Power and Responsibility

[ruleslawyer]

No, you don't....that's why I said it "used to be" not only about killing monsters. I well recognize that this focus at higher levels is long gone, and for the worse of the game in my opinion. It used to be that D&D took into account the shifting power levels of high-level characters compared to low- and mid-level, and channeled them into more appropriate challenges. It isn't that way anymore, and from what I've seen of 4E, it will be even less that way in the future. But hey, everybody should have fun the way he/she prefers.

It is possible that 4e's tiered system will address the issue you're raising, actually. It wouldn't surprise me if heroic-tier play is about killing things and taking their stuff, paragon play is about realm-building and world-scale events, and epic play is about planar exploration, dealing with deities, et al.

 

[Numion]

It is possible that 4e's tiered system will address the issue you're raising, actually. It wouldn't surprise me if heroic-tier play is about killing things and taking their stuff, paragon play is about realm-building and world-scale events, and epic play is about planar exploration, dealing with deities, et al.

I hope they find a way to compromise between play styles. Most of my players are content with just bigger monsters, better abilities, more loot as the levels go past. In essence, they adventure to become better adventures.

Reminds me of the Seinfeld joke how people really exercise at the gym to be better at exercising at the gym.

Personally I'd be bored with that kind of play - at level 10 (at the latest) I expect facetime with the Lords of the city / realm when I want it, and be an integral part of the citys / realms defense and or downfall

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Many published settings, as well as the RAW, actually *do* support a more comprehensive definition of good and evil than what you're suggesting...

I was discussing a literalist interpretation of the rules as written, not an expansive interpretation of the RAW. An expansive interpretation of the RAW is so ludicrously flexible as to do anything and allow anything on the slimmest pretexts imaginable and then say the ensuing mess follows the RAW, even though it usually violates both the letter and spirit of RAW. The RAW is the RAW, and an expansive interpretation is just breaking and violating the RAW and lying about the fact.

 

[Barastrondo]

I was discussing a literalist interpretation of the rules as written, not an expansive interpretation of the RAW. An expansive interpretation of the RAW is so ludicrously flexible as to do anything and allow anything on the slimmest pretexts imaginable and then say the ensuing mess follows the RAW, even though it usually violates both the letter and spirit of RAW. The RAW is the RAW, and an expansive interpretation is just breaking and violating the RAW and lying about the fact.

Is assuming a literalist interpretation of the rules as written really all that helpful, though? Not a heck of a lot of people actually play like that, or care much about whether some literal-minded gamer somewhere else might judge their style of play as "breaking," "violating" and "lying."

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Is assuming a literalist interpretation of the rules as written really all that helpful, though?

Yes. This about what the RAW support and what the RAW do not support, so a discussion of literalist interpretation is not only useful but essential.

Not a heck of a lot of people... care much...

That is besides the point.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I was discussing a literalist interpretation of the rules as written, not an expansive interpretation of the RAW. An expansive interpretation of the RAW is so ludicrously flexible as to do anything and allow anything on the slimmest pretexts imaginable and then say the ensuing mess follows the RAW, even though it usually violates both the letter and spirit of RAW. The RAW is the RAW, and an expansive interpretation is just breaking and violating the RAW and lying about the fact.

Actually, it seems to me that the issue doesn't have anything to do with "literalist" vs. "expansive" interpretations of the RAW so much as the fact that you're taking your "literalist" interpretation of the RAW to a specific conclusion which is not necessarily the only conclusion, as you assert. All the RAW says is that PCs gain XP for overcoming challenges by Encounter Level, that such-and-such challenge has x or y CR/EL, and that guidelines for wealth at each level are such-and-such. Regarding alignment and intentions, which are the crux of this thread, the rules have this to say:

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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

"Evil" implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.

Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

"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.

"Chaos" implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them.

Someone who is neutral with respect to law and chaos has a normal respect for authority and feels neither a compulsion to obey nor a compulsion to rebel. She is honest but can be tempted into lying or deceiving others.

I see lots of stuff about obedience to authority, protect[ing] life (as opposed to destroying it), so forth and so on, in here.

