Annoying Game Questions You Want Answered

[K]

I'll look into Kant.

If you aren't taking an upper division or grad school philosophy course and need the most stylish translations, you can get most philosophers at projectgutenberg.org for free.

Here is Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

[fectin]

The kindle store also tends to have a lot of them for free.
If you already have a kindle, it's very convenient.

[wotmaniac]

I'll look into Kant.

If you aren't taking an upper division or grad school philosophy course and need the most stylish translations, you can get most philosophers at projectgutenberg.org for free.

Here is Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

For Paladins? Hmmm ....
I do like Kant for his strict absolutism in regards to his categorical imperative.
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, may better facilitate "l33t roleplaying" of complex moral dilemmas.

/2¢

[fectin]

Utilitarianism is ultimately flawed, because it's about maximizing what you think is best for someone. At that point you're already imposing arbitrary and unpredictable absolute rules, and are flat out worse than someone who is imposing arbitrary but predictable rules.

[hyzmarca]

Utilitarianism is ultimately flawed, because it's about maximizing what you think is best for someone. At that point you're already imposing arbitrary and unpredictable absolute rules, and are flat out worse than someone who is imposing arbitrary but predictable rules.

Kanteanism is just as bad, since a categorical imperative only has to be consistent with itself and a hypothetical kingdom of ends (which is a utilititarian judgement).

Utilitarianism has the advantage of being closer to human lay judgement and common sense, at least until you get into edge cases like utility monsters and utility maximizing robots. Because of this, it's predictable, at least so long as your share similar cultural norms.

[Grek]

Utilitarianism is ultimately flawed, because it's about maximizing what you think is best for someone. At that point you're already imposing arbitrary and unpredictable absolute rules, and are flat out worse than someone who is imposing arbitrary but predictable rules.

All morality is about doing what you think is best for other people. You can literally do no better than doing whatever you think is best. What you're criticizing here is excessive micromanaging of other people's lives, which is something that any educated person (utilitarian or not) will agree is something that people do not like. If you think utilitarianism says to do that, then you're probably using (or talking to someone who's using) a rather shitty definition of utility that doesn't take into account the fact that people prefer living by simple rules to living by complicated rules.

[Kaelik]

Look guys, the bottom line is that sometimes people like to eat Pizza, and sometimes people like to eat Ice Cream. But since we cannot perfectly predict at what times people like to eat what, it would be fucking absurd to try to offer people Ice Cream when they want it and Pizza when they want it.

In the name of having predictable results, the only fair thing to do is force everyone to eat Ice Cream all the time.

[fectin]

You are maximizing my utility. Quick: is it more optimal for me to live in a house by a lake, or to go to school for another two years? (Neither of those is actually happening).

Utilitarianism suffers from pretending to know what everyone values, which is rough. Ultimately, where every other philosophy is content to say "fuck you," utilitarianism rubs it in, with "fuck you, for your own good."

edit: Kaelik's summary is better.

[Grek]

A] Tripleposting is bad and you should feel bad.
B] The whole point of Utilitarianism is that you don't ignore rider effects like "What if people get tired of eating ice cream?" and "Actually, wouldn't that be really unhealthy in general?" You add up all of the possible consequences of your actions, good and bad, weighted by their likelihood and their importance, and then pick whichever is best.

[Sashi]

The fact that it's ultimately flawed and pretty much impossible to follow is actually an benefit when it comes to Paladin philosophy.

[Username17]

Utilitarianism is ultimately flawed, because it's about maximizing what you think is best for someone. At that point you're already imposing arbitrary and unpredictable absolute rules, and are flat out worse than someone who is imposing arbitrary but predictable rules.

Except... it doesn't. Utilitarianism says that you should do what you think is good for other people, yes. But it also is ends-justified, meaning that if you end up screwing up or it turns out you were wrong about what is good for people, Utilitarianism has no problem declaring that you were in fact wrong and the moving forward you should do what you now think is going to be good for people based on what you've learned. Utilitarianism certainly concedes that omniscience would be nice to have, but it doesn't actually require it.

Actually, John Stuart Mill gave a speech in favor of Capital Punishment. However, his logic was based on the presumed deterrent factor of judicial executions. Meaning that armed with modern statistics and research, he would reach the opposite conclusion. That isn't an "ultimate flaw" of Utilitarianism, that's just how empiricism works. Your judgments are only as good as your information. But that also means that your judgments improve over time, meaning that empirically based ethical systems like Utilitarianism get better as time progresses, leaving static divine command and derived systems languishing in morally reprehensible dust.

In any case:

The fact that it's ultimately flawed and pretty much impossible to follow is actually an benefit when it comes to Paladin philosophy.

This is why Kantianism is such a great starting point. It's not empirical. Meaning that the conclusions it reaches are insane and increasingly out of touch with the modern moral zeitgeist. For a role playing game, motivations that are uncompromising and insane are great, while motivations that are fuzzy and adaptive are horse shit.

-Username17

[Kaelik]

edit: Kaelik's summary is better.

Since it is apparently not clear to at the very least fectin, I was making fun of his claim that Utilitarianism is bad because it doesn't produce predictable results because it tries to give everyone what they want.

