Do you have bad experiences with a particular character archetype?

Besides the obvious self-inserts I kinda got scared of the basic elf archetypes, atleast on new players. I've seen more experienced put them down perfectly, but I'll be damned if I get a newbie who's attracted to elves and isn't a complete arse about it.

I've run into a lot of people that are awful (either in game or irl) that play Druid.

For me, it's lone wolves. I've had a lot of really bad players make lone wolf style characters and end up being fucking nightmares, acting against the party, going off to do their own stuff, forcing me to split my attention and generally being a pain in the ass.

I don't think the archetype is innately bad, though. I've seen them done well a few times, but I tend to not let a player make a character of that sort unless I know and trust them enough to do it well.

From what I've seen, most GM's have an archetype they strongly dislike, but way too many people assume their anecdotal experience somehow translates to objective fact, which is just irrational.

File: 1456765783678.png (236KB, 500x465px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 500x465px

>>49021383
For me, it's the hot-blooded shounen protagonist archetype. I used to have a player only played that type of character, no matter what system or style of game, and his shit characters all had the exact same anime protagonist personality because not only did he have shit taste in anime, but he was also shit at roleplaying.

File: 1467277471977.jpg (22KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x250px

>>49021383
>I want to play a person who is fundamentally and objectively bad!
>I want to play a character who is actively working against the party!
>I want to play a horror movie child!
>I want to play someone who literally never stops insulting people!
>I want to play a character who does nothing but crude unfunny sex jokes!
>I want to play a character who's named after a video-game character!

>inb4 it could work if...
Well it didn't, and I don't believe you. That's why I'm posting them here.

File: loli stop being evil_1.jpg (23KB, 218x261px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 218x261px

>>49021383

Evil characters in general.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrhZPLpgWbg

File: 1452818538882.jpg (13KB, 276x440px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 276x440px

>>49021383
>Why you do that?
>"I'unno. Cause I bored I guess"

Not so much an archetype, but characters which rely on the bored line... If I could stab every last one. I would.

>>49021383
Something about the girl gamers Ive played with; its always a rogue or a druid; either way, always leather armor, knives, some kind of intense beauty, magic, and animal powers.

Fucking hell

>>49021383
Not characters, but a player I hate running into is the guy that calls everything special snowflake.

Those guys ruin the word through overuse and always make boring characters. Usually antiparty dick characters at that.

>>49021383
Necromancer

I gave him two rules as per the setting

T W O R U L E S
W
O

R
U
L
E
S

0) Be excellent to the party, play the game without trying to destroy everything for lulz
1) Do not perform necromancy on humans (knife-ears, orcs, dwarves, animals, etc. all okay)
2) Do not do it in good company and also don't talk about it in good company

He proceeded to break one of these rules every session.

I do not play with him anymore.

>>49022649
>playing with /tg/: the post

>>49022686

Why did you have those two rules? You've got me curious now.

>>49022740

I'm going to guess that he was trying to emphasize societal expectations.

>Necromancy is the domain of evil wizards
>You probably don't want to be thought of as an explicitly evil wizard
>Humans, being the main race you will interact with, probably won't take kindly to evil magics being performed on their brethren, or hearing how you intend to twist the natural order into a vile mockery of life at a later date

>>49022686
>>49022811
What's wrong with being an anti-hero? This reeks of D&D...

>>49022922

Because shitguzzlers like you try to convince GMs like me you're playing an "antihero" and then proceed to just do the anti part.

>>49022649
I had a player like that back in college. Three years of playing D&D, and every single character that he played was a human knight errant who fought monsters for coin. He seemed to have a distaste for every nonhuman PC race that wasn't a dwarf, and we heard "do you REALLY need to be playing an elf?" at least once every time we sat down for character creation.

He never called characters "special snowflakes," but he loved to call character concepts "tryhard." Any halfling that wasn't a bard or a rogue was, in his opinion, a "tryhard" character that only exists to "show off that you can subvert tropes." All half-orcs were "tryhard Warcraft knockoff." Any hint of tragedy in a backstory was "tryhard edgy." He called any elf, regardless of their class, "tryhard legolas" instead of their name at least once a session.

>>49022811
You're basically spot on, just missing the racism in the setting (Humanity is at war with every race except dwarves and a dwarf corpse isn't actually a corpse due to some other setting aspects, so who cares)

>>49022922
Because breaking these rules gets the guards trying to arrest him and all of his accomplices, which royally derails everything.

And you know what bothered me, I explicitely put in non-human enemies EXPLICITELY for him to raise and made a point of telling him the races of everyone he's fighting so that he wasn't actually mechanically gimped.

>>49022981
God, those types suck the fun out of everything.

>>49021383
Our GM had a temporary ban on paladins for a reason.

Actually he later made a lawful good ban, you could be other types of good but not lawful good. Since ended in a few disasters since a particular player did it as stupid law abiding good person.

He was literally lawful good, as in he was too stupid to think the law might be wrong and too naive to not see the world in black and white, it was fun at first but...

>>49021722
>Ten is just one massive eye the size of the moon

>>49022379
>I want to play a horror movie child!
What even is that?

>>49023134

Different guy but: Creepy ghost child, immortal cursed child, vampire child. Any of those really in my opinion.

Frankly I hate that shit as well: Why would any half way neutral-good party bring a child along? Why would an evil character not see a child as an inconvenience? Why would a good character not straight up drop their ass back at an orphanage?

>>49023262
Good does not mean responsible.
Indeed, it often means the opposite.

>>49021547
This

Shithead lone wolf players who fuck up royally then blame me for fucking them.

Guess what, you saw goblins, lots of them, and your level 1 maybe you shouldnt go sneaking around by yourself. Forcing your allies to cut through extra goblins in order to save you...and you get mad because I don't give you XP for non participation.

Or better yet, at level 3 maybe those spiders you are trying to find already know your alone thanks to webs on the ground. And are preparing to grapple your asshole and drag you away for food...but fine. Go alone, fuck your party right? They can save you for the 10th 20th time no problem.

Elf PCs in my games seem to only ever belong to one of the two highly annoying extremes: "snarky lone wolf rogue/ranger" or "arrogant more-ancient-than-thou faggot with a gigantic stick up his ass" so I'm becoming kinda wary of the race in general

File: Hot Alma.jpg (53KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x600px

>>49023134
>What even is that?
Anon here. I mean the kind of freaky child villains you see in the horror genre. Like the little girl from the Ring.

You know, the sort who quietly sing children's songs during the trailer sequences for every horror movie ever. Or who suddenly appear in bloodstained clothing all over the place, usually accompanied by a flash effect and an orchestral shriek.

>>49021383
What even is the source of that pic.

>>49023489
Oblivion.

>>49023489

Oblivion.

>>49023489
Oblivion.

>>49023262
We had a person play a 12 year-old clone of a "Hero" from the "Earth" dimension. He actually said he shouldn't have to make will saves because he would likely fail, and that broke his immersion as the hero.

>>49023507
>>49023512
>>49023615
Morrowind

>>49021383
For me it's Archers. But it's not the archetype itself, it's the player behind them. I used to play alongside a guy who had three husbands, one was a Faerie. He worked in a Laundromat but told us he'd inherited a load of money from his family, but he didn't want the money to change him so he stayed at the Laundromat. Every single character he played was an Archer. And also an expert craftsman. One of those "I have an arrow for every situation" guys, which would be fine, if he didn't have the precise arrow for every precise situation. The lure in that archetype for me is that you know how to apply your trick arrows, a rope arrow isn't just a rope, you can trip people with it, tightrope walk on it, swing from it, all sorts of shit. But he had an arrow that left stuff he could tightrope walk on, and an arrow that sprayed little caltrops to impede advances and all sorts of shit.

Any interaction with him was always done inside his tent, because he was making more of these arrows but no character could ever see them, because they looked identical to the real arrows. And he had 3 of each and every turn in a combat was "Hmmmm I could use this or I could use this, but that'd be a better way to kill them but I think this is more thematic. Guys? What do you think?"


Fucking Archers.

>>49023674
Pretty sure that's the Oblivion class creation, and the screen linings look just like Oblivion. Haven't played Morrowind though.

>>49023715
I dunno I just like picking the option everyone else didn't. It is definitely oblivion because Morrowind was black background.

>>49023677
But playing with Green Arrow sounds cool.
In fact I have a new character in mind now.

>>49023765
I think Anon means that the characters weapon was the character.

>>49023803
Or that the character was one dimentional and really "in-your-face" about how Batman specific he had everything planned out. Like some twat who reads the adventure you're doing and is prepped for everything.

>>49023677

> Guys? What do you think?"

I think you should've decided on your turn before it was your fucking turn.

>>49022981
it's like /tg/ personified

>>49023507
>>49023512
>>49023615
Yup. You can create your own class with specialized skills and name it whatever.

File: batemanexpression.jpg (32KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x400px

>>49023331
Chaotic may be "irresponsible", I suppose... though I really don't like using alignments at all.

By the way,
>333
>1
>mfw

File: in_the_kawaii_of_the_beholder_by_pokketmowse-d2xfcw6[1].jpg (423KB, 1000x904px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 1000x904px

>>49023116
Then what happens if we turn that shit up to eleven?

>>49024240
I for one welcome our new Beholder overlords.

>>49021383

Paladins.

Not other players playing paladins. Me myself playing a paladin.

>first ever character was a paladin
>literally a manifestation of every possible wrong way to play a paladin
>lawful stupid as fuck
>ended up intentionally falling and retiring so as to not rain on the rest of the party's parade

One day I might try rolling one and doing it right but for now every time I go through possible classes at character creation I cringe when it gets to the paladin.

File: beholder[1].jpg (242KB, 800x634px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 800x634px

>>49024581
You and me both, brother

>>49022379
You really don't think fundamentally bad can work? I feel like even an evil person can have motives that align with the parties almost 100% of the time.

>>49025049

There's a type of player who can pull that off, and do it very well. Those players are a rare gift and should be encouraged.

They also don't sound like that.

>>49025115

>Greedy and heartless character that only looks out for themselves in the long run
>Knows that working with the party leads to money, fame, and power
>In their best interest to try and get along with the rest of the party
>Still willing to shoot a hostage if it means hitting the target too
>"That's why we have a cleric."

Would something like this work?

>>49025278
If he was evil he'd also notice the perfect times to kill the other PCs to take the reward for himself. Also known as betraying the party and PVP.

