Jump to content

Robyn

HERO Member
  • Posts

    2,750
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Robyn

  1. Re: Swimming Stuff

     

    I am hardly an expert swimmer or anything' date=' but I've fooled around in the water enough to have noticed that descending isn't just a little harder than ascending, its a [u']lot[/u] harder.

     

    Some characters may have the bright idea of carrying wood (or tying a rope to a floating log so they could climb up- that would be smart),

     

    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

     

    You just defined Law out of existence.

     

    I did include multiple perspectives in each definition for a reason. Context matters.

     

    Since nothing is perfect' date=' if you are only Lawful when you are perfectly conformist,[/quote']

     

    You're mixing your terms now, and you weren't before. Conformity is not the same as perfection; being Lawful every day in every way is the conformity; "perfect conformity" is either identical to conformity (already included in the definition), in which case it's meaningless as a distinction, or it is a reference to perfection, which has nothing to do with intent (where the conformity is measured), only success - or failure.

     

    Weren't you arguing just a short while ago that alignment does look at intent and not just actions?

     

    No definition exists that is more comprehensive than D&D's?

     

    If it was more comprehensive than D&D's current (as opposed to just being different) then it would be so vague as to be meaningless.

     

    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: Variable Mechanics Construct idea.

     

    I thought so. Single power' date=' lots of uses: covers darkness, flash, images, invisibility and most of shapeshift. Tight.[/quote']

     

    Ahh, okay. I see now. Thanks.

     

    I wasn't thinking to consolidate, but more of a diffuse spread (like a language would have), so I didn't see that right away.

  4. Re: Bad Powers

     

    Then there's really nasty stuff. For example' date=' nd6 PRE Aid, limited to Seduction Skill checks on targets under the age of 11.[/quote']

     

    Tack on "Always On" and you have a poor, persecuted innocent who everyone thinks is the villain.

     

    That's just poor taste. :straight:

     

    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. Re: freeze spell

     

    Just want your opinions guys: i want to create a freeze water spell : it is better to use transform or change environnement

    transform water to ice or change-environnement temperature level

     

    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 :nonp:

  6. Re: Alignment Issues

     

    No I mean they were less restricted because they were less organised.

    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).

     

    No. That's not a chaotic person, or even a non-lawful person. That would be a stupid person. In this society, such a person is setting themselves up for a lot of trouble.

     

    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.

     

    I'd also point out that even a CG society could grow to be very large as long as there was something to keep them Good.

     

    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 angels (inherently Good people) could grow to any size and still be Chaotic, and remain stable.

     

    A society of mostly Good people could remain stable, dealing internally with any disruptions.

     

    So all of humanity suffers if the "chaos" side wins. How is that not Evil? That was my original question. So what happens if the Law side wins? If it's just a different flavor of suffering and death, then we're back to an arbitrary distinction.

     

    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.

  7. Re: Alignment Issues

     

    My point was that in a chaotic society' date=' leadership does not require anything but power (usually in the form of military might, or some means of enforcing one's will upon the people). And that position of leadership lasts only until someone else overcomes the current leader's power.[/quote']

     

    So, a chaotic society is a meritocracy?

     

    David said that power itself is a form of competence. That's true, but no other form of competence, such as the ability to make wise decisions about non-military matters, is required.

     

    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.

     

    Based on the definition of chaotic that I was using. Am I not allowed to draw any conclusions from alignment?

     

    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.

     

    This makes even less sense than what you said before. Of course Chaos is the opposite of Law! It's not just me saying it. David said it, D&D says it, and as far as I can tell Moorcock and Zelazny say it. And from your own definitions, as far as I can tell, even you say it.

     

    That's under propaganda. The distinction is that Law says that about Chaos.

     

    "A Lawful society would always be Chaotic"? WTF?

     

    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.

     

    No, I didn't.

     

    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.

     

    This is getting tiresome. I offered Robin Hood as an example of a Chaotic Good character. David said that if he had simply stolen out of greed, for his own benefit, he would be Chaotic Neutral.

