[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/tg/ - Traditional Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
[ERROR] No.30186343 [Reply] [Original] [4plebs] [archived.moe]

So I'm running a fantasy campaign for a group of friends. One of them is a paladin, and this is what he's done so far in the game:

>Convinced an escaped slave to go back
>Bought a few of them himself
>Regularly beats the crap out of the local city guard captain
>Has a sexual relationship with two people (of both gender) without really committing to either
>One of them had just been transformed into human form from an animal, and he was almost immediately coerced to bed with him
>Spent weeks of time with a bunch of hippies, doing drugs and being useless
>Collaborated with a tribe of evil humanoids, gave them the fantasy version of a nuke
>Collaborated with a witch, is seeking out a shapechanging person to cut his heart out
>Is pretty much confirmed to be never sorry for anything he does
>Lives with ghosts, never even thought of trying to exorcise them
>Participated in a fashion contest
>Punted a kender off a massive world-bridge
>Rejects the glory of Zarus and his second coming

How hard should he fall, /tg/?

>> No.30186383


>Animal cruelty: tortured a penguin and gave it lifelong trauma

>> No.30186412

>punted a kender off a massive world-bridge
Patron saint of /tg/ give him his rightful holy avenger

>> No.30186419

He should fall so hard his player smacks his head in the table.

>> No.30186441

Just change his class to barbarian, his alignment to chaotic neutral, penalize him 20% XP and turn him into a munchkin.

>> No.30186452

>Bought a few of them himself
If he was a Lawful Good Paladin, depending on the god he really should've fallen here, assuming this came first chronologically.

>> No.30186470

Well, since the campaign is pretty much half-way done since he managed to do all of this. I'd say not. You have rolled with the punches so far, do it some more.
Though really. What god does he paladin for?

>> No.30186487

Sounds like they just picked the class for the perks and is playing it like a lolsorandumb video game

>> No.30186494


>He also never writes home to his dad

>> No.30186506


What if he bought the slaves to free them?

Checkmate, democrats

> >One of them had just been transformed into human form from an animal, and he was almost immediately coerced to bed with him

That's hot though

>> No.30186513

The real question is why hasn't he already fallen?

>> No.30186565

Have other paladins of Heironeous hunt him down and crucify him.

>> No.30186587

>That's hot though

But they're both men! It's gross.

>> No.30186610

>>Punted a kender off a massive world-bridge
He deserves a divine commendation

>> No.30186613

>Convinced an escaped slave to go back
Returning missing property like a good man.

>Bought a few of them himself
Stimulating the local economy, improving lives.

>Regularly beats the crap out of the local city guard captain
Guard captain is an oppressor.

>Has a sexual relationship with two people (of both gender) without really committing to either
Sex isn't evil, Catholic.

>One of them had just been transformed into human form from an animal, and he was almost immediately coerced to bed with him
That's hot, Heironeus approves.

>Spent weeks of time with a bunch of hippies, doing drugs and being useless
Getting to know the locals so he can learn how to serve them.

>Collaborated with a tribe of evil humanoids, gave them the fantasy version of a nuke
Giving them the means to defend themselves.

>Collaborated with a witch, is seeking out a shapechanging person to cut his heart out
A heart is just a handicap in the pursuit of justice.

>Is pretty much confirmed to be never sorry for anything he does
A true paladin never reflects on his actions, as there is always more evil to battle.

>Lives with ghosts, never even thought of trying to exorcise them
Maybe they don't want to leave.

>Participated in a fashion contest
It's a sin to be unfashionable.

>Punted a kender off a massive world-bridge
Give him a holy avenger.

>Rejects the glory of Zarus and his second coming
Zarus is a fag.


>> No.30186615


>> No.30186622

What if slavery is lawful and his god is alright with it though?

Stop trying to oppress other cultures and time periods with your modern sensibilities.

>> No.30186630

As long as they're treated well, can buy themselves to freedom or otherwise won't be in it for life, and are slaves for a good reason (such as crime), I see no problem.

Although slavery really is kind of an ugly word... they should rename it to something like community service.

>> No.30186633

>Rejects the glory of Zarus and his second coming
Well, he's technically evil. Yes, yes, I know, any morality that would paint the domination of humanity in a poor light is unworthy of consideration, but unfortunately paladins are bound by such archaic statutes.

Epic quest idea: the faithful of Zarus are attempting to redefine the very laws of morality that govern the cosmos, which would, among other things, make killing non-humans a good act at all times.

>> No.30186634

Since when is having sexual relationships or being fashionable something a paladin should fall for?

>> No.30186648

Slavery is not an evil act. It's the norm in fantasy settings. As long as there's constant war, leading to constant wartime economies, there will be slaves.

In fact, trying to free slaves would be... a chaotic act.

>> No.30186666

Zarus should just have use is other identity

>> No.30186667


How about the animal cruelty added up in the next post?

>> No.30186671

In pretty much any system where there are paladins that can fall, whenever slavery is brought up the book immediately goes on about how it's always evil.

You can't follow the book in making paladins always lawful good and that will fall at first transgression, only to ignore it when it talks about how slavery is automatically a bad thing.

>> No.30186677

True, convincing the escaped slaves to return was lawful act, and so might be buying some, depending on the society. However, knowingly mingling with an evil race and giving them weapons of mass destruction is Evil.

>> No.30186681

In this setting he's Pelor's son. They're both pretty ashamed of this.

>> No.30186693

Completely irrelevant in D&D.

Owning slaves of any variety is incompatible with a good alignment.

Slavery is evil. If it's the norm in a setting, to be good-aligned, you have to overcome the norm. This is simply how it works.

>> No.30186706

Actually proper slavery is an inherently lawful construct.
The entire idea behind slavery is owning a person which by definition you can only do if its legally sanctioned.
On the good evil axis things are a bit more complicated. I will go ahead and say that slave owning is never a good action. But if the owner treats his slaves well, it's probably somewhere in the neutral areas. I would like to note that I am not assuming American South style but Ancient European style of slavery. In those cases slavery was not a really worse than feudalism was in general. And since Paladins are knights or at the very least follow their archetype, they should by definition be fine with that.

>> No.30186709

Penguins are dicks

>> No.30186716

>Slavery is evil.
Not necessarily. Some cultures treated it like indentured servitude, for instance.

>> No.30186721

So slavery makes a paladin fall but not killing non-human babies?

Nice hypocrisy D&Dfags

>> No.30186725


>I am an ignorant shit that thinks all slavery is American history slavery

Please be bait and not actually that stupid.

>> No.30186728

There are Paladins which aren't lawful good in the books.
You're an idiot, learn some basic history.

>> No.30186744

Honestly I think the book should be taken as a suggestion and framework in these situations. If the player can justify it and it doesn't go against established beliefs of him or his god, he should be able to get away with it to a degree. If he comes close to going overboard though, maybe send him a message from his god telling him to cut that shit, or some other minor penalty. Or just encourage them to buy a phylactery of the faithful, pretty sure several dnd versions have that.

>> No.30186748

In D&D, slavery is always evil.

>> No.30186762

>I know exactly why it's like that but I will just post to show how knowledgeable I am about a subject.
I hate when people do that

>> No.30186776


>> No.30186783

Just as our world has some set morals in different areas, so does the player's world.


>> No.30186795

And dnd is a shitty schizophrenic system. It has a very clear wartime economy, where workers are more often needed for skilled tasks/other things related to war. Slaves are a necessity for the more mundane things such as farming. A society is quite incapable of functioning without slaves in the dnd setting.

>> No.30186808

D&D setting also has functional magic and gods that do actually help you out and give you their blessing.