>>49025454
>violating long term profit for short term gain
Your evil is bad at math

>>49025049
In the case of a generic "save the world from evil BBEG" it works especially well.
>Evil PC and BBEG motives don't line up
>Evil PC lives in the same world as everyone else
>Doesn't want to die with everyone else
>Works with the party to stop BBEG
And with this there will probably be no backstabbing because that would lower the odds of survival

>>49025278
I once had a group where one of the characters was the LE exiled half-elven prince of an elven kingdom, who would have become king, but the nobles rejected him for being half human. His personal goal was to retake his throne, and rule the country, "in a manner similar to Maximilien Robespierre". Unfortunately the group fell apart before he ever got a chance to act on this plan.

>>49022981
He wasn't wrong about the elves though.

My second character was a Cleric. For some reason, both the other players and the GM of that game decided that constant and relentless bullying both in and out of character was the appropriate response to my choice of class. It's basically the same deal any time I play a divine caster, and nothing of the sort happens on my martial characters or arcane casters. I don't play Clerics anymore.

>>49023988
I basically won't play as a player anymore because of this, I only GM now. I got sick of taking about 20 seconds to take my turn and then have to wait literally 15 minutes for it to come back around the table.

I now make my players take -1 to all rolls for every minute that their turn takes due to their character hesitating or not feeling confident in their action.

>>49025049
>You really don't think fundamentally bad can work?
It's kind of a paradox. The kind of person with the tact and respectfulness to theoretically pull it off is also the kind of person who would not try.

Every time I see this brought up, somebody says "well, it could work" (I used to be one of these people), but you rarely hear about it actually working. Sometimes I get somebody congratulating himself for pulling off that-guy tier behavior for a year and watching his whole group metagame and bend over backwards to not break the campaign over it, but that's not exactly what I would call a success. And then when I see it in actual games, it's always more that-guy shenanigans.

File: anime_girl_thinking_by_shiba_mangaka.jpg (90KB, 512x640px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 512x640px

>>49022497

That kind of describes every female player in a lot of podcasts. Critical Role, the SeSo, that Geek movie or whatever.

As a GM running games for an average of five years now, I've only had one female player, not counting the times someone wanted to bring their significant other to the table. That female player created a rampaging murderhobo, whose tales of heroic sociopathy are famous in the group.

That character died in PVP, and she then created a rogue-type. . .so you may be onto something here.

>>49025049
It's not really that they're evil, I think. It's that their goals tend to be counter to the party, so they undermine the group mentality of the game by putting pressure on the players to conform to them.

I think it can be done, but I haven't seen it, honestly. I would like to attempt it, but none of my characters have died, and I'm not going to replace any of them to test my ability to RP. I don't think it's a character worth the potential cost as well. It's easier for everybody if the group has some level of conformation in alignments.

>>49023107
>this guy doesn't understand how to roleplay well
>let's just ban everything he does that'll make him do well or leave

Your DM is a fucking dumbass.

>>49023262
Because a child doesn't mean useless. Especially if the child wants to be along with the party and isn't just following because reasons. Think of how helpful it'd be to have a person with tiny hands who is willing to do the work of helping you and your party maintain their gear and loot.

>>49027045
In Critical Role, Ashley as Pike seems to pretty much steer clear of these. Yeah Scanlan is obsessed with Pike but I don't know if that speaks to her incredible beauty, and as far as magic goes, pretty standard cleric stuff.
Laura and Marisha are 100% the stereotype though

File: dont_be_silly.jpg (19KB, 270x216px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 270x216px

>>49022422

What is this autistic shit?

I guess he mentioned in the beginning that he was talking more about D&D, but characters are characters. Are there really people who can't think outside the confines of alignment to describe characters?

Almost all the PCS I've ever GM'd for had personalities that couldn't be neatly squared into an alignment. Most players take time to get into their character, and tend to default to the "standard self-interested PC" personality, but once they get going they've all been pretty distinct.

>>49027290

Remembered Pike after I already hit post, but yeah, a lot of girls just like being a sexy rogue and/or having cute animals I guess.

File: ss officers.jpg (281KB, 800x775px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 800x775px

>>49022422
But it works if the whole group is evil. Intelligence officers within a lawful evil military organization sent to investigate potential rebels, chaotic evil marauders roaming the countryside in search of power, neutral evil thieves planning a heist together...

>>49027290
>>49027342
Why does anyone even care about these faggots and the way they play their game? How the fuck have we gotten to the point where people are so fucking sad that they watch some fake nerds play a scripted game for the sweet youtube money?

I've had people who don't know what LG means.

Or G. Or L. Or really anything.

By which I mean they killed another player's character for out-of-character conversation reasons and the DM's only response was to make him change alignment.

>>49022497
Yeah, Morgan Webb did that on Acquisitons Incorporated too, and she was more of a sociopath than any of the five male PCs. Elf Rogue sharpshooter.

>>49027298
yes, there are. They tell you that your alignment wouldn't do that. They say they're doing X because they are of Y alignment. Their characters don't have motivations. Just alignments. I have played with them. They are horrible. I avoid them where I can.

>>49027391
Let's Plays have been around for a long time, anon.

>>49027365
>chaotic evil marauders roaming the countryside in search of power
>neutral evil thieves planning a heist together...

>How to implode your party due to betrayal in 2 sessions or less

>>49027298
>Are there really people who can't think outside the confines of alignment to describe characters?

If you bothered to watch (and we both know you didn't) you'd see that he even talks about situations where Evil characters can work, but concludes that Evil characters are simply not worth it because of the numerous issues they invite.

>>49027654
>How to implode your party due to betrayal in 2 sessions or less

"Hey guys, before we start the campaign can we all agree that nobody is gonna pull the betrayal card without the other players being cool with it?"

Done and done. If someone tries to break the agreement, call them out on it.

>>49027742

So exactly the solution proposed by the video.

Cool.

File: rand.jpg (98KB, 300x450px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 300x450px

>>49027654
>>How to implode your party due to betrayal in 2 sessions or less

Nah, they just need some reason to work together, namely some manner of self-interest paired with the threat of some external force.

Say the marauders are smashing through local villages, temples and crypts to search for the lost bones of Ungarlik, the Saint of Wrath, so he might rise again and wreathe the world in fire once more. There are various orders of paladins and clerics out to stop them, and the marauders know that they have a better chance of succeeding if they work as a group.

The thieves are working an elaborate Ocean's Eleven-style plan that requires all of them to perform their actions at the right time if they are to get the loot. If one of them fails to do his job, nobody gets anything.

Being self-serving doesn't mean you're an idiot. Egoistical characters will often find reasons to work in a group, for the simple reason that a group can achieve things an individual cannot, which in turn creates greater potential profits for the individual.

>>49027947
>The marauders are all working towards a common goal
>The thieves are part of a gang, have known each other for years, and have pulled off lots of jobs together in the past

This is basic tribal psychology, no enlightened self-interest needed.

>>49028076
Well, yeah. All people realize that a group of people can do things an individual cannot. Wether this is due to an innate sense of tribalism or a calculated understanding of profits and rewards is irrelevant, the point still stands - there is absolutely no reason why an evil party cannot work together towards a common goal the same way a good party can. The motivations and methodology may be different, but the basic group dynamics remain the same.

>>49021383
Ladyknight.

I've given it a 'yes' three times, and three times I have been burned. I shut down the concept as soon as it is mentioned these days.

>>49028828
What was the issue? Storytime?

>>49028994
>>49028828
Yeah that's actually kind of a weird one to see someone have specific issue with since its one of the most standard archetypes for female characters that I tend to see at the table.

Wait, were the players were all guys? That sounds like it would be at least most of the problem.

>>49029253
>Wait, were the players were all guys? That sounds like it would be at least most of the problem.

Not him but I can confirm that the company only good ladyknights I've seen at the table were played by actual ladies.

>>49028828
>>49028994
>>49029253
>>49029277

'I have had bad experiences with an archetype, therefore all characters of that archetype are bad' is fundamentally irrational. It's easy to see why people would conclude that, but it's more logical to say that, based on the evidence presented to you, these archetypes are often chosen by bad players.

Based on that, a blanket ban isn't the best idea, but being careful with who you allow to play these concepts. Vet players first, see how they play more standard and safe characters before letting them do something more risky.

>>49028994
>>49029253
It basically comes down to the players constantly swanning about and going 'OH GOSH LOOK AT HOW GAY MY CHARACTER IS, PLEASE GIVE MY CHARACTER A PRINCESS TO FAWN OVER, I'M GOING TO SPEND TWO HOURS HITTING ON THIS THROWAWAY FEMALE NPC BECAUSE DID YOU KNOW THAT MY CHARACTER IS GAY?!'

Like, I don't really have an issue with the archetype, or lesbians as a whole, it's just that the players in question wouldn't have known subtle if it jumped up and bit their eyes out, which has led me to believe that it's more hassle than it's worth to 'wait and see' if the next example will be the one that doesn't fuck it up. Sticking my hand into the hole in the wall might allow me to retrieve a gem, but more likely I'll end up with a handful of shit.

>>49022379
Basically what this guy said.

I'll add though these races/archetypes:
>Halflings
So often played as kender in the childish shitmonger sense.
>Gnomes
Whoa haha, check it out, purple hair, fucking radical amirite? I build contraptions and I'm fucking whacky and zany as shit isn't that tubular haha? Haha, even though I said I was playing a very friendly and jovial character I'm still going to take the time to point out that every other race and culture is inferior to mine on the regular. Oh haha whoa, what do you mean my genius plan of splitting the party then not following the main attack plan like everyone said got me killed? Haha.
>Dwarves
Harr, beards. Harr harr my character is always drinking. Harr harr I am going to punch the noble in the face because I feel like a fight harr harr. Dwarves are strong harr harr I challenge your character to a drinking contest. Harr harr, guys don't you just fucking love dwarves? I sure do.

>>49022422
I've actually found from playing many evil campaigns, probably more than good campaigns actually that evil party's work towards goals better.

When players play evil characters in good games that's fucking retarded however.

I'm not joking. People expect a few scrapes here and there in evil parties and work around the conflicting ideas and plot and scheme around each other's plotting and scheming and actually tend to work better together and get a whole lot more shit done.

NECROMANCERS

On the topic of necromancers as it will probably come up lot.

I've never seen a bad necromancer (I mean as in played bad).

Necromancers for me have always been exclusively upstanding, very useful and real team players.

The absolute fucking worst archetype though is definitely the aforementioned against the grain character.

Next time you see one ask them "Why are you playing a character that the party has no reason not to kill/banish and vice versa." then laugh at their garbage halfassed answers.

