Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 126
  1. #101
    Senior Member
    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.
    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.


    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?).
    Oops, what do you want to say? Did I wrote something you did not like? No need for a comment like this.
    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....

  2. #102
    Senior Member marcum uth mather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    LaCrosse, Wi
    Posts
    179
    Downloads
    13
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  3. #103
    Site Moderator geeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    California, USA
    Posts
    2,165
    Downloads
    4
    Uploads
    0
    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.

  4. #104
    Senior Member
    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.

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    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.

  6. #106
    Member
    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.

  7. #107
    Senior Member
    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.

  8. #108
    Senior Member blitzmacher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    el paso
    Posts
    250
    Downloads
    24
    Uploads
    0
    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

  9. #109
    Site Moderator kgauck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Springfield Mo
    Posts
    3,562
    Downloads
    2
    Uploads
    0
    ----- 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. #110
    Senior Member
    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)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.