I could see it work without slaves just fine.

>> No.30186810


Don't worry, killing nonhuman babies will force a fall as well.

Slaves are not necessary and a good-aligned society will find other ways of doing things. At least if you take magic into account and, you know, think for a few minutes.

>> No.30186817

Are you just butthurt that slavery is not inherently negative?

>> No.30186832

It is inherently negative. I invite you to read back up further in the thread.

>> No.30186833


>> No.30186842

Please elaborate, sounds very interesting.

>> No.30186851

I still think we should just call it goddamn community service like we do in the real world, and let the whole matter be.

Community service isn't a bad thing, right? I mean, it's punishing criminals and...

>> No.30186861

It isn't; OP is just baiting you with those ones.

I exclusively play bisexual, extremely fashionable paladins.

>> No.30186864

at least someone had to say it.
The paladins can ve religious or have the "colors" of a deity.But is as this guy said .they receive their powers from the force of goodness.

Is like a saint.

>> No.30186866

Are you being obtuse on purpose. You are upset that slavery is not always a bad thing in real life.

>> No.30186878

Actually, the system of prison labor in our world, especially privatized prison labor, has been called de facto slavery and would also very likely be incompatible with a good alignment. America is not a good nation, and I don't think any others in this world are either.

It's that too.

>> No.30186881

DnD wizards are typically "rare" outside of adventurer parties, and the few that exist outside of them are busy ruling an entire kingdom of slaves to defend them while they study in their tower. One could make an argument for clerics, but they typically have the faitfhul of their god to serve first and foremost. Should it work just fine with magic instead of slavery? Yes. Does it in any DnD setting? No.

Also as for paladins and their gods, they typically have the god as a focus for their cause. Paladins fall when they lose sight of their cause, so it usually goes hand in hand with defying their god.

>> No.30186893

No, it's just that we talk about dnd where slavery is always consider evil because it's based on how most people see it, posting that just show that you just are a know-it-all who want to show-off

>> No.30186896

Okay, so Pelor created his son from nothing in the beginning of time, and Zarus started out as a good guy. But he grew evil from absolutely everyone else being jealous of him and his chosen people (humans), and was eventually sealed away beneath what is now the setting's prime capital. No one actually knows there is anything at all down there, save for the party and the local bishop - who is confused by the divine energies of the world being sapped away (heralding Zarus's return), and has hired the party to investigate and help him recharge them.

How the party found out what was down there in the first place, was by being stuck in the realm of the faerie for a while: they found out that a hundred years has passed in the real world, during which Zarus returned and annihilated everything that wasn't human. Now they are looking for a way to go back in time and set everything right.

Also, in defense of the paladin, the kender he punted off the bridge was the one that caused them to fast-forward a century in the first place.

>> No.30186900

No, the thing about gods is wrong. Again. Frequently they are religious, but the gods have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their power or code.

As for the rest of the thing, if some clerics are required to spend most of their time working on civil stuff to prevent their society from requiring slavery, then that is where good-aligned clerics of good deities will go.
Also, no D&D setting I know of ever uses slaves outside of explicitly evil or evil-controlled societies, so I don't know where you're getting that.

>> No.30186902

Except magic is not common to the majority of plebs in D&D

There's also the economy makes no fucking sense at all in general I guess

>> No.30186907


This aint AD&D anymore, there are no perks to playing a paladin

>> No.30186911

It's Freedom Time, commies. Let's see what the beloved US Constitution has to say about Slavery.

>XIII Amendment

>Section 1
>Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

>Section 2
>Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

There you have it, folks. Involuntary Servitude can indeed be a Constitutionally valid punishment for crimes if the perp is duly convicted.

>> No.30186916

Divine Grace is pretty good if you've got high charisma.

>> No.30186922

How is mentioning basic facts 'showing off', unless you are ignorant and don't know them and being ignorant where others aren't upsets you

>> No.30186927

I don't really see how you can't be good and a slave owner.

From the rational perspective, that is: I fully get the emotional reason.

>> No.30186929

I think we can pretty much automatically assume that everyone here knows those basic facts. We're just mostly talking about it in D&D terms.

>> No.30186931

I didn't say they were connected directly to a god. But a lawful good god and a lawful good paladin that worships said god typically have the same goals and creed, and the paladin may look to the god for guidance. It's not written exactly in the rules, but it's what usually happens. If a paladin goes against that god's creed, he's usually also going against lawful good. The god serves as a rough guide, basically.

>> No.30186938

>Paladins fall when they lose sight of their cause, so it usually goes hand in hand with defying their god.

No, they don't. They fall for doing evil or for grossly violating the Code, there is no "losing sight" clause and shouldn't be.

>> No.30186945

>America is not a good nation
>America is not a good nation
>America is not a good nation

>evil acts of some individuals
>somehow negating years of Caps Lock FREEDOM

I don't like your tone, Fedorian.

>> No.30186950

Yes, because the Constitution is clearly the epitome of morality.

Because you're using people as property, and it's really easy to stop doing so: pay them and let them leave if they want.

>> No.30186953

Divine Grace is pretty Based. I went Paladin Sorcerer Gish once, and that Saves were wonderful, plus the warm comfort of a Justice Code for Promoting Justice was a substantial bonus.

>> No.30186956

That's true. You can, in 3e's backwards and circuitous way, make a damn good char if you ACF friggin' everything.

Still, I don't think the idea that anyone plays a paladin for the power holds water.

Of course PF's more forgiving of paladins, but slavery is kosher in Pathfinderland.

>> No.30186961

Lol sounds like the modern religious man to me.

>> No.30186963

The gods in D&D are assholes, the good ones aren't actually all that good.

Infact you can't really call yourself good and still serve one of them in some settings.

>> No.30186966

>he thinks the Constitution isn't the epitome of morality

Now I'm shedding manful, patriotic tears, Anon.

>> No.30186978

I played a paladin with a Lawful Neutral goddess last time I did it (Wee Jas.)

>> No.30187014

>Implying he hasn't already fallen and his self absorbed delusions don't keep him strong.

You've basically got an Ericc cartmann Paladin, if you thought he was a dick, then wait until you glorify his douchebaggotry by making him Blackguard or a doom knight

The idle shall sow the seed of their own demise.

Just make consequences for his actions more damning until he get's his shit togther.

>> No.30187026

>Because you're using people as property

Right. From the emotional standpoint, I can see how that can hurt people's feelings IRL, and I realize that's the motive for denouncing it as evil in the game. But aside from the way the BoED is primarily about moving away from an internally consistent and philosophically sound system of objective morality into one primarily based off the author's feelings, is there any logical reason to consider it evil?

I mean, destroying life isn't inherently evil, so it can't be anything like "human life is sacred." And we know it can't reducing or eliminating people's freedom (planar binding, charming, simply throwing people in prison, and of course, tyrannies and absolute monarchies aren't evil either), so we know it can't be that freedom is sacred.

So there really isn't much left... since its not about life or freedom, its probably the economic element.

>> No.30187058

Destroying life is inherently evil unless you do so for survival of oneself or another who's under threat, charming is a very temporary spell effect, planar binding is based on the nature of outsiders and doesn't last very long by itself either, and tyrannies are evil, with monarchy only not being evil so long as the monarch isn't doing anything oppressive.

>> No.30187109


So its not inherently evil.

>tyrannies are evil

How do you figure? Chaotic good governments are tyrannies.

>> No.30187122

>DnD Npc war
>Thousands of enemy troops are captured alive as a small mercy
>War ends
>The kingdom can no longer afford to feed the mass of wartime prisoners
>But they are likely to rebel or start another war should they be released
>only options left are:

>1. Starving to death in prison
>2. Mass execution
>3. Selling them into slavery to help pay off the debts of the crown, spare the enemy troops lives and give them a chance to earn their place in society

>3 is still evil because blanket rules must apply reguardless of context.

