Results 101 to 110 of 126
-
10-03-2002, 05:29 PM #101
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Germany near Frankfurt
- Posts
- 295
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Orginally posted by Peter Lubke
Fictional? --- er ..... so armor and swords are fictional too? The alignment concept attempts to model real-life behavior - which is very
complex admittedly, which is why there is great difficulty in
classifying it into a simpler system - but neither fictional or racist.
chicken! -- cluck cluck cluck
...
genuine criticism of the character or person behind the Azrai
nom-de-plume (although one does wonder about the kind of person that
would take such a namesake --- can`t help myself sometimes --- besides
who would take on the god of evil?).
my purpose is now to lead you into the Pallace where you shall have a clear and delightful view of all those various objects, and scattered excellencies, that lye up and down upon the face of creation, which are only seen by those that go down into the Seas, and by no other....
-
10-03-2002, 06:29 PM #102
alllllll rigghhtttt.
mabey its not my place but this is a spot to discuss BR,not real world views. There are plenty of forums for that. we are all citicens of cerillia here. We sould all remember that. If people in my campain bait others into a argument, they are penilised, so lets keep it nise.
-
10-03-2002, 07:27 PM #103
At 08:29 PM 10/3/2002 +0200, marcum uth mather wrote:
>mabey its not my place but this is a spot to discuss BR,not real world
>views. There are plenty of forums for that. we are all citicens of
>cerillia here. We sould all remember that. If people in my campain bait
>others into a argument, they are penilised, so lets keep it nise.
Here, here. Once the alignment debate drifts off-topic it seems to always
go in this direction (or one like it.) Can we reel it in a bit, folks?
Thanks,
Gary
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
10-04-2002, 01:58 AM #104
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 02:43, Carl Cram=?ISO-8859-1?B?6Q==?=r wrote:
Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-10-03 16.52:
> On the other hand, I don`t expect it to swing so far that chaotics get
> an overwhelming majority in any state. But I`d love for it to get 50-50
> in my lifetime - alas the current world situation is far from ideal -
> being tailor made for the `lawful`s to tell us why we need them to tell
> us what to do.
Did you miss my entire point? The pont here was not that this was the route
a chaotic individual takes - it was that this is how this problem would be
attacked in a chaotic society. Thus having 50% greens in parliament does not
make a state chaotic - though it would probably cause chaos. It is the grass
roots activity and `vote with your wallet` POV that shows that a SOCIETY is
chaotic.
no no didn`t miss your point, am agreeing with it. Was trying to say
that for every person that thinks globally and acts locally, there`s
another person that thinks and acts differently. That from a practical
POV I am unlikely to see it in the near future as the majority behavior
- people are still very much "asking what their country can do for them"
types.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
10-04-2002, 01:58 AM #105
- Join Date
- Nov 2001
- Location
- Sydney, Australia
- Posts
- 474
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 03:29, Azrai wrote:
Again - I find it very dangerous to project the game-mechanics on the
real world. even good and evil are purely simplified ethics. you will
not find such a stereotypic character in real live.
I don`t think you are meant to find stereotypes in BR or D&D usually
either - with exceptions being demons, devils, etc. It is not a celled
system after all. Because your alignment is LE does not make you totally
evil - in fact in most cases a LE character will not show up as evil to
`detect evil` unless it`s as a faint trace. (psychopathic serial killers
excepted?)
All men/elves/whatever are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
Those that promote such activities for others are considered good.
Those that deny such activities to others are considered evil.
Those that neither promote nor deny would be considered neutral.
Most beings will do some actions that are good, some that are evil, and
some inaction. Some will behave one way toward a particular group and
another way toward another group. This is true in RL as well as in BR or
any other fantasy world. I would expect in BR that a good character
should have more than one-third of their classifiable activities in the
`good` category.
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
10-04-2002, 06:47 AM #106
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Location
- Sweden
- Posts
- 68
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
Peter Lubke <peterlubke@OPTUSNET.COM.AU> wrote at 02-10-04 03.47:
> All men/elves/whatever are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness.
A rather chaotic statement, that. In lawful terminology, everyone has the
right to self-fulfillment working for the state, who will then provide
happiness for all.
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.
Carl
[Who just could not resist]
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
10-04-2002, 06:27 PM #107
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Thu, 3 Oct 2002, Carl Cramér wrote:
> Then you see chaotic the way I see evil.
As I said, the alignment "definitions" themselves are so loose and broad,
and thus so varied in interpretation, as to not actually be very helpful
after all. Hence I think it makes everything much clearer if you just
junk them entirely. Yes, I know there are plenty of people who think they
are not loose or broad at all, but each of them has a different idea of
what the alignments specify, which just strengthens my point.
For the record, there are no paladins at all IMC -- just multiclassed
fighter/priests.
Ryan Caveney
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
-
10-04-2002, 10:59 PM #108
IMC I let the PC's choose an alignment but I don't hold them to it, simply because everyones ideas on what is lawful or chaotic or good and evil varies. Instead I focus on alignment when it comes to how an NPC acts. I don't hold paladins to being lawful good only. I think each deity should have their own paladins, but thats my opinion.
