Alignment in 5E still causes arguments

[darkmaster]

Okay, first of all, that article literally spends its first sentence attributing the term vandalism to the Romans, next to a picture of graffiti completely oblivious to the fact that graffiti was an accepted political tool in Rome. Secondly please point me to the line in that clearly well thought out and researched article that states vandalism is carried out exclusively because hurting people makes the vandal hard.

Now there are people who truly lack the ability to feel for other people and often will hurt others because they enjoy it. But those people are ill. They're sick and and we put them in hospitals instead of prisons because they need treatment.

[Mistborn]

Because this fire clearly needs some gasoline to add the right zing:

I really hope you where trolling here, because that comic was terminally unfunny and I think less of you for posting it.

[TiaC]

Because this fire clearly needs some gasoline to add the right zing:

I really hope you where trolling here, because that comic was terminally unfunny and I think less of you for posting it.

That comic in a nutshell: "Hey, remember when you could be racist and sexist and no one would call you on it as long as you weren't blatant about it? I miss those days."

[Voss]

Oh, for fucks sake. Jack the Ripper killing hookers to bring 'England closer to God' or whatever theory you want to wank to, does not mean he is a good purpose because his intent was 'good'*. Same with any number of atrocities or just plain crimes.

Arguing intent opens the door to all sorts of pure horribleness, including every monstrous act performed by religious nutters, nationalist fanatics and just plain crazy people. The fact that you're fine with that speaks volumes about you..

Way to go into hyperbolic strawman arguments there and put words in my mouth, then proceed to draw conclusions from the words you put in my mouth.

Hey, I can only extrapolate from what you gave me. Serial killers are a great way of slapping people in the face with reality when they start pulling out bullshit about intent, and old Jack has great deal of bullshit built up around him to justify his crimes

If you're talking about people with true delusions that cause them to commit crimes, moral debate isn't all that important anymore. At that point, they're not a good/evil person, they're just a crazy person. Their actions are so out of touch with reality that they can no longer even actively make sound moral decisions and regardless of if they're good or evil in intent, they're definitely dangerous, and dangerous people need to be locked up or executed for the good of everyone.

There may well be instances where good people are struck with delusions and do terrible misguided things where they believe they're doing the moral thing. Mental illness can be a tragic thing. Of course, that doesn't mean we should let them remain free to hurt people.

Well, this is a sudden back peddle from 'evil people have criminal thoughts and good people don't'
How much of the bullshit you've written are you recanting now?

[Prak]

Because this fire clearly needs some gasoline to add the right zing:

I really hope you where trolling here, because that comic was terminally unfunny and I think less of you for posting it.

That comic in a nutshell: "Hey, remember when you could be racist and sexist and no one would call you on it as long as you weren't blatant about it? I miss those days."

For me the humour is mostly in the relevance. I just stumbled across it on tumblr a few hours ago.

Keep in mind, I'm on the side saying that "no, original sin is fucking disgusting" and "yes, there are parts of the orc characterization that are very uncomfortably close to the worst stereotypes of black people." Unlike the idiots ISP and Stinktopus.

[Starmaker]

Okay, first of all, that article literally spends its first sentence attributing the term vandalism to the Romans, next to a picture of graffiti completely oblivious to the fact that graffiti was an accepted political tool in Rome. Secondly please point me to the line in that clearly well thought out and researched article that states vandalism is carried out exclusively because hurting people makes the vandal hard.

I'm just lazy/busy, and a wut + link to wikipedia is as good a lazy reply as any.
However: there are absolutely people who will wreck shit for the sake of wrecking shit:
- assholes who damage and destroy trees just walking by ("ooh, a branch! I'll break it off, carry it for a while, then throw it away, hurr hurr");
- assholes who rip and break furnishings in subway cars;
- assholes who break elevators even though there are huge "please don't break elevators, think of the disabled and the elderly" posters in them;
- rich fucks who key a random car parked in a random alley (so no vomit-on-a-bus class resentment and no parking rage);
- people who steal accessories off a bike that are completely fucking useless without a bike and have no resale value, such as the chainstay protector or the body of a cheapass meter;
- etc.
And no, I'm not buying the "outpouring of diffuse frustration and rage". I mean, ultimately, it does boil down to "hur derp did it for the lulz". But there is a difference between being stuck in a jail cell and peeling the paint off the wall because there's nothing else to do and riding the subway with your buddies and slashing seats because seats are still unslashed and you happen to have a knife.