>>49025870
You probably shouldn't play with that group anymore instead, they sound like a bunch of assholes.

>>49021383

BARDS.
Let me tell you, I HATE bards with a passion. Those pathetic prancing pansies are always trying to mess with other players in the game; stealing rewards for quests, blaming party members when they are caught by guards when they are obviously breaking the law, and then have the audacity to complain when the healer that they had been antagonizing for the last 3 sessions refuses to heal him. I've played with many bards, and they were all the same. Now, whenever there is a bard in a campaign, all I can feel is HATE.

File: cape_blowing_in_the_breeze_with_defiance.gif (270KB, 500x252px) Image search: [Google]

270KB, 500x252px

>>49027654

I watched the whole thing. His descriptions of why Evil characters aren't worth it are the reason I made my post.

He's saying his players have to be at least "Han Solo" good, and describes this as "when it comes down to it, you're good", which is stupid. Players shouldn't be forced to make decisions based on "alignment" but more on what their character's motivations are.

I imagine he'd agree with that statement, because in the video he says most people play evil characters just to be assholes, using their alignment as an excuse for GTA-style mayhem as opposed to having a character with motivations and goals (and crazy is not a good motivation).

>>49031418

And the way he talks about trust issues with evil characters, like there's some big label over your head spelling "EVIL" is silly as well. This makes sense in D&D, where that's true out of character, but trying to put a label on morality and ethics to encompass all types of people? Not making sense to this GM.

>>49027391
I just enjoy it. Even if it's scripted I still enjoy the story it has to tell.

>>49024240
>>49024990
Speaking of Beholders, are there people who have legitimately completed "The Apocalypse Stone"?
Or was Spoony's story a load of shit?

>>49027391
>People should only like what I like!
>My views are completely and objectively correct!
>I'm a whinging little cunt!
Different strokes for different folks, asshole.

>>49021547
Lone wolves are fine if you're running a solo adventure where being a lone wolf isn't an issue. Running a campaign for a group and having one guy who won't cooperate and be a proper part of the group makes shit difficult. Role-playing with a group of people is a team sport.

Literally every fucking player I end up with always wants to be a "I'm a criminal, fuck the police"-type who does "sooo much drugs" and "is a super sneaky thief who only cares abput himself." I'm not complaining since every game ends up being like a Guy Ritchie movie in outlandish sci-fi/fantasy setting, and it's super easy to make them hate the BBEG (spoiler: he's always a cop), but I'd love to play a game of Only War where all the players just played regular dudes, or D&D where they just were average adventuring party and not a bunch of chaotic evil shits.

>>49023262
>Immortal ghost/cursed/vampire
>somehow irresponsible to bring them along because they look like children
They probably have a better chance than the rest of the party

>>49025580
Evil usually is

File: captain-planet.jpg (96KB, 480x390px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 480x390px

>>49021542
I think the Druid and Paladin are both bad choices for new players, for the same reasons as demihuman/exotic races. There's too much information about general behavior built into the archetype, and people tend to just play that to the extreme, instead of creating their own character. Pathfinder is especially bad about encouraging this kind of shit, with classes like the Witch having assumptions about the character's demeanor baked into the ability names and descriptions.

>>49021497
Agree on elves, for the reasons above. I never like to point the "self-insert" finger at people, though, because any good/well-roleplayed character is going to have shades of their player in them. It's only a problem if the player lacks self-awareness.

>>49037008
Evil is not necessarily ambitious, even.
A ruler so dedicated to his people that he will do the unthinkable to make them prosper can be evil.

A servant so loyal to a good master willing to covertly do all kinds of evil shit for the benefit of his master from behind the scene (the master being unaware) but not to his own benefit.

File: Ricken_(FE13_Artwork).png (2MB, 1225x3706px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1225x3706px

>>49023262
>Why would any half way neutral-good party bring a child along? Why would an evil character not see a child as an inconvenience?
Maybe they're a prodigious cleric/wizard/etc. in a setting where those are hard to come by. It'd make sense if the rest of the party had reservations about it, but that's an RP hook, not a problem.

I can absolutely sympathize with not allowing it of a player you don't know really well, though. We are on 4chan, after all.

>>49021542
You are probably not lurking anymore but still:
Did the awful people at least played the druid well?
What made them so awful?

File: 1469177054501.jpg (76KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x600px

>Paladins or any religious character

Every single game I have ever played that allowed a religious themed arch-type is was always abused y the biggest most putrid cunts.

They will always try and kill, steal from and abuse other playes because "lol my god allows it" to the pint in which I've banned certain people from ever playing a religious character in my games or some cases outright banned for being vitriolic twats.

>>49022497
I have no idea what causes such a consternation with all rogue/stealthy/whatever classes, honestly. Is it because of the name? Players think they have to be dicks because they're a variant of rogue or something?

File: 1450920792723.png (193KB, 581x544px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 581x544px

>>49037922
>paladins
>stealing from other players

Jesus Christ. Way to miss the whole point of the class

>>49037008

but your wrong.

>>49029342
>wouldn't have known subtle if it jumped up and bit their eyes out

Well that wouldn't have been very subtle now would it?

File: OodIp9Y.png (121KB, 480x250px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 480x250px

>>49021383
Players dead-set on playing literally the same character every game. Setting doesn't matter, ruleset doesn't matter - they want their half-vampire, half-dragon assassin and you need to make it happen or game grinds to a halt. This is why I started practicing intro sessions first for character creation and brief "how did they all get together?" scenarios before story proper begins. Practice helped me eliminate four undesirable players in last two years alone.

File: NAY.jpg (42KB, 316x377px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 316x377px

>>49037950
To be fair I think Paladin as a class got a whole lot simplified over the years. Back in the day you used to have actual vows like poverty, etc and shit instead of just "acting according to alignment and follow your code". When they began paladins were basically fighters with some spells and inclination to being noble leaders. That was offset by rather rigid limitations that were not entirely hardcoded into the role but were more expected to be played out between the GM and player.

>>49037922
If their god isn't slapping their shit for being an abusive asshole, then the players should be well within their rights to do the slapping themselves.

I'm pissed when DMs allow someone to play a little girl. It's always done either to actively troll or to be in the center of attention. You might think it's bad when sleazy middle-aged guys pretend to be little girls, but women doing it are even worse. It becomes a get out of jail free card to do absolutely anything, especially if it involves being in the center of attention. The worst examples will constantly try to "dethrone" party mechanics, IT guys, negotiators and other specialists by insisting to do their jobs instead of them. As you can expect, this will either create an accident or derail the game, giving the player a way to set up a Xanatos gambit.
People that do this on a regular basis will also be sure to pick a disability for their character, so they can always play the disabled card once they are called out for trolling. The worst examples will sometimes even pretend to be disabled IRL, or have some sort of self-diagnosed lunacy.

File: greed.jpg (39KB, 542x540px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 542x540px

>>49037950
weeell

>>49023107
I can understand the ban of paladins because they can massively fuck up other players fun when played too dickbaggerish but banning lawful good characters in general is kind of too far
Anyway, near to all problems of this can be solved when you create your chars together and watch a bit for group harmonic

>>49038077
>you wouldn't kill a l-little girl, would you?
>YES
>lob her head off

I played a WoD Innocents game and deaths were not off limits.

>>49038089
Chaotic Evil is the best alignment, because you can basically do anything and be justified.

>Built an orphanage, and ensured its proper and efficient operation?
A selfish performance to ensure my good reputation among the common folk.

>Ran inside a burning building to save a child?
See above.

>Gave money to the poor, and spoke up on their behalf when they were mis-treated?
Ditto.

>Drowned a man in a river so I could steal his pocket change?
Oh, sorry GM, did you forget that I'm Evil? Because I am.

>>49038129
That's Chaotic Neutral, though. Pretty much "anything goes because I feel like it" alignment. Chaotic Evil doesn't plan and acts on malicious instinct.

>>49038082
I don't see your point.

>>49038077
>You wouldn't kill a little girl, would you?
I think, like the other guy, that playing WoD gives you an advantage against this type of character (though the players are common in the nWoD fanbase and just play something else). It's already assumed that everyone can die, horribly at that, and PCs will either never be actual innocent little girls or alternately truly innocent little girls in a cruel world, which will both get them fucked if they screw up just like any other character.
There's no way these people can expect in a WoD game that their character can be too pure to die, and Storytellers can be impressively inventive with fucking over PCs. I've had generally good experiences with child characters in World of Darkness, but it's outside that setting that it gets a bit iffy.

>>49038146
Except I'm not just doing shit because I feel like it. I'm doing shit because I stand to benefit from it.

>>49038164
What he ment is that chaotic evil does not plan for the long term
What you described is neutral evil, lawful evil or neutral

What does /tg/ think about bad GM archetypes? Which one will cause you to drop a game and go do something else?

Is it the Railroad Tycoon?
Capitan Narcisse, with his host of unkillable npcs, and tendency towards monologue?
Bob's Uncle, who makes the whole campaign about Bob, and everyone else is basically playing npcs?
The Valkyra Chronicler, who only makes the game into one combat after another, with no possibility of interaction.
The Unsmelled, who never describes smell, touch or sound.
Mister No. I tried to write a description of Mister No. He Noped (tm) and now my character is being dragged away by cultists.

I'm sure there's more. What's your worst GM archetype?

>>49021722
>For me, it's the hot-blooded shounen protagonist archetype.
Those are only good if done right. They should start out hot-blooded and then grow into a more focused and driving character. Most idiots just keep being hot-blooded all the way through.

>>49038129
there is no "best" aligment
the group harmony must fit and your char should be believable
you sound like an horrible rol(l)eplayer

File: Lawful good.png (249KB, 1903x950px) Image search: [Google]

249KB, 1903x950px

>>49038129
>>49038164
Chaotic Evil is shit-tier alignment for lazy people. Lawful good a best.

>>49023677
>an arrow that left stuff he could tightrope walk on, and an arrow that sprayed little caltrops to impede advances and all sorts of shit.
GM please

>>49027045
My gf is a long time player. She tends to favor barbarians or fighters. My sister does too. Her gf seems to frequent rogues, but I've never found them distasteful.
My other female friend only started playing and chose ranger, which at this point I simply expect of new players. Though she also did the "so bootifull" thing. What's the deal with so many first players going ranger?

