Dirty /tg/ Secrets

I unironically like kitsune.

>>51685557
I have never played a pnp game, but act like I have when I post

File: 1486016417370.png (210KB, 853x1010px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 853x1010px

>>51685795
Nothing wrong with that.

>>51685854
Have you tried an online group, or do you just like to shoot the shit here?

My current campaign revolves around one party member.

and the players love it

>>51685557

I use gaming groups to playtest builds I have, deliberately getting my characters killed when I want to test a new concept. It annoys several people I've played with.

File: Old_School_Skubbin.jpg (31KB, 470x196px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 470x196px

>>51685557
I love skub.

>>51686046
Don't have a regular enough schedule/enough free time

Almost all of my local meta are insufferable cunts that poison their own communities, and take to cliques like a fly to shit.

Late 20's and I feel like I'm surrounded by children

>>51685557
I enjoy 3.5 and Pathfinder
I dislike FATE, GURPS, Savage World, and other all encompassing systems

>>51685557
I don't actually play, mainly because people bore me. I'm just here for the 40K lore, rumours, and WIP threads.

>>51686214
I don't see that as a bad thing.
>>51686225
I'm here for the storytimes

File: Donald the Dragonlayer.jpg (47KB, 537x720px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 537x720px

>>51685557

All my settings I introduce to players and use are actually just Magical Realms created as an afterthought from the erotic stories and smut-lit I've written in the past, with minor tweaks made to conceal this fact.

>>51686280
Pretty clever. link

>>51685854
well over 50% of /tg/

>>51685557
We should bring /wst/ back, or something like it. A place to contain everybody's boners because just banning a lewd theead's existence sure ain't working.

>>51685557

I've written a handful of screencapped /tg/ stories an every single one was fiction.

Furthermore, I've stolen other /tg/ stories for use in my fiction.

>>51685557
I think people who dislike D&D hate fun and I try not to associate with them.

>>51686507

... but this is just correct

File: L.A._Biggs_Monk_drinking_wine_XIXe.jpg (685KB, 640x805px) Image search: [Google]

685KB, 640x805px

>>51685557
all my homebrew settings are based off metal songs and albums.

>>51686519
I constantly see people shit on D&D and call it a bad system, but 5e is an easy groundwork to free-form the rest, and the other editions offer varying styles of game with more/less substance etc.

I honestly do not know why people seriously hate it and play things like Pathfinder (which is a cancerous mass of throbbing homebrew).

>>51685795
I recenty found out Kitsune are my fetish.

When not doing actual discussion, I use 4chan as a fielding ground for my most retarded inner thoughts and creations, so I don't feel bad when I post piss drunk or say something stupid.
I ran what was pretty much the worst quest ever about two years back on the same basis, partially out of a misplaced sense of artistry and partially because I wanted to see how much mileage I could get out of it before it blew up in my face.
I use RPGs as something to commit to, because I have a history of anxiety and depression and anything that forces me to think about another person instead of myself is a huge benefit. Besides, I enjoy being a DM, even if I objectively suck at it.

>>51685557
I don't really like the horus heresy that much, I find "modern" 40k much more interesting

>>51686555

5E hate/Pathfinder love is a pretty useful for avoiding playing with someone/wasting time engaging them about gaming

If the party isn't meant to see through the disguise of a non-villainous NPC yet, the DC is arbitrarily high.

>>51686699

why even bother to set a DC

>>51685557
I absolutely hate nearly every story that frequently gets reposted in our "epic screencap" threads. Sir Bearington? Low-effort Chicken Boo ripoff. The SJW party who let the kingdom get invaded by the necromancer while they got sidetracked instituting a revolution for gay marriage? Shit that never happened, and heavy-handed political morality story on top of that. The saga of Edgardo? Oh, whoop-de-fucking-doo, it's the story of a guy who found a game-breaking flaw in a homebrew. That's about as big an accomplishment as getting laid in a women's prison with a handful of pardons on the day the cafeteria served rohypnol as dessert. And it's too long and repetitive; life pro-tip, guys, just because the post is longer than the fucking Ramayana doesn't mean it's epic and an instant classic, jesus.