     

    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.

     

    I replied that stealing for greed and one's own benefit is Evil, not Neutral. And in David's last post, he states that he doesn't believe stealing is Evil. That's an area where we strongly disagree!

     

    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?

     

    And again, IMO, what you *believe* is not what determines alignment, but what *is*.

     

    Exactly! And the same goes for your beliefs!

     

    IMO, there are objective measurements of most things, but we really don't have to argue about that.

     

    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.

     

    So would you add a Yankee/Dodgers axis to the alignment chart? Why not?

     

    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?

     

    What you seem to be saying is that because a Lawful society's law that one must bow to the king doesn't change the laws of physics so that people can't help but bow to the king, then the society isn't really lawful.

     

    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.

     

    No.

     

    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'm not agruing for my beliefs at all.

     

    I encourage you to do so, then; or, at least, to respond to the paladin scenario based on your beliefs.

     

    Does evil not mean anything to you?

     

    It does mean something to me; what it means will be posted later on.

     

    Is it just a stat on a character sheet that means, it's OK for Paladins to kill them?

     

    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?

     

    Your asserting that if you kill Chaotic people then you're not Evil has no basis. You may be Evil, or not.

     

    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.

     

    I doubt it. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "a good case".

     

    Well, nothing having to do with Good as an alignment, if that's what you're wondering :)

     

    I'm afraid to ask, but what's MTBF?

     

    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.

  8. Re: Alignment Issues

     

    Supplemental history for my next reply. A history of the exchanges about Robin Hood.

     

     

     

    PhilFleischmann:

    A classic example of Chaotic Good vs Lawful Evil would be the story of Robin Hood. But even here, Robin isn't specifically trying to be chaotic. He goes against the law because it's currently being used for evil. It's the evil that he objects to, not the lawfulness. The Sheriff of Nottingham fights against him, not because he's breaking the law, but because his actions thwart his evil purposes.

     

    David Johnston:

    A classic example of Chaotic Good vs Lawful Evil would be the story of Robin Hood. But even here, Robin isn't specifically trying to be chaotic. He goes against the law because it's currently being used for evil. It's the evil that he objects to, not the lawfulness.

     

    Because he's Chaotic Good. If he was Chaotic Neutral he'd steal just because he wanted the money and didn't respect authority. Note that the earliest versions of Robin DID steal just because he didn't respect authority and wanted the money. But a Lawful person wouldn't generally stake out a piece of turf and then just start robbing people as a response to an evil administration. Consider the Camber series by Katherine Kurtz for how Lawful Good types respond to an Evil King. Do they start a series of robberies and random guerilla attacks against the Evil guys? Not hardly. They look for a survivor from the previous dynasty who might be considered more legitimate and then they pull off a coup d'etat which is as bloodless as possible to install a new and better King. It's a difference in philosophy, and one that can create real conflicts when a hypothetical Ivanhoe runs into a hypothetical Robin Hood.

     

    The Sheriff of Nottingham fights against him, not because he's breaking the law, but because his actions thwart his evil purposes.

     

    You can't imagine the Sheriff not having any evil purposes but just doing his job as it was assigned to him by his boss?

     

    Robyn:

    The Sheriff of Nottingham fights against him' date=' not because he's breaking the law, but because his actions thwart his evil purposes.[/b']

     

    You can't imagine the Sheriff not having any evil purposes but just doing his job as it was assigned to him by his boss?

     

    Or, even recognizing that Robin Hood was battling for Good, holding Lawful to be more important than Good?

     

    PhilFleischmann:

    Because he's Chaotic Good. If he was Chaotic Neutral he'd steal just because he wanted the money and didn't respect authority.

     

    I'd say that would make him Chaotic Evil.

