Threads that make us Laugh, Cry, or Both

[bitnine]

1178944613[/unixtime]]ToB: Too Anime?. I'd come up with a Ceilingcat-esque 1337 name for it, but, um, I'm not in touch with that subculture.

Gah, it's gotten so bad that I think it might induce cancer. Seriously:

No melee character should be able to do these things. (Except from cutting through damage reduction. That's what magic weapons are for.)

That's right, abilities should be restricted because of tactical role. If you engage in melee, you should be barred from certain classes of abilities, across both functional and thematic groupings. Not because you are a nonmagical swordsman, not because of a constrained or enforced thematic, not even because of a class limitation. But because you are a "melee character."

And here's an example of great roleplaying that way:

"I am a fighter! I do fighter things! I am the good roleplaying! No anime here! Fighter uses sword!"

[Neeek]

1179081072[/unixtime]]
Seriously though, is moral relativism really an absolute, perfectly defined moral philosophy? Or is it simply the statement that there are no universal rights and wrongs, basically an idea like 'The sun isn't a god after all, and it doesn't really care what you do'?

Moral relativism isn't really a moral philosophy so much as a moral non-philosophy. It's more like saying "Just because the sun is there for you, it's not there for me, and I don't have to act as if it is."

[Catharz]

1179087147[/unixtime]]

1179081072[/unixtime]]
Seriously though, is moral relativism really an absolute, perfectly defined moral philosophy? Or is it simply the statement that there are no universal rights and wrongs, basically an idea like 'The sun isn't a god after all, and it doesn't really care what you do'?

Moral relativism isn't really a moral philosophy so much as a moral non-philosophy. It's more like saying "Just because the sun is there for you, it's not there for me, and I don't have to act as if it is."

To which the apropriate response is, 'The sun may not be there for you, but I've got a whole army of zealots to tell you that they're there for you in case you don't act like it is.'

And everyone's satisfied, at least in a moral fashion.

[Username17]

Moral Relativism is a perfectly coherent philosophical stance. I think it's time to bust out the Wiki on this:

In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

Right. I don't actually see how you could coherently argue against the idea that ethical considerations make sense only within the context that they are originally framed.

I mean yeah, you can make an absolutist argument that "Killing a human is wrong, provided that:

• You're a human, or other moral agent,
  
• and you're killing them without upholding some broader ethical consideration,
  
• and you're killing them without saving some comparable or greater number of people while doing it,
  
• and you had any reason at all to believe that your actions would kill that human,
  
• and the human in question does not want to be killed,
  
• and so on,
  
• and so on..."

But really, at that point your absolutist statements are so completely hedged that they actually are grounded only in a specific context, and are indistinguishable from a descriptive moral statement from a dyed in the wool relativist.

The fact is that broad statements about morality don't make any sense because any meaningful discussion of the rightness of action has to define specifically the import of the actions described or it falls so helpless before the might of "what if..." as to be rendered powerless.

The difference between Moral Relativism and Moral Absolutism is basically that the relativist starts with the context and makes rules while the absolutist makes rules and starts the endless process of creating exceptions for various contexts. Whatever dude.

From the standpoint of Law, you're better off starting with big rules and then making exceptions than starting with specific circumstances and working up. For day to day life you're better off working from the standpoint of whatever circumstances you happen to have. Therefore The State is a more Absolutist organization by necessity and people who aren't idiots err more towards the side of relativism.

But like the arguments of Fate vs. Free Will it's a stupid argument because it doesn't actually matter or make any sense if one or the other is "true".

-Username17

[NineInchNall]

1179097965[/unixtime]]

In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

Like logic.

[Username17]

Precisely. Logic can tell you whether an argument's premises support its conclusions, but it can't tell you whether those conclusions are actually true.

So with Logic you can determine with crystal accuracy whether someone's argument makes sense. But that's it. And that's not enough. So you could look at an invalid argument:

1. My sky fairy says that you shouldn't steal.
   
2. Therefore, stealing is wrong.

And you can conclude that that isn't an argument that makes any sense. It's an appeal to authority fallacy and can be discounted as an argument. But one can't conclude from that something definitive like "stealing isn't wrong".

The fact is that all of mathmatics and physics are based upon axioms that are generally agreed upon. And morality is not. Noone agrees on a set of axioms and there are few people even willing to put in the effort to make a valid argument from those axioms they happen to use.

Logic cannot help you because no universal standard exists.

-Username17

[Draco_Argentum]

Take killing. The morality of this is entirely based on the value assigned to human life. People don't agree on that. Bonus points: abortion. People don't even agree on whether thats killing a human.

The problem with relativism is that having a society pretty much requires some level of agreement, so you can't have it be relative to the individual. Societies now have nuke, so they pretty much have to come to some level of agreement too. So while relativism can't be disproved its not really practical. Assuming that society has value.

[Crissa]

...Draco, that seems more a problem with absolutism, not relativism.

Absolutism doesn't play well with others. It breaks when people do things against it - even if they aren't in that absolutist society (clinic bombers, terrorists, military actions)

Relativism is fine with other people doing other things among themselves.

-Crissa

[Draco_Argentum]

Relativism dosn't work in groups though. We have laws because society says theft is wrong. If someone wants to disagree society punishes them.

[MrWaeseL]

Monks in armor. The first few replies are all really reasonable but then someone suggest being a fighter and it's all downhill from there, culminating in:

I think there was a discussion some time back about the viability of an armoured monk.

Basically dump wis(since you won't really benefit from it), swap out flurry for decisive strike(which can still be used in armour) and you can still reasonably wear light armour.

[Crissa]

I don't even know what that means, Waesel.

-Crissa

[Catharz]

1179135212[/unixtime]]Relativism dosn't work in groups though. We have laws because society says theft is wrong. If someone wants to disagree society punishes them.

I think you're missing the point. Moral Relativity isn't a moral stance, it's a logical & philosophical one.

Society One says "theft" is wrong because it's set up around the property system while Society Two sees property as "theft" and theft (according to Society One) as the standard mode of operation.

A moral relativist says that the first kind of theft is wrong is Society One and 'right' in Society Two. A moral absolutist says that one of the kinds of theft is right (or wrong) in both societies.





Oh, and I found this amusing:

DMs should also reward additional XP to players who go out of their way to make the spells of druids and rangers different and unique as compared to the "by-the-book" method of wizards or faith-based techniques of clerics.

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20070515a

[Draco_Argentum]

1179203688[/unixtime]]I think you're missing the point. Moral Relativity isn't a moral stance, it's a logical & philosophical one.

No, I'm saying that moral relativity works poorly in groups because of examples like you stated. What happens if those two societies interact for example?

[Artless]

Q: Dear Sage,
Can I add both armor spikes and armor razors (Underdark, p65) on the same suit of armor?
--James

A: Yes. You can attack with either one, but not both at the same time.

My brains want to burst out of my skull.

[Catharz]

1179213977[/unixtime]]

1179203688[/unixtime]]I think you're missing the point. Moral Relativity isn't a moral stance, it's a logical & philosophical one.

No, I'm saying that moral relativity works poorly in groups because of examples like you stated. What happens if those two societies interact for example?

What do you mea, 'works poorly'? If the two societies interact and both understand the concept, they'll learn to live be each other's rules where necessary. If they don't understand the concept, each will view the other as a hive of villany, innately evil.

History shows that two societies which find each other inimical can interact peaceably, but I think that societies which can understand & accept each other are more likely too, and less likely to make the other a scapegoat or the target of a 'moral war.'

[Username17]

1179213977[/unixtime]]

1179203688[/unixtime]]I think you're missing the point. Moral Relativity isn't a moral stance, it's a logical & philosophical one.

No, I'm saying that moral relativity works poorly in groups because of examples like you stated. What happens if those two societies interact for example?

The Moral Relativist stance is simply that other peoples' ways of doing things are right for them (strong MR argument) or may be right for them (weak MR argument). The Moral Absolutist stance is that there is a right way and a wrong way, and that you're sure you know what it is (strong MA argument), or at least pretty sure (weak MA argument).

So if two societies that have different methodologies come into contact and both are Moral Absolutists, then both are certain that the other's way of doing things is wrong - at which point their only options are to enact a jihad or sit back and be smugly contemptuous.

On the flip side, if both societies are Moral Relativists, then the differences can be looked at honestly in a non-judgemental fashion. Ideally in fact, both groups would be able to enact the other's methodologies when visiting. Peace and understanding and all that.

---

The actual dark side of moral relativism is not "what if you interact with people who do things differently?" - that's the strength of the position. The United Federation of Planets is specifically a Moral Relativist institution when it comes to dealing with outsiders. And that works pretty well for them (many a Star Trek episode centers around a an individual character failing to be sufficiently relativist about another culture and having things turn out badly).

The dark side is when some other group is doing something actually intolerable to their own people. Moral Relativism at its extreme allows external intervention only by consent - allowing trade but not invasion. If another culture is seriously murdering all of their Black Africans (Sudan) or Serbs (Croatia) or Croats (Serbian Yugoslavia) then what are you going to do about it? Moral Relativism actually has no answer.

And that's why Moral Relativism and Moral Absolutism are used together, because neither of them model completely the interaction of nations in a truly rational fashion. The United Nations has a fairly decent base line: there is a list of things that are unacceptable behaviors for a Nation and other than that countries are pretty much supposed to accept each other doing whatever the fvck it is that they want to do.

Of course, in practice the UN doesn't end up working all that well. Darfur does nto get invaded because China and the United States don't care. When Communist Vietnam invaded Cambodia to put a stop to the Khmer Rouge in 1978, the United States and China led a campaign to stop "Vietnamese Aggression".

But it's an idea that in principal would be OK. You set down a list of things you absoutely won't accept (genocide, world destruction, whatever) and then anything else people do - no matter how uncomfortable it makes you - you just let slide.

Of course, the US backs the Khmer Rouge against Vietnam over pride; invades Iraq but not Sudan, and generally makes a total ass of itself all over the world - but the concept is good.

-Username17

[User3]

That's because the US this administration is neither Morally Absolutist nor Morally Relativist, but Morally Bankrupt.

[Leress]

*sigh*
Sometimes going to the Class broad is bad.

http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=847268

[Crissa]

Class broad?

What'd she say?

The Artisan seems pretty good for an NPC class... 'cept I'd say that it's ten levels of stuff in twenty levels.

...Then again, why does it seem like we're playing two games? One where level 10 is the lord of the land, legendary... And one where 20 is the the lord, what legends and stories are made of?

-Crissa

[Cielingcat]

Because WotC posters are stupid?

[AlphaNerd]

The Artisan seems pretty good for an NPC class... 'cept I'd say that it's ten levels of stuff in twenty levels.

Ok, that's really funny. I ran across this at Monte Cook's boards, and I immediately thought it was a 10 level class -- and one that should look a lot like Conduit, with level scaling talents... He seems to agree with me on what the class should look like. Of course, writing the ten or so level scaling talents required to make it a reasonable class isn't going to be trivial...

Good God that person likes random DCs and a big old pile of text.

Oh, and the Classy Broad slaps you.

[Catharz]

If you run the numbers right, having one as a cohort could actually be game breaking. Enhance your shield, armor spikes, and primary weapon to each give +5 dodge bonuses to AC, get some untyped bouses to attack and damage...

It gives no real options, but some of those bonuses are huge.

[bitnine]

1179307852[/unixtime]]Class broad?

Note to self: refrain from making a joke including phrases liked "clapped more often than the erasers" or "passed around more than an attendance sheet" because that would be tasteless.

:glances above: Crap!

[Cielingcat]

I'd grade her papers.




She'd probably get an "F" though. Those kind of people rarely focus on their studies.

[fbmf]

[TGFBS]
Enough with the Class Broad thing.
[/TGFBS]