None of this dictates grave-robbing. Grave-robbing is one of many possible playstyles given this set of assumptions, which set is about as far as you can get given a "literalist" interpretation of the RAW. Unless you can quote me core rules regarding grave-robbing requirements (as opposed to, say, the rules for Leadership, or the Diplomacy skill, or population demographics, or any of the other stuff that supports a sense of a larger campaign world), I'm just not buying it.

 

[Barastrondo]

Yes. This about what the RAW support and what the RAW do not support, so a discussion of literalist interpretation is not only useful but essential.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "This." If you mean the relevance of literalist interpretation to your specific group, okay, sorry about that. If you mean the relevance of literalist interpretation to an overall explanation of why or why not gamers as a whole might be uninterested in large-scale political and social reformation play with gray morals, you have to take into account the probability of the average group actually caring enough about the RAW that they're unwilling to venture beyond them.

In my experience, that probability is pretty low. Most D&D gamers I've met, talked to or played with tend to muck around with or expand upon the rules; the ones who'd actively use negative terminology to describe the process are pretty rare.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Grave-robbing is one of many possible playstyles given this set of assumptions, which set is about as far as you can get given a "literalist" interpretation of the RAW.

“Grave” is the wrong term then and that is my mistake. A more accurate term would be “dungeon,” as in “dungeon robbing” (though many dungeons are tombs, which are a type of grave).

And the RAW – that includes the PHB, the DMG and the MM – leans vastly more to supporting killing and copse looting than to conducting nuanced political reform or establishing progressive politics. This tendency is RAW is so great as to bean express support for games of killing and copse looting and (at best) a tacit condemnation of games of nuanced political reform or establishing progressive politics. Under these conditions it is not a distortion or exaggeration to say that running games of nuanced political reform or establishing progressive politics is inherently going to be a violation of the RAW.

And when did his become about my post and not Jürgen Hubert's original post?

 

[Slife]

Does he have the same priorities as you, though? What kind of economy does he see as "best"? And is it truly going to be one that benefits the greatest number of people?

"Is the option which benefits the greatest number of people in the first half of this list?"
No
"Is the option which benefits the greatest number of people in the last quarter of this list?"
No
"Is the option which benefits the greatest number of people in the fifth eighth of this list?"
Yes
"Is the option which benefits the greatest number of people option number ten?"
Yes

And if the god of economics can't sort out the economy, it's kind of pointless for the PCs to try, donchaknow.

Easier said than done.

But it'll be fun. We're talking about high level PCs.

What if the gods are remote and don't meddle in the affairs of the mortal realm directly (or might not even exist, as in Eberron)?

Looks like the bard will have to have a polite discussion with the high priests instead.

What if the religious strife is simply the result of decades or even centuries of mutual resentment threatening to boil over - and thus can't be easily solved by orders from high?

Then it isn't a very religious strife. And if the people in control of the religion can't do anything, then how can the PCs? Why not instead save the universe from the Krezlings of the Fourteenth Veil, who even now are destroying the barriers between the material plane and the world of shadows?

Better hope he has a good Craft(architecture), too - or else the new constructions might be rather unstable over the long run.

Covered by the magic item. If you're going to houserule that it requires a craft check, it's fortunate that there are spells like improvisation to give massive bonuses (twice caster level). That building? Made with a +40 to the check. It's double masterwork.

Besides, this won't stimulate the economy like a normal civic engineering project would. By doing all the work for your citizens, you ensure that they won't have any work.

Well, the amount of GP you listed as the cost is so ridiculously high (equivalent to the wages of 547945 people for a year), that I assumed that the economy was even worse off than the typical DnD economy.

Assuming a typical modern laborer works for $5/hour for 8 hours a day for 100 days/year (an extreme underestimation, to be sure), your building project would cost $2,191,780,000 USD.
That's about five times the cost of the entire US interstate highway system (adjusted for inflation).

If you want to use economics, you can't use the DnD rules as written. And if you're not using the DnD rules, this discussion is kind of pointless.

(For just one example, a piece of cheese costs an entire day's wages (the same as poor meals for a day). A bucket would take five days to earn.) I'm not going to go into the ridiculously inflated prices of iron, or any of the other materials than can be produced at no cost with magic.

Ah, so you don't have any ethical problems with using long-term mind control magic on others?

If using the spell was implicitly evil, it would have the [evil] descriptor. Since it doesn't, it isn't. Diplomacy is more surefire, though, which is why you brought the bard along.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

Snip