|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 25 posts ] |
|
|
Logicality
|
 Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 20:29 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 23 Apr 2008
Location: The Otherworld
|
|
As much as I have a distaste for the OOC feeling of using the party tool, I find that it's the only real way I can get a party--and thereby get experience. I usually try to make meetings made via the party tool seem coincidental, in an effort to make it feel more in-character. This often works, and it often doesn't. I'm glad when it does, and when it doesn't, eh, tomorrow's always another day, right?
But there is one OOC element of using the party tool that annoys me nearly every time: the issue of "incompatible alignments". Whenever I have found a potential person to party with, one of the first questions I am asked is whether or not I am evil. For the record, my character is not, but it pains me to have to say this.
Those of you that do this: Are you trying to avoid potential conflict? If so, why? Conflict is the heart of storytelling, which is in turn the heart of roleplaying. If my character WERE evil, why would that matter, OOC'ly? If he is overtly evil, your character should be able to figure that out well enough. And if your character has an opposition to fighting alongside evildoers, then why not actually play out the scenarios in which he/she must abandon/confront a character about their discovered alignment?
Is it that you're just trying to find an avenue for uninterrupted grinding? That's the only real reason I can think of that one would, on an OOC level, want to avoid partying with characters whose alignments their characters could not possibly know beforehand.
I'm sorry if I seem offensive in this post, it's just something that's been bugging me for a while. Why can't you party with me, and then decide whether or not I'm evil?
_________________
"A somebody was once a nobody who wanted to and did." - Anonymous
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Gers
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 20:37 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Location: Kentucky, USA
|
Quote: But there is one OOC element of using the party tool that annoys me nearly every time: the issue of "incompatible alignments". Whenever I have found a potential person to party with, one of the first questions I am asked is whether or not I am evil. For the record, my character is not, but it pains me to have to say this. I would answer such a question with simply "find out through RP." It annoys me to no end to see people silently running through a zone, killing everything in sight with nary a word exchanged. Adding a bit of RP conflict to such a scenario could be both fun, and draw the attention of a DM. People who just go kill-kill-kill-kill-kill are missing out on the possibility of a spontaneous DM event, or having their hunting spiced up by a DM. What's worse though, is when they act as if the DM who's trying to give them some fun is annoying them, by interrupting their exp grinding with something like The Fall widget, or an event. It's times like that when I wish we had a system in place to limit the rate at which people can level. Quote: Is it that you're just trying to find an avenue for uninterrupted grinding? That's the only real reason I can think of that one would, on an OOC level, want to avoid partying with characters whose alignments their characters could not possibly know beforehand. Agreed. Aside from personal OOC disputes between individual players. _________________  Named Most Influential Character, Amia Awards 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
malkavianman_2000
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 20:39 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Apr 2005
|
Logicality wrote: Those of you that do this: Are you trying to avoid potential conflict? If so, why? Conflict is the heart of storytelling, which is in turn the heart of roleplaying. As Kamin would say, Conflict is the heart of everything.  In all seriousness, though, I've used the party ball a few times myself and had much the same reaction to the OOC question of alignment. If the character in question is, in fact, evil, and apparently so, if your character wouldn't party with them and upon meeting them IC (the only way to legitimately form a party), they would RP it out as such. It seems like it is, to me, just an OOC way to avoid RP when players "just want to level", though I'm sure that seems a little harsh. Another possibility is that the player doesn't want to risk their good-aligned character getting fallen for associating with an evil-aligned character, though from what I understand from other posts, that's not going to happen unless the evil character is very apparent about it and the good character continues dealing with them like nothing happened. Don't avoid character conflicts, people, it's a huge part of character development and some of the most fun stuff to RP!
|
|
|
|
|
|
oshizo2
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 20:54 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 22 May 2007
Location: USA, Mississippi
|
Okay I am glad this rarely happens to me. I play evil chars almost all of the time. Albeit nondescript evil. I party with this guy whom is always going on about smiting evil this and that, but he would only know that I was evil by some sort of scrying. He knows I enjoy hunting and killing, but he has only ever seen me kill evil beings. How could he know if I was evil without asking me? He knows I am a cleric of something, but I heal him and other party members in the heat of battle so why would he think to assume me evil? When asked I don't reply oocly as no matter if I am good or evil how would know lest you see me doing evil things. I could just be misunderstood like serevus snape 
_________________
Iman Emanni: Learned, wanderer, dangerous
Jurl Blackskull: Why people fear the underdark.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Godo
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 21:23 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 26 Aug 2009
|
|
I can’t agree with you all more. Asking someone if they are evil even in RP doesn’t much make sense either though, true evil doesn’t believe themselves as evil and those claiming to be evil are only evil wanabes. Look at the Banites, evil to the core but believe they are working for justice and the betterment of all, the weak in body and mind as well as the chaotic and undisciplined are the evil they perceive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
762
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 21:25 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Location: Florida
|
|
We also work for cupcakes.
