Discussion:
Was: Alternate alignment tracking (was: Names for the Party
(too old to reply)
Zenobia
2004-08-25 13:22:10 UTC
Permalink
There are no binary opposites of Good vs. Evil (with neutral
somewhere in the middle). There is just a standard of what
is considered good.
So people who murder others for financial gain are "good, but
not as good as others,"--i.e.: those who don't?
Such people don't eat babies - that only happens in fantasy
stories where everything is neatly packaged into Good and Evil.
What a coinkydink... we're talking about fantasy stories.
Some murders probably always remember to give their mothers a
birthday or Mother's Day present. I don't. So in that respect
such people would be better than me. In other respects they're
clearly not as good as me.
Where did anyone say that a character with the Evil label doesn't have some
Good qualities? Any type of character can love their parents, siblings,
spouses, children, friends, and neighbours. What matters is their general
outlook. How do they feel about the rest of the world?
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
I'm not a moral relativist - I can see that there are bad and
good actions. It's the way the label of good and bad is applied
to characters as a game mechanic that I have problems with -
because those Good and Bad notions come from modern Western
ideas not from anything in a specific fantasy world.

I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments. It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it
so.

For example, a game with an completely alternative moral compass
- Empire of the Petal Throne - has a tiny number of players.
It's too hard for people to get their heads around it.

So why don't you guys just admit that the D&D alignment system
is there because it's felt that something has to be there and
the D&D system is pretty easy for most people to grasp because
it draws on common sense? - Modern Common sense notions of good
and evil and fantasy paradigms from writers such as Tolkien and
Moorcock.

This pretense that anything goes is wearing a bit thin. It seems
that most people are too busy blowing their own trumpets about
how, in their wonderful games, "anything goes" - to actually
acknowledge that there are quite severe restrictions upon what
most people can cope with.

The thread below:

Subject: Worst Meta-gaming Experience Ever
Newsgroups:
rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.gurps
Message-ID: <***@posting.google.com>

is quite interesting because it's looking at one of the reasons
why anything doesn't go. It's only by understanding barriers
such as these that a role-gamer can overcome such barriers and
make the fantasy a better game.

I guess there are just a tiny minority, like me, who see D&D
alignment as a different kind of barrier. I appreciate that the
imposition of an alternative moral compass to D&D alignment is
always a restriction on what goes. The only point I'm making
here is that every moral compass imposed upon a fantasy game
restricts but each different moral compass restricts in a
different way. I'm just looking for different restrictions to
those of D&D alignment.

I can't really say anything more on the matter.
No. As D&D defines alignements, disrespect for life to
increase your own standing is Evil.
As defined by D&D. My problem with it is that it's too boring to
have this framework imposed upon the game.
You're entitled to that opinion... even if it doesn't hold true for others.
Thank you. I may be entitled to that opinion by you but most
people here (news:rec.games.frp.dnd) wouldn't entitle me to it.
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-25 16:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
I'm not a moral relativist - I can see that there are bad and
good actions. It's the way the label of good and bad is applied
to characters as a game mechanic that I have problems with -
because those Good and Bad notions come from modern Western
ideas not from anything in a specific fantasy world.
You have done it *AGAIN*. D&D does not judge good and bad, desirable or
undesirable, it merely CATEGORIZES ways of thinking.
WHY CAN'T YOU LEARN THIS?
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments. It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it so.
BULLSHIT.
Please tell us what character cannot be played because of D&D
cateogories for ethics.
Post by Zenobia
This pretense that anything goes is wearing a bit thin. It seems
that most people are too busy blowing their own trumpets about
how, in their wonderful games, "anything goes" - to actually
acknowledge that there are quite severe restrictions upon what
most people can cope with.
WHAT RESTRICTIONS?
You keep *saying* there are restrictions and limitations, bitch - but
you CANNOT SEEM TO NAME A SINGLE ONE.
NAME A LIMITATION THE SYSTEM IMPOSES!
JUST ONCE.

The thing you can't seem to grasp here is that assertions such as yours
are *DEMONSTRABLY WRONG*.

-Michael
Chipacabra
2004-08-25 20:26:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scott Brown
WHAT RESTRICTIONS?
You keep *saying* there are restrictions and limitations, bitch - but
you CANNOT SEEM TO NAME A SINGLE ONE.
NAME A LIMITATION THE SYSTEM IMPOSES!
JUST ONCE.
The thing you can't seem to grasp here is that assertions such as yours
are *DEMONSTRABLY WRONG*.
Obviously the game should cater to the mental handicap of refusing to
start with a character's personality and determine an alignment that best
fits it. Since there's 9 choices of alignment, obviously that means you
have to roll a d9 to determine what alignment you are, and you can only
behave that way forever and ever, and your character has to go around
telling people what alignment he is or else he stops getting Lawful Good
Union benefits.


Blah. As far as the game is concerned, all alignment is is a tool to
determine how certain magical spells, items, and effects affect the
character. Oh, no, what a straightjacket!
Beowulf Bolt
2004-08-26 15:26:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scott Brown
WHAT RESTRICTIONS?
You keep *saying* there are restrictions and limitations, bitch -
but you CANNOT SEEM TO NAME A SINGLE ONE.
NAME A LIMITATION THE SYSTEM IMPOSES!
JUST ONCE.
The thing you can't seem to grasp here is that assertions such as
yours are *DEMONSTRABLY WRONG*.
Wow. Overconnect to a *game* much?

Calling someone a 'bitch' merely because her opinion differs from
yours - even if she has certain facts wrong - is excessive.

PLONK.

Biff
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"All around me darkness gathers, fading is the sun that shone,
we must speak of other matters, you can be me when I'm gone..."
- SANDMAN #67, Neil Gaiman
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-08-26 17:53:19 UTC
Permalink
Beowulf Bolt, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Post by Michael Scott Brown
WHAT RESTRICTIONS?
You keep *saying* there are restrictions and limitations, bitch -
but you CANNOT SEEM TO NAME A SINGLE ONE.
NAME A LIMITATION THE SYSTEM IMPOSES!
JUST ONCE.
The thing you can't seem to grasp here is that assertions such as
yours are *DEMONSTRABLY WRONG*.
Wow. Overconnect to a *game* much?
Calling someone a 'bitch' merely because her opinion differs from
yours - even if she has certain facts wrong - is excessive.
Beowulf Bolt, meet MSB :-).

He's right more often than not, but one of his trademarks is having the
volume turned up way too high. I can think of people here (rgfa) with
the same problem, though usually not as foul-mouthed. *shrug* He *has*
as good as admitted it's all an act, and he can be quite reasonable if
you're not one of the people he considers an idiot.

I must say this post is vitriolic even by his standards, but it's coming
several days into a LOOONG argument, most of which hasn't been cross-
posted to here, in which Zenobia has repeatedly been given correct
information on the alignment system, much of it from far cooler heads
than MSB, and simply refused to accept any of it.
--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
David Johnston
2004-08-25 17:53:40 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
There are no binary opposites of Good vs. Evil (with neutral
somewhere in the middle). There is just a standard of what
is considered good.
So people who murder others for financial gain are "good, but
not as good as others,"--i.e.: those who don't?
Such people don't eat babies - that only happens in fantasy
stories where everything is neatly packaged into Good and Evil.
What a coinkydink... we're talking about fantasy stories.
Some murders probably always remember to give their mothers a
birthday or Mother's Day present. I don't. So in that respect
such people would be better than me. In other respects they're
clearly not as good as me.
Where did anyone say that a character with the Evil label doesn't have some
Good qualities? Any type of character can love their parents, siblings,
spouses, children, friends, and neighbours. What matters is their general
outlook. How do they feel about the rest of the world?
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
That is not responsive.
Post by Zenobia
I'm not a moral relativist - I can see that there are bad and
good actions. It's the way the label of good and bad is applied
to characters as a game mechanic that I have problems with -
because those Good and Bad notions come from modern Western
ideas not from anything in a specific fantasy world.
That is such bullshit. There are _plenty_ of specific fantasy worlds
which where the difference between Good and Bad is magically
significant.
Post by Zenobia
For example, a game with an completely alternative moral compass
- Empire of the Petal Throne - has a tiny number of players.
From what I've read of EPT, (the novels) it has a pretty
straightforward "Chaos=Evil", "Law=Good" compass.
Post by Zenobia
It's too hard for people to get their heads around it.
So why don't you guys just admit that the D&D alignment system
is there because it's felt that something has to be there and
the D&D system is pretty easy for most people to grasp because
it draws on common sense? -
The problem with that is?
Post by Zenobia
This pretense that anything goes is wearing a bit thin.
What doesn't go?

It seems
Post by Zenobia
that most people are too busy blowing their own trumpets about
how, in their wonderful games, "anything goes" - to actually
acknowledge that there are quite severe restrictions upon what
most people can cope with.
Subject: Worst Meta-gaming Experience Ever
rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.gurps
is quite interesting because it's looking at one of the reasons
why anything doesn't go. It's only by understanding barriers
such as these that a role-gamer can overcome such barriers and
make the fantasy a better game.
That assumes that overcoming those "barriers" will make the
fantasy a better game. Me, I suspect that making people
play characters they don't want to play, characters they
"can't cope with" will make a worse game.
Zenobia
2004-08-26 10:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
There are no binary opposites of Good vs. Evil (with neutral
somewhere in the middle). There is just a standard of what
is considered good.
So people who murder others for financial gain are "good, but
not as good as others,"--i.e.: those who don't?
Such people don't eat babies - that only happens in fantasy
stories where everything is neatly packaged into Good and Evil.
What a coinkydink... we're talking about fantasy stories.
Some murders probably always remember to give their mothers a
birthday or Mother's Day present. I don't. So in that respect
such people would be better than me. In other respects they're
clearly not as good as me.
Where did anyone say that a character with the Evil label doesn't have some
Good qualities? Any type of character can love their parents, siblings,
spouses, children, friends, and neighbours. What matters is their general
outlook. How do they feel about the rest of the world?
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
That is not responsive.
Apologies. I meant everyday 20th century Western thought. D&D
Good vs. Evil are culturally specific to modern times but
pretend to be universal for all times (past & future) and places
(real and fantasy).
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
I'm not a moral relativist - I can see that there are bad and
good actions. It's the way the label of good and bad is applied
to characters as a game mechanic that I have problems with -
because those Good and Bad notions come from modern Western
ideas not from anything in a specific fantasy world.
That is such bullshit. There are _plenty_ of specific fantasy worlds
which where the difference between Good and Bad is magically
significant.
All the worst ones.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
For example, a game with an completely alternative moral compass
- Empire of the Petal Throne - has a tiny number of players.
From what I've read of EPT, (the novels) it has a pretty
straightforward "Chaos=Evil", "Law=Good" compass.
In your imagination. The EPT game is 30 years old, as old as
D&D. I should've wrote 'Tekumel' instead - which could refer to
the 1983 rules, the 1994 rules or the new editions due this
year, which may, with luck, arrive sometime before xmas.

There is no Good-Evil compass in Tekumel. The supposed Law-Chaos
compass doesn't work either. I don't think we have concepts to
describe the two axis that the pantheon is supposed to form.
Barker (the author) uses Stability-Change but that makes no
sense to me even when he explains it. Two of the 'Change'
temples: Vimuhla and Sarku will hardly ever cooperate on any
venture and a Vimuhla warrior would sooner slay a Sarku priest
than one of Karakan (who is a Stability deity). At any point all
other Temples may gang up against the Change Temple of Ksarul -
because they are recognized as being potentially very dangerous
to all others.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
It's too hard for people to get their heads around it.
So why don't you guys just admit that the D&D alignment system
is there because it's felt that something has to be there and
the D&D system is pretty easy for most people to grasp because
it draws on common sense? -
The problem with that is?
It bores me stiff because it offers no challenge.

If you want to keep it in the game because it's easy for people
to get their heads around then OK. I suppose I could still make
use of D&D by just ditching everything to do with alignment and
replacing it with something else.

I withdraw my objection to keeping alignment in the core rules.
D&D is a popular game and people seem to need something like it.
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
This pretense that anything goes is wearing a bit thin.
What doesn't go?
If you lack the imagination to answer that - then I'm
speechless. The mechanics of D&D dictate what is possible but
also what is not possible. The character classes, levels,
alignment system - are focused towards a particular style of
play. D&D is mass market and the masses seem to prefer that
style of play. There are way too many cliches in there for me
though.
Post by David Johnston
It seems
Post by Zenobia
that most people are too busy blowing their own trumpets about
how, in their wonderful games, "anything goes" - to actually
acknowledge that there are quite severe restrictions upon what
most people can cope with.
Subject: Worst Meta-gaming Experience Ever
rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.gurps
is quite interesting because it's looking at one of the reasons
why anything doesn't go. It's only by understanding barriers
such as these that a role-gamer can overcome such barriers and
make the fantasy a better game.
That assumes that overcoming those "barriers" will make the
fantasy a better game. Me, I suspect that making people
play characters they don't want to play, characters they
"can't cope with" will make a worse game.
Making people play unfamiliar characters presents them with a
challenge but, after having done it, they will hopefully be
better players.

Best that we drop this alignment business. It's going nowhere -
I should never've entered the debate in the first place.

The metagaming thread is still interesting. But also, of
interest to me, is anything about what people consider to be
barriers to gaming freedom - apart from obvious criticisms such
as rules in general. Criticizing specific rules such as
character classes, levels, alignment system for setting up
barriers seems valid though. (but not if I do it in a D&D
forum!)
Rupert Boleyn
2004-08-26 11:51:56 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:56:14 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
That is such bullshit. There are _plenty_ of specific fantasy worlds
which where the difference between Good and Bad is magically
significant.
All the worst ones.
And that is why6 you're getting such flak. You didn't present that as
opinion, but as fact, and it's not fact, but merely opinion. This is
half Cope's problem as well, I think.
Post by Zenobia
There is no Good-Evil compass in Tekumel. The supposed Law-Chaos
compass doesn't work either. I don't think we have concepts to
describe the two axis that the pantheon is supposed to form.
Barker (the author) uses Stability-Change but that makes no
sense to me even when he explains it. Two of the 'Change'
temples: Vimuhla and Sarku will hardly ever cooperate on any
venture and a Vimuhla warrior would sooner slay a Sarku priest
than one of Karakan (who is a Stability deity). At any point all
other Temples may gang up against the Change Temple of Ksarul -
because they are recognized as being potentially very dangerous
to all others.
Just because two (or more) groups who have the same basic outlook
can't get along doesn't mean the spectrum isn't simple. It just means
that the people of that world, like us, can't always agree on
specifics.

I'm for democracy and much of the modern western way of life, but I
find many of the USA's political and social instutions throughly
distasteful. That doesn't mean that we can't have a simple spectrum
from 'free state' to 'totalitarian state' and put most citizens of the
USA and me close to the 'free' end.

Change vs Stability is much the same as Law vs Chaos (especially if
you don't go all Moorcockian).
--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Zenobia
2004-08-26 13:28:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:51:56 +1200, Rupert Boleyn
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:56:14 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
There is no Good-Evil compass in Tekumel. The supposed Law-Chaos
compass doesn't work either. I don't think we have concepts to
describe the two axis that the pantheon is supposed to form.
Barker (the author) uses Stability-Change but that makes no
sense to me even when he explains it. Two of the 'Change'
temples: Vimuhla and Sarku will hardly ever cooperate on any
venture and a Vimuhla warrior would sooner slay a Sarku priest
than one of Karakan (who is a Stability deity). At any point all
other Temples may gang up against the Change Temple of Ksarul -
because they are recognized as being potentially very dangerous
to all others.
Just because two (or more) groups who have the same basic outlook
can't get along doesn't mean the spectrum isn't simple. It just means
that the people of that world, like us, can't always agree on
specifics.
I'm for democracy and much of the modern western way of life, but I
find many of the USA's political and social instutions throughly
distasteful. That doesn't mean that we can't have a simple spectrum
from 'free state' to 'totalitarian state' and put most citizens of the
USA and me close to the 'free' end.
Change vs Stability is much the same as Law vs Chaos (especially if
you don't go all Moorcockian).
In Tekumel, Change vs Stability bear little conceptual
relationship to Law vs Chaos. As far as I'm concerned, one may
as well call the split in the Tekumel pantheon to be Apple and
Orange. But one thing's for sure there is a split with 5 main
Temples on one side 5 on the other. The descriptors in the
original EPT game (Good and Evil) make as much or as little
sense to me in describing the split. [and I've read the novels,
sourcebooks and most gaming material].

For most of the arguments you can come up describing the Temple
of Sarku as change-like I can come up with a counter argument
describing it as stability-like. Somewhere in a Tekumel
mail-list you may find an explanation of why the Temple of Sarku
are in the Change group of 5.

