EPTOn September 27 2014 05:12 ComaDose wrote:
pls use time tag soniv, its already happy hour somewhere; aka req's work
pls use time tag soniv, its already happy hour somewhere; aka req's work
that was time tagged ya hoser
Off-Topic General Discussion - Page 3031
| Forum Index > The Shopkeeper′s Inn |
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
that was time tagged ya hoser | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On September 27 2014 05:19 Scip wrote: Im going to watch Day sof Futa Past so I hope I dont miss anything since some of you guys said in 3AM CEST i didn't know they made a porno version of that one. | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
On September 27 2014 05:37 PrinceXizor wrote: i didn't know they made a porno version of that one. A futa version would have fewer inconsistencies. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
sorry eh | ||
|
WaveofShadow
Canada31495 Posts
kthx | ||
|
jcarlsoniv
United States27922 Posts
On September 27 2014 06:00 WaveofShadow wrote: k don't start till 4.5h from this post kthx You keep bumping it back half an hour | ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
On September 27 2014 02:48 PrinceXizor wrote: My favorite use of alignment was a DM that had everyone start at neutral in a mercenary campaign, and he altered our alignments based on actions and words, never telling us our shifts. There were alignment based consequences later in the Campaign, like we were hired to infiltrate a castle as new guards, but they had a detect evil spell to prevent such a thing ( we were working for a relatively evil country at the time), and a couple of us got caught being evil completely unaware. Yeah, I'm more in favor of this. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
A CE character that is put in circumstances where he would perform lawful or good actions doesn't become less chaotic or less evil by virtue of those actions unless they are fundamentally altering how he thinks about the world. Plus the idea that an adventuring party would unknowingly result in a group of players of diametrically opposed alignment without it coming up as an issue over the course of several months is very unlikely. Even though it makes sense that an evil person might not consider himself to be evil, etc.--someone who is LG and someone who is CE would have such starkly different philosophical views that they would by necessity come to conflict well before they could be "caught by surprise". | ||
|
Numy
South Africa35471 Posts
| ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
Parnage
United States7414 Posts
| ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 27 2014 06:21 wei2coolman wrote: Behaviour is easy to measure. Unless you want each player top write a dissertation to preface his of his actions that don't seem to follow his alignment Or you accept that as a moral/philosophical concept and not a behavioral one, alignment has very little microscopic impact on actions in a particular game, and generally is far more associated with macroscopic issues of motivation and internal thought. The idea that behavior ties to alignment is quite frankly a very video-game-y approach to the entire concept because video games generally spoon-feed you your macroscopic goal/motivations. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On September 27 2014 06:17 TheYango wrote: Again, that has the issue of viewing alignment as behavioral rather than moral/philosophical. A CE character that is put in circumstances where he would perform lawful or good actions doesn't become less chaotic or less evil by virtue of those actions unless they are fundamentally altering how he thinks about the world. What we said mattered a lot more than what we did. but with the way the campaign was run. i don't think you can argue it was too different. between a moral and an action based thing. I mean we agreed to sneak into a castle, impersonate guards and slaughter children and the king to start a succession war so that our employer could swoop in and conquer the land. its hard to argue that our actions did anything but betray our morals in that instance. likewise when we had to go burn a cities farmlands in retreat to prevent the enemy one of the group suggested that we evacuate the villagers first and give them the goods when they hid, and we ended up mostly just bickering over that until the enemy army arrived and we torched it out of necessity. Alignment isn't a fine line where its strictly a belief system. Believing in good is well and good, but you aren't a good character if all you do is talk, but when it comes down to it, you happily cut a childs throat in his sleep and then smother his screaming sister. saying "its all for the greater good" involves some mental gymnastics you had to have decided that the money was worth the sin which is a shift in your belief system. likewise an evil character choosing to spare a merchant from goblins doesn't make him good when its done out of convenience and to get some cheaper goods. our group RP's quite a lot so it was pretty easy for our DM to see our motivations behind our actions. and he used that moreso than the acts. but some things are irreconcilable with your belief system. eventually you can believe that you are a good person and believe in justice and fair play all you want but denial only goes so far when you have no qualms with working for a tyrant because he pays the best. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 27 2014 06:26 PrinceXizor wrote: Alignment isn't a fine line where its strictly a belief system. Believing in good is well and good, but you aren't a good character if all you do is talk, but when it comes down to it, you happily cut a childs throat in his sleep and then smother his screaming sister. saying "its all for the greater good" involves some mental gymnastics. Of course not, but that's because a philosophical worldview has to be internally consistent enough to make sense to someone of your Wisdom score. Saying it involves "mental gymnastics" generally means it makes no fucking sense because for the most part people don't talk circles around themselves defining their core philosophical motivations. | ||