_________________
Araxus Balmor
Gurth Balmor (retired)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selmak
|
Posted: Sat, May 01 2010, 22:04 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
|
Logicality wrote: Why can't you party with me, and then decide whether or not I'm evil? Basically because the moment your character floats into the vicinity, we can tell they're evil because they're overdressed, incredibly over-eloquent, oh yeah and their eyes glow.  On a more serious note, most parties don't like unexpected twists. When people do throw in an unexpected twist, it becomes tired and boring to find out for the fortieth time that yes, the man you've been partying with used to be a woman. Yes, the one with the big biceps, honey-blonde hair and wielding a warhammer and shield. Ugh. Instead of waiting for the OOC question, although you may not be able to duck it all the time, insist on meeting up and introducing your character. Just because your character is evil doesn't mean they can't network. After all, who knows, maybe there is someone already of a similar persuasion in the party they're looking to join. I don't know why but it seems having two evil characters in a party is better than having just one. Then, they can decide for themselves whether your character will fit in, and you're probably going to get a hell of a better batting average than just passively waiting for a party that will take you. Just for giggles: Quote: Why can't you party with me, and then decide whether or not I'm a woman?
|
|
|
|
|
|
BlackDahlya
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 1:11 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 17 Aug 2005
Location: Land of the Scorching Sun, Empowered by Global Warming
|
Gers wrote: I would answer such a question with simply "find out through RP." It annoys me to no end to see people silently running through a zone, killing everything in sight with nary a word exchanged. Adding a bit of RP conflict to such a scenario could be both fun, and draw the attention of a DM. People who just go kill-kill-kill-kill-kill are missing out on the possibility of a spontaneous DM event, or having their hunting spiced up by a DM. What's worse though, is when they act as if the DM who's trying to give them some fun is annoying them, by interrupting their exp grinding with something like The Fall widget, or an event. It's times like that when I wish we had a system in place to limit the rate at which people can level. Again, using the PnP campaign I am playing as an example: The best moment of the game was finding out that one of the characters with us, even if it was a NPC, was not as good a guy as he seemed to be. It was really a shock to my character to find out that her most trusted friend was an evil bastard. It creates some great conflict and character development! As a player, I was suspicious, but as a character, I was clueless and the NPC was so well played that many times I was in doubt about my OOC suspicions. Even if my suspicions were proven right in the end, the whole event was still fun! As some would say, for me it is not the end that matters, but how it got to that end. So much that even if I am told the end of a movie or book, I will still see or read the whole thing. *shrugs* Conflict, when you are able to keep OOC and also PvP aside, has such a great potential for character development! OOC information makes you metagame even if subconsciously and PvP ends everything too quickly.
_________________
BlackDahlya
Once Upon A Time Played
Adr'ael Ken'rahel, Auron Teken’ath, Aurora Mesodias, 'Daniel' Daoskinaxarijikkym, Eilin'ira, Helena Rios, Layla Faircurrent, May'Une Do'Ndar, Mellinda Tellus, Michael of Cliffside, Rizzen of Twilight, Valkirya d'Claddath
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 3:00 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
Godo wrote: I can’t agree with you all more. Asking someone if they are evil even in RP doesn’t much make sense either though, true evil doesn’t believe themselves as evil and those claiming to be evil are only evil wanabes. Look at the Banites, evil to the core but believe they are working for justice and the betterment of all, the weak in body and mind as well as the chaotic and undisciplined are the evil they perceive. Evil and Good are empirically deduced Forces. Banite ssee themselves as evil and know they are evil because they can cast Detect Evil on themselves and know it. They even castDetect Good and Chaos to make sure potential recruits AREN'T. There are no "Misunderstandings", simply zealotry.
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
762
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 3:06 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Location: Florida
|
|
Banites simply redefine what 'evil' means. Rather than taking the traditional view that evil is something to be abhorred and shunned, they embrace evil as meaning one has the resolve to carry out Bane's agenda without moral compunctions getting in the way.
