Alignment

[m7600]

If I believe in Gaia, am I deluded? Yes, most definitely.

Agree or disagree?

 

[m7600]

To phrase it in Borgean terms:

If God created Nature, who created God? An Overgod created God. And, in this example, that Overgod is not Nature, but Gaia.

Edit: Though one could argue that if I believe in Gaia, then I also have to believe what Hesiod says in his Theogony, that before there was Gaia, there were other entities, and that in the beginning there was Chaos (Xaos). That's what the Muses told him, Hesiod, according to his "autobiography", if you want to call it that. I think it's much more plausible to suppose that he ate a sample of Amanita muscaria or some other mind-altering drug. But then we would have to discuss if coffee is technically a drug, yes or no, Straight-Edge or no Straight-Edge, To Be or Not to Be, etc. And we've already climbed up that rabbit hole a few pages ago, so let's not go down that one again, because trust me, I've been down that one and there's nothing down there that makes any sense.

 

[m7600]

You know what? I'll just publish a book called "Wormholes of Sense: A Cosmic Romance", I'll price it really steep, content-wise it will be some garbage written by an A.I., then I'll find an unscrupulous publisher to publish it, then an unscrupulous marketing team to build hype for it, etc.

Nah, fuck that, I was being ironic. I'd never fall that low. If you fall that low, you're morally corrupted IRL, from my perspective. To use a metaphor, you're probably Neutral on the Good-Neutral-Evil axis in the D&D Alignment chart.

 

[JustKneller]

So, this friend of mine who wants to play the Chaotic Evil Anti-Paladin, sometimes GMs and he's quite good at it, actually. Like, not assholeish at all as a DM, he's just an asshole as a player, lol.

Fair enough, but if the GM role is rotating, there's no need to pander to shitty play choices. As someone who's been the GM chair, he should know better than to make the GM's (kinda shit) job harder. What if you split it down the middle and ask him if he could just not be "that guy"?

 

[m7600]

he should know better than to make the GM's (kinda shit) job harder.

That's his concept of "fun". That's what he has fun doing. That's what he's at our table for, it's what he expects from it. It's what he signed up for when he decided to play D&D.

What if you split it down the middle and ask him if he could just not be "that guy"?

But he is "that guy"! As a player, the dude is just like that. As a GM, he's not like that at all. And in other spheres of his life, he's not like that either. He's just one of those players that like to test the game's mechanics and take them to their breaking point. I can't say I fault him, he does have a point.

 

[m7600]

So, here's what I told him. I said, OK, you can make a Chaotic Evil Anti-Paladin if you want. But your character has brain damage. There's no other way to explain your life choices in terms of morals and ethics. Minsc has brain damage, so do you. Go argue the point with TSR. End of story.

EDIT: "but TSR don't exist no more, bruh."
My reply to that would be: Well, duh.

 

[JustKneller]

He's just one of those players that like to test the game's mechanics and take them to their breaking point. I can't say I fault him, he does have a point.

I think I'm more concerned with the Chaotic Evil anti-paladin thing. But even still, it's a tabletop roleplaying game, not an elaborately crafted simulation. I think trying to roughhouse with rpg mechanics is like getting into a boxing match with a puppy. You're going to win, it's no big deal. You're a more tolerant person than I am, that's for sure I've been at tables with "that guy", and I've always left.

So, here's what I told him. I said, OK, you can make a Chaotic Evil Anti-Paladin if you want. But your character has brain damage. There's no other way to explain your life choices in terms of morals and ethics. Minsc has brain damage, so do you. Go argue the point with TSR. End of story.

lol...sounds about right.

 

[m7600]

You're going to win, it's no big deal.

Ah, but you see, to me it is indeed a big deal. That part of the game, I would argue, is "real" to me in some unspecified sense. I'm a philosopher, Trust Me Bruh.

I think I'm more concerned with the Chaotic Evil anti-paladin thing.

How so? It's just a Fallen Paladin. Think of it like he's a Fallen Angel, that sorta deal. Or think of Dorn from the Baldur's Gate saga from the Enhanced Edition Infinity Engine games. It's not a big deal, it's kind of dumb actually.

You're a more tolerant person than I am, that's for sure

Am I? Honestly, I'm not so sure. I think you're far more tolerant than me. I can very, very intolerant. I see that as a flaw about myself, though.

