NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9366636" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Except that isn't what is happening in a DnD game. The DM isn't determining that the knight character has a sin or dark secret that is holding them back. They just rolled poorly. We know the resolution mechanic, so we know the narrative layered on top being that it was an internal failing of the character is not true. Because we also know that a knight who is full of sin can win all the battles, regardless of their opponent, if they roll well. Even if they aren't even keeping their darkness a secret. If the morality of the character does not alter their dice rolls, then the morality of the character has not made it so they would lose or win, and therefore, it does not apply in the same way that it was a fundamental law for those Chivalric Knights. And while you can say that this only applies to knights... well a Rogue's moral requirement is to never have a fair fight, and that is how they win. So if a knight who must win because they do not cheat even if their foe does faces a rogue who must win because they cheat... one of those sets of natural moral laws must take precedence, and if it isn't the Knights, then their code is fairly well ruined.But it does mean that, in the fiction, the result is not consistent. You can't just declare that David's faith wasn't strong enough when the dice say he needed to roll an 18 and he rolled a 15. David's faith is an aspect of his character in the complete and utter control of the Player, there are no dice involved in that. So if you say he failed this round because his faith wasn't strong enough, but he succeeds next round because his faith is strong enough... that's inconsistent and nonsensical. What is actually happening is luck, the character isn't changing. You can make up that they are changing, you can try and make it fit, but it is a lie. It is a lie because the force controlling the resolution is not the hand of the author which will guarantee rewards fall upon the worthy. It is blind chance, which could not care less about your worthiness.Ah, my mistake. Their opinion is worth objective reality within the DnD system capable of cosmic miracles. The same as good.And people can believe that saving the Sea Turtles is a good life goal. That doesn't make them morally worthy or valid either. After all, that has nothing to do with human life nor any demand of morality. Sure, people who are good are good, but you keep stating that that is the only thing that matters. But DnD TELLS US, point-blank, that there is an objective power, equally as strong as Good, equally as important as good, equally as capable of miracles and granting life as good, called Chaos. Now, you can think that outside of DnD, that is nonsense. Which hey, fine, but within the context of DnD the universe itself recognizes Chaos as a worthy goal in and of itself, and that is something we need to tackle within the context of DnD, not by comparing people to mass murderers. Which first off, would make them evil, and second off, could make all humans mass murderers if it turns out the Universe cares more about broccoli than humans.If their views were not coherent or logical, then Kant, Plato and Singer wouldn't have even had anything to argue against. You can't argue against an incoherent argument that lacks logic. Besides, doesn't every single one of them have a contemporary who thought they were wrong and stupid?Did you catch Twosix's earlier post? I see you did, because you liked it. Would the "order fetishist" not say that the supposed LG character is doing exactly that? That by deciding which laws to follow, they are pridefully placing their own judgement as superior to that of the proper law-making procedure? What is the difference between the LG Paladin who must follow their Oath, even if it appears to not be Good, lest they succumb to pride and the "Order Fetishist" who must follow the Laws, even if it appears to not be Good? After all, there are many things involving Good and Evil that have nothing to do with Law. That can even work against the Law, and so if someone believes that Social Order is good, would they not focus on that Social Order, even if it seems to be working to non-good ends, because who are they to pridefully judge the system? It is literally the same argument, but one is being done about LG following a divine oath, and the other is LN following the Law.</blockquote>

Verification