Friday, April 12, 2024
HomeRPGRPGnet's decay (TBP insanity)

RPGnet’s decay (TBP insanity)


This can be a web site for discussing roleplaying video games. Have enjoyable doing so, however there may be one main rule: don’t talk about political points that are not instantly and uniquely associated to the topic of the thread and about gaming. Whereas this web site is devoted to free speech, the next won’t be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political dialogue, sockpuppeting (utilizing a number of and/or bogus accounts), disrupting matters with out contributing to them, and posting pictures that might get somebody fired within the office (an exterior hyperlink is OK, however clearly mark it as Not Secure For Work, or NSFW). In case you obtain a warning, please take it significantly and both transfer on to a different matter or steer the dialogue again to its authentic RPG-related theme.

The RPGPundit’s Personal Discussion board Guidelines
This a part of the positioning is managed by the RPGPundit. That is the place he discusses matters that he finds fascinating. You could submit right here, however perceive that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, matter of debate, or person in a thread at his pleasure. This a part of the positioning is basically his home, so preserve that in thoughts. Observe that that is the one a part of the positioning the place political dialogue is permitted, however is regulated by the RPGPundit.




Creator
Subject: RPGnet’s decay (TBP insanity)  (Learn 198571 occasions)

You seize some bandits, and on this lane the punishment for banditry is dying. In talking with the bandits some resign their methods, and sincerely determine to be good as outlined on this setting. The Paladin is happy by their conversion, however they had been nonetheless bandits, and the penalty for banditry is dying. So he kills them with no regrets.

That is Lawful. It is not Good. Lawful Good requires each components.

Keep in mind that paladins are, by definition, knights, and in a feudal society knights are, by definition, approved to implement justice. So it isn’t the identical scenario as it’s in trendy Western legislation the place policing, judicial, and state energy of execution are all intentionally separated out by perform; this can be a society which sees nothing mistaken with one particular person being approved to do all the above as wanted in any given scenario. Even in our personal society, conversion and honest repentance is not thought-about to robotically justify commuting a dying sentence if somebody’s earned it by their crimes.

Now it’s possible you’ll imagine that capital punishment is in itself an evil factor, however once more, that is a product of our time, not the types of environments during which paladins usually exist. Even in the present day, the Catholic Church nonetheless teaches that capital punishment is in precept a licit use of state energy (though most precise Catholics are usually towards it as a matter of sensible coverage, given the boundaries of fallible human legislation enforcement and justice institutions).

I agree. If church and state say capital punishment is suitable, then the place does the paladin get the concept it isn’t good?

This jogs my memory of a superb podcast by Dan Carlin relating to public executions. IIRC, public repentance by the condemned was seen as a important step within the course of as a result of no person wished to look at somebody get despatched to Hell. As soon as the condemned repented aloud, it was all good enjoyable as a result of his soul could be nice, and that was the vital half. I in all probability butchered that rationalization, however here is the hyperlink to the free podcast if anybody’s .

https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-61-blitz-painfotainment/

Hit me up in case you’re within the Toronto space and also you wanna play Hyperborea 3E!


If individuals go to go to hell for sinning, then it makes excellent sense to transform and exterminate everybody in order that they do not danger sinning and going to hell.

Provided that you assume that any given mortal is justly approved to make that call for every other on a common foundation. Which is why most religions embody each particular commandments (“Thou shalt not homicide”) and common traditions (“Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord”) telling their worshippers that they are not.

It doesn’t matter. Whereas the killer would possibly go to hell, his victims nonetheless go to heaven. That’s a worthy sacrifice for the larger good. “I’ll rattling myself to hell by killing all 8 billion human beings, if it means sufficient of them go to heaven in my place and the numerous souls of the longer term unborn by no means have to fret about sinning.”

This can be a elementary downside with any type of morality that permits for the existence of any Larger Good. It inevitably leads to the ends consuming the means.

I’m simply talking purely from a logical perspective. The logic checks out, even when people and gods alike refuse to acknowledge it.


I feel your interpretation of fine is strongly based mostly on a contemporary mindset.