I've been at tables with "that guy", and I've always left.

So have I. But I've found that Pathfinder specifically, allows for someone to be "that guy" and still keep it fun. Everything is broken in Pathfinder, in terms of mechanics. It's like a Fairy Land. But with blood, and war, and death. It's super in-your-face. Way better than 5th Edition D&D, no doubt about it.

 

[m7600]

I've found that Pathfinder specifically, allows for someone to be "that guy" and still keep it fun. Everything is broken in Pathfinder, in terms of mechanics. It's like a Fairy Land. But with blood, and war, and death. It's super in-your-face.

Allow me to elaborate on that. When I'm playing D&D, I feel like I'm a scene from Game of Thrones (I hate Game of Thrones BTW). When I'm playing Pathfinder I feel like I'm in the middle of a Civil War. It's super distressing. Yet, ultimately, I prefer the Pathfinder experience over the D&D experience. The latter started to go downhill with Fourth Edition, and then it went further downhill with Fifth Edition. I'd rather play Pathfinder.

Edit: Note to self, a possible spin-off to "Pathfinder" could be "Rabbit Hole Finder", or "Wormhole Finder" but that just sounds stupid, so no.

 

[JustKneller]

How so? It's just a Fallen Paladin. Think of it like he's a Fallen Angel, that sorta deal.

Chaotic Evil is never a good player choice. Like, I've never heard someone said, "My player chose Chaotic Evil and they game is going really well."

But I've found that Pathfinder specifically, allows for someone to be "that guy" and still keep it fun. Everything is broken in Pathfinder, in terms of mechanics.

I only played it once for two or three sessions. In the last session, the whole session was a 4 hour combat encounter and that's it. It wasn't even the big bad. It was just some hobgoblins or some shit. What a brutal slog. I swore off pathfinder after that.

So, is Pathfinder broken in different ways that 5e is broken? Aside from a bit of 3.5, those few sessions of Pathfinder, and two sessions of one of the fifth editions (like Next or One or something like that), I haven't really delved deep into WotC's "vision". I usually just dust off some B/X when I want to scratch that D&D itch (which is odd because I learned on AD&D 2e).

 

[JustKneller]

"Wormhole Finder"

I'm sure it's coming. Wormholefinder will be their futuristic space d20 game.

 

[m7600]

Chaotic Evil is never a good player choice. Like, I've never heard someone said, "My player chose Chaotic Evil and they game is going really well."

That's what I told him as a GM, but he just argued back: "Well I'm a GM too sometimes, Trust Me Bruh.". So I said, you know what? Ok. But your character has brain damage. That's your background. There's no way to explain your life choices from a rational point of view. You're stupid, you have brain damage. That's your character's background, non-negotiable.

What a brutal slog.

But that's my point, people today expect that from the game. From Pathfinder, specifically, that's why they play it, that's the hook. Trust Me Bruh, remember like way back in the day, people used to play the old Gold Box video games, those were brutal slogs in a far more unpleasant way, let's not act like we don't know all of this stuff already.

So, is Pathfinder broken in different ways that 5e is broken?

Fifth Edition D&D is broken from a roleplaying and ideological POV. Pathfinder, on the other hand, is mechanically broken. Like, it's at the level of the rules themselves. It's the perfect intellectual gateway drug for burned-out D&D GMs. That's how I see it, at least. Back in the day, they had Planescape for that, and to a lesser (but much more intriguing) extent, Spelljammer and Dark Sun, among others.

I haven't really delved deep into WotC's "vision"

They don't have one. It's like, yay, we're an entertainment corporation, let's all have some fun and let's get that bread y'all.

I usually just dust off some B/X when I want to scratch that D&D itch (which is odd because I learned on AD&D 2e).

Whatever suits your fancy on such intellectual fronts. I just prefer to play old video games.

 

[JustKneller]

From Pathfinder, specifically, that's why they play it, that's the hook.

This, I don't understand. It's like, let's take the biggest weakness from D&D and lean into that.

