Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6116840" data-attributes="member: 27160">In thousands of years of history, the closest we have come to a &quot;well defined code&quot; for morality is Kant's categorical imperative - and that has at least a couple of rather serious gaps. Which &quot;code&quot; did you have in mind?So the &quot;code&quot; is actually simply a contract with clauses for moral hazard??Not usually, no - but not because such agents are being bullied into compliance by jealous principals...Well, it's exactly what you have written, if you read it carefully. No-one is virtuous because they received a gift for it - nor, indeed, because they did not receive a gift for it.The virtue - if it exists - is independent of the gift.The gift might be given because of the virtue. It might even be taken away again later if the virtue is found to be lacking in the eyes of the giver of the gift (although then it wouldn't really be a &quot;gift&quot;, in the proper meaning of the word). If that is the case, though, treating it as a class ability seems a poor way to handle it, since it isn't really part of the character's training or origins at all. An &quot;item&quot; type boon might be more appropriate. Just like the class of &quot;treasure&quot; there is in 4E called &quot;Boons&quot;, for example.A criminal who has a cop pointing a gun at him is &quot;being restrained&quot;; that hardly makes him &quot;virtuous&quot;. A Sword of Damocles doesn't make someone virtuous - it just makes them careful.1) 3d6 doesn't always roll higher than 2d6. Nevertheless, rolling 3d6 rather than 2d6, when you want to roll high, is pretty indisputably superior.2) Being &quot;superior&quot; does not neccessarily mean &quot;winning&quot; - especially when it comes to &quot;virtue&quot;. If your paladins are thinking of &quot;virtue&quot; in terms of winning, in fact, I would suggest that you have an issue right there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6116840, member: 27160"] In thousands of years of history, the closest we have come to a "well defined code" for morality is Kant's categorical imperative - and that has at least a couple of rather serious gaps. Which "code" did you have in mind? So the "code" is actually simply a contract with clauses for moral hazard?? Not usually, no - but not because such agents are being bullied into compliance by jealous principals... Well, it's exactly what you have written, if you read it carefully. No-one is virtuous [B][I]because[/I][/B] they received a gift for it - nor, indeed, [I]because[/I] they did not receive a gift for it. The virtue - if it exists - is independent of the gift. The gift might be given [I]because of the virtue[/I]. It might even be taken away again later if the virtue is found to be lacking in the eyes of the giver of the gift (although then it wouldn't really be a "gift", in the proper meaning of the word). If that is the case, though, treating it as a class ability seems a poor way to handle it, since it isn't really part of the character's training or origins at all. An "item" type boon might be more appropriate. Just like the class of "treasure" there is in 4E called "Boons", for example. A criminal who has a cop pointing a gun at him is "being restrained"; that hardly makes him "virtuous". A Sword of Damocles doesn't make someone virtuous - it just makes them careful. 1) 3d6 doesn't always roll higher than 2d6. Nevertheless, rolling 3d6 rather than 2d6, when you want to roll high, is pretty indisputably superior. 2) Being "superior" does not [I]neccessarily[/I] mean "winning" - [B]especially[/B] when it comes to "virtue". If your paladins are thinking of "virtue" in terms of winning, in fact, I would suggest that you have an issue right there. [/QUOTE]

Verification