>> No.30187125

>Yet another D&D morality debacle

Let's not. By this point it should be pretty clear that the morals of the system are kind of rickety and basically based on fairy tales. Which isn't a bad thing in itself, but it can't really handle much of real-life philosophy.

>> No.30187131

>Destroying all life is inherently evil

Pic related would like to have a word with you.

If there is no doubt, it can't possibly evil henceforth because it is fulfilling the nature of it's existence.

>> No.30187135

>Weird obscure anime faggotry

pls go

>> No.30187143

Or how about forcing them to tend crops, build roads, etc? Isn't that slavery?

Slavery = autoevil just hasn't been thought out very well.

>> No.30187149

Aren't fiends fulfilling the nature of their existence, such as "Wherever I am, I must also rape" guy?

>> No.30187150

So you're screwing with semantics with the "tyrannies" thing, noted. And there are situations where abrogating personal freedom can't be justified, but owning them isn't one of them, just like how random murder is always evil.

Well, all three options are evil, so clearly they need to find another solution. Of course, given that I'm pretty sure PoW's are supposed to be released at war's end, they should really just do that.

Yes, it would be, which is why a good-aligned nation wouldn't do it.

>> No.30187168

>He's never played fate.

Unacceptable, Torrent a copy, and play through to havens feel.

Then never ever read anything by type-moon again, it's shit now.

Yes, but evil comes forth from acknowledging it as such.

If you are born to destroy, then you are making good on part with your creator thus, you are an innocent because you have wrought no wrong because you do not contradict that which you live for.

Or whatever it was that Kirei said in line with that meaning of birth speech, I forget.

>> No.30187182


You mean the shitty gender-flipped King Arthur porn game? I'll pass.

>> No.30187211

Fairy tales are evil as fuck mang

>> No.30187213

I mean the later-wave Disney versions, with good princes and evil dragons and whatever.

>> No.30187215


>So you're screwing with semantics with the "tyrannies" thing, noted.

Using the meaning of the word isn't semantics, dude. I assumed most people are educated to know what the hell a tyranny is, plus if you meant "evil governments are evil," why not just say that instead?

>> No.30187216

It was always shit

>> No.30187221

Actually she's a decent character Terrible king, terrible insult to my dying country and it's culture.

As for he H-scenes just skip them, they really aren't worth anything except their elderich sea horror esque writing.

Rin getting in on the Mana transfer however was completely absurd and uncalled for.

>> No.30187233

"Tyranny" in the official term only refers to a specific variety of Greek city-state government, and how in hell does that map to all chaotic good governments everywhere?

>> No.30187234

I don't get it, how is King Arthur as a girl an insult to Islamic culture? Mohammed's first wife did all the same shit she did, raising armies and erryting.

>> No.30187260

>basic facts
The other sign of a know-it-all who want to show off, all things he knows are "basic facts" even when they aren't, and before you say something I knew that some civilization like the aztecs have non-evil slavery, but western society has freedom as a core value so if you don't understand why slavery who is the act of depriving somebody of his freedom would be see as something evil by most people you are stupid, and dnd will use the interpretation that most people know.
In this thread the implicit idea is "we will consider slavery evil because it's always evil in this setting we know that slavery isn't always evil but it's irrelevant in this thread", when you say "slavery isn't always evil" you show that you think that most people don't have the knowledge to understand the implicit idea of the thread,so that they believe that slavery is always evil and you need to show them that they are stupid people who need to open an history book because they aren't as knowledgeable as you.

tl,dr: by saying "slavery isn't always evil" you assume that people don't know this "basic fact"so you want to show them that you are more knowledgeable than them i.e a know-it-all who whant to show off

>> No.30187269

It was always a terrible porn game, with an awful rpg-based and japanese basterdisation of history/legends mythos

You can't get away from what it is, you'll just be raped by dick worms like the whore you are.

>> No.30187270

A tyrant is an absolute ruler, and the books are nicely consistent across editions that chaotic good governments are tyrannical in nature (where such comes up, anyway).

Not to mention that this is similarly the default way, say, priesthoods dedicated to actual deities are set up.

>> No.30187274

>>Punted a kender off a massive world-bridge

Everything is forgiven then.

>> No.30187289

Source on this, then?

Although it doesn't matter that much. They can have power, but they can't use it against the populace.

>> No.30187290

Point of discussion.

Is slavery evil considering the alternative is to pay them minimum wage and force them to fend for themselves?
Could a paladin order induct an entire race into slavery in order to protect them from another race, say the worlds dominant race.

Obviously it would be a well kept secret.

>> No.30187292

You are just being pathetic by thinking we should hold up the lowest common denominator as the most worthy, /tg/ in general is more knowledgeable of the 'basic facts' of history.

The only person making a big deal out of it is you, get over yourself.

>> No.30187294

Well for starters, when you get the good UBW end you go to London with her.

And she isn't absolutely livid.

Think I don't know that?

I just want my Zelretch Childood OVA where he Beats the shit out of Vampire Space crimson moon with faggy rainbows.

>> No.30187304

>I will go ahead and say that slave owning is never a good action.
>Not playing a mighty and wealthy knight, who chooses the most attractive women slaves to live in his home and tend to his needs, lest they have to suffer at the hands of the more psychotic nobility
>Not purchasing thralls from war prisoners to work on your farm, taking care that they aren't purchased by lords whom they maimed or killed relatives of in honorable battle, sparing them a life of torture and mistreatment at the hands of misguided vengeance
>Not purchasing child slaves, and in the course of their duties, teaching them to read, write and the finer points of economics, then freeing them on their twentieth birthday with a parting gift, and a promise their families will be well cared for
>Not bargaining with the judge to take a thief slated for execution because he stole to feed his family as a thrall, so as he has a chance to live his life, and his family are provided for in your home

>Implying any of this is worse than, if not superior to, Wage Slavery

>> No.30187306


So people who say that slavery is always wrong are, in reality, liars who are solely relying on "muh feels?" Good to know.

>> No.30187312

None of this necessitates slavery. You can still, you know, pay these people and allow them to leave.

>> No.30187362


>Source on this, then?

The main 3.5 one would be DMG 2 (not only does it describe chaotic good governments, though not in such words, as hopefully enlightened despotism, but the same book also introduces the concept of "Law Ratings" which determine how honest or corrupt the legal system is in a given country, and how likely they are to deliver fair/accurate trials, and CG governments have a lower rating than even LE ones).

Not like AD&D is likely to be relevant but in case you're wondering: Birthright, and various Forgotten Realms sources.

Also not likely to be relevant, but the only CG civilization I'm aware of in vanilla D&D are elves, and in pretty much every case prior to Races of the Wild (including DMG1 3.0 and 3.5) they rely on absolute arbitration instead of laws.

>> No.30187377

So serfdom, that's still okay, right?

>> No.30187379

Reread my post, by saying "slavery isn't always evil" in this thread you are the one who hold up to the lowest common denominator, if you thought that /tg/ is more knowledgeable, you wouldn't even say it because you would assume that most people already know it, they just don't talk about it because they also know that in dnd slavery is always evil.

Not liars, just people who know slavery only like it's the most often portrayed and don't get me wrong, slavery is wrong most often that not.

>> No.30187391

So basically, CE governments determine everything on a case-by-case basis? Sort of strange, but clearly it works, otherwise such nations would lose their good alignment rather fast.

