Arcane Sight

[Frostbiter01]

"The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me."

True if you are evil and even then there is always someone bigger like Kelban Blackstaff or Eliminster if you came in pushing your way into a town with no regard for law. Possibly the Secret Council of Waterdeep transports you as soon as you push your way in as they watch all outwardly powerful wizards entering WaterDeep and the cell you find yourself is a place of dead magic where you are easily tormented into submission. Or if you are good and even more so Lawful you will obey the wishes of all societies, right?

I agree there are times to be powerful and there are times to be humble, deciding when t do which is what makes the great players form the not so great.

 

[Dandu]

Or if you are good and even more so Lawful you will obey the wishes of all societies, right?

Not at all. If that was the standard, MLK would be chaotic evil and Bull Conner lawful good.

 

[Frostbiter01]

]]

Not at all. If that was the standard, MLK would be chaotic evil and Bull Conner lawful good.

Then you would not be playing your character correctly Read Tolkien if you haven't and you will see the difference between loyalty and lawful oaths made even unto death. The problem with this generation is they believe good is relative. Tolkien did not think so and neither did most of the world until this generation warped the Theory of Relativity. Einstein said never did he intend this to be applied to morality but they do it all the time. Why because their heart is evil bent on self satisfaction at the expense of others and they not only do evil acts in their own lives but they condone others that do the same. SO just because you quote me someone who is following the law does not make them good but they are obeying the law publicly. Martin Luther in your example used the law of right to assembly though those tried to deny him that law. Had he used violence like you are supposing is ok he would have been evil like the Black Panthers were who sought chance via violence to make their cause. These men are chaotic and in many cases the taking of innocent life was evil.

You do not get to set morality. There is no atheism in D&D there is good and there is evil. There is no redefining it. Sure you may have a Drow who acts good but he still acts good as it is defined. If try to mimic the stories of old it helps. For instance Daniel being a good man could be considered lawful as he obeyed all laws of the king except when they broke the law of his deity. The evil men that deceived the king in writing the law of not praying to any other but him forgot about his good friend Daniel. They used the Law and the King had to follow it and thus Daniel is cast into the Lions den. Then in the morning when he is alive the decree of the king is that the evil men be taken and thrown into he lions den where they meet their well deserved fate. Daniel meanwhile says "Oh King live forever" even while he was being taken out of the pit that was ordered by the King. Can you identify who was lawful and who was good and who was evil?

Also Salvatore's books are quite good a showing you that those who can be held to an oath are lawful by nature. At Luskan the carnival was a way to flay men as part of their punishment. It was the law for those condemned to death to die but many would see that as cruel and evil. Thus there were some who wanted to change it by lawful ways and others by overthrowing the evil gov't of the pirates but the point was these are examples of evil and good and those who were lawful good tried to abbey the law or at least suffer over it not kill people if they didn't like it. As I said before there is always someone bigger than you that has come through before.

this si a role play game if I give you a LG player I expect you to obey the laws even help to enforce it when necessary Do good to those who are around you. If you slay a dragon you don't want to cause it to kill the village you just said you would help. You actually care for these people. Heroism is born out of knowing what you are dying for. Evil are cowards and know not heroism but rule by fear. Fortunately, a LE Devil will honor his word, though he may twist it as best he can. While CE Demons will lie and stab you in the back and always work toward evil. See we know what to expect.

I have found players are find it harder and harder to play LG. On they have no idea as they don't go to church and understand a moral law above their own idea f hat is good and they just suck generally in their attempt to do good. They bypass beggars and despite being rich in gold do little to help the poor. They wont even get a cat out of a tree unless she pays them. Again their defense is "that is not what I call good to just do something for nothing" boy I would hate to be married to them. They apply their own morality instead of what the game has defined as to what is good and evil. If you cant do that then don't play an RPG.

I say all this only to say, I make sure the party of Role players know how I expect them to play each part of the alignment and give them bonus XPs for doing so.