My suspicion is that they're really there because the author
wanted 5 on one side and 5 on the other! I suspect that the
pantheon split came before the use of stability and change to
describe the pantheon split. Evidence - the original EPT game
described the pantheons split in terms of Good and Evil not
Stability and Change. A Temple on one side being 'balanced' in
some way by a Temple on the other. But, correct me if I'm wrong,
doesn't peace balance war? So how exactly is the Stability War
Temple of Karakan balanced by the Change War Temple of Vimuhla?
Puzzles me. I may be able to read the explanation for this but I
sure don't agree with it.

As I said, I suspect that they're really there because the
author wanted 5 on one side and 5 on the other!

Also note that Change and Stability are not "forces of the
universe" in Tekumel but just descriptors that split those ten
Temples into 2 groups. Other Tekumel pantheons don't have such a
split.

I regard the Stability Temple of Karakan to be much more
change-like than the Change Temple of Sarku. I seems to me that
a war Temple is change-like and a Temple such as Sarku, where
followers aspire be eternal undead status, is stability-like.
That's why I think the words Change and Stability that classify
the pantheon don't quite match the everyday English language
concepts of change and stability.

Real world, historical mythologies have all sorts of
inconsistencies and perhaps the author wanted to model that?

It has also been implied that the actual nature of the split in
the pantheon is unknown but that the inhabitants of Tekumel find
the concepts of Change and Stability easiest to understand w.r.t
the split.

It is also been implied that the actual Gods may not map to
those 10 Gods in the pantheon. Elsewhere on Tekumel a God is
worshipped who combines both the characteristics of Avanthe
(Stability) with Her opposite Dlamelish (Change). In other
words, some Tekumel Gods may map to 2 actual Gods or some actual
Gods may be worshipped as two separate Gods.

The point being that Change and Stability may be just labels to
describe a split in the pantheon of one of the Empires on
Tekumel and that this split may be just a human construct
imposed by our habit of splitting things into binary opposites
(Yin & Yang, Good & Evil, Law & Chaos, etc.)

However, the average citizen of Tsolyanu (an Empire on Tekumel)
will be absolutely certain that there are 10 Gods and that they
are split into 2 opposing groups within the pantheon - Change
and Stability. Each God having one who 'opposes' his/her mirror
God.
Rupert Boleyn
2004-08-26 13:37:58 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:28:51 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Change vs Stability is much the same as Law vs Chaos (especially if
you don't go all Moorcockian).
In Tekumel, Change vs Stability bear little conceptual
relationship to Law vs Chaos.
Example?
Post by Zenobia
My suspicion is that they're really there because the author
wanted 5 on one side and 5 on the other! I suspect that the
pantheon split came before the use of stability and change to
describe the pantheon split. Evidence - the original EPT game
described the pantheons split in terms of Good and Evil not
Stability and Change. A Temple on one side being 'balanced' in
some way by a Temple on the other. But, correct me if I'm wrong,
doesn't peace balance war? So how exactly is the Stability War
Temple of Karakan balanced by the Change War Temple of Vimuhla?
Puzzles me. I may be able to read the explanation for this but I
sure don't agree with it.
A fail to see why you can't have proponents of war on both sides of a
fence.
--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Zenobia
2004-08-26 13:43:39 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 23:51:56 +1200, Rupert Boleyn
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:56:14 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
There is no Good-Evil compass in Tekumel. The supposed Law-Chaos
compass doesn't work either. I don't think we have concepts to
describe the two axis that the pantheon is supposed to form.
Barker (the author) uses Stability-Change but that makes no
sense to me even when he explains it. Two of the 'Change'
temples: Vimuhla and Sarku will hardly ever cooperate on any
venture and a Vimuhla warrior would sooner slay a Sarku priest
than one of Karakan (who is a Stability deity). At any point all
other Temples may gang up against the Change Temple of Ksarul -
because they are recognized as being potentially very dangerous
to all others.
Just because two (or more) groups who have the same basic outlook
can't get along doesn't mean the spectrum isn't simple. It just means
that the people of that world, like us, can't always agree on
specifics.
I'm for democracy and much of the modern western way of life, but I
find many of the USA's political and social instutions throughly
distasteful. That doesn't mean that we can't have a simple spectrum
from 'free state' to 'totalitarian state' and put most citizens of the
USA and me close to the 'free' end.
Change vs Stability is much the same as Law vs Chaos (especially if
you don't go all Moorcockian).
In Tekumel, Change vs Stability bear little conceptual
relationship to Law vs Chaos. As far as I'm concerned, one may
as well call the split in the Tekumel pantheon to be Apple and
Orange. But one thing's for sure there is a split with 5 main
Temples on one side 5 on the other. The descriptors in the
original EPT game (Good and Evil) make as much or as little
sense to me in describing the split. [and I've read the novels,
sourcebooks and most gaming material].

For most of the arguments you can come up describing the Temple
of Sarku as change-like I can come up with a counter argument
describing it as stability-like. Somewhere in a Tekumel
mail-list you may find an explanation of why the Temple of Sarku
are in the Change group of 5.

My suspicion is that they're really there because the author
wanted 5 on one side and 5 on the other! I suspect that the
pantheon split came before the use of stability and change to
describe the pantheon split. Evidence - the original EPT game
described the pantheons split in terms of Good and Evil not
Stability and Change. A Temple on one side being 'balanced' in
some way by a Temple on the other. But, correct me if I'm wrong,
doesn't peace balance war? So how exactly is the Stability War
Temple of Karakan balanced by the Change War Temple of Vimuhla?
Puzzles me. I may be able to read the explanation for this but I
sure don't agree with it.

As I said, I suspect that they're really there because the
author wanted 5 on one side and 5 on the other!

Also note that Change and Stability are not "forces of the
universe" in Tekumel but just descriptors that split those ten
Temples into 2 groups. Other Tekumel pantheons don't have such a
split.

I regard the Stability Temple of Karakan to be much more
change-like than the Change Temple of Sarku. I seems to me that
a war Temple is change-like and a Temple such as Sarku, where
followers aspire to eternal undead status, is stability-like.
That's why I think the words Change and Stability that classify
the pantheon don't quite match the everyday English language
concepts of change and stability.

Real world, historical mythologies have all sorts of
inconsistencies and perhaps the author wanted to model that?

It has also been implied that the actual nature of the split in
the pantheon is unknown but that the inhabitants of Tekumel find
the concepts of Change and Stability easiest to understand w.r.t
the split.

It maybe that the actual Gods may not map to those 10 Gods in
the pantheon. Elsewhere on Tekumel a God is worshipped who
combines both the characteristics of Avanthe (Stability) with
Her opposite Dlamelish (Change). In other words, some Tekumel
Gods may map to 2 actual Gods or some actual Gods may be
worshipped as two separate Gods.

The point being that Change and Stability may be just labels to
describe a split in the pantheon of one of the Empires on
Tekumel and that this split may be just a human construct
imposed by our habit of splitting things into binary opposites
(Yin & Yang, Good & Evil, Law & Chaos, etc.)

However, the average citizen of Tsolyanu (an Empire on Tekumel)
will be absolutely certain that there are 10 Gods and that they
are split into 2 opposing groups within the pantheon - Change
and Stability. Each God having one who 'opposes' His/Her mirror
God.
David Johnston
2004-08-26 16:18:16 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:43:39 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
some way by a Temple on the other. But, correct me if I'm wrong,
doesn't peace balance war?
Peace is merely a lack of war. Nobody has ever had a god of peace.

So how exactly is the Stability War
Post by Zenobia
Temple of Karakan balanced by the Change War Temple of Vimuhla?
Probably by their opposing viewpoints about how war is to be
prosecuted. And of course because if their side didn't have
a war god they'd get their butts kicked.
Post by Zenobia
I regard the Stability Temple of Karakan to be much more
change-like than the Change Temple of Sarku. I seems to me that
a war Temple is change-like and a Temple such as Sarku, where
followers aspire to eternal undead status, is stability-like.
That's why I think the words Change and Stability that classify
the pantheon don't quite match the everyday English language
concepts of change and stability.
Real world, historical mythologies have all sorts of
inconsistencies and perhaps the author wanted to model that?
The author just wanted a euphemism for "evil".
Coby
2004-08-26 17:54:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 14:43:39 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
some way by a Temple on the other. But, correct me if I'm wrong,
doesn't peace balance war?
Peace is merely a lack of war. Nobody has ever had a god of peace.
Isn't "Hey, Zeus" aka the "Prince of Peace"?
--
Coby
"Every year civilization is invaded by millions of tiny barbarians-
they are called children." Hannah Arendt
JB
2004-08-26 12:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
So why don't you guys just admit that the D&D alignment system
is there because it's felt that something has to be there and
the D&D system is pretty easy for most people to grasp because
it draws on common sense? -
The problem with that is?
It bores me stiff because it offers no challenge.
If it offers no challenge why the fuck have you continually failed to
understand even the fundamental principles?
Rupert Boleyn
2004-08-26 13:30:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by JB
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
So why don't you guys just admit that the D&D alignment system
is there because it's felt that something has to be there and
the D&D system is pretty easy for most people to grasp because
it draws on common sense? -
The problem with that is?
It bores me stiff because it offers no challenge.
If it offers no challenge why the fuck have you continually failed to
understand even the fundamental principles?
Because "no challenge" is the same as "too much challenge".
--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
JB
2004-08-26 14:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Post by JB
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
So why don't you guys just admit that the D&D alignment system
is there because it's felt that something has to be there and
the D&D system is pretty easy for most people to grasp because
it draws on common sense? -
The problem with that is?
It bores me stiff because it offers no challenge.
If it offers no challenge why the fuck have you continually failed to
understand even the fundamental principles?
Because "no challenge" is the same as "too much challenge".
Yeah that makes a Zenobic kind of sense (ie no sense at all).
David Johnston
2004-08-26 16:12:29 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:56:14 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
That is not responsive.
Apologies. I meant everyday 20th century Western thought. D&D
Good vs. Evil are culturally specific to modern times
You are wrong. Those ideas are older than that.
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
I'm not a moral relativist - I can see that there are bad and
good actions. It's the way the label of good and bad is applied
to characters as a game mechanic that I have problems with -
because those Good and Bad notions come from modern Western
ideas not from anything in a specific fantasy world.
That is such bullshit. There are _plenty_ of specific fantasy worlds
which where the difference between Good and Bad is magically
significant.
All the worst ones.
That is also such bullshit. There is no objective standard by which
you can definitively say that Witch World, Middle Earth and Camelot
are the worst fantasy worlds around. And the fact that you think
that quality makes a fantasy world bad strongly indicates that
contrary to your protestation, not only are you are moral relativist,
you are a particularly rigid one.
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
For example, a game with an completely alternative moral compass
- Empire of the Petal Throne - has a tiny number of players.
From what I've read of EPT, (the novels) it has a pretty
straightforward "Chaos=Evil", "Law=Good" compass.
In your imagination. The EPT game is 30 years old, as old as
D&D. I should've wrote 'Tekumel' instead - which could refer to
the 1983 rules, the 1994 rules or the new editions due this
year, which may, with luck, arrive sometime before xmas.
There is no Good-Evil compass in Tekumel. The supposed Law-Chaos
compass doesn't work either. I don't think we have concepts to
describe the two axis that the pantheon is supposed to form.
Barker (the author) uses Stability-Change but that makes no
sense to me even when he explains it. Two of the 'Change'
temples: Vimuhla and Sarku will hardly ever cooperate on any
venture and a Vimuhla warrior would sooner slay a Sarku priest
than one of Karakan (who is a Stability deity).
No surprise there. Just because you are evil doesn't mean you
have to like each other.
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
This pretense that anything goes is wearing a bit thin.
What doesn't go?
If you lack the imagination to answer that - then I'm
speechless.
Why? You haven't been able to answer it despite
being asked the question dozens of times.

The mechanics of D&D dictate what is possible but
Post by Zenobia
also what is not possible. The character classes, levels,
alignment system -
Let's leave classes and levels out of it. That's a different
flamewar. What does the alignment system keep you from
doing?
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
That assumes that overcoming those "barriers" will make the
fantasy a better game. Me, I suspect that making people
play characters they don't want to play, characters they
"can't cope with" will make a worse game.
Making people play unfamiliar characters presents them with a
challenge but, after having done it, they will hopefully be
better players.
I don't care if rape is accepted by my culture as a routine
spoil of victory. I don't want to play it and I don't believe doing
so will make me a better roleplayer.
Post by Zenobia
Best that we drop this alignment business. It's going nowhere -
I should never've entered the debate in the first place.
The metagaming thread is still interesting. But also, of
interest to me, is anything about what people consider to be
barriers to gaming freedom - apart from obvious criticisms such
as rules in general. Criticizing specific rules such as
character classes, levels, alignment system for setting up
barriers seems valid though. (but not if I do it in a D&D
forum!)
Zenobia
2004-08-27 13:01:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:56:14 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
That is not responsive.
Apologies. I meant everyday 20th century Western thought. D&D
Good vs. Evil are culturally specific to modern times
You are wrong. Those ideas are older than that.
D&D goes into a lot a detail about what is good and what is
evil. Those ideas are quite specific to modern times. One
hundred years ago, who would've cared about you hunting a few
gorillas in Africa? Nowadays you'll go to prison for it, if
you're not very careful.

<snip>
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
There are _plenty_ of specific fantasy worlds which where the
difference between Good and Bad is magically significant.
All the worst ones.
That is also such bullshit. There is no objective standard by which
you can definitively say that Witch World, Middle Earth and Camelot
are the worst fantasy worlds around.
What would be the point in having an objective standard for
fantasy narratives? That statement was based on my subjective
standards.

Fascinating that you don't think that such worlds as Witch
World, Middle Earth and Camelot - where the difference between
Good and Evil are magically significant - impose restrictions on
the style of roleplaying. I have to give up at this point.
What's the point of taking the discussion further?
Post by Rupert Boleyn
And the fact that you think
that quality makes a fantasy world bad strongly indicates that
contrary to your protestation, not only are you are moral relativist,
you are a particularly rigid one.
I notice that you didn't cross-post to the philosophy and ethics
forums I suggested. I rather think you're too scared to have a
debate about moral relativism where it should be held.

Bizarre that you can't see the contradiction in the notion of
"rigid moral relativist". Was that statement supposed to be a
joke?

<snip>
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
What doesn't go?
You haven't been able to answer it despite
being asked the question dozens of times.
Post by Zenobia
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power,
and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned.
I would think that they meant "as a GM". As a player you are
naturally constrained by the GM preferences as manifested in
their world building and that includes the existence or lack of
existence of overintrusive deities throwing their weight around.
Even there, the problem is not alignment so much as it is one
which inherent in any game with widespread mind reading
powers of any sort.
Do you think that answer convinces me? The mind is not being
read here. A universal force in one's nature - good or evil - is
what is being read. As described in the D&D rules.

I also quoted restrictions on class alignments.
Post by Rupert Boleyn
The mechanics of D&D dictate what is possible but
Post by Zenobia
also what is not possible. The character classes, levels,
alignment system -
Let's leave classes and levels out of it. That's a different
flamewar. What does the alignment system keep you from
doing?
You'll need to take time to read my post because I already wrote
that in my post regarding restrictions on playing certain
classes of certain alignments.
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Post by Zenobia
Making people play unfamiliar characters presents them with a
challenge but, after having done it, they will hopefully be
better players.
I don't care if rape is accepted by my culture as a routine
spoil of victory. I don't want to play it and I don't believe doing
so will make me a better roleplayer.
A deliberate spoiler added by you. I didn't mention role-playing
rape. Now that you've brought the topic up - it's bizarre that
murder is role-played endlessly but rape gets PC characters with
their nickers in a twist.
Rupert Boleyn
2004-08-27 13:20:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:01:47 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
D&D goes into a lot a detail about what is good and what is
evil. Those ideas are quite specific to modern times. One
hundred years ago, who would've cared about you hunting a few
gorillas in Africa? Nowadays you'll go to prison for it, if
you're not very careful.
And D&D doesn't say a whole lot about killing gorillas.
--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
John Phillips
2004-08-27 13:35:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
Apologies. I meant everyday 20th century Western thought. D&D
Good vs. Evil are culturally specific to modern times
You are wrong. Those ideas are older than that.
D&D goes into a lot a detail about what is good and what is
evil. Those ideas are quite specific to modern times.
You seem to be confusing right and wrong with Good and Evil.
Post by Zenobia
One
hundred years ago, who would've cared about you hunting a few
gorillas in Africa?
The gorillas would have I'm sure.
Post by Zenobia
Nowadays you'll go to prison for it, if
you're not very careful.
Which has nothing to do with Good and Evil, just with a lack of gorillas.
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
All the worst ones.
That is also such bullshit. There is no objective standard by which
you can definitively say that Witch World, Middle Earth and Camelot
are the worst fantasy worlds around.
What would be the point in having an objective standard for
fantasy narratives? That statement was based on my subjective
standards.
Fascinating that you don't think that such worlds as Witch
World, Middle Earth and Camelot - where the difference between
Good and Evil are magically significant - impose restrictions on
the style of roleplaying.
The only person that seem to think there are restrictions are you, yet you
seem incapable of naming just one.
Post by Zenobia
I have to give up at this point. What's the point of taking the discussion
further?