[schpeelah]

That comic in a nutshell: "Hey, remember when you could ignore the existence and problems of minorities and no one would call you racist/sexist as long as you weren't actively against them? I miss those days."

FTFY.

[momothefiddler]

So all the stuff with Saint Augustine and church councils and Thomas Aquinas and so on are completely separate, extra bits and don't matter and the only thing that "original sin" is ever used to mean is "people come with some sort of undefined thing wrong with them"?

'Cuz that's new to me.

I'm sure all that crap matters a lot to Catholics

Yes, and by that point fectin and I were specifically discussing Catholics, because I'd already yielded the point that:

there are a lot of religious movements that are not beholden to the pope, but still have a doctrine of original sin. [...] The specifics of whether you're being punished for Eve's sin or Adam's, or whether the punishment in question is mortality or a hellish afterlife are all trivial details that do not define the term 'original sin' when speaking generally.

At which point I stated that:

it sounds like it still applies just fine as a metaphor for orcs and is still very possibly disgusting.

I don't think we're in disagreement at all here; I'm just new to the term as a generic thing rather than a Catholic thing. Though I suppose I know of it (the idea, not the term) being ported and mutated into other denominations, which means I was just being an idiot when I insisted on it being Catholic.

[hyzmarca]

Meanwhile, think of the poor plight of the discriminated-against undead. People consider them 'evil', and form parties to hunt them down and exterminate them, merely because they hunger for the flesh, blood, and spirit of the living.

Being undead is just a condition people acquire. It doesn't even begin to fit a racist narrative, because undead are not a race.

Right, it's more like HIV, really. Which does bring up some other issues in regards to sexual orientation, particularly with vampires. You've got a lot of metaphorical overlap with anti-gay propaganda, potentially,


But that's easier to avoid if you do it right.

[Whipstitch]

I have always been under the impression that original sin, in christian religions worked like this. Sex is a sin, humans are created through sex ergo humans are born of sin and therefore inherently sinful. I believe the understanding is that before Adam and Eve's sin humans didn't need to have sex to reproduce. Now how you get saved in such traditions varies, if your catholic you're saved by giving the church your money, if you're a Calvinist you get saved... by being part of a predetermined list that never changes and only do good in the world to show how great the god is. Religion is weird sometimes. Anyway, I don't know how it works in other traditions.

Actually, no. Christians rather famously have a stick up their ass about sex but surprisingly it's not really related to original sin in the major doctrines. For one thing, the immaculate conception and the virgin birth are generally considered two separate things--the result of the immaculate conception was Mary, not Jesus, and she is known for having two ordinary parents who presumably got their bone on. The whole thing where Catholics furiously fap to Mary's perpetual virginity is just a side effect of the way old men tend to grade women primarily on the state of their vag and has very little to do with any coherent dogma. In fact, during the Reformation a number of Protestants pointed out that married women are totes obligated to produce children on demand and so it'd actually be morally wrong for the Mother of God not to be putting out.

[Mistborn]

Right, it's more like HIV, really. Which does bring up some other issues in regards to sexual orientation, particularly with vampires. You've got a lot of metaphorical overlap with anti-gay propaganda, potentially,


But that's easier to avoid if you do it right.

I've always preferred Vampires as a metaphor for aristocrats. They live in ornate castes wearing fine clothes, literally suck the blood from the common man, and getting rid of the usually involves chopping off their heads.

[fectin]

I have always been under the impression that original sin, in christian religions worked like this. Sex is a sin, humans are created through sex ergo humans are born of sin and therefore inherently sinful. I believe the understanding is that before Adam and Eve's sin humans didn't need to have sex to reproduce. Now how you get saved in such traditions varies, if your catholic you're saved by giving the church your money, if you're a Calvinist you get saved... by being part of a predetermined list that never changes and only do good in the world to show how great the god is. Religion is weird sometimes. Anyway, I don't know how it works in other traditions.