All of you, stop liking things I don't like, and stop having fun.

>>51686708
I don't, that's my point. But I can't stop them from rolling checks.

>>51685557
I subtly fuck with my party on purpose as a GM and attempt to get them to kill eachother.

I only browse /tg/ for lore and green texts

>>51686742

you said the DC is arbitrarily high

I ask why you set a DC

you say you ... don't

soooo it's not arbitrarily high, it just doesn't exist at all

also you can let your players know that you will ask them to roll dice when it is necessary; this is "calling for rolls"

File: ants.jpg (2KB, 80x242px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 80x242px

>>51686727

>>51685557

I've had years of fun running semi homebrew D&D 3.5 games, and am currently running a star wars one based on that system.

I almost always put an NPC in the party when I'm DMing, so I have someone to help move the game forwards and give the PCs hints.

I think current edition 40k is boring, and have a complete collection of 3ed codexes+ rulebook so me and my friends can play retro warhammer.

>>51686793

>running SW with D&D 3.5

truly terrible secret

>always insert DM PCs

filthy horrible secret!

>thinks 40k 7E is boring

... but that is just correct

>>51686776
>soooo it's not arbitrarily high, it just doesn't exist at all
An unassigned DC is either arbitrarily low or arbitrarily high, in that it is either impossible to succeed or impossible to fail. Since you're dealing with discrete values when rolling dice, the fact that a result always has the same outcome, regardless of the value, would be represented by a statement that is true for arbitrarily large or arbitrarily small values of x.

>>51685557
>>51685557
I hate warhammer 40k.

>>51686857

I see, so that makes you arbitrarily pedantic

>>51685557
I still use D20 Modern cause I love 3.5e and I think the system they used for the game is really good & fun for a modern, past, or future campaign.

>>51686776
>also you can let your players know that you will ask them to roll dice when it is necessary; this is "calling for rolls"
Yeah, but telling them that they can't roll against something and then having that thing be relevant generates ill-will. "Oh, of course, we weren't ALLOWED to see what was going on. Jackass."

Meanwhile, having them roll and then fail elicits a very different response at the time of relevance: "Oh, shit, it was THAT hard to do? Fuck, what are we dealing with, here?"

Always allow your players to attempt an impossible thing, even if you know that it's impossible. It will impress them much more than simply telling them that they will fail.

I let my players enter their magical realms in games, and also make the most donut steel characters if they want. No one tends to break a game or go completely sexual and everyone has good fun.

I also enjoy beast races in more than an aesthetic level, but thean, as long as its intelligent and of age...

>>51686889
>he's pedantic for answering your question
Why would you even ask, if you don't want an answer?

>>51686828

The star wars campaign is just based on the 3.5 mechanics.
Imagine Kotor, in tabletop.

As far as DMPCs, you could call them that, but it's really not how it works out in practice.
The last one was a witch, who was useless in combat, but had really powerful buffs and healing.

>>51686911
>oh it was a dc 1000? God he was stealthy

>>51685854
This, but I also homebrew as well

>>51685557
>MTG is only fun in limited and gimmicky casual formats like commander and vanguard and chaos magic and plane chase.
>MTG isn't fun with less than 5 people.
>Edh is only fun if you use both banlists.
>Constructed is only fun with price limits on the deck and individual cards, used like warhammer army points.

>>51686947
I had fun playing with the same two guys with the same 3 decks for throughout high school

>>51686926

rhetorical questions imply their answers

>>51686934
>so a locked door literally cannot be opened by anyone other than the chosen one prophesied by the gods themselves even though it's a nonmagical lock and I have lockpicks

>>51685557
Even though I've played campaigns in like 30 systems, Pathfinder is my favorite game thus far.

>>51685557

i've never shilled out more than $40 in one go for a hobby thing in my life. i think the authors/publishers deserve the money they charge but also feel like anyone who pays that much for entertainment is some kind of fucking idiot

>>51686956
I had fun in highschool playing one ever evolving GW elf deck throughout highschool, but never enjoyed 1v1.