     

    Note that the earliest versions of Robin DID steal just because he didn't respect authority and wanted the money. But a Lawful person wouldn't generally stake out a piece of turf and then just start robbing people as a response to an evil administration. Consider the Camber series by Katherine Kurtz for how Lawful Good types respond to an Evil King. Do they start a series of robberies and random guerilla attacks against the Evil guys? Not hardly. They look for a survivor from the previous dynasty who might be considered more legitimate and then they pull off a coup d'etat which is as bloodless as possible to install a new and better King. It's a difference in philosophy, and one that can create real conflicts when a hypothetical Ivanhoe runs into a hypothetical Robin Hood.

     

    I've never heard of these "earliest versions," but everything else you say here seems to agree with my point. Lawful Good tends to work within the law to remove corruption. Chaotic Good goes outside of the law to remove the corruption.

     

    You can't imagine the Sheriff not having any evil purposes but just doing his job as it was assigned to him by his boss?

     

    Sure, I can. I can imagine lots of things. Doesn't make his purposes any less evil. The Nuremburg defense, "I was only following orders," doesn't change the morality of your actions.

     

    David Johnston:

    Quote:

    Because he's Chaotic Good. If he was Chaotic Neutral he'd steal just because he wanted the money and didn't respect authority.

    I'd say that would make him Chaotic Evil.

     

    All he's doing is stealing. A Chaotic Evil Robin Hood would probably be murdering the men and raping the women.

     

    Quote:

    You can't imagine the Sheriff not having any evil purposes but just doing his job as it was assigned to him by his boss?

    Sure, I can. I can imagine lots of things. Doesn't make his purposes any less evil.

     

    How is capturing a thief evil?

    (In re Moorcock)

     

    Robyn:

    Sure, I can. I can imagine lots of things. Doesn't make his purposes any less evil. The Nuremburg defense, "I was only following orders," doesn't change the morality of your actions.

    So if you were playing a paladin, you'd essentially be a pacifist? (Can't slaughter those orcs, even if they are evil, even if your church ordered you to do it; that would be murder, just like Darth Vader did to those rebels.)

     

    Robyn:

    All he's doing is stealing. A Chaotic Evil Robin Hood would probably be murdering the men and raping the women.

     

    Careful - but for that "probably", you're falling into the habit of doing exactly what Phil did, stereotyping alignments without regard to their personal interest.

     

    A thought - if Robin Hood were Lawful Evil, he would probably have listened to society while growing up, heard that people like him (evil) were murderers and rapists, respected that, and become a murderer and rapist! But if he were Chaotic Evil, he would have heard what society said, and then another factor would have entered the equation: his own, personal, desires (if he wasn't interested in those, he wouldn't have felt compelled to engage in them anyway).

     

    David Johnston:

    Careful - but for that "probably", you're falling into the habit of doing exactly what Phil did, stereotyping alignments without regard to their personal interest.

     

    But it would be in his personal interest. Robin Hood is the leader of a group of bandits. A Chaotic Evil version of the Merry Men needs the raping to stay merry. And as for the murders, it's a heck of a lot easier to be a robber if you aren't careful to minimise casualties.

     

    PhilFleischmann:

    All he's doing is stealing. A Chaotic Evil Robin Hood would probably be murdering the men and raping the women.

     

    So you don't consider stealing to be an evil act? Sure, if he were also raping and murdering, he'd be even more evil. But stealing is already evil enough.

     

    How is capturing a thief evil?

     

    It isn't. But oppressing the poor is.

     

    PhilFleischmann:

    So if you were playing a paladin, you'd essentially be a pacifist? (Can't slaughter those orcs, even if they are evil, even if your church ordered you to do it; that would be murder, just like Darth Vader did to those rebels.)

     

    Huh? I don't see the logic behind this, nor the need for making personal assumptions about me.

     

    Careful - but for that "probably", you're falling into the habit of doing exactly what Phil did, stereotyping alignments without regard to their personal interest.

     

    I'm not "stereotyping" alignments. I'm trying to find the definitions for them. And who's personal interest are you talking about? Fictitious characters in games and fiction? I'm sorry if I've offended Robin Hood, or Darth Vader or your D&D character.