Moses orders the the destruction of the Midianites. When his military comes again after killing all of the Midianite males, however with the Midianite girls and youngsters as prisoners God’s prophet is outraged. He orders the following execution of all male kids and females who weren’t virgins. When the Hebrews had been commanded by God to take Canaan, they had been commanded to kill each man, girl and youngster. In case you’re a believer within the Bible following a command by God is inherently good. It doesn’t come near a contemporary conception of fine. You could not assume that is Lawful Good conduct, however I think about for hundreds of years after, the overwhelming majority of Hebrews/Jews, early Christians , trendy fundamentalists would describe these actions as becoming inside Lawful Good if requested to place them into the 9-point alignment system.

We could also be getting off matter.

On this case, my interpretation of “good” is a D&D-centric one. In D&D, good is not subjective, it isn’t about the place you’re feeling you belong on the axis chart, it is actually not “no matter my god says to do is sweet”, it isn’t something like that. The presence of fine and evil in D&D are goal info and scientifically verifiable. It simply is. Followers of evil gods in D&D are usually not doing good as a result of they’re following the commandments of their god.

And as for “following the legislation”, the place the Paladin is in an space the place the legislation of the land says “kill all bandits”… So? What if the Paladin is in an space the place the legislation is “nobles can kill a commoner for insulting them”? Can the Paladin kill a child who laughed at him and “don’t have any regrets”?

You possibly can’t see me, however think about me placing my pinched fingers to the bridge of my nostril and sighing, proper about now.

There is a purpose the D&D alignment system on the whole, and paladins in particular, have been some extent of rivalry for mainly so long as such issues have been components of the sport.


I agree. If church and state say capital punishment is suitable, then the place does the paladin get the concept it isn’t good?

As a result of D&D. As a result of Paladins are actually in a position to sense evil. “As a result of church and state say so” is much less of an authority than “Holy shit, that hurts to take a look at” or “Hey, why did my magic sword of Goodliness cease working for me?”.

A church can develop into corrupt and nonetheless be a church. A paladin that turns into corrupt falls from grace.


I agree. If church and state say capital punishment is suitable, then the place does the paladin get the concept it isn’t good?

As a result of D&D. As a result of Paladins are actually in a position to sense evil. “As a result of church and state say so” is much less of an authority than “Holy shit, that hurts to take a look at” or “Hey, why did my magic sword of Goodliness cease working for me?”.

A church can develop into corrupt and nonetheless be a church. A paladin that turns into corrupt falls from grace.

I do not know sufficient about D&D paladins to argue intelligently. I believe that, in precise medieval occasions, anybody selecting to imagine a sword over the established church hierarchy could be executed as a heretic.

Hit me up in case you’re within the Toronto space and also you wanna play Hyperborea 3E!


Additionally, the “nits make lice” quote which refers back to the genocide of native People. https://www.dragonsfoot.org/boards/viewtopic.php?p=197268&sid=191c5ae818e9826fa3a8736857f839a3#p197268

The factor is, American Indians are usually not born inherently evil. In D&D although, there are complete races which can be inherently evil, and their very existence is a blight on the realm.

Orc infants in D&D actually are going to develop as much as mass rape and kill, and niceness and training is not going to cease it.

The query is, what real-world ideology is that this educating? Against this, JRR Tolkien considered this query, and his stance on orcs was completely different. As he wrote in letter 153,

They might be Morgoth’s biggest Sins, abuses of his highest privilege, and could be creatures begotten of Sin, and naturally dangerous. (I practically wrote ‘irredeemably dangerous’; however that may be going too far. As a result of by accepting or tolerating their making — essential to their precise existence — even Orcs would develop into a part of the World, which is God’s and finally good.)

So Tolkien felt that orcs might be redeemed, and it is clear that this can be a reflection of his personal real-world values.

Gygax’s orcs are completely different in quite a lot of methods. Tolkien’s orcs are manufacturing unit staff and foot troopers. They’re a part of an industrial complicated – both of Sauron or Saruman. They’ve nice however ugly machines, in addition to efficient however brutal drugs. They communicate in lower-class cockney accents. Nevertheless, they’re redeemable.

In AD&D, orcs aren’t industrialized this fashion. They have an inclination to stay in caves and dungeons within the wilderness. There may be extra of a Wild West really feel, as epitomized by Carry on the Borderlands.


I feel your interpretation of fine is strongly based mostly on a contemporary mindset.

