Like, how does this shit work?
For instance, in the forgotten realms campaign book two examples given of cases where you would worship gods other than your patron god were:
1. You're a good sailor praying to the evil goddess of the sea, which I can see working since evil has no obligation to uphold anything.
2. You're an evil thief that prays to the good goddess of luck before trying to steal something... what the fuck? Why would this ever work?
Jesus, each time I try to look at D&D in a different light it always manages to go full retard. How are there people that can actually play games in this broken ass shit?
The Forgotten Realms is a clusterfuck.
The DMG p much outright states to use the bits and pieces that make your game fun.
And the Pantheon is not something that will make or break a game.
Maybe they're thinking like that scene in the Mummy where the guy just keeps going through holy symbols until something works
But as for your question most people just don't give a shit about alignments
>polytheism
>you can only have one patron god
That's not how polytheism works
>>45024257
For some reason in D&D most players I've played with over the years pick a patron god and worship them exclusive to other gods. Blame it on most Westerners being raised around monotheist religions I guess.
>>45024215
Despite your stupidity, I'll waste my time.
A god in Forgotten Realms has "Portfolios", an aspect of their godhood that is exemplified by their control or influence over X.
Pelor is the Lawful Good god of Sun, Good, Healing, and Protection.
If you want to be thankful for ANY OF THE ABOVE, it does not matter what your personal alignment is, you thank Pelor, because he runs that shit that you are thankful for.
If you are a sailor, you say a prayer to the gods of Weather and Water for safe travel, because they are the ones that control it, and your personal issues mean fuck all.
>>45024276
In FR, you are supposed to choose a "patron" god that aligns to your personal beliefs.
They become your totem, and you clearly do not understand what a totem is if you can spew some ignorant prattle like hurr monotheism.
>>45024235
But the shit that really fucking annoys me is the fact that they keep referring to alignments as not just some philosophical issue, but as something that actually manipulates existence. Well guess what:that means jack shit, and it still is a philosophical issue you shit stains.
>>45024277
So the GOOD goddess of luck runs luck.
An evil thief is praying to her BEFORE (as was stated), a heist.
The GOOD goddess of luck is going to help the thief because he prayed to her? That makes zero sense.
>it does not matter what your personal alignment is
If this is the case, if what you're up to doesn't matter at all, why do gods have alignments that are described as directly being tied to human behavior?
You're really smart anon, I'm really glad you set me right. Sorry for "wasting your time" by the way.
>>45024295
>i don't know what cosmic forces in D&D is
Depending on the setting, ie most of them, alignments are representative of true, objective, cosmic forces that influence existence.
It is only philosophical because people can't read the same words and agree on the same thing those words say.
>>45024329
>The GOOD goddess of luck is going to help the thief because he prayed to her? That makes zero sense.
That's because you think that the gods are concerned about the alignments of individuals.
They are not, they are concerned with maintaining a basis of worshipers.
>why do gods have alignments that are described as directly being tied to human behavior?
Because the gods are subject to the cosmic forces of alignments; they are not greater than the 4 Primal Forces. As gods, they are even more under heel.
>>45024330
From the D&D 3.5 "neutral good" entry:
>A neutral good character does the best that a good person can do. He is devoted to helping others.
This sure is objective huh?
If you really believe in what you just said you must be retarded, there's no other explanation.
>>45024330
Pretty much this.
The way it's meant to work, is that the DM effectively oversees The Powers That Be. Which powers mind you, don't agree with eachother half the time, but they themselves are well bellow what the Alignment powers are.
Just look at the Manual of the Planes, and you'll see all sorts of references to cosmic entities that are way beyond any of the gods. The top of Celestia? Not even gods return from there. It is the place of true, ultimate Lawful Goodness, but it's not something you can understand until you reach effectively perfection, meaning you're MEANT to have an imperfect, opinionated and subjective idea of what you call Lawful and what you call Good.
People have this false idea about how the Alignment systems work, like if the Gods were the ultimate authority on these things, and people like Paladins had complete and unquestionable understanding of the concepts they represent, while the entire point of the Alignment System, is that on the character's level, it's just about what your philosophy, and in the game mechanic's level, it is something different, something un-knowable and distant that echoes through mortals and gods alike, but is not anything that can be readily defined.
DMs are meant to go with their gut on it, or have certain deities be the intermidiary authority of good, when it comes to mechanical effects, but the cosmic, magical side of the Alignments is incredibly removed from the character's philosophical Alignment.
>>45024361
>This sure is objective huh?
Now read what the same book says about the hallmarks of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos, not the common behavior of PEOPLE.
You are strawmanning like a motherfucker and pointing to the wrong argument to boot.
>>45024361
or see >>45024415 who basically BTFO's you across the goddamn horizon.
>>45024276
That's a bit like having loyalty to multiple countries.
Not out of the question, obviously, but kind of a dumb move, especially since they're more likely to find out.