You'll be back..
Post by Zenobia
<snip>
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
What doesn't go?
You haven't been able to answer it despite
being asked the question dozens of times.
Your answers were incorrect, as you listed no role playing restrictions.


John
Ken Andrews
2004-08-27 14:34:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:56:14 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
That is not responsive.
Apologies. I meant everyday 20th century Western thought. D&D
Good vs. Evil are culturally specific to modern times
You are wrong. Those ideas are older than that.
D&D goes into a lot a detail about what is good and what is
evil. Those ideas are quite specific to modern times. One
You got shown you were wrong with historical documents once. Trying for
twice?
Post by Zenobia
hundred years ago, who would've cared about you hunting a few
gorillas in Africa? Nowadays you'll go to prison for it, if
you're not very careful.
There is nothing in D&D's description of "Good" that prevents you from
exterminating the gorillas in Africa. There is nothing in there that
prevents you from exterminating *any* animal species. Animals *still* get
the short end of the stick in D&D, just like in real life. That's why some
whales in my campaign are druids.

<snip>
Post by Zenobia
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Let's leave classes and levels out of it. That's a different
flamewar. What does the alignment system keep you from
doing?
that in my post regarding restrictions on playing certain
classes of certain alignments.
Incorrect, as has been pointed out several times to you. Every single
example you provided was of certain classes performing certain actions.
Their alignment didn't affect what they could do at all.

Yes, an Evil character can join the Temple of Pelor.
Yes, a barbarian can join a Lawful church.
Yes, a bard can retire.
Your druid example had no explicit question.
Your monk example had no explicit question.

What you seem to hate is that they all can be done, but they all have
consequences. You want to have them change but have no consequences
attached. This is not a problem with the alignment system. This is a
problem with you.

Not one single person in this newsgroup has spoken up for your side of the
argument. Even people who snipe at each other constantly agree that you're
ignorant, if not criminally obtuse, on this topic.
Post by Zenobia
Post by Rupert Boleyn
I don't care if rape is accepted by my culture as a routine
spoil of victory. I don't want to play it and I don't believe doing
so will make me a better roleplayer.
A deliberate spoiler added by you. I didn't mention role-playing
rape. Now that you've brought the topic up - it's bizarre that
murder is role-played endlessly but rape gets PC characters with
their nickers in a twist.
Knickers.

Think it through. Believe it or not (you probably won't), there is an
actual reason why. I'm going to let you figure it out, however, as you
definitely won't take my word for it.
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-27 16:38:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Andrews
There is nothing in D&D's description of "Good" that prevents you from
exterminating the gorillas in Africa.
The principel of respect for life would give such endeavours pause, as
would altruism, presuming that gorillas hadn't been acting like locusts.

-Michael
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-08-27 17:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Michael Scott Brown, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Post by Ken Andrews
There is nothing in D&D's description of "Good" that prevents you from
exterminating the gorillas in Africa.
The principel of respect for life would give such endeavours pause, as
would altruism, presuming that gorillas hadn't been acting like locusts.
That may be true, but I think even the gorilla hunters would have
agreed. And you've seen the arguments that have gone on in fgfd - do
animals not count at all, count less, or count as much as people? I
think most people fall into the second bin, which is the one where you
get to come up with all kinds of fun rationalizations for stuff like
that.

Ignoring the fact that the actual gorilla hunters probably weren't D&D-
Good, there's nothing preventing you from playing characters who
occasionally do things outside their alignment bin, so long as it's the
exception and not the rule. The rules clearly and specifically mention
this. This is one of the many things Zenobia continues to refuse to
grasp...
--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-27 17:25:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Michael Scott Brown, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
The principle of respect for life would give such endeavours pause,
as
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
would altruism, presuming that gorillas hadn't been acting like locusts.
That may be true, but I think even the gorilla hunters would have
agreed. And you've seen the arguments that have gone on in fgfd - do
animals not count at all, count less, or count as much as people?
Irrelevant; the issue issue is settled. Alignment is about attitude, and
few recognizeably benevolent attitudes sit well with the idea of killing a
race of hairy children.
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Ignoring the fact that the actual gorilla hunters probably weren't D&D-
Good, there's nothing preventing you from playing characters who
occasionally do things outside their alignment bin, so long as it's the
exception and not the rule. The rules clearly and specifically mention
this. This is one of the many things Zenobia continues to refuse to
grasp...
True. We tend to implicitly assume "if you want to remain true to your
ethics" when discussing what one can and cannot do, but obviously one is
permitted to change those ethics, or "sin" against them on occasion.
However, I daresay that going off on a gorilla-genocide ganjabanga would
require a more fundamental change in point of view. Or, I suppose, a
spectacular con job (they're demons! destroy them! ..)

-Michael
Rupert Boleyn
2004-08-27 22:50:50 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:25:07 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Michael Scott Brown, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
The principle of respect for life would give such endeavours pause,
as
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
would altruism, presuming that gorillas hadn't been acting like locusts.
That may be true, but I think even the gorilla hunters would have
agreed. And you've seen the arguments that have gone on in fgfd - do
animals not count at all, count less, or count as much as people?
Irrelevant; the issue issue is settled. Alignment is about attitude, and
few recognizeably benevolent attitudes sit well with the idea of killing a
race of hairy children.
D&D Apes, Baboons, and Monkeys have Int 2, so AFAICT so should a
Gorilla. That's the same Int as a bear, bison, or boar has, so there's
no moral difference when it comes to the killing. The only real
difference is that gorillas are probably nicer than bison or boars
(though possibly not bears).
Post by Michael Scott Brown
True. We tend to implicitly assume "if you want to remain true to your
ethics" when discussing what one can and cannot do, but obviously one is
permitted to change those ethics, or "sin" against them on occasion.
However, I daresay that going off on a gorilla-genocide ganjabanga would
require a more fundamental change in point of view. Or, I suppose, a
spectacular con job (they're demons! destroy them! ..)
The same's true of the genocide of any species that's not doing you
harm, IMO. The choice of gorillas on Zenobia's part has to have been
an intentional attempt to make this an emotive rather than rational
disscussion. How about we substitute owls?
--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-28 00:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:25:07 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Irrelevant; the issue issue is settled. Alignment is about attitude, and
few recognizeably benevolent attitudes sit well with the idea of killing a
race of hairy children.
D&D Apes, Baboons, and Monkeys have Int 2, so AFAICT so should a
Gorilla. That's the same Int as a bear, bison, or boar has, so there's
no moral difference when it comes to the killing.
Except for the part where we can have *conversations* with gorillas,
sir. They're sentient cousins of Man.

-Michael
Rupert Boleyn
2004-08-28 01:02:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:33:40 -0700, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Except for the part where we can have *conversations* with gorillas,
sir. They're sentient cousins of Man.
Was that sentient or sapient? :)

Besides, you can have a conversation with a dog.
--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Chipacabra
2004-08-28 03:09:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:33:40 -0700, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Except for the part where we can have *conversations* with gorillas,
sir. They're sentient cousins of Man.
Was that sentient or sapient? :)
Besides, you can have a conversation with a dog.
Just to play devil's advocate, the jury is still out if these
'conversations', with primates but especially with dogs, signify actual
communication, or are just misinterpreted learned behaviour. Anyone
remember the news story about the dog that could understand however-many
words of English? It could pick out what toy the owner was saying and
fetch it. Now, does anyone remember the trick of teaching a horse how to
add? Teach it to start stomping, and stop when the owner and crowd smile
at what a good horse you are.

Personally, I want to believe the conversations are real. But I remain
skeptical.
Peter Knutsen
2004-08-28 03:21:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chipacabra
Just to play devil's advocate, the jury is still out if these
'conversations', with primates but especially with dogs, signify actual
communication, or are just misinterpreted learned behaviour. Anyone
I think the problem isn't so much whether communication occurs.

It *does*, in most cases. But in most of those cases where
communication does occur, there is plenty of room for doubt as
to whether the *form* of communication is language (the actual
words used, and the grammar, i.e. the word order), para-language
(tone of voice) or just body language (posture and movements)
and facial expression.

Animals with pack instincts - dogs, apes and dolphins - are very
sensitive to body language, and can probably learn to read
facial expressions on humans. They may also be sensitive to
paralanguage (I'd imagine dogs are, at least), and are mentally
flexible enough to learn to pay attention to such things.
Post by Chipacabra
remember the news story about the dog that could understand however-many
words of English? It could pick out what toy the owner was saying and
fetch it. Now, does anyone remember the trick of teaching a horse how to
I remember reading about a very clever dog, maybe in Germany...
But was it a scientific experiment? And was any conclusion ever
reached?
Post by Chipacabra
add? Teach it to start stomping, and stop when the owner and crowd smile
at what a good horse you are.
Smiling may not even be necessary. Tame animal are so very eager
to please.
Post by Chipacabra
Personally, I want to believe the conversations are real. But I remain
skeptical.
Kanzi.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-28 05:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Knutsen
I remember reading about a very clever dog, maybe in Germany...
But was it a scientific experiment? And was any conclusion ever
reached?
The dog very clearly could apply some forms of reasoning.


-Michael
Chipacabra
2004-08-28 08:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Post by Peter Knutsen
I remember reading about a very clever dog, maybe in Germany...
But was it a scientific experiment? And was any conclusion ever
reached?
The dog very clearly could apply some forms of reasoning.
I don't think it's clear at all. The dog could pick out a specific item
WHILE THE OWNER WAS IN THE ROOM. It would snuffle around, pick at a few
different ones, and finally pick one out. Do you think it's more likely
that the dog was actually performing abstract thought, or do you think it
was merely checking items at random until the owner gave an unconscious
signal that it had found the right one? Either is possible, but which is
more likely?

I'll freely admit that animals can be damned clever. (Although I'm
realistic about dogs. They're domesticated. That process involves cutting
WAY back on the wolf's mental capacity.) I remember when they tried to do
some Pavlov stuff with otters. They wanted the otter to sit in a chair,
and they did the training trick of reward it whenever it gets close to
the right behaviour, and keep focusing until it's exactly right. The
otters would touch the chair, then jump over the chair, then crawl under
the chair, then circle the chair, etc. etc. etc, without actually sitting
it in. The researchers eventually decided that the otters had figured out
that all the variations were a more reliable and easier method of getting
treats than doing exactly what was asked and only getting the treat when
the trick is completed.
Chipacabra
2004-08-28 08:31:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Knutsen
Post by Chipacabra
remember the news story about the dog that could understand however-many
words of English? It could pick out what toy the owner was saying and
fetch it. Now, does anyone remember the trick of teaching a horse how to
I remember reading about a very clever dog, maybe in Germany...
But was it a scientific experiment? And was any conclusion ever
reached?
That's the one. It was supposed to be a scientific study, but I don't think
anything really in depth was done.
Post by Peter Knutsen
Post by Chipacabra
add? Teach it to start stomping, and stop when the owner and crowd smile
at what a good horse you are.
Smiling may not even be necessary. Tame animal are so very eager
to please.
The point is that the animal is picking up a cue from the humans, rather
than actually understanding the math, or the abstract concept, or whatever.
The humans may not even know they're doing it.
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-28 05:48:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chipacabra
Just to play devil's advocate, the jury is still out if these
'conversations', with primates
Koko. *Sign language*. *Art*. Nuff said.

-Michael
Chipacabra
2004-08-28 08:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Post by Chipacabra
Just to play devil's advocate, the jury is still out if these
'conversations', with primates
Koko. *Sign language*. *Art*. Nuff said.
I'm mostly being devil's advocate, like I said. A LOT of the Koko stuff is,
to be honest though, is pure hype, to put it nicely. Some of it is outright
bullshit.
Cecil covers it pretty well here:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030328.html

Basically, there's really nothing to suggest that even chimps use language
as we do, as means to acquire and transfer knowledge. But I think they're
close to it. Were we so inclined, we could probably breed them for the
ability in a relatively short period of time.
Keith Davies
2004-08-28 08:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Post by Chipacabra
Just to play devil's advocate, the jury is still out if these
'conversations', with primates
Koko. *Sign language*. *Art*. Nuff said.
Robin Williams has met Koko. At least, he tells the story on stage.

I think he's right. It could make a good bar story.


Keith
--
Keith Davies
***@kjdavies.org
"Some do and some don't. I *hate* that kind of problem."
"Understandable. Consistency is important with fuck ups."
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-28 05:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:33:40 -0700, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Except for the part where we can have *conversations* with gorillas,
sir. They're sentient cousins of Man.
Was that sentient or sapient? :)
<bangs head on table>
I've been pulling 21 hour days all week. Everything is blurry!
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Besides, you can have a conversation with a dog.
I'm a cat person.

-Michael
Rupert Boleyn
2004-08-28 06:54:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 05:48:09 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:33:40 -0700, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Except for the part where we can have *conversations* with gorillas,
sir. They're sentient cousins of Man.
Was that sentient or sapient? :)
<bangs head on table>
I've been pulling 21 hour days all week. Everything is blurry!
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Besides, you can have a conversation with a dog.
I'm a cat person.
So am I, but my cats wouldn't deign to hold a conversation with lower
lifeforms - ie anyone.
--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Rupert Boleyn
2004-08-27 22:43:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:38:46 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Post by Ken Andrews
There is nothing in D&D's description of "Good" that prevents you from
exterminating the gorillas in Africa.
The principel of respect for life would give such endeavours pause, as
would altruism, presuming that gorillas hadn't been acting like locusts.
Assuming that the "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" is
supposed to mean "sapient" or "Int 3+" beings, rather than "just about
everything alive", all that needs to happen is for some of those
intelligent beings to need some resoucre the gorillas were blocking
their access to - gorilla meat, for example.
--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-28 00:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 16:38:46 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
The principel of respect for life would give such endeavours pause, as
would altruism, presuming that gorillas hadn't been acting like locusts.
Assuming that the "concern for the dignity of sentient beings" is
supposed to mean "sapient" or "Int 3+" beings, rather than "just about
everything alive",
Good people should object to cruelty to animals.
Killing animals is not always cruel.
Needlessly killing animals, however, is not respectful of life.

-Michael
Rupert Boleyn
2004-08-28 01:03:27 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:35:35 -0700, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Good people should object to cruelty to animals.
Killing animals is not always cruel.
Needlessly killing animals, however, is not respectful of life.
That's why the caveat about 'need' that you didn't quote.
--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-27 17:05:19 UTC
Permalink
D&D goes into a lot a detail about what is good and what is evil.
No, actually it spends about two sentences each. Have you *read* the
fucking rulebooks, you lazy scat?
Those ideas are quite specific to modern times.
No. Benevolence and compassion for others are somewhat old ideas, sir.
You are again confusing the idea that the ideas D&D labels "Good" are only
recently at the forefront of universally recognized (if only via lip
service) *cultural* ideals with the idea that they have been held by
individuals throughout human history.
Like it or not, the portrayals of christ are of a person who meets D&D's
definition of Good quite handily. Respect for life? For certain. Altruism?
For certain. Self-Sacrifice? To excess, depending on the reader. Protection
of the innocent? (see cast-first-stone scene). That, too. He was also, of
course, a heretic and a rebel and a rabble rouser of dirty crowds, and
therefore had to die, Rome being the sort of place that prices clean
streets. But this means that people have been telling stories about just
how Good a person could be for TWO MILLENNIA.

Consequently, the ideals described by D&D Good are *demonstrably* not
"specific to modern times". YOU ARE DEAD WRONG ON A MATTER OF *FACT*.

This might come as a shock, but the definitions are sufficiently
general - by design - to transcend specific cultural imperatives. The book
does not go on with a list of "sins" or forbidden actions or a lesson on how
to be good; good is an ATTITUDE - and you either want to help people and
protect innocents and all that shiny good stuff, or you don't. *HOW* you go
about doing such things will depend on your situation and your culture - the
Roman, for instance, can satisfy his need to be Good by treatings his slaves
as family (or freeing them individually); an American would never go for
that.
Fascinating that you don't think that such worlds as Witch
World, Middle Earth and Camelot - where the difference between
Good and Evil are magically significant - impose restrictions on
the style of roleplaying. I have to give up at this point.
What's the point of taking the discussion further?
Mocking your stupidity of course. Please explain to us what personality
is forbidden by the metaphysical physics of Camelot. Go on!
Post by David Johnston
Even there, the problem is not alignment so much as it is one
which inherent in any game with widespread mind reading
powers of any sort.
Do you think that answer convinces me? The mind is not being
read here. A universal force in one's nature - good or evil - is
what is being read. As described in the D&D rules.
Actually, there's a very big difference between saying there is a force
"in" one's nature - implying that you think the character is compelled to
behave a certain way, and is straightjacketed, and the *actual* D&D comment,
which is that alignments are a force OF nature, which each character
contains at any given moment in relative quantities as appropriate to his
CURRENT overall ethical outlook. In short, it's no different than having a
temperature. If you're on a jag and enjoying Evil category attitudes and
hurting people for pleasure and dominating all who come before you, then the
"Evil" component of your aura is going to be somewhat more prominent.
I also quoted restrictions on class alignments.
Which are *class definition* problems.
Post by David Johnston
Let's leave classes and levels out of it. That's a different
flamewar. What does the alignment system keep you from
doing?
that in my post regarding restrictions on playing certain
classes of certain alignments.
You were wrong. The *class* system keeps you from playing certain
*classes* in ways they were not defined.
Such as wicked and malevolent Paladins.