Some of course are just sadistic bastards.
_________________
Araxus Balmor
Gurth Balmor (retired)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 4:20 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
Yeah, it boils down to "Is evil bad?" Which is a subjective moral opinion.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
jenmeme
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 4:47 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 28 Jun 2006
Location: Rockingham, NC
|
762 wrote: Some of course are just sadistic bastards. Well of course we do learn from our leaders lol _________________ Bayara Tshakia - Acolyte of BaneGerinana Diams - Lockpick and sneak for hireFrin Hill - Buried in the Woods-See all of my characters on the Amia Wikki-
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 9:43 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Speculative semantics. There's no drastic semantic difference between "evil" and "bad" or "wrong" in real world language (in the context of morality), so I doubt there is one in FR. You could assume some people call themselves evil, but there's no reason to speculate it's the typical scenario. "Good" and "Evil" are technically not objective, quantifiable forces. Rather, they are human-given names to certain mysterious quantifiable forces that can supposedly be measured via spells whose inner workings are a mystery to almost everyone anyway. Unless they specifically wanted to rebel against the bourgeois norms of society or turn a pejorative term into a positive one by adopting it, I don't see why an Evil person who believed he was doing the right thing and ultimately striving for the best possible goal (which is everyone, really) would call themselves evil. Of course they'd call themselves good, because that's the everyday meaning of the word. Just because one in a thousand people has the ability and habit of casting a spell arbitrarily named Detect Good/Evil doesn't mean the majority of people have to accept that definition of the words. If they were even aware of their specific contents, anyway. Either way, about partying: if I'm asked, I just reply "Who knows. " or something equally to-the-point. Most of the time, people take the hint and don't press the matter. Be confident and humorous about it, and I bet you'll embarass most of the people who realize they were out of line. _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 9:58 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
Ah, but the difference is in D&D 'evil' isn't aligned to a subjective opinion. It is to a objective thing. Thus it can from someone's point of view both 'evil' and morally correct. It can be the 'right' act, but still 'evil'.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 10:07 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
Yes, but that's the point I contest: that the fact some priests and paladins have decided to name their spells "Detect Evil" or "Protection from Good" and that two abstract, mysterious and objective forces have been named Good and Evil, has some drastic effect on the way the majority of people use these words. I guess this goes pretty deep into linguistics, but everything else in Common works as it does in normal English. I see no reason why the common use of "good" and "evil" wouldn't be the same as in English, that is, describing morality and that which is considered right and wrong.
You might be right in that the people of Faerûn have studied metaphysical texts and decided to reserve the words "good" and "evil" for cosmic forces instead of morality, but I find it unlikely. Surely these people exist, perhaps in abundance as well (especially good people or anti-culture evil people who want to represent the counter-force), but I wouldn't reduce the common use of the word to such.
Of course there may be inaccuracy in people's terminology. That's life and language. It's the absolute claim that "evil people call themselves evil" that I find unbelievable.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 10:22 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
|
I see no reason why not. It seems rather believable to me that you would reserve the names of these objective forces for these forces, and when you are referring to these words these would be the ones you use. And not everything refers to what it does in English. Dwarf and Elf are two good examples of things that don't behave as they do in English, Homonculus is another. Is it such a stretch that another two words would have these exceptions?
Personally, I see 'good' and 'evil' as objective forces (within the game) - they are not the same as 'right' and 'wrong', which are subjective. An evil person knows that they are evil. They can cast a spell that would empirically reveal themselves as evil. Obviously, they may not want this fact known, but it would not be an offence to them if someone did call hem vil - it is empirically, objectively true.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 10:25 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
Oh, there's more. If it wasn't clear in my earlier posts, what I mean by Good and Evil not being objective forces is this: the forces exist, but the names are human-given or gods-given. You can cast Detect Evil all you want, and all that proves is that there is/isn't an aura of a certain force around. It still doesn't say that it's appropriate to call that force Evil. Assuming good and evil are also used to describe morality (which would be ridicilous to deny, IMO), there's no reason an Evil person couldn't decide to swap the names. Good is Evil and Evil is Good. That's no more "correct" or "incorrect" as the opposite arbitrary naming. Good and evil can only get their human meaning from human experience, and you can't experience the cosmic forces (outside of some magical means). Therefore, for most people, the definition of good and evil is surely closer to what they consider right and wrong in their daily experience than some scholar-defined abstract force they have no experience of.