>>49038271
Chaotic Evil is the best alignment if you want to play an actually complex, interesting character, instead of 1 of 8 narrow archetypes with no basis in reality. You can do anything and still fit within the alignment. Any selfless act can be spun into a selfish one. Any "out-of-character" act can be spun as a chaotic one.

It's the best alignment.

File: 1471798699326.png (70KB, 397x461px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 397x461px

>>49038225
>literally a third of the session is NPCs talking to each other
Dropped.

>>49038281
4.) Realizing alignment is a shitty system for estimating party cohesion and quantifying your character's priorities, and that these goals are respectively better served by:
- Sitting down as a group before you make your characters and hashing out what kind of party/campaign everyone wants to play
- Establishing your character's goals and motives, and thinking in terms of them instead of arbitrary alignment categories that people never agree on the definitions of

That screencap is on some Dunning-Kruger shit and it drives me nuts that people still repost it.

File: 1469764041757.gif (259KB, 500x354px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 500x354px

>>49038328
>Chaotic Evil is the best alignment if you want to play an actually complex, interesting character
So delusional. Chaotic evil is RandomlulXD-tier

>>49038196
>chaotic evil does not plan for the long term
You don't need to be WIS 6 to be CE

>>49038328
you dont get alignments son

File: 1465281025906.jpg (32KB, 325x346px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 325x346px

>it's turning into an alignment thread

File: 1458350984739.gif (349KB, 278x200px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 278x200px

>>49038359
At least we know when it's time to leave a thread.

File: 1467679497043.jpg (78KB, 720x540px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 720x540px

>>49021383
Yes, with OP.

>>49038347
>Chaotic evil is RandomlulXD-tier
>Lawful good is Autisticonegoal>:C-tier

>>49038328
Have you ever actually read alignment descriptions?

>>49027045
Think Black Widow of Avengers.

>>49038411
Lawful good > Chaotic evil
Any day of the week. Cry more about it, edge-faggot. At least Lawful evil has a purpose and some character. Chaotic evil is just there for the edge. You serve no purpose but to look extremely shallow.

>>49038225
bobs uncle is the worst one for me, it is just depressing for the whole group
an railroaded adventure can still be a hell of a ride like a rollercoaster if done right
captain narcisse is also very depressing for the group but mostly not as bad as bobs uncle
the valkyra chronicler is not my kind of play but i can see it working for lots off guys and from time to time its ok
the unsmelled is more like a minor flaw, flowering descriptions are very nice to immerse yourself into the world but its can still be lots of fun without them, also this is the easyest problem to adress as constructive criticism and there are good chances of healing

>>49038448
ANY, ANY ALIGNMENT CAN TURN INTO +4 SHITFEST OF FUN BANE, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO TELL
so why use them at all
Like, why not just list the most basic character traits of your character, something anybody would realize upon talking to him/her/it for ten minutes

>>49038497
Because it can do it without them too?
The problem is player choice and dm choice.

Best game I seen ignored alignments and use reputation system. Do goblins fear you? Then you "chaotic evil" to them. Do humans love you for defeating the army of goblins? Then you are "lawful good" to them.

On that note I hate characters who value alignments over roleplay. I don't care how good or lawful you are, if an adult annoy you enough then you would seriously think about punching him. Doing it or not is a different subject but you should be hating the guy and possibly choose to ignore his request. The point of alignment is to give a baseline of how your character is so you can see if your group would even work. Chaotic evil generally should never be with lawful good. Treating your character like a robot though by following a flowchart is so fucking boring. The GM should never have to make hard mortal choices for you, your character should naturally have hard choices to make depending on his personality.

>>49038359
sorry

>>49037008
No its not evil is pragmatic as fuck and anyone who plays evil as a dickbutt rogue is a child. True evil is the warlord who ends up with a fief and a keep while the paladin ends up with a small cottage next to the forest because he promised the king he would keep the taxes at 35%

>>49038556
/alignment argument

>>49021383
I suppose most of "bad" archetypes can be good, so I allow almost everything that's not blatantly "FUCK YOU"... with caution and kicking stick ready, of course

>>49021383
Male human fighters. Really just melee fighter types in general.

There's been one in pretty much every campaign I've ever played or GM'd, and with only one exception they've all been the most boring character in the party by far. The people who gravitate to this archetype are also more likely than any other to shut down outside of combat or fuck around on their phone (in the worst case, both at the same time even while in combat), and even when they're present they very rarely offer anything worthwhile to the group.

>>49038648
I've noticed it too.

>>49038648
Stop playing core-only 3.X, faggot.

>>49038745
This. People will stop giving a shit when their character becomes dead weight and they have to fight or sidestep the system to be relevant.

Even worse is that people raised on 3.X have come to assume that's the norm. Had a player just go through the motions during fights and basically shut down out of combat because that's what he'd always done, even though we were playing GURPS instead. When I showed him that making a melee fighter neither limited his combat options to a single maneuver nor screwed him over in out-of-combat scenarios, he got a lot more involved.

>>49038225

I'm actually fine with all those if they're at least reasonably competent on the whole. My problem is Captain Obvious to Me. The guy who has about 10,000 house rules in his head that form some model for how the game works that he can't articulate, yet assumes anything else is just people being obstinate.

I don't mind things like "No multiclassing this campaign." I mean things like "Fast Hands can't be used on a healing kit because even though Use an Object is listed as an option that's a complex thing to do so you shouldn't get to do it on a single turn. Opening a lock is fine, though, because you're a thief." And responds to any inquiry of what, exactly is on each list with "Don't be an ass, you know what I mean."

I've learned to be 1 strike and you're out with these assholes because once they let themselves off the hook like that it's going to be a constant cavalcade of trying to find out why, exactly, a rogue in studded leather gets his DEX bonus against melee attacks but a fighter in the exact same studded leather doesn't.

>>49038294

I let people have that stuff, but 1) they have to be able to model it using the statistics from RAW and 2) it costs the exact same as if they'd used the item from RAW.

A grappling hook arrow costs 2 gold, weighs 4 pounds, and gives the exact same benefits as a normal grappling hook.

>>49038958
but how can an archer craft magic stuff?
wouldnt he need pretty high enchanting skill for something like this?

File: tmp_22997-1470012634464879308188.png (470KB, 402x964px) Image search: [Google]

470KB, 402x964px

>>49021383
Paladins and moralfags in general. When I GM I want all of my players to have fun, not just the holier-than-thou moral crusaders

In the rare occasion that I run D&D, I ban Paladins and restrict alignment heavily away from characters that can't cooperate with the party.

>>49039058

Neither grappling hooks nor caltrops are magical. I suppose a multi-classed archer/caster could use scribe scroll on shafts of wood to produce single-use magical effect arrows if they wanted without too much problem, though.

>>49038877
>Captain Obvious to Me
Does this also cover GMs with "intricate" puzzles and riddles that quickly devolve into a game of "guess what that GM is thinking"? Because those are the worst.

One part nonsensical answer, one part obscure "clues," and three parts obstinate refusal to let any of the PCs ideas work because they're A right answer and not THE right answer, bake at 420 for two hours; garnish with smug sense of superiority over the stupid players that don't "get it."

>>49039106
You sound like a shit GM.

>>49021383
Bards. Not for the reason you'd think, though.

Most bards, I gather, have one or two issues. They're not as suave as they think they are, and/or they stick their dick into everything.

The first bard character I ever encountered was respectably monogamous and went for charming over smooth. Unfortunately, he was also a smug condescending know-it-all of a prick who absolutely had to have the last word in every argument, ever, no matter how banal. He also liked to assume he was in charge and that everyone should follow his orders without question. Got pretty pissy when they didn't. Tried to dress down anyone who disagreed with him. Always resorted to personal attacks and name calling while trying to paint himself as the mature one.

That sounds like an interesting change of pace, at least, right? Good role-play? Nope. 100% self-insert. The player once proclaimed himself to be one of the most intellectually mature people on the planet. I have no doubt he believed it.

So, kind of sour on bards.

>>49039164
Sorry that I won't indulge your desire to live out /tg/ memes at the table and allow you to ruin the fun of the entire rest of the group.

>>49039163
Only time I did something like this was make a riddle that sounded like nonsense and didn't have a real answer anyone could agree on, which I didn't help by responding to every possible answer with "Are you sure?"

The riddle didn't actually have an answer, and whatever answer they came up with was irrelevant. What the riddle-giver was looking for was that they pick SOME answer and have the confidence and conviction to stick by said answer.

Can't for the life of me remember what the hell the riddle actually was though.

>>49039179
Straight up banning an entire core class and forbidding characters with strong moral centres is absolutely retarded and tyrannical. I can't imagine your games being very fun at all.

>>49039165
I'm planning on playing a bard in an upcomming Pathfinder game

My plan is to play a smartass who wants to drink and have fun when he's not punching people in the face

I have no interest in playing leader or any kind of ERP

Just a playing Rob Scallon with a spiked gauntlet and a drinking problem

>>49029658
Why must every female character played by a guy be lesbian ffs? I groan inside every time one of my friends makes a female character.

>>49039223
D&D is shit. Mostly, that's the fault of alignment. People normally content themselves with a Race/Class/Alignment personality, and all the more so when their ass is alignment restricted. But paladins especially are bad because they are the literal fun police who have an in-built mission to ensure that everyone else is playing the way the paladin wants them to play. And if you step out of line, they immediately resort to violence.

An evil character can always work with a good character, they have nothing to lose. A good character can sometimes work with an evil character, but a paladin is built to abide no fun at all, and will immediately commence suicidal fratricide if things aren't in line with their opinions.

>>49039209
That's actually a pretty clever subversion. Good on you.

>>49039289
You seem to not understand alignments and take an absolute view on what they are. An LG paladin doesn't have to be Judge Dredd. Maybe if you cared to explain that to your players you wouldn't need to impose arbitrary restrictions on them.

>>49039242
It depends on the group.
My group (oWoD, believe it or not) has had a few incidents with fetish-bait lesbian characters and general creepy female characters, but by far the most of our female characters are actually completely normal and enjoyable. Some of the best characters in our games have been female, and all of our players play girls every so often.
The trick to doing it is to remember that gender doesn't have as total an impact on a person's personality and being as a lot of the bad players of female characters tend to think. People on here regularly play characters whose lives have been mostly composed of stealing and living on the streets, or being a member of an ancient race that's studied forbidden magic for ages - and that makes a character a lot more different than changing their gender.
Sometimes, just make a character female because there are also women in the world, and instead of making them defined by their gender, think it through. Write their backstory as you would a normal character, and only include their gender when it's absolutely and completely necessary. Keep far away from sexualized characters at all - if you play them wrong, people will hate you for it, and if you play them right, people will grow to resent them just like they do people in real life who cram sex into everything.
Once in a while, for exercise, try taking the last male character you made and make them female - and see if you can stop at that. If you change their gender and only their gender, and that doesn't bring up any huge plot holes, you can very likely play them just like that.

