as an act of evil given the lives such preaching has cost.
Again not relevant to alignment in pf2. Does it address either alignment question? [whether she was willing to sacrifice others for her own benefit or sacrifice of herself to benefit others.] and [whether she values structure or flexibility].
I would argue that her unwillingness to sacrifice her adherence to an abhorrent religious doctrine that preaches against effective prevention of STIs is an evil act. I go further and assert that the Catholic Church is generally an evil organization and that membership within its clergy is also evil.
Then you problem isn't with the alignment system in a fantasy setting, with clear cut rules for alignment. You're problem is you and bringing your personal vindictive bias to the table.
My problem is that the alignment system can't answer questions of how good does one have to be to atone for evil, how good one must be to be good, and that alignment is impossible to apply to anything as developed as a living human being rather than a character with considerably less depth and nuance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo doesn't usually retcon their stuff, and if they do, it's solely to avoid copyright laws from other publishers (such as Wizards of the Coast). Otherwise, the setting has remained mostly consistent. There are some lore changes due to results of previous adventure paths reaching their canonical end panning out in the lore, but that's about all the changes there are.https://paizo.com/threads/rzs2t9d7?Lets-collect-retcons
I'm not even saying I disagree with the changes made, but I'm the type of person that likes changes to a setting and it's lore to be acknowledged within that lore.
Is it really? The book tells you examples of common behaviors with certain alignment types. Odds are, the behaviors done that aren't spelled out in those alignment types can be associated with the most similar alignment. Asking for common sense (yes, I'm aware it's an oxymoron) from player actions isn't the same as having to hammer it out for new players, it's a sanity check for your fellow group. If they can't grasp "Killing an entire village of people just to do so is Evil," you have far bigger issues at the table than "This person doesn't understand how alignment works," and hiding behind that as a reason for "Alignment is Broken" isn't really a sensible argument to be had.My issue would involve characters written in such a way that they could be seen as different alignments depending on which ethical philosophy one believes in. A character could be morally upstanding from a Deontological standpoint but neutral or even evil from a Utilitarian perspective and a Nihilistic perspective would ask if it can be proven that morality even exists and if anything in the universe even has free will.
Not only does Neutral Damage sound silly and is even more ambiguous than alignment-based damage, the idea that mortals are considered Neutral until they die and become one with the planes isn't one that makes sense within the current narrative of the...
I did say mostly. A good amount of those "retcons" are simply typos referring to something completely different, or were holdovers from an older draft of an adventure path that wasn't updated. I wouldn't call that a "retcon" if the intentions weren't supposed to be there in the first place, and are instead clarifications for errors in printing, and there is no story-based justification for the change in question. And even then, a lot of the actual retcons were for the better consistency/feel of the setting (such as Asmodean Paladins not being a thing), and not to justify some other later-established shenanigans with no apparent frame of reference for it.
Again, what makes that a broken part of the alignment? No person that would be considered "good" will handle a situation the same exact way as another person that can also be considered "good." If a beggar is on the streets asking for money for food, you could offer money to them to buy the food they want, you could just offer them food outright, or you could offer them a job so they can make a living to earn their own food as every other stand-up citizen does. All of these things can be considered "good" acts of varying degrees of success and piety depending on the situation. If we provided an inverse situation, the opposite is equally true. The idea that alignment straight-jackets these types of decisions having variety while still having the brand of a given alignment is absurd and debunked. Suggesting that we remove Alignment because it feels like it's some means for "one-true-way"-ism to take place falls back to lacking creativity and robustness for a setting, and makes things one-dimensional. If you want one-dimensional thinking, then sure. But the setting isn't written to allow for that, for obvious reasons.
What else would we call it? Planar damage? There are already rules for what happens with Neutral-aligned entities interacting with Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, the ideas you suggested would alter these rules already in place in a way that doesn't work for things that aren't damage-based, and takes things that are damage-based way out of proportion. Doubling alignment based damage for opposing alignments breaks the math in ways not intended by the game, especially when we already have weakness factored in. Yes, I am aware you will need to do more than tweak a few things for this to work, but the point here is that it's far more of a cascading effect to implement this change and retain math/consistency than it is to just work with what we have, which isn't really broken. In fact, they improved upon it further with Edicts/Anathema.
