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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 1916700" data-attributes="member: 7240">Geron, Dr. Nuncheon,Thanks for your recent posts. I see what is going on here: there is a mapping problem with terminology. From what I can see, the following is happening:Dr. Nuncheon is interpreting my statement "the rules function to proscribe x" as being identical to "the rules make it impossible to do x." As a result, there is a problem in mapping real world terminology to the rules. Geron, thank you for providing the term "consequential" here. But don't you agree that the operational function of a consequential rule is to proscribe the things for which there are catastrophic negative consequences? This is why I keep emphasizing that I am interested in discussing the operational functioning of the alignment mechanic -- I'm not here to discuss how alignment works outside of the context of operational function. Why? Because alignment is so incoherent it doesn't deserve a philosophical debate. When I use the word proscribe in the context of D&D, I assume its meaning is the same as in the real world. If I had intended to argue that the alignment mechanic makes it impossible for a paladin to commit an evil act, I would have said "the alignment mechanic makes it impossible for a paladin to commit an evil act." And I would have been wrong. But I didn't say that -- ever. I have never argued that the rules make it impossible for a paladin to become evil. To do so would be absurd because the rules clearly state what will happen if a paladin becomes evil. When I say the rules function to proscribe the paladin changing alignment, proscribe means exactly the same thing it does as if I were talking about a real world situation. So, can we agree that if we make the word "proscribe" function in D&D the way it functions in the real world, the rules function to proscribe paladin alignment change? This is why I use the term "function to" in this context. This is why I keep emphasizing that I am discussing the operational functioning of alignment. I continue to agree that yes, if you delete all the mechanics in the rules that make alignment function operationally, it will cease functioning to proscribe conduct. But this returns to my basic point -- you people continue to argue that nothing is wrong with the alignment rules and then justify your position by explaining that alignment works just fine if you change the alignment rules. This brings me to one final point: some people here are arguing that the only alignment rules are pages 104-105 of the PHB. That all other rules about alignment in the core rules are not "alignment rules" and should not be part of this debate. This is like saying that cleaving is not part of the combat rules because it's a feat and doesn't fall between pages 133-160 of the PHB. I'm sorry but cleaving, whirlwind attacks, dodging, etc. are all part of the combat rules. Why? Because the rules are an integrated whole.</blockquote>

Verification