>>49039318
Paladin players are only interested in the potential to kill their party members to begin with. That's the kind of people that class attracts.

I take a "alignment is bullshit" perspective and clearly declare that morality in my games is not objective or absolute, and that alignment is notn excuse to behave in a certain way, but before I outright banned paladins and LG, those players still committed to starting violent intraparty conflicts on the basis of alignment.

It's in the nature of the game and especially in the class that retards flock to paldins and are at the table almost exclusively to be the fun police, with full expectations that EVERYONE ELSE cater to their character or else.

>>49025901
In my old group, I used a little one minute sand timer I took out of a board game for players' turns. When I didn't GM, we still used it because it's a great prop and everyone hates waiting. Try getting your group on the same page as you and you can be a player again.

>>49039387
I have literally never played with anyone who has acted like that as a paladin. In my experience, it's the neutral 'in it for the money' types who are the worst (prone to theft, backstabbing and wanton pillaging like they're playing a TES game).

You've probably been overexposed to bad players. Your frustration is understandable, but it's no reason to wholesale ban a class/character concept that lots of people enjoy and can play well.

>>49021383
Every single one of these threads can be summed up as "I didn't vet my players and now i'm sad like goblins"

>>49039318
Not to defend the guy you're responding to (he is a huge asshole), but 3.X screwed the pooch when making the paladin's code of conduct. The big thing is that it explicitly precludes working with others that go against your code.
>While she may adventure with characters of any good or neutral alignment, a paladin will never knowingly associate with evil characters, nor will she continue an association with someone who consistently offends her moral code.

No quest to save an evil party member's soul, no sticking with them to make sure they don't do anything too evil, no cooperating for the greater good, none of that, and a lot of neutral tactics are listed as going against the paladin's code, which may mean a CG rogue that relies on poisons and ambushes to slay evil would "consistently offend [the paladin's] moral code."

However, instead of banning them and whacking one off to muh antimoralfaggotry, I just made the code a bit more lenient because I'm not retarded.

Also, it comes down to who makes their character first. Someone that rolls up a paladin when everyone else has made various shades of N and E is That Guy, and so is the guy that rolls up a C"N" rogue that exists to mug old ladies and burn down orphanages when there's already a paladin in the party. RPGs are a collaborative game, so some flexibility is to be expected in terms of what you play.

>>49039426
> In my experience, it's the neutral 'in it for the money' types who are the worst (prone to theft, backstabbing and wanton pillaging like they're playing a TES game).
People that play these kinds of characters are at worst a minor nuisance to the party because they might take extra loot or something. Their actions are focused outwards against the world and they have no intrinsic obligation or even reason to target their fellow party members.

Meanwhile, a paladin CANNOT play in the same party as a necromancer. Or, if it were ever possible, the necromancer has to STRONGLY tailor his character to suit the paladin's whims, and even then it's probably a hostile, near-violent relationship.

A player who selects paladin is not only making a choice for themselves, but imposing that choice on the rest of the party, because they CANNOT, and in 99% of cases, don't even WANT to budge.

>>49038745
It isn't just core only 3.x though. I've seen it happen in Savage Worlds, Star Wars (Sagas and D20), Rifts (god help me), Shadowrun, GURPS and The Riddle of Steel. People who build their character as a mundane fighter type almost always put themselves into a box where combat is the only thing they do ever, and the rest of the party just sort of has the adventure while their armored autistic buddy occasionally helps out.

Also I don't think I've ever played core-only 3.x. When I did play that system, it was with a LOT of splats allowed.

>>49038225
>The Unsmelled, who never describes smell, touch or sound.

Aww man, this is so common it hurts.

>>49039483
>no intrinsic obligation or even reason to target their fellow party members.
Except they have loot. In fact, your fellow PCs tend to have some very nice things that would look great in your pouch, and lets not forget the very real possibility of betraying the party for gold/treasure.

There are also times where those sorts of PCs mesh well with other less greedy PCs and everyone has a jolly old time.
It's almost like assholes can make any class or character motivation horrible and unfun to share a table with! Imagine that!

>>49021383
Any character that steals for the party for 'fun'.

They do it in order to have fun and show of their minmaxing capability, and they get other characters killed for it. Stealign from enemies is great, except we're on islands with nothign but mosnter enemies or spellcasters, so the only people you steal from - and you steal EVERYTHING from them - are the party members.

Fuck you.

>>49039442
Yup. If your group falls apart because the rules of the system didn't force them to play nice with each other, then perhaps there's a bigger problem to address.

>>49022379
>I want to play someone who literally never stops insulting people!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65wblLv1XDk

>>49039483
>they have no intrinsic obligation or even reason to target their fellow party members.

Except acting flagrantly in ways that bait any player playing a good aligned/religious character, sewing conflict. People like that will rarely even try to make their character act sneakily or conceal their dishonourable actions, they'll just go ahead and pillage the dead farmer and charge the grieving widow to bury them, right in front of the Cleric.

Necromancers are also a bad example to complain about, since it's logical that in civilised, human society, they would be shunned by basically everyone.

Paladins don't have to be evangelical. They can be stoic, reserved and humble, content to do what good they can and secure in the knowledge that their less virtuous companions are still making the world a better place. LG is an alignment, not a strictly defined personality type.

>>49039555
>sometimes a player can be an asshole
Sure, but a paladin is ALWAYS forcing the rest of the party to accommodate him. They literally cannot tolerate the presence of an evil party member.

File: consider.png (264KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1000x1000px

>>49039555
>>49039581
Can both of you just agree to disagree and stop repeating yourselves at each other?

>>49039605
First post in the argument fampai, try harder.

File: 1462075043013.jpg (48KB, 469x505px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 469x505px

People who won't show any flexibility if their life depended on it.
>Maybe we can cut a deal...?
>NO, I DON'T DEAL WITH CRIMINALS, I'M NOTIFYING AUTHORITIES RIGHT NOW AND ANYONE WHO TRIES TO STOP ME WILL HAVE TO FIGHT ME!

Alternatively

>All I ask of you is a prayer, and I'll [do whatever is needed atm]
>NO, I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THIS, I KILL THE PRIEST AND BURN DOWN THE TEMPLE!

>>49039510
Dunno, then. My last mundane-only melee was a mercenary that aspired to have his own mercenary band. Acted as party face and as moral-guideline of the team.

File: retard's guide to why paladins suck.png (990KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1080x1080px

>>49039580
>necromancers should be shunned
Only because of how stupid alignment is in the first place. "Evil" cannot be objectively determined, even in a fictional setting, period. It is literally a subjective quality which is defined according to the paradigm of whoever is defining it. A necromancer is someone who raises the dead. This is "evil" because it has a spell description claiming that it is, but of course that doesn't actually mean shit. In the first place, it's up to me as GM to determine what constitutes "objective evil" and not the player, or the system. Many GMs have a consequentialist understanding of right and wrong and thus treat evil as a numbers game, while many others decide that evil is some arbitrary set of specific actions, setting aside consequences. In either case, the GM's opinion is just that. It should not inform the philosophies and behavior of characters who live in that world, because they have the ability to determine for themselves what is right and wrong.

Fundamentally this is a major problem with D&D - it heavily incentives players to simply turn off their brains and create a "build" which is centered around the mechanics of a race and class; mechanics which include alignment. Thus, the paladin class appeals to the lowest common denominator for that already appalling standard, by literally telling them that they don't need to think, that the system - not even the GM - will just declare whether they're right or wrong, and that the appropriate response to something wrong is to kill it with your special class feature designed to remove fun.

>>49039510
See >>49038784. It's the curse of a popular but shitty system coloring everyone's expectations.

At the same time, you do sort of have a point; if I don't give a shit about the game itself, I'll choose whatever lets me put in the least amount of effort, and if I'm familiar with other systems, CRPGs, or MMOs, the melee fighter will sound the most simple (just run up to it then roll to attack).

>>49039673
>"Evil" cannot be objectively determined, even in a fictional setting, period.

Except in settings where good and evil are literally built into the fabric of the universe. Even in reality, if necromancers did exist I can guarantee you they would be hated and despised. Most human beings are not naturally inclined to moral relativism.

>>49039673
>"Evil" cannot be objectively determined, even in a fictional setting, period.
When the setting has a literal mini-universe filled with raw Evil and entities walk around with Evil literally in their veins, yes, it can. What the writers say goes.

You sound like a fucking freshman psych major. It's D&D, a game about gathering up 1d6-1 buds and going into dungeons to kill monsters and nick their shit. Faggots like you that pretend otherwise and try and run generic muh moral relativity wankery in a system that is in no way meant for it are actual factual cancer.

>>49039673
Necromancy is considered evil because you're defiling corpses, it's not like they just said "It's evil deal with it"
It only makes sense that most people aren't fond of it.

>>49039743
>>49039763
Even in our own world, there are a million examples of different cultures holding differing views on what can and cannot be done with corpses. The idea that the people of a fantasy universe wouldn't have their own beliefs about it is absurd.

>>49039743
>Except in settings where good and evil are literally built into the fabric of the universe.
This means nothing. In the first place, they aren't even actually defined. What D&D means by that claim is that it's up the GM how alignment ultimately works.

However, just as in our world, there is no way to establish an "objective" morality. Good and evil are literally defined by subjective interpretation. They are statements of preference. What is good is only good according to a particular standard of good. "The Universe" may even have its own standard, but it is not intrinsically superior or inferior to any other standard. The axiomatic positions that create moral opinions are arbitrary in all cases. It is literally ontologically impossible to arrive at an objectively superior moral framework.

>>>49039761
>raw Evil
I can also declare that heavy metals are evil, and then you could use a Geiger counter just like Detect Evil and have an "objective" standard of morality. A creature cannot be made of a subjective, immaterial quality.
>What the writers say goes.
It is possible to write about square circles, but they cannot exist.

>le beer and pretzels y so srs lol
Please kill yourself immediately.

>>49039836
>moral relativism: the post

Like I said, most human beings aren't give to that point of view. Most people, through ignorance or considered opinion, consider some things objectively good and bad. You shouldn't project your philosophies so strongly onto your campaigns.