Ah, yes, let's not take the God of Contracts' word for whether something does actually benefit him or not. People like that wouldn't last a second in a Court of Hell, which, by the way, is operated solely by Kangaroos.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have a variety of problems with alignment and I go back and forth with myself regularly whether I think it's worth the headache and acrimony, but none of those problems are that it doesn't present a simple solution for problems that don't have an answer in real life, and possibly can't ever be answered objectively. That seems a bit ridiculous to ask of the developers for a game that's mainly about beating up monsters for money and telling stories. A GM who wants that kind of complexity is invited to figure it out for themself, same as if they wanted to run a physics simulator on the volume of air displaced by a fireball launched into a cave.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Teresa is clearly good, as she sacrificed for the benefit of others.To quote the woman herself:
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
There's also the issue of unwished for baptisms:
"Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a 'ticket to heaven'. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend that she was just cooling the patient's head with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptising him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptising Hindus and Muslims."
I don't know that we can call her good in any meaningful sense of the word.
And neither of these quotes is relevant to her alignment.
She was known to be less than good.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean you can make the assertion that that is what it supposed to do but it's impossible to determine whether or not it's actually effective in accomplishing that.
At it's most harmless, under your framework, it could simply exist to inform the player what two letters they need to put into a box to play the character that was going to be most like themselves & that they were going to play anyway.
At it's worst it confines and stifles roleplay through restrictive, unimaginative, and simplistic interpretations for what each of those two letter combinations mean.
And it's also an extraneous step for a lot of that. You don't need alignment to determine whether or not your use of a cleric's power is out of step with that cleric's patron's deity; you need a description of that deity, their tenets & philosophies. Under PF2e rules, their edicts & anathemas. That's a much more exact criteria vs the alignment system which is open to debate or the arbitrary whims of a dm & the strength of will as to who'll win the ensuing argument.
And the magic weapon against the lord's vassals thing, again, doesn't need a nine point grid to see that violates some degree of common sense and is going to provoke a reaction. I don't need to know that the book labels that as an evil action to know that the lord is going to take issue with it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She was known to be less than good.Teresa is clearly good, as she sacrificed for the benefit of others.To quote the woman herself:
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
There's also the issue of unwished for baptisms:
"Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a 'ticket to heaven'. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend that she was just cooling the patient's head with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptising him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptising Hindus and Muslims."
I don't know that we can call her good in any meaningful sense of the word.
And neither of these quotes is relevant to her alignment.
Indeed. She actively denied medical relief to those suffering under her "care", claiming it was divine to suffer as Jesus did on the cross. Yet when she was ill she flew to the best hospitals in the world for care. The image many have of her as being a kind and caring person was a product of public relations. Entire books have been written about this, and I suggest those interested look further into it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We have alignment for a number of reasons, one is that it is short-hand for anathemas and edicts. Let's take some of the Empyreal Lords as an example. Judging by the information available for some of them in PF2 but ignoring alignments: Dammerich would be fine with torture, Lymnieris could support hired killers, Tanagaar would appreciate surprise murders, and Winlas would be down with human sacrifice. Sure, those misconceptions could be cleared up with a few paragraphs describing their holy goodness, but instead we can just list their alignment and save page space. That and we don't have to list every creatively evil act under the anathemas of each god currently listed as good.
We also have alignment because PF2 isn't a system built for a world of grey-and-other-grey morality, it is built for white-black morality with some grey in the middle. You don't necessarily need alignment for that, but it certainly helps. Especially if you want a class that is all about crusading for good; smite evil works best if baddies come with an evil label.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And neither of these quotes is relevant to her alignment.She thought the world was being much helped by the suffering of the poor people. She literally thought suffering was a virtue and you don't think that sounds just a little bit evil? To my mind, her mission was one of religious conversion and very little else.
There's also the question of whether preaching the church's stance against contraception during the AIDS outbreak should count as an act of evil given the lives such preaching has cost.
Another person that likes to take words said and suddenly that becomes representation of the entire person. And thus you get to decide someone is not good.
Words do not undo actions. You looking at someone's words and making a decision how you view them using your subjective viewpoint doesn't change what the person did. Mother Theresa spent her life caring for the sick and poor. She did not spend her life trying to make people poor, so they would suffer. Her making a statement at some point as you posted above doesn't make her "not good" as you put it. I don't know why you think it does as though some words can undo her actions spent over a lifetime or in anyway encompass who the woman was.
Why do people make assertions such as this? They take something someone said and extrapolate that into an entire life. As though you disregard how she was raised, what she chose to do with her life, and the many other good acts done and then take some statements by her and that somehow rebalances her as a person and decide she wasn't good? That's how you view morality?