-Michael
Rupert Boleyn
2004-08-27 22:54:29 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:05:19 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
No. Benevolence and compassion for others are somewhat old ideas, sir.
You are again confusing the idea that the ideas D&D labels "Good" are only
recently at the forefront of universally recognized (if only via lip
service) *cultural* ideals with the idea that they have been held by
individuals throughout human history.
Like it or not, the portrayals of christ are of a person who meets D&D's
definition of Good quite handily. Respect for life? For certain. Altruism?
For certain. Self-Sacrifice? To excess, depending on the reader. Protection
of the innocent? (see cast-first-stone scene). That, too. He was also, of
course, a heretic and a rebel and a rabble rouser of dirty crowds, and
therefore had to die, Rome being the sort of place that prices clean
streets. But this means that people have been telling stories about just
how Good a person could be for TWO MILLENNIA.
What's more, the Saints had to meet similar criteria, so it's been
fundamental to western thought on these matters for over a millenia,
including during the middle ages, during which time the wealthy tended
to venerate warriors and strong rulers rather than more modern types
of role model.
--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-08-27 17:08:16 UTC
Permalink
Zenobia, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
Post by Zenobia
D&D goes into a lot a detail about what is good and what is
evil. Those ideas are quite specific to modern times. One
hundred years ago, who would've cared about you hunting a few
gorillas in Africa? Nowadays you'll go to prison for it, if
you're not very careful.
And D&D alignment is silent on the issue, so what's your point?
--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
David Johnston
2004-08-27 23:30:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:01:47 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:56:14 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
That is not responsive.
Apologies. I meant everyday 20th century Western thought. D&D
Good vs. Evil are culturally specific to modern times
You are wrong. Those ideas are older than that.
D&D goes into a lot a detail about what is good and what is
evil. Those ideas are quite specific to modern times. One
hundred years ago, who would've cared about you hunting a few
gorillas in Africa? Nowadays you'll go to prison for it, if
you're not very careful.
Exactly where in D&D does it suggest that Good people can't
hunt animals, or mistakenly hunt people who look like animals?
Post by Zenobia
Fascinating that you don't think that such worlds as Witch
World, Middle Earth and Camelot - where the difference between
Good and Evil are magically significant - impose restrictions on
the style of roleplaying.
There are no worlds which do not impose restrictions on the
style of roleplaying. If you want to play a detective wandering
the mean streets of a vast metropolis...well then by golly you
have to be in a world that has big cities.
Post by Zenobia
Bizarre that you can't see the contradiction in the notion of
"rigid moral relativist". Was that statement supposed to be a
joke?
No. A lack of flexibility is a lack of flexibility, even when applied
to the proposition that there is no evil.
Post by Zenobia
<snip>
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
What doesn't go?
You haven't been able to answer it despite
being asked the question dozens of times.
When I posted, your answer hadn't yet reached my server.
Post by Zenobia
Post by Rupert Boleyn
I don't care if rape is accepted by my culture as a routine
spoil of victory. I don't want to play it and I don't believe doing
so will make me a better roleplayer.
A deliberate spoiler added by you. I didn't mention role-playing
rape. Now that you've brought the topic up - it's bizarre that
murder is role-played endlessly
Hooey. I brought up rape because that is something that
has been socially accepted as legitimate. Murder, by definition,
has not.
David Meadows
2004-08-28 08:28:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:01:47 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
I don't care if rape is accepted by my culture as a routine
spoil of victory. I don't want to play it and I don't believe doing
so will make me a better roleplayer.
A deliberate spoiler added by you. I didn't mention role-playing
rape. Now that you've brought the topic up - it's bizarre that
murder is role-played endlessly
Hooey. I brought up rape because that is something that
has been socially accepted as legitimate. Murder, by definition,
has not.
There are many instances of a government making murder legitimate (under
specific circumstances which the government dictates). It's happening today
all round the world. Doesn't make it "good", yet many role-players are still
happy to have their characters engage in the activity.
--
David Meadows
"We're like a poorly-oiled machine teetering on the brink
of a breakdown." -- Fred, Heroes #19
Heroes: a comic book www.heroes.force9.co.uk/scripts
First Prophet of Kaos
2004-08-28 13:13:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 14:01:47 +0100, Zenobia
<snip>
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
That is also such bullshit. There is no objective standard by which
you can definitively say that Witch World, Middle Earth and Camelot
are the worst fantasy worlds around.
What would be the point in having an objective standard for
fantasy narratives? That statement was based on my subjective
standards.
Fascinating that you don't think that such worlds as Witch
World, Middle Earth and Camelot - where the difference between
Good and Evil are magically significant - impose restrictions on
the style of roleplaying. I have to give up at this point.
That would probably be the smartest thing you've done. But that,
combined with the fact you've promised to do it before, makes me doubt
you really will.
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
And the fact that you think
that quality makes a fantasy world bad strongly indicates that
contrary to your protestation, not only are you are moral relativist,
you are a particularly rigid one.
I notice that you didn't cross-post to the philosophy and ethics
forums I suggested. I rather think you're too scared to have a
debate about moral relativism where it should be held.
I rather think you're trying to goad him into doing so in the false
notion that you'll get some tangential support, but have miraculously
attained enough Clue to realize that doing so yourself would be
self-destructive.
Post by Zenobia
Bizarre that you can't see the contradiction in the notion of
"rigid moral relativist". Was that statement supposed to be a
joke?
Just an oxymoron, for a standard moron.
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Let's leave classes and levels out of it. That's a different
flamewar. What does the alignment system keep you from
doing?
that in my post regarding restrictions on playing certain
classes of certain alignments.
I'm really now sure how the fact that it's hard to play a barbarian
who acts nothing like a barbarian qualifies as a barrier. It's like
bitching about the fact that you can't tie your shoelaces because
you're wearing boots, and therefore leather is imposing a restriction.

A *specific* complaint about that particular application of various
rules would have merit, such as the ones made by those who question
the presence of an alignment restriction on the class. But you didn't
do that.
Post by Zenobia
A deliberate spoiler added by you. I didn't mention role-playing
rape. Now that you've brought the topic up - it's bizarre that
murder is role-played endlessly but rape gets PC characters with
their nickers in a twist.
Oddly, instances of killing that would actually qualify as murder
tends to get knickers twisted as well. But that fact is lost on fools
who equate killing with murder.
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
Jasin Zujovic
2004-08-26 22:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
For example, a game with an completely alternative moral compass
- Empire of the Petal Throne - has a tiny number of players.
From what I've read of EPT, (the novels) it has a pretty
straightforward "Chaos=Evil", "Law=Good" compass.
In your imagination. The EPT game is 30 years old, as old as
D&D. I should've wrote 'Tekumel' instead - which could refer to
the 1983 rules, the 1994 rules or the new editions due this
year, which may, with luck, arrive sometime before xmas.
There is no Good-Evil compass in Tekumel. The supposed Law-Chaos
compass doesn't work either. I don't think we have concepts to
describe the two axis that the pantheon is supposed to form.
Barker (the author) uses Stability-Change but that makes no
sense to me even when he explains it.
That'd make me think for a bit, if I were you.
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
It's too hard for people to get their heads around it.
So why don't you guys just admit that the D&D alignment system
is there because it's felt that something has to be there and
the D&D system is pretty easy for most people to grasp because
it draws on common sense? -
The problem with that is?
It bores me stiff because it offers no challenge.
In a game with no alignment, you play a Roman general who is proud,
cruel, domineering, loyal, honours his elders and respects his peers,
loves Rome, and despises barbarians. He is described in the game's moral
system as an Examplary Citizen.

In a game with alignment, you you play a Roman general who is proud,
cruel, domineering, loyal, honours his elders and respects his peers,
loves Rome, loves Rome, and despises barbarians. He is described by the
alignment system as Lawful Evil.

How is one more, or less, challenging than the other? You still play the
same guy, with the same morals and the same worldviews, who reacts the
same way in the same situations. How does the difference in labels
affect the challenge?
Post by Zenobia
Best that we drop this alignment business. It's going nowhere -
I should never've entered the debate in the first place.
You're right. You lack both basic understanding of the system, and the
willingness to learn, and this will only earn you hostility.
--
Jasin Zujovic
***@inet.hr
Ken Andrews
2004-08-26 23:43:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jasin Zujovic
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
For example, a game with an completely alternative moral compass
- Empire of the Petal Throne - has a tiny number of players.
From what I've read of EPT, (the novels) it has a pretty
straightforward "Chaos=Evil", "Law=Good" compass.
In your imagination. The EPT game is 30 years old, as old as
D&D. I should've wrote 'Tekumel' instead - which could refer to
the 1983 rules, the 1994 rules or the new editions due this
year, which may, with luck, arrive sometime before xmas.
There is no Good-Evil compass in Tekumel. The supposed Law-Chaos
compass doesn't work either. I don't think we have concepts to
describe the two axis that the pantheon is supposed to form.
Barker (the author) uses Stability-Change but that makes no
sense to me even when he explains it.
That'd make me think for a bit, if I were you.
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
It's too hard for people to get their heads around it.
So why don't you guys just admit that the D&D alignment system
is there because it's felt that something has to be there and
the D&D system is pretty easy for most people to grasp because
it draws on common sense? -
The problem with that is?
It bores me stiff because it offers no challenge.
In a game with no alignment, you play a Roman general who is proud,
cruel, domineering, loyal, honours his elders and respects his peers,
loves Rome, and despises barbarians. He is described in the game's moral
system as an Examplary Citizen.
In a game with alignment, you you play a Roman general who is proud,
cruel, domineering, loyal, honours his elders and respects his peers,
loves Rome, loves Rome, and despises barbarians. He is described by the
alignment system as Lawful Evil.
How is one more, or less, challenging than the other? You still play the
same guy, with the same morals and the same worldviews, who reacts the
same way in the same situations. How does the difference in labels
affect the challenge?
Because now you're playing a character who's classified as Evil, and
that's, umm, bad?

My character's not Evil, and you're a nasty person for saying that!
I'm a GOOD person. I honour my elders, I flog my slaves, I starve my
dogs, just like everyone else! How DARE you call me Evil?
First Prophet of Kaos
2004-08-28 06:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jasin Zujovic
Post by Zenobia
In your imagination. The EPT game is 30 years old, as old as
D&D. I should've wrote 'Tekumel' instead - which could refer to
the 1983 rules, the 1994 rules or the new editions due this
year, which may, with luck, arrive sometime before xmas.
There is no Good-Evil compass in Tekumel. The supposed Law-Chaos
compass doesn't work either. I don't think we have concepts to
describe the two axis that the pantheon is supposed to form.
Barker (the author) uses Stability-Change but that makes no
sense to me even when he explains it.
That'd make me think for a bit, if I were you.
Maybe it's poorly written, maybe Zenobia just doesn't get it. I
couldn't say, not having any experience with it; but as Zenobia
describes it, it sounds like typical "Here is one set of Ideals;
here's another. This organization follow this set, that organization
follows that set. No one is a perfect follower, so there are
inconsistencies. Ideals are not monolithic statutes of alliance, so
there is conflict even among the followers of the same Ideal."

IOW, a lot like D&D.
Post by Jasin Zujovic
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
So why don't you guys just admit that the D&D alignment system
is there because it's felt that something has to be there and
the D&D system is pretty easy for most people to grasp because
it draws on common sense? -
The problem with that is?
It bores me stiff because it offers no challenge.
In a game with no alignment, you play a Roman general who is proud,
cruel, domineering, loyal, honours his elders and respects his peers,
loves Rome, and despises barbarians. He is described in the game's moral
system as an Examplary Citizen.
In a game with alignment, you you play a Roman general who is proud,
cruel, domineering, loyal, honours his elders and respects his peers,
loves Rome, loves Rome, and despises barbarians. He is described by the
alignment system as Lawful Evil.
How is one more, or less, challenging than the other? You still play the
same guy, with the same morals and the same worldviews, who reacts the
same way in the same situations. How does the difference in labels
affect the challenge?
Near as I can figure, Zenobia wants a system that encourages one to
play someone with moral standards that differ from the 'modern common
sense' standards, and that assigning what he sees as uncomplementary
labels to the character's code makes that impossible.
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
First Prophet of Kaos
2004-08-28 06:53:09 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 11:56:14 +0100, Zenobia
<***@spamgourmet.com> wrote:

<Snip>
Post by Zenobia
There is no Good-Evil compass in Tekumel. The supposed Law-Chaos
compass doesn't work either. I don't think we have concepts to
describe the two axis that the pantheon is supposed to form.
Barker (the author) uses Stability-Change but that makes no
sense to me even when he explains it. Two of the 'Change'
temples: Vimuhla and Sarku will hardly ever cooperate on any
venture and a Vimuhla warrior would sooner slay a Sarku priest
than one of Karakan (who is a Stability deity). At any point all
other Temples may gang up against the Change Temple of Ksarul -
because they are recognized as being potentially very dangerous
to all others.
I shall do the sensible thing here: admit that I know nothing of the
system and refrain from commenting. You should do the same wrt D&D
alignment.
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
The problem with that is?
It bores me stiff because it offers no challenge.
Bitching about it on that grounds is akin to saying you don't like
your running shoes because the laces are too easy to tie: *that* is
not supposed to be the challenge. Running is.

And that aside, it apparently *does* offer you a challenge because
you've *still* utterly failed to demonstrate understanding.
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
This pretense that anything goes is wearing a bit thin.
What doesn't go?
If you lack the imagination to answer that - then I'm
speechless.
IOW, you can't answer it either. You can only make vague hints and
pretend we're fools for not seeing something you can't describe.

Idiot.
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
That assumes that overcoming those "barriers" will make the
fantasy a better game. Me, I suspect that making people
play characters they don't want to play, characters they
"can't cope with" will make a worse game.
Making people play unfamiliar characters presents them with a
challenge but, after having done it, they will hopefully be
better players.
Choosing to play something you're unfamiliar with may make you a
'better player,' but *making* someone do it will just breed
resentment. And that is what makes for a worse game, assuming any of
them are silly enough to stick around *for* a 'game.'
Post by Zenobia
Best that we drop this alignment business. It's going nowhere -
I should never've entered the debate in the first place.
The metagaming thread is still interesting. But also, of
interest to me, is anything about what people consider to be
barriers to gaming freedom - apart from obvious criticisms such
as rules in general. Criticizing specific rules such as
character classes, levels, alignment system for setting up
barriers seems valid though. (but not if I do it in a D&D
forum!)
Not if you do it from a position of ignorance, and a complete
inability to provide examples of the barriers set up by a specific
rule.
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
First Prophet of Kaos
2004-08-27 08:47:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
<snip>
Post by David Johnston
Post by Zenobia
This pretense that anything goes is wearing a bit thin.
What doesn't go?
Julius Caesar doesn't get to be Good.

Making an issue out of it makes about as much sense to me as
complaining that Julius Caesar doesn't get to be Female either, but
it's the only thing that alignment could concievably 'block.'
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
Ken Andrews
2004-08-26 04:50:09 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
There are no binary opposites of Good vs. Evil (with neutral
somewhere in the middle). There is just a standard of what
is considered good.
So people who murder others for financial gain are "good, but
not as good as others,"--i.e.: those who don't?
Such people don't eat babies - that only happens in fantasy
stories where everything is neatly packaged into Good and Evil.
What a coinkydink... we're talking about fantasy stories.
Some murders probably always remember to give their mothers a
birthday or Mother's Day present. I don't. So in that respect
such people would be better than me. In other respects they're
clearly not as good as me.
Where did anyone say that a character with the Evil label doesn't have some
Good qualities? Any type of character can love their parents, siblings,
spouses, children, friends, and neighbours. What matters is their general
outlook. How do they feel about the rest of the world?
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
I'm not a moral relativist - I can see that there are bad and
You're not a moral relativist. Odd, over the course of these threads
you've advanced most of the moral relativism points of view. But hey,
you're not one. You just talk like them.
Post by Zenobia
good actions. It's the way the label of good and bad is applied
to characters as a game mechanic that I have problems with -
because those Good and Bad notions come from modern Western
ideas not from anything in a specific fantasy world.
Those Good and Bad notions come from several fantasy worlds. They're
generic abstractions of ideas that have popped up all over the place.
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments. It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it
so.
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
Post by Zenobia
For example, a game with an completely alternative moral compass
- Empire of the Petal Throne - has a tiny number of players.
It's too hard for people to get their heads around it.
Funny thing (bad for you). I still have that game, original (1975)
boxed set, right here on the shelf. Got it from a guy who used to
play with M.A.R. Barker. Still in good condition, too. I liked
playing it. One of my guildmates in EQ, her last name is an EPT name;
she used to play it also. I tried giving my Rogue an EPT last name
but it came out too long (20 character limit on surnames).