>> No.30187396

>slavery is wrong most often that not.

The entire world history is wrong more often than not.

That's the thing with good and evil. Evil is easy, good is always taking the hard rocky road, so obviously most people go for evil.

>> No.30187398

>slavery is wrong most often that not.

So is mass killing, home invasion, and looting. Really, slavery being labelled auto-evil is particularly insane since it generally means that PCs who spare their victims are more evil than those who kill them outright.

>> No.30187403

>Convinced an escaped slave to go back
>Bought a few of them himself
Entirely fine within D&D's lawful alignment. Gygax even mentioned slavery when asked about alignment questions.
>Regularly beats the crap out of the local city guard captain
>Collaborated with a tribe of evil humanoids, gave them the fantasy version of a nuke
These three does likely not.

>> No.30187407

>Participated in a fashion contest

>> No.30187412

That's why PCs don't enslave prisoners if they want to be good-aligned.

Gygax isn't relevant and hasn't been for a while.

>> No.30187422

How well did this fashion contest go for him?

>> No.30187427

Nah, elves are basically anarcho-libertarians, of course they're good. No coercion and so on.

>> No.30187437

A Paladin isn't just lawful, he is lawful good, the only reason for a paladin to buy slaves is to release them when they are in security.

>> No.30187439

I'm 99% sure CG governments (unless that wasn't a typo) still have common law of some sort, but they definitely seem to rely on either absolute power or anarchy.

CG's generally considered the "hippy alignment," perhaps unfairly, but it does seem to be the overly optimistic alignment.

Likewise, they gotta be more extreme in some way to not count as NG.

>> No.30187447

There's nothing wrong with buying labourers if you don't mistreat them.
Hell is basically charity

>> No.30187448

He did?

Not that I don't believe you, but do you recall the context? I've been trying to find any mention of it in 1e and haven't had luck yet.

>> No.30187453

He was third.

>> No.30187461

I think it might have been before he talked about how killing demi-human babies was a-ok morality-wise.

>> No.30187470

Then he has been punished enough

>> No.30187490

>Gygax isn't relevant and hasn't been for a while.
It is if you're discussing the system mechanics he designed with certain assumptions.
>A Paladin isn't just lawful, he is lawful good
Correct, and in D&D Lawful Good encompasses an eye for an eye.
>but do you recall the context?
The eternally dumb idea of "muh orc babies being killed".
He also talked about anglo-saxon extremely brutal laws against murderers and rapists (essentially mutilating them and leaving them by the wayside as a warning for others) and that Paladins tend to have judge/jury status as far as executing bandits go.
He also stated that pacifism in a medieval setting is solely for those who wish to be enslaved.

>> No.30187503


>> No.30187504

He designed maybe one or two editions. He's only a memory by the time of 3e. And good's been further (properly) refined to recognize the necessity of mercy.

There's also a difference between not being pacifist and slaughtering prisoners and noncombatants.

>> No.30187510

But D&D isn't a medieval setting, its a magical fantasy setting?

>> No.30187513


>> No.30187523


Ahh I see. Reason I asked is on account of wondering whether to use slavery in my next campaign, or I Can't Believe Its Not Slavery [TM].

>> No.30187524


>> No.30187535

So basically, he's an easily offended jackass who can't countenance people questioning his LE moral system?

>> No.30187536

>He designed maybe one or two editions.
He designed OD&D and AD&D as well as having oversight of all the Basic editions.
That's pretty much all of D&D right there, even the dumber shit that later became core.

>> No.30187537

Sounds like a dark paladin to me, practicing the virtues of evil

>> No.30187544


That's the BoED right?

You know the book that says that Paladins shouldn't kill Hitler no matter how many times he Hitler'd his way through the setting. Just because he said he'd change/give up or some inane shit like that.

The BoED can go fuck itself with the horse it rode in on

>> No.30187554

No, they're supposed to keep Hitler imprisoned, not just release him. It's really not that hard to figure out.

>> No.30187562

>good's been further refined

Nah, BoED is not relevant to 4e or Next, or even Pathfinder, and its 'innovations' have been, thankfully, forgotten. Though I do sincerely believe BoED is what got Kord knocked out of the good alignment, so it did do something.

Also keep in mind that Gygax letting good chars exhibit some flexibility isn't the same as requiring that they eat babies or whatever.

>> No.30187564


Just have home get attacked by morally ambiguous paladins. "Oh you didn't hear every paladin now pays tithes of 2\3 of their gold cough it up or else"

>> No.30187568

>Prison is Slavery

>> No.30187570

>So basically, he's an easily offended jackass who can't countenance people questioning his LE moral system?
No, it was in response to some guy that was badgering him with his own campaign questions and then trying to re-interpret his statements to better fit his own view of alignment rather than just accept that they were his own.
Gygax just made it clear that this was the view he used to design it and that he wasn't interested in debating it.

>> No.30187574

He just said in his post that LG chars don't have to obey malign laws, dude. Not sure what you want.

>> No.30187583

>>Dat comicbook logic
I can't believe I'm not on /co/!

>> No.30187584

4e's good alignment still makes it clear that owning slaves is incompatible with it, and I'm pretty sure nothing said in the BoED is ever contradicted in 4e.

Forcing people to work for you, sure.

People who aren't interested in debating their principles usually know their principles are on shaky ground.

And then he talked about them enforcing malign laws.

>> No.30187586

Lawful good isn't lawful stupid, if a vilain say he want to change you aren't supposed to believe him and you should keep an eye on him until you are sure that he really want to change.

>> No.30187595

>But D&D isn't a medieval setting, its a magical fantasy setting?
Looking at the original quote he actually said "in the fantasy milieu".

>> No.30187604

I won't disagree with that. Thankfully, the BoED actually has a system in it where you can redeem prisoners.

>> No.30187616

So... what, you aren't allowed to kill the bad guy ever, you have to fight a war against him, beat him up, then just keep him locked up in comfort until he claims he has given up his evil ways?

>> No.30187617

>People who aren't interested in debating their principles usually know their principles are on shaky ground.
It was one guy saying "didn't you really mean this thing I really wanted you to mean?" and Gygax going "no I did not and am not interested in discussing that fantasy version of reality you subscribe to."

He got that shit all the time with Tolkien faggots trying to ascribe everything in D&D to LOTR. (whereas Gygax hated LOTR and was on the record of wanting to strangle Frodo)

>> No.30187628

You can scan people to confirm whether they've changed or not, so it's not like that's hard.

Either way, it's a good thing Gygax's input was eventually reduced to being of no import.

>> No.30187648

Man don't let that get out, if people on /tg/ learn someone actually admitted how bad LOTR was they'll freak out.

>> No.30187651

>Either way, it's a good thing Gygax's input was eventually reduced to being of no import.
For people who want to play Forgotten Realms using the BoED morality to be sure.

>> No.30187704

I doubt Gygax hated LotR, or else he wouldn't have brought it up in justifying the way things are in D&D all the time.

>> No.30187713


The implication here was that the Hitler had done so many times and he's a lying sack of shit.

>Another 6 millon dwarves later
>Total count at 18 million
>"Dude he said he's going to change/give up, let's just imprison him what's the worst that could happen"

There was a point where there's no better option that to kill the guy and we've clearly passed it.

>> No.30187716


>Either way, it's a good thing Gygax's input was eventually reduced to being of no import.

Solely in the eyes of people who play a single, specific, dead edition.

>> No.30187726

It's not like he has more influence on 4e.

You don't let him get back into power without ensuring that he's no longer evil (which you can do with detection).

>> No.30187744

AD&D's in print, and 4e disregards the silliness of the BoED.