All the unsung days, unspoken days, uncovered days of her taking care of the poor and taking care of lepers and spending the hours and time spent in her life are undone by some statements you interpret as "not good"?
Where does this kind of thought come from? Just a general desire by some to tear people down and undo every good act they've possibly done by finding their flaws? Is there any human without flaws that might pass as good if their life was sufficiently delved into?
All the hours that aren't documented by some historian or some publication spent sacrificing and helping others is just undone by some words?
It's pretty obvious through Mother Theresa's acts in her life she was a good person or what we as humans consider good. She spent her life helping others. Not pursuing selfish or cruel acts or what not, but assisting others in hard circumstances at personal risk without regard for her own benefit, but out of a sense of duty and compassion for the poor and sick.
Some guy that wants to make claims about a person based on some statements she made likely when asked to justify a position like the common question of the Atheist asking a religious person to explain why God would allow such suffering, she gave an answer that fit with the philosophy she had been raised in. Now you're taking that statement as more impactful and important to her character than the decades of life spent helping others?
I don't think it works that way. Actions speak far louder than words. Always have, always will. Actions have more of an impact on the world than some talker.
I always recall the nursery rhyme I learned in my youth, "A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds." Mother Theresa was a woman of deeds and some statements you can drum up to try to paint her as "not good" are just ridiculous.
Why you are trying to apply such shoddy arguments to alignment is beyond me. They're bad arguments.
Until you argue on the basis of why alignment was created within the D&D world, your arguments will hold very little substance. Because Gygax created alignment for specific reasons to model fantasy concepts, not as some representation of the ideas of good and evil in the real world. Thus such assertions about good and evil and the like when applied to real life figures in a real world do not even apply as the underlying creation of alignment was not created for philosophical debate, but to create mythological creatures of good and evil like demons and devils or any other creature on the alignment spectrum drawn from mythology and fantasy.
If you're trying to apply alignment to the real world, you're arguing a fantasy creation for a game is some kind of real world philosophy when it was never intended to be such by the creator. That is not a fault of the creation, but a fault of the individual applying their personal subjective biases and viewpoints to a fantasy construct never intended to apply to the real world or be used as a personal philosophy to determine what is good and evil in the real world.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
She was known to be less than good.Teresa is clearly good, as she sacrificed for the benefit of others.To quote the woman herself:
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
There's also the issue of unwished for baptisms:
"Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a 'ticket to heaven'. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend that she was just cooling the patient's head with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptising him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptising Hindus and Muslims."
I don't know that we can call her good in any meaningful sense of the word.
And neither of these quotes is relevant to her alignment.
Not really. She was attacked by atheists that wanted to argue she was "less than good" based on their worldview which contradicted hers. With little regard for her background or upbringing.
I'm not going to argue it on here. I will say I think it is intellectually dishonest to try to morally judge others raised in a different time with different values they did not create and were subject to due to the socialization of a different time.
I've read the attacks by Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and other liberal thinkers that encourage their followers to tear down figures of the past on the basis modern moral philosophizing. I think it is an intellectually dishonest practice removing the context of time and place which should always be considered when viewing a person.
And I'll leave it there.
Was Mother Teresa good or not? Don't know. I imagine we'll find out when we find out where her soul ended up. Until then, I'm not gonna worry about it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not going to argue it on here.You literally are.
I will say I think it is intellectually dishonest to try to morally judge others raised in a different time with different values they did not create and were subject to due to the socialization of a different time.This is b$@#@!+s, you absolutely can. "I did not know evil thing was evil" is absolutely no excuse. The person still did it, and they were not a child. And what she did was take a fervorous delight in others suffering and wanted them to suffer, and sent all them oney donated to help the people in her "care" to the vatican instead. That's messed up.
She was attacked by atheists
I've read the attacks by Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and other liberal thinkersAh, you're just foaming on your soapbox, gotcha.
that encourage their followers to tear down figures of the past on the basis modern moral philosophizing. I think it is an intellectually dishonest practice removing the context of time and place which should always be considered when viewing a person.
This is Moral Relativism fallacy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What's the best option on the flag list to get the nun talk taken out of this thread because I really don't want to deal with it.
The real problem with all manner of "was [real world figure] an example of [Pathfinder Alignment]?" is that the answer will swing wildly from "obviously yes" to "obviously know" depending on what things the listener knows about the figure in question.
Like "Henry Ford, philanthropist" and "Henry Ford, virulent antisemite" are both true things! Hell, Genghis Khan was a strong advocate for freedom of religion.