     

    Robyn:

    So you don't consider stealing to be an evil act? Sure, if he were also raping and murdering, he'd be even more evil. But stealing is already evil enough.

     

    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.

     

    It isn't. But oppressing the poor is.

     

    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.

     

    Robyn:

    Huh? I don't see the logic behind this, nor the need for making personal assumptions about me.

     

    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."

     

    I'm not "stereotyping" alignments. I'm trying to find the definitions for them. And who's personal interest are you talking about? Fictitious characters in games and fiction? I'm sorry if I've offended Robin Hood, or Darth Vader or your D&D character.

     

    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).

     

    PhilFleischmann:

    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.

     

    I think you've missed what was said. I was responding to David's alternate hypothetical Robin Hood who steals for his own profit.

     

    If the sheriff saw the poor as deserving their lot in life, he might not see what he did as oppression.

     

    It doesn't matter what he sees it as. If he's actively contributing to their oppression (which he was), that's evil.

     

    Additionally, didn't the Church teach ... If the poor sheriff really fell for that line ... he might actually believe that he was doing the peasants a favor.

     

    It doesn't matter what you believe, or what you were taught. To go back to what I've always considered the most obvious example. Hitler believe the Jews deserved to die. He believed he was doing good by eliminating them. Distinguishing Good from Evil is not always easy. Many teach Evil, and call it Good. You have to watch out for that.

     

    The rest of this is included because having the whole Robin Hood discussion collected in one place might be useful for other purposes. Only the preceding, however, is relevant for the point I was trying to make.

     

    PhilFleischmann:

    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"?

     

    Just to be clear: I am neither a Paladin, nor a Chaotic Evil Marauder. I am not "preaching" anything. I am not trying to tell anyone how to be a paladin or a marauder. I wouldn't even say that I'm debating theory. I'm just trying to arrive at some meaningful definitions.

     

    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?

     

    Yes, of course. But that isn't the example you gave. If you're at war with evil orcs, or if you're simply trying to remove the threat that evil orcs pose, killing them is not murder. Please let's not get onto yet another tangent about whether orcs are "inherently" evil. We've done that before.

     

    Robyn:

    I think you've missed what was said. I was responding to David's alternate hypothetical Robin Hood who steals for his own profit.

     

    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?

     

    It doesn't matter what he sees it as. If he's actively contributing to their oppression (which he was), that's evil.

     

    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.

     

    Robyn:

    Just to be clear: I am neither a Paladin, nor a Chaotic Evil Marauder. I am not "preaching" anything. I am not trying to tell anyone how to be a paladin or a marauder. I wouldn't even say that I'm debating theory.

     

    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?

     

    Yes, of course. But that isn't the example you gave. If you're at war with evil orcs, or if you're simply trying to remove the threat that evil orcs pose, killing them is not murder.

     

    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?

     

    David Johnston:

    Quote:

    All he's doing is stealing. A Chaotic Evil Robin Hood would probably be murdering the men and raping the women.

    So you don't consider stealing to be an evil act?

     

    No, not really. It's not a very nice thing to do, but evil as I see it, is a good deal more than just "not very nice". More importantly in this context, however, is that it doesn't (generally) match the criteria for the Evil alignment.

     

    PhilFleischmann:

    David argued that Chaotic Good would be the proper alignment; you were the only one who argued for evil.

     

    No, I didn't. This is getting tiresome. I offered Robin Hood as an example of a Chaotic Good character. David said that if he had simply stolen out of greed, for his own benefit, he would be Chaotic Neutral. I replied that stealing for greed and one's own benefit is Evil, not Neutral. And in David's last post, he states that he doesn't believe stealing is Evil. That's an area where we strongly disagree!

     

    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?

     

    And again, IMO, what you *believe* is not what determines alignment, but what *is*. IMO, there are objective measurements of most things, but we really don't have to argue about that. It's certainly the case in a game, where there's a GM who can settle such matters.

     

    PhilFleischmann:

    Would you agree, then, that - when playing one yourself - only your beliefs about Good and Evil, about Law and Chaos, would be relevant?