>> No.30187755

Damn straight, knave

>> No.30187757

4e certainly doesn't contradict anything in it, and 3.5 isn't any more dead than 2e.

>> No.30187794

Pfft dwarves aren't even half a person, they don't count.

You know they only use it as an excuse to try and force monetary 'reparations' out of others.

>> No.30187803

If there is a small chance of redemption for him, you should try it. And you aren't just supposed to locked him, first thing I can think is forcing him to try to fix the evil things he made like in "My Name Is Earl", the guy started as an asshole but by trying to fix all the bad things he has done, he became a better person.

>> No.30187844

>I doubt Gygax hated LotR
He is on the record of not liking it and that he wanted to strangle Frodo. He liked the Hobbit though.
>or else he wouldn't have brought it up in justifying the way things are in D&D all the time.
I can't recall even one time when he did that.
He was pretty clear from day 1 that LOTR inclusions only came about for marketing reasons after so many people at the cons he was testing D&D at asked for them.

>> No.30187849

1e and 2e are being printed and promoted, 3.5 isn't, so...

>> No.30187853

That book can go fuck itself with a stick. Gygax morality is far more fun to play with.

>> No.30187855

>1e and 2e are being printed and promoted

They are?

>> No.30187858


>What is undetectable alignment + Paladins shitty sense motive?
"Fucking wow now Hitler doesn't register on the palaradar I guess he's good to go, good job brother paladin, you've turned him."

>Letting A Hitler get back to power under any circumstance whatsoever
>At all
Nevermind, I'm arguing with a retard

>> No.30187868

If you're a complete edgemaster, maybe.

Dispellable and solvable by having there be good people who aren't paladins, respectively.

And I doubt Hitler would return to power in any case, true.

>> No.30187875

The post he responded to was already assuming he got back to power somehow.

>> No.30187895

You should always choose 4: Release everyone because that'd be the nice thing to do. Repeat as many times as is necessary.

Now you're qualified to play a Stupid Good paladin, as the designers intended. In my opinion it's just as bad as Lawful Stupid.

>> No.30187911

The BoED isn't for playing good character is for playing Good character.

>> No.30187912

I actually think that that would be legally required even in modern wars; I'm fairly sure you're supposed to release PoWs after a war is over unless they committed war crimes.

>> No.30187924

/tg/ complaints department
Have you tried not playing D&D


>> No.30187934

>1. Spend time in prison and reeducation until they're ready to enter the society again

>> No.30187939

There were a total of two periods in that post.

>> No.30187954

I don't think I've seen reference to him saying he disliked it. I have, however, seen him bring up Middle Earth stuff up as the primary source for justifying fantasy conventions a lot, followed by him complaining about Middle Earth, and finding a parallel elsewhere. I read the first 120 dragon magazines within the span of last week and the pattern repeats itself a lot.

He was a game designer so of course he brings up the shit he feels Tolkien did wrong a lot.

>> No.30187965

So it's ok to kill all his minions to get there, because only the villain is a person?

I've seen this discussion before.

>> No.30187976

No; if the minions surrender, you need to handle them as prisoners as well.

Unless they're skeletons or something else mindless, which I could see being used for simplicity's sake by some DMs.

>> No.30187980

If the minions fight, you kill them to defend yourself. If they surrender, you take away their weapons and tie them up to be taken away later. Same with the villain.

>> No.30187986

Yep. Was shocked at my book store, and there's at least one advertisement on the WotC website endorsing XYZ as "a great way to kick off your AD&D campaign."

>> No.30187988

What if they're mindful skeletons who only work for the BBEG because he threatened their living loved ones and/or descendants?

>> No.30187997

Well, then they're not mindless, so we go back o the beginning.

>> No.30187998

And now I'm picturing a Breaking Bad-esque Paladin and his wacky ghost housemates.

>> No.30188011

Here we see the blatant vitalism of the so-called Champions of "Good", using propaganda and stereotypes to justify their murder of people different from them.


>> No.30188026

This shocked me when I first saw it, as I thought it was in agreement with SMITE THE BABBY, but he doesn't use absolute language.

Also, going back to read the 1e alignments I noticed that they're VERY different from the modern takes (they're more "schools of thought," like LG = greatest good for the greatest number and the least harm to the rest, and that laws are necessary, CE = people only deserve to be free if they have the strength to keep it and my freedom is more important than yours, etc., both of which I can imagine people endorsing, if not calling themselves by the alignments themselves).

>> No.30188036

You could try diplomacy,you could try to use non lethal force, using spell like sleep for neutralizing them, you could try to use discretion to sneak your way to the BBEG etc...

>> No.30188047

Alignments as part of the system are totally stupid, if you just got rid of the whole thing and saved damage modifiers for actually supernatural empowered beings who would harmed by using 'Light' or 'Darkness' attacks against them it would make sense.

>> No.30188050

>I don't think I've seen reference to him saying he disliked it.
It's a fairly common talking-point of his since fanboys always wanted to foist off LOTR on him.
>I have, however, seen him bring up Middle Earth stuff up as the primary source for justifying fantasy conventions a lot
Yet 90% of the time i've read his posts it's Conan, Vance and Andersson he cites.
>He was a game designer so of course he brings up the shit he feels Tolkien did wrong a lot.
Most of his complaints about Tolkien was the actual story and writing.

>> No.30188058

Yeah, basically what he was saying is that your characters beliefs can fit the setting a little and objective modern morality is stupid within a fantasy setting that can be attempting to be a grimdark middle ages.

Of course, the newer editions try to promote the more tumblrite conceptions that a fantasy world should be more equal and accepting than the modern day one despite having far more legitimate grounds for racism, slavery and genocide.

>> No.30188067

Gygax actually said he regretted it's inclusions because of the retarded internet discussions it caused.
Alignment originally assumed there would be Gods involved as well.

>> No.30188073

Racism and genocide are auto-wrong in any case, and slavery is actually much less necessary in a world with magic. And it's not saying that the world itself will be more accepting, just that you have to be accepting to be a good person. Which is true.

>> No.30188082

>Racism and genocide are auto-wrong in any case
Even in the case of drow, orcs and kender?

Yeah, nah

>> No.30188085

>just that you have to be accepting to be a good person.
What a stupid notion.
Some of the worst warlords in history were "accepting" of other people.

>> No.30188098

Yes. The first two are evil primarily for cultural reasons and are easy enough to raise in a good-aligned manner, and the latter is just a meme.

I'm not saying that it automatically makes you a good person, it's just a prerequisite.

>> No.30188102

How the hell are you getting this guy to surrender when you don't have the power to construct a proper prison?

>> No.30188111

>it's just a prerequisite.
Still moronic.
There's good people who are judgmental of outsiders just like there are accepting people who are vile human beings.
It doesn't factor in at all.

>> No.30188122

It doesn't factor if you take no actions relating to it, maybe; if you unfairly judge people but take no action to interfere with them, then it can still count as good, yes.

>> No.30188135


Okay, I'll definitely agree that there are a ton of people who like Middle Earth but aren't terribly thrilled about LotR. At the very least, he's described Tolkien as an excellent author nearly as long as D&D's been alive and he's usually the first person he brought up when justifying XYZ fantasy convention in D&D.

>> No.30188142

Don't you mean treif?

Note that PF thinks hookers are totally all-right though.

Honestly, sometimes I think they only allow Libertarians to write fluff.

>> No.30188144

Yeah read that post again.
>racism is auto-wrong
>in the case of drow, orcs and kender
Because why would your characters or society discriminate against a race of hedonistic murderers, savage murder rapists and thieving gypsies?

Oh right, for totally rational reasons.