In fact, if FR was a real world with real etymology behind words, I'd suspect this was the case: people held their beliefs of right and wrong, good and evil in society. At some point, they discovered there were polar cosmic forces that happened to correlate roughly with the general laws and norms of their society. It was only natural to assign the names Good and Evil to these forces because (by freak coincidence, apparently) they were so closely related to actions that were considered good and evil. Of course, if the general outlook of the societies to discover and name these forces had been different, the names might have been opposite as well. But because the game designers were nice people, we have to assume that the influence of Good societies in the Realms ultimately dominated Common and caused their definition to be commonly used. A perceptive linguist could surely question the status quo and suggest the opposite definition perfercly believably IC.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nekhy
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 10:30 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Location: A beautiful fowl house in A'dam
|
|
The correct question is not "Are you evil?" but "Are you dressed up in all black and do you have a visibly evil summon following you?". But I guess the former question can be assumed to actually mean the latter.
If your character isn't visibly evil or good, then you can claim to be whatever you like.
_________________
Current plots:
DIVIDE BY ZERO ERROR
Prod me for development-related stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 10:35 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
Yurell wrote: I see no reason why not. It seems rather believable to me that you would reserve the names of these objective forces for these forces, and when you are referring to these words these would be the ones you use. And not everything refers to what it does in English. Dwarf and Elf are two good examples of things that don't behave as they do in English, Homonculus is another. Is it such a stretch that another two words would have these exceptions?
Personally, I see 'good' and 'evil' as objective forces (within the game) - they are not the same as 'right' and 'wrong', which are subjective. An evil person knows that they are evil. They can cast a spell that would empirically reveal themselves as evil. Obviously, they may not want this fact known, but it would not be an offence to them if someone did call hem vil - it is empirically, objectively true. Well, I guess you're free to have that opinion. It's not how characters in game and in novels intuitively use the words, though. And why should we abandon all notions of good and evil and adopt a completely new definition that has no relevance to the lives of PCs? Do you honestly believe this scene at the funeral of a LN knight who served his king loyally for decades: a local peasant shakes his head sadly, as says "He was a good man. He defended his country and never missed his rounds." At this, the priest of Nobanion shakes his head. "Technically, he was neutral. He upheld the expectations for nobility. He didn't voluntarily donate enough gold to charity, however, which is objectively Good even if it's not traditional here. That's why I'm afraid we'll have to call him a neutral man." I don't buy it. And moreover, I think it's unintuitive pedantry to completely change the meaning of words because of relatively irrelevant game rules. On your latter paragraph, I addressed that in my post above. You can't detect you're objectively and empirically evil. You can only detect you have that force around you that somebody has decided to name Evil, but which could have just as well been named Good, or Fluffy. And it seems likely that it was named Evil, because people who found out about it realized it was close to what they considered bad and wrong and vile in society. The other possibility is that somebody discovered these forces and tested their contents before the words good and evil existed, then decided to arbitrarily name them Good and Evil, and only then these words took on their everyday meaning in society. This scenario is more unlikely, IMO, but I guess it's a valid point of disagreement. Nekh: bah, don't make this a practical and useful discussion just when it was starting to get good.  _________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 10:58 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
IronAngel wrote: On your latter paragraph, I addressed that in my post above. You can't detect you're objectively and empirically evil. You can only detect you have that force around you that somebody has decided to name Evil, but which could have just as well been named Good, or Fluffy. And it seems likely that it was named Evil, because people who found out about it realized it was close to what they considered bad and wrong and vile in society. The other possibility is that somebody discovered these forces and tested their contents before the words good and evil existed, then decided to arbitrarily name them Good and Evil, and only then these words took on their everyday meaning in society. This scenario is more unlikely, IMO, but I guess it's a valid point of disagreement. Nekh: bah, don't make this a practical and useful discussion just when it was starting to get good. Well, then I would ask. In this universe, which was named first - the word 'evil', or the force? Surely the word could have evolved to describe what the force was (i.e. the force was named, and then the word was applied to the general characterstics), just as the fruit was was called 'orange', and the colour named after one of its general characteristics (it being amber in colour). It seems to me the concept of what is evil and the force are intertwined, and by convention one is called 'evil' and the other 'good' - they could just have readily been 'a' and 'b', and you would have just as objectively been 'a' or 'b' (ignoring out neutral 'Ø'). Since the forces have been around longer than the language, it seems to me likely that the definitions are at least intertwined 'evil' the 'subjective' state is called 'evil' because of its resemblance to 'Evil' the force, and doesn't necessarily carry the connotations it does in modern English. In your 'he was a good man' circumstance, it could be that the contention was the LN person's actions were resemblant to 'Good' in the speaker's eyes.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 11:36 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
"Good" as a general word means anything desireable. A good knife cuts well, good food tastes enjoyable and sustains you. A good person is someone who has succeeded in his humanity, that is, being a virtous and morally upstanding individual. The logic of the word "good" is the same no matter its use, only the standards differ. Why should we assume that people don't use the word "good" to refer to a person they think is morally upstanding, acts like a person is supposed to act in society, and is in all ways respectable? Surely they make this judgement based on their own experience and values, rather than try to compare it to some vague force they have no means of defining or detecting.