>>49039454
>Also, it comes down to who makes their character first. Someone that rolls up a paladin when everyone else has made various shades of N and E is That Guy, and so is the guy that rolls up a C"N" rogue that exists to mug old ladies and burn down orphanages when there's already a paladin in the party. RPGs are a collaborative game, so some flexibility is to be expected in terms of what you play.
this so much

>>49039850
>most people think they are right
Sure, but the fact that good and evil are subjectively defined is logically irrefutable.

File: letgo.jpg (31KB, 800x593px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 800x593px

>>49038359
>arguing about the inherent evil of necromancy
>arguing about moral subjectivism as it relates to the presence supernatural good/evil
>P H I L O S O P H Y

>>49039836
No, really. Many of the default D&D settings are built around a cosmology in which Good and Evil are actual, objective forces that act on the material plane. Yes, it's bizarre, in both theory and practise, but it's there.

Of course, many GMs run their own settings, which lack that cosmological backing. I... don't know how they justify the existence of Good and Evil in those cases, other than by just not thinking about it very hard.

>>49032724
>Spoony
Who?

>>49039836
Holy shit you actually are mentally disabled aren't you? Now I feel bad for making fun of you.
I hope your mom can finally save up enough to get you fully diagnosed.

>>49039864
It's ironic that you hate paladins due to their evangelical nature, and yet you are determined to impose your own philosophical position onto others so strongly that you ban them from playing how they like.

>>49039879
http://spoonyexperiment.com/counter-monkey/counter-monkey-the-apocalypse-stone-part-1/

>>49039875
NUH UH IT DOESN'T EXIST BECAUSE I SAY SO
Everything I personally disagree with is irrelevant.

>>49039871
The only thing that can save us now is a hapless anon stumbling in and dropping an interesting reply to the OP without reading the thread.

>>49039879
He's an internet "celebrity" who got famous for bitching about FF VIII

Be advised, he rabbles on for almost 2 hours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1N42CApZ1E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIMwTOQRe9Y

>>49039875
>No, really. Many of the default D&D settings are built around a cosmology in which Good and Evil are actual, objective forces that act on the material plane.

I'm aware of what D&D claims. It's also literally impossible. What's actually happening is that "objective feature X" is defined as evil by the system and "objective feature Y" is defined as good by the system. X and Y are usually considered to be some kind of cosmic energy, but there is nothing intrinsically good or evil about either, they are merely /declared/ to be intrinsically good or evil. Many people further justify this by appealing to the authority of gods, but a god's opinion about good and evil is no more objective than yours or mine.

The system is neither infallible nor a good basis for the philosophies that govern character behavior. A person living in a D&D world would be no different from us in their ability to create equally valid interpretations of good and evil, because good and evil are defined by subjectivity to begin with.

>>49039890
Well, I ban them from playing because they ruin the fun of other players. Paladins pretty much only exist to kill their party members for stepping out of line. At the very minimum, they force every other player to be very conscious of the paladin when they make their own character, and outright exclude many, many options from play altogether.

The fact that the system which makes them so stupid and troublesome to begin with is wildly inaccurate and silly is just a secondary issue.

>>49039936
>I'm aware of what D&D claims. It's also literally impossible.

This is the wierdest case of "complaining about realism in magic elf games" I've ever seen.

Listen - D&D metaphysics do not work like our own. Theirs is a world where it's entirely possible for a person to blast their enemies with streams of pure Bad. That's just how their reality works.

You're free to invent settings where that's not the case, and invent whatever houserules you want to make D&D work for you (though I'd wager you'd be better off finding a different system), but complaining that D&D's approach to morality is unrealistic is nonsense.

>>49039936
Reanimating corpses using innate magical powers is also literally impossible so following your own logic necromancers should be banned from your games
exept if you have special rules where the necromancer is a scientist that uses corpses as basematerial for robots, but then you are just edgy to be edgy since it would be easyer and less stinky to just build robots the normal way

>>49039995
All metaphysics operate on the same principle - logic. If it were possible to create a fictional world with an objective morality then that morality would be just as objective in our universe. It doesn't matter whether there's magic or gods in D&D Land, the issue is one of ontological possibility - the square circle. Good and evil cannot be objectively defined, and simply attaching that label to whatever new thing you're talking about is a linguistic trick.

>>49040021
at this point its either b8 or legit autism

>>49040009
Actually that's completely within the realm of ontological possibility. Whether or not it's possible for me or you to do, or even whether or not it is possible according to the physical laws governing this universe is unrelated to whether it is possible at all.

For instance, there is a speculative science fiction story about a parallel universe in which the gravitational constant is much higher than it is in our universe. This physical law which is immutable in our universe is not actually immutable by its nature. It is entirely reasonable and logical to simply conceive of a reality in which the laws of physics are different. It is entirely unreasonable, illogical, and impossible to conceive of a universe in which the laws of metaphysics are different.

>>49040051
there is also a fictional story where the objektive good and the objektive bad exists

>>49040076
And again, this is a linguistic trick. What is actually happening is that "some objective property" is being defined as good and "some objective property" is being defined as evil.

That's not really an uncommon thing, for instance many people alive today consider an objective property - race - to have moral weight. That's absolutely no different from deciding that "alignment" has moral weight.

>>49040051
>It is entirely unreasonable, illogical, and impossible to conceive of a universe in which the laws of metaphysics are different.
Why?

>>49039581
Frankly? Good. The VAST majority of people can't play an evil character for shit, and shouldn't be tolerated.

>>49040101
For the same reason that we cannot conceive of a square circle. Ontological possibility is limited. The boundaries of logic are absolute, and if you cross them you enter into the territory of the impossible. That is what impossibility /is/.

>>49039958
Holy fucking shit you have brain problems.

Or you just play retards, that deserve to be put in the ground.

Only two options.

>>49040097
exept that in the d&d setting you have a higher instance, namely gods, that observable exist
they form the world pretty much like they want and a paladin gets his klerikal power from them
>>49040101
because his autistic morals wont allow it
>>49040135
>square cirle
go to the 1 dimensional space and there you have your square circle duh

>>49040197
Please don't engage the retard. Just let him stew in his own impotence

>>49040197
>exept that in the d&d setting you have a higher instance, namely gods, that observable exist
A god, even an omnipotent one, is limited to the limits of power. They cannot make the impossible possible - nothing can.

Its moral opinions are equally valid to yours, mine, a demon's - whatever.

>go to the 1 dimensional space and there you have your square circle duh
This is just nonsense. Squares and circles are two dimensional, they cannot exist on a one dimensional plane.

More importantly, the square circle is just an example of something that is ontologically impossible. I could give you others like removing something from existence, or changing the past. There are a number of things which can be constructed linguistically and discussed, but which are nonsense, and impossible.

>>49040263
Do you fucking know what omnipotent means, you dribbling retard?

>>49040263
>>49040197
I am in this thread to point out 2d objects are not a thing on 1d planes.

II dont give a shit about the rest.

>>49040295
All powerful. It means that you could do whatever power can do. Power is not capable of doing the impossible. If it were, then the impossible would simply be very difficult, and not impossible. Rewriting the laws of physics, for instance.

>>49040295
Inb4 bible thumpers arguing god can totally make a square circle and being grumpy when people roll their eyes.

>>49040263
>omnipotent one, is limited
something something literall fallacy somthing autism something

>>49040318
Do you understand what 'unlimited' means?

>>49040332
Again, it doesn't matter how much power you have. If power can do it, then it's not impossible. But there are things that power cannot do.

>>49040318
Read a fucking dictionary, you headcase.

>>49040342
The only thing truly impossible, even for something omnipotent, is to make you less stupid.

>>49040332
>>49040330
I dont think you guys understand logic

>>49040357
I'm sorry that you're rustled, Christcuck.

>>49040342
You do not seem to understand that impossible is relative.

>>49040321
Totally called it, 10/10

>>49039359
Exactly!
Gender means next to nothing. I dont mean that in the 'I'm a pansexual trans cat', type of way but as far as character, the female template changes next to nothing.
I'm playing a chick character right now, and I play her as
>1st The Trope I want her to be
>2nd The Character she's evolved into
and
>3rd A girl.

>>49040369
>>49040343
Spotted the religious

>>49040364
I'm an atheist, you dribbling 'tard. We're talking about the definitions of words.

>>49040369
No, it's not. There's the layman sense of the word which /is/ relative, for instance it would be sensible for me to say "It is impossible for a human being to fly unassisted."

Of course it's not /actually/ impossible. With enough application of power, it is doable.

But it /is/ actually impossible to make a square circle, for instance.

>>49040386
We're talking about the DEFINITION. OF. FUCKING. WORDS.

This has fuckall to do with religion, and everything to do with you being a stupid subhuman pile of filth who doesn't understand language and definitions, and PLAYING. PRETEND.

>>49040392
>But it /is/ actually impossible to make a square circle, for instance.

Imagine, if you can, a world where it was possible.

That is D&D-land.

>>49040318
Definition of omnipotence: make a rock so heavy you can't lift it, then lift it anyways.

Just because you are incapable of imagining or thinking outside your solipsistic version of reality does not mean you are either correct or that others cannot think outside your self centered viewpoint.

>>49040392
It is mathematical possible to do so, if you drop the Eculidean mathematical construct and use a non-Euclidean one where right angles are not finite points but infinitely elongated hyberbolas.

Your logic only works if everyone uses the same flawed logic.

>>49040411
>Imagine, if you can
You cannot. That's because it's ontologically impossible.

Not just casually, "I lack the ability to do it" impossible.

>That is D&D-land.
D&D-land is physically quite different from our reality but it is and must be metaphysically identical. Good and evil are not actually objectively defined in D&D, they are just declared to be intrinsically linked to objective properties. As I said, we can do that too. A lot people do it with race, for instance.

I could create an "objective" Evil Detector by defining evil as thorium and selling Geiger counters. That's what D&D does. It's just a linguistic trick which obfuscates the subjective nature of its "objective" morality.

>>49040263
>its moral opinions are equally valid
maybe if you cant handle your autism one could think something like that but tell that to someone who lives in a world were if he fucks with corpses some god will strikes him with a bolt o lightening
pretty efficient way to establish morals dont you think?

i bet after less then 3 generations "dont fuck with corpses" would be the ultimate truth for the whole population

>>49040364
logic fallacy faggot
you dont have to be christian, or even believe in any higher being, to enjoy playing a cleric or paladin in a fantastic, or even mundane, world
i would like to play a cleric for shure, cant do that atm with my current group tho because a friend of mine wanted to play a deamon-summoning witch very fain, and since i dont have autism and i had another charakter concept at hand, i play that one

>>49040463
If you change the definition of the square and circle, so that you're now talking about the squeer and circool, then sure, you can arrive at a different conclusion. But a square is not a squeer and a circle is not a circool.

