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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 9368376" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Did you happen to look in the entry for Devils, the most LE of LE beings? Because sure, while the mortals CAN lie and break contracts, the very embodiment of LE CANNOT break their word. Otherwise, Devil Contracts would be utterly worthless, and Devils as a concept would have no reason to exist.Yes, they are being deceptive, but they are also telling the truth. If a Devil says you get the power to breath fire if you sign their contract, then you get that ability. The Devil will never lie about that, because that fundamentally breaks the entire point of the contract. They might not tell you that the power didn't come with a flame resistant throat and that using the power will kill you, but they did not lie about the ability you would get. They are deceptive, but they do not speak falsehoods, because if they did, then their entire reason for existence vanishes, and they are no different than Demons or Yuggoloths.And of course, we all know that if Kant said it, it must be 100% true and impossible to deny, right? I don't care who made it up. I also think the idea that Paladins won't associate with certain types of people to be horrifically limiting and I am glad that concept was gotten rid of. Because as long as that concept existed, the paladin got to dictate the actions of the other players, or was forced to change characters. And sticking to this idea that a Paladin must reveal a deception, even if perpetuated by someone else... I would ban paladins at my table. At that point they would become so toxic to the game, that as much as I love an honorable, oath-bound warrior, I would rather ban them than deal with the constant "it is what my character would do" Lawful Stupidity that would follow. I have seen so many powerful and touching moments of heroic lying, that the idea that a good person must, to be heroic, correct the misunderstandings of genocidal maniacs, just rots in my gut. Performative nobility, instead of actual good.I am very aware you keep trying to force the conversation to only be about Gygax's words in the PHB or DMG (when you aren't citing Kant or Plato), just as you must be aware that I'm speaking of DnD, largely has it has been presented, with references to older works when people cite them and calling them out as bad examples that lead to the problems still hounding modern Paladins. And I know you are aware of the fact that I'm discussing broader texts than Gygax, because you keep telling me you find Planescape incoherent, even though that has been the model presented in DnD for over 25 years. As for "vaulable but not good". History is valuable, but it is neither good nor evil. MAthematics and Knowledge are valuable, but are neither good nor evil. Roads are valuable, but are neither good nor evil. Tools are valuable, but neither good nor evil.I didn't know I was arguing against Plato and Kant until you suddenly started bringing them up. Do murderers have coherent and logical positions? Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by "murder". Many people would call Soldiers "murderers" who simply have the approval of the government. Let us assume you mean the planned, un-approved killing of someone. Take Frank Castle as an example, he is a murderer who goes and kills criminals because of the death of his family. He is not a good person, he would never claim to be a good person, but he would claim that what he is doing is a neccessary evil to make the world a safer place, where innocent and good people who would be disgusted by his actions do not need to fear being randomly gunned down. Is he correct? Can't tell you, any more than I could tell you if a state executioner who kills people the government says are deserving of death is acting correctly, but I can tell you the position is coherent and logical, it makes sense and follows from his expeirences. Habitual Liars? Funny, I had never added "habitual" to any of my statements. But, a habitual liar would be a person who lies a lot, or forms a habit of lying. What if we took young Steve Rogers, who just happened to be too young to join the military to fight against the Third Reich. However, like many young men, his burning passion to do something about the evil of that government caused him to lie about his age, so that he could join. In fact, if we expand into the real-world, most spies are habitual liars too. Lying about their age, their identity, their nationality, their wherabouts. Now, I won't go so far as to say all spies are good people, but I am reminded of Lloyd Forger, a spy who lies to literally everyone about most everything, especially about his fake family, all in an effort to prevent war from breaking out and causing the slaughter of more children, as it did in his youth. He could tell the government he is infitrating of his true name and alliegances, and I'm sure all of the secret plots meant to incite war that he has stopped would all simply not happen while he is being deported if not tortured for infomation. Meanwhile, I have yet to actually see you make any arguments that "Beauty" or "Truth" are in anyways perfectly good, especially beauty which is a mere aesthetic preference. And while I think we all generally agree that life is good, life requires killing to continue life. So, we inherently have to begin ranking life, declaring that lesser lives can be sacrificed for the greater good of our own lives. So, you cannot even call "life" a value for Good, because we kill lesser lifeforms to continue living, and we do not see that as Evil. I'm sure Kant and Plato had very logical reasons that humans were superior to everything else, but considering their time periods, it might have been more of a religious reasoning, which is troublesome. But, since killing is Evil, and we kill to eat, we commit evil to support the good of life. Do we not?</blockquote>

Verification