 

[Greenfield]

I take a simpler approach: What happens when a powerful Wizard starts terrorizing a region?

The call goes out for Adventurers, of course. You need to stop the Evil Wizard! And it becomes a plot hook, a story advantage rather than a mechanics problem.

 

[Dandu]

Shall I get off your lawn?

The problem with this generation is they believe good is relative. Tolkien did not think so and neither did most of the world until this generation warped the Theory of Relativity. Einstein said never did he intend this to be applied to morality but they do it all the time.

The physics theories of general and special relativity have absolutely nothing to do with moral relativism, and I cannot think of anyone who has ever confounded the two or found any association between them whatsoever. And I speak as a member of this generation.

Why because their heart is evil bent on self satisfaction at the expense of others and they not only do evil acts in their own lives but they condone others that do the same.

I'm very confused as to what evil acts you are talking about. I don't recall any new evils being discovered by this generation, or the previous one. (And I'm pretty sure I would know.)

SO just because you quote me someone who is following the law does not make them good but they are obeying the law publicly. Martin Luther in your example used the law of right to assembly though those tried to deny him that law. Had he used violence like you are supposing is ok he would have been evil like the Black Panthers were who sought chance via violence to make their cause. These men are chaotic and in many cases the taking of innocent life was evil.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the Black Panthers, militant as they were, ever killed anyone.

You do not get to set morality. There is no atheism in D&D there is good and there is evil. There is no redefining it. Sure you may have a Drow who acts good but he still acts good as it is defined.

Ah, very true. D&D morality is its own thing, with its own definitions. For example, Lawful means

"Law" implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Now, if that authority is not legitimate, a lawful character can disregard its rules, and one might even go so far as to say that a lawful character would be obligated to.

Similarly, Good is defined as

"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

If the wizard in question is challenging magic-phobia for the right reasons, I don't see why he would be considered unlawful or evil.

If try to mimic the stories of old it helps. For instance Daniel being a good man could be considered lawful as he obeyed all laws of the king except when they broke the law of his deity. The evil men that deceived the king in writing the law of not praying to any other but him forgot about his good friend Daniel. They used the Law and the King had to follow it and thus Daniel is cast into the Lions den. Then in the morning when he is alive the decree of the king is that the evil men be taken and thrown into he lions den where they meet their well deserved fate. Daniel meanwhile says "Oh King live forever" even while he was being taken out of the pit that was ordered by the King. Can you identify who was lawful and who was good and who was evil?

Well, Daniel seems quite blameless, so I shall call him lawful and good without hesitation. And, of course, the evil men are evil for framing Daniel. I would call the King lawful and good as well, but then I remembered that the King had the wives and children of the evil men thrown to the lions to be torn apart as well. People should not be punished for the sins of others, so I must conclude that the King was lawful and evil.

The thought occurs that if Daniel supported his King in this action, I would have to revise my earlier assessment of him.

Also Salvatore's books are quite good a showing you that those who can be held to an oath are lawful by nature.

I would dispute this on the grounds that Barbarians (such as Wulfgar, if I remember correctly) are honor bound to take oaths seriously in many D&D settings, and they cannot be lawful. (At least not if they want to keep their rage.)

And speaking of Salvatore, I cannot help but think of Drizzt, who was the victim of quite a lot of prejudice and I imagine had more than one city gate shut in his face. Unfortunately, I am no expert on Drizzt, so you will have to tell me how he conducted himself in face of such behavior, and whether it was Good.

Alignment in D&D is not the same as alignment in the real world (insofar as good and evil can be said to exist in the real world), and much digital ink has been spilled on what alignment actually entails. Sadly, the official authors at WotC were never quite on the same page, so it is portrayed inconsistently across the entire print history of the game – alas!

 

[Frostbiter01]

Shall I get off your lawn?!

No of course not I appreciate all your help. We can always agree to disagree!