>>49040483
Did you know that you can construct a hemispherical square?

>>49040387
And you dont seem to know what impossible means.

>>49040405
You dont seem to know definitions well if you think you can do the impossible.

It makes ypu sound christian as fuck.

>>49040483
You literally have no imagination. You are one sad, sad, pathetic individual.

>>49040489
>maybe if you cant handle your autism one could think something like that but tell that to someone who lives in a world were if he fucks with corpses some god will strikes him with a bolt o lightening
>pretty efficient way to establish morals dont you think?
I mean you can coerce people to behave in certain ways by threatening them with harm, sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with metaphysics.

>logical fallacy
No, it's just a reasonable guess, because that's the kind of people that get most frustrated at this. Of course stupid people aren't exclusively religious.

>>49040534
Show me where I claimed I could do the impossible, you trolling sack of shit. Where I claimed I, personally, could do it. Come on, should be easy.

>>49040547
Imagination doesnt fix your inability to understand the concept of something that is definitionally impossible.

>>49040483
>ontologically impossible
For you. There are people perfectly capable of imagining and creating things that you cannot.

>>49040552
>that's the kind of people that get most frustrated at this.
show studys for this

>>49040572
And omnipotence is, by definition, able to do it anyway.

Whoops~

>>49040562
You also have poor reading comprehension in addition to not knowing what impossible or omnipotent means, given your takeaway from that.

>>49040498
Yet you are the one who brought mathematics into it, and there are forms of math where circles have corners and squares do not have 90 degree angles.

The fact that you cannot cope with the truth of the matter - that your solipsistic world view is solely your own and does not impinge on others necessarily or correctly - is not my problem.

>>49040587
Sorry, that's not how the word impossible works. You must have been misinformed.

>>49040552
Religious people are the most likely to get frustrated at an idiot who can't understand definitions? That's a new one by me.

>>49040576
>For you
No, ontology is not subjective. Logic is universal and what is impossible is impossible.
>There are people perfectly capable of imagining and creating things that you cannot.
Sure, I agree. That doesn't mean that there are people who can make the ontologically impossible possible.

This matter is not one of ability or perception or creativity.
>>49040599
>there are forms of math where circles have corners and squares do not have 90 degree angles.
Yeah sure, but those are not squares and circles. They're squeers and circools. You can use language to equate different things, but they are not actually the same.

>>49040610
Too bad it is, and you're just wrong. That's what omnipotent means. Able to do anything, including the impossible.

I'm sorry this is so frustrating for you.

>>49040599
>if you change the definitions you can do it!
>>49040616
Hey, it's not his fault you are angry that you dont understand logic or definitions.

>>49040572
That's is a false assumption on your part.

Einstein imagined the theory of relativity decades before it was proved as factual reality. By your stringent definitions he should not have been able to even imagine that because the theory of relatively was monotonically impossible according to everything alive at the time.

YOU are incapable of imagining certain things. Other people clearly do not.

>>49040483
D&D-land operates on different ontological constraints to our own universe.

>>49040631
>Logic is universal
This has never been proven to be true.

>>49040635
Sorry anon, impossible things cant be done, or they would be possible.
I know its against your religion, but that is how the word works.

>>49040639
I'm sorry you're so mad you're confusing me with you.

Omnipotence: Noun
Able to do anything, including the impossible.

>>49040631
>Yeah sure, but those are not squares and circles. They're squeers and circools. You can use language to equate different things, but they are not actually the same.
higher math is pretty fucked up but its more like translating the mathematical definitions of squares and circles into another alternative numberrange

>>49040641
>monotonically
ontologically

Autocorrect is hell.

>>49021383
Mages. They are always either socially awkward nerds or Edge McEdgesson spergs. We've had a regular at the store that always plays a fire mage. Fucking always. We usually play open storytelling with different settings and he doesn't give a shit about team composition or needs, he just spergs his mage, and even when he gets the KonoSuba treatment of just one spell per day, he bugs everyone asking for camp.

Best are usually warriors, when someone brings a friend and makes a warrior you just know he'll try his best to help.

>>49040641
Sorry anon, you still seem unable to imagine what impossible means.

>>49040662
Again, atheist. Stop trying to divert from the definitions of things.

>>49040662
if that is the case the existence of something omnipotent invalidates the meaning behind impossible

>>49021383
my currents Pokemon Trainers United party (Im a PC and the GM has 2 groups). We're fighting a underground war against the Rockets in a alternative time line where the Rockets took over Johoto and Kanto. Nearly everybody is a fucking special snowflake

Group 1:
> Goddess in human form that can resurrect dead pokemon fossils
>Time Traveling guy from the future
>Angry school kid that was captured by the rockets but let go after the party abandoned him to escape. SOMEHOW "acquired" powers to talk to pokemon
>Orange Island born guy who likes to throw Rockets into volcanoes
> Pokemon trainer who literally can not shut up about how awesome he is all the time at crafting shit (hates my group with a passion)

my group:
> Bard school kid that was accused of murder of his professor (plot in game 1, we didnt do it) and went underground with the resistance
> Mute school kid that was with the group accused of murder. went underground with the bard. Has backstory for telepathic powers
> Some country hick from a no name town. Joined us on our journey. pretty cool fellow
> Merc for hire that the resistance gave us. Power gamer to the max.

>>49040631
>those are not squares
A square is defined as a polygon with 4 equal sides and equal angles between those sides. Do you agree?

>>49040664
Nope
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/omnipotent

Thats not hpw english works, christfag.

>>49040695
>>49040683
See
>>49040710
You illiterate christians.

>>49040679
I certainly can. More importantly I can imagine what it does not mean, something you are clearly incapable of.

Also, using the words 'ontologically impossible' in the same sentence is a very bad mistake since ontology is a branch of metaphysics and concerns itself with the study of 'what may and may not be'.

Your "higher education'' is failing you.

>>49040657
Again, it is not possible for any universe to be metaphysically different from our own. They can be as physically different as you like, but what is impossible is universally impossible and absolutely nothing can change that. That's the nature of impossibility, the literal meaning.

>>49040659
I'm sorry, but that statement is just complete nonsense. Logic is a closed system with definite boundaries, it is not beholden to subjectivity.

Now there is sometimes another one of those linguistic tricks regarding logic, where people conflate it with prudence, but that's not relevant in this topic.

>>49040670
You can say you're altering definitions but what you're actually doing is talking about different things. A Euclidean square is not a non-Euclidean square.

>>49040709
See above.

>>49040754
>A Euclidean square is not a non-Euclidean square.
But they are both squares.

>>49040742
Sorry anon, it seems the entire internet disagrees
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

>>49038225

You forgot Slacker Mcgee, that GM who thinks he'll just wing every session until he gets bored and cancels the game without telling anybody.

>>49040773
>>49040710
Omnipotence fags got fucking told

>>49040767
In same sense that both a fire truck and a station wagon are both cars, sure.

Again, language allows to equate things that are different, even to name them as the same, but they are not the same in fact. We can make a clear distinction between them.

>>49040730
I'm sorry you are literally unable to read.

And again, you stupid sack of shit: Atheist. Just because I understand the meanings of words doesn't mean I subscribe religious value to them.

>>49040730
again: i dont belive in god
why cant you understand that i dont have to belive in something to imagine it as an FANTASTIC world?

>>49021722
the thing with anime plots is that they usually take the part where you're kicked down rather literally and have characters close to death fairly often. which obviously is a risky strategy in DnD where you literally roll the dice to determine your life at that point. It does sometimes make for some hilarious anti-climactic deaths though.
>IT IS TIME, TO UNLEASH MY ULTIMATE POWER OF LAUNCHING CHAOS-SPIRIT FIREBALLS
>rolls a nat 1 and a 4
>Shounen protagonist collapses softly to the earth dead in the middle of his greatest attack.

>this entire fucking thread
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

>>4904079
>>49040802
>help me, all definitions disagree with me
Keep melting down. Your christian only definitions are hilarious.

>>49040754
>Again, it is not possible for any universe to be metaphysically different from our own.

False logic. You have no verifiable proof that this is the case, only assumptions based on incomplete evidence.

>but what is impossible is universally impossible and absolutely nothing can change that
This is a tautological falsehood as we are not capable of knowing what is or is not universally impossible as we cannot completely comprehend, measure, or understand the entirety of any given universe at our current levels of intelligence and understanding. This is a fact, not an assertion.

>Logic is a closed system with definite boundaries
It is also an incomplete system with limitations based on outdated presumptive systems and thought processes, and cannot be proven to be absolutely correct under all instances, because we cannot pridiuct what instances that logic might fail to perform. Since logic is the study of argumentation, there can exist argumentation that does not follow the strictures of logic and there are situations where logic may not hold true. Since logic is by it's very nature an assumptive system, it cannot be flawless nor universal as the sum total of reality is not understood.

>on square circles
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-space-where-a-square-circle-exists

File: fedora when someone says god is real_1.jpg (63KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 600x600px

Did some sort of fedora dam break loose and now this thread is getting flooded by people who insist they're actually trilbies or some shit?

>>49040754
>Again, it is not possible for any universe to be metaphysically different from our own. They can be as physically different as you like, but what is impossible is universally impossible and absolutely nothing can change that. That's the nature of impossibility, the literal meaning.
>Can be as physically different as you like
>Good and Evil cannot be objective, physical forces

Good grief you're dense.

>>49030096
probably because it's easier to be evil than good.

>>49040844
dude your christianity is showing
better watch for the anti-paladin inquisition of doom

>>49040851
No, it's a self important asshat who believes he's the only reasonable and correct person to ever use the english language.

>>49040865
.....I'm neither a Christian nor an Atheist.

The fact that you must stoop to those meaningless attacks on faith or lack thereof just demonstrates your inability to think like a rational human being.

>>49040869
>the english language.
>reasonable and correct
foreign_chuckling_noises.ogg

File: Argumentation.jpg (603KB, 2000x1330px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 2000x1330px

>>49040865

>>49040851
it always happens eventually. Fedoras show up to the thread in some assbackwards "I HATE CHRISTIANS" version of Godwin's law

>>49040881
s a r c a s m

>>49040890
She may be a scurvy, scabbed whore who knives other languages in the back alley to rummage through their pockets for words, but by god, she's OUR whore.