     

    No.

     

    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?

     

    I'm not agruing for my beliefs at all. I'm trying to find definitions, meanings. How many more times do I have to say it? But nevermind, because we're talking about very different contexts for those definitions.

     

    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.

     

    If I'm going in circles, it's because I was trying to follow you. Does evil not mean anything to you? Is it just a stat on a character sheet that means, it's OK for Paladins to kill them? Your asserting that if you kill Chaotic people then you're not Evil has no basis. You may be Evil, or not. I suppose I should have seen the warning signs earlier when you said Darth Vader was Good. Oh, well.

     

    I could probably make a good case for the rebels being Evil, too.

     

    I doubt it. I suppose it depends on what you mean by "a good case".

     

    PhilFleischmann:

    So you don't consider stealing to be an evil act?

     

    No, not really.

     

    Wow.

     

     

     

    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.

  9. Re: Alignment Issues

     

    Has someone forgotten that there's a middle ground between Law and Chaos?

     

    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.

     

    Apart from that of course, while being attached to tradition is (often) a Lawful trait, being Lawfully aligned doesn't mean being Lawful every day in every way. Perfection is not expected.

     

    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.

     

    Isn't this discussion about how to adjudicate an alignment system modelled on that of D&D?
    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?

  10. Re: Realigning Power Defense

     

    Trying to tie it to SFX should IMO work in reverse (ie Limit it if it only protects X abilities or vs. X SFX).

     

    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.

  11. Re: Alignment Issues

     

    What I meant was' date=' that there were plenty of laws that positively mandated a lack of respect.[/quote']

     

    Such as shunning?

     

    Isn't this discussion about how to adjudicate an alignment system modelled on that of D&D?

     

    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 mean they were less restricted because they were less organised.

     

    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.

     

    Actually I was speaking of D&D. However if alignment doesn't represent something about the character above and beyond what they happen to be doing at a particular moment, then of course alignment doesn't really matter.

     

    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.

     

    Hitler was driven by hatred and envy

     

    Small correction: hatred and contempt.

     

    By and large that's the pattern I'd expect a stable Chaotic Good society to take but Chaotics who weren't so good could just as easily form a gigantic marauding barbarian horde. And of course a Chaotic of any persuasion could and would live in a predominantly Lawful society. He could be a

     

    General? :D

     

    The empire must expand to maintain stability, and to bring order to the world: thus, a gigantic marauding civilized horde :lol:

  12. Re: Suppress Nastiness....

     

    a dying person IS directly experiencing entropy.

     

    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.

  13. Re: Swimming Stuff

     

    I'm looking for suggestions or page references dealing with these things.

     

    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?

  14. 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.

  15. Re: Variable Mechanics Construct idea.

     

    Why not go one step further and allow a single power construct to have multiple definitions for 0 extra cost and let the GM decide which definition best applies to a specific game situation?

     

    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.

  16. Re: Alignment Issues

     

    Of course not. That was my point.

     

    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.

     

    I still don't understand what you mean by this. I've provided my definition of Chaos, which you are free to disagree with. But what assumption am I making exactly? What principle of Law am I assuming Chaos follows?

     

    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".

     

    I think you've missed what was said. I was responding to David's alternate hypothetical Robin Hood who steals for his own profit.

     

    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?

     

    It doesn't matter what he sees it as. If he's actively contributing to their oppression (which he was), that's evil.

     

    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.

     

    If they're not meaningful, then why call them "alignments"?

     

    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 what?

     

    So - your comparison to a Chaotic society weakens.

     

    Just to be clear: I am neither a Paladin, nor a Chaotic Evil Marauder. I am not "preaching" anything. I am not trying to tell anyone how to be a paladin or a marauder. I wouldn't even say that I'm debating theory.

     

    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?

     

    Yes, of course. But that isn't the example you gave. If you're at war with evil orcs, or if you're simply trying to remove the threat that evil orcs pose, killing them is not murder.

     

    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?

  17. Re: Alignment Issues

     

    I wrote out a lost reply and tried to submit it' date=' but when I clicked "submit," something decided that I was no longer logged in (even though I would have had to be to even write a reply in the first place), so my post was lost. :mad: I will look upon this as a blessing in disguise and post a more concise reply instead.[/quote']

     

    There was a length of time recently in which I frequently failed to connect to the server. This would happen even when I was attempting to post replies, with the result that my typing was lost. I resorted to saving my post just before sending it, and retreating to paste it and try again if I had to.

     

    What I learned in the process was that I only have one Clipboard, and I had to exercise patience when posting so I didn't replace the long post with the short post while still waiting for the long post to load so I could confirm that it had :ugly:

     

    I guess that really is the main source of out disagreement: To me, the values of freedom and egalitarianism have nothing to do with the Law/Chaos axis, and having a low boredom threshold is a personality trait having nothing to do with alignment.

     

    I'm preparing my own definition for your perusal. In the meantime, I'd like some additional clarification as to yours:

     

    Lawful (individual) = one who is especially in favor of a lawful society.

    Chaotic (individual) = one who is especially in favor of a chaotic society.

     

    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.

     

    What about disputes between individuals? Community-wide calamities? Investigation of crime? Defense of the accused? etc. True' date=' a chaotic leader can choose to ignore all these issues, but then he really hasn't displayed any competence other than physical might.[/quote']

     

    Does he really need to?

     

    In a "truly free-market economy" such as idealized by Objectivism, each of these would be taken care of by a specialized private company, all of which would be subject to competition if they were unfair or incompetent (lacking any laws to lock out new competitors in an artificial monopoly), and none of which would be afraid of competitors "shouldering" them out of the market through brute force (which the chaotic leader would enforce).

     

    It's up to the GM to decide how adjudicate his own biases towards Good or Lawfulness.

     

    What that means is, you are as free to decide that Chaos is wrong as you are to decide that Evil (or Good) is wrong.

    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 you don't consider stealing to be an evil act? Sure, if he were also raping and murdering, he'd be even more evil. But stealing is already evil enough.

     

    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.

     

    It isn't. But oppressing the poor is.

     

    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.

     

    No it doesn't. "Yankee fan" and "Dodgers fan" are not alignments, yet people definitely take sides.

     

    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"?

     

    Irrelevent. Actions' date=' not emotions. A lawful society establishes what respect is due to various persons. Whether people feel that respect in their hearts isn't what's important.[/quote']

     

    I was speaking about actions, not emotions. A society of Law may rule that you should bow to the king; this doesn't mean you will (and if you don't, you may get in trouble, but if lots of people don't, it may be the king who's in trouble). Furthermore, you may bow to someone even though there's no law saying you have to!

     

    So, while a Lawful society may establish what respect is due, it doesn't necessarily do very much about ensuring that respect (cue the guards to come out and whack the condemned prisoner in the back of the knees, forcing him to "kneel").

     

    Huh? I don't see the logic behind this, nor the need for making personal assumptions about me.

     

    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."

     

    I'm not "stereotyping" alignments. I'm trying to find the definitions for them. And who's personal interest are you talking about? Fictitious characters in games and fiction? I'm sorry if I've offended Robin Hood, or Darth Vader or your D&D character.

     

    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).

  18. Re: Suppress Nastiness....

     

    What hurt was the concept that entropy would be it's own downfall.

     

    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.

     

    Wouldn't 30 points of Power Defense complete negate it? At the 5d6 level anyway...

     

    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.

  19. Re: Speed Chart dynamism

     

    Resting is a non-combat action. If everybody is doing non-combat stuff' date=' it isn't combat anymore.[/quote']

     

    I've seen this in anime, though: two fighters, facing off from opposite ends of the battlefield, panting heavily. They're not taking Recoveries; they're keeping an eye on each other and holding their actions, while slowly (naturally, post-Segment 12) recovering.

×
×
  • Create New...