Yes, I've played EPT. This is some of what it has to say about
Alignment:
-----
For convenience's sake (and not to reflect reality necessarily), all
characters are divided into two basic types: those serving the Good
Gods and their Cohorts, and those serving their Evil counterparts.
There are no "neutrals on Tekumel...

Good characters serve one of the Five Good Gods or one of their
Cohorts, and Evil characters similarly worship one of the Evil
Tlokiriqaluyal or one of their Cohorts. Each player names his or her
God, Goddess, or Cohort at the beginning of the game.
-----

Quite a bit different from D&D, yes?

Now, if you were thinking of the *cultural* interactions, that's a
different matter entirely. That was when you could wind up dead
really fast by saying the wrong thing to the wrong person. Quite
often it had nothing to do with Good/Evil. If you were Good and you
(even accidentally) insulted a Good noble, you'd wind up in a lethal
duel. If you were Evil, you'd simply be taken away and impaled.

By the alignment definitions of D&D, most people in Tsolyanu, when you
examine their *culture*, were Neutral or Evil, due to their rampant
xenophobia and their indifference to killing people from other cities.

Now, guess what? I can take any D&D character and map him to that
cultural compass and tell you the results. Similarly, I can take any
EPT character and map him to the D&D alignment moral compass. And it
doesn't affect either character one damned iota. All it tells me is
what each character is like *in the other system's frame of
reference*.

Try again.
Post by Zenobia
So why don't you guys just admit that the D&D alignment system
is there because it's felt that something has to be there and
the D&D system is pretty easy for most people to grasp because
it draws on common sense? - Modern Common sense notions of good
and evil and fantasy paradigms from writers such as Tolkien and
Moorcock.
We've never disagreed, except insofar as we believe it was originally
intended to promote Heroic Fantasy.

We disagree when you say it's a straightjacket.

We disagree when you say there are no holy wars being fought.
(Actually, we call you a liar, but that's another matter.)

We disagree when you say assassins and soldiers are morally the same.

We disagree when you say that Evil comes from Christianity.

We disagree when you say that no civilization before Christ used Evil
to describe human behaviour.

However, we don't disagree when you say the alignment system is easy
to grasp. That's why we are so frustrated when you repeated
demonstrate that *you don't grasp it*.
Post by Zenobia
This pretense that anything goes is wearing a bit thin. It seems
that most people are too busy blowing their own trumpets about
how, in their wonderful games, "anything goes" - to actually
acknowledge that there are quite severe restrictions upon what
most people can cope with.
/bow

And you *still* haven't shown how it restricts me. You say, right
there above, that "there are quite severe restrictions". But you
absolutely, categorically, refuse to give even one example.
Post by Zenobia
Subject: Worst Meta-gaming Experience Ever
rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.gurps
is quite interesting because it's looking at one of the reasons
why anything doesn't go. It's only by understanding barriers
such as these that a role-gamer can overcome such barriers and
make the fantasy a better game.
I guess there are just a tiny minority, like me, who see D&D
alignment as a different kind of barrier.
You keep on blathering about the barrier, the restrictions, the
straightjacket, the forcing you to go some way, and you never give
examples.

Instead, you go kiting off on all sorts of paths, showing your abysmal
ignorance of history, current events, classical writing, ethics, game
rules, and practically every other field of intellectual endeavour to
which you place your hand. Is it any wonder we consider you a fool?
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that the
imposition of an alternative moral compass to D&D alignment is
always a restriction on what goes. The only point I'm making
here is that every moral compass imposed upon a fantasy game
restricts but each different moral compass restricts in a
different way. I'm just looking for different restrictions to
those of D&D alignment.
Is a thermometer a restriction on what temperature an object can be
at?

Is a foot-long ruler a restriction on how long an object can be?

Is a magnetic compass a restriction on what direction you can go?

A moral compass provides NO RESTRICTIONS. It POINTS. That's all it
does. It says "this is in this direction, that is in that direction".
It most definitely does not say "that's the direction to EVIL, so you
MUST go that way".

Show JUST ONCE how ANY moral compass restricts you. While you're at
it, show the one you're going to use in place of D&D alignment, and
show how it DOES NOT restrict you.
Post by Zenobia
I can't really say anything more on the matter.
No. As D&D defines alignements, disrespect for life to
increase your own standing is Evil.
As defined by D&D. My problem with it is that it's too boring to
have this framework imposed upon the game.
You're entitled to that opinion... even if it doesn't hold true for others.
Thank you. I may be entitled to that opinion by you but most
people here (news:rec.games.frp.dnd) wouldn't entitle me to it.
Wrong yet again. We don't care what opinions you hold. Hold any
opinion you want. We care when you lie.



Some say the Irish are daft. You're adding a whole new level of
daftness to it.
Zenobia
2004-08-26 11:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
There are no binary opposites of Good vs. Evil (with neutral
somewhere in the middle). There is just a standard of what
is considered good.
So people who murder others for financial gain are "good, but
not as good as others,"--i.e.: those who don't?
Such people don't eat babies - that only happens in fantasy
stories where everything is neatly packaged into Good and Evil.
What a coinkydink... we're talking about fantasy stories.
Some murders probably always remember to give their mothers a
birthday or Mother's Day present. I don't. So in that respect
such people would be better than me. In other respects they're
clearly not as good as me.
Where did anyone say that a character with the Evil label doesn't have some
Good qualities? Any type of character can love their parents, siblings,
spouses, children, friends, and neighbours. What matters is their general
outlook. How do they feel about the rest of the world?
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
I'm not a moral relativist - I can see that there are bad and
You're not a moral relativist. Odd, over the course of these threads
you've advanced most of the moral relativism points of view. But hey,
you're not one. You just talk like them.
You don't even understand what moral relativism is do you?

If I make a judgement (which I do) about what is considered good
or bad (I prefer the term not good most of the time) then I'm
clearly not a moral relativist.

Just because I disagree with your judgement or with the
majority's judgement does not make me a moral relativist.

The argument that morals / ethics are culturally and
historically specific does not necessarily force one into taking
up a position of moral relativism. Sometimes those who have
argued for a suspension of judgement on other cultures have been
pretty close to moral relativism, so I can understand your
confusion on the issue.

If you want to continue this in a philosophical forum I can
cross-post to such a forum. Would you like that?
I suggest any or all of the following

alt.philosophy
alt.postmodern
alt.soc.ethics
sci.anthropology
alt.christnet.philosophy
talk.philosophy.humanism
talk.philosophy.misc

where I expect to find both opponents and, even, allies of moral
relativism and any other position on morals.

I invite you to cross-post to any or all of them in your reply
to me.
Dan Childers
2004-08-26 19:48:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
You don't even understand what moral relativism is do you?
If I make a judgement (which I do) about what is considered good
or bad (I prefer the term not good most of the time) then I'm
clearly not a moral relativist.
Not necessarily correct. Moral relativists may still
judge things as good or bad on *aesthetic* grounds.
First Prophet of Kaos
2004-08-28 06:53:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:22:48 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
There are no binary opposites of Good vs. Evil (with neutral
somewhere in the middle). There is just a standard of what
is considered good.
So people who murder others for financial gain are "good, but
not as good as others,"--i.e.: those who don't?
Such people don't eat babies - that only happens in fantasy
stories where everything is neatly packaged into Good and Evil.
What a coinkydink... we're talking about fantasy stories.
Some murders probably always remember to give their mothers a
birthday or Mother's Day present. I don't. So in that respect
such people would be better than me. In other respects they're
clearly not as good as me.
Where did anyone say that a character with the Evil label doesn't have some
Good qualities? Any type of character can love their parents, siblings,
spouses, children, friends, and neighbours. What matters is their general
outlook. How do they feel about the rest of the world?
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
I'm not a moral relativist - I can see that there are bad and
You're not a moral relativist. Odd, over the course of these threads
you've advanced most of the moral relativism points of view. But hey,
you're not one. You just talk like them.
You don't even understand what moral relativism is do you?
The idea that Right and Wrong are not absolute quantities set in
stone, but are instead concepts that vary by circumstance.
Post by Zenobia
The argument that morals / ethics are culturally and
historically specific does not necessarily force one into taking
up a position of moral relativism.
It does when one is unwilling to say "that culture was Wrong."
Post by Zenobia
I invite you to cross-post to any or all of them in your reply
to me.
I prefer to limit my crossposts to under 3 groups.
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
Zenobia
2004-08-26 11:48:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments. It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it
so.
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
of the temple of Pelor because we are told that:

Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power,
and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned.

I imagine that the examples provided in the PH are just ignored
in your game where anything goes. But for those people who read
the rules and take them seriously I suspect that examples like
this must have some effect upon play.
Ken Andrews
2004-08-26 12:36:33 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:48:57 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments. It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it
so.
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
That's your big problem? Oy.
Post by Zenobia
Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power,
and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned.
I remember this quote, I just can't find it in the book. So...
Post by Zenobia
I imagine that the examples provided in the PH are just ignored
in your game where anything goes. But for those people who read
the rules and take them seriously I suspect that examples like
this must have some effect upon play.
Yes, it obviously does have an effect on play, as so:

When did difficult = impossible?

An Evil character can be a member of the temple of Pelor all he wants.
But with him believing things that Pelor *doesn't stand for*, it
should be fairly obvious that he's never going to get very high in the
temple heirarchy.

As I recall, the quote above is from where a person is tested to see
if the Temple of Pelor can send him to go do tasks for them. There's
a book in the temple, you touch the book. If you're Neutral, you get
stunned. If you're Evil, you get blasted.

Nowhere does it say that if you're Evil you can't try. If you're
Evil, then the God knows it, and warns his Temple (via blasting you)
that you aren't worthy to do quests for the Temple.

Again, *nothing stops you from trying*. Nothing prevents you from
being an Evil follower of Pelor. Just don't jump up and down
expecting him to want you to do things for him. The tag "Evil" is
applied to you because the beliefs for which he stands *are not* the
things you believe in (so why you're a follower of his temple is
anybody's guess). Nothing about that tag prevents you from doing any
damned thing you want.



By the way, I notice that the whole EPT thing worked out pretty badly
for you. So badly that...

Zenobia: "For example, a game with an completely alternative moral
compass - Empire of the Petal Throne - has a tiny number of players.
It's too hard for people to get their heads around it."

Ken (quoting from the RULES): "...those serving the Good Gods and
their Cohorts, and those serving their Evil counterparts..."

David: "From what I've read of EPT, (the novels) it has a pretty
straightforward "Chaos=Evil", "Law=Good" compass."

Zenobia: "There is no Good-Evil compass in Tekumel. The supposed
Law-Chaos compass doesn't work either. I don't think we have concepts
to describe the two axis that the pantheon is supposed to form.
Barker (the author) uses Stability-Change but that makes no sense to
me even when he explains it. ..."

I guess we add you to "It's too hard for people to get their heads
around it"?

"Stability-Change" I don't know about; I don't have any of the revised
rules, and no idea who's written them. But your statement "I don't
think we have concepts to describe the two axis (sic)..." is instantly
contradicted by "Barker (the author) uses Stability-Change...".

The axes are described by the concept "Stability-Change", presumably
those who are, in D&D terms Lawful, wanting stability, order,
things-as-they-were, versus Chaotic, wanting *change*, alteration,
continual modification to new modes.

So, the author describes, and you declare "there's no way to
describe". The author provides an axis, and you declaim "it can't be
understood".

You're having just as little luck with EPT's Alignment as with D&D's.
JB
2004-08-26 12:59:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Andrews
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:48:57 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments. It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it
so.
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
That's your big problem? Oy.
The funny thing is this blasted by the holy book thing is because the gods
are *real*. In a fantasy game based on Christianity being the ultimate
goodness and God being real would a Satan worshipper pass the same task?
No. Same problem. Oops!
First Prophet of Kaos
2004-08-28 06:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by JB
Post by Ken Andrews
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:48:57 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments. It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it
so.
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
That's your big problem? Oy.
The funny thing is this blasted by the holy book thing is because the gods
are *real*.
And even stripping out just the gods won't work, because any good
Wizard can accomplish the same thing. You'd have to strip out most
magic, arcane or divine, as well as psionics.

Or create countermeasures.
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-08-26 18:00:20 UTC
Permalink
Ken Andrews, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
Post by Ken Andrews
An Evil character can be a member of the temple of Pelor all he wants.
But with him believing things that Pelor *doesn't stand for*, it
should be fairly obvious that he's never going to get very high in the
temple heirarchy.
Alternately (and ignoring the fact that Zenobia is once again making too
much of an *example*), you can do what's done in Eberron. Keep the
alignment system but throw out the restriction for clerics, and make the
gods less straightforward in their moral stands and, frankly, more like
the actual gods people have worshiped. State that the gods are, for the
most part, a pretty remote bunch who don't take that much interest in
day-to-day mortal goings-on. In my view there's some question as to
whether the gods are even responsible for granting divine spells in that
setting.

All of a sudden it's not harder to have corruption in the church
heirarchy than it is in the real world, and you don't have to change a
single dot or comma in the alignment section.
--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Zenobia
2004-08-27 15:25:27 UTC
Permalink
Keep the alignment system but throw out the restriction for clerics
you don't have to change a single dot or comma in the alignment section.
Do I detect a contradiction there or is it just my
interpretation again?
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-27 16:44:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Keep the alignment system but throw out the restriction for clerics
you don't have to change a single dot or comma in the alignment section.
Do I detect a contradiction there or is it just my
interpretation again?
Your stupidity is indeed showing again. Everyone here has tried to tell
you - and you have failed to learn - that the restrictions you posted as
examples of *the alignment system* restricting you from doing things were
every one of them a restriction the kinds of ethics that are compatible wit
a *CLASS*, that is part of the definition of the *CLASS*. Paladin is a
class for benevolent, honorable knights - period - and if you're not one,
then you're not a Paladin anymore. D&D DESCRIBES that set of ideals as
"being Lawful Good". Monks are members of a class of warrior-priests who
value order, tradition, and intense self-discipline. D&D DESCRIBES such
mindsets as "Lawful". Etc.

Changing the rules on *class* ethical restrictions doesn't change
anything about anyone's alignment or its definition; it changes the
FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPT OF THE CLASS.

-Michael
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-08-27 17:06:35 UTC
Permalink
Zenobia, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
Post by Zenobia
Keep the alignment system but throw out the restriction for clerics
you don't have to change a single dot or comma in the alignment section.
Do I detect a contradiction there or is it just my
interpretation again?
Are the rules for clerics in the alignment section, or the class
section?

Come on, Zenobia, I know you're really bad at comprehending the D&D
rules, but surely you can get that one right. All it requires is the
ability to count to six...
--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Zenobia
2004-08-28 12:37:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Zenobia, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
Post by Zenobia
Keep the alignment system but throw out the restriction for clerics
you don't have to change a single dot or comma in the alignment section.
Do I detect a contradiction there or is it just my
interpretation again?
Are the rules for clerics in the alignment section, or the class
section?
What does it matter what section those rules are in? If the
rules aren't RULES they shouldn't be there. Is the rule-book
specific about which rules one must adhere to and which rules
one can ignore?
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Come on, Zenobia, I know you're really bad at comprehending the D&D
rules, but surely you can get that one right. All it requires is the
ability to count to six...
I'm bad at understanding why you think you can ignore some rules
while not changing anything.

One could keep the alignment section rules, drop what's is said
about alignment elsewhere and the result would be that alignment
would have no effect upon play at all because it would,
effectively, cease to be a meaningful part of the rules.
John Phillips
2004-08-27 17:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Keep the alignment system but throw out the restriction for clerics
you don't have to change a single dot or comma in the alignment section.
Do I detect a contradiction there or is it just my
interpretation again?
The second. How involved the Gods are with their Clerics has nothing to do
with Alignment.