>>49040865
>>49040881
Yeah, we're literally only arguing that, in all the infinite realms of possibility, a world where Good and Evil are objective, quantifiable forces is perfectly possible.

We're not arguing that the world we exist in right now is that objective world, only that we can imagine such a world, and how it would work.

>omnipotence shitheads get told
>m-muh fedoras
Enjoy every definition on google disagreeing with you.

>>49040918
But according to captain solipsism we can't actually imagine that.

>>49040921
omnipotent
ɒmˈnJpət(ə)nt/Submit
adjective
(of a deity) having unlimited power.
"God is described as omnipotent and benevolent"
synonyms: all-powerful, almighty, supreme, most high, pre-eminent;

>>49039106
Today on how to be an awful GM featuring /tg/

>>49040943
None of those mention he can do the impossible.

Thats pretty much an argument for people with no critical thinking ability.

In fact, upon close reading, all definitipns linked often say all powerfulp within the realm of possibility.

>>49040844
>False logic. You have no verifiable proof that this is the case, only assumptions based on incomplete evidence.
"Proof" does not matter, nor do my assumptions. Logic dictates, it does investigate. What is, is, and what isn't, isn't. If something different were possible, then it would be true and apparent. For it to be impossible simply means that the world is what it is, and indeed, that is the case.

>This is a tautological falsehood
Tautology is the basis of positive claims. All positions stem from arbitrary axioms, but logic, a closed, artificial system, can give us definite answers by referring to itself. To deny logic is to deny truth altogether. You would simply be lost eternally in a chaotic, senseless reality with no way to frame or understand anything you experience. It's a path of pure madness, and it is not any more valid than the alternative.

>It is also an incomplete system with limitations based on outdated presumptive systems and thought processes
Systems of thought are not "dated". Logic is purposefully limited, because as I just mentioned, to deny it (and really, it cannot be denied by a sane mind), is to subject yourself to an endless current of formless chaos. In the first place, denying logic is something you can't actually do under your own power.

Now you can declare that you'll do that, and you can, by virtue of language, 'convince' yourself that you're doing it, but to actually do it would mean abandoning the position that led you to this absurd point in the first place. For a sane person, that won't ever happen.

>Since logic is by it's very nature an assumptive system, it cannot be flawless nor universal as the sum total of reality is not understood.
Logic defines reality. It is necessarily flawless. "Flaw" is something that exists because of logic. It is one of those self-referential advantages of a closed system. Without logic, there is truth, so there is no untruth, and thus nothing is flawed.

>>49040984
>None of those mention he can do the impossible.
Because that is the realm of the Omnipotence Paradox.

>>49040933
>>49040918
>boo hoo, no authorities agree with my definitions!

>>49040993
That is why modern definitions do not claim omnipotent beings can do the impossible, yes.

File: Why English is Weird.jpg (77KB, 500x663px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x663px

>>49040890
>>49040907

>>49040989
>logic is flawless
Who let a Modron in here?

>>49041026
Somebody decided to disagree with accepted definitions, which summons modrs.

>>49040996
Definitions of what? Imagination? The only thing we've been fucking talking about this entire time?

>>49041077
Sorry anon, you do not have enough imagination to understand the current argument.

>>49039106
Sauce on that pic?

>>49040989
>If something different were possible, then it would be true and apparent.
Except this is false logic in every sense of the word. It is not necessarily true and apparent that different things can be possible under circumstances unexplored and quantified. You lack qualification and experience to claim that what is, is and what isn't isn't because your understanding of the world is subjective and limited.

>logic, a closed, artificial system, can give us definite answers by referring to itself
A self contained system of thought does not lend itself to understanding that which it cannot and does not contain, by definition. Any claim that it does is an argument of personal incredulity that is must contain all possible answers because you cannot accept it might not.

>to deny it (and really, it cannot be denied by a sane mind)
This would be the personal incredulity issue I just mentioned.

>denying logic is something you can't actually do under your own power
Logic is not the end-all-be-all of thought processes. Non-logical through processes can and do exist. Part of (actual) cybernetics is the study of such processes.

>Logic defines reality. It is necessarily flawless
Wrong. Logic is a system of thought based on argumentation, and works on an assumptive basis. The scientific method, which is what you are conflating with logic, is not logical, it is a methodology that can be defined by logical analysis. ~That does not mean that either are not flawed.~ Logic is a closed system designed to study and use argumentation. It does not define reality itself. The absolute absurdism of claiming 'logic defines reality' when logic is merely a method of defining a specified set of verbalized thought processes is far more insane than acceptation that reality is defined by itself and that it is in fact possible to imagine thing not part or parcel of this reality, including solutions to the omipotence paradoxes you claim cannot be solved because 'logic' disallows it.

>>49041114
the current argument is a logical failure in itself, having nothing to do with imagination and fantasy tabletop pen&paper games

>>49041184
It's got a lot to do with them, toubut just dont have the imagination to see that.

The omnipotence paradox comes up a lot whenever someone tries to port their god to games.

>>49041223
nobody is trying to port their god into a game tho

>>49041257
There was much discussion earlier about porting omnipotent beings into games, and how that doesn't solve the omnipotence paradox.

>>49041166
>It is not necessarily true and apparent that different things can be possible under circumstances unexplored and quantified.
The circumstances are known, because that's how we're able to discuss the topic in the first place. We are not assessing some event which is subject to our sensory analysis and an empirical investigation. We are discussing the validity of particular claims of certainty, within a wholly theoretical environment.

We can know /definitively/, with absolutely no doubts, whether or not the argument "Evil can be objectively determined" is valid. And indeed we do, because the inherently subjective definition of evil precludes the entire question and renders the debate dead in the water before it begins.

>A self contained system of thought does not lend itself to understanding that which it cannot and does not contain, by definition.
Logic has the capacity to understand everything, and make definitive claims about everything, /because/ it is a closed system. If we abandon it we abandon the ability to hold a position as true.

And since we as thinking creatures start past that line, with many axioms already arbitrarily selected, it is impossible for us to actually consider abandoning truth altogether.


>Logic is not the end-all-be-all of thought processes.
It actually is. This:
>Non-logical through processes can and do exist. Part of (actual) cybernetics is the study of such processes.
Is sophistry - a conflation of logic with prudence and rationality.

>Wrong. Logic is a system of thought based on argumentation, and works on an assumptive basis.
Argumentation is the means by which we determine truth. Logic is the system which renders argumentation possible. In other words, as I said, logic defines truth - it defines reality.

Science is just a vulgar, low-minded observational process. Its claims are not certain and its aim is not truth.

>>49041323
no it was not
you just read what you wanted to read because autism
no gods got ported anywhere
IN THE FICTIONAL D&D UNIVERSE GODS ARE LITERALLY REAL

>inb4 muh christfag
You are the reason im ashamed to be an atheist
You are the reason if someone asks if im religious i dont tell them im atheist but that i dont belive in a god or afterlife

>>49041166
>it is in fact possible to imagine thing not part or parcel of this reality, including solutions to the omipotence paradoxes you claim cannot be solved because 'logic' disallows it.
No, it's not possible. It is possible to distort language in order to make it seem as though you can solve the impossible, but in fact that is just sophistry.

>>49040907
It's a shame English gets shit upon so much. She had a really rough childhood as the red-headed stepchild of other European languages.

Is it sad that the history of the English language was legitimately the most fun class I've had in years?

>>49041465
yes but mostly for your educational system

>>49041402
Anon, you seem to be trying to move goalposts after your claims about omnipotence fell through.

Reeal gods or not, they have not solved the omnipotence paradox. On topa if that, very few settings have omnipotent gods.

Stopbeing angey just Because it turned out your definitions were wrong.

>>49040263
>A god, even an omnipotent one, is limited to the limits of power
Kek.

>>49041423
Just give it up, he doesnt have the ability to admit his shortcomings. Instead he has to claim he can totally imagine and render square circles. When pressed on it, he falls back to sophistry and noneuclidian shapes.

>>49041628
See the omnipotence paradox.

>>49041585
wtf stop making stupid assumptions all the time
I DID NOT ARGUE IN THE OMNIPOTENCE PARADOXON!
I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN!
I JUST POINTED OUT THAT YOUR LOGIC IS NOT PERFECT SINCE YOU MAKE WILD ASSUMTIONS AND THAT THE WHOLE OMNIPOTENCE DISCUSSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FICTIONAL CONSTRUCT THAT IS THE D&D UNIVERSE WHERE DIFFERENT PHYSICALIC RULES APPLY BECAUSE THE WRITER WROTE SO

>inb4 logic cant be flawed, logic is perfect...
not YOUR Logic, thats for shure

>>49041401
>And since we as thinking creatures start past that line, with many axioms already arbitrarily selected, it is impossible for us to actually consider abandoning truth altogether.
Except that there is a solution to the Omnipotence Paradox outside logical thought which is true, because there are thought processes that allow for the possibility of perception to be an acceptable evidence state. This is how it was proven that virtual particles can exist in a perfect vacuum, a scientific proof that does not follow logical conclusions but is scientifically proven despite that. To whit: if omnipotence is the state of being all powerful, and the omnipotent power creates a rock that it cannot lift, and then proceeds to lift it anyway, thereby violating what is known as physics, it has proven omnipotence.

>Argumentation is the means by which we determine truth.
No. It is ONE of the means by which we determine truth. It is neither the sole nor the absolute means for determining truth, which makes your personal incredulity issues so much more an inability to understand or accept that there are other means of truth finding that are not logical and that are still entirely valid, meaning reality is not defined or created by logic alone, as you claim.

>non-logical thought processes can and do exist is sophistry - a conflation of logic with prudence and rationality
No True Scotsman. Your inability to believe that anyone can be rational and use any system other than logic to define the world and reality does not make logic the sole arbiter of thought processes, truth and reality.

To even attempt to claim that logic is the sole arbiter of truth and reality is fundamentally self serving and a circular argument akin to that foisted off on a certain holy text on a regular basis, and equally lacking in rationale.

>>49023398
I see you are beginning to see the light my child

>>49041694
It's fascinating to me, this post. I genuinely can't tell if it's high level trolling or a bona fide high school summer kid.

>>49041694
Anon, you are arguing the omnipotence paradox right now.

>>49041423
>a perfect and textbook example of the Personal Incredulity Fallacy
I think all that can be said has been said.

You are irrational because you cannot accept that anything outside your worldview can possibly exist, even if that worldview is subjective.