Moses orders the the destruction of the Midianites. When his military comes again after killing all of the Midianite males, however with the Midianite girls and youngsters as prisoners God’s prophet is outraged. He orders the following execution of all male kids and females who weren’t virgins. When the Hebrews had been commanded by God to take Canaan, they had been commanded to kill each man, girl and youngster. In case you’re a believer within the Bible following a command by God is inherently good. It doesn’t come near a contemporary conception of fine. You could not assume that is Lawful Good conduct, however I think about for hundreds of years after, the overwhelming majority of Hebrews/Jews, early Christians , trendy fundamentalists would describe these actions as becoming inside Lawful Good if requested to place them into the 9-point alignment system.

We could also be getting off matter.

On this case, my interpretation of “good” is a D&D-centric one. In D&D, good is not subjective, it isn’t about the place you’re feeling you belong on the axis chart, it is actually not “no matter my god says to do is sweet”, it isn’t something like that. The presence of fine and evil in D&D are goal info and scientifically verifiable. It simply is. Followers of evil gods in D&D are usually not doing good as a result of they’re following the commandments of their god.

And as for “following the legislation”, the place the Paladin is in an space the place the legislation of the land says “kill all bandits”… So? What if the Paladin is in an space the place the legislation is “nobles can kill a commoner for insulting them”? Can the Paladin kill a child who laughed at him and “don’t have any regrets”?

You possibly can’t see me, however think about me placing my pinched fingers to the bridge of my nostril and sighing, proper about now.

There is a purpose the D&D alignment system on the whole, and paladins in particular, have been some extent of rivalry for mainly so long as such issues have been components of the sport.

So that you’re counting on the definition of fine given in D&D. Gary Gygax wrote the Participant’s Handbook that gave a definition of Lawful Good, however someway he doesn’t appear to discover a battle in how he thinks of Lawful Good on Dragonsfoot, and what he wrote within the Participant’s Handbook?

In case you’re counting on the definition of fine as given in D&D, and Gary defines and describes Lawful Good in a means that you simply disagree with I’m undecided how one can depend on D&D as an authority to refute its writer.

In case you’re referring to a unique version of D&D than what Gary wrote we might have a case of evaluating apples to oranges.


Whereas the killer would possibly go to hell, his victims nonetheless go to heaven. That’s a worthy sacrifice for the larger good.

Once more, provided that the victims have the prospect to repent first. No sensible technique of mass homicide permits this. Logic has to acknowledge the boundaries of logical risk to be legitimate (which is why the previous “can God make a rock so heavy He cannot raise it?” query is just not a sound disproof of the idea of omnipotence).

Paladins can actually be performed within the Lawful Silly finish of the spectrum if points like this aren’t thought by means of. However it is attainable to veer into the Silly Good finish of the spectrum as nicely, and the issue is that any transfer away from one finish of the spectrum can all the time be seen as a harmful slide in direction of the opposite.

Higher to maintain silent and be thought a idiot, than to talk and take away all doubt. — Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3


I do not know sufficient about D&D paladins to argue intelligently. I believe that, in precise medieval occasions, anybody selecting to imagine a sword over the established church hierarchy could be executed as a heretic.

Yeah, look, D&D, even at it is most crustiest of crusty, was by no means actually modeling the “precise medieval occasions”. In order that’s type of a meaningless assertion. In “precise medieval occasions”, you did not have paladin as D&D understands the idea… The concept of a divine conduit to a god, going round and therapeutic with a contact and stuff? He’d be thought-about a saint or a prophet, a legendary determine. In D&D, he isn’t that particular.

However in any occasion, even in case you assume that folks would not imagine the Paladin, for actually with the ability to sense evil, or know when he Fell, or when his magic objects stopped working? Once more, D&D as written has goal morality. That is, once more, simply saying that the church is corrupt/evil.

So that you’re counting on the definition of fine given in D&D. Gary Gygax wrote the Participant’s Handbook that gave a definition of Lawful Good, however someway he doesn’t appear to discover a battle in how he thinks of Lawful Good on Dragonsfoot, and what he wrote within the Participant’s Handbook?