Actually, no. Christians rather famously have a stick up their ass about sex but surprisingly it's not really related to original sin in the major doctrines. For one thing, the immaculate conception and the virgin birth are generally considered two separate things--the result of the immaculate conception was Mary, not Jesus, and she is known for having two ordinary parents who presumably got their bone on. The whole thing where Catholics furiously fap to Mary's perpetual virginity is just a side effect of the way old men tend to grade women primarily on the state of their vag and has very little to do with any coherent dogma. In fact, during the Reformation a number of Protestants pointed out that married women are totes obligated to produce children on demand and so it'd actually be morally wrong for the Mother of God not to be putting out.

More, she wasn't married and was preggers, premarital sex is bad, and she was free from sin. Her vag-state is much more consequential, not causal.

Original sin is associated with sex, in that childbirth is apparently painful because of it. In the same way, jailtime is associated with stealing, but they aren't inherently connected.

[ACOS]

As I've always understood it, Original Sin - and in turn, Redemption - has to do with Free Will.
Under their own Free Will, Adam and Eve disobeyed God, so he got pissed off and kicked them out of Eden and they were then subjected to all the bullshit that is life and the world.
Being kicked out of Eden and left to fend for themselves, they were removed from God. Which is what "sin" actually is - the absence of God and/or Godliness. Being born outside of Eden - and thus in the absence of God - means that you are by definition inherently sinful.
As such, it is up to each individual to utilize their Free Will to find their way back to God/Godliness - i.e., Redemption.

And I seem to remember way back in Sunday School something about babies getting a free pass, because they have yet had the opportunity to develop - let alone exercise - their own Free Will. I think it's related to some scripture somewhere that talks about God saying that people should submit themselves to Him with childlike awe and innocence, or some shit.

It's been 20 years since I've darkened the doorstep of a church, but I did grow up in a strong Southern Baptist home.
Meaning that I realize that there are huge gaping holes in my memory, but there were certain elements that were burned in to my mind forever.

@ Virgin Mary:
As I understand it, she was elevated to the degree that she has by the Catholic church during the Holy Roman Empire as a means of trying to sell the idea of Christianity to the outer pagan regions - in that particular PR campaign, a lot of the pagans held Mother Earth as the head of their mythos, so the Catholic church needed to shoehorn in an analogous element so that they could get buy-in from the pagans. Before then (and still today in many/most protestant denominations), Mary is just some woman that happened to pop out a Jesus (there's bloodlines to follow and whatnot; but still all the same).
And it just stuck, because the Catholic church is very much rooted in the "that's the way we've always done it" school of things.

[kzt]

That comic in a nutshell: "Hey, remember when you could be racist and sexist and no one would call you on it as long as you weren't blatant about it? I miss those days."

Unless you are George Lucas. Then people won't call you on your blatant movies anyhow.

[Cyberzombie]

Well, this is a sudden back peddle from 'evil people have criminal thoughts and good people don't'
How much of the bullshit you've written are you recanting now?

It was never about people having criminal thoughts, that's you misunderstanding it or making BS up. It was that good people are capable of caring about the welfare of others and evil people never care about anyone but themselves.

I've actually mentioned many times that legal and illegal aren't the same as good and evil, but I guess you see what you want to see because it's easier to make up a strawman to debate with.

[Kaelik]

Protip, you are describing literally zero people ever when you talk about the people who guiltlessly steal and destroy because they enjoy the act of hurting other people.

wut

From the article you just quoted:

"Actions of this kind can be ascribed to anger or envy, or to spontaneous, opportunistic behaviour– possibly for peer acceptance or bravado in gang cultures, or disgruntlement with the target (victim) person or society."

Notice how literally none of those are are people destroying stuff because destroying stuff is cool.

However: there are absolutely people who will wreck shit for the sake of wrecking shit:
- assholes who damage and destroy trees just walking by ("ooh, a branch! I'll break it off, carry it for a while, then throw it away, hurr hurr");

I eat food because I enjoy eating food. Eating food destroys the food. Does it therefore follow that I destroy things because I enjoy destroying them? Or does it follow that I destroy them for some other reason, like maybe I'm bored while walking and the stick entertains me for a while.