|
ComaDose
Canada10357 Posts
On September 27 2014 06:23 Parnage wrote: Ffsss fucking nerds. Just kill the goblin already! get the mountain dew and doritos. im casting magic missile. + Show Spoiler + im attacking the darkness | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On September 27 2014 06:31 TheYango wrote: That makes it seem even more unlikely to me that alignment defined like that could possibly catch you off guard because there's no way that 2 characters could unknowingly be LG and CE and then not come to blows about something well before that point. Philosophically the two are simply too dissimilar unless your DM was amplifying differences on the alignment spectrum to be far wider than they actually are. Of course not, but that's because a philosophical worldview has to be internally consistent enough to make sense to someone of your Wisdom score. Saying it involves "mental gymnastics" generally means it makes no fucking sense because for the most part people don't talk circles around themselves defining their core philosophical motivations. If alignment is purely philosophical then its not only pointless, but All of DnD has had it wrong in the way they define the hells and heavens. The elder evils have more depth than to be philosophically pure evil. their actions define them as evil, while they themselves believe in a lot more than just pure evil. some even have good notions on certain subjects. DnD does not view alignment as a strict philosophical element. Actions have consequences. as for the campaign. That was our second job for the guy, and he was paying the best. we had graduated from escort duty and wanted something more. it was about 8 or 9 weeks in so a lot had happened over time to shift some of the players to neutral evil. while others drifted lawful and i drifted chaotic. | ||
|
Alaric
France45622 Posts
On September 27 2014 06:21 Numy wrote: Yango makes DnD game sound like this serious philosophical forum that merely has a game taking place at the same time. Sounds awesome. I think it's more people thinking a CE coming across an orphan would kill him because it's in line with his alignement, instead of just considering that he might have no qualms about it without feeling any specific urge to act on that. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 27 2014 06:39 PrinceXizor wrote: If alignment is purely philosophical then its not only pointless, but All of DnD has had it wrong in the way they define the hells and heavens. Why is it pointless? A system to define/approximate a character's internal worldview and motivations seems pretty useful to me. On September 27 2014 06:39 PrinceXizor wrote: The elder evils have more depth than to be philosophically pure evil. Of course. The alignment system even as a philosophical construct does not force an entity that is "chaotic evil" to have a chaotic and evil outlook on everything--simply that it is the closest approximation of their worldview at large. On September 27 2014 06:39 PrinceXizor wrote: their actions define them as evil, while they themselves believe in a lot more than just pure evil. some even have good notions on certain subjects. I would argue the reverse--their philosophy and worldview defines them as evil, despite that in some instances they might take "good" actions to further their larger goals. On September 27 2014 06:39 PrinceXizor wrote: DnD does not view alignment as a strict philosophical element. Actions have consequences. I don't think D&D has explicitly specified this since 2nd Ed. | ||
|
Ketara
United States15065 Posts
IMO, it's called a role playing game for a reason. The players are supposed to play roles. Including an alignment system into the game for me does nothing but create problems when the way the person plays the character doesn't match up with their in game "alignment". People should be responsible for portraying their own character through the way they act out that character, the game shouldn't be responsible for portraying it. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 27 2014 07:01 Ketara wrote: Including an alignment system into the game for me does nothing but create problems when the way the person plays the character doesn't match up with their in game "alignment". People should be responsible for portraying their own character through the way they act out that character, the game shouldn't be responsible for portraying it. Then do you dislike classes and ability scores? Because both of those put far more restriction on "how you play your character" than alignment does. A character being stupid has a lot more real practical implication than a character's philosophical leaning. Like I don't see how "I have to play a character who is borderline mentally retarded" isn't more restrictive than "I have to play a character who is morally upstanding". Both act as an impetus to push the player to move outside his comfort zone and think and act in a way that's different from how they do so in real life. | ||
| ||
