Search results

Exactly. I mean does playing a thiefish rogue mean you're going to become a kleptomaniac? There are plenty of antisocial behaviors in D&D which are regarded as good or neutral that if Jase's bizzare logic are applied to them (practicing leads to doing) would recommend D&D never be played...

Dear god, are you actually comparing bludgeoning a man to playing a game?! There is a world of difference. You are completely missing barscoome's (sp?) point. Commiting heinous acts is nowhere near on the same level as making pretend in a game.

A number of them: 1) So you feel that in playing an evil character, you are in effect making yourself evil in real life. Correct or incorrect? 2) If correct, it seems that the danger is in taking the "side" of a villain. Pretending to be a villain. True or false? 3) If true, why is a DM not...

Is this why you refused to answer a number of straightforward questions I posed to you a few threads back? That ought to be pretty easy to do, but perhaps it just shows too clearly the fact that your position is extremely weak.

Break it down like a mid-80s rap rekkid 1) So you feel that in playing an evil character, you are in effect making yourself evil in real life. Correct or incorrect? 2) If correct, it seems that the danger is in taking the "side" of a villain. Pretending to be a villain. True or false? 3)...

No, for it to be a lie you would have to assert facts which were false, which you did. No more than the core books do by publishing the Blackguard prestige class. You're misunderstanding the definition of encourage (and there's nothing more pedantic than quoting the dictionary in a discussion...

Some evil characters never have doubts. Some evil characters now they're evil and are full of self-revulsion. Some evil characters doubt whether what they're doing is evil and some think they're definitely not evil.

Argh, this his so frustrating. Book of Vile Darkness explicitly says that it's not for players, it's for DMs. Let's leave aside people playing evil PCs. You are clearly still against rape and the like existing in a game, even if it occurs as a result of NPCs. Why? If these hideous acts are...

That's not really true. Strict behavorism focused exclusively on observable behavior and ignored the inner world. That strictly-exterior-behavior view has largely fallen out of fashion. However, cognative behaviorism--behaviorism that takes into account thought processes and emotions as well...

No. If I meant that, I would've said that. That is a lie. He says that in a vile game (and maybe in a mature one, I don't remember), there might be PCs using feats from the Book of Vile Darkness. But see my post upthread a few where I outline how people with evil feats can still be heroes...

I'm talking about looking up your THAC0 on the chart, etc. In other words my explanation for attacks of opportunity didn't cover every possible situation, but neither can any description of THAC0 that limits itself to 20 words or less. That's all I meant.

If you take your attention off fighting when you're within five feet of an opponent, she gets a free attack. Twenty words, including prepositions and articles. Are there complications to that rule? Of course. But I defy you to explain THAC0 in twenty words or less, including every possible...

That doesn't mean that they will be villains. You don't know what these feats are. My guess is that Monte is probably referring to feats that are temptations that don't, at first, seem like anything all that bad. They're probably the milder feats. For example: My PCs nearly became drug...

That is not true. You clearly intimated that someone who plays a rapist is not trustworthy to not be a rapist.

This is really a straw man, because the Book of Vile Darkness and Dragon 300 are no more intended to encourage people to role play villains than the DMG is by putting the Blackguard prestige class in it. You keep talking like these products advocate playing villains, which they patently do not...

Are you a writer? When I write I really internalize the POV character I'm writing (well, usually), and I think you'll find that this is fairly common. Furthermore, you ignored the actor part of the question.

Uh, yeah, that's what I wrote. . . . I think I see your confusion. Note the words, "blind loyalty," not just loyalty. And what I meant to indicate was more like: Just because I once enjoyed playing a game doesn't mean I'll maintain blind loyalty to it if a better version of the rules comes out.

If a theoretical 4th edition were to improve as vastly and substantively over 3rd edition as 3rd edition did over 1st and 2nd, I would of course prefer 4th edition. The idea that I would maintain blind loyalty to any ruleset because of its number or because I liked playing it is just ludicrous.

Would you trust--oh, I don't know--Clive Barker or Stephen King with your child? Assuming you knew them as people of course and found nothing else horrible about them other than what they wrote? If you write a story about a rapist or play a rapist in a film, only silly people would believe...

My point is that you can't possibly not offend people when you take the kind of tone you do, no matter how you try to disguise it. Many people are going to find it inheritly offensive. I'm trying not to reciprocate, but it's why such discussions can almost never be polite and well-reasoned...