>>51686959
Puzzle lock/unique lock mechanism

>>51685557
I like Kaldor Draigo.

>>51686934
I can't decide which part of this post bothers me more: the fact that you're ignoring that there's no set DC in the conversation you're replying to, or the fact that you think that a DM would or should ever tell the party the DC of anything.

>>51686975
We played 2v1 and just rolled for who was the 1. 1 got double life, double draw, and double land play

>>51686911

if a player says, for example, "my character does not believe that person is really who he claims" then that should be that; there should be no rolling dice to attempt to validate the character's opinion

as to "impossible" seeming tasks, just ask the players ro specifically describe how they are attempting it

they will either figure out that there is no reasonable way to attempt that thing or get creative and propose something interesting, at which point the DM calls for a roll

File: 1467993091391.jpg (267KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 500x500px

>>51686979

>>51686977
Even a puzzle lock or unique lock could be picked by someone with sufficient skill, even if the sufficient level of skill is inhuman. They should still be allowed a check.

>>51685557
Anyone charging $20+ for a PDF must be retarded.
If I buy a hard copy, I feel entitled to the PDF and will unabashedly pirate it. The notion that they're separate products to be purchased separately is one I find insulting.
I will buy things from a publisher more than once to support them making the thing I like, and will email them telling them I did so to draw attention to it.

>>51686699
You're a shit DM, go write a book.

>>51686998
There can be reasonable ways to attempt a thing that are simply doomed to failure due to the player's skill level. Why shouldn't they be allowed an attempt?

>>51687021
so that makes you arbitrarily aggressive

>>51687021

>he's a shit DM

guess that was his secret

>>51686600
>>51685795
What's so great about them? I mean, there's worse out there, it's just they seem so... bland. Catgirls, wolfgirls, and doggirls all have distinct character traits, but the way I've seen Kitsune portrayed is just... humans with ears and a fluffy tail. It's like saying you like white bread. Just white bread by itself. You're technically not wrong, but at the same time... It's still just white bread.

>>51687006
Not a simple lockpicking roll though. It's not hard to imagine a lock standard tools are useless for, but I'd certainly allow lockpicking and/or applicable knowledge roll(s) to examine the lock and crafting rolls to build tools specifically for it.

>>51686998
A player should always be allowed to investigate or try anything. They should be able to roll to see through a disguise, even if the person isn't disguised at all. Otherwise, the points at which you DO call for rolls become too transparent. They need to be able to fail a roll in a situation where the check was unnecessary, or else they'll always know that they failed when the check WAS.

Only allowing players to roll when you tell them to encourages metagaming by telling the players, but not the characters, what's actually important.

>>51687046
>It's not hard to imagine a lock standard tools are useless for
Would you be able to tell that from the outside of the lock? If not, then there's no reason to forbid the check.

>>51687026

characters can attempt anything

if that thing is truly impossible, however, there is no reason to roll dice given that the point of rolling dice is to randomize success/failure

but let's keep the actual example in mind: is it really impossible to discover the true identity of a NPC?

generally no - it's just a matter of doing something more interesting than piloting stats on a character sheet and demanding sense motive rolls or similar

but this is exactly why the DM should be the one calling for rolls

>>51687021
At least he specified non-villainous. It's much less egregious if the party simply doesn't realize that they're drinking with the king than if the helpful old man has been the dark lord all along.

>>51687076
>but this is exactly why the DM should be the one calling for rolls
Why? In what was does "Nope, you fail" elicit a different reaction from the players than Oak telling them that there's a time and a place for everything?

If your players don't respond to failure by getting creative, I'm really sad for your group.

>>51687068
Oh I was arguing something completely different. I'd never forbid a roll.

>>51687057

>Only allowing players to roll when you tell them to encourages metagaming by telling the players, but not the characters, what's actually important.

