Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 3290908" data-attributes="member: 172">The difference here is the I was saying was in direct response to a particular assertion of the form A therefore B. Whereas you apparently decided to tell me I "didn't have any reasons" as a means of pantomiming a real refutation without citing any particular conclusion I jumped to without reason as a way of trying to give your position apparent objective weight.Oh?That was exactly my point. But that was Hussar's position. Hussar posited that remorse came about only because the act was evil. That is what I called non sequitir. You called me wrong. Now you are agreeing with me?And my point here is that "terrible" isn't, necessarily or AFAIAC, a synonym for "evil". Evil is a moral judgment.Incorrect. I was stating my position was to demonstrate to you that it was something other than what you supposed it was. Since I wasn't implying that it was a proof of anything, it once again seems to me that you wish to allege illogic at the drop of a hat, again apparently in the hopes of scoring rhetorical points with the crowd.And? This argument has existed in the realms of philosophy for some years. I don't think either of us are going to end the old argument of act vs. agent evaluation here today, so if you have taken it that it my intended proof was that agent evaluation is the only way you can veiw morality, you are incorrect. However, what you did assert is that Hussar and I were saying the same thing, which is also incorrect.My stance is that acts cannot be meaningfully evaluated separate from evaluating the agent.Hussar's stance is that act and agent evaluation are separate.By me restating my stance, which I hope you should see is not the same as Hussars, should be sufficient to refute your claim that Hussar and I are saying the same thing.That Hussar and I agree that a paladin should not be judged for such an act is a separate issue from whether an act can be meaningfully called "evil" without considering the agent.By my stance, he does not need to atone.By Hussar's stance, he does not need to atone.By the rules, he does not need to atone. Whatever you believe in the realms of ethical philosophy, I simply do not think that evaluating act separate from the intent of the agent is sensible for game management purposes because: <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Making that assessment could be very uncertain, if not impossible. Any given act can have dozens if not hundreds of consequences, which could take years or even millennia to play out. If an act is only to be judged by its consequence, it's supposed "alignment" may drift over time, as the events play out. And then, as time goes on, it interacts with the consequences of other events, so it's hard to say which act was ultimately responsible for the "evil" consequence.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">If it doesn't bear on the alignment of the actor, then it serves little point in judging the morality of the act.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Despite the unfortunate verbiage of the paladin class, it's inconsistent with the common vernacular used by players of the game. When a DM describes an act as evil, it is typically taken to mean that there are consequences to the potential alignment of the character in question.</li> </ol>Given this, I feel that it doesn't make too much sense to come at the topic of act evaluation in the game in any way that doesn't reflect on the actor.</blockquote>

Verification