It's the perfect intellectual gateway drug for burned-out D&D GMs.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that burnt out GMs may gravitate towards Pathfinder because of its pedantry? It must be brutal to build an adventure/campaign for it. Why would a burnt out GM take that on? I would think a burnt out GM would pick something fluffy like Dungeon World. Paperweight system and player-driven? You don't need to even prep anything. Just let the players have a story wank and corrale them when they go too far off the rails. I mean, it's crap game design, but super low effort to run/play.

way back in the day, people used to play the old Gold Box video games, those were brutal slogs in a far more unpleasant way, let's not act like we don't know all of this stuff already.

lol...wow, blast from the past. I never actually played them, surprisingly. Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior/Quest already existed so that's the direction I went.

 

[m7600]

It must be brutal to build an adventure/campaign for it. Why would a burnt out GM take that on?

Yeah, that's why our campaigns have very few adventures, usually 2 or 3. For example, the player that made the CE Anti-Paladin, ran a campaign as a GM that lasted only two sessions. In the first one, the adventuring party met a farmer, who told them to go clear a giant anthill of literal Ant Lions (think giant ants with an actual lion's mane, that's something that he added to those monsters as a GM, it's like, I'm just gonna be stupid about their name, "Ant Lions"). We entered the anthill (the "Dungeon", if you will), fought a first wave of them, went further into the anthill, fought a second wave of ants including a mini-boss, and then we went into the main chamber and we killed the Ant Queen. Then we looted her chamber, went back to talk to the NPC, quest finished, went back to town to sell the stuff that we looted, and then rested at the tavern. And that's it, that's the adventure. It has no depth whatsoever in roleplaying terms or even in storytelling terms. It's just baseline mechanics. Well, that Anthill adventure took us about 4 hours in total. It's just mindless gaming, but we kinda play it on auto-pilot and just talk about IRL stuff and make jokes while we play the game. Does that make sense to you?

Are you saying that burnt out GMs may gravitate towards Pathfinder because of its pedantry?

No, it's because Pathfinder feels more like Torchlight than Baldur's Gate, if that makes any sense. It's more "mindless", which is why you can play it on auto-pilot while you talk about other stuff while playing it.

 

[JustKneller]

Yeah, that's why our campaigns have very few adventures, usually 2 or 3.

Oh, wow, I wasn't aware. I usually aim to do campaigns from level 1 to max (basically level 14 for B/X). That would be a long-ass time to deal with an anti-paladin.

No, it's because Pathfinder feels more like Torchlight than Baldur's Gate, if that makes any sense. It's more "mindless", which is why you can play it on auto-pilot while you talk about other stuff while playing it.

I think I get it. So, with everything getting a CR and encounter design being basically a formula, you (the GM) don't have to deal with much ruling (and therefore table faff) in play. I imagine it's still a fair bit of prep work, though, but I've never done it so I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[m7600]

Oh, wow, I wasn't aware. I usually aim to do campaigns from level 1 to max (basically level 14 for B/X). That would be a long-ass time to deal with an anti-paladin.

Yeah, I said I wouldn't spend even half a year on an Evil campaign just for the stupid Evil characters that my players invented. We have several campaigns going on at the same time. There's the group's official campaign, run by our official GM, but that's paused right now, because he had a change in his RL work schedule. Then there's a campaign per player, because the GM role is rotating between the players. And since we rotate weekly, it's someone else's campaign most of the time. So, what I'm saying is, I'm not even willing to play 3 or even 2 sessions of an Evil campaign, even if we distribute it in six months. I'll just see how Session One goes. It's gonna be trash, probably.

I think I get it. So, with everything getting a CR and encounter design being basically a formula, you (the GM) don't have to deal with much ruling (and therefore table faff) in play.

Yep, exactly. Ruling is kinda on auto-pilot as well, so that frees up a lot of tasks for the GM as well as the players.

I imagine it's still a fair bit of prep work

It is. Right now I'm trying to find some official Paizo module for the Evil campaign that my players want to play, but I can't find anything decent, and I don't want to make up something unbalanced or nonsensical.

I've never done it so I don't know what I'm talking about.

Well, think of it like a group of friends that play cards every Friday in the basement, it's basically just that. We're just playing some numbers and talking about dumb things at the same time.

 

[BelgarathMTH]

So, I guess the basic philosophical question at the base of this discussion is the following one:

What is Alignment?

It's hard to say. Here's what I believe:

1) The Good-Neutral-Evil axis is the moral part.
2) The Law-Neutral-Chaos axis is the ethical part.