>>45024359
Why do they have "dogma" entries that state how they must act, including sentences like "Strive to maintain law and order?"
The entry on the lady of luck states that she's friendly and kind, and the book states that deities are constantly interfering with mortals. If she helped the thief, then that would not be very "good" according to the D&D 3.5 core rb that says:
"“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the
dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices
to help others."
>>45024420
Sure, see above.
"“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the
dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices
to help others."
You have dignity here, personal sacrifices to help others. So does this mean that I'm good if I sacrifice myself to help an evil lich? I sure am helping.
"“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil
creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without
qualms if doing so is convenient."
What, you mean like some paladins do when dealing with evil? Paladins sure like to oppress evil, I'll tell you that much.
But by all means, do tell me where I can find these "objective views" on good and evil, because I'm surely looking at the wrong pages.
>>45024415
>The way it's meant to work, is that the DM effectively oversees The Powers That Be.
This is a huge copout that is 1. obvious (since these things can't be objective, so you're basically calling >>45024420 a retard), and 2. indicative of how dumb alignments actually are. There are a ton of better ways to separate things the way you've mentioned.
>>45024527
This entire post is a focused effort at being dense.
1. Stop reading the alignment charts as they apply to beings, and read what the traits of the alignments themselves are the way >>45024415 said.
2. Your argument about the thief is ridiculous. At what point did the god ACTUALLY render any aid? You are working with the factually false idea that divine intervention is offered on a prayer for bux basis.
3. The rest of your post is a series of logical fallacies not fit for a middle school debate club.
>do tell me where I can find these "objective views" on good and evil, because I'm surely looking at the wrong pages
Yes, because you've been reading the PHB alignment chart, which covers the acts and mindset of beings that fall under those alignments, not the actual traits of the plane of Good/Evil/Law/Chaos. It was already said that Manual of the Planes covers all of this, including how small time gods are in the grand scheme.
>>45024527
>>The way it's meant to work, is that the DM effectively oversees The Powers That Be.
>This is a huge copout that is 1. obvious (since these things can't be objective, so you're basically calling >>45024420 a retard), and 2. indicative of how dumb alignments actually are. There are a ton of better ways to separate things the way you've mentioned.
What this basically reads as is:
>That's not the way I'd do it, so it's wrong.
What you have to understand, is by it's very nature of how things are established in D&D, perfection is beyond mortals. You are playing a mortal. In fact, most of the gods are technically mortals, especially ones like Vecna.
If you don't get how this is meant to reflect religion, I don't know what to tell you. It's the core concept of pretty much every major religion from Christianity all the way to Shinto and Buddhism.
The true, cosmic rights and wrongs are beyond understanding, and the world itself, is an imperfect wonky creation that merely attempts to mimick the perfection of the conceptual, godly realms.
Yes. Things cannot be objective. But that is, because we're talking from the lens of mortals, who themselves cannot comprehend perfection, which is required to look at the world objectively, and are standing on an imperfect world, which itself may not be able to house objectivity.
Basically, what you're criticising, isn't the Alignment system, it's the core concept of every religion it's trying to mimic.
>see thread
>oh look, it's some shitty /v/ edit along with just enough board related drivel to not get banned
>sure gonna be a great thread!
>turns into a alignment argument
>>45024622
Well, what's the point of praying for luck if you know your pleas go unheard?
>>45024622
>1. Stop reading the alignment charts as they apply to beings, and read what the traits of the alignments themselves are the way >>45024415 said.
I cannot find it, so I'm asking you to help me out. Just point me to a chapter or something.
>2. Your argument about the thief is ridiculous. At what point did the god ACTUALLY render any aid? You are working with the factually false idea that divine intervention is offered on a prayer for bux basis.
It's not my example, it's the books example. And why would the god then render no aid? Are you implying that the god ACTUALLY cares about the motives of the person that's praying?
>3. The rest of your post is a series of logical fallacies not fit for a middle school debate club.
Good come back! I think you're bad at sports, what now?
>>45024667
>perfection is beyond mortals.
Nice words you have there. What does this have to do with anything?
>The true, cosmic rights and wrongs are beyond understanding
This is basically you saying "it's magic, I aint got to explain shit", when everyone else was trying to defend this shit as "objective", and "clearly stated in the books".
> Things cannot be objective.
Wait, what? I thought they were, AS STATED by the books.
>Basically, what you're criticising, isn't the Alignment system, it's the core concept of every religion it's trying to mimic.
I don't get how you got this idea.
Lets look at another religion, like the Egyptian gods for instance. Those made sense for the most part, where a god controlled an aspect of existence, of the universe, be it afterlife, the rivers, heavens, what have you. Those gods were truly gods, they didn't need arbitrarily defined terms like "evil" or "good" to do what they were created to do (fuck, those gods were cool!)
Just because you don't understand something that doesn't mean it automatically makes sense you know? That's what christian fags want you to believe.
>>45024767
You don't get shit if you never ask for shit.
>>45024295
In 3.pf, alignments ARE tangible forces which affect the world. Which is retarded, yes, but that's how it was written.
>>45024780
>>Basically, what you're criticising, isn't the Alignment system, it's the core concept of every religion it's trying to mimic.
>I don't get how you got this idea.
>Lets look at another religion, like the Egyptian gods for instance. Those made sense for the most part, where a god controlled an aspect of existence, of the universe, be it afterlife, the rivers, heavens, what have you. Those gods were truly gods, they didn't need arbitrarily defined terms like "evil" or "good" to do what they were created to do (fuck, those gods were cool!)
And where did you get the idea that I was implying D&D was trying to mimic the mechanics of Egyptian religion in particular?
But yeah, that last line there?
>Just because you don't understand something that doesn't mean it automatically makes sense you know? That's what christian fags want you to believe.
Exactly the point I'm trying to make.
You're criticising the mystical, unknowable and unexplained world view, in a game based around an era of western and eastern civilizations dominated by religions that uphold a world view of mystical, unknowable and unexplained world views.
To put it in words I don't need to clarify:
Your argument is that the world based off of the idea that religions that don't make sense are real, does not make sense.
That is an understatement to the level of the sky is blue.
You're free to hate it, but it's the way it is.
As for the rest:
>>perfection is beyond mortals.
>Nice words you have there. What does this have to do with anything?
It has to do with the fact that everything that details Alignments in the books, speaks of the way people in the setting perceive these alignments, but without the capacity for perfection, their perception of the alignments itself, is imperfect.
This will not stop a Paladin, or someone like St. Cuthbert who are absolutely sure in themselves, from declaring that their truth is the objective truth, but it doesn't meant that it IS the objective cosmic truth.
>>45024780
>Just point me to a chapter or something.
Open the DMG.
Also, for the third time, Manual of the Planes.
>And why would the god then render no aid? Are you implying that the god ACTUALLY cares about the motives of the person that's praying?
No, because in most settings, the gods are limited in direct influence they can exercise. It's why the material plane isn't a battlefield between gods, devils and demons. Even then, the gods are NOT concerned with every single individual sentient being.
>what now?
You propped up logical fallacies as legitimate arguments, and expect me to waste time knocking them down.
>What does this have to do with anything?
You are doing it wrong, and it has been explained why already.
>This is basically you saying "it's magic, I aint got to explain shit", when everyone else was trying to defend this shit as "objective", and "clearly stated in the books"
Yes, from a meta perspective. Insetting, the primal forces ARE unknowable and utterly beyond any being. In the meta sense, Good is X, and comprises X. Evil is X, and comprises X, so on. These things are not up for debate because they are not philosophical concepts, but actual existing things. It's the same as trying to debate the color of a red rose. No matter what you say or how you phrase it, it is a red rose, was and will continue to be.
>Wait, what? I thought they were, AS STATED by the books.
Because you can't tell the difference between things the player/DM knows and things the characters in the setting know.
>Those gods were truly gods, they didn't need arbitrarily defined terms like "evil" or "good" to do what they were created to do
Because you only read enough of the preceding posts to continue arguing.
It's not like it was already said the the cosmic forces of alignments preceded the gods, is greater than the gods entirely, and that even the gods must bow to existential forces.
>>45024215
>say retarded shit
>WAAAAAHH WAAAAAAHHH the alignment system doesn't work!
The worst thing about the alignment system is that it primes retards into black & white thinking where they normally wouldn't. In ANY other setting, you wouldn't think anything wrong with a thief praying to a good and caring god in order to offset his moral guilt. But slap capital letter on that Good and Evil, and out comes the neckbearded reasoning like "why would this ever work".
Because they're GODS, you idiot. They work in mysterious ways, beyond the ken of mortal men. And real life mythology is FULL of "Good" gods being lovey-dovey to terrible people, because they're inherently good beings.
Curb your autism, Anon. For fuck's sake.
>>45024868
>And where did you get the idea that I was implying D&D was trying to mimic the mechanics of Egyptian religion in particular?
What, when did I imply that? I was just giving an example of a religion I like. I loved reading about Egyptian gods even when I was little.
>Exactly the point I'm trying to make.
>Your argument is that the world based off of the idea that religions that don't make sense are real, does not make sense.
It's a matter of 1+1 = 3. Much like "1" and "+" have explained meaning that we can most importantly composite into one meaning, "good" and "evil" also have explained meaning IN THE BOOK ITSELF (so you can't give the excuse of "oh, the meaning is different from ours.")
Ever heard of suspension of disbelief? Well, I think that's not a good way to explain why we're so fond of some fictional things, and hate others. I prefer what I like to call the "basis of unfounded existence" better.
This basically states that I could have a river without having atoms. If you were then to ask me "what is this river made of" I could tell you that I couldn't tell you. Maybe because there was no answer (the river just "was"), or maybe because only a god knows or something. Point is, I could use this river to tell a story that people would believe, and it would revolve around not explaining the river at all. That's how you truly don't know the river, that's how I trully wouldn't understand the river, so I couldn't explain it to you, then you can't say that this or that pertaining to the river doesn't make sense. The mystery here is pertaining to the origin of the river and not to the origin of the things that the river makes happen. Say someone drinks from the river and dies. Ok, well, now you know the river has that property. You don't know why, but you can't really say that didn't make sense.
(cont.)
>>45025087
With D&D you have the concept of "good" and "evil" (which are things which we shouldn't apparently be able to understand within this world), that are described with words which have ideas that we DO understand associated to them. "Good" isn't defined as "the will of the god A" or anything like that. There's nothing within the description of evil that's hidden to me, and that means I can formulate an opinion on whether or not the things that happen around those ideas make or don't make sense. It's not "it's magic, so I haven't got to explain shit," it's quite simply "I've explained it and defined it, and it doesn't make sense." If you state that all those words simply mean something different then you're missing the point of communication.
>>45024899
Three times have I asked you for a chapter and four times I've received books.
>>45024933
Offset his moral guilt? Nigga, he's praying to the goddess of luck before a heist to get lucky.
>Because they're GODS, you idiot. They work in mysterious ways, beyond the ken of mortal men.
What you're saying is that the descriptions given in the books don't mean jack shit because "we can't understand them anyway," right?
KCool!
>And real life mythology is FULL of "Good" gods being lovey-dovey to terrible people, because they're inherently good beings.
Yes, except gods are fictional within our reality, so they can afford not to make sense within the context of our world.
>>45025087
.... getting Virt flashbacks.
>>45025096
No, what he IS saying is that no one in the actual setting could survive pure Good, pure Evil, and the like.
They literally wouldn't survive it.
What they do get is the diluted drippings, enough that they can survive the experience.
For example, positive energy. Positive energy is life, living energy and creation made manifest, and without the Positive Energy plane, life itself would not exist.
If you go to that plane, however, it will fucking kill you, no matter what you are, by "healing" you until you turn into a giant tumorous growth that blows up.
>>45025128
>No, what he IS saying is that no one in the actual setting could survive pure Good, pure Evil, and the like.
Is he? You guys are changing this shit all the time...
And what does that have to do with the way gods behave anyway?
>>45025124
>Three times have I asked you for a chapter and four times I've received books.
Because you clearly need to learn more. Manual of the Planes is literally an entire book on how the planes work, and includes all the major planes.
You want someone to do the work for you. You got sauce, now do some reading and learn something before you decide to argue shit you barely know on /tg/.
>>45025087
>>45025096
>What, when did I imply that? I was just giving an example of a religion I like. I loved reading about Egyptian gods even when I was little.
You implied that, when you countered
>Basically, what you're criticising, isn't the Alignment system, it's the core concept of EVERY RELIGION IT'S TRYING TO MIMIC.
by starting to talk about Egyptian religion as an example of something that does it different.
For the rest:
I get what you're saying, but again those "definitions" of good and evil in the books themselves are subjective.
I mean just go ahead and quote me anything the book says, and I will show how subjective it is.
The one thing I think you quoted before was how "Neutral Good is doing the absolute most good possible", but that really just means, that Neutral Good is someone who tries to do good, and good before everything else.
This defines him as a "good" person, but doesn't state what the "good" he's trying to do is. It can just as well be the Jainist ideal of non-violence as the purging of orcs from the world.
Again, maybe you quoted something else, but I'm also in the middle of studying, so I'd rather not read through every single comment, so please, just give me the "objective" definitions you think the books give on Good, Evil, Law and Chaos.
>>45025140
>Is he?
>>45024415
>you'll see all sorts of references to cosmic entities that are way beyond any of the gods. The top of Celestia? Not even gods return from there. It is the place of true, ultimate Lawful Goodness, but it's not something you can understand until you reach effectively perfection, meaning you're MEANT to have an imperfect, opinionated and subjective idea of what you call Lawful and what you call Good.
Yes, he is, you idiot, have you actually read any posts at all?
>And what does that have to do with the way gods behave anyway?
That gods are not the epitome of the alignment idea, but are also subject to the same trickle down, muddled ideals of the alignments that mortals are.
>>45025140
>>45025166
Hey, >>45024415 here.
I actually didn't say you "couldn't survive pure good" etc.
In the Manual of Planes, it's more implied like the Top of Celestia is a sort of analogue for Nirvana. You less not return from there because it kills you, and more because the only way of getting there is achieving perfect vision of Law and Goodness, and as such, the imperfect worlds you knew before getting there are bellow you.
>>45025187
In addendum
>the imperfect worlds you knew before getting there are bellow you.
Like literally. Celestia's top is above everything else.
The Manual of Planes is layered in a lot of symbolism, and I'm not just saying because Celestia itself has multiple layers, similar to Dante's Inferno.
Again, the point of Celestia, much like Inferno and Buddhism, is throwing off mortal shackles.
>>45025153
>You implied that, when you countered
I didn't say D&D was trying to mimic egyptian gods, I was just saying that egyptian gods are cool and D&D gods are lame.
>but again those "definitions" of good and evil in the books themselves are subjective.
I should pit you against this guy >>45025143 because he clearly does not agree with you.
>so please, just give me the "objective" definitions you think the books give on Good, Evil, Law and Chaos.
I'm not the guy saying those exist.
>>45025166
>>45025187
HAHAHAHA.
Nice one.
And again
>Yes, he is, you idiot, have you actually read any posts at all?
What the fuck does this have to do with a good god helping an evil thief with doing evil things?
>>45025206
>symbolism
Let me go get my holy bible.
>>45025207
>What the fuck does this have to do with a good god helping an evil thief with doing evil things?
Again, when did this happen?
Why are you treating prayer as the automatic gateway to aid? The only people who have it like that are ordained clergy.
Also, isn't the luck god neutral? Or at least one of them?
>>45025207
>I should pit you against this guy >>45025143 (You) because he clearly does not agree with you.
Clearly you aren't reading, because I am referring to the properties of the alignments themselves as planar entities in Forgotten Realms, while the other poster is referring to the description of alignments in the phb.
Our arguments, while different, do not actually intersect at all.
>>45025207
Hey, still >>45024415 here.
While the guy did mistake my meaning, I still agree with much of what he's trying to say.
See, this whole:
>good god helping an evil thief with doing evil things
Is oversimplifying things.
There ARE good gods of thieves in D&D.
Some good gods support those who steal to survive, or aid a greater cause, generally they tend to be Chaotic Good, but some are even Neutral Good (And you could technically create a Lawful Good god too, who maintains that the highest form of law is the law of nature, by which survival comes first).
From such a god's point of view, it might not be important that generally the guy is "evil" because it's less that the character is "evil" and more that the character is selfish, vain, or a sociopath.
As long as the god/godess represents the right of all living things to survival, and excersises this belief by aiding thieves in maintaining themselves, he/she WILL aid that "evil" thief, as long as the thievery fits within what the god supports.
At least in some god's cases.
Other gods might be more militant against sinful characters, and exclusively help virtious ones, but other gods may argue that the dead can know no redemption, and so will aid even the wicked, so that they have a chance to one day change their way.
It comes down to the kind of god we're talking about, because again, even they have a subjective view of what "good" and "evil" is.
>>45025124
>Offset his moral guilt? Nigga, he's praying to the goddess of luck before a heist to get lucky.
Nigger, in real life Mexican Catholics have narco saints. I still don't see why you're getting upset that these hypothetical characters are religious.
>What you're saying is that the descriptions given in the books don't mean jack shit because "we can't understand them anyway," right?
>KCool!
I'm saying that they're beyond mortal understanding. They're gods. They might have superhuman emotions, like the Greek gods, or play the long game, like Christian God with Job. I mean, if you just took all the shit he did on its own, you'd say "well, this God is clearly Evil. He's just messing with this man for shits and giggles." But in reality he was locked in a celestial battle with the dude who has no faith in mankind.
>Yes, except gods are fictional within our reality, so they can afford not to make sense within the context of our world.
Oh, OK, so you just want to ignore the basis for these setting gods because "we can't understand real gods anyway", right?
No nignog, you're being autistic about how gods are "supposed" to work, and upset that your players don't agree. If you even have players. Chill the fuck out. It's not all black & white.
>>45025153
Good is an axis of alignment most commonly associated with intentionally altruistic and compassionate acts.
A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he is kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do.
Lawful good characters act as a good person is expected or required to act, combining a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. Telling the truth, keeping one's word, helping those in need, and speaking out against injustice are all paramount behaviors of the lawful good, and a character of this alignment hates to see the guilty go unpunished.
Chaotic evil characters are typically out to get whatever they want at that moment, with no consideration of their acts' effects on others.
The neutral evil alignment promotes pain, anguish, misery, corruption, and destruction as tool to be used for the individuals gain.
Lawful evil characters run the gamut of malicious order, from diabolical queens to mercenaries, and from corporate kingpins to devious librarians. They thrive on discipline, punishment, and subjugating others, and are willing to sacrifice anything—and anyone—to achieve their goals, though without resorting to messy chaos.
Please tell me how these are subjective. Good is about community, altruism and kindness. Evil is about selfishness and a lack of compassion. These are the most common and basic aspects of every religion in the world.
For instance, your shitty attempt at a gotcha involving sacrificing oneself to save a lich. The person sacrificing themselves commits a tiny act of good which does not negate the large number of previous evil acts, and is frankly wasted on the evil lich.
>>45025289
Congratulations, you have just earned the "I don't know what subjective means" award!
How do you feel?
>>45024329
>The GOOD goddess of luck is going to help the thief because he prayed to her?
Is she, though? Portfolios honestly mean fuck all outside of the domain system. A good aligned thief will botch his attempt just as often as an evil one; divine intervention or influence outside of magic (through their clerical agents) is an incredibly rare occurence.
>>45025303
I think it feels like your logical fallacies were exposed, and now you are backpedaling like fuck to not look stupid.
I respect the guy, he took more time on your stupidity than I ever would.
>>45024329
>The GOOD goddess of luck is going to help the thief because he prayed to her? That makes zero sense.
Can't fault a man for trying.
>>45025315
Yeah, it's entirely possible, even probable that the Thief is praying to said luck Goddess out of habit.
Perhaps she was commonly prayed and praised in the household he grew up in, or praying just calms him down before he gets to work.
>>45025289
Hey, guy you're replying to here. (Infact, I'm starting to feel like I should pop up a name and just link everything I wrote so far)
>For instance, your shitty attempt at a gotcha involving sacrificing oneself to save a lich. The person sacrificing themselves commits a tiny act of good which does not negate the large number of previous evil acts, and is frankly wasted on the evil lich.
I made no such example, that was someone else.
As for
>Please tell me how these are subjective. Good is about community, altruism and kindness. Evil is about selfishness and a lack of compassion. These are the most common and basic aspects of every religion in the world.
Consider altruism and kindness.
Define them.
What is an altruistic or kind act? Can you decide between the two in all situations?
Can you honestly without a doubt tell me, whether or not killing a crippled horse is kinder, than tending to its wounds, and letting it live a long, but crippled life?
What if it's not a horse, but an old man? Which one is kindness? The one that denies pain, or the one that allows life?
Or Altruistic: Would you rather give all of your money to a farmer, so he can lead a lavish life, or give him a little, and help him invest to maintain a successful farm?
One would grant him with plenty, but the other would grant him with a source of income, that may persist generations, aiding even his descendants.
Sure, maybe giving him all your money will also cause him to invest the same way, but without your insight, can he make the right choices? Or will he even want to, blinded by all the money and freedom you've given him?
Which option gave him more? The one where he's totally free, or the one where his efforts are worth something, and will last well beyond his life, carrying on a legacy that is his own?
>>45025267
>Nigger, in real life Mexican Catholics have narco saints. I still don't see why you're getting upset that these hypothetical characters are religious.
Gods don't actually factor into our world, so why is this relevant?
Are you actually saying that the book only gave me that example to trick me? As in "this thief thinks he can buy the love of a good god when doing evil things, but he doesn't know any better"? I mean, that would be legit, but I think it's a bit of a dick move when I'm trying to figure out how the universe works...
>I'm saying that they're beyond mortal understanding.
Those things are not beyond mortal understanding at all! If they were beyond mortal understanding, they would not be composed of words that are not in any way beyond our understanding. Again, if you state that all those words simply mean something different then you're missing the point of communication.
>we can't understand real gods anyway
We can understand real gods, they don't work! Just like we understand 1+1=3. We know this is false, we understand it and the concepts attached to it.
Also stop saying autistic because you don't know what that means my friend-oh.
>>45025342
So that's simply what's happening? Did the book just threw that in to fuck with my head? Was I supposed to know it wouldn't work even thought I don't know jack shit about that universe and that's why I'm reading the book?! Because that would make sense, but again, dick muve brah!
I can even understand why an evil thief might have luck, there could be another evil god of luck or something, does he just not know about that one god? Also, for gods described as being in constant contact with and care about mortals, these gods seem to be pretty short sighted. I mean, I'm not really good with faces either so I guess they could just forget people quickly or something.
>>45025378
In addendum:
And what if I don't give you these choices? What then?
What if you have to assess the situation completely of your own, and see the right path, without anyone pointing out the option for it?
Could you honestly say that you would really see the best option? Do you really have such an understanding of good, that you could determine, even without all options presented to you, what they are, and what they would accomplish?
>>45025390
>Gods don't actually factor into our world, so why is this relevant?
Not through divine intervention that is. Holy wars are very much real.
>2. You're an evil thief that prays to the good goddess of luck before trying to steal something... what the fuck? Why would this ever work?
Dear Jesus, God who preachen non-violence, forgivness, charity, and mercy - please gran us your blessig so we can slaugher enemy army, take their goods and then torture prisioners.
>>45025378
>What is an altruistic or kind act?
the belief in or practice of disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others. Thata the dictionary definition. Im sure you can understand that at least.
>Can you decide between the two in all situations?
Yes, if you're a decent person who has trained themselves to do such things. In other words, you have Good as part of your alignment.
>Can you honestly without a doubt tell me, whether or not killing a crippled horse is kinder, than tending to its wounds, and letting it live a long, but crippled life?
Will the horse suffer during its long crippled life? Kill it so that it may have a merciful end to its suffering. Will it heal up and not suffer but still be crippled, then heal it and let it live a long life. This is the answer that a very large number of people would answer with and is the correct answers according to good under the D&D alignment system.
>What if it's not a horse, but an old man?
Same as before. Though with this one you take into account the old mans decision. His choice is what matters.
>Which one is kindness?
Both actually. To prevent great suffering, or to allow the one which increases joy/happiness/wellbeing.
>The one that denies pain, or the one that allows life?
Depends on the situation.
Seriously, that was fucking easy and frankly makes me think youve never given a moments thought to what makes an actual ethical dilemma for a good person.
Ill tackle the other half in the next post.
>>45024215
I dunno, anon. Why do Mafia members pray to Christ when they pretty much break all the rules of said religion?
>>45025488
>Will it heal up and not suffer but still be crippled, then heal it and let it live a long life.
Highly disagree.
>>45025488
The other anon might have been right.
You really don't seem to get what subjective is.
You should play Ultima IV sometime.
>>45025378
>Would you rather give all of your money to a farmer, so he can lead a lavish life, or give him a little, and help him invest to maintain a successful farm?
The LG decision is to invest in a successful farm. If I gave him all my money, i would starve depriving the world of good. And without guidance he may fall to greed and corruption. Better to raise all up than to raise one who may fall to evil.
The rest of the questions depend on whether I answer towards one side or the other and the second is always better.
>>45025519
I answered as a LG person within a D&D world would. There is no one singular perfect answer to those types of questions. They depend on many and multiple factors which will change the answer. Since he didn't say whether the horse was guaranteed to suffer if healed, I gave both answers that could result from gathering more information about its possible future.
Now you tell me how those answers are subjective instead just saying they are.
>>45025609
Not him, but I don't think the horse should be kept alive if he would be crippled. While good means preserving life it also means reducing suffering. I would kill the horse.
>>45025609
>I answered as a LG person within a D&D world would.
>I claim that people in D&D have multiple definitions of the ultimate pinnacle of alignments
>I claim this, because it is subjective.
>You then answer them like it's objective
>"Yeah, but I answered them like someone from D&D would, because for them it is objective."
You're trying to prove that A is correct, by claiming that A is correct.
>>45025641
And that answer is also correct towards Good. Life is important but not with suffering.
>>45025670
The alignments have explicit definitions that define each alignment in an objective manner. Just because your an idiot who doesn't understand the difference between arguing by what the objective answer within that world, as defined by what how the systems work, and arguing from the subjective answer within real life is, doesn't mean that what i'm arguing isn't objective.
>>45025710
>The alignments have explicit definitions that define each alignment in an objective manner.
Yes, and those "objective" definitions, are the ones I demonstrated as subjective, which you then dismissed, by using the original statement as fact.
Let me draw you a picture.
>You claim definitions are objective within D&D
>I show how they could be considered subjective by asking you questions
>You answer them as if they were absolutely objective
>I point out that's not true
>You defend yourself by claiming that definitions are objective in D&D, even if they aren't elsewhere
The rest of what you said basically implies that you should somehow be able to gather all available information, and somehow figure out the future of a horse, as well as predict god knows how many impossible to know variables to make the objective, true good choice.
Mind you that kind of being my entire argument, that you need to have greater insight into the fabric of reality than even the D&D gods have, in order to truly and completely comprehend what constitutes good.
You're basically arguing that I'm wrong, and every argument you bring up to prove it, is either the core argument in question, or something that technically supports my claim that as a mortal being with limited access to information and limited view of what may be, it is impossible to see the world objectively.
>>45025750
In addendum:
Let's say you collect as much information as you can as a mortal being with your limited insight into medicine, about the horse's future.
You can put a number to his suffering, and it states, that there is an X% chance that he will suffer.
What does that X have to be, in order for you to rather put it down than make it live?
Do you think everyone would put that X at the same limit? If no, how is that not subjective?
>>45024215
>Sea, evil
>luck, good
the fuck kind of shitfest is this? Both should be neutral.
This is actually a problem with the alignment system in general, which was trying to simplify a huge philosophical issue so that it could be used for the game, but in the end just made things worse.
>>45025818
Depends on the setting.
I imagine the god of the sea would be a vengeful god in any setting where Tsunamis are common. You know, like in real life.
Same with fortune. If Lady Luck kept helping out benevolent kings, she'd be a good god.
Let's not forget that the gods define their domain, not the other way around.
If the only god to alter fate in small, seemingly random ways, is a good god, then what you call "luck" will be under the control of a good god.
If the sea is under the control of a god who seeks to destoy all life that does not dwell in the sea, for they are an insult in his eyes, then that god will be evil, and so will be the waves under his control, that keep destroying port towns.
>>45025750
You honestly think you've proven they are subjective, and yet, going by the descriptions of the alignment system as to what is considered good, I answered with the objective answer as set down by the system itself. You're trying to take 2+2=4 and paint it as merely subjective and it could actually be 5 or 7 when within a base 10 system it is objectively correct.