I mean, the forces Good and Evil have absolutely no relevance to most people's lives. How many have ever seen an alignment-related spell cast? How many have read some theoretical treatises on spellcraft?
I don't see why you need to conjure up an explanation that, while possible, is unnecessary in its nonconformity to English standards and how people use the word daily. Could they only say "evil" when they mean the cosmic force rather than human morality and their own goals? Sure, probably. But why on earth should we accept such a complicated theory that a) doesn't conform to the real-world parallel, b) doesn't make PCs any more believable or enthralling in their RP and c) doesn't match the intuition of people using the words "good" and "right" or "evil" and "wrong" as synonymous or at least related. Even if we accept that Good and Evil are completely amoral, theoretical terms, it's a fact that PCs still use this words with an emotional and moral emphasis in game. When they say someone is evil, they generally do believe it means they are vile and do wrong. It's not an academic definition, the like of "William has blood type B.
So my question is: why should we adopt your complicated theory? What is the benefit it gives us that outweighs the loss of the words' normal meaning? (Not that anything we say here would affect the way anyone RPs anyway, but let's assume it did.)
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 11:54 AM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
IronAngel wrote: "Good" as a general word means anything desireable. A good knife cuts well, good food tastes enjoyable and sustains you. A good person is someone who has succeeded in his humanity, that is, being a virtous and morally upstanding individual. The logic of the word "good" is the same no matter its use, only the standards differ. Why should we assume that people don't use the word "good" to refer to a person they think is morally upstanding, acts like a person is supposed to act in society, and is in all ways respectable? Surely they make this judgement based on their own experience and values, rather than try to compare it to some vague force they have no means of defining or detecting. We can perfectly well assume that, since morally upstanding is one of the traits of being Good. I'm arguing that the word used to name the forces (Good and Evil) can be used in speech to describe traits of those forces (good and evil) IronAngel wrote: I don't see why you need to conjure up an explanation that, while possible, is unnecessary in its nonconformity to English standards and how people use the word daily. Could they only say "evil" when they mean the cosmic force rather than human morality and their own goals? Sure, probably. But why on earth should we accept such a complicated theory that a) doesn't conform to the real-world parallel, b) doesn't make PCs any more believable or enthralling in their RP and c) doesn't match the intuition of people using the words "good" and "right" or "evil" and "wrong" as synonymous or at least related. Even if we accept that Good and Evil are completely amoral, theoretical terms, it's a fact that PCs still use this words with an emotional and moral emphasis in game. When they say someone is evil, they generally do believe it means they are vile and do wrong. It's not an academic definition, the like of "William has blood type B. I would argue that it is an academic distinction. But this point is the one we agreed to disagree upon. IronAngel wrote: So my question is: why should we adopt your complicated theory? What is the benefit it gives us that outweighs the loss of the words' normal meaning? (Not that anything we say here would affect the way anyone RPs anyway, but let's assume it did.) How would you define that these fundamental forces of nature and the language spoken across the planet evolved separately in isolation to eachother? My 'complicated' theory is simply that calling an evil being evil is nothing more than calling an Asian Asian, an Englishman English or a Homosexual Homosexual. It's a descriptor. And, in fact, when I expanded upon the point, I stated that it didn't have to lose the real world's meaning. There was a slight change, but most of the things that we refer to when we say 'evil' in real life are traits of Evil in D&D, similarly for good and Good. The only problem arises when comparing 'good' and 'bad', which is a different meaning of 'good' (I can't think of a similar example for evil). And as to that, I make no comment other than to say that linguistically Common is quite obviously English - it can obviously be used for such a purpose. All that matter is the connotation for calling someone evil - is it always an insult, or is it something they can agree to. I'm inclined to believe the latter, even the 'evil' is a collection of traits that is undesirable to most of humanity - however, if they are evil it is unlikely such traits would be undesirable to them.