John
John Phillips
2004-08-26 13:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by Ken Andrews
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power,
and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned.
So a character whose philosophical outlook differs vastly from his gods has
a hard time when interacting with said god.
This is a problem of Alignment?
Post by Zenobia
I imagine that the examples provided in the PH are just ignored
in your game where anything goes. But for those people who read
the rules and take them seriously I suspect that examples like
this must have some effect upon play.
Name one example in the PHB where Alignment restricts behavior.
Just one.


John
Ken Andrews
2004-08-26 23:44:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:34:03 GMT, "John Phillips"
Post by John Phillips
Post by Zenobia
Post by Ken Andrews
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power,
and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned.
So a character whose philosophical outlook differs vastly from his gods has
a hard time when interacting with said god.
This is a problem of Alignment?
Post by Zenobia
I imagine that the examples provided in the PH are just ignored
in your game where anything goes. But for those people who read
the rules and take them seriously I suspect that examples like
this must have some effect upon play.
Name one example in the PHB where Alignment restricts behavior.
Just one.
She did. Because of his alignment, he can't touch the book.

(Well, actually he can, but that's beside the point.)
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-26 17:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by Ken Andrews
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power,
and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned.
You *do* realize this is in the context of touching a holy book, don't
you?
A MAGICAL book that KNOWS if you're wicked in your heart or not?
<shakes head sadly>

An evil person could join the temple just fine (not as a cleric). He
will either be converted, or become disgusted.

-Michael
David Johnston
2004-08-26 19:46:04 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:48:57 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments. It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it
so.
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power,
and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned.
I would think that they meant "as a GM". As a player you are
naturally constrained by the GM preferences as manifested in
their world building and that includes the existence or lack of
existence of overintrusive deities throwing their weight around.

Even there, the problem is not alignment so much as it is one
which inherent in any game with widespread mind reading
powers of any sort. Can you put a traitor in the X-Men despite
having at least two telepaths on the team at all times at least
one of whom would probably be a PC if it was an X-Men game?
Yes, but only by the means of contrivances like split personalities,
mind shielding powers or devices and so forth. And the exact
same thing happens in D&D when you need a character to
be bad but to have their badness go undetected.
Jasin Zujovic
2004-08-26 22:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by Ken Andrews
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power,
and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned.
... can you truly, truly be so... confused, to put it mildly?

Of course playing a baddie (assuming you mean an Evil character) who was
a member of Pelor's faith would be difficult. So would playing an
slavery abolitionist who was a member of the Roman Senate. So would
playing a pacifist who was a member of a Mongol horde.

This just shows that it is difficult to play characters with certain
worldviews in surroundings that require the exact opposite worldviews.
This is not an artifact of the D&D alignment system.
--
Jasin Zujovic
***@inet.hr
Arne Wichmann
2004-08-27 15:27:29 UTC
Permalink
*jumping into the thread with an evil grin*
Post by Jasin Zujovic
Post by Zenobia
Post by Ken Andrews
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power,
and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned.
... can you truly, truly be so... confused, to put it mildly?
Of course playing a baddie (assuming you mean an Evil character) who was
a member of Pelor's faith would be difficult. So would playing an
slavery abolitionist who was a member of the Roman Senate. So would
playing a pacifist who was a member of a Mongol horde.
The slavery abolitionist might for example work his way up the hierarcy,
keeping calm about his views, and furthering people who think similarly
without announcing it loudly to everyone.

(This example does not work so well with the pacifist.)

In the case of the baddie in the temple of pelor, he might be very
interested to work his way up in the hierarchy of pelor to destroy the
high priest and take his position (as he swore before, when followers
sent by this temple invaded his home and killed his friends). For this
end he might devote a time of more than 20 years of grovelling before
those disgusting slugs of the temple. But as gods are real in this
gameworld this does not work so easily. He would first have to promise
his life to Cyric (or whoever is the god of revenge), so that he gets
some help against Pelors intervention. I as a GM would surely rule that
this is possible (for every deus ex machina there is an ebual and
opposing deus ex machina).

That way I surely do see the limiting factor of an absolute alignment in
the system, but being something like a moral relativist that is not
really surprising. On the other hand, there is a lot of things you can
still play, and if it fits in with the campaign, why not.
Post by Jasin Zujovic
This just shows that it is difficult to play characters with certain
worldviews in surroundings that require the exact opposite worldviews.
This is not an artifact of the D&D alignment system.
As you can see I do not follow you there.

cu

AW
--
<ThePhonk> *tueteKlammernUeberVariableAuskipp* Dereferenzier Dich, Du
+Miststueck!
Ken Andrews
2004-08-27 15:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arne Wichmann
*jumping into the thread with an evil grin*
Evil grin or no, you've missed the point of this particular argument.

Zenobia's position is that it is *impossible* for an Evil character to even
attempt to join the Temple of Pelor.

According to her, due to alignment restrictions it absolutely cannot be
done.

The fact is, with or without another god's aid, it can be done, or at least
attempted.

There's a book that's used to test people to see if they're worthy to do
jobs for the Temple. It stuns Neutrals, it zaps Evils. According to
Zenobia, it's impossible for an Evil to even touch it. I.e., alignment
prevents them performing the action, it prevents the player from
roleplaying.

We posit that alignment *doesn't* stop the Evil from touching the book.
Fear of consequences does.
Post by Arne Wichmann
Post by Jasin Zujovic
Post by Zenobia
Post by Ken Andrews
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
It would be pretty difficult to play a baddie who was a member
Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power,
and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned.
... can you truly, truly be so... confused, to put it mildly?
Of course playing a baddie (assuming you mean an Evil character) who was
a member of Pelor's faith would be difficult. So would playing an
slavery abolitionist who was a member of the Roman Senate. So would
playing a pacifist who was a member of a Mongol horde.
The slavery abolitionist might for example work his way up the hierarcy,
keeping calm about his views, and furthering people who think similarly
without announcing it loudly to everyone.
According to Zenobia you're wrong. If you're Roman, and Rome accepts
slavery, you cannot be anti-slavery.
Post by Arne Wichmann
(This example does not work so well with the pacifist.)
In the case of the baddie in the temple of pelor, he might be very
interested to work his way up in the hierarchy of pelor to destroy the
high priest and take his position (as he swore before, when followers
sent by this temple invaded his home and killed his friends). For this
end he might devote a time of more than 20 years of grovelling before
those disgusting slugs of the temple. But as gods are real in this
gameworld this does not work so easily. He would first have to promise
his life to Cyric (or whoever is the god of revenge), so that he gets
some help against Pelors intervention. I as a GM would surely rule that
this is possible (for every deus ex machina there is an ebual and
opposing deus ex machina).
That way I surely do see the limiting factor of an absolute alignment in
the system, but being something like a moral relativist that is not
really surprising. On the other hand, there is a lot of things you can
still play, and if it fits in with the campaign, why not.
Post by Jasin Zujovic
This just shows that it is difficult to play characters with certain
worldviews in surroundings that require the exact opposite worldviews.
This is not an artifact of the D&D alignment system.
As you can see I do not follow you there.
We say that alignment makes it hard to do certain things because there are
consequences for doing them. Zenobia says that it's flatly impossible to do
those things because alignment makes your character unable to do them.

In other words, if you're Evil, it's physically impossible to hold the door
open for someone because that's a Good (or at least Neutral) act. You can
kick a puppy, but you can't pet it.
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-27 16:46:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Andrews
In other words, if you're Evil, it's physically impossible to hold the door
open for someone because that's a Good (or at least Neutral) act. You can
kick a puppy, but you can't pet it.
Zenobia is a very stupid boy.

-Michael
David Johnston
2004-08-27 17:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Andrews
Post by Arne Wichmann
*jumping into the thread with an evil grin*
Evil grin or no, you've missed the point of this particular argument.
Zenobia's position is that it is *impossible* for an Evil character to even
attempt to join the Temple of Pelor.
According to her, due to alignment restrictions it absolutely cannot be
done.
The fact is, with or without another god's aid, it can be done, or at least
attempted.
There's a book that's used to test people to see if they're worthy to do
jobs for the Temple. It stuns Neutrals, it zaps Evils. According to
Zenobia, it's impossible for an Evil to even touch it. I.e., alignment
prevents them performing the action, it prevents the player from
roleplaying.
We posit that alignment *doesn't* stop the Evil from touching the book.
Fear of consequences does.
Unless that book is used for regular retests it won't stop a character
from getting a job and _then_ becoming corrupt (shifting alignment to
an unacceptable one to the God). All it does is make it more uncommon
to find a bad guy in a position of responsibility.
Ken Andrews
2004-08-27 20:03:20 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:57:39 GMT, "Ken Andrews"
Post by Ken Andrews
Post by Arne Wichmann
*jumping into the thread with an evil grin*
Evil grin or no, you've missed the point of this particular argument.
Zenobia's position is that it is *impossible* for an Evil character to even
attempt to join the Temple of Pelor.
According to her, due to alignment restrictions it absolutely cannot be
done.
The fact is, with or without another god's aid, it can be done, or at least
attempted.
There's a book that's used to test people to see if they're worthy to do
jobs for the Temple. It stuns Neutrals, it zaps Evils. According to
Zenobia, it's impossible for an Evil to even touch it. I.e., alignment
prevents them performing the action, it prevents the player from
roleplaying.
We posit that alignment *doesn't* stop the Evil from touching the book.
Fear of consequences does.
Unless that book is used for regular retests it won't stop a character
from getting a job and _then_ becoming corrupt (shifting alignment to
an unacceptable one to the God). All it does is make it more uncommon
to find a bad guy in a position of responsibility.
Correct. However, according to her, it cannot be done *at all*.

You can even become a member of the temple while Evil, as long as you don't
try doing special jobs for the clergy. They only test people who they're
sending out on tasks, as far as I recall.
First Prophet of Kaos
2004-08-28 13:13:59 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:27:29 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Arne Wichmann
*jumping into the thread with an evil grin*
<snip>
Post by Arne Wichmann
gameworld this does not work so easily. He would first have to promise
his life to Cyric (or whoever is the god of revenge),
Should I ever break down and play FR, it would Barrin Stonefoot - my
dwarven character from the Baldur's Gate game who was corrupted by his
desire for vengeance in "Shadows of Amn," and ascended in "Throne of
Bhaal."

But he needs no promise of your life for this request. Merely the
casting of Miracle in his name.
Post by Arne Wichmann
That way I surely do see the limiting factor of an absolute alignment in
the system, but being something like a moral relativist that is not
really surprising.
Meh. You've worked out a solution, thus negating the limiting factor.
What would actually be difficult is a True Believer of Pelor who is
also Evil. But that's like saying it's difficult to be a vegetarian
who eats meat.
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
Zenobia
2004-08-26 12:18:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments. It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it
so.
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
In addition to the example above (The cleric with non-Lawful
ethics in the Temple of Pelor) and any other examples one's
imagination may imply from that we have:

2) Don't you think it may be hard playing a Barbarian who had
converted to a Lawful Temple?

3) Why can't a Bard who decided to stop his wandering ways and
settle down become a good Lawful citizen?

4) I can't understand why Druids have to be Neutral (on the
alignment graph, preventing them from playing LG, CG, CE or LE.
I fail to see why worship of a nature deity would force one's
personal ethics to that extent. (unless personal ethics had some
kind of connection with forces of the universe).

5) But I definitely don't understand why Monks must be Lawful.
Sure they need to be disciplined to get where they're going but
so do all the other classes! I fail to see why there's this
connection between Lawful-Choatic social behavior and personal
behavior. Is it not possible to be unlawful in one's social
outlook yet extremely well disciplined in one's personal
outlook? I'd have thought so, but the rules say, not in this
case.

Is this too many examples?

The alignment describes personal ethics (morals) in terms of
forces of the universe. I can see that, having made that
connection, the rules may tend to dictate what can and can't be
role-played in the game. A pity you can't see it too.
Rupert Boleyn
2004-08-26 13:33:48 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:18:05 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
2) Don't you think it may be hard playing a Barbarian who had
converted to a Lawful Temple?
Not at all, though they won't be doing that rage tihng.
Post by Zenobia
3) Why can't a Bard who decided to stop his wandering ways and
settle down become a good Lawful citizen?
They can.
Post by Zenobia
4) I can't understand why Druids have to be Neutral (on the
alignment graph, preventing them from playing LG, CG, CE or LE.
I fail to see why worship of a nature deity would force one's
personal ethics to that extent. (unless personal ethics had some
kind of connection with forces of the universe).
Duh.
Post by Zenobia
5) But I definitely don't understand why Monks must be Lawful.
Sure they need to be disciplined to get where they're going but
so do all the other classes! I fail to see why there's this
connection between Lawful-Choatic social behavior and personal
behavior. Is it not possible to be unlawful in one's social
outlook yet extremely well disciplined in one's personal
outlook? I'd have thought so, but the rules say, not in this
case.
Is this too many examples?
The alignment describes personal ethics (morals) in terms of
forces of the universe. I can see that, having made that
connection, the rules may tend to dictate what can and can't be
role-played in the game. A pity you can't see it too.
They don't do that. What they do is describe the consequences of
shifting to alginments incompatible with your class. If you want your
character to avoid those consequences, play them such that they don't
move ioto the alignment range that has negative consequences. Simple.
--
Rupert Boleyn <***@paradise.net.nz>
"Just because the truth will set you free doesn't mean the truth itself
should be free."
Zenobia
2004-08-26 15:22:10 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:33:48 +1200, Rupert Boleyn
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:18:05 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
4) I can't understand why Druids have to be Neutral (on the
alignment graph, preventing them from playing LG, CG, CE or LE.
I fail to see why worship of a nature deity would force one's
personal ethics to that extent. (unless personal ethics had some
kind of connection with forces of the universe).
Duh.
Some answer!
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Post by Zenobia
5) But I definitely don't understand why Monks must be Lawful.
Sure they need to be disciplined to get where they're going but
so do all the other classes! I fail to see why there's this
connection between Lawful-Choatic social behavior and personal
behavior. Is it not possible to be unlawful in one's social
outlook yet extremely well disciplined in one's personal
outlook? I'd have thought so, but the rules say, not in this
case.
No answer!
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Post by Zenobia
Is this too many examples?
The alignment describes personal ethics (morals) in terms of
forces of the universe. I can see that, having made that
connection, the rules may tend to dictate what can and can't be
role-played in the game. A pity you can't see it too.
They don't do that. What they do is describe the consequences of
shifting to alginments incompatible with your class. If you want your
character to avoid those consequences, play them such that they don't
move ioto the alignment range that has negative consequences. Simple.
An answer, which appears to me, to agree with what I say.
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-08-26 18:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Zenobia, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
Post by Zenobia
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 01:33:48 +1200, Rupert Boleyn
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Post by Zenobia
The alignment describes personal ethics (morals) in terms of
forces of the universe. I can see that, having made that
connection, the rules may tend to dictate what can and can't be
role-played in the game. A pity you can't see it too.
They don't do that. What they do is describe the consequences of
shifting to alginments incompatible with your class. If you want your
character to avoid those consequences, play them such that they don't
move ioto the alignment range that has negative consequences. Simple.
An answer, which appears to me, to agree with what I say.
No. You're still getting the causality exactly backwards, and the fact
that you don't understand that speaks volumes.
--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Christopher Adams
2004-08-28 03:42:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Post by Zenobia
4) I can't understand why Druids have to be Neutral (on the
alignment graph, preventing them from playing LG, CG, CE or LE.
I fail to see why worship of a nature deity would force one's
personal ethics to that extent. (unless personal ethics had some
kind of connection with forces of the universe).
Duh.
Some answer!
Let's make it as simple as possible for you:

Personal ethics have a connection with the forces of the universe.

In the case of a druid, a simple rationale would be that one cannot effectively
serve the forces of nature (note that druids do not necessarily serve any deity
at all) if one is over-committed, by the features of one's personality, to the
moral forces of the universe. Those who believe that it doesn't matter how
societies are structured as long as they provide in some way for the happiness
and well-being of the people (Neutral Good) and those who believe that
individuals and social institutions should know their place and strive to
reinforce the order of the system, without particular regard for either the
promotion of well-being or the exploitation of the weak and marginalised (Lawful
Neutral) are presumed to have the metaphorical "room" in their hearts and minds
to protect the natural world, whereas someone who is firmly, personally
committed to defending the freedoms of people from social restrictions so as to
best provide for their happiness and well-being (Chaotic Good) does not.

This is largely because the forces of nature are envisioned as being Neutral
(True Neutral, in the old system's language) and if you don't at least partially
"agree" with nature's indifference to moral and social questions, you're not
really in tune with it.
Post by Zenobia
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Post by Zenobia
5) But I definitely don't understand why Monks must be Lawful.
Sure they need to be disciplined to get where they're going but
so do all the other classes! I fail to see why there's this
connection between Lawful-Choatic social behavior and personal
behavior. Is it not possible to be unlawful in one's social
outlook yet extremely well disciplined in one's personal
outlook? I'd have thought so, but the rules say, not in this
case.
No answer!
Given the implications of cosmic forces of metaphysical Law, it's simple to
explain this, which is probably good for you!

The lawful, orderly nature of a monk's philosophical beliefs goes beyond simple
personal discipline. The implication is that every creature in existence has a
proper place in the continuum of existence that they are charged with
fulfilling. The monk's disciplined mastery of her mind and body is not just a
matter of self-improvement or of skill; it's the real manifestation of her
personal commitment to completely fulfilling the potential of the role in the
cosmic order that she has been given.

Other people who have a similar philosophy about cosmic order and one's place in
it may have different beliefs about the best way in which to fill one's place,
of course. Some may not even consciously think of it in cosmic terms; but given
the reality in a D&D setting of the cosmic force of order, even an unconscious
assumption that some people are destined or best-equipped to rise to the top of
a social order and that others will inevitably occupy lower rungs on the ladder
(i.e., a relatively unphilosophical Lawful alignment) will lead an individual's
actions to promote the growth of Law in the world.

This kind of thing isn't written down in the books because it's not necessary to
the majority of games - yet I think it's clear that it's easy to extrapolate
them from the definitions that *are* given.
Post by Zenobia
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Post by Zenobia
Is this too many examples?
The alignment describes personal ethics (morals) in terms of
forces of the universe. I can see that, having made that
connection, the rules may tend to dictate what can and can't be
role-played in the game. A pity you can't see it too.
They don't do that. What they do is describe the consequences of
shifting to alginments incompatible with your class. If you want your
character to avoid those consequences, play them such that they don't
move ioto the alignment range that has negative consequences. Simple.
An answer, which appears to me, to agree with what I say.
You come at it from the wrong direction. A paladin is absolutely free to act in
an evil fashion, if she chooses to do so (i.e., the paladin's player is free to
decide that the character will commit an evil act), but the consequences of
doing so include severing the connection to the metaphysical forces which give
the paladin her special abilities.

This is no more a restriction on role-playing than in-game laws against murder
and theft are; it's just that the penalties for a paladin's transgressions are
more effectively meted out.

To be more specific: the fact that a paladin's code is aligned with the tenets
of Good and Law is merely a matter of convenience. Other examples of conditional
judgement of a PC's actions exist within the game; consider the special mission
some intelligent magical items have, against the fulfilment of which the item
will certainly judge the character possessing it. A fighter bearing an
intelligent magic sword which grants its possessor supernatural powers as long
as he swears to always pursue and slay demons wherever they are to be found is
held to a code of behaviour as surely as is a paladin, and will be judged on
whether or not he obeys this promise.

The fact that a paladin's code is partially based on the tenets of Lawful Good
and the fighter's promise is simply to slay demons whenever he has the chance is
not relevant.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
John Phillips
2004-08-26 13:34:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by Ken Andrews
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
In addition to the example above (The cleric with non-Lawful
ethics in the Temple of Pelor) and any other examples one's
2) Don't you think it may be hard playing a Barbarian who had
converted to a Lawful Temple?
No more so than it would be hard (using something from your previous
examples) for a barbaric foreigner to fit in with Roman society.
Post by Zenobia
3) Why can't a Bard who decided to stop his wandering ways and
settle down become a good Lawful citizen?
Nothing says they cant. They just cant stay a Bard as 'wandering ways' is
what being a Bard is about.
Post by Zenobia
4) I can't understand why Druids have to be Neutral (on the
alignment graph, preventing them from playing LG, CG, CE or LE.
I fail to see why worship of a nature deity would force one's
personal ethics to that extent. (unless personal ethics had some
kind of connection with forces of the universe).
Druidism has a belief system that tends towards selfishness and apathy. Get
too far away from your deities philosophy and you fall out of favor.
Post by Zenobia
5) But I definitely don't understand why Monks must be Lawful.
Sure they need to be disciplined to get where they're going but
so do all the other classes!
You just answered your own question. Order and discipline is what monking is
all about.
Post by Zenobia
I fail to see why there's this
connection between Lawful-Choatic social behavior and personal
behavior. Is it not possible to be unlawful in one's social
outlook yet extremely well disciplined in one's personal
outlook? I'd have thought so, but the rules say, not in this
case.
Is this too many examples?
Piss poor examples. Nothing in any of then restricts a characters behavior.
All they say is that persons have difficulty when interacting with persons
and/or deities of greatly differing philosophies, or that specific classes
require a specific mindset.
Post by Zenobia
The alignment describes personal ethics (morals) in terms of
forces of the universe. I can see that, having made that
connection, the rules may tend to dictate what can and can't be
role-played in the game. A pity you can't see it too.
The only reason we cant see it is because it isn't there.


John
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-26 17:56:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by Ken Andrews
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
In addition to the example above (The cleric with non-Lawful
ethics in the Temple of Pelor)
<falls on the floor laughing>
My *gods*! You're such a complete bumpkin!
One, Pelor is *Neutral Good* and thus his priests can be LN, CN, NG, LG,
and CG.

Two: THOSE RESTRICTIONS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH *ALIGNMENT*.

Alignment is just the shorthand used to convey the descriptions of the
moral restrictions involved. Even *without* an alignment system, someone
worshipping Pelor with a *divine connection* such as a Cleric does HAS TO
HAVE A MORALITY OF WHICH PELOR WOULD APPROVE!!! We can write up a little
list of traits .. that will wind up *duplicating* the list above if we
replaced each alignment title with its description.

By all means, explain to us why a *real god* would support a priest who
felt and acted demonstrably to the contrary of his mission and morality?
*MORON*.

You may as well complain about the ENGLISH LANGUAGE, which I am using to
convey this information to you - your criticism would be just as accurate.
Post by Zenobia
2) Don't you think it may be hard playing a Barbarian who had
converted to a Lawful Temple?
Not in the least. A Lawful temple of a Neutral god lets the barbarian
not only be part of the faith, but remain Chaotic! He'll annoy the hell out
of the temple, but hey, there's his god, and he'll worship where he pleases,
thankyou. Now, if you want to go one further, and claim that the Barbarian
CHANGED HIS ATTITUDE so that he was constrained, ordered, disciplined - ie;
the ANTITHESIS OF A WILD BARBARIAN, then why the *fuck* would you think that
he should still be to be full of barbarian powers? He's obviously ceased to
be full of barbaric mojo!

It has nothing to do with the *alignment system* and everything to do
with the CLASS DEFINITION AS CONCEIVED BY THE GAME WRITERS.
Post by Zenobia
3) Why can't a Bard who decided to stop his wandering ways and
settle down become a good Lawful citizen?
Because Bards are defined as a class who are *not* traditional,
hidebound, rigid-thinking, reactionary, etc.
Settle down and discover that you like order and honour and tradition
and stern judgmentalism, and you cease to be much like a Bard anymore.
Whether or not we use the word "Lawful" to summarize that is irrelevant.
This is how Bards are DEFINED IN D&D.

Now, if you don't like that aspect (I don't), then change it so that
your Bards have no moral/ethical perspective requirements.
It has nothing to do with the *alignment system* and everything to do
with the CLASS DEFINITION.
Post by Zenobia
4) I can't understand why Druids have to be Neutral (on the
alignment graph, preventing them from playing LG, CG, CE or LE.
Tough shit. The default game *assumes* that being attuned to nature
distances you from extreme ethical positions, which translates into game
terms as no non-neutral alignments. If you want your druids to be different
from the GAME DEFINITION, you can change it.
It has nothing to do with the *alignment system* and everything to do
with the CLASS DEFINITION.
Post by Zenobia
I fail to see why worship of a nature deity would force one's
personal ethics to that extent.
Druids do just a little bit more than "worship" a nature diety. They
LIVE THEIR LIVES dedicated to nature, and away from urban and civilized
influences.
Post by Zenobia
5) But I definitely don't understand why Monks must be Lawful.
Clearly, you have never done kung fu.
Post by Zenobia
Is this too many examples?
Every single one proves that you are an idiot. We enjoy seeing you be
an idiot. Continue!

I'm surprised there was no Paladin on your list. Why not? Do you
actually *comprehend* that Paladins are defined as forces of good and
justice, and thus asking for them to be different is silly? THE SAME
REASONING APPLIES TO THE OTHER CLASSES (as conceived by the writers).

-Michael
Ken Andrews
2004-08-26 23:50:04 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:56:20 GMT, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Post by Zenobia
Is this too many examples?
Every single one proves that you are an idiot. We enjoy seeing you be
an idiot. Continue!
At least we finally got her to provide concrete examples. Lousy ones,
but at least they're there.
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-08-26 18:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Zenobia, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
Post by Zenobia
Is this too many examples?
Insofar as all they are is examples of behaviour having consequences in
the gameworld, none of them bear on your main point. None of them
render any character type impossible, they simply indicate that there
are problems with making certain choices in a world where alignment is a
fundamental part of the cosmology.

Having said that, it's not hard to relax or lift some of the
restrictions you mention. For example, many DMs (including me) allow
bards of any alignment. This has nothing to do with the alignment
system itself; you don't have to change one dot or comma in chapter 6 of
the Player's Handbook to do it.
--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
David Klassen
2004-08-27 13:46:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Zenobia, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
Post by Zenobia
Is this too many examples?
Insofar as all they are is examples of behaviour having consequences in
the gameworld, none of them bear on your main point. None of them
render any character type impossible, they simply indicate that there
are problems with making certain choices in a world where alignment is a
fundamental part of the cosmology.
Well, it's more about how the character class mechanic is all about
archtype building. You can hardwire in moral/ethical worldviews
into the class to help distinguish it from other classes.

The very essence of a Barbarian is that of wildness, uncontrainted by
societal ties. The very essesnce of a Druid is a major disconnect from
urban civilizations and the concerns of people. The very essence of
a Monk is a disciplined lifestyle built around a structured society.

Losing these mindsets moves you sufficiently outside the realm of
being an archtype and thus you lose character class ability.
This is a feature of D&D's class system and could exist with or
without the alignment shorthand for moral/ethical outlook. You'd
just have to add about 2-3 paragraphs of moral/ethical outlook
information for each archtype. Ugh!

Of course, one could also just modify the class system so that they
are not archtypes requiring certian moral/ethical outlooks... However,
for some of them (Paladins, Barbarians) this takes away much of
what distinguishes them from other classes; in other cases
(Monk, Druid) it takes away from common conception of what
that character is all about.
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Having said that, it's not hard to relax or lift some of the
restrictions you mention. For example, many DMs (including me) allow
bards of any alignment. This has nothing to do with the alignment
system itself; you don't have to change one dot or comma in chapter 6 of
the Player's Handbook to do it.
Yeah, Bards are the weird one...
David Johnston
2004-08-26 20:47:02 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:18:05 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments. It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it
so.
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
In addition to the example above (The cleric with non-Lawful
ethics in the Temple of Pelor) and any other examples one's
2) Don't you think it may be hard playing a Barbarian who had
converted to a Lawful Temple?
Don't you think it would be hard for a real barbarian trying to fit
into a civilised community?
Post by Zenobia
3) Why can't a Bard who decided to stop his wandering ways and
settle down become a good Lawful citizen?
He can, of course.
Post by Zenobia
4) I can't understand why Druids have to be Neutral (on the
alignment graph, preventing them from playing LG, CG, CE or LE.
I fail to see why worship of a nature deity would force one's
personal ethics to that extent. (unless personal ethics had some
kind of connection with forces of the universe).
Hold on. Druids do not just _worship_ a nature deity. They work
for one. Typical worshippers of nature deities can be any alignment.
However to be a Druid, means that you are less concerned with
human welfare than you are with that of nature. It doesn't matter
to you whether a community has Good leadership if that community
is polluting the stream running through with their wastes to an
unacceptable degree or clearcutting your sacred forest for
desperately needed farmland. You'll kill them as readily as you
will Evil people if you think that's the most effective way to
preserve what you hold sacred. To paraphrase a certain Tolkien
character, "It's not so much that I am on someone's side, as
that nobody is on my side."
Post by Zenobia
5) But I definitely don't understand why Monks must be Lawful.
Sure they need to be disciplined to get where they're going but
so do all the other classes!
Actually they have to be more than disciplined. They have to
be members of a organisation. A "Monk" who is not a member
of a monastic order is not a monk at all. He's a hermit, or a priest
or a wandering fighter with prayer beads or whatever. That is why
Monks must be Lawful. Because community is the essence
of being a Monk. They may leave their monastery, even for
years at a time, but they are always a part of it, and they remain
bound by their community's vows for as long as they really are
Monks.

I fail to see why there's this
Post by Zenobia
connection between Lawful-Choatic social behavior and personal
behavior. Is it not possible to be unlawful in one's social
Unlawful and unLawful are not the same thing. It is perfectly
possible to be a Lawful criminal or revolutionary. Now, there is a
word for someone who's extremely disciplined in their personal
habits, but has no steadfast loyalties and no desire to organise
the world around. That word is Neutral.

However, all of these objections to alignment are nothing of the
sort. They are objections to the class system, and it's way of
creating subclasses by trading special abilities for restrictions.
There are two responses to that objection. One is:

Don't play the subclasses. Do you really need a Monk subclass
when you could play, say, a Fighter/Cleric with skills, Feats and
spells that duplicate the Monk abilities you want?

Make a new subclass. So suppose you want to play a wandering
monk who is lecherous and drunk most of the time. Who says
that has to be a Monk? Maybe with the GM's help you can
come up with a Kung Fu Reprobate subclass tailor-made for
your fantasy self-indulgences.
Zenobia
2004-08-27 15:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rupert Boleyn
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:18:05 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
5) But I definitely don't understand why Monks must be Lawful.
Sure they need to be disciplined to get where they're going but
so do all the other classes!
Actually they have to be more than disciplined. They have to
be members of a organisation. A "Monk" who is not a member
of a monastic order is not a monk at all. He's a hermit, or a priest
or a wandering fighter with prayer beads or whatever. That is why
Monks must be Lawful. Because community is the essence
of being a Monk. They may leave their monastery, even for
years at a time, but they are always a part of it, and they remain
bound by their community's vows for as long as they really are
Monks.
I fail to see why there's this
Post by Zenobia
connection between Lawful-Choatic social behavior and personal
behavior. Is it not possible to be unlawful in one's social
Unlawful and unLawful are not the same thing. It is perfectly
possible to be a Lawful criminal or revolutionary. Now, there is a
word for someone who's extremely disciplined in their personal
habits, but has no steadfast loyalties and no desire to organise
the world around. That word is Neutral.
However, all of these objections to alignment are nothing of the
sort. They are objections to the class system,
No, I've not written down what my objections to the class system
are.

Alignment affects various aspects of the game. The D&D rules and
world are intertwined. To say that anything is possible is, in
my opinion, to pretend that this interconnection isn't there or
to break it. I was merely using the class system as an example.

Your answers to my points are based upon interpretations of the
rules. My original objection to alignment was based on
experience during play. I was told that I was playing the game
"wrongly" or, presumably, my group were. I was told to quote the
rules which I did. Those rules are clear and precise on certain
topics. Your interpretation of the rules is not my
interpretation.

At this point no further meaningful dialog is possible. Your
interpretation of the rules differs from mine. Your experience
of actual play seems at variance with mine. It looks like it's
all come down to a matter of opinion.
Post by Rupert Boleyn
Make a new subclass.
You are correct. I get around the rules by writing new ones for
myself or by ignoring them. I would ditch the entire alignment
system. I end here precisely where I began! - by changing the
rules. I'm breaking the connection between the D&D world and the
game mechanics.
John Phillips
2004-08-27 17:36:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
However, all of these objections to alignment are nothing of the
sort. They are objections to the class system,
No, I've not written down what my objections to the class system
are.
Right, and you Have read the D&D books, understand current events, are no
longer going to reply to this topic, and Have a understanding of history.
Right.
Post by Zenobia
Alignment affects various aspects of the game. The D&D rules and
world are intertwined. To say that anything is possible is, in
my opinion, to pretend that this interconnection isn't there or
to break it. I was merely using the class system as an example.
Yet the problems you stated all have to do with the Classes, not with
Alignment. Could it be that you reject the idea that certain classes require
certain philosophical and moral outlooks to be a part of them?
Post by Zenobia
Your answers to my points are based upon interpretations of the
rules. My original objection to alignment was based on
experience during play.
Obviously its not through what you read in the books. Perhaps the problem
comes from playing with incompetents.
Post by Zenobia
I was told that I was playing the game
"wrongly" or, presumably, my group were. I was told to quote the
rules which I did.
Wrong rules.
Post by Zenobia
Those rules are clear and precise on certain topics.
Perhaps the first correct thing you have said.
Post by Zenobia
Your interpretation of the rules is not my interpretation.
No, the section of rules you quoted is not from the section on Alignment.
Post by Zenobia
At this point no further meaningful dialog is possible. Your
interpretation of the rules differs from mine. Your experience
of actual play seems at variance with mine.
That's for sure.
Post by Zenobia
It looks like it's all come down to a matter of opinion.
The disagreement isn't about opinion, its about facts. Disliking Alignment
is Ok, disliking it because it restricts players behavior is Not Ok. Can you
tell which is a based in fact and which is opinion?
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
Make a new subclass.
You are correct. I get around the rules by writing new ones for
myself or by ignoring them. I would ditch the entire alignment
system. I end here precisely where I began! - by changing the
rules. I'm breaking the connection between the D&D world and the
game mechanics.
But why get rid of the alignment system if your problem is with the classes?
When I get a flat tires I don't pull out my radiator.