No

a proper DM only calls for rolls because rolling is a randomization mechanic so all calling for a roll actually means is the DM is not deciding whether something will succeed or fail (although he has decided the chances of success/failure)

>>51687109
And, a player could roll to be god, get a confirmed crit and bitch when he isn't god

>>51687127
>crit
>on something that isn't an attack roll

>>51687096

it's not really a matter of saying, nope you fail

rather, it's about asking the player to describe what the character is actually trying

"can I tell if that is someone disguised as the prince?"

"what are you doing to figure this out?"

>>51687081
>It's much less egregious if the party simply doesn't realize that they're drinking with the king than if the helpful old man has been the dark lord all along.

>>51687076
>generally no - it's just a matter of doing something more interesting than piloting stats on a character sheet and demanding sense motive rolls or similar

I think you two misunderstand the reason of my ire. The problem with setting unbeatable DCs for clearly achievable tasks is not that that the players don't get to succeed and the numbers the character sheet aren't there so the PC can have a 40%-to-win button. The stats serve the DM as a guide to build a living breathing world where things interact logically and consistently.

If the benevolent old king is such a master of disguise, why does he not simply disguise himself as the BBEGs lieutenant and simply find out his war plans?

If such un-pickable un-breakable un-dispellable magic doors exist, why not seal the BBEG behind one?

This ultimately turns the world from a consistent fantasy world into a themepark ride where NPC do what they do because that's their role and not because that makes sense and plot-barricades are completely arbitrary so the DM can wank off his story.

>>51687109
>all calling for a roll actually means is the DM is not deciding whether something will succeed or fail
Correct.

Which means that, whenever the DM doesn't call for a roll, success or failure is solely determined by his whims. There's a 0% chance that the DM will be surprised by the outcome.

Even if the success or failure of a venture is predetermined by the DM, and the chance of surprise is 0%, letting the players think that there's a chance of upsetting the plan will keep them more engaged.

Consider Vegas: Everyone knows that the house always wins, but the illusion that you MIGHT beat the system causes people to throw away millions.

>>51687127
>Using critical successes out of combat
>not having reasonable outcomes for crit successes
I mean you can houserule whatever but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

>I roll to become god!
>nat 20
>Ok, your character is now named God

>>51687135
>>51687158
>hyperbole

>>51687162
Is shit. Stop using it and fewer people will make fun of you online.

>>51687151
If your story can not deal with you as DM being surprised it's a shit story and you should go write a book. The only reason DM screens should exist is for information-keeping and being able to write notes for single players.

>>51687149
>The stats serve the DM as a guide to build a living breathing world where things interact logically and consistently.
Let's not pretend that most game systems have numbers that actually make sense in the context of a living breathing world.

According to most editions of D&D, a 20th level monk would not be able to match most Olympic athletes.

>>51687151

here is further context:

>>51687144

I don't call for a roll when the player says his character is going to draw his sword - I just decide that is successful

this doesn't encourage metagaming

if a player says, I will do [seemingly impossible task], I do not simply reply, you fail

I say, describe how you are attempting [seemingly impossible task] and I will tell you what to roll

>>51687176
>According to most editions of D&D, a 20th level monk would not be able to match most Olympic athletes.
Are you mentally deficient? Current standing long jump record is 30 ft = DC 30.

A level 6 character :
09 ranks in jump
+2 from strength
+3 from skill focus

total +14 will succeed at that 45% of the time already. A level 20 monk would have 23 ranks alone in that, with strength, skill focus and tumble synergy he would literally auto succeed on the check every single time
Fucking retard.

>>51687255
oops, 25%, typo

>>51687174
I'm actually constantly surprised by my players, and have ended up rewriting several campaigns on a nearly session-by-session basis. This has sometimes led to behind-the-scenes retcons, where previously unrevealed information has been rewritten in order to make for a better overall story. In fact, in one game, a helpful NPC from early on later turned out to have been the villain all along--and I was as surprised as the entire party.

In such a situation, had the party rolled against her disguise in the first few sessions, they would have never uncovered her identity...because I didn't know it at the time, either.

>>51687255
Someone did the math in a thread a while back, and a 20th level monk is slower than Usain Bolt.

