-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KazilDarkeye
Well, their patron deity is evil, and orcs respect the power of their patron deity, so they would try to be as much like him as possible (maybe).
After all, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. That's why there are templates and/or Prestige Classes that make the orc poke out one of their eyes.
I mean, there must be a few Orc tribes who aren't as barbaric, or at least neutral. It could be like the Kuo-Toa, who tend to bend towards Neutral or Good, but are controlled by the Evil whips. Maybe the Orcs just need a deity like the Drow's Eilistraee.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
The demon thing brings up a question though: will a demon commit an act of evil if it means assured destruction and permanent death? Would a demon commit an act of good to save itself from permanent death?
The "always evil" thing just doesn't work, especially for creatures that aren't "the incarnation of pure evil". Are all red dragons jerks? Are all white dragons wild beasts that attack anything that can't obviously kill it? There have to be variations in behavior.
Also, if Eberron is steampunk/dungeonpunk, where's my mecha? Final Fantasy VI has mecha, and it has both less advanced airships and no trains.
Also, any race that gets two penalties to one bonus, like half-orcs or kobolds. They really restrict what you can play, as well as how you play them. All half-orcs are inherently stupid, it seems. Even a smart one is outclassed by a human or better.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Well, they are biologically differnet. Anyway, D&D's morality isn't consequentialist. If a demon does a good act out of selfishness to survive so that they can go on to hurt mroe people, they're not good.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zhalath
The demon thing brings up a question though: will a demon commit an act of evil if it means assured destruction and permanent death? Would a demon commit an act of good to save itself from permanent death?
A demon won't commit an evil act if it will destroy it (maybe a devil will, if it furthers the goals of other devils), and it is possible that it will risk destruction rather than commit an act of good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zhalath
The "always evil" thing just doesn't work, especially for creatures that aren't "the incarnation of pure evil". Are all red dragons jerks?
According to MM, yes.
That doesn't mean that all red dragons have to be evil in your campaign. The monster manual gives you a list of monsters ready to add to your campaign so that you don't have to make them yourself. If evil red dragons don't fit your setting then make them good or neutral, it's your setting after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zhalath
Are all white dragons wild beasts that attack anything that can't obviously kill it? There have to be variations in behavior.
You have to remember that dragons are also highly intelligent beings, they won't just go out on a rampage cause they know such acts will attract the attention of powerful beings that could destroy them.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zhalath
The demon thing brings up a question though: will a demon commit an act of evil if it means assured destruction and permanent death? Would a demon commit an act of good to save itself from permanent death?
Evil is also selfish. If someone does something for purely self-serving reasons, it quite literally can't be an objectively 'good' act.
Actually, can you even name an objectively 'good' act, outside deity worship? Offhand, I can't.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fostire
A demon won't commit an evil act if it will destroy it (maybe a devil will, if it furthers the goals of other devils), and it is possible that it will risk destruction rather than commit an act of good.
It does, of course, depend on whether the fiend has high enough intelligence to realise that the evil act will do it harm. A Lemure would most certainly perish in these circumstances.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Godskook
Evil is also selfish. If someone does something for purely self-serving reasons, it quite literally can't be an objectively 'good' act.
Actually, can you even name an objectively 'good' act, outside deity worship? Offhand, I can't.
Well it's a deontological moral system. If they do a good act out of a sense of duty and with virtuous intentions, then it's good.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Godskook
Actually, can you even name an objectively 'good' act, outside deity worship? Offhand, I can't.
Casting a Good spell is a good act.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Godskook
Evil is also selfish. If someone does something for purely self-serving reasons, it quite literally can't be an objectively 'good' act.
I pulled that in a chat RP, where I was a Sith, protecting Jedi, as it 'served my masters goals'.
Evil may be selfish, but it's not stupid. If Petting the Dog serves that Evil, then that Dog is going to be Petted, appearances be damned. Or even if one feels like it.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ravens_cry
If Petting the Dog serves that Evil, then that Dog is going to be Petted, appearances be damned. Or even if one feels like it.
Wrong animal.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/righthandcat.jpg
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheCountAlucard
Casting a Good spell is a good act.
That comes with the prerequisite of being good, I thought. Either way, how would a Demon have a 'good' spell on his spell list?
@Amesoeurs
Um, bringing virtue into this just muddies the water. Either its a synonym for 'good' or its a list of things that evil-doers can do.(Demons can be patient, for instance. A clean demon rarely leaves clues behind. A courageous demon isn't unimaginable)
Let me rephrase the challenge. Name one 'good' act that a demon can be compelled to do on threat of death.
Deity worship wouldn't work, since no 'good' deity would accept compelled worship, and any contrivance brought up to make that happen would be less believable than the demon's nature to begin with.
(And summoning doesn't work either. See Constantine(the movie) for an explanation)
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheCountAlucard
Casting a Good spell is a good act.
Casting a Good spell for a Good reason is a Good act. If I go around wasting scrolls of holy smite by firing them into empty 5' squares in order to deny an order of good-aligned clerics access to them, then I'm being a jerk.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Amesoeurs
I mean, there must be a few Orc tribes who aren't as barbaric, or at least neutral.
No, I don't think there's a 'must' there. Could be, depending on the campaign, but no compuslion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zhalath
The "always evil" thing just doesn't work, especially for creatures that aren't "the incarnation of pure evil".
Sure it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zhalath
Are all red dragons jerks?
Could be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zhalath
Are all white dragons wild beasts that attack anything that can't obviously kill it?
Unless they're unusually intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zhalath
There have to be variations in behavior.
No, actually there don't.
As I mentioned in the dwarf/elf alignment thread, the above posters are thinking in terms of science fiction, not fantasy. Fantasy is about dream, archetype, overarching meta-reality. You don't need to think about personality deviation among orcs and dragons, they are what they are. Pure evil and pure good don't exist in real life, and they don't either in fiction that emulates real life - even in non-existent settings - but they do in fantasy. That's kind of the point.
Now that can easily lend itself to BAD fantasy and boring, cookie-cutter creatures and settings - you need to have reasons behind things, definitely. Tolkien's monsters were evil because they were created by the Satanic deity Morgoth - either corrupted from other creatures like the orcs, or lesser evil spirits given form like the first dragon. They are motivated by his will, and naturally act out of hate, spite, malice, and greed.
Now you can have a world where all the races are just different species trying to get by in their various ways, and the endless copying of Tolkien and the boredom thereby generated certainly can encourage folks in that direction, but there's no must about it.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
The "break a staff for a retributive strike" thing is straight from Tolkien. Remember the scene in The Hobbit, where they're stuck in the trees with the goblins surrounding them, and Gandalf is planning on jumping down on them to destroy them (and himself)? He was planning on breaking his staff. Until, of course, they got rescued by aquillae ex machina.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Godskook
@Amesoeurs
Um, bringing virtue into this just muddies the water. Either its a synonym for 'good' or its a list of things that evil-doers can do.(Demons can be patient, for instance. A clean demon rarely leaves clues behind. A courageous demon isn't unimaginable)
I was speaking from a Kantian point of view, but in a very poor manner apparently. Kant actually said that, talking about how seemingly admirable traits can be put to bad use in bad people. Being good to him had a lot to do with intention and duty, so it's a real mix of things. I haven't read Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals in a few months and I find his stuff hard to remember, so I can't really elaborate.
Anyway, D&D morals are really deontological, so the idea is there's a set of rules ("do not kill", "do not steal", etc.) that are good and you have to follow those rules in a selfless and honest manner (i.e., you have to tell the truth because telling the truth is good, not because it will get you something, etc.) to constitute being a good person and performing a good act.
You're thinking in a very consequentialist way here, with the idea of the outcome mattering. That's not the way the alignments work, so it's a bad comparison. Saving a puppy is only good if you're doing it without self-interest in mind; saving a puppy out of self-interest is neutral or evil, really.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chronos
The "break a staff for a retributive strike" thing is straight from Tolkien. Remember the scene in The Hobbit, where they're stuck in the trees with the goblins surrounding them, and Gandalf is planning on jumping down on them to destroy them (and himself)? He was planning on breaking his staff. Until, of course, they got rescued by aquillae ex machina.
I KNEW IT! :smallbiggrin:
Wow, original D&D must have been about 90% tolkien, 10% original stuff.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Yeah, what with all the Ents... er... Treants.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dragonsdoom
It does not so much say it as not say it, in that you can dual wield light weapons and it never says fists are a exception.
The better question might be as to why a monk can't two hand his fists and get any form of benefit from it.
Because two fisted blows aren't effective. So it's not a contrivance, it makes sense.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vrellum
Because two fisted blows aren't effective. So it's not a contrivance, it makes sense.
Tell that to James T Kirk!
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sstoopidtallkid
Yes, slings shouldn't be simple, but considering what goes into weilding even a civil-war era gun, let alone one from the 15th century, there's no way they should be martial.
Guns should be simple. That's the only reason people used 15th century guns. They're weren't particulary accurate so they should have an attack penalty I suppose, but they were easy to use. Much easier than a long bow or a sling.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
The Shat is an alumni from my school. We have a building unofficially named after him.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vrellum
Because two fisted blows aren't effective. So it's not a contrivance, it makes sense.
When you dual wield weapons you don't make two attacks at the same time either, but instead you make an attack with your main hand weapon and add a quick second attack with your off hand weapon. So I would say that dual wielding fists makes some sense (although calling it dual wielding sounds weird), you just make a right followed by a quick left*
*I have no fistfighting knowledge whatsoever so I have no idea if this would be an effective way to fight in the first place (not that dual wielding weapons is very effective either)
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragonsdoom
It does not so much say it as not say it, in that you can dual wield light weapons and it never says fists are a exception.
The better question might be as to why a monk can't two hand his fists and get any form of benefit from it.
There's a feat that does that, but it sucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Races Of Faerūn
Hammer Fist [Fighter, General]
You are trained in an unarmed fighting style that emphasizes a
two-handed strike.
Prerequisites: Str 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, dwarf.
Benefit: You add one and a half times your Strength bonus on
your damage when you hit with an unarmed strike. This extra
damage does not apply if you make a flurry of blows attack or if
you are holding anything in either hand. You must use both
hands to make the unarmed attack.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Faleldir
There's a feat that does that, but it sucks.
Dwarf as a requirement?
Why, for heaven's sake?
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Wow, original D&D must have been about 90% tolkien, 10% original stuff.
Actually, it's about 90% from the works of Robert Howard, Jack Vance, Fritz Leiber, and other such pulp fantasy writers, and 10% from Tolkien, but many more people have read Tolkien than those other writers, so we tend to recognize the things that were stolen from him more.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fostire
When you dual wield weapons you don't make two attacks at the same time either, but instead you make an attack with your main hand weapon and add a quick second attack with your off hand weapon. So I would say that dual wielding fists makes some sense (although calling it dual wielding sounds weird), you just make a right followed by a quick left*
*I have no fistfighting knowledge whatsoever so I have no idea if this would be an effective way to fight in the first place (not that dual wielding weapons is very effective either)
We're not talking about the same thing.
Me: wielding a weapon in with two hands
You: weilding two weapons.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonestheSpy
As I mentioned in the dwarf/elf alignment thread, the above posters are thinking in terms of science fiction, not fantasy. Fantasy is about dream, archetype, overarching meta-reality. You don't need to think about personality deviation among orcs and dragons, they are what they are. Pure evil and pure good don't exist in real life, and they don't either in fiction that emulates real life - even in non-existent settings - but they do in fantasy. That's kind of the point.
No.
Just because it is fantasy doesn't mean that a stupiud, overtly simplified system of morals is obligatory, or even desirable. Fantasy entails no licence to insult other people's - or your own- intelligence, fantasy is no excuse to insult anybody's intelligence, and certainly fantasy doesn't need to insult anybody's intelligence. Contrived, overtly simple black and white morals are a problem as soon as the involved party refuse to stop thinking about these mind-numbing stupid concepts. The fact that most D&D modules are not targeted on such an averagely intelligent audience throws a bad light on the expectations of the authors towards the players.
It is bad enough that enough people accept that crap but that is no justification to call it a virtue.
Good fantasy is potentially more complex, diiferentiated and unpredicatable as the real world, as there is no reason why anything happened in history could not happen in a fantasy world, in addition to the supernatural events and influences typical for the setting.
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zhalath
The demon thing brings up a question though: will a demon commit an act of evil if it means assured destruction and permanent death? Would a demon commit an act of good to save itself from permanent death?
The "always evil" thing just doesn't work, especially for creatures that aren't "the incarnation of pure evil". Are all red dragons jerks? Are all white dragons wild beasts that attack anything that can't obviously kill it? There have to be variations in behavior.
You can say they are the incarnation of these concepts. A demon naturally "borns" tainted by evil, because of it's own nature, and the place it was created.
And a smart demon would commit a good act to save himself (would still be a selfish reason), like when Lobo and Etrigan (DC Comics) had to destroy some huge demon to save themselves (and that's because they killed the creature meant to destroy the demon, for fun). In the same way, a demon won't do something that may destroy him (unless he really, REALLY want to commit the evil act).
Finally, "always evil" means that the majority of societies of said creatures is evil, but that doesn't exclude a single character from being different sometimes. There's even an official D&D computer game with a puritan succubus (Torment, I think).
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Zhalath
Also, if Eberron is steampunk/dungeonpunk, where's my mecha? Final Fantasy VI has mecha, and it has both less advanced airships and no trains.
Here you go:
http://dragonwing.net/Doom_Striders.htm
and while we're at it:
http://dragonwing.net/Airships.htm
-
Re: Ridiculous D&D contrivances
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheCountAlucard
Casting a Good spell is a good act.
Can you show the RAW for that?
I've heard it said before but I've never seen anything RAW to back it yp. The most I've seen is that Evil can't cast "Good" spells and visa versa, but that's different from "casting good spells is good".
Stephen E