John
Jasin Zujovic
2004-08-26 22:04:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Zenobia
Post by Ken Andrews
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
In addition to the example above (The cleric with non-Lawful
ethics in the Temple of Pelor) and any other examples one's
2) Don't you think it may be hard playing a Barbarian who had
converted to a Lawful Temple?
Not really. You might even have a barbarian who is a cleric of a Lawful
diety. Say, a Neutral Good barbarian/cleric of Hieroneus (who is a
Lawful Good god). Sure, it won't be your typical barbarian, but one who
is constantly balancing between his god's orderly tenets and his
furious, wild side, but it's a perfectly acceptable character, in
accordance with all rules.

You haven't really read the barbarian rules all that carefully, right?
Post by Zenobia
3) Why can't a Bard who decided to stop his wandering ways and
settle down become a good Lawful citizen?
He can. He won't be able to learn new spells and magical songs, as he'll
no longer have the freedom of spirit needed for it, but he might focus
on other pursuits instead. Perhaps he'll become a paladin, a wandering
warrior-poet?

You haven't really read the bard rules all that carefully, right?
Post by Zenobia
4) I can't understand why Druids have to be Neutral (on the
alignment graph, preventing them from playing LG, CG, CE or LE.
I fail to see why worship of a nature deity would force one's
personal ethics to that extent. (unless personal ethics had some
kind of connection with forces of the universe).
I kind of agree with you here, in that I don't see a need for the druid
class to require a Neutral alignment...

... but that's beside the point.

You obviously don't understand what alignment requirements. Your
complaints are equivalent to saying "why can't an honoured Mongol
warrior be an utter pacifist?".
Post by Zenobia
5) But I definitely don't understand why Monks must be Lawful.
Sure they need to be disciplined to get where they're going but
so do all the other classes!
No, they don't.
Post by Zenobia
I fail to see why there's this
connection between Lawful-Choatic social behavior and personal
behavior.
There's no such thing as Lawful or Chaotic social behavior and Lawful or
Chaotic personal behavior.

The Law vs. Chaos axis measures the things mentioned in the description
of the axis in the PHB. If you don't have the mindset to rate Lawful,
you don't have the mindset to train as a monk.

It's not that your non-Lawful alignment is preventing you from training.
It's your mindset that's preventing you, and your mindset that warrants
the label of non-Lawful.
Post by Zenobia
Is it not possible to be unlawful in one's social
outlook yet extremely well disciplined in one's personal
outlook? I'd have thought so, but the rules say, not in this
case.
I'd advise against strong statements on what the rules say until you
have a better grasp of them.
--
Jasin Zujovic
***@inet.hr
Ken Andrews
2004-08-26 23:30:54 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 13:18:05 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
Post by David Johnston
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments. It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it
so.
Prove it. That's all we ask. Provide ONE example where you cannot do
SOME SPECIFIC THING because D&D alignment gets in the way.
In addition to the example above (The cleric with non-Lawful
ethics in the Temple of Pelor) and any other examples one's
First, your previous missive did *not* specify he was a cleric.
Second, you specified *bad*, not *non-Lawful*.

So, what happens when he touches the book depends on whether he's
Good, Neutral, or Evil. His "non-Lawful"ness will not affect what
happens. As you specified "bad", I'll assume he's Evil. Therefore,
he gets blasted.


Now, here's one exactly the same for you, since you seem to believe
you've a solution for this horrible impossibility. I want to hear a
description of ANY one of the gods in your campaign. You pick the
god. You describe for us what that god's likes and dislikes are. You
tell us what he looks for in a cleric, what things he wants his
clerics to do, what things he puts up with them doing, and what things
he won't accept their doing. Then, show us a cleric who's preferences
are everything that that god dislikes, and show us how you'd get that
cleric working for that god.
Post by Zenobia
2) Don't you think it may be hard playing a Barbarian who had
converted to a Lawful Temple?
Not at all. He'll drive the priesthood to distraction with his
chaotic ways, but he can still be there. Or are you talking about a
Barbarian who becomes Lawful? In that case, he's no longer able to
use his Barbarian special abilities, exactly as per the class
description.
Post by Zenobia
3) Why can't a Bard who decided to stop his wandering ways and
settle down become a good Lawful citizen?
Certainly he can. He won't be a Bard anymore, but he can do it.
Post by Zenobia
4) I can't understand why Druids have to be Neutral (on the
alignment graph, preventing them from playing LG, CG, CE or LE.
I fail to see why worship of a nature deity would force one's
personal ethics to that extent. (unless personal ethics had some
kind of connection with forces of the universe).
Druids don't have to be Neutral. That got tossed when the game
upgraded to 3.0. Didn't you notice? What they *do* have to have is
some aspect of impartiality. Impartial to Law/Chaos means they have
to be NG, NN, or NE. Impartial to Good/Evil means they have to be LN,
NN, or CN. Why do I have to explain this to you?
Post by Zenobia
5) But I definitely don't understand why Monks must be Lawful.
Sure they need to be disciplined to get where they're going but
so do all the other classes! I fail to see why there's this
connection between Lawful-Choatic social behavior and personal
behavior. Is it not possible to be unlawful in one's social
outlook yet extremely well disciplined in one's personal
outlook? I'd have thought so, but the rules say, not in this
case.
You've never heard of monastic orders? Monks are part of monastic
orders, temples and the like. These are organized (Lawful)
communities.
Post by Zenobia
Is this too many examples?
The alignment describes personal ethics (morals) in terms of
forces of the universe. I can see that, having made that
connection, the rules may tend to dictate what can and can't be
role-played in the game. A pity you can't see it too.
The rules do not dictate what can and cannot be role-played. The
PLAYER decides what he will or will not do.

It's beginning to look like you don't understand classes any more than
you do alignment.


Still waiting to hear about EPT, by the way.
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-08-26 06:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Zenobia, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
Post by Zenobia
This pretense that anything goes is wearing a bit thin. It seems
that most people are too busy blowing their own trumpets about
how, in their wonderful games, "anything goes" - to actually
acknowledge that there are quite severe restrictions upon what
most people can cope with.
All anyone's asking is that you *NAME* one. You haven't backed up a
single thing you've said in any of these threads!
--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Jeff Heikkinen
2004-08-26 20:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Aaron F. Bourque, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Post by Michael Scott Brown
WHAT RESTRICTIONS?
You keep *saying* there are restrictions and
limitations, bitch - but you CANNOT SEEM TO NAME A
SINGLE ONE.
NAME A LIMITATION THE SYSTEM IMPOSES!
JUST ONCE.
The thing you can't seem to grasp here is that assertions
such as yours are *DEMONSTRABLY WRONG*.
Wow. Overconnect to a *game* much?
Wow. Abuse logic much?
Post by Beowulf Bolt
Calling someone a 'bitch' merely because her opinion
differs from yours - even if she has certain facts wrong - is
excessive.
Since that's not even a remotely accurate description of the
situation you won't mind if we completely ignore you.
Post by Beowulf Bolt
PLONK.
Public kill filling *and* resetting follow ups. Tell you what,
why don't you do me a favour and kill file me too you
whinning *bitch*. I'd hate to have you respond to any of my
posts in such a dishonest, underhand way.
Hey, killfile me, too, "Biff." I don't want to be left out!
He's probably reading this in rgfa, and to be fair to him that was most
likely the FIRST time he'd ever seen an MSB post. Most of this thread
isn't crossposted to there, but parts of it are. I'd have a bad first
impression too, if that was the first post I saw from a given poster
*and* it wasn't obvious that it was days into a "discussion" with
someone who was being as (purposely?) dense as Zenobia.
--
Let's not let this drift into a topic about playing your alignment. I
have too much to do to be able to properly ridicule and post whore.
- Rob Singers
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-27 02:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Hey, killfile me, too, "Biff." I don't want to be left out!
He's probably reading this in rgfa, and to be fair to him that was most
likely the FIRST time he'd ever seen an MSB post. Most of this thread
isn't crossposted to there, but parts of it are. I'd have a bad first
impression too, if that was the first post I saw from a given poster
*and* it wasn't obvious that it was days into a "discussion" with
someone who was being as (purposely?) dense as Zenobia.
For the record, I am under the impression that Zen is a male fool - I
would never refer to a woman that way.

-Michael
Doug Lampert
2004-08-27 16:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Hey, killfile me, too, "Biff." I don't want to be left out!
He's probably reading this in rgfa, and to be fair to him that was most
likely the FIRST time he'd ever seen an MSB post. Most of this thread
isn't crossposted to there, but parts of it are. I'd have a bad first
impression too, if that was the first post I saw from a given poster
*and* it wasn't obvious that it was days into a "discussion" with
someone who was being as (purposely?) dense as Zenobia.
For the record, I am under the impression that Zen is a male fool - I
would never refer to a woman that way.
Zenobia is the historical name of a Queen of Palmyra. I assume female.

DougL
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-27 17:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Doug Lampert
Post by Michael Scott Brown
For the record, I am under the impression that Zen is a male fool - I
would never refer to a woman that way.
Zenobia is the historical name of a Queen of Palmyra. I assume female.
I assume that associating Zenobia with femininity is an insult to women.

-Michael
First Prophet of Kaos
2004-08-28 06:53:35 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:10:41 -0700, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
Hey, killfile me, too, "Biff." I don't want to be left out!
He's probably reading this in rgfa, and to be fair to him that was most
likely the FIRST time he'd ever seen an MSB post. Most of this thread
isn't crossposted to there, but parts of it are. I'd have a bad first
impression too, if that was the first post I saw from a given poster
*and* it wasn't obvious that it was days into a "discussion" with
someone who was being as (purposely?) dense as Zenobia.
For the record, I am under the impression that Zen is a male fool - I
would never refer to a woman that way.
I'm not sure how to take that. One the one hand, differential
treatment of men and women is bigotry. On the other hand, this
example is advantageous bigotry.
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
Michael Scott Brown
2004-08-28 08:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by First Prophet of Kaos
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 19:10:41 -0700, "Michael Scott Brown"
Post by Michael Scott Brown
For the record, I am under the impression that Zen is a male fool - I
would never refer to a woman that way.
I'm not sure how to take that. One the one hand, differential
treatment of men and women is bigotry.
Bullshit. Bias *against* one sex or the other is bigotry.
Using "Mister" and "Mrs." - differential treatment - is not bigotry.
Neither is an aversion to misogyny.
.
-Michael
JB
2004-08-27 09:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff Heikkinen
He's probably reading this in rgfa, and to be fair to him that was most
likely the FIRST time he'd ever seen an MSB post. Most of this thread
isn't crossposted to there, but parts of it are. I'd have a bad first
impression too, if that was the first post I saw from a given poster
*and* it wasn't obvious that it was days into a "discussion" with
someone who was being as (purposely?) dense as Zenobia.
He made a daft assumption instead of actually finding out but what
bothered me was changing the follow ups to alt.dev.null.

That's a piece of shit tactic that people should be TOSed for.
First Prophet of Kaos
2004-08-27 08:47:05 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 14:22:10 +0100, Zenobia
Post by Zenobia
There are no binary opposites of Good vs. Evil (with neutral
somewhere in the middle). There is just a standard of what
is considered good.
So people who murder others for financial gain are "good, but
not as good as others,"--i.e.: those who don't?
Such people don't eat babies - that only happens in fantasy
stories where everything is neatly packaged into Good and Evil.
What a coinkydink... we're talking about fantasy stories.
Some murders probably always remember to give their mothers a
birthday or Mother's Day present. I don't. So in that respect
such people would be better than me. In other respects they're
clearly not as good as me.
Where did anyone say that a character with the Evil label doesn't have some
Good qualities? Any type of character can love their parents, siblings,
spouses, children, friends, and neighbours. What matters is their general
outlook. How do they feel about the rest of the world?
That general outlook you describe (D&D alignment) is defined
from a moral compass taken from everyday common sense thought.
I'm not a moral relativist - I can see that there are bad and
good actions. It's the way the label of good and bad is applied
Not 'good and bad.' Good and Evil.
Post by Zenobia
to characters as a game mechanic that I have problems with -
because those Good and Bad notions come from modern Western
ideas not from anything in a specific fantasy world.
Translation: Zenobia imposes his/her own moral baggage apon the
labels, and blames the system for his/her own failing.

Solution1: learn to seperate Good alignment from 'good' behaviour,
and the Evil alignment from 'bad' behaviour.
Solution2: rename the alignments to emotionally/morally neutral
terms. Good becomes "Bog," Evil becomes "Gob," or somesuch thing.
Solution3: just shut the fuck up, make your own changes and quit
pestering those of us who've adopted solutions 1 or 2 already.
Post by Zenobia
I appreciate that it's a lot of work to impose an alternative
fantasy moral framework to the D&D framework. Too much work for
most. That would be a valid criticism of my arguments.
Feh. A valid criticism of your arguments is that they're rooted in
your own incomptencies, notably the inability to distinguish Good from
good. Most humans in the standard D&D world believe that Neutral is
good, and that Good is foolish; just as most people in Alberta believe
that Conservative is good and Liberal is foolish (and, presumably, the
reverse is true in Ontario.)

The only flaw of the D&D alignment system you've even come close to
touching apon is that the labelling system is prone to causing
confusion in idiots who think that Good *must* be the morally best
alignment choice - the one that everyone strives for - in the
campaign.

There is a minor bias, in that the designers *did* feel the Evil
options were best left to antagonists, but that is sufficiently
trivial as to have no impact on actually playing the game.
Post by Zenobia
It
saddens me that I don't see that criticism. people keep on
saying that, with D&D alignment, anything goes. In practice
anything doesn't go because it's way too much work to make it
so.
Feh. This is just complete nonsense. The only 'work' involved is in
getting over the fact that striving for Good may not be the most
appropriate moral philosophy for what you want to do.
Post by Zenobia
So why don't you guys just admit that the D&D alignment system
is there because it's felt that something has to be there and
the D&D system is pretty easy for most people to grasp because
it draws on common sense? - Modern Common sense notions of good
and evil and fantasy paradigms from writers such as Tolkien and
Moorcock.
Aside from the fact that Klassen has pretty much done that numberous
times already?

Because it's utterly irrelevant to the matter at hand, which is that
Good need not be the best option, and that you've demonstrated a
failure to grasp that facet of the system.
Post by Zenobia
This pretense that anything goes is wearing a bit thin. It seems
that most people are too busy blowing their own trumpets about
how, in their wonderful games, "anything goes" - to actually
acknowledge that there are quite severe restrictions upon what
most people can cope with.
Subject: Worst Meta-gaming Experience Ever
rec.games.frp.misc,rec.games.frp.dnd,rec.games.frp.gurps
is quite interesting because it's looking at one of the reasons
why anything doesn't go.
That thread touches on the matter in that it illustrates conflicts
arising due to *metagame* barriers - ie. those that exist *outside* of
the game.

Much like the one you're creating here, those barriers have to do with
player expectations, not system problems.
Post by Zenobia
It's only by understanding barriers
such as these that a role-gamer can overcome such barriers and
make the fantasy a better game.
Or simply comprehend why the barrier exists, in cases where dealing
with it is a better option than overcoming it (ie. do not bring rape
into the game when some of your players are sensitive to the issues
involved.)
Post by Zenobia
I guess there are just a tiny minority, like me, who see D&D
alignment as a different kind of barrier. I appreciate that the
imposition of an alternative moral compass to D&D alignment is
always a restriction on what goes. The only point I'm making
here is that every moral compass imposed upon a fantasy game
restricts but each different moral compass restricts in a
different way. I'm just looking for different restrictions to
those of D&D alignment.
I'm still not seeing any actual restrictions. You seem uncomfortable
with the fact that certain historical figures get labels you don't
like, but that's a personal problem.
Post by Zenobia
As defined by D&D. My problem with it is that it's too boring to
have this framework imposed upon the game.
You're entitled to that opinion... even if it doesn't hold true for others.
Thank you. I may be entitled to that opinion by you but most
people here (news:rec.games.frp.dnd) wouldn't entitle me to it.
Are we not entitled to the opinion that your description of the
problem is rooted in ignorance, foolishness and self-imposed barriers?
--
Never underestimate the ability of others to
misinterpret what you've said.
Loading...