D&D General Old School DND talks if DND is racist.

[Oofta]

We've jumped to plenty of them.

This is kind of like the Easter Bunny of topics.

 

[HJFudge]

Here's my personal take : there is a world of difference between preemptive violence and preventative violence. Preemptive violence is when you engage in violence against someone there is evidence someone means to do specific harm and they pose an immanent danger. Preemptive violence is sometimes morally justified, but should never be entered into lightly or with moral surety. Preventive violence is when you undertake violent action against someone with no evidence of a specific danger they mean to take or where that danger is not immanent. The reason why preventive violence is wrong is because you are taking away someone's moral agency away from them. You are treating them as guilty of actions they have not yet taken or even planning to take.

I am personally fine with preemptive violence taken with due diligence. I am even fine with games where preventive violence happens or might be a thing PCs do. I am not fine with it being treated as the morally right thing to do.

What of against someone there is evidence will do specific harm, even if they do not mean to?

The prince doesn't intend to cause a war, but there is plenty of evidence he WILL.

You try to convince him. He cannot (for whatever reason) be convinced.

You try to stop him through peaceful means. It does not work. You try several times. Doesn't work.

The deadline comes. Decision moment arrives. The point of no return.

Would violence against the human prince be pre-emptive or preventative in your view?

 

[jmartkdr2]

have we made any conclusions at all?

I think we've mostly agreed on the problems, (not the degree, but no one's saying the current state is fine and no change should be made) but are still arguing the solutions (largely whether there should be a default culture for monstrous humanoids at all. There's broad agreement the current defaults need adjustment if they are kept.)

Which is based partially on what one feels the purpose of the monster manual is.

 

[Lanefan]

This is kind of like the Easter Bunny of topics.

Close.

It's actually the Energizer Bunny of topics.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The concept of 'Good people can only do good things and bad people only do bad things' is quite religious in nature. The clearest example I can think of is the Infallibility of the Pope. The Pope, as I understand, cannot do bad things or even be mistaken. Whatever he does or says, no matter what it is, is Good and True.

On a complete tangent, this is a misunderstanding. Papal Infallibility only applies under certain extremely limited conditions and is a matter of Catholic theology. It's not entirely certain how many infallible statements have been made - but in the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church the low end estimate is that there have been two infallible statements made (one in 1854 about Mary herself being free of Original Sin, and the other in 1950 being that Mary was bodily taken up into heaven) while a high end estimate is that there have been seven with the other five coming before the doctrine was formalised in 1850.

 

[HJFudge]

On a complete tangent, this is a misunderstanding. Papal Infallibility only applies under certain extremely limited conditions and is a matter of Catholic theology. It's not entirely certain how many infallible statements have been made - but in the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church the low end estimate is that there have been two infallible statements made (one in 1854 about Mary herself being free of Original Sin, and the other in 1950 being that Mary was bodily taken up into heaven) while a high end estimate is that there have been seven with the other five coming before the doctrine was formalised in 1850.

Thanks for educating me a bit more on the concept. I admit I am no expert on it and its very possible I mischaracterized.

 

[Wicked Woodpecker]

On a complete tangent, this is a misunderstanding. Papal Infallibility only applies under certain extremely limited conditions and is a matter of Catholic theology. It's not entirely certain how many infallible statements have been made - but in the entire history of the Roman Catholic Church the low end estimate is that there have been two infallible statements made (one in 1854 about Mary herself being free of Original Sin, and the other in 1950 being that Mary was bodily taken up into heaven) while a high end estimate is that there have been seven with the other five coming before the doctrine was formalised in 1850.

Now TBH it's more varied. I mean even taking post-Vaticanum Primum statements there are several statements along way people are quarreling about. Not to mention infallibility of canonisations - also heated subject.
Of course Immaculate Conception and Asumption are those commonly accepted as they were declared as dogmas.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:

Folks, real-world religious systems are not appropriate fodder for discussion on these boards. Sorry, but I have to ask you to drop it, please and thanks.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

No, but someone else might if I ever get round to publishing the adventures I write.

Why run this risk at all? What value is there in making an NPC or opponent an orc or a hobgoblin, if I can easily replace them with a human that has identical game statistics?

Orc's are imaginary... humans are not.
Someone spending 6 hour a week for a decade or four killing "savage orcs, hobgoblins, goblins and ogres"...or someone killing "black people, red people, yellow people and white people"?
..
Which one do you think would feel more "racist"?
..
shrug I don't get it either. Then again, I don't care about race, sex or religion one way or the other. I only have my experiences and perceptions to go by, as does anyone on this planet. I only get annoyed/confused when others keep trying to tell me how and what I must 'think' or 'feel' due to THEIR personal experiences and that I should ignore mine. Because, you know, "they're right, I'm wrong".
..
No matter. I enjoy my RPG campaigns, and so do my players. That's what matters...not some faceless person behind a keyboard located somewhere in the world spouting off things on the internet. Fun to read and think about, I guess, public interaction is a good thing...but only when it's open and respects freedom of speech in totality (something this forum doesn't, but hey, these forums, these rules; if I want to post here, I have to abide by them...just like going to someone's house; their house, their rules...even if they are 'unfair' to some degree. I'm cool with that. ).
..
My campaigns? Most non-humans are built with "unchanging characteristics". Orcs are evil and savage...and will always be evil and savage. An orc MAY be able to "fake it" for a while and convince himself he/she is reformed, and refrain from all the evil/savage stuff they WANT to do...but, eventually, given enough pressure...it's right back to raping, pillaging, and eating other species. Why? They're orcs. They're made that way by their god. They have limited 'free will'. Humans? That's their super power in my games; ultimate free will.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Zardnaar]

No it's not.

Those were absolutely evil acts. No doubt about it. You can't murder innocent men, women and children and have it be anything else.

The existence of a tool is not good or evil. How you use the tool is good or evil. Using nukes against innocents = evil. Using nukes to destroy a meteor heading to earth, saving millions = good.

Counter arguement is women and children were going to die anyway.

I had to cover this in University. The question was if their use was justified.

I let the class decide that but pointed out with the death toll in the war if they shortened the war by one-two weeks they saved lives.

Otherwise from a moral PoV you're make my a decision who lives who dies. Japanese civilians or Chinese mostly due to starvation etc.

The other context is why they were used. The IJA marched their own civilians off cliffs so if the Allies had to invade it's a blood bath.

Best case scenario in alternative universe Japan surrenders in the next week or two. If they don't the nukes saved lives.

That's one of those moral dilemmas were it's really impossible to say who's right or wrong. Lots of people going to die regardless of what choice you make.

In effect you get to chose who dies and how many. You also lack the knowledge to determine exact numbers but all estimates are terrible. Pick your poison.