Post by Eioin Boughsinger on Feb 14, 2018 20:46:06 GMT -6
I really don't understand what has brought all of this on as of late? What has been the issue driving this need to codify?
I absolutely disagree that 'revenge killing is always evil'. I can bring chapter-and-verse to counter argue. Premeditated killing? Perhaps. But 'revenge'?
Euthyphro dilemma : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
The Punisher's Alignment : ordinary-gentlemen.com/2016/03/23/the-punishers-alignment/
So using the last gaming session as an example, am I to understand the rule above means that Jarrick's decision to engage in combat, to chase after and ultimately hunt down and kill a creature with a final, dramatic way was an 'evil' act?
Further that the decisions I took as a player guiding Jarrick's actions, taken after Jarrick has already fought previously and one which tried to kill him; a creature which had gone on a rampage and killed non-combatants while destroying a building (with the potential of setting an entire city ablaze) for what Jarrick believes were political reasons; that destroying an individual who was clearly capable to doing similar dangerous acts in the immediate future; was an evil act as it falls under your one-size-fits-all ruling, "Revenge killing is always evil, no questions asked and this ruling is firm."
I cannot disagree more vehemently. Jarrick's actions are and have consistently been definitively Chaotic-Good including in the immediate aftermath of the killing by among others, the description of Chaotic-Good alignment found in the 2nd Ed. Player's Handbook; "Chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society."
Finally, I would argue absolute, firm, unyielding, black-or-white, rules-laws-judgements are a sort of evil in-and-of themselves. "You're a jew. Get on the train." In a more recent turn of events, look at what mandatory sentencing laws have done.
To me AD&D currently IS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN a story driven game from the imagination. The story is paramount over dice rolling and the incessant need to have everything broken down to numbers and advancing hit points, statistics, etc. is a detriment to the core of the game. It is not a zero-sum game, unless you're a player who is zero sum. Good luck with that player.
Double-dog Finally... if this ENTIRE detour into the religious law courts is due to behavior of a 'PLAYER(S)' I would suggest it be discussed and directed with the player. I've never been a fan of encumbering the many due to the actions of a few.
But hey... That's me. And I suck.
I absolutely disagree that 'revenge killing is always evil'. I can bring chapter-and-verse to counter argue. Premeditated killing? Perhaps. But 'revenge'?
Euthyphro dilemma : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
The Punisher's Alignment : ordinary-gentlemen.com/2016/03/23/the-punishers-alignment/
So using the last gaming session as an example, am I to understand the rule above means that Jarrick's decision to engage in combat, to chase after and ultimately hunt down and kill a creature with a final, dramatic way was an 'evil' act?
Further that the decisions I took as a player guiding Jarrick's actions, taken after Jarrick has already fought previously and one which tried to kill him; a creature which had gone on a rampage and killed non-combatants while destroying a building (with the potential of setting an entire city ablaze) for what Jarrick believes were political reasons; that destroying an individual who was clearly capable to doing similar dangerous acts in the immediate future; was an evil act as it falls under your one-size-fits-all ruling, "Revenge killing is always evil, no questions asked and this ruling is firm."
I cannot disagree more vehemently. Jarrick's actions are and have consistently been definitively Chaotic-Good including in the immediate aftermath of the killing by among others, the description of Chaotic-Good alignment found in the 2nd Ed. Player's Handbook; "Chaotic good characters are strong individualists marked by a streak of kindness and benevolence. They believe in all the virtues of goodness and right, but they have little use for laws and regulations. They have no use for people who "try to push folk around and tell them what to do." Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society."
- Could Jarrick have stopped chasing the flying, burning thing? Clearly.
- Was Jarrick's actions at least in part as revenge for what had happened the day before? Absolutely.
- Was Jarrick's revenge destruction of this threat an evil act? No. Fucking. Way. Full stop.
Finally, I would argue absolute, firm, unyielding, black-or-white, rules-laws-judgements are a sort of evil in-and-of themselves. "You're a jew. Get on the train." In a more recent turn of events, look at what mandatory sentencing laws have done.
To me AD&D currently IS and HAS ALWAYS BEEN a story driven game from the imagination. The story is paramount over dice rolling and the incessant need to have everything broken down to numbers and advancing hit points, statistics, etc. is a detriment to the core of the game. It is not a zero-sum game, unless you're a player who is zero sum. Good luck with that player.
Double-dog Finally... if this ENTIRE detour into the religious law courts is due to behavior of a 'PLAYER(S)' I would suggest it be discussed and directed with the player. I've never been a fan of encumbering the many due to the actions of a few.
But hey... That's me. And I suck.