- assholes who rip and break furnishings in subway cars;

Yes, there is no way at all that subways could carry disaffected people who resent society and the government and take petty revenge on the people they feel have hurt them in this way. Absolutely none at all.

- assholes who break elevators even though there are huge "please don't break elevators, think of the disabled and the elderly" posters in them;

I call bullshit. No one breaks elevators on purpose. You have to literally be inside the goddam elevator to break it, and they are really hard to break. You've never seen someone intentionally break an elevator, and you've never had a justifiable reason to believe that is why any elevator you ever ran into was broken.

- rich fucks who key a random car parked in a random alley (so no vomit-on-a-bus class resentment and no parking rage);

Seriously? And how many cars are keyed by specifically rich people walking by in an alley. First off, rich people don't often walk in alleys. Second, like 99% of all cars are keyed by someone who knows the owner and resents them. Do you not see how this does not support your point.

- people who steal accessories off a bike that are completely fucking useless without a bike and have no resale value, such as the chainstay protector or the body of a cheapass meter;

Well since chainstay protectors are literally the only part of someone else's bike that you can just take and use on your bike, and chainstay protector theft is less common than stealing the whole goddam bike, I fail to see how this supports your point in literally any way at all.

And no, I'm not buying the "outpouring of diffuse frustration and rage". I mean, ultimately, it does boil down to "hur derp did it for the lulz".

Good thing you perfectly know the motives of everyone in the universe, better than the people themselves or the people who have interacted with them. You are right, Graffiti has nothing to do with gang respect and everything to do with getting hard from the thought of breaking stuff. That is why the people who do Graffiti usually break windows nearby... Oh wait, they don't, because breaking windows is a destructive act that has no benefit to them in gang cred.

[Occluded Sun]

Now there are people who truly lack the ability to feel for other people and often will hurt others because they enjoy it. But those people are ill. They're sick and and we put them in hospitals instead of prisons because they need treatment.

A political metaphor that the ignorant and the easily-manipulated mistake for literal truth.

It's as though you'd never read Samuel Butler's Erewhon.

[Occluded Sun]

You can completely and directly tell people why and how playing that way may cause ethical issues. I mean they do it all the time in children's stories all the time. We're past the time where we have to twiddle our thumbs because "that's just the way things are" but you're going above and beyond that though. You're apologizing for the racism inherent in games. Now if you were on the side of "let people do whatever" then be that but what you're actually trying to jump through these weird mental hoops in order to "ok" the behavior. It isn't "ok" for the reasons listed. There is no benefit to keeping things like that and every reason to change it.

I find it amusing how the people who claim to support tolerance are in reality the least tolerant of anything that might be construed to appear to be not what they approve of.

It's not enough that something be innocent, it must be altered to meet your approval. It's the very worst kind of tyranny, the kind that is completely dishonest about itself.

[Kaelik]

Now there are people who truly lack the ability to feel for other people and often will hurt others because they enjoy it. But those people are ill. They're sick and and we put them in hospitals instead of prisons because they need treatment.

A political metaphor that the ignorant and the easily-manipulated mistake for literal truth.

It's as though you'd never read Samuel Butler's Erewhon.

It is almost as if the vast majority of people alive today have never read Erewhon, and that those that have are not appreciably smarter or more knowledgeable than those whom have not because it is just a satire of Victorian England, and therefore has less relevance than literally any contemporary book, even the shit written by Ann Coulter, to today's problems.

But by the way, when he says that those people are ill and are put in hospitals, that isn't a reference to a political metaphor in a book he's never read and therefore misunderstood. That is because the fucking justice system of the United States of America has a defense called insanity, and when you use it, you are not guilty of specific intent crimes, and you are confined in a hospital where you are treated for your insanity.

[TiaC]

That comic in a nutshell: "Hey, remember when you could ignore the existence and problems of minorities and no one would call you racist/sexist as long as you weren't actively against them? I miss those days."

FTFY.

They were also calling him out for making blacks the villains, so it's a bit more than ignoring them.