>> No.30188158

Worry about their cultural issues, but discriminating based on race is still wrong.

>> No.30188159

>if you unfairly judge people but take no action to interfere with them
Again, no.
There's perfectly good reasons to "interfer" with people regardless of your personal opinions of them.

>> No.30188167

Some, sure, but not if you're doing it for unfair reasons like race or gender.

>> No.30188174

>but discriminating based on race is still wrong
Maybe prejudging people is wrong, if you're a suicidal fuckwit. People make ungrounded judgements about everyone else literally all the time. The only difference is that you're pretty much guaranteed to be right in this case.

Discriminating against an almost always evil fantasy race isn't wrong. Choosing to not alter your behaviour if they turn out to not be evil is wrong.

>> No.30188178

>Punted a kender off a massive world-bridge
He can do no wrong.

>> No.30188182

>but discriminating based on race is still wrong.
I agree, let's all play fantasy games that pander solely to the modern cosmopolitan upper middle-class sheltered westerner notions of multicultural and multiracial equality.
That's what people want in their games. Asmodeus could run a pie shop and the source of conflict could be from the evil native humans oppressing him with non-genderfluid slurs.

>> No.30188189

Eh, I'd describe alignments in AD&D as useful and alignments in post-TSR D&D as better replaced by light/dark effects pertaining to cosmic forces.

I mean, the interaction between paladins and their more morally flexible party members have always been a treasured element of AD&D for me, and its not like 'morally grey' fantasy settings tend to be any less "heroes, villains, and shades of grey."

>> No.30188192

>but not if you're doing it for unfair reasons like race or gender.
Again, very easy to find reasons to do that.
Like a foreigner being found in a building containing state secrets.

>> No.30188203

PF also considers slavery, racism and genocide to be acceptable. 3e's the only take on D&D that has tumblrite infection of its morality.

>> No.30188208

It's not "almost always evil." Orcs only qualify as "often" evil, and the far more isolationist drow are still just "usually."

>he has to use "monstrous" races as crutches because having alignment variation within a nonhuman race is for losers

I'll need more information on that to make a decision.

Yes, Pathfinder too may have been made by edgemaster amoralfags like Gygax.

>> No.30188214

So when confronted with a race that is evil, like 70% of the time, would you consider it irrational to fear or hate them?

>> No.30188222

To hate them for reasons of race instead of culture? Yes.

>> No.30188223

I would. It'd be rational to be wary of them and keep an eye on them until you know whether this particular individual is evil, but automatic fear and hatred is kind of too much.

>> No.30188225

Orcs are still usually chaotic evil, and described as "natural sociopaths" as well as "unable to fit into peaceful society."

>> No.30188226

But thats a ROLEPLAYING issue, not a ROLLPLAYING one and so doesn't need rules badly forcing things on the whole game.

>> No.30188235

How many times would you have to have had friends and family murdered and raped by orcs before its okay to automatically fear them?

>> No.30188236

>To hate them for reasons of race instead of culture?
What if the two are the same?

>> No.30188237

Bear in mind they have a track record of burning villages and slaughtering the inhabitants.

It's like a slav or persian not being worried when a mongol walked into town.

>> No.30188240

First, it's "often," and second, that description is nowhere in the Monster Manual, so I've got no clue where you're getting this from.

>> No.30188246

Just like insert rl race

>> No.30188247

What did you just read about being wary and keeping an eye on them?

I didn't say "Turn my back on them and let them do their thing".

>> No.30188253

They never are, at least for any being whose alignment isn't "always" one way (and even they can be redeemed, it's just a fifth harder).

>> No.30188254

Yeah, well, caucasians have pretty much similar records. Would you count us as 70% evil too?

>> No.30188278

Man, nearly no one plays alignment-behavior-restricted characters. There's paladins and... well, paladins. And there's a few totally irrelevant restrictions (like bards can't be too lawful) that are better off being ignored, but paladins are an example of that its possible for alignment to be consistently beneficial rather than negative. Its good to have "unaligned" be a thing too, of course.

As far as "always chaotic evil" being a thing, its useful, at a minimum, for werewolves and vampires and the like (a monster that is essentially a curable status ailment is a legitimate concept) if one understands the idea isn't to criminalize certain character concepts, but that its a monster that gets horribly worse and grows in number if left unchecked.

>> No.30188282


>> No.30188287

Wow, you're right. There's only like 3 "often X" creatures in the whole damn manual.

Anyway, its the BoVD that says they're naturally sociopaths (you strike me as the kinda guy who would cite the BoVD and BoED, so fair's fair), and Cityscape that says they're incapable of peacefully joining society.

>> No.30188305

Are you sure you aren't thinking of vashar? And what is this "cityscape" book?

>> No.30188321

>Cityscape that says they're incapable of peacefully joining society.

No, it says that odds are against them but it's possible.

>> No.30188325


>Are you sure you aren't thinking of vashar?

100% so. "BULLSHIT" was a common mental exclamation while reading the BoVD and BoED.


A book that talks about the details involved in D&D-land cities, including some moral issues.

>> No.30188333

I misinterpreted the last sentence then

>> No.30188338

Well, inconsistencies abound with different authors. Trying to canonize racial inferiority is still a fucking stupid concept for any setting.

>> No.30188346

Like it says, "usually".

>> No.30188355

If anything is stupid it's trying to include post-2000s irrationalist notions of absolute equality.

>> No.30188361

So you do believe in notions of racial superiority/inferiority IRL?

>> No.30188375

See, I usually use Ogres as the go-to Rapist Race in my campaigns. Orcs just aren't as fun.

>> No.30188378

/pol/ pls go

>> No.30188392

I usually don't even bring rape up in mine. It tends to be an uncomfortable issue for a whole lot of us.

>> No.30188394

Ogres have bigger penises, better to rape with

>> No.30188408

As Gygax quoted "nits make lice", all the more so in settings where no one is really going to go out of the way and pull an Oliver Twist for a kid of a criminal.
Seriously, at that point you might as well be playing that ol' Diceless joke of /tg/'s where everyone is so nice and liberal and anyone who disagrees gets brainwashed into agreeing.

>> No.30188419

I tend to go with gnolls, because of the whole hyena thing of females being superior. Bring in some damn gender equality to nonconsensual sex.

Then have the survivors stumble back home, ashamed of telling anyone because they'd just be laughed at and told that men can't be raped and that they should just admit they had fun with a big-titted musclebeast furry lady.

>> No.30188420

Nope. I'm sure you're from tumblr though.

>> No.30188423

That's what good-aligned churches are for.

>> No.30188433

>Implying there are no other reasons out there to beat up people than race

Remove the whole racist issue and you'll still have plenty of motivation for causing shit and not be all peaceful and stuff. Such as religion.

Which works pretty great actually because in D&D gods are real.

>> No.30188442

That's a fair point. It only ever comes up because, while my party never encountered half-orcs even once, there was a Half-Ogre or two.

>> No.30188443

Interesting fact; the primary reason slavery was abolished was because the rich slave owners realised that things had changed in such a way that it was cheaper to 'pay' their workers wages.

With a slave, you legally had to maintain a certain standard of living for then, with 'wages' you could then charge them to live in far worse housing than the slave barracks, not have to maintain it and not have to feed them.

>> No.30188446

I use gnolls a bunch, too, but not for Rape Stuff. Usually just as violent raiders that eat people and make spooky laughing sounds in the darkness, when they're not imitating your wife's voice.

>> No.30188448

Which still won't be compatible with a good alignment if you're still screwing over your workers, so I don't see what difference that makes.