In D&D next, a level 1 paladin had a 25% chance to convince anyone of anything. He could have Asmodeous give him the throne

I fucking love GURPS, but I deliberately avoid posting about it in any system threads because I hate being accused of memeposting or having "LOL SPERG" comments thrown at me.

I just want to be able to post about a game I like in peace, but I know /tg/ isn't really the place for meaningful open-minded discussion on most systems. Even OSR has people shitpost all over it.

>>51687286
Mr Bolt holds the 100 m sprint record with a time of 9.58 seconds.
100 m are roughly 330 ft.
330 ft / 9.58 seconds leaves us with a speed of 34.25 ft / s.
A round has 6 seconds, so we reach a total of ~ 205.5 ft / round (which he holds for 10 seconds or roughly 2 rounds.)
A 6th level monk has a base speed of 50 ft. If he uses the run action that is quadrupled for 200 ft / round. If he has the run feat that is increased by 25%.

If the monk is indeed level 20 he'd have a base speed of 90 ft. If he runs he will be about twice as fast as Mr Bolt, reaching a speed of roughly 80 km/h, making it legal for him to travel on a german autobahn.

So, no, whoever did the math was wrong.

>>51687318
Who would have thought that a soulless cash-grab by wotc has not as well thought through mechanics as a system made by enthusiasts

>>51686658
Sounds like alcoholism friendo. Consider sobriety and continue gaming.

>>51686666
I'm leaning in the opposite direction, to a degree. 40K's becoming a bit too nobledark and cartoon-epic for my tastes.

I hate grimdark with a passion and love all the new centrepiece models. I hate metal miniatures, just thinking about assembling and carrying them again gives me shudders. I think the Oldcrons were the worst faction in 40k and the Newcrons are absolutely awesome. I think the Horus Heresy range is extremely bland and boring.

I've been in the hobby since the 90's.

>>51686466
That's okay, I've never believed a singe screencapped story if that makes you feel better.

>>51687044
Their shape changing and magic. Most of the other ones are obvious to spot, but a Kitsune is hard to spot unless they want you to find their true identity.

It's like the pod people only you get to touch fluffy tail when you find one.

>>51685557
I unironically love D&D 3.X.
I grew up in a /tg/ household, played dozens of various games from Gurps to Fatal to Shadowrun. Still keep coming back to 3.X. I have every book D&D has produced since 1e, and while i respect and enjoy other editions, 3.X is my favorite. I love the splats for it, all 60 of them.

>>51687623
>these opinions
>since the 90s
You're a weird man and a heretic.

>>51687717

>grew up in a /tg/ household
>played ... Fatal

seems you have worse secrets than liking 3.X

>>51685557
Dungeon World is good.

>>51687794

/thread

>>51687821
Are you touched in the head?

>>51685557
The only role playing games I've ever played were video games. I've never played any tabel top games.

>>51687623
Oh good, I'm not the only one.

I rather like the Horus Heresy novels though.

I hate every single one of you who have never played a table top game and are just here for stories. I hold you responsible for the decline in board quality over the years as you have nothing of value to contribute and encourage cuts like this guy >> 51686466 who further shit up the place and make it harder for people with real stories to tell to be believed.

>>51687830

are you 50 or older

>>51687758
Fatal is hilarious if you run it with your own rules.

>>51687755
>post the truth in this thread hoping fucking grognards won't pick on you here
>they still do
Welp, that's it, I'm done with believing anything /tg/ says.

All my characters are fapbait in one way or another. I just can't help it. I've gotten better at being subtile with it but there is always something with a character i play that gets my rocks off.

>>51687974

you must be new here

>>51688006

wait like you play a concept that sexually excites you or you do stuff in the game that you think about while jerking off or what

nb4 whynotboth.jpg

>>51687960

and play it with your own family?

>>51688027
Mostly the former but that doesn't exclude the latter.

Luckily my group is pretty jaded and like i said, i've gotten good at keeping it subtile.

>>51687044
>the way I've seen Kitsune portrayed is just... humans with ears and a fluffy tail.
Then you