Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3613096" data-attributes="member: 30001">I don't see it as a circular argument - it's simply a matter of establishing what features you need in your campaign in order to produce the results that you (or the OP in this case) wants.&nbsp; IME it turns into a circular argument only when one or both parties refuse to concede that the other's opinion is dependant on a certain basis of facts.Also, saying that by &quot;apple&quot; you really mean &quot;hobgoblin&quot; can be called semantics.&nbsp; I'm not sure how useful that is though.&nbsp; A DM is not his campaign universe - if he was then he could hardly call up the players on the telephone and schedule the game.&nbsp; My campaign universe in theory is a place where zillions of NPCs can all entertain various thoughts simultaneously.&nbsp; I, as a DM, am not capable of that.&nbsp; My campaign universe cannot call players on the telephone.You were discussing the &quot;universe&quot; before, so I think we're looking at this in different contexts.&nbsp; All I was saying was that the RAW recognizes the existence of intent as a game mechanic (the issue of alignment aside for the moment).&nbsp; Therefore, in these other instances the DM is expected to judge intent - especially in the case where a Rod of Enemy Detection is used against a PC.The DM can rule with knowledge, it just may not be accurate.&nbsp; People can form opinions based on another's intent, and those opinions can be based on evidence.&nbsp; The problem, that we agree on, is that it's not a reliable way to judge a game.&nbsp; The thing I think we disagree on mainly is that you seem to be saying that the RAW says this.Yes, based on the OP.&nbsp; But not based on the RAW.&nbsp; I don't see that spelled out.&nbsp; In fact, in pretty much every paragraph of the SRD regarding alignment, intent, disposition, opinions and ideas, and actions are all mixed together.&nbsp; What a character does is not given any sort of priority (explict or implicit AFAICT) over what he thinks.&nbsp; And what evidence is there for that assumption at all?&nbsp; The only thing that I can see is that it makes sense to you (and the OP) as a way to run the game, and I don't object to that.&nbsp; But I disagree that this is based on a sensible reading of the RAW.That's overly selective IMO.&nbsp; Your taking one attribute of the [evil] descriptor and broadening it to suggest that it only relates to how someone uses the object.&nbsp; The thing glows evil if detected for, whether or not anyone ever uses it.&nbsp; The RAW on Detect Evil says &quot;you sense the presence of evil&quot;.&nbsp; Ok, we agree on the obvious fact that vampires are evil by RAw, but clearly then a creature's alignment is not dependant on their actions - because a vampire theoretically could form in outer space somewhere with no one around, and it would be expected to have an evil alignment.&nbsp; This doesn't apply to PCs, of course, who don't have mandatory alignments by the RAw.&nbsp; But both PCs and vampires are sentient creatures with alignment, so you'd have to suggest that the rules for how they gain those alignments are entirely different.There's nothing obvious in the RAW that suggests that a prison cannot change his alignment.&nbsp; I don't see why a prisoner who has a change of heart wouldn't become Lawful Good.&nbsp; The SRD says &quot;Being good or evil can be a conscious choice.&quot;&nbsp; If they mean't &quot;doing good or evil things&quot; instead of &quot;being&quot;, I'm pretty sure they would have just said so.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="gizmo33, post: 3613096, member: 30001"] I don't see it as a circular argument - it's simply a matter of establishing what features you need in your campaign in order to produce the results that you (or the OP in this case) wants. IME it turns into a circular argument only when one or both parties refuse to concede that the other's opinion is dependant on a certain basis of facts. Also, saying that by "apple" you really mean "hobgoblin" can be called semantics. I'm not sure how useful that is though. A DM is not his campaign universe - if he was then he could hardly call up the players on the telephone and schedule the game. My campaign universe in theory is a place where zillions of NPCs can all entertain various thoughts simultaneously. I, as a DM, am not capable of that. My campaign universe cannot call players on the telephone. You were discussing the "universe" before, so I think we're looking at this in different contexts. All I was saying was that the RAW recognizes the existence of intent as a game mechanic (the issue of alignment aside for the moment). Therefore, in these other instances the DM is expected to judge intent - especially in the case where a Rod of Enemy Detection is used against a PC. The DM can rule with knowledge, it just may not be accurate. People can form opinions based on another's intent, and those opinions can be based on evidence. The problem, that we agree on, is that it's not a reliable way to judge a game. The thing I think we disagree on mainly is that you seem to be saying that the RAW says this. Yes, based on the OP. But not based on the RAW. I don't see that spelled out. In fact, in pretty much every paragraph of the SRD regarding alignment, intent, disposition, opinions and ideas, and actions are all mixed together. What a character does is not given any sort of priority (explict or implicit AFAICT) over what he thinks. And what evidence is there for that assumption at all? The only thing that I can see is that it makes sense to you (and the OP) as a way to run the game, and I don't object to that. But I disagree that this is based on a sensible reading of the RAW. That's overly selective IMO. Your taking one attribute of the [evil] descriptor and broadening it to suggest that it only relates to how someone uses the object. The thing glows evil if detected for, whether or not anyone ever uses it. The RAW on Detect Evil says "you sense the presence of evil". Ok, we agree on the obvious fact that vampires are evil by RAw, but clearly then a creature's alignment is not dependant on their actions - because a vampire theoretically could form in outer space somewhere with no one around, and it would be expected to have an evil alignment. This doesn't apply to PCs, of course, who don't have mandatory alignments by the RAw. But both PCs and vampires are sentient creatures with alignment, so you'd have to suggest that the rules for how they gain those alignments are entirely different. There's nothing obvious in the RAW that suggests that a prison cannot change his alignment. I don't see why a prisoner who has a change of heart wouldn't become Lawful Good. The SRD says "Being good or evil can be a conscious choice." If they mean't "doing good or evil things" instead of "being", I'm pretty sure they would have just said so. [/QUOTE]

Verification