Cattle die and kinsmen die,
thyself too soon must die,
but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
fair fame of one who has earned.
HAVAMAL
-
10-05-2002, 01:33 AM #109
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 1:03 PM
> As I said, the alignment "definitions" themselves are so loose
> and broad, and thus so varied in interpretation, as to not actually
> be very helpful after all. Hence I think it makes everything much
> clearer if you just junk them entirely.
Actually, I think in general that when the DM makes a clear statement that
defines his thinking, players are inclined to play it that way. The same
thing is true when the DM announced they will use an alternative injury
system, an alternative healing system, an alternative armor class system, an
alternative listing of simple, martial, and exotic weapons, has added
dieties, races, spells, or introduced any other tweak or innovation. Rules
lawyers aside, players tend to respond pretty well to a DM`s vision if its
articulated and consistent.
I could abandon the alignment terms, but then a player knows nothing about
Haelyn, Cuiraécen, or Belinik (et al). If I instead use those terms, but
re-define them, players can know what Avani, or a priest of Avani, is likely
to find acceptable. It does require a bit of a translation ("OK, so Avani
is Lawful Neutral, so that means she`s indifferent to questions of
compassion, but an advocate for social order"), but then so does every real
change to the system. I actually find that the most common point of
confusion is an adjustment to the equipment lists.
"Hey, that knight is fighting one handed with that bastard sword, is he
getting a -4 attack penalty?"
"No, he`s Anuirean, that`s a martial weapon for him."
Once play gets going, all of your changes, even the really dramtic ones take
hold and the players get into it. The problem with alignment here, is that
we`re conversing as equals, so no one ever feels inclined to accept anyone
else`s interpretations, except occasionally for the sake of argument. As
you mention, the interpretations of alignment are numerous, so
inter-subjectivity remains elusive.
Kenneth Gauck
kgauck@mchsi.com
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.
-
10-09-2002, 10:30 PM #110
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- BR mailing list
- Posts
- 1,538
- Downloads
- 0
- Uploads
- 0
On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, Kenneth Gauck <kgauck@MCHSI.COM> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan B. Caveney" <ryanb@CYBERCOM.NET>
>
> > As I said, the alignment "definitions" themselves are so loose
> > and broad, and thus so varied in interpretation, as to not actually
> > be very helpful after all. Hence I think it makes everything much
> > clearer if you just junk them entirely.
>
> Actually, I think in general that when the DM makes a clear statement
> that defines his thinking, players are inclined to play it that way.
I concur. However, in my (admittedly limited) experience, DMs tend to be
much more clear in their statements about alternate injury / combat / etc.
systems than they are about alternate alignment systems -- indeed, many
DMs using very different alignment systems think their way is the way the
book says to do it, and everyone _else_`s way is "alternate". Since the
overwhelming majority of people who read the combat rules interpret them
in the same way, it is easy to tell when you are using house rules; since
almost no one reads the alignment section the same way as anyone else,
almost everyone is using house rules but almost no one knows it.
> I could abandon the alignment terms, but then a player knows nothing
> about Haelyn, Cuiraécen, or Belinik (et al). If I instead use those
> terms, but re-define them, players can know what Avani, or a priest of
> Avani, is likely to find acceptable. It does require a bit of a
> translation ("OK, so Avani is Lawful Neutral, so that means she`s
> indifferent to questions of compassion, but an advocate for social
> order"), but then so does every real change to the system.
Fine. I ask you, however, then why do you bother to retain the
terminology of the alignment system? Why not simply say, "Avani is
indifferent to questions of compassion, but an advocate for social order,"
and leave it at that? Concise and easy to both remember and apply, with
no need to shoehorn yourself into preexisting labels that people will
reflexively misinterpret. Give every religion (indeed, every temple
faction) its own one-sentence description, and the players a cheat sheet
if necessary, and to me it seems that everything is clearer than if an old
encoding system`s technical terms are redefined.
> The problem with alignment here, is that we`re conversing as equals,
> so no one ever feels inclined to accept anyone else`s interpretations,
> except occasionally for the sake of argument. As you mention, the
> interpretations of alignment are numerous, so inter-subjectivity
> remains elusive.
And even if people *try* to accept others` interpretations, they will
frequently decode into their own set of definitions simply by reflex, and
then have to work to retranslate everything into the new set. I just
think it`s easier and clearer all around if those names are avoided, and
short descriptions used directly. If you absolutely need a shorthand in
your campaign, then call Avani "Orderly Noncompassionate" or suchlike, and
give a paragraph for each of those -- better to define new terms than
reuse ones people have very strong and quite different ideas about.
Ryan Caveney
************************************************** **************************
The Birthright Homepage: http://www.birthright.net
Birthright-l Archives: http://oracle.wizards.com/archives/birthright-l.html
To unsubscribe, send email to LISTSERV@ORACLE.WIZARDS.COM
with UNSUB BIRTHRIGHT-L in the body of the message.NOTE: Messages posted by Birthright-L are automatically inserted posts originating from the mailing list linked to the forum.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks