Results 1,081 to 1,110 of 1495
-
2012-11-09, 04:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Location
- <<Undetected>>
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Blank 3.5 Character Creator Iron Chef Style Tables (in Google Sheets)
Chairman Emeritus of Zinc Saucier.
Avatar by Derjuin, sing her praises to Elysium.
-
2012-11-09, 04:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-11-09, 05:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Location
- <<Undetected>>
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Blank 3.5 Character Creator Iron Chef Style Tables (in Google Sheets)
Chairman Emeritus of Zinc Saucier.
Avatar by Derjuin, sing her praises to Elysium.
-
2012-11-09, 05:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-11-10, 12:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
-
2012-11-10, 08:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
-
2012-11-10, 08:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
For the most part this is because the GM isn't enforcing penalties for violating your alignment. In my campaign, anyone who wants to call themselves Good had better be prepared to take most of their enemies (not things like undead or demons, but anything that could theoretically be innocent or redeemable) prisoner, not kill them. So removing an item to make an opponent less dangerous, without permanently harming them, fits right in. The fact that most GMs will allow you to call yourself Good and then kill everything that moves is...well, I'd better not launch into a full rant or I'll wind up breaking the TOS. Suffice to say I don't approve.
-
2012-11-10, 08:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
It's really quite hard to non-lethally disable someone who is attempting to lethally disable you. There is a reason the law allows the definition of "reasonable force" in self defence to progress all the way up to lethal force - because sometimes - and in the case of your classic adventurer, most of the time - it really is kill or be killed.Quotebox
Avatar by Rain Dragon
Wish building characters for D&D 3.5 was simpler? Try HeroForge Anew! An Excel-based, highly automated character builder. v7.4 now out!
-
2012-11-10, 08:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Right, so if the Good adventurer is down to his last 10 or 20 hit points (depending on class), he can probably justifiably say that he had no choice but to Power Attack his assailant into negatives for his own safety. But if the fight was just starting and he had like 80 HP (and no reason to suspect the opponent could throw a death attack or something similarly unstoppable), he probably shouldn't be attacking to kill at that point. It would be if the police raided a drug lab and shot everyone there on sight just in case one of them might reach for a bunsen burner and a tank of gas; the police department would have one heck of a lawsuit on their hands.
-
2012-11-10, 09:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
It's not quite the same situation, because IRL our offensive capability far exceeds our defensive capability. A single shot is enough to kill someone IRL, so you need to be very careful (and people are far more likely to just surrender if you win initiative). In game, a single shot isn't going to kill them unless they're vastly lower level than you, or you're vastly optimised. And in a struggle between equals, you need to match or exceed your enemy's force level or you'll lose.
Last edited by Heliomance; 2012-11-10 at 09:11 AM.
Quotebox
Avatar by Rain Dragon
Wish building characters for D&D 3.5 was simpler? Try HeroForge Anew! An Excel-based, highly automated character builder. v7.4 now out!
-
2012-11-10, 10:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
I generally agree with the overall problem that, by modern morals and ethics the alignment system is completely useless. I am not going into the whole problem about alignment here, as this would probably consume ALL space in the GITP server.
Morals change over time and are very different from one area to another. They are very flexible. IRL example: Is slavery evil? yes! Was Tomas Jefferson (one of the founding fathers of the US) a good person? most would say, yes. Yet he owned hundreds of slaves... oh....
What is good and what is evil cannot be judged without context. In the context of the modern western world where almost everyone lives in relative safety and does not need to worry (much) if they will see food this week it is easy to be a good person. But when the only thing between you and death by freezing is the warm blanket of your best friend, morals become more... fluid.
The standard D&D world is very unforgiving. A commoner makes almost nothing, and still needs to grow some of his or her own food to survive (yes i know, and the cleric down the road could cast create food and water all day long). The 'justice' system is some good cities might as well employ as many executioners as prison guards, if the crooks actually surrender at all; and given that they know that they will most likely die anyway, they more often then not take their chances in battle (Wrecked Ashore, p.10)
In most games I play, and all that i run, the alignment system is more of a RP element then a hard set rule. Nothing is changed, spells still work the same, and you need a really good rp reason for ignoring class restrictions.
But i am not telling my PCs how to play their game! that's what is is after all, their game.
-
2012-11-10, 01:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2005
- Location
- 61.2° N, 149.9° W
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
The alignments have been dysfunctional since the beginning of AD&D.
I prefer to just chuck them overboard and substitute magical auras (Light, Dark, Order, Chaos) that map to alignments but have no ability to screw up the RP. Of course I also insist that divine classes actually worship something divine, a god or something similar. I am highly offended by lawful good clerics who worship the cause of "being nice to little kids" and get the Death and Destruction domains from it.
-
2012-11-10, 01:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Considering that your 2 chosen domains are supposed to in some way correlate to your cause, that isnt supposed to happen. If your cause is being nice to kids, then you should be restricted to the Artifice, Creation, Good, and Nobility domains.
The absorbing Spell Energy Rules of Magic of Faerun state that you may use any action to ready the absorb, not just a standard action. This means that with a high enough Con, there is a person who can beat the Mailman.My Homebrew: found here.
When you Absolutely, Positively, Gotta Drop some Huge rocks, Accept NO Substitutes
PM Me if you would like a table from my homebrew reconstructed.
Drow avatar @ myself
-
2012-11-10, 02:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
I just read all 37 pages of this thread. What am I doing with my life? As for alignments, I always figured that they were screwy because the Gods wanted them to be screwy, as the Gods represent ideals. I mean, if spells like Detect Law/Chaos/Good/Evil exist, doesn't that mean its because the Gods and the Forces That Be are quite arbitrary?
-
2012-11-10, 02:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Originally Posted by willpell
Links to relevant passages in the SRD, or page references in the Rules Compendium, would be appreciated in your reply. Thanks.
-
2012-11-10, 03:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Oregon
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Guess who's good at avatars? Thormag. That's who.
A Campaign Setting more than a year in the making, Patria!
-
2012-11-10, 03:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
From SRD:
Alignment is a tool for developing your character’s identity. It is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
-
2012-11-10, 03:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Location
- Baator
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
The following quote comes from the SRD, a little after the straitjacket section.
Good Vs. Evil
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
"Good" implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
"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. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
Being good or evil can be a conscious choice. For most people, though, being good or evil is an attitude that one recognizes but does not choose. Being neutral on the good-evil axis usually represents a lack of commitment one way or the other, but for some it represents a positive commitment to a balanced view. While acknowledging that good and evil are objective states, not just opinions, these folk maintain that a balance between the two is the proper place for people, or at least for them.
We use a tick-tock system (1-5 Pos / 6-10 Neutral / 9-15 Neg) for G-N-E and L-N-C axes very similar to Political Compass. Do a neg action on the cartesian x-y axis, get a tock. Do a positive action, get a tick. So Robin Hood (CG) might be displayed as Robin Hood C (12) G (3).Last edited by ravagerofworlds; 2012-11-10 at 03:58 PM.
[pointing a gun at Optimus Prime's head]
Megatron: I would have waited an eternity for this. It's over, Prime.
-
2012-11-10, 04:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Actually I remember a couple of Dragon Magazine flaws (for Lawful and Good characters only) that do just that. One requires you to properly issue a challenge before attacking something; another gives you a penalty for attacking creatures of the opposite sex; another gives you a penalty for fighting an unarmed creature.
Of course, that's not core rules, or mandatory in any way, so this isn't exactly pertinent.Jude P.
-
2012-11-10, 05:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Even LG characters can still run the spectrum, as each diety has different ideals. "Paladins, Lawful Good, and violent about it" is a lot different from a wandering priest who helps who he can, or go right the other end of the spectrum and grab a Disciple of Peace.
The portfolio of a a worshiped Deity can drastically change what is considered acceptable behavior. A LG worshipper of Thor, and a LG Worshipper of Pelor are going to have vastly different outlooks.
Anyone with a War domain is going to be more accepting of a violent solution, and that's just the easiest way that the varying priorities of a Deity could change someones outlook.A man once asked me the difference between Ignorance and Apathy. I told him, "I don't know, and I don't care"
-
2012-11-10, 09:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
How did this thread turn into an alignment debate?
Look, every source that talks about alignment in D&D agrees that Good holds Mercy as one of its highest virtues. However, they also talk about violence in a Good context. Yes, a Good character should be prepared to spare an enemy that has surrendered and offer them fair treatment and fair quarter. But none - zero - of those sources say that Good characters need to deliberately hold back at all times when fighting Evil or defending the innocent. When heading into a hostile situation like a bandit camp, a dungeon, an evil temple, whatever, a Good character can reasonably expect that his enemies are going to fight to kill and that he needs to do the same. If a Good character chooses to put himself at risk by choosing not to do that, that's on him - but most adventurers have party members or innocent hostages to worry about as well.
The Player's Handbook defines good as being altruistic, kind, respectful of life and concerned with the dignity of sapient beings - even Good's enemies. Yes, not killing one's enemies is a Good thing to do, but that doesn't make killing them evil by default. Why did you kill this person? How? Are they a person to you or just an obstacle? Did you kill them out of hate or to prevent further evil? These questions help define what a Good alignment means in the context of D&D's incredibly deadly world.
And those are my two cents.
-
2012-11-10, 10:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
"It doesn't matter how much you struggle or strive,
You'll never get out of life alive,
So please kill yourself and save this land,
And your last mission is to spread my command,"
Slightly adapted quote from X-Fusion, Please Kill Yourself
-
2012-11-10, 10:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2010
- Location
- London, EU
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
π = 4
Consider a 5' radius blast: this affects 4 squares which have a circumference of 40' — Actually it's worse than that.
Completely Dysfunctional Handbook
Warped Druid Handbook
Avatar by Caravaggio
-
2012-11-11, 12:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
There's also the fact that in your typical D&D setting violence, even lethal applications of it, is generally considered a more acceptable solution, and is used sooner. The Mayor of Random Thorp Twenty-Seven never hires you to arrest the local Goblin marauders, he just wants them dead.
Most actions of an adventuring party are downright barbaric by today's standards, but by the setting are typical and expected.
Morals are relative to the community judging them.A man once asked me the difference between Ignorance and Apathy. I told him, "I don't know, and I don't care"
-
2012-11-11, 12:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Here's to me part of the difference. First of all you are assuming that the PCs know in character how many hitpoints they have and how much damage the enemy can deal. If we assume that they should also know that enemies can and will critical from time to time which can result in a near instant kill if say the enemy is a scythe wielding cultist or a greataxe wielding orc.
Furthermore even if we don't assume that are you saying that they have to attempt to apprehend enemies even when they are actively trying to kill them? If an enemy surrenders then yes a good character is entirely beholden to allow them to live even if it is just until their trial and execution, and killing someone in cold blood after surrender is grounds for an alignment change. However if you're saying that even in the middle of a life or death fight you are required to apprehend rather than kill I see no reason that the principle shouldn't apply to undead as well, even in core we have an example of undead that aren't evil (ghost) but as undead they detect as evil regardless. For all you know you're killing the all important tomb guardian mummy who is trying to keep the a demon lord imprisoned within his pyramid. Personally for me if the PCs killed just a guardian after he tried to violently attack them/drive them away, I might consider their actions stupid or ill informed but no evil. They would only be evil if they consiously knew "hey this mummy is guarding the tomb and is just trying to scare us away, we should kill him to loot it". Misunderstandings even lethal ones happen and they aren't an indicative of someone's alignment because they're accidents. The only time I would consider them evil is if someone had a history of willful neglect.
-
2012-11-11, 02:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
- Location
- Dromund Kaas
- Gender
-
2012-11-11, 02:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2007
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
-
2012-11-11, 04:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
"Ideal" and "Screwy" are pretty nearly opposites. I know that some players like to run with Gods in the Greek mold who are spoiled and petty at the best of times, and still call them Good, but I don't accept that in my game. To me, your ability to live up to your alignment is determined by your power, the options you command; if you have the ability to wound, knock out, or capture someone, and you choose to kill them instead because it's marginally more convenient, you are Not Good IMO. And gods by definition are incredibly powerful, so they have even less excuse for not serving the greatest possible good with all their might. There may be some disagreement on the particulars, of course, but in general I take a very dim view of any situation that's at all arguable.
The RAW are dysfunctional; that's the whole point of this thread. Those penalties should exist, but Wizards didn't pay to create them, so they must be adjudicated on the spot by a DM. And that's exactly what I'm liable to do in my game.
You quote one section as "proof" while ignoring dozens of other sections which serve as equal "proof" in the other direction. "The following statement is true. The preceding statement was false." If you quote only part of that extremely simple system of rules, you completely change the meaning conveyed by the whole.
Okay, so what happens when your character puts on a cursed Helm of Opposite Alignment and is forced to roleplay his character exactly the opposite way that he normally would allow? Or when a spellcaster casts Morality Undone to make you Evil, forcing you to behave accordingly? "Alignment is only a guideline" DOES NOT WORK according to the rules. It is prescriptive, not merely descriptive, even if the opposite should be true.
This sounds like a very neat idea, albeit an excessive amount of work.
And thus he is Not Good. Or at least not aware that goblins are sentient creature with their own culture, who are just trying to survive and have as much right to do so as humans. No doubt he's bought into the propaganda spewed by Lawful Neutral human-supremacist clerics who claim to be Good and sponsor murderous "Paladins" to promote the ideal that the greater Good is to kill Always Chaotic Evil enemies on sight, but the entire thing is really a long-term ploy of a deep-cover Lawful Evil diabolic agent, who is working to corrupt the very definition of Law to be more Evil-compatible and break the faith of the Good by turning them into xenophobic killers, keeping agents of Good busy killing each other while Evil advances various schemes which result inevitably in its complete domination.
Morals are relative to the community judging them.
If it is at all feasible for them to do so, then yes. Their superiors will question them after the battle on whether all those fatalities are strictly necessary, and whether the diplomatic consequences and the probability of continuing racial tensions and so forth are all worthwhile. You can't just think about the orc you kill today; you have to think of the great-grand-children of his third cousin twice removed five thousand miles away, who may receive a vision from Gruumsh saying that a young orc who was destined to someday become a great unifier to his people was once callously murdered by a racist human paladin who is even today still hailed as a hero, and therefore the orc race has an obligation to wipe out the evil humans which he is now charged with achieving. Actions have consequences, and being Good and/or Lawful is all about figuring out how those consequences will affect you in the future.
This is one of the most glaring failures in the rules. Many undead have no particular reason to be Evil; I'm particularly fond of the example of a Holy sword which inflicts negative levels on anyone Evil who wields it - and if you die of negative levels, you immediately rise as a Wight! So a Good weapon can kill an Evil person and turn them into an Undead, which will detect as Evil. And an Unholy weapon will kill a Good person and turn them into an Undead, which will also detect as evil. The bottom line is that the rules are screwy.
If it was legitimately a mistake, sure I'll forgive it. But the entire default murderhobo paradigm counts as "a history of willful neglect" IMO, and I'm not shy about showing in-game how wrong it can go.
-
2012-11-11, 07:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Originally Posted by willpell
-
2012-11-11, 07:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Location
- <<Undetected>>
- Gender
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Found as a result of golem manual research in the Simple Q/A Thread:
Originally Posted by Clay golem
Originally Posted by Iron golem
Originally Posted by Stone golemLast edited by mattie_p; 2012-11-11 at 07:53 AM.
Blank 3.5 Character Creator Iron Chef Style Tables (in Google Sheets)
Chairman Emeritus of Zinc Saucier.
Avatar by Derjuin, sing her praises to Elysium.