Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4944569" data-attributes="member: 22779">But, that's the whole point.&nbsp; If it is fairly simple to come up with situations in which there are no &quot;unambiguous, always correct answers&quot; then how can the mechanics provide unambiguous, always correct answers?Stop right there.&nbsp; That's the whole issue in a nutshell.&nbsp; You are claiming that the descriptions of alignment are &quot;stated and clear&quot; when they are not in the slightest.&nbsp; They are broad, vague and open to all sorts of interpretation, as has been evidenced by thread after thread on forums and article after article in Dragon.You're basically claiming that there are no problems with the rules, just that lots of people are too stupid to understand them.Really?&nbsp; You can't see how anyone can say the alignment rules are not clear.&nbsp; Honestly?&nbsp; They don't actually say what good is.&nbsp; They say it implies certain things, but they never once come out and specifically define Good in D&amp;D.&nbsp; You will not find one concrete definition of good in D&amp;D.&nbsp; Certainly not in the core rules.&nbsp; The closest thing you get is &quot;implies&quot;.A longsword is X to Y feet and inches long is not implying anything.&nbsp; That's a concrete statement with no interpretation available.&nbsp; &quot;When you reach -10 hit points, your character dies&quot; is also a concrete statement with no interpretation available.&nbsp; &quot;Good implies altruism&quot; is not a concrete statement and allows for all sorts of interpretation.&nbsp; After all, define, in mechanical, quantitative terms, &quot;imply&quot; and &quot;altruism&quot;.When you can do that, your argument for comparing the length of a sword or the reach of your character to alignment definitions will hold some water.Yup, because there are quantitative, numerical expressions that you can point to when discussing AOO's.&nbsp; There isn't a whole lot of fudge factor.&nbsp; ((Now grappling, on the other hand...))&nbsp; There isn't a lot of point quoting the alignment rules yet again, because the rules are so vague and undefined that it all comes down to personal opinion anyway.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 4944569, member: 22779"] But, that's the whole point. If it is fairly simple to come up with situations in which there are no "unambiguous, always correct answers" then how can the mechanics provide unambiguous, always correct answers? Stop right there. That's the whole issue in a nutshell. You are claiming that the descriptions of alignment are "stated and clear" when they are not in the slightest. They are broad, vague and open to all sorts of interpretation, as has been evidenced by thread after thread on forums and article after article in Dragon. You're basically claiming that there are no problems with the rules, just that lots of people are too stupid to understand them. Really? You can't see how anyone can say the alignment rules are not clear. Honestly? They don't actually say what good is. They say it implies certain things, but they never once come out and specifically define Good in D&D. You will not find one concrete definition of good in D&D. Certainly not in the core rules. The closest thing you get is "implies". A longsword is X to Y feet and inches long is not implying anything. That's a concrete statement with no interpretation available. "When you reach -10 hit points, your character dies" is also a concrete statement with no interpretation available. "Good implies altruism" is not a concrete statement and allows for all sorts of interpretation. After all, define, in mechanical, quantitative terms, "imply" and "altruism". When you can do that, your argument for comparing the length of a sword or the reach of your character to alignment definitions will hold some water. Yup, because there are quantitative, numerical expressions that you can point to when discussing AOO's. There isn't a whole lot of fudge factor. ((Now grappling, on the other hand...)) There isn't a lot of point quoting the alignment rules yet again, because the rules are so vague and undefined that it all comes down to personal opinion anyway. [/QUOTE]

Verification