Together, they entail something, but I'm not quite sure what that would be. An ontology? A metaphysics? A bunch of religions? Polytheism?

Ok, let's go with that last riff, "Polytheism". Is that how one would describe D&D's Cosmogony and Cosmology? I'm not so sure. Remember that in D&D, unlike real life, there are Overgods. By definition, those are not gods. Think of Lord Ao, for example, or The Lady of Pain, or The Highlord, or Thoon. Those are not deities. They're something above the concept of a god. So what would you call those, @BelgarathMTH ? What real world analogy could one even establish between those D&D Overgods and some counterpart in the religions and spiritual beliefs that real world people have? Is Nature, for example, an Overgod by definition? As in, Gaia. I would argue (hypothetically) that if Jesus is God, then Gaia is an Over-"God". Does that make sense to you?

Well, I'd call Ao or any "overgod" in a polytheistic setting just another god that's more powerful than the others. Zeus in Greek myth was supposed to be more powerful than all the other gods combined. Ao enforces certain principles and restrictions that are necessary to keep the other Forgotten Realms gods from destroying each other and the universe along with them. He has no interactions with mortals. Your interpretation and your mileage may vary.

As far as Christianity and Gaia, if I'm wearing my Christian theologian hat, I'd say that Gaia is just another polytheistic deity who doesn't exist, being an attempt by the pagans to solve the problem of infinite regress of causation. Then I'd point you to Thomas Aquinas and start talking about how God is the thing that can cause itself. And if you're confused about how Jesus can be God if only God is God, I'd have to start digging up the history of Trinitarian doctrine in the Christian church and talking about how a Triune God is still one God.

But I don't really care to do any of that, not anymore.

When I was younger and studying theology and philosophy formally, I loved to get into involved discussions about this kind of thing. Now that I'm in the latter quarter of my life, I've moved beyond wanting or needing to go into it for a deep dive. After half a lifetime studying theology and philosophy, the one that wound up doing the most for me was Buddhism. So I developed a Buddhist sense of detachment from the ebb and flow of ideas and thought, and I learned that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I made peace with leaving things at that. I don't know. I'll probably never know. I'm at peace with that.

I thought about just not posting anymore in this thread, and I probably won't after this, but I felt like it would be rude to not respond at least once, since you responded to my objection to mixing real-life theology and fantasy seriously and thoughtfully.

Namaste.

 

[m7600]

I developed a Buddhist sense of detachment from the ebb and flow of ideas and thought, and I learned that "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Is it, though? You're basically agreeing with Socrates and with the ancient Skeptics, like Pyrrho. But I would argue that we, human beings, know many things. So, to say "I don't know" in an unrestricted sense, is factually false. If you mean to say it in a restricted sense (i.e., I don't know what's inside the core of the Earth because I've never seen it with my own eyes), then I would say that it depends. Sometimes it's true, sometimes it's false. It depends on the circumstances under consideration. Think of it like the statement "Today is Thursday": it's true when it's Thursday, and it's false when it's not Thursday.

I made peace with leaving things at that. I don't know. I'll probably never know. I'm at peace with that.

Ok. That's the most important part, I would say, from a Peirce-ian point of view. It doesn't mean that you're right, though. It's like, you're living right by living like that, but some of your beliefs are mistaken, because they're like the statement "Today is Thursday", their truth value is contingent: sometimes they're true, sometimes they're false, depending on the occasion.

I felt like it would be rude to not respond at least once

I don't mind. I don't care for such things. The only feelings that I care about are the ones that improve our civic virtues as human beings. Rudeness is more of an aesthetic thing from my POV. It has no positive or negative effect on the improvement of one's civic virtues.

 

[JustKneller]

It is. Right now I'm trying to find some official Paizo module for the Evil campaign that my players want to play, but I can't find anything decent, and I don't want to make up something unbalanced or nonsensical.

I get it now. So Pathfinder is good for GMs because they can buy one of the many modules, not have to really do prep work, and then just follow the bouncing ball in actual play. You don't have to actually build anything, you just buy more Pathfinder stuff.

Well, then, that makes sense.

 

[m7600]

It's a good business model. Dude, the publisher is Paizo. Pathfinder is almost mainstream if you think about it. It literally competes with WotC's D&D, and it usually outperforms it.