Trying to give everyone what they want, IE, Utilitarianism, and failing, is still obviously better than any other system, for a start the categorical imperative, which is the giving everyone Ice cream all the time to be predictable.

[fectin]

Oh? I wouldn't have thought the categorical imperative would allow for anything as frivolous as ice cream or pizza.

[wotmaniac]

Oh? I wouldn't have thought the categorical imperative would allow for anything as frivolous as ice cream or pizza.

Only if you can justify having everyone eating all the time.

[OgreBattle]

Is there a thorough chart anywhere that shows what a level X monster should look like in terms of hitpoints, damage, and spell/abilities?

Just all in one place.

[Prak]

Is there a thorough chart anywhere that shows what a level X monster should look like in terms of hitpoints, damage, and spell/abilities?

Just all in one place.

[wotmaniac]

Is there a thorough chart anywhere that shows what a level X monster should look like in terms of hitpoints, damage, and spell/abilities?

Just all in one place.

The only things I've ever found (and the info is a bit scant) is this download and this post
It has some of the info you're looking for.
(keep in mind that they were both written from the players' perspective)

[Hicks]

After a bit of thought, the answer is Yes. The Cleric class in the player's handbook is an example of what is and is not appropriate for a monster of any CR from 1 to 20. If you are looking for a primary beatstick monster, look to the Barbarian, and a primary spellcaster is a Wizard, but the best example of a "level appropriate" blend of both is the Cleric. Use the Elite Array and the NPC equipment list in the DMG when determining swag carried that can help them.

[OgreBattle]

After a bit of thought, the answer is Yes. The Cleric class in the player's handbook is an example of what is and is not appropriate for a monster of any CR from 1 to 20. If you are looking for a primary beatstick monster, look to the Barbarian, and a primary spellcaster is a Wizard, but the best example of a "level appropriate" blend of both is the Cleric. Use the Elite Array and the NPC equipment list in the DMG when determining swag carried that can help them.

Hahah, now I want to run a game where all opposition faced are really reskinned Clerics!
Maybe it could be the balancing point for a D&D heartbreaker, or remake of 4e


I'll take a look at those charts with save DC's and stuff. Thanks.

[ishy]

I know pathfinder does have this table:
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/mons ... ation.html

And someone made a spreadsheet with the existing monster statistics:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... tMFE#gid=3

- Edit: though there are significant differences between a lot of 3.x and pathfinder monsters.

[Schleiermacher]

Is there any way to create a Shadowrun-style, "counting successes" dicepool system that doesn't have a huge variance relative to the size of the dicepools?

[Username17]

Is there any way to create a Shadowrun-style, "counting successes" dicepool system that doesn't have a huge variance relative to the size of the dicepools?

Well, the variance increases the more dice are in the pool. That's how a dicepool system works. You could keep the dicepool fixed in size by only varying the number of hits needed. Also, if you just wanted to keep the variance "relatively low", you could either keep dicepools small or lower the base target number, both of which lower overall variance.

Not really sure what you're looking for. But a dicepool system has increased variance as the dicepool increases in size. That's a core feature of the mechanic. You can easily see why when you realize that the minimum is always zero and the maximum is always the total number of dice (unless you have botch and explosion effects on specific numbers, which of course increase variance even more). So rolling one die you are generating a number between zero and one, but rolling 6 dice you're generating a number between zero and six. Of course the variance is going to rise under such circumstances.

-Username17

[Schleiermacher]

Well, the variance increases the more dice are in the pool. That's how a dicepool system works.

I realize this part, and I also know that keeping the dice pool size small or static will therefore help (obviously), but restricting the dice pool size kind of takes away the best feature of the mechanic, as I see it.

lower the base target number

This is what I was after, thank you. I was a little mathematically mixed up, so I wasn't sure if it would actually work, or just shift the distribution of results without really changing anything. But of course, dicepool systems don't care about the value of each die, only about the odds of getting successes. So there's really no such thing.

[fectin]

You need to be a little careful when talking about variance increasing, because stays exactly the same proportional to the distribution (np'p, specifically).

---

So, the 2E-flavored game looks a lot less alarming than it sounded. It sounds like it's mostly going to be dungeon focused, but that's not really a fault. Th guy does have some ideas for changes he wants to make, but so far they sound like the normal bad ideas or relatively mundane, e.g. critical fumbles (le sigh) or playing on a hex instead of a grid.

Either way, but especially at higher levels, I think the best answer will be playing Sandbagger Batman. Anyone have any thoughts for that? Booklist is PHB 1 & 2, Complete Adventurer, Arcane, Divine, and Warrior.

My instinct is to just go wizard-> Ur priest -> Theurge.

[Aryxbez]

What should a Social Contract for RPGing be detailed with exactly? Is this question too broad, and warrant a thread of its own?

I know Races of War has spoken about what a PC needs to roleplay it (or to be "interesting"). However, I believe there's been variations/changes to that quote, having me ask what do Characters need then? (commonly said is Schtick, Motivation and...3rd one changing the most)