The dumbest messages in video games.

[Samuel]

Edit: Also, I hate metaphysics, and I hate it twice over when it coincides with morality. Who wants to live in a world where a "detect evil" spell is all it takes to convince a judge and jury you're guilty of something?

What is so bad about that? In practical terms it is similar to widespread telepathy. Also, for it to be metaphysics thespells must be an inherent part of reality instead of something people constructed. While probably not the case in D&D, that would be interesting if you have different definitions of what it means to be good.

[Formless]

Dude, missing the point much? But I guess you couldn't be arsed to read that part of my post in context with the first half. I hate metaphysical evil because its unrealistic and on top of that the only people who believe in it outside of fiction are also the same people who think they have a right to tell women what to do with their bodies, homosexuals who they can and cannot sleep with, and generally believe in thoughtcrime. Yeah, tell me metaphysical evil isn't a Bad Thing.

Oh. And one more thing. If there were a such thing as a "detect evil" spell that acted like telepathy, you really wouldn't want it in court, especially in a jury trial. Everyone has evil thoughts at times (especially when stressed), but if they don't act on those thoughts or recognize that they are evil no harm is done. But a judge and jury are human, and if they know that you have evil intentions they might just skip over that whole "did you actually commit a crime?" bit that courts exist for. Its like a polygraph, but instead of lies specifically its about thoughts. All the same ethical issues apply, including the fact that it gives false positives. Outside of the courts, well, just think of all the times you wanted to punch your boss/that jerk on the highway/that idiot at the store in the throat (the fucker!). Society would fall apart if everyone had easy access to Detect Evil (a FIRST level spell, mind you).

[Samuel]

Yeah, tell me metaphysical evil isn't a Bad Thing.

Guilt by association isn't a valid reason to reject it.

And one more thing. If there were a such thing as a "detect evil" spell that acted like telepathy, you really wouldn't want it in court, especially in a jury trial.

I didn't mean it would work like telepathy, but that it would have similar social effects. The reason rationalists reject it is because of the lack of magic in our world. In a universe that has ghosts, souls or other violations of materialism, metaphysical evil isn't too bizarre.

All the same ethical issues apply, including the fact that it gives false positives. Outside of the courts, well, just think of all the times you wanted to punch your boss/that jerk on the highway/that idiot at the store in the throat (the fucker!). Society would fall apart if everyone had easy access to Detect Evil (a FIRST level spell, mind you).

That isn't how D&D alignment works.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

In fact, in other examples given, you can be a jackass and be good, or be polite and evil. The big thing is how casually you resort to hurting and killing other people.

[Formless]

Yeah, tell me metaphysical evil isn't a Bad Thing.

Guilt by association isn't a valid reason to reject it.

Still missing the point. These are logical conclusions based on the metaphysics religious people believe in, and D&D uses a metaphysics all too similar to the ones they believe in. D&D's god Bahamut for example is basically dragon Jesus. The game depicts goddamn angels and devils, Heaven and Hell * for fucks sake! Are you completely incapable of seeing the connection? Its not guilt by association, its in your face in D&D that there are good religions and bad religions that are good and bad by the game designer's (or DM's) fiat, and almost all the "good" religions are designed to be Abrahamic sans its insistence of monotheism. Good god, do you even own the Players Handbook? Any edition? Because if not, you should shut the fuck up right now.

* Well, fine, multiple heavens and hells, but they serve the same purpose either way.

I didn't mean it would work like telepathy, but that it would have similar social effects. The reason rationalists reject it is because of the lack of magic in our world. In a universe that has ghosts, souls or other violations of materialism, metaphysical evil isn't too bizarre.

And the problem is that human nature wouldn't change if there was metaphysical evil. Also, ghosts aren't a violation of materialism in D&D, they just exist on a different dimension you can travel to and everything with the right tools. A better example would have been to point at spellcasting and the existence of deities.

All the same ethical issues apply, including the fact that it gives false positives. Outside of the courts, well, just think of all the times you wanted to punch your boss/that jerk on the highway/that idiot at the store in the throat (the fucker!). Society would fall apart if everyone had easy access to Detect Evil (a FIRST level spell, mind you).

That isn't how D&D alignment works.

Seriously. Go read the core rulebooks, then get back to me.

Alignment
* In the temple of Palor is an ancient tome. When the Temple recruits adventurers for its most sensitive quests, each one who wants to participate must kiss the book. Those who are evil in their hearts are blasted by holy power, and even those who are neither good nor evil are stunned. Only those who are good can kiss the tome without harm and are trusted with the temple's most important work. Good and evil are not philosophical concepts in the D&D game. They are the forces that define the Cosmos.

...

A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment: lawful good, neutral good, chaotic good, lawful neutral, neutral, chaotic neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil, or chaotic evil. (see table 6-1: Creature, Race, and Class alignments, on the next page, for examples of which Creatures, Races, and Classes favor which alignments. **)

...

Alignment is a tool for developing your characters identity. It is not a straightjacket for restricting your character ***. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two lawful good characters can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent. A lawful good character may have a greedy streak that occasionally tempts him to take something or hoard something he has, even if its not lawful or good behavior. People are also not consistent from day to day. A good character can lose his temper, a neutral character can be inspired to preform noble acts, and so on.

* I kept that flavor text part in to give people the idea of how alignment plays out in the game. Yes, there are spells and artifacts that can do stuff like this. Also, the bolding is mine to point out the religious connotations of the passage.

** This was kept in because I wanted to point out that in D&D certain monsters have the alignment "always evil" or "always lawful" or somesuch (esp. the already mentioned devils and angels). This is despite the fact that they are supposedly sentient beings. Real nice message to send the kids, aint it.

*** This is not only inconsistent with the statement "good and evil in D&D are forces that define the Cosmos not concepts", its a flat out lie. If you aren't lawful good, you can't be a Paladin, and if you aren't Lawful you can't be a Monk. If you aren't neutral, you can't be a Druid. A cleric must be the same alignment as their deity on at least one axis. Plus there is the fact that your alignment means certain spells and magical effects can target you and not others, as established in the flavor text and later in the chapter describing spells (also, don't touch holy water if you are an evil alignment-- it burns you worse than sulfuric acid). The passage also overall demonstrates the problem I alluded to earlier-- alignment is a vague and redundant concept because you still have to flesh out your character's motives and personality, which might as well be their alignment for game purposes. And this was an intentional part of the game's design.

So don't tell me I don't know how D&D alignment works. It spells it out right there for you. Alignment is 1) representative of your character's attitudes and personality (what's "in their heart" as the flavor passage establishes) 2) metaphysical, meaning that it follows you around even on your off-days 3) strongly associated with religious thinking 4) a person can have vices, urges, thoughts, and feelings that contradict their overall alignment. This means that a "detect evil" spell used on a person doesn't establish guilt because its about their attitudes rather than their actions, hence the fact that it will give false positives if used as a criterion for guilt of any given crime.

“Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.

In fact, in other examples given, you can be a jackass and be good, or be polite and evil. The big thing is how casually you resort to hurting and killing other people.

Care to cite which rulebook that came out of, fuckstick? Because if it came out of the 4e books, its irrelevant to this thread-- no videogame has yet been inspired by 4e, its arguable the other way around for once (not that that's necessarily a bad thing). But there have been games inspired by AD&D, 2e, and V3.x. Also, I've taken the liberty of highlighting the key word that brings your case crashing to the ground like a house of cards-- if it only implies the harming of others, then there is something else that actually defines it in D&D; if this came out of any 3.x supplements or the DMG (which also says something contradictory about it being about your actions despite there being entire spells that clearly indicate in practice its about your character's attitudes/metaphysical status) it does not supercede the Players Handbook which is the one everyone everyone everyone who plays the game will be familiar with.

I've done my part to make my case, now please actually make an effort to do yours.

[Bakustra]

Formless, you're being an idiot. First, we get you pretending that D&D invented the idea of conflicting law and chaos independently of Moorcock, which merely suggests that you know little about the game's roots. Then we get good ol' anti-4e grognardia, about how it is just like Bioshock in how it handles alignment. But now we have you complaining that good and evil have religious overtones.

The problem is not so much that there's a conception of evil as a physical presence, or that evil is defined by actions and intentions, but in the intersection of the two. The first works in a In Nomine/Good Omens sense where they're just "names for sides", and the second works for a lot of stuff, but the two being conflated results in the absurdity of a kindly tiefling or cruel aasimar simultaneously reading "good" and "evil". You do manage to grasp the problem of alignment being mostly meaningless, but you treat that as a secondary problem rather than the most damning indictment of the whole system.

But that said, there being good deities and evil deities or angels and demons is not the horrific thing you're making it out to be, unless you think that all fiction should serve to proselytize a specific brand of secular humanism. Consider Apep, or Surtr, or Eris, or Amatsu-Mikaboshi, or Vritra and Ravana. Plenty of religions worldwide have incorporated malevolent entities, some considered gods, others not named as such but still on the same level. Should fictional religions ignore this? Plenty of others have had malevolent entities preying on humanity. Vampires and demons are both manifestations of supernatural evil, traditionally speaking. Should they both be banned? Please clarify your statements about why having malevolent and benevolent entities is so awful.

[Formless]

Formless, you're being an idiot. First, we get you pretending that D&D invented the idea of conflicting law and chaos independently of Moorcock, which merely suggests that you know little about the game's roots. Then we get good ol' anti-4e grognardia, about how it is just like Bioshock in how it handles alignment. But now we have you complaining that good and evil have religious overtones.

First of all, if you would actually read my posts rather than skimming them for talking points to score you would know that my arguments are based on D&D up till 3.5 and do not touch 4e at all. I even explained-- 4e is too young to have influenced the video game industry (technically the topic of this thread) and in fact is young enough to have plausibly been influenced by it. Also, to my knowledge they got rid of the detect evil/good/law/chaos spells though I could be wrong-- I don't own those books (cardboard crack is cheaper). Second, again if you would read my posts rather than looking for points to score I already explained that even if it were inspired by Moorcock it wouldn't matter because the way D&D itself presents the idea is stupid (a point you don't disagree on, if for your own reasons). How many players of D&D know about that guy or his fiction? Its totally irrelevant. Not that I ever did imply D&D invented that idea-- that's your strawman.

Second, to the rest of this post. Yes, I mostly treat the vacuousness and redundancy of the alignment system as a secondary complaint. Its self explanatory enough that I didn't feel the need to linger. I mean, I could have gone on a rant about "LOL, TVtroper mindsets" and all that, but I didn't feel the need.

To the part about the religious overtones: what's your point? I am a secularist, so are you iirc. I can complain if I want to. I know the designers aren't likely to change things much because of the audience not mostly giving a damn like I do, but that doesn't mean I can't take issue with the message. D&D isn't historic fantasy, so they can take the game in whatever direction they want. WotC's other products like cardboard Crack Magic the Gathering manges to be fairly low key about religious stuff, for instance. If its a direction where the "religiousness=goodness" angle is less obvious, I think its fair for me to say that would be good. Because again, this thread is all about "dumb messages in videogames".

I don't necessarily think that having evil deities and good deities is bad. I think that having holiness=goodness is dumb (Paladins annoy me greatly) and that the correlations between the fictional religions and real life religions are too strong in several disconcerting ways. Does that answer your question?

And yes, I realize 4e may be going more towards that direction. I don't know, because I don't own those books.

[Samuel]

D&D's god Bahamut for example is basically dragon Jesus. The game depicts goddamn angels and devils, Heaven and Hell * for fucks sake! Are you completely incapable of seeing the connection?

You mean that Wizards of the Coast uses the names of well known fantasy creatures because making up new shit is difficult?

As for Bahamut can you give examples of how he is like Jesus excluding things that are general good deeds?

its in your face in D&D that there are good religions and bad religions that are good and bad by the game designer's (or DM's) fiat, and almost all the "good" religions are designed to be Abrahamic sans its insistence of monotheism. Good god, do you even own the Players Handbook? Any edition? Because if not, you should shut the fuck up right now.

Good dieties in the players handbook 3.5

Corellon Larethian
Garl Glittergold
Pelor
Yondalla
Moradin
Ehlonna
Heironeous
Kord

Please, explain how they are Abrahamic. Or is "caring for the weak" suddenly a synonym for Christianity?

Also, ghosts aren't a violation of materialism in D&D, they just exist on a different dimension you can travel to and everything with the right tools.

Except ghosts require souls to exist which violates materialism. Okay, if you want to get technical, they could just be copies, but that isn't how they work.

* I kept that flavor text part in to give people the idea of how alignment plays out in the game. Yes, there are spells and artifacts that can do stuff like this. Also, the bolding is mine to point out the religious connotations of the passage.

And that contradicts me... how? Hey look- it doesn't work by evil thoughts, but by who you are as a person! I also don't see how "evil in their hearts" is religious. Do secular philosophies deny that people have personalities?

** This was kept in because I wanted to point out that in D&D certain monsters have the alignment "always evil" or "always lawful" or somesuch (esp. the already mentioned devils and angels). This is despite the fact that they are supposedly sentient beings. Real nice message to send the kids, aint it.

Devils are recruited from the dead who were evil in life. No shit they are all evil. This applies to alot of the always x group- there is a selection process, they are designed or are from a society with insanely strong social control.

If you aren't lawful good, you can't be a Paladin,... A cleric must be the same alignment as their deity on at least one axis.

You mean individuals who are empowered because of their patron diety and/or moral standing must reflect their patrons moral standing? Shocking!

Alignment is 1) representative of your character's attitudes and personality (what's "in their heart" as the flavor passage establishes)

Blatantly false. Alignment does not consider any aspect of an individuals personality except thing like compassion to other. Have you never heard the phrase "the evil in men's hearts"?

3) strongly associated with religious thinking

Which is wrong... why?

This means that a "detect evil" spell used on a person doesn't establish guilt because its about their attitudes rather than their actions, hence the fact that it will give false positives if used as a criterion for guilt of any given crime.

Yeah, but it is rather useful for finding things like cultists are serial killers.

Care to cite which rulebook that came out of, fuckstick?

pg 103 of the players handbook. Seriously, I'm copying off the SRD and my quote is from the section entitled "Good vs Evil". In fact, it should be directly under "It is not a straightjack for restricting your character".

if it only implies the harming of others, then there is something else that actually defines it in D&D

Look at the previous section:

“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Implies is being used to mean "is defined as".

I don't necessarily think that having evil deities and good deities is bad. I think that having holiness=goodness is dumb (Paladins annoy me greatly) and that the correlations between the fictional religions and real life religions are too strong in several disconcerting ways. Does that answer your question?

Paladins aren't required to be religious or holy. They must be lawful good, not commit evil acts and follow a code of conduct. Holiness doesn't equal goodness either- you may have noticed the complete lack of that being mentioned in any of the quotes supplied.

Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

[Formless]

Christ on a crutch, I hate it when people cut a post into its constituent sentences. That was a three point post, you've somehow managed to inflate it into 11 plus one quote which wasn't even directed at you. Lets please cut to the chase?

You are working from the System Reference Document; I am working from the source material for the System Reference Document. You tried to dispute that the alignment system is based off a person's thoughts attitudes and intentions, and I posted a passage from the Players Handbook itself that demonstrated it was. You say:

Blatantly false. Alignment does not consider any aspect of an individuals personality except thing like compassion to other. Have you never heard the phrase "the evil in men's hearts"?

When the passage explicitly states:

A creature's general moral and personal attitudes are represented by its alignment

Meaning you didn't stop to read it at all. Like I said:

Good god, do you even own the Players Handbook? Any edition? Because if not, you should shut the fuck up right now.

Good day, idiot.

[Samuel]

My brother owns 2nd and 3.5 edition of the players handbook (and I have read them several times). I'm working off SRD because I am at college and he is not. I broke it into many pieces because you got so many things wrong. But no, lets immediately jump to the conclusion that places our opponents in the worst possible light.

You are working from the System Reference Document; I am working from the source material for the System Reference Document.

Are you claiming the sections I quoted weren't in the players handbook?

Meaning you didn't stop to read it at all. Like I said:

Wow, an alignment system composed of two axis (good-evil, law-chaos) and a sentance that references two attitudes (moral and personal). Maybe each attitude fits to one axis.

It is a good thing I'm not defending law versus chaos, but good versus evil than isn't it?

Edit- good weapons are called holy weapons... however, they don't have any religious connotation. They just require a properly trained spell caster to produce.

[Formless]

Look, its very simple. Each alignment is associated with a certain behavior, but the primary source directly states that its not defined by that behavior but by the intentions behind it. It also says that they are not merely concepts but a metaphysical forces in the D&D world, to the point where there is literally a pseudo-Christian afterlife (where the christian afterlife only has heaven or hell, this one has three heavens and three hells, but that's a trivial detail). There is nothing to be said: you simply have your facts about the game and its presentation wrong or else aren't willing to accept the obvious.

[Samuel]

Each alignment is associated with a certain behavior, but the primary source directly states that its not defined by that behavior but by the intentions behind it.

I'm not sure what your point is. I've agree to this.

There is nothing to be said: you simply have your facts about the game and its presentation wrong or else aren't willing to accept the obvious.

So the good Gods in D&D are Abrahamic? Face it- you have been making shit up and are unwilling to defend it.

As for pseudo-Christian afterlife, the Greeks and Romans, Norse, Zorocrastians, Aztecs have seperate afterlifes depending on your conduct in life.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Also, I hate metaphysics, and I hate it twice over when it coincides with morality. Who wants to live in a world where a "detect evil" spell is all it takes to convince a judge and jury you're guilty of something?

Can you find me an example of this? Anywhere?

[Simon_Jester]

Okay ... if you don't like my example, then let's hear someone else's.

Chaos, for lack of a better word, is good. Chaos is right, chaos works. Chaos clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Chaos, in all of its forms, chaos in life, in society, and in the world has marked the upward surge of mankind. And chaos will not only save Tellius, but also the other malfunctioning machine known as this thread. A perfectly orderly world is a perfectly boring world. Chaos introduces fun, excitement, risk into the world. Chaos is essential to the modern world and has been essential to every world before it.

One could make a closely parallel argument for order, but then, that's kind of the point of using "order versus chaos" rather than "good versus evil."

When you've got a light side/dark side dichotomy, there's no moral ambiguity and that's the whole point, which makes it somewhat difficult (for decent people) to sustain the kind of thought process that says "okay, the evil ending is totally acceptable and working for demons who torture people for fun is cool." That isn't a message that speaks to the soul, not for anyone who has one to begin with.

With order/chaos, you can make much better points for each side, because real life is, and most of us will agree ought to be, a dichotomy of order and chaos intertwined. Nobody really wants to live in a perfectly regimented world, but no one really wants to live in a world where the laws of society (let alone the laws of nature) are, for practical purposes, Calvinball.

Thus, you can more easily create a cosmic conflict between diametric opposites and yet still have people sympathize with both sides.

By the way, the D&D alignment system is not the most sophisticated, but the flaw Formless is talking about is not a necessity. The problem is that too many games present "lawful good" as the top of the pyramid of moral choices, while "neutral good" is slightly worse and "chaotic good" more evil still! That's just wrong, a chaotic good character just wants to do as much good as a lawful good character - the difference is in the method, not the goal.

You can do the same thing the other way round, too: make the free-spirited chaotic good Robin Hood types "more good" than the stuffy, oppressive, tyranny-of-the-saints paladin types. Which you see is likely to depend on the sympathies of the game-creator, but either way it's a problem because...

By giving such a hierarchical structure, those games are really making Order and Chaos substitutes for "good" and "evil", which is blatantly misrepresenting those concepts.

Agreed.

[TheFeniX]

Enemies will never surrender, even to your unstoppable doom legions/soldiers/spaceships.

Final Fantasy (back in what, 86-87?) got this right and ignored it in pretty much every game since. Low level monsters would flee when faced with your level 80 killing machines. Fallout did a decent job, although in 3 raiders in leather armor armed with lead pipes would blindly charge your power armored walking tank.

Crushing your opponents is the only way to secure victory (No diplomacy or espionage).

My beef was with games where you could focus on diplomacy and stealth, then the entire endgame is nothing but combat encounters.

As for my own stupid messages: most of what Kreia says in KOTOR2 is idiotic. At one point, you can give a homeless man money and he is (not 3 feet from your world destroying party) murdered for this money. Kreia chastises you and goes into a rant about "might makes right" and all that bullshit and how it's your fault, even though I was physically capable of stopping the murder and that maybe there should be some kind entity (possibly run by a governing body) that's concerned with law enforcement. Crazy thought....

Rather than calling out her bullshit, your only options (as far as I can remember) are "shut up" or "lol I am good, I r do more good."

On the whole good vs evil rant going on in this thread, I remember a mission from Planscape:Torment in Sigil where some noble woman needs something returned. You return it and still fail the mission. I can't remember, it's been so long. I would find out years later there was an assassin and the only way to find out (and win the mission) was to cast "detect evil." I was annoyed that in a game with such depth I couldn't talk him into revealing himself, instead win/lose was distilled into a plot coupon.

Comedy Option: Azeroth has a crippling homeless problem. The great heros of the Horde and Alliance are forced to wander aimlessly around the streets of Ogrimmar and Stormwind. Won't you please adopt this Kingslayer with 30,000 gold and give him a place to live.

[Sela]

I think the dumbest message in any game that I've played would have to be:

"All your base are belong to us."
"You have no chance to survive, make your time."

[Garlak]

Edit: Also, I hate metaphysics, and I hate it twice over when it coincides with morality. Who wants to live in a world where a "detect evil" spell is all it takes to convince a judge and jury you're guilty of something?

What is so bad about that? In practical terms it is similar to widespread telepathy. Also, for it to be metaphysics thespells must be an inherent part of reality instead of something people constructed. While probably not the case in D&D, that would be interesting if you have different definitions of what it means to be good.

Hmm... when you say "what is so bad about that?" are you referring to "metaphysics [...] when it coincides with morality" OR to "a "detect evil" spell is all it takes to convince a judge and jury you're guilty of something" ?

Because the latter is very problematic: "detect evil" would ping off of some kind of douchebaggery, rather then tell you whether the person committed the crime or not.


Note: like General Schatten pointed out, there probably isn't a concrete example of Detect Evil being used to judge guilt. But the presence of the Detect Evil spell likely spawned internet discussions about whether or not Detect Evil could/should be used in courtrooms. Leading to a general perception/acceptance that Detect Evil has a place in courtrooms. Formless probably stumbled upon such discussions and really did not like them.

This fed into his issue of "DND's Good/Evil+Law/Chaos lacks nuance as well as influencing awkward views of morality and ethics in video-games and works of fiction."


At least that's sort of what I got from the discussion.



Anyway, on to "dumb messages in games."

Any game where the fate of the world is at stake... and you still have to buy shit from vendors. It generally comes off less as war profiteering and more as a disconnect from reality on the part of the vendors.

[Samuel]

Because the latter is very problematic: "detect evil" would ping off of some kind of douchebaggery, rather then tell you whether the person committed the crime or not.

In D&D terms evil is a bit more, well, evil than being an ass. Of course, this depends on the DM because as the rules are set up, the overwhelming majority of the population is neutral, making alignment mostly irrelevant.

In D&D in would be useful in telling who can commit pre-meditated murder for personal gain, rape, slaving and other major crimes, but totally useless for theft, crimes of passion, assault and the like.

Any game where the fate of the world is at stake... and you still have to buy shit from vendors. It generally comes off less as war profiteering and more as a disconnect from reality on the part of the vendors.

It makes sense if all their wealth is tied up in their goods. If they just give it away, they end up broke and starve.

Or people claim that they are saving the world all the time and they don't believe you/believe you but need money so they can buy goods for the next round that someone saves the world.

Or they don't understand that people with god like power should be provided with goods free of charge because they can take them by force. This would be an interesting way to have the same mechanic, but a different explanation- you don't buy goods. Instead you help out a town and they pay you tribute. Instead of having to pay them money, you have the town's surplus money and the cost is getting it from someone else. As you continue the game you get closer to where the higher quality goods are produced and so can buy them for lower prices.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Edit: Also, I hate metaphysics, and I hate it twice over when it coincides with morality.

You... Hate the nature of reality and being?

That's some existential shit, bro.

[Garlak]

Well, my point was Detect Evil would not be useful in figuring out if someone had committed a crime *by itself*. It might make an interesting social tool for other things, but it shouldn't be used as a guilt detector. I'm more curious as to what would happen if we used Detect Evil on our public servants and those running for politics... how would THAT shape the world?

As for vendors: I meant more about Final Climactic Battle(TM) type "End of the World" shtick. Are they not going to lower prices AT ALL? Your life is at stake; fight! In this case, you can fight by giving tools to the people who'll use them.

They can always give you back what they didn't use. Sure, you're probably going to see a loss.. but you're not likely to starve for lack of money. If for no other reason then because people will take care of your on account of, y'know, the fact that you gave up your livelihood to help the heroes win.

But the vendoring mechanic is usually divorced from such a thing. I'm not even going to touch on how you can sell stuff worth millions of dollars to anyone, heh.


Though "quest rewards" tend to work like that: save a village, get a +1 sword.



On the flip side of all this is the Kleptomaniac PC issue: a lot of RPGs basically have you go into people's houses, break their shit, and take rupees from their piggy banks. (Supposedly you knocking and being let into houses isn't shown and simply abstracted. Though the idea that you will be let into anyone's house--except for plot-crucial ones!--is kinda silly too. Captain SNES lampshades this in one of its' strips.)

[Formless]

Edit: Also, I hate metaphysics, and I hate it twice over when it coincides with morality.

You... Hate the nature of reality and being?

That's some existential shit, bro.

Put it this way. Why talk about the nature of reality and being when you can actually experience reality and being?

So, yeah. I'm more inclined to like Zen than Plato or Descartes, if that means anything to you. Also why I find attempts to classify moral acts into ontological schemes (like the two dimensional Law-Chaos Good-Evil D&D scheme) to be a pointless and backwards way of doing ethics.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Edit: Also, I hate metaphysics, and I hate it twice over when it coincides with morality.

You... Hate the nature of reality and being?

That's some existential shit, bro.

Put it this way. Why talk about the nature of reality and being when you can actually experience reality and being?

The unexamined life, etcetera.

[Formless]

I know that song and dance; I took that class. Metaphysics and theology are the only branches of philosophy I have a problem with. So I don't know what your point is.

[Marcus Aurelius]

I know that song and dance; I took that class. Metaphysics and theology are the only branches of philosophy I have a problem with. So I don't know what your point is.

So you are a logical positivist (a.k.a. neo-positivist a.k.a. logical empiricist)? A respectable stance, if somewhat outdated. Though it might not be a bad idea to take a look at some post-WW2 philosophers as well.

[Formless]

I know that song and dance; I took that class. Metaphysics and theology are the only branches of philosophy I have a problem with. So I don't know what your point is.

So you are a logical positivist (a.k.a. neo-positivist a.k.a. logical empiricist)? A respectable stance, if somewhat outdated. Though it might not be a bad idea to take a look at some post-WW2 philosophers as well.

No, if you really want to shove my beliefs into a convenient box you could say I'm an ignostic Pragmaticist *. A Positivist would say that metaphysical statements and constructs are meaningless; that's a generalization I can't see myself endorsing wholesale (at least WRT metaphysics). I just don't see the point if metaphysics ends up detached from real life concerns, which is so often the case its not funny. For example, take the Free Will issue. "We've got to believe in free will; we have no choice". Or take the Chinese Room thought experiment. Who gives a shit? If an AI were invented tomorrow, I'd be more concerned with its economic impact and ethical implications than whether or not there is a "ghost in the machine".

But then again I don't try to fit my beliefs into conveniently pre-constructed boxes like "Logical Positivism" or "Post-whatever-the-hell" so...

* not a misspelling, by the way. Pragmaticism denotes Charles Sanders Peirce's original philosophy of pragmatism before William James decided to add a layer of irrelevant psychology to it.

Anyway, I never intended to hijack this thread, so no more posts from me unless they are about bad messages in video games.

[TheFeniX]

In D&D terms evil is a bit more, well, evil than being an ass. Of course, this depends on the DM because as the rules are set up, the overwhelming majority of the population is neutral, making alignment mostly irrelevant.

The problem is Lawful Evil who make it a point to abuse the law to further their own gains. Detect Evil would put evil men guilty of no crime behind bars.

A better example would be truth-telling spells. I forget how they work in D&D, but in Shadowrun they force the target to either tell the truth as they know it, or not answer at all. It also can't be used in court (at least in the UCAS) as it violates the 5th amendment. Although, a 21st century government is more progessive than the systems most D&D setting have.

As for the population being neutral, where is this coming from? Lawful Neutral is the only category that fits and you really can't lump most of the populace into that. Lawful Neutral has to be the worst thought-out alignment with the exception of True Neutral. Most of the populace (at least in the novels I've read) would be lumped into lawful or Neutral good.

Any game where the fate of the world is at stake... and you still have to buy shit from vendors. It generally comes off less as war profiteering and more as a disconnect from reality on the part of the vendors.

On this note, why is it a vendor working in some shit-hole at the ass end of nowhere only sells crap goods, but is more than willing to let me sell him mountains of massively expensive world-destroying goods, netting me more profit than his entire town is worth?

The only game I played that broke from this is Morrowind. And jesus-fuck it was annoying. Solution: sell your goods to a magic crab at the ass-end of the world......