In case you’re counting on the definition of fine as given in D&D, and Gary defines and describes Lawful Good in a means that you simply disagree with I’m undecided how one can depend on D&D as an authority to refute its writer.

In case you’re referring to a unique version of D&D than what Gary wrote we might have a case of evaluating apples to oranges.

And Ray Bradbury would later go on to say that the true message of Fahrenheit 451 was concerning the evils of tv, whereas J.Ok. Rowling says that wizards used to go round shitting their robes and simply magicking the feces away. As a lot as I am one of many Tolkien students who will drag out issues the person mentioned in letters and such, I can acknowledge that typically it is best we not pay an excessive amount of consideration to stuff authors wrote after the very fact.

I will settle for that Gary feels a sure means. I disagree with Gary. I do not assume the work Gary revealed helps the views he espoused 30+  years in a while an web discussion board. If pressed, I will go as far as to say as a lot as I respect Gary, I feel his interpretation is silly.


I do not know sufficient about D&D paladins to argue intelligently. I believe that, in precise medieval occasions, anybody selecting to imagine a sword over the established church hierarchy could be executed as a heretic.

Yeah, look, D&D, even at it is most crustiest of crusty, was by no means actually modeling the “precise medieval occasions”. In order that’s type of a meaningless assertion. In “precise medieval occasions”, you did not have paladin as D&D understands the idea… The concept of a divine conduit to a god, going round and therapeutic with a contact and stuff? He’d be thought-about a saint or a prophet, a legendary determine. In D&D, he isn’t that particular.

However in any occasion, even in case you assume that folks would not imagine the Paladin, for actually with the ability to sense evil, or know when he Fell, or when his magic objects stopped working? Once more, D&D as written has goal morality. That is, once more, simply saying that the church is corrupt/evil.

So that you’re counting on the definition of fine given in D&D. Gary Gygax wrote the Participant’s Handbook that gave a definition of Lawful Good, however someway he doesn’t appear to discover a battle in how he thinks of Lawful Good on Dragonsfoot, and what he wrote within the Participant’s Handbook?

In case you’re counting on the definition of fine as given in D&D, and Gary defines and describes Lawful Good in a means that you simply disagree with I’m undecided how one can depend on D&D as an authority to refute its writer.

In case you’re referring to a unique version of D&D than what Gary wrote we might have a case of evaluating apples to oranges.

And Ray Bradbury would later go on to say that the true message of Fahrenheit 451 was concerning the evils of tv, whereas J.Ok. Rowling says that wizards used to go round shitting their robes and simply magicking the feces away. As a lot as I am one of many Tolkien students who will drag out issues the person mentioned in letters and such, I can acknowledge that typically it is best we not pay an excessive amount of consideration to stuff authors wrote after the very fact.

I will settle for that Gary feels a sure means. I disagree with Gary. I do not assume the work Gary revealed helps the views he espoused 30+  years in a while an web discussion board. If pressed, I will go as far as to say as a lot as I respect Gary, I feel his interpretation is silly.

It’s not any massive deal to disagree with Gary or anybody on what the definition of fine is. It turns into a stretch when Gary is giving his tackle what Lawful Good is, in a thread centered on his works, however then declare the D&D that he wrote as a supply to refute his understanding of Lawful Good.

You, and each desk can have a definition for Lawful Good that’s completely different from Gary’s, and you could possibly have glorious causes for doing so, however perceive that’s the definition at your desk, it’ll be completely different from different tables, and is completely different from the definition of the writer. You’re now not utilizing the “D&D” definition supplied by the writer. I’ve seen no proof that Gary’s definition had modified or “developed”.


Whereas the killer would possibly go to hell, his victims nonetheless go to heaven. That’s a worthy sacrifice for the larger good.

Once more, provided that the victims have the prospect to repent first. No sensible technique of mass homicide permits this. Logic has to acknowledge the boundaries of logical risk to be legitimate (which is why the previous “can God make a rock so heavy He cannot raise it?” query is just not a sound disproof of the idea of omnipotence).

Paladins can actually be performed within the Lawful Silly finish of the spectrum if points like this aren’t thought by means of. However it is attainable to veer into the Silly Good finish of the spectrum as nicely, and the issue is that any transfer away from one finish of the spectrum can all the time be seen as a harmful slide in direction of the opposite.