>> No.30188450

>Remove the whole racist issue and you'll
have removed one of the major motivations of people for little to no reason beyond it not jiving with your extremely recent worldview.

>> No.30188453

Would make for an interesting twist to have a Lawful Good society that only condones slavery because slaves are way better off than free workers.

>> No.30188457

>the primary reason slavery was abolished
>doesn't mention violent warfare between States even once

>> No.30188463

So? Bring up necromancers and undead and demons and shit.

There's still plenty of evil assholes out there, you don't have to bring race to it, extremely recent or not. Why couldn't our games keep up with the times?

>> No.30188465

It can still be a motivation for many people in-universe, just no one good-aligned.

The society would also not be lawful good, so it's a wash. A lawful good society would mandate both free workers and good standards of living

>> No.30188489

There's no such thing as a lawful good society, even in a fantasy world.

Maybe if you wrote yourself a propoganda setting where everything in the setting universe actively worked to make an impossible utopia possible but even then it would be silly and have holes

>> No.30188530

>no such thing as a lawful good society, even in a fantasy world

How do you figure, bruv?

>> No.30188531

Who even gives a shit? What if the group is just there to have adventures and enjoy themselves, instead of talking about philosophy and politics and bullshit morality?

Here are the good guys, the bad guys are a necromancer and his skeleton hordes, go beat the bad guys.

>> No.30188536

>Why couldn't our games keep up with the times?
Because "the times" are garbage for creating anything of interest.

>> No.30188548

>just no one good-aligned.
So I take it no one is good-aligned in your universe?

>> No.30188550

>what is WoD?

>> No.30188565

Plenty of people: all will be people who don't discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics (which really isn't hard).

>> No.30188581

Eh, that's just you Yanks culling yourselves.

Please, resume this effort for the good of the world.

>> No.30188596

>Real world has nothing of interest in it
>Real world plus fantasy technology and magic wouldn't be interesting

>> No.30188597

Bagserk had it right, including what happens when orcs get 'integrated' into a relatively peaceful medieval society.
>demons who eat humans and the humans who blindly follow side-to-side
>mfw the only one who is in favor of a multi-racial society is the chosen of the very idea of evil itself

>> No.30188608

In a fictional setting a society can be whatever you want it to be because IMAGINATTION

>> No.30188609

>all will be people who don't discriminate based on arbitrary characteristics (which really isn't hard).
Really? I think you'd have a hard time to find such people now, much less in the past.

>> No.30188611

Get your ass off the Internet, Miura, and go back to writing.

It's been like a year since we got a chapter.

>> No.30188639

It was the North who realised that and later on realised if you pay your 'workers' a decent wage they can actually buy the things you make. While the Southern aristocracy was pretty much sitting around on piles of cotton and developed the aristocratic allergy to doing anything useful to society.

>> No.30188657

Hey, the Limey jerks started it. Wouldn't even have a slave trade if it wasn't for them, plus they turned it around, went Full Abolitionist, and riled up the nasty Republicans.

They put beehives everywhere and then kicked 'em.

>> No.30188658

D&D isn't "the past." And there plenty of bigots around today, it's true, but fewer than there were; getting past it is far from impossible.

>> No.30188660

Haha time for more boating!
>mfw boatserk fans have it easy, unlike us Togashifans now that DQ online has been released

>> No.30188665

I could have sword that big war had something to do with it....

>> No.30188683

I doubt there are fewer bigots today than in the past.
It's just the reasoning behind the bigotry that has shifted in certain societies.

>> No.30188688

I'm not really sure demonic mastery of mankind is precisely the same thing as demonic integration.

>> No.30188698

Hell, we wouldn't have started the damn slave trade if as soon as we found the Africans they didn't start going "Here! Take our youths! Just give us shiny things and shoot the other tribes!"
Then, you know, they turned around and acted all persecuted when they aged and realised they had basically cast out all the younger generations.

In other news: HISTORY FIGHT!!!

>> No.30188725

Seems like a pretty good paladin to me

>> No.30188744

You probably haven't been reading Berserk very closely then. There's very much a point of the demons and humans integrating ever more closely, with Sonia making a damn speech about it in the battle vs Ganishka.
Miura has been hinting that it's not going ot end well either for quite some time, "King of the blind white sheep and shepherd of the villainous black sheep."

>> No.30188769


>> No.30188771

If its too late for him to fall, then kill off his dad.
Have it done in his face though.
>Paladin's papa has been worried about him.
>Paladin's papa goes on an adventure
>Paladin's papa gets captured/killed by bbeg's minions
>If Paladin lol randums, have him fall into Blackguard.

>> No.30188774

I always find American obsession with slavery weird.
I mean it was the domain of the Arabs and Africans for hundreds of years before anyone else bothered with it and they were both the ones who continued with it for the longest time, some places didn't outlaw it until recently.
>mfw everyone of slav ancestry can pull the slavery card indiscriminately in Murricuh

>> No.30188780

Pointing at rules as proof is pointless in a genre where it's repeatedly been stated that GM's can omit or include anything they want. Just because the book says slavery should be evil does not make it so, the GM decides that.

>> No.30188796

It won't work unless they took at least one or two levels in Negro as a class level dip.

>> No.30188806

Americans have a major problem across all their society.

A problem of refusing to take historical blame.

They don't want to think about slavery.
They don't want to think about the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They don't want to think about the CIA assassinations of hundreds of honest democratic politicians across the third world.
They don't want to think about all those dictatorships and genocides the USA has supported during the Cold War.

Americans are fucking wankers.

We Europeans have been doing fucked up shit since fucking 200,000 AD. Do you see us fucking shifting blame?

Fuck no.

Fucking Americunts need to grow the fuck up. You're a big nation now, start acting like one you fucking cocksucking faggot mansluts.

>> No.30188813

>We Europeans have been doing fucked up shit since fucking 200,000 AD.

Europeans confirmed for Illithids.

>> No.30188823

Plot Twist: His deity is in reality a demon lord that has everybody fooled. He didn't fall because his 'god' is actually pleased.

>> No.30188828

That's 4e logic, thou-

>yfw OP never said which edition they're playing on

>> No.30188860

>A problem of refusing to take historical blame.
Because it's moronic to think in terms of historical blame to begin with.
The issue with Americans is that they do.

>> No.30188891

How is it moronic?

People did it in the past. Just fucking admit it.

Not taking historical blame is like ignoring fucking science you fucking retarded creationist cocksucking slimeshit homosexual manslut.

>> No.30188910

>The issue with Americans is that they do.

>admitting all the fucked up nasty borderline nazi/communist shit they did in the cold war

You're retarded.

>> No.30188914

>How is it moronic?
It's moronic to assign blame to entire people because of the past.
What's more it's only use is in retarded guilting politics, where people conveniently omit the blame of everyone but the one they want to harm at the moment.

>> No.30188922

The reason why they don't admit to them is because they do believe in historical blame.
Hence why it's important to them not to accept it.
Otherwise it'd just be another footnote in the history books or as in the case of the rest of the west a good historical joke at worst.

>> No.30188923

>It's moronic to assign blame to entire people because of the past.

What does history have to do with people living now, you fucking retarded autistic manslut?

>What's more it's only use is in retarded guilting politics, where people conveniently omit the blame of everyone but the one they want to harm at the moment.

And now you're off to retard faggot coocoo land.

How fucking retarded are you?

Admitting that a nation did fucked up things in the past has nothing to do with YOU RIGHT NOW TODAY you fucking retarded cocksucking mangina.

>> No.30188931

Fuck man. Are you really this stupid man?

>> No.30188932

Dude, calm down. Your Tourettes is showing.