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
IronAngel
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 12:15 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Location: Helsinki, Finland
|
|
In some societies, being morally upstanding might mean practicing human sacrifice or slavery. I argue that such a society wouldn't label itself "evil." Similarly, evil followers of Hoar are surely convinced they are "doing good." I'm not primarily addressing villains and dissidents here, but respected members of society who are doing what they believe is right and good. Such a person (and the group to whose standards he nicely conforms) would probably not accept the label "evil" for something they consider to be well and good.
As I said, some representatives of counter-culture surely label themselves evil with pride. "We're Banites, we're evil" is probably a credo for many of them. But it's going way too far to say that if you're evil, you know it and willingly label yourself evil. That can't apply to more than a fraction of cases.
What's called good may often be a trait of Good, but I don't think that's where the label comes from. The objective forces of alignment are unknowable in their entirety even to the gods. There is usually considerable overlapping between what a group might consider good and the force that's called Good, but neither of the terms (typically) would have their entire meaning contained in the other. A society whose norms were primarily Good but who had a few Evil norms surely wouldn't make a distinction between the norms they hold equally valuable, right, traditional and beneficial. They wouldn't say, "our society is wonderful and just, both these good and those few evil norms." No, I'm inclined to believe they'd rather consider all their norms good.
_________________ On Joon, Kjetta wrote: The guy that probably has sexual fantasies about masturbation. I mean, Iron, you're a bookworm nerd that even in your wildest escapism fantasies flee to the internet to play the role of another bookworm nerd? Come on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yurell
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 12:25 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 06 Jan 2008
Location: ANU, behind the coffee mug (+10 GMT)
|
IronAngel wrote: In some societies, being morally upstanding might mean practicing human sacrifice or slavery. I argue that such a society wouldn't label itself "evil." Similarly, evil followers of Hoar are surely convinced they are "doing good." I'm not primarily addressing villains and dissidents here, but respected members of society who are doing what they believe is right and good. Such a person (and the group to whose standards he nicely conforms) would probably not accept the label "evil" for something they consider to be well and good.
As I said, some representatives of counter-culture surely label themselves evil with pride. "We're Banites, we're evil" is probably a credo for many of them. But it's going way too far to say that if you're evil, you know it and willingly label yourself evil. That can't apply to more than a fraction of cases. You use slavery as an example, but we've evidence that slavery isn't evil, by virtue of the fact paladins in Mulhorand and other places in FR can commit it without Falling. Furthermore, you can do evil things without necessarily being evil yourself, which is where objections to the term come in. You do hit a point, however, where your actions are what is defined as 'evil' and no amount of subjectivity will get you our of it. Some actions are objectively evil i.e. have the traits of the force Evil, and it would be pretty pedantic from within such a universe's scope to argue that it's not evil because of subjectivity. As for how people refer to themselves as being good or evil, I see nothing wrong with it since I do not believe it would carry the exact same connotations it does in modern English. I'm not saying that every evil person will wish to call themselves evil - they most likely won't because in a society such a thing is undesirable, and so people are brought up with the knee-jerk reaction. However, I see no reason why someone could not reasonably refer to themselves as such. Unless we think eachother are arguing different points (from my PoV it seems you're arguing that no one would refer to themselves as evil, and I'm arguing that they reasonably can, but from your last post it seems from your PoV that I'm arguing the majority do. I certainly don't think that).
_________________
2009's Second Most Overall Contributing Player
يمكنني استخدام مترجم جوجل
|
|
|
|
|
|
TormakSaber
|
Posted: Sun, May 02 2010, 12:31 PM |
|
|
Player
Joined: 16 Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere
|
|
Blah blah philosophical offtracking that has killed the topic, a.k.a. spam. Do it in offtopic, no one wants to read pages long dissertations about the word "Good" and "Evil".
_________________
Davion Telemos - Monk of the Four Winds
Korthan Isharnos - Dragon Shaman of Thunder Spirit Zamasham
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 1
|
[ 25 posts ] |
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Login