But yes, the people within the world are bound by the same subjectivity we are, but within their reality there is an actual objective answer that is reflected within their souls and its destination within the afterlife. People who are consistently good register as objectively good when magic that reveals their alignment is used upon them. The same is true of evil people. Same is true of neutral people. They have tools we do not. In addition they have actual proof of the afterlife and souls existing with which to discern and apply the objective truth of morality within their world. There are places that are physically made of Good. There are creatures literally made of Good. Same with Evil and Law and Chaos and even Neutrality.
You're trying to apply our rules to a world that has multiple things ours doesnt, including an objective answer to "what is good?".
>>45025890
They are subjective within the system world as well.
If they're not you should be able to answer the question.
>>45025890
>People who are consistently good register as objectively good when magic that reveals their alignment is used upon them. The same is true of evil people. Same is true of neutral people. They have tools we do not.
You're equating "He's a good person" with "He has achieved Nirvana".
That is all there is left to say here. I think I'm done here, you obvious don't get what I'm trying to get at, because you still keep saying exactly what my point is, by admitting that for the people in the D&D world, good is subjective, and it's only for post-god powers, that good is objectively defined, which was since the beginning my entire argument.
Good and Law are objective at the top of Celestia.
Good and Law are not objective in the hearts of men, but the powers that radiate from Celestia may yet find them well enough, within their mortal context.
>>45025818
They're entities with power over X, not X personified.
>>45025933
>You're equating "He's a good person" with "He has achieved Nirvana".
Within D&D, they are the same thing. Nirvana is merely the name for ultimate good.
>>45025919
As a being who doesn't live within that world where objective good exists, there is no way for me to answer that question. I can use the rules as set down that tell me what a good person within this universe does that match up with what this objective good is. But what it actually is, is a great big blank as there is nothing like it within our reality. You want an answer that is physically impossible to answer for us Earthlings but would be answerable for those who live upon Golarion or Abeir-Toril, or any of the other worlds which have it. Hell they can answer what a soul is composed of, or how magic works or a thousand other things we don't have.
>>45026018
>Being a generally good person
>Being the definition of a person who does no wrong
>Within D&D, they are the same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI
>>45026038
>Being the definition of a person who does no evil
FTFY
Its an important distinction. As you can still do wrong without doing evil.
>>45025374
The thing is, Forgotten Realms is a setting where Magic and Gods are absolutely real, but life mostly goes on as if they weren't. Kings don't abuse resurrection magic to stay in power indefinitely, people still become atheists or choose evil in spite of a literal, provable paradise waiting for them if they do good etc.
>>45026054
No, see you can be neutral, and do no evil, without doing anything good either, and you will not be a good person.
It's called becoming a hermit.
>>45025390
>this much autism
Yeah, I'm done. Enjoy being That DM.
>>45026209
Dank memes brosef.
>>45026229
Sorry, familia. There's just no arguing with you. If you want to run your game like that, fine. I just feel sorry for your players because you expect them to be telepathic and magically understand exactly how you run your setting without you telling them.
>>45026251
What?
>thread is still going
Dude, stop, you are feeding a blatant troll at this point who refuses to even understand that in different settings, alignments don't work the same.
>>45024215
Because allignements arent what the character is, but what side they beleive they are.
Bullshit of course since nobody thinks they are evil.
>>45026287
You've got it backwards. D&D alignments are what the character is, no matter what they might think they are. A person can't just delude himself into being LG while murderraping his way across the countryside and end up in Celestia when someone finally shanks him.
>>45024215
This is why D&D is shit, my players just worship Tsathoggua and everyone is happy.
>>45024215
>Forgotten Realms is shit
Yes. Most kitchen sink settings are though admittedly few (RPG ones) manage to be quite as terrible as FR and Galorion.
>>45024215
That's polytheism for you. Stop being an idiot and use more rational religious system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEg_Oys4NkA
>>45026572
>[YouTube] Rational Approach To Divine Origin of Judaism
dude
>>45026590
Watch it. It's eye-opening.
>>45026379
Can hitler delude himself into being lawful good? Jews are neutral evil of course, so by gygax logic their mass slaughter is likely an objectively good act.
>>45026713
If I recall, by DnD logic, it is feasible possible to have a dictator who exterminates evil races and that person be good.
Hitler though would not be good due to a number of other practices, such as slavery, torture and needlessly painful killing, that would be evil.
Hitler though would not because he did a host of other practices that were tortuerous or extreme.
>>45026069
>Kings don't abuse resurrection magic to stay in power indefinitely
Resurrection magic in D&D has never been able to bring back someone who dies of old age. Also there are beings who enforce the inevitability of death, and despite these beings Forgotten Realms does have a few lich potentates who abuse magic to stay in power indefinitely. Other than that you're right though.
