Jump to content

Robyn

HERO Member
  • Posts

    2,750
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Robyn

  1. Re: Swimming Stuff Let an especially clever NPC come up with the idea of carrying a bag of stones to accelerate their descent, only to abandon the bag at the bottom. A mathematically-oriented NPC might carry multiple bags of stone, and some wood; some of the bags counteract the wood's buoyancy, and the rest of the bags provide additional weight for sinking. The extra bags (for sinking) are abandoned at the bottom to allow for moving around, and the rest of the rocks can be separated from the logs to rise to the surface with them. The only drawbacks are having to tug along a large bundle of logs and rocks, possibly against the current, and having to prepare a bag of rocks ahead of time for each trip they will make into the lake. (The wood is reusable.) I assume the rocks at the bottom of the lake are distinguishable in some way, so it will be clear that the contestant is not merely coming back up with the rocks they just took down there?
  2. Re: Alignment Issues I did include multiple perspectives in each definition for a reason. Context matters. Aren't "comprehensive" and "vague" on opposite ends of the spectrum? I meant "comprehensive" as in "thoroughly detailed", not "vague". Increasing detail, and covering more specifics, tends to move away from vagueness.
  3. Re: Realigning Power Defense Rearranging the letters in your alphabet soup again? You've traded in one "I" word for another: Inherent.
  4. Re: Bad Powers Well, not necessarily. Remember that Seduction as described in the rulebook is specifically less about sexuality than making friends or gaining someone's trust. So, this would actually be a legitimate build for a "Babysitter" super; she's just "very good with children", always getting along very well and the kids like her.
  5. Robyn

    freeze spell

    Re: freeze spell The latter seems more SFX-based than mechanics-based. Perhaps an Entangle with some custom Limitation to reflect that it gradually fades away in warmer temperatures, combined with the CE to keep it cold? I would call "water to ice" a 5-point Transform, but considering how long past discussions have been on "the Body of water", you're probably better off not even going there
  6. Re: I'm leaving on a jet plane.... Under the circumstances, I would think Airplane Goddess.
  7. Re: Alignment Issues I don't think you're even following your own argument anymore. I no longer have enough interest to unravel it. I think - not sure - that he's saying the Gauls had more freedom because they did not restrict their lives with regulations and rules. To take a modern example, there are certain traffic laws that are meant to ensure the safety of pedestrians. Those laws do not exist just for "dangerous drivers", they may not be ignored simply because they were implemented for people "not like us". If we accept those laws, we are no longer free to drive (or cross the street) in certain ways. With freedom, it would still be possible to avoid accidents, but a higher level of caution would be necessary for some of those involved (not everyone, though, which is an advantage of freedom). Not if they don't get caught. If they drive perfectly, who's going to pull them over? If they drive perfectly, why bother with going through the motions to prove it? Besides, a test doesn't really "prove" much; plenty of people who get in accidents passed their license exams. Peer pressure? A theory of "enlightened self-interest" was advanced by Ayn Rand, who thought that a free-market economy would lead to a stable social structure; she said that no sane man would take any action without taking into account its far-reaching repercussions, in the larger context; thus, if an obvious madman wanted a gun, noone but another lunatic would sell it to him, since wise traders would see the price in not just dollars but disruption to society as well. Those who were not wise, she believed, would fall to the process of natural selection, including enforcement by other customers who enacted punishment by not shopping there anymore. Thus would intelligence be rewarded and stupidity punished. A society of mostly Good people could remain stable, dealing internally with any disruptions. According to the Good/Evil perspective, yes. To the proponents of Law and Chaos, however, the difference would be just as important as "suffering and death" would be to the proponents of Good and Evil.