I can fake it’s not an issue, similar to I accomplish that many different tropes. Realistically talking, each setting which has everlasting damnation would ultimately encourage an interplanetary campaign to exterminate all life to save lots of their souls from this destiny. That’s mainly the premise of Prince of Nothing, if you wish to see a sensible instance.


You’re now not utilizing the “D&D” definition supplied by the writer. I’ve seen no proof that Gary’s definition had modified or “developed”.

The “D&D definition supplied by the writer” is within the PHB (and different books). It is not what Gary wrote on a discussion board a long time later.

That mentioned, I will freely admit I do ignore some elements of what Gary wrote even again then. I’ve all the time felt alignment languages had been past silly, for instance, since we’re arguing about alignment…


Gary was the one who made the comparability by quoting an actual genocidal lunatic.

Besides the saying predates your supply. If Hitler mentioned “would possibly makes proper,” I may additionally say it, and I would not be ‘quoting Hitler.’

The orc infants argument is historical. If you wish to keep away from the umpteenth time it is introduced up and comparisons to actual life genocide, then possibly redesign orcs so they do not have infants? 40k orks and thirteenth Age orcs are a great instance of how you are able to do this.

Or I may talk about fascinating, grownup philosophical quandaries with different adults, with out worrying about triggering the perpetually offended.

Sanitizing artwork in order to not offend is not one thing I would personally shoot for.

And even when it did, the act of taking kids from their native tradition and educating them in a radically completely different tradition and perception system, nonetheless superior or useful you assume that tradition, is additionally thought-about to be a grave ethical evil by the individuals objecting to the “evil race” trope. So there actually is not any option to reply that individual grievance, not less than not from inside its personal philosophy.

Oh they do have a solution, you may see it above. Keep away from any ethical complexity that makes you uncomfortable.

So Tolkien felt that orcs might be redeemed, and it is clear that this can be a reflection of his personal real-world values.

You are digging deep in to the meta, whereas it isn’t wanted from a lore POV.

Tolkiens Orcs are Elves that had been twisted by a robust entity. It is smart that they’ve the potential to reform, not less than to a point.

D&D Orcs had been hand crafter by an Evil god, to replicate his evil of their each deed, and mentioned evil god works continually to make it possible for they maximise the evil they do.

It is the distinction between killing ravenous individuals raiding your farm, that would go away you alone in the event that they weren’t ravenous; vs killing locusts that strip your farm yearly, and all the time will.


Tolkiens Orcs are Elves that had been twisted by a robust entity. It is smart that they’ve the potential to reform, not less than to a point.

This was by no means definitively settled by Tolkien.

D&D Orcs had been hand crafter by an Evil god, to replicate his evil of their each deed, and mentioned evil god works continually to make it possible for they maximise the evil they do.

The primary occasion of a creation story for orcs in D&D that I am conscious of was the article in Dragon journal, the place the Orcs had been cheated by the opposite gods for a spot to stay, and Grummush created an area for them, and swore revenge for his or her deceit and treachery.

The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG group is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics by means of a slender keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung


Tolkiens Orcs are Elves that had been twisted by a robust entity. It is smart that they’ve the potential to reform, not less than to a point.

This was by no means definitively settled by Tolkien.

D&D Orcs had been hand crafter by an Evil god, to replicate his evil of their each deed, and mentioned evil god works continually to make it possible for they maximise the evil they do.

The primary occasion of a creation story for orcs in D&D that I am conscious of was the article in Dragon journal, the place the Orcs had been cheated by the opposite gods for a spot to stay, and Grummush created an area for them, and swore revenge for his or her deceit and treachery.

Nearly each rationalization Tolkien had for the origin of his Orcs concerned twisting an present creature, be it Elf, Man or beast. Therefore the oft used “Evil can not create…”

My level stands even when they weren’t twisted Elves…which they completely had been. :P

As for D&D Orcs, you are speaking about Dragon #62. In it they’re known as his individuals earlier than he declared they’d stay wherever they wished (bringing destruction.) They don’t seem to be foundlings he finds a house for.


 


RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular

Recent Comments

Arnavsijapati on Planet of Lana – Beta Demo
Jai Kishor Upadhyay on Planet of Lana – Beta Demo