That comic in a nutshell: "Hey, remember when you could be racist and sexist and no one would call you on it as long as you weren't blatant about it? I miss those days."

Unless you are George Lucas. Then people won't call you on your blatant movies anyhow.

No one believes he's competent enough to intentionally use any form of symbolism, so he usually gets a pass.

[schpeelah]

They were also calling him out for making blacks the villains, so it's a bit more than ignoring them.

True, though it is treated as just a lead-up to "there is no black protagonist!"

[DSMatticus]

You can completely and directly tell people why and how playing that way may cause ethical issues. I mean they do it all the time in children's stories all the time. We're past the time where we have to twiddle our thumbs because "that's just the way things are" but you're going above and beyond that though. You're apologizing for the racism inherent in games. Now if you were on the side of "let people do whatever" then be that but what you're actually trying to jump through these weird mental hoops in order to "ok" the behavior. It isn't "ok" for the reasons listed. There is no benefit to keeping things like that and every reason to change it.

I find it amusing how the people who claim to support tolerance are in reality the least tolerant of anything that might be construed to appear to be not what they approve of.

It's not enough that something be innocent, it must be altered to meet your approval. It's the very worst kind of tyranny, the kind that is completely dishonest about itself.

Why are libertarians always so fucking stupid about their own doctrine? How can so many of them make this same mistake, over and over? Hint: the thing where private actors criticize a thing they don't like with neither force nor threat of force is not tyranny, it is the exercise of their right to free speech in order to express their (negative) opinions of that thing. But the thing where you accuse people of criticizing that thing of being "dangerous freedom-haters" or whatever because it's a thing you happen to like? That is frightenly close to tyranny, because it is just shy of a call to silence those who express opinions you disagree with.

Zero people in this thread are calling for the use of force (government or otherwise). 5e did something they believe is shitty, and they are on a privately-owned forum expressing contempt and arguing about whether or not it's actually shitty and why. Zero people in this thread who believe it is shitty are accusing you of being a dangerous freedom-hater. At least, they weren't until now. But since you basically just fucking admitted you hate my freedoms because I disagree with you, now I'm accusing you of that, and (unlike you were) I'm actually right.

[MGuy]

You can completely and directly tell people why and how playing that way may cause ethical issues. I mean they do it all the time in children's stories all the time. We're past the time where we have to twiddle our thumbs because "that's just the way things are" but you're going above and beyond that though. You're apologizing for the racism inherent in games. Now if you were on the side of "let people do whatever" then be that but what you're actually trying to jump through these weird mental hoops in order to "ok" the behavior. It isn't "ok" for the reasons listed. There is no benefit to keeping things like that and every reason to change it.

I find it amusing how the people who claim to support tolerance are in reality the least tolerant of anything that might be construed to appear to be not what they approve of.

It's not enough that something be innocent, it must be altered to meet your approval. It's the very worst kind of tyranny, the kind that is completely dishonest about itself.

Why yes. I am intolerant of racism in all its forms. How am I being dishonest exactly? I never said or implied I was tolerant of everything and everyone. I don't believe racism is acceptable, just like I don't believe rape apologia is acceptable, just like I don't believe bullying is acceptable, just like I don't believe any number of things are unacceptable. For someone to cast "Racism" as "innocent" is just adding more disgust. That is exactly what I'm talking about when I say you go above just trying to be willfully ignorant of the harm that kind of thinking does and move into being part of the problem.

[sarcasmoverdose]

I find it amusing how the people who claim to support tolerance are in reality the least tolerant of anything that might be construed to appear to be not what they approve of.

It's not enough that something be innocent, it must be altered to meet your approval. It's the very worst kind of tyranny, the kind that is completely dishonest about itself.

How do you get from "that's a bad idea and you're full of shit" to "you hate our freedoms"?

[MGuy]

I find it amusing how the people who claim to support tolerance are in reality the least tolerant of anything that might be construed to appear to be not what they approve of.

It's not enough that something be innocent, it must be altered to meet your approval. It's the very worst kind of tyranny, the kind that is completely dishonest about itself.

How do you get from "that's a bad idea and you're full of shit" to "you hate our freedoms"?

Terrorism.