Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 1284075" data-attributes="member: 812">Well, you use funny definitions of both "naive" (which I typically take to mean, "innocent and trusting to the point of dangerous") and "utopian" (which I take to mean, "describing a society that does not possess the problems of our own"). Because neither of those ideas seem to posses much relevance to the idea under question -- that all wars are started by the defender.But, still if I'm boring you, I apologize.I just happen to find the completely accurate notion that if the defender did not resist then there would be no war one that gives me an interesting new way to analize conflicts.When you choose to resist, you are choosing to start a war. You don't have to do that. You choose to. And likewise when you invade or take territory from another, they may or may not choose to start a war with you. Being able to predict what will or will not cause your enemy to start a war is a handy little skill to have.Um, well, that kind of depends, doesn't it? On who's in the stronghold and what they think about marauding barbarians.Dunno. Not the DM here so I can't say. My campaign doesn't include Evil or Good so I don't have this problem.Don't have paladins in my campaign. Don't care.Well, now we know how morality works in your campaign. Thanks for that.You do seem to be confusing a "philosophical" morality with a "game-mechanical" morality, or at least positing a world where they are equal. They aren't necessarily equal. A society in your campaign, for example, may consider any kind of violence evil, and yet paladins can smite bad guys without losing their powers. Which point I meant to make in my earlier post.</blockquote>

Verification