Structuring champion codes in a manner similar to 1e cavalier orders wouldn't be a bad way to go about it, actually... room to explore that idea.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is that the alignment system can't answer questions of how good does one have to be to atone for evil, how good one must be to be good
Those are religious questions that require a specific religious context to answer. It is ridiculous to expect a game system to answer that. PF2 rightly leaves that to the GM to decide.
and that alignment is impossible to apply to anything as developed as a living human being rather than a character with considerably less depth and nuance.
You are asking too much of the system. Alignment is a broad label. It has some uses, but it also has it's limits as well. It is not a full description of a character or a philosophy. That is for you to do. Same as it ever was.
The terms big or small are not well defined, neither are the terms good or evil. Yet somehow we still find the words useful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really don't want to deal with it.
Nor do I.
Discussions of specific people are going to degenerate to screaming matches of how evil and hateful someone else was. It is not useful to discuss when you don't share a common basis to do such things.
I manage to RPG with people of opposite political and philosophical views to mine on a weekly basis. Even in some very warped game world scenarios. But discussing it online in such a large group always degenerates.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
She was known to be less than good.Teresa is clearly good, as she sacrificed for the benefit of others.To quote the woman herself:
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
There's also the issue of unwished for baptisms:
"Sisters were to ask each person in danger of death if he wanted a 'ticket to heaven'. An affirmative reply was to mean consent to baptism. The sister was then to pretend that she was just cooling the patient's head with a wet cloth, while in fact she was baptising him, saying quietly the necessary words. Secrecy was important so that it would not come to be known that Mother Teresa's sisters were baptising Hindus and Muslims."
I don't know that we can call her good in any meaningful sense of the word.
And neither of these quotes is relevant to her alignment.
Not really. She was attacked by atheists that wanted to argue she was "less than good" based on their worldview which contradicted hers. With little regard for her background or upbringing.
I'm not going to argue it on here. I will say I think it is intellectually dishonest to try to morally judge others raised in a different time with different values they did not create and were subject to due to the socialization of a different time.
I've read the attacks by Atheists such as Christopher Hitchens and other liberal thinkers that encourage their followers to tear down figures of the past on the basis modern moral philosophizing. I think it is an intellectually dishonest practice removing the context of time and place which should always be considered when viewing a person.
And I'll leave it there.
By your insane criteria my grandparents were some distant aberrations who didn't know the difference between right and wrong which is wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you really want to argue that someone being raised by a different culture makes them abberations because they don't follow your moral standard? Because oh boy does that open a whole can of worm that probably isn't fit for this forum.
That's not even considering the Deriven never called anyone an abberation in that post; He just said we need contemporary context not modern context. It's you who is calling your grandparents abberations because they don't follow your same moral standard. So you are using hyperbole to try and argue against a point that was never made in the first place.
No. Im saying that if you are old enough to influence my morality and sense of right and wrong you are in modern times. My grandparents didn't grow up in a different time. My grandparents grew up in modern times. Mother Teresea grew up in modern times.
It wasn't that different back then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you really want to argue that someone being raised by a different culture makes them abberations because they don't follow your moral standard? Because oh boy does that open a whole can of worm that probably isn't fit for this forum.
That's not even considering the Deriven never called anyone an abberation in that post; He just said we need contemporary context not modern context. It's you who is calling your grandparents abberations because they don't follow your same moral standard. So you are using hyperbole to try and argue against a point that was never made in the first place.
No. Im saying that if you are old enough to influence my morality and sense of right and wrong you are in modern times. My grandparents didn't grow up in a different time. My grandparents grew up in modern times. Mother Teresea grew up in modern times.
It wasn't that different back then.
Ah, yes. "If it doesn't exist in my lifetime, then it can't ever possibly influence me." This is why we should destroy all forms of history, then. It serves no intended purpose if we can't conceivably learn from it to build our own moralities and existences.
Your definition of modern times does not fit my definition of modern times, and, in my opinion, most definitions of modern times. My definition wouldn't even consider people who grew up in the early 1900's into the late 1900's as "modern times." Modern times is, at the absolute most, within the current century in my opinion. Suggesting that somebody in the 1920's has the same moral standard and compass as someone in the 2020's, or should be held to the same moral standard as someone in the 2020's, is beyond absurd, given how much has changed within that span of 100 years.
Community and Social Media Specialist
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I'm going to be stepping in and locking the thread. Paizo welcomes gamers from a diverse set of backgrounds and life experiences. Unfortunately, many attempts to map alignment grids to real life individuals can create discord as it often results in discussions that become political.