>> No.30188933

I don't know what god he follows so I don't know if he'd fall or not

>> No.30188938

Did you just learn those words or something?

>> No.30188954

And these two posts are exactly why Americans suck so much dick.

No fucking European would even come up with such schizophrenic ideas.

Fucking Swedes raiding all of West-Europe, goddamn Germans murdering 11 million people, French cutting a bloody swath through Europe, goddamn Dutch wrecking fleets all over the sea.

At least we understand that everyone does fucked up things.

Americans think they're somehow better, beyond nasty shit.

>> No.30188957

He's afraid people are blaming him personally.

It's a common fear, and it's not unsubstantiated in modern politics.

>> No.30188959

>What does history have to do with people living now
>Admitting that a nation did fucked up things in the past has nothing to do with YOU RIGHT NOW TODAY
Ask the Jews, American Blacks and other reparation-seekers, they're the ones insisting that it does.

What i'm saying is:
If your country/people do not believe in "sins of the fathers" and other such nonsense then there's no harm in talking about the dark bits of your history.
If they do then there's a good chance of real political and societal harm coming from it, hence why they deem it unacceptable to admit it. (it's also the reason why their opponents are so obsessed with dredging it out)

>> No.30188963

>All this bizarre, frequent profanity

You alright, m8?

>> No.30188968

Then why did you react so violently when I called Americans retarded?

Clearly Americans are retarded.

If they weren't retarded, they could just talk about black pages in history.

>> No.30188969

>No fucking European would even come up with such schizophrenic ideas.

Europeans have a eurocentric worldview. I'm sorry you don't understand American culture.

>> No.30188972

I'm personally not afraid of anything since i'm from one of the people who would at best laugh at you for trying to pin guilt on us as a people for historic reasons.
I'm merely explaining the idea behind refusing to accept it.

>> No.30188978

You call that profanity?

You some fucking christian or some shit?

>> No.30188979

We do talk about our history. All the time.

Again, you're on the outside looking in.


>I called you a mean name
>Why are you offended? Is it because you're what I called you?

Seriously, dude.

>> No.30188982

>Then why did you react so violently when I called Americans retarded?
I didn't? I called it moronic to think in terms of historical blame and then said the issue with Americans is that they do.

>> No.30188998

You're like a twisted parody of a human being, m8.

>> No.30188999

Retarded as in "Americans are unable to fucking handle the facts of history like any other Western society".

Sorry for cutting some corners on my posting. Faglord.

>> No.30189005

>The ability to look ahead instead of slog behind is why Americans are dumb.

>> No.30189015

But historical blame IS real. And denying it is like denying science.

Denying the murderspree of the CIA during the Cold War leads to all sorts of intellectual errors, for example, if you deny the fuckups of the CIA, you'll never understand how Iran got to be the mess it's now.

>> No.30189020

We can be polite and nice regardless of religion. It'll also make our posts and arguments seem a little more viable.

>> No.30189030

>americans destroy persian socialist democracy and create a muslim theocracy
>couple years later their jewbros get scared and ask murrica to do something about those scary iranians

Keep looking forward and not looking back. That'll sure do you some good. Retard.

>> No.30189031

>unironic use of as much cursing as possible
>deliberate goading folks
>weird, nationalist prejudice

I thought being a dick was a felony in most of Western Europe, bro.

>> No.30189032

It's not historical blame, though. It's just history.

>> No.30189040

>But historical blame IS real.
How is it real? Are the germans today responsible for the Nazis actions against the Jews?
Are the Jews of today responsible for rhadanite jews capturing and selling slavs into slavery?

It's being pinned some sort of responsibility they're avoiding, not the knowledge that the CIA trained guerillas.

>> No.30189041



And we don't cut corners any more than Europeans do.

>> No.30189044

Of course it's just history. That's the point in the end.

Some kid can cry all he wants about the CIA murders and torture, but it still happened. And it will forever and ever have happened until this universe becomes thermally dead in trillions upon trillions of years.

>> No.30189045

He's speaking about racial historical blame.

I think there's been a miscommunication.

>> No.30189051

>socialist democracy
Mossadegh was not elected anymore than Hitler was.
And the Shah coup was primarily the Brits plan.
The bullshit after that was mostly the US though.

>> No.30189129


Oh please, America Home of the Free died with the Confederacy.

Lincoln was shit and probably the worst president ever.

>> No.30189140

>Europeans have a eurocentric worldview. I'm sorry you don't understand American culture.

You mean that culture that was destroyed by poor, violent and extremist migrants?

>> No.30189158

America was never Free.

>> No.30189186

>You mean that culture that was destroyed by poor, violent and extremist migrants?
What is every Western European country ever?

>> No.30189210

I was just speculating based on what you were saying: that its sort of hard to equate "eats people" and "integrates with them" if they prey on them anyway.

>> No.30189211

As an European, I don't see a whole lot of that "culture destroyed" thing going on. But I do see a whole lot of ethnic restaurants with great food from all over the world.

Unlike you lot that never had any culture to begin with and eat only shitty greasy junk food.

>> No.30189229

Its also only relevant to the edition in which it applies.

>> No.30189233

>I don't see a whole lot of that "culture destroyed" thing going on.
Presumably because you're from one of the global cities and never had a connection with it in the first place.
Literally every word heard in the media here since the late-90s is how we don't have a real culture and that we should devolve, our supposedly non-existent yet devolvable one, to be more welcoming to third-worlders.
Yes, I don't get the logic either.

>> No.30189237

It was the freest a society could be and not be anarchist until the National Government was set up, after that it was still incredibly free until the civil war when everything turned to shit under Lincoln. After that it's slowly become less and less free as the years march on by, but the freedom as envisioned and instituted by the founding fathers died with the Confederacy.

>> No.30189243

>its fun to generalize all Americans but how dare you generalize Europeans

Fuck off.

>> No.30189249

Yeah, nevermind all the slaves, they don't count right?

>> No.30189254

>Unlike you lot that never had any culture to begin with and eat only shitty greasy junk food.

>East Texas town
>Delicious Thai restaurant voted best in town multiple years running now
>no exotic culture
>only shitty junk food
>Thai restaurant owned by Thai family
>multiple accolades
>beloved by all
>only shitty greasy junk food
>Successful Thai restaurant receiving awards and expanding business

Go to hell, bruv muv.

>> No.30189266

>Admitting that a nation did fucked up things in the past has nothing to do with YOU RIGHT NOW TODAY you fucking retarded cocksucking mangina.

You are using the behavior of politicians in the past to justify hatred of powerless civilians who happen to occupy the same geographical borders.

Stay classy.

>> No.30189322


>> No.30189323

>then there's no harm in talking about the dark bits of your history.


The data is correct (bad stuff happened in various places), the conclusion "you're a bunch of faggots but we're uniformly superior" is automatically faulty.

>> No.30189333

I'm an atheist and even I think you need to tone down the fedora, mate.

>all this edge

>> No.30189345

Of course Americans can handle them.

On the other hand, you're expecting, what, polite discourse when you're calling them FUCKIN FAGGOTS LOOK HOW HARD IM TRYING

>> No.30189753

Sometimes I want to kill living stuff without worrying about the moral implications, skeletons are pretty boring and there may be a rogue in the party.

>> No.30189769

Then don't worry about the moral implications. It's not required.

>> No.30189787

It kind of is when you lose all your powers because you killed the only good orc in the universe, because the DM has it in for you

>> No.30189825

If you're a paladin and the orc is good-aligned, then odds are very good you'll be able to handle the whole matter peacefully without going to each other's throats like two frothing berserkers.

Then team up to fight the much more numerous non-good orcs.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.