  8. Re: Alignment Issues Unless their power/competence makes them a "leader" in the decision-making sense, of course. There can be more than one "leader", depending on what aspect of society they are "leading"; no single leader counts as "absolute dictator", and if one tries to exceed their influence then they will be subject to appropriate repercussions. Any leader in a chaotic society has exactly as much power as each and every other individual agrees that they have. It's like a democracy, only without the majority. The leader governs only by the consent of the governed, either through respect or fear. If the former, cooperation is beneficial, and they will protect this leader; if the latter, cooperation is still beneficial, but with each other to replace the leader with a better one, or perhaps a group. Allowed to? I'm not trying to negate the arguments you did make, just prevent you from continuing to make so many of them in the future. Pointing out a common flaw should hopefully bring you to realize the error in your logic. Considering that many of the arguments you made from this error were subsequently abandoned as David or I challenged them, these posts would probably see considerable shortening if you discontinued such arguments in the first place. That's under propaganda. The distinction is that Law says that about Chaos. Take a set of behaviors which are "Chaotic"; tell every single person that they must adhere to this behavioral pattern. You now have a Lawful society. A society of people who cannot deviate, but must always adhere to a strict set of approved actions, have no free will. They cannot choose. They are not Chaotic. You were the only one who argued for evil. I've assembled the full exchange above (in my preceding post). Both myself and David only discussed Robin Hood in the context of pointing out why he wasn't Evil. I've re-examined the exchange using the compilation I put together, and I can see what you're saying now. The "alternate hypothetical Robin Hood" I see now, so I concede that point. I still plan to argue, though, that stealing isn't - in this context - evil. We now find ourselves within the realm of subjectivist ethics: to offer a hypothetical (not (necessarily) representative of my actual beliefs), I believe that taxes should be voluntary. But the government says that they can't protect just the people who pay their taxes, they have to protect the community as a whole; and expenses scale with people and land, whether taxes are paid or not; and they're not going to charge everyone else more, but I'm receiving the benefit of their protection so I will pay taxes. To their perspective, taxation isn't a matter of voluntary participation. To my perspective, they are stealing this money from me; I'm quite willing to take care of myself, and if my capability isn't as adequate as I thought, well, it's my place in evolution to die, making room for more deserving individuals. Now - from my perspective, I'm simply reclaiming what is mine, or refusing to hand it over. But from the government's perspective, I'm stealing their money, or being a leech on their budget. Who is Evil here? Exactly! And the same goes for your beliefs! Since your own arguments revolve around dismissal of our beliefs, we really do - you can't call your own beliefs "objective" and expect us to accept that for no greater reason than we would assert our own to be. I agree with you that a Yankee/Dodgers axis would not be appropriate - but then, is our agreement at all meaningful? In an objective sense? Does alignment exist only by consensus? If so, it is nothing more than a social construct, an illusion of the mind held by any minds which care to believe in it - and is thus, objectively, absolutely meaningless. But (additional) axes weren't what I was talking about. The point was general, abstract; certainly, Yankee/Dodgers is one concrete example of how the principle can be applied, but would you disqualify any other "alignment" claimant simply because you felt that they weren't (or shouldn't be) important? If you can do that, what stops me (or David) from, under the subjectivist logic of ethics, disqualifying theft from "having anything to do with alignment", simply because we don't feel that it is - or should be - important? I specifically identified that as a stereotype of Lawful societies. But commonly held assumptions are not always true The sort of inflexibility you are thinking of only applies for the metaphysical perspective. I distinguished this from the individual and social perspective because neither people nor society are directly bound to follow these metaphysical imperatives. In that case, my use of "you" to try placing the situation in an immediate context for you has failed. The importance of doing so is to prevent you from arguing based on beliefs which you don't actually support; by confining the discussion to your beliefs, any answers you give can assuredly be related back to the main debate then, without the chance that you will disavow them and claim no contradiction with your other arguments. I encourage you to do so, then; or, at least, to respond to the paladin scenario based on your beliefs. It does mean something to me; what it means will be posted later on. I could very well ask the same of you! You didn't say "if you're simply trying to remove the threat that orcs pose, killing them is not evil". You said "if you're simply trying to remove the threat that evil orcs post, killing them is not evil". You clearly and explicitly identified them as evil, but gave no indication of why you evaluated them to be evil. How, exactly, were they evil? Refusing to pay their taxes? The same goes for your assertion that if you deliberately set out to cold-bloodedly kill people who pose a threat, you're not Evil yourself. Which is to say: they have exactly the same basis. Well, nothing having to do with Good as an alignment, if that's what you're wondering It's an acronym for Mean Time Between Failures; computer hardware tends to fail early or late, so there's a long stretch in between where, for most of that MTBF, you can count on it working perfectly.
  9. Re: Alignment Issues Supplemental history for my next reply. A history of the exchanges about Robin Hood. I advise clicking on the "#234" link in the upper right of this post, if you're planning on opening the spoiler box. That way, you can close it when you're done and won't have to reload this page of the thread to reset the spoiler effect.
  10. Re: Alignment Issues I'm not sure I would consider that as being neither Lawful nor Chaotic, but having elements of both. So, while the Neutral general might be Lawful, they would also be Chaotic. I think Law, by nature, does demand that sort of conformity; it's not just "be Lawful most of the time, and be whatever you want the rest of it", because that would be Chaotic; you don't let people choose when they want to obey the laws, and when they just don't have to. Since we've involved such worlds as Moorcock's and Zelazny's, though, I think we're looking for a somewhat more comprehensive definition of alignment? No such definition exists. No definition exists that is more comprehensive than D&D's?
  11. Re: Variable Mechanics Construct idea. For me? Do you have the right thread?
  12. Re: Realigning Power Defense I agree in theory, though I think that - given how Advantages and Limitations are cumulative with each other - some cost comparisons would be useful to see how Power Defense works out done each way.
  13. Re: Godwin's Law, or is that Godwin's Chaos? One of the browser features I miss
  14. Re: Alignment Issues Since we've involved such worlds as Moorcock's and Zelazny's, though, I think we're looking for a somewhat more comprehensive definition of alignment? I find it interesting that, although military commanders studied past battles to improve their ability to adapt to new situations on the field, every maneveur and every strategy had to be invented "for the first time" once. In other words, modifications of past ideas could only be taken so far; ultimately, in order to innovate and thus to win, Lawful military organizations had to rely on putting a Chaotic individual in charge of their forces (or, at least, placing them in an advisory position, though this might be less than effective when the leader was afraid of trying new things in desperate situations). They could still win with the same old ideas, of course. It just wouldn't last forever, especially if their core group of ideas was extremely limited. If actions, not intentions, are the measure of alignment, then the bumbling fool who wants to be Good but is not wise enough to tell the difference, consistently making Evil decisions instead (evil actions, "for the greater good" as mistakenly perceived), would be Evil. Of course, the same applies in reverse - someone who tried to be Evil, but whose actions were only Good, would logically be classified under Good. Partial successes (or failures) is defined by Law as "Chaos that aspires to be Lawful", even a single failure violates integrity and means the individual is able to set aside their own principles. Small correction: hatred and contempt. General? The empire must expand to maintain stability, and to bring order to the world: thus, a gigantic marauding civilized horde
  15. Re: Suppress Nastiness.... If you're thinking of the shortening telomeres, I prefer to think of this as nature's built-in protection against the Gray Goo scenario. Besides, there's plenty of non-entropic effects which can "kill" someone; it's just that the new pattern they create doesn't happen to include human life.
  16. Re: Swimming Stuff I don't have any page references, but from what you're describing it sounds like a Change Environment that provides Density Decrease - which, unfortunately, is not a power (the entry under Density Increase recommends taking a Physical Disadvantage for lower-density characters, which is not helpful). I would really like to see Density Increase expanded for this, by the way - it could do Feather Fall very nicely then, reducing maximum velocity and rate of acceleration by one step along the maximum velocity table for each level of Density Decrease perhaps?
  17. Definitions, stereotypes, and propaganda Law: Definition: A = A. This is the Law of Identity: everything has a singular nature, which always determines its qualities. A rock is never a sponge or an elephant; it is only itself. A rock does not float on the breeze, nor does it grow when exposed to sunlight. A rock has a very high MTBF; it does not fail to be a rock. From a metaphysical perspective, Law is about consistency. From a personal perspective, Law is about integrity. From a social perspective, Law is about everyone obeying the same rules. Stereotypes: Inflexible. Emotionless. Cold and logical. Robotic. Those who follow Law have given up their free will; they achieve integrity not through discipline, continually choosing the same thing, but through an inability to make any undesirable choice. Their nature binds them, restricts them. Propaganda: A = A. All things, even Chaos, must have a singular nature; therefore, Chaotic systems and individuals will inevitably follow certain patterns. Only their own lack of intelligence prevents them from seeing the beautiful complexity of their behaviors; they only call it Chaos, and only because they do not realize that no such thing can exist. Remember: A equals A. Chaos: Definition: Quantum mechanics and the Uncertainty principle. Statistics and probability; flipping a coin that lands tails-up does not influence what the next flip will be, one way or another. Actualizing a single moment of potential does not dictate the outcome of all future waveform states. From a metaphysical perspective, Chaos is about randomness. From a personal perspective, Chaos is about free will. From a social perspective, Chaos is about change. Stereotypes: Unpredictable, unreliable, untrustworthy. Insane. Those who follow Chaos are unable to pursue any sort of long-term plans; they change their minds partway through. They are irresponsible, escaping obligations the same way. Propaganda: So-called "patterns" are illusions, straws grasped at by minds too feeble to get by without such crutches. The string "11111111" is just as likely as "10101010"; both are equally significant, equally meaningless for predicting the ninth binary value. Good & Evil will be tackled tomorrow, I need to sleep again.
  18. Re: Variable Mechanics Construct idea. I like this, though I haven't thought of any specific examples at this time. It reminds me of languages where a single word can have many diverse meanings, depending on context. I think it could tighten up the list of powers.
  19. Re: Alignment Issues It was also David's - "government is there to protect the people from violence, death and the loss of freedom and nothing else". Since this position is legitimate in a Chaotic society, your point can't be reserved for Law alone. You might want to look back at your arguments thus far, a lot of which use "but Chaotic would . . . " assumptions, and very narrowly at that. I'll delve into this more deeply later tonight, but essentially, you are defining Chaos as the opposite of Law; only a Lawful society would always be "Chaotic", true Chaos by nature would not be limited to "must". David argued that Chaotic Good would be the proper alignment; you were the only one who argued for evil. So, my question remains - if stealing is evil, does it not matter that the "victim" of a theft only possessed that property because they stole it from the rightful owners? Did their theft make them the rightful owners? To use a modern example - Political Correctness: if I believe that you are oppressing me, is it still oppression? Is there an objective measurement of such things? If that "objective" measurement is backed up by your opinion, what makes your opinion any more qualified than mine? We're getting dangerously close to subjectivist ethics here. In other words, if you don't feel that they are - or should be - important, have them disqualified? Again, we're but a short step here from subjectivist ethics. So - your comparison to a Chaotic society weakens. Would you agree, then, that - when playing one yourself - only your beliefs about Good and Evil, about Law and Chaos, would be relevant? If you are not arguing merely in theory, then commit to your beliefs - not just a hypothetical situation where you will accept what is necessary for the sake of argument, but a realistic situation where your beliefs alone are applicable, and they are needed to determine what will happen: you are playing a character. It is your character. How would you play its alignment? Emphasis mine. You're going in circles now - they "are" evil, however that was determined, therefore killing them isn't. In much the same way, Darth Vader was not evil when killing the rebels, because they were demonstratably Chaotic; they were seeking to overthrow the established order. I could probably make a good case for the rebels being Evil, too. Detonating the Death Star - did they make any effort to prevent civilian casualties before doing that? Or was it "necessary"? The ends justify the means? You can't make an omulet without breaking a few eggs? Smaller evils are outweighed when counted against the greater good?
  20. Re: Quote of the Week from my gaming group... You can probably get the files there more quickly from The House Of Games; when you get bored with that, you can all play against each other over the internet with one of the sequels
  21. Re: Alignment Issues I'm preparing my own definition for your perusal. In the meantime, I'd like some additional clarification as to yours: I took "in favor of" to mean "actively supports", because that was consistent with what you had been saying before, but perhaps that's why you felt clarification was needed. It is possible to be in favor of a society other than the one you are living in, but support the one you are living in because you recognize that your own life would fall apart if you tried to "go against the current", as it were. OK. I don't see what that has to do with anything we were talking about. I certainly haven't made any such decision. I'm not sure why you would think that I had. It seems some people on this thread are making some unfounded assumptions about me. You have made some assumptions of your own about Chaos - the problem is that these assumptions are founded in Law. But if Chaos followed the principles of Law, it wouldn't be Chaos. So, if someone steals money, it then rightfully belongs to them? Anyone who tries to take it back is now the thief, and can be punished as such? Robin Hood believed that the taxes were unfair; they essentially constituted of stealing from the poor. He pursued justice in taking that money away from the tax collectors. If the sheriff saw the poor as deserving their lot in life, he might not see what he did as oppression. Additionally, didn't the Church teach a rather ascetic "hardship strengthens the soul, temptation leads to damnation" morality then? If the poor sheriff really fell for that line (and who wouldn't, seeing the rewards of wallowing in sin so that no one else would have to?), he might actually believe that he was doing the peasants a favor. To preserve their souls for heaven would be the ultimate grace, an act of Good. Or perhaps these alignments are simply not very meaningful? I tend to lean towards your view of this, but then, isn't the heart of our discourse that we disagree on which alignments are "meaningful"? Are you just debating the theory of this, with no relation to your personal beliefs, or inclination to - as the saying goes - "practice what you preach"? You said it yourself: the "Nuremburg defense", or "I was just following orders!", is no excuse for evil. Deliberately setting out to cold-bloodedly murder someone (or several someones!) is evil; or would you disagree? Perhaps you would disagree. They are, after all, orcs; creatures inherently evil! Besides, it is your holy duty as a paladin to seek out and destroy evil. As you said in your last post - "One kills evil people, decreasing the amount of evil in the world." See above for "defining Chaos according to the preconceptions of Law". My caution to David was about the "slippery slope" fallacy; just because Robin Hood stole, didn't mean he would support rape and murder as well! David pointed out that it would be necessary to support the "Chaotic Evil band of Merry Men", who would insist on the rape; and that murder would be easiest for them. I'm still doubtful, though: Just because their leader is Chaotic Evil, doesn't mean (all) the followers are. Aside from Neutral, there could be Chaotic Good people following him because they believe that Law/Chaos supersedes Good/Evil; it is best, for society, to throw their lot in with the Evil so as to overthrow the sheriff and his Lawful lackeys. By adding people, the chances that at least one of them will be motivated to rape would be increased, but you'd need many to overcome any opposition (disapproval) from the Good followers. They were called the Merry "Men", but back then peasant females were encouraged to dress as androgenously as possible, so that nobility passing by did not see them and take them. It is entirely possible that females would be counted among these followers, and they might perceive it as being in their own best interest to discourage rape (lest they be subject to it themselves).
  22. Re: Suppress Nastiness.... That's already incorporated into the build, in one sense; the self-termination condition for the Suppress is when it can't Suppress anything anymore. But is it at the 5d6 level? I could build it as one pip, if I were just wanting to put together a villain's "accelerated entropy" machine for the lowest possible point cost. It could be higher, it could be lower. The best way to know, IMO, and as I explained above, is to look at the Power Defense for someone that has been able to survive the death of a universe before.
×
×
  • Create New...