The physics theories of general and special relativity have absolutely nothing to do with moral relativism, and I cannot think of anyone who has ever confounded the two or found any association between them whatsoever. And I speak as a member of this generation.

“According to Einstein, there is no absolute time and space. Einstein expressed sorrow that his relativistic principles were applied to ethics, and that such indirectly changed absolute morals into relative morality. His relativity belonged to a scientific culture committed to objective truth, truth that was what it was even outside mankind's epistemology. For that reason, Einstein was the enemy of relativism and merely partial descriptions from particular perspectives about reality.” Most likely your generation was not taught this but instead taught moral relativism does exist. Except you would be hard pressed to find a text book that teaches that nonsense prior to the 60’s. That means your generation was fed that junk and is engrained into your thinking

I'm very confused as to what evil acts you are talking about. I don't recall any new evils being discovered by this generation, or the previous one. (And I'm pretty sure I would know.)

It is interesting that cultures throughout the world have commonly seen murder, thievery, adultery and many deviant sexual acts as wrong. In fact the earliest civilizations have these evils in common. Now we come to this generation who has adultery sites, says murder of the unborn is not really murder until they come out of the womb, justify stealing due to someone's circumstances, and basically say well everyone does it.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not believe that the Black Panthers, militant as they were, ever killed anyone.

See this is a prime example of what this generation has been fed. They have been told the Black Panthers never did anything wrong. Do me a favor and look up the Zebra Killings in the 70's. There you will find one of several types of stories where members of the Panthers did atrocities. You probably wont see a film about this though on TV.

Similarly, Good is defined

If the wizard in question is challenging magic-phobia for the right reasons, I don't see why he would be considered unlawful or evil.

This is exactly what I was talking about. You quote that action as good. Where is your absolute authority that this is good? The law says this man can serve when he wants he put his hard earned money up and paid good money to keep thieves including those that employ wizards. Now a Good Wizard would have understood the proprietors concerns and done much to ease them but you think that is not good but just punishing this law abiding citizen because it bruised your ego is god. That is exactly moral relativism and is destructive to society and one reason todays kids find Role Playing difficult and want to attack Wizards or any other for setting strict criteria.. Again this is this generations biggest problem and why they will be enslaved by socialism and maybe fascism at some point.

Moral absolutes is what the game is based on.

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act.

Well, Daniel seems quite blameless, so I shall call him lawful and good without hesitation. And, of course, the evil men are evil for framing Daniel. I would call the King lawful and good as well, but then I remembered that story, and that the King had the wives and children of the evil men thrown to the lions to be torn apart as well. People should not be punished for the sins of others, so I must conclude that the King was lawful and evil.

that is right he did throw the wives and children. This was the law that the whole family suffered and they lived in peace of murder despite not having forensics and fingerprinting in your utopia today. There was no revenge! The same for Haman. So the children should not bear the sins but they do bear the consequences.

I would dispute this on the grounds that Barbarians (such as Wulfgar, if I remember correctly) are honor bound to take oaths seriously in many D&D settings, and they cannot be lawful. (At least not if they want to keep their rage.)

It is clear he was chaotic good. He always leaned toward good and his decisions allowed him to take oaths when he needed too. He could be Neutral if he was not more pragmatic.

And speaking of Salvatore, I cannot help but think of Drizzt, who was the victim of quite a lot of prejudice and I imagine had more than one city gate shut in his face. Unfortunately, I am no expert on Drizzt, so you will have to tell me how he conducted himself in face of such behavior, and whether it was Good.

The Drizzt books are great. His movement to good from the evil empire of Drow he lived in and the descriptions of his world and the one he came to know is incredible and detailed. The people on the surface ha suffered from much war with the drow. He faced fear from all who came near him. Some were evil who just anted to kill him while others were cautious and still others befriended him over time. He had to prove himself in good actions to overcome the fear. Still there was laws that even he had to abbey if not more so. But he is chaotic at best besides being good.

Alignment in D&D is not the same as alignment in the real world (insofar as good and evil can be said to exist in the real world), and much digital ink has been spilled on what alignment actually entails. Sadly, the official authors at WotC were never quite on the same page, so it is portrayed inconsistently across the entire print history of the game – alas!

The only reason TSR/Wizards has had difficulty is what was considered evil in the 1970's say like homosexualism might be considered good in todays game terms because of what has been determined to be good by this generation just as an example. So we need to see that they are trying to change your definition of what you see is good rather than hold to a moral absolute. On some things they have held while others are not. In the end it is a game so if I have someone who is hedonist DMing he may allow types of debauchery and call it good. While a Christian DM, A Jewish DM or A Muslim DM might have things they feel are moral absolutes and are going to hold their characters to them or at least certain ones more than others. Interesting these would be similar. Again I wont belabor this subject since in the end we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Greenfield]

I can recommend a site, www.criticalfumble.net, that has a "Gamers, Ethics and Religion" forum. Your argument might fly better over there. There are any number of people right here who would love to shred that argument you just posted, but sadly or happily (depending on your point of view), posting standards in this forum forbid it here.

I'm not a Mod, and I have no authority to forbid anything, but I'd like to ask that you not bait people with discussions about abortion, what Einstein did or didn't say, or moral relativism. That way leads to the path of the ban-hammer.

 

[Dandu]

“According to Einstein, there is no absolute time and space. Einstein expressed sorrow that his relativistic principles were applied to ethics, and that such indirectly changed absolute morals into relative morality. His relativity belonged to a scientific culture committed to objective truth, truth that was what it was even outside mankind's epistemology. For that reason, Einstein was the enemy of relativism and merely partial descriptions from particular perspectives about reality.” Most likely your generation was not taught this but instead taught moral relativism does exist. Except you would be hard pressed to find a text book that teaches that nonsense prior to the 60’s. That means your generation was fed that junk and is engrained into your thinking

Where is that quote from?

See this is a prime example of what this generation has been fed. They have been told the Black Panthers never did anything wrong. Do me a favor and look up the Zebra Killings in the 70's. There you will find one of several types of stories where members of the Panthers did atrocities. You probably wont see a film about this though on TV.

I believe those involved the Nation of Islam, not the Black Panthers.

Moral absolutes is what the game is based on.

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act.

That's very true in the game. D&D is set up for moral absolutism for its characters since good and evil are defined in-game via a treaty of sorts.

 

[Umbran]

Please allow me to step in here, so there's an official voice on the matter.

EN World has a pretty strict, "no real-world politics or religion" rule. Please don't go into discussion of the real-world controversy around abortion, what the Black Panthers (or other politically motivated groups) did or didn't do, or the like. There are other sites for such discussion.

Thanks.

 

[Frostbiter01]

I can recommend a site, www.criticalfumble.net, that has a "Gamers, Ethics and Religion" forum. Your argument might fly better over there. There are any number of people right here who would love to shred that argument you just posted, but sadly or happily (depending on your point of view), posting standards in this forum forbid it here.

I'm not a Mod, and I have no authority to forbid anything, but I'd like to ask that you not bait people with discussions about abortion, what Einstein did or didn't say, or moral relativism. That way leads to the path of the ban-hammer.

Greenfield, you are right. Sorry about that did not mean to get down into political/religious reasons or turn it toward something other than game play. I simply meant in the near 40 years of plying/DMing the younger players have changed the game and find it harder to play alignments they have no experience with. In fact our group does not allow anyone under 25 due to this nature of inexperience and not seeing eye to eye with those who played 1st and 2nd edition. The group is well rounded as we have lawyers, programmers, military personel and even a doctor play. Some pretty smart people and all like to quote these rules to me which is why I thought I would bounce some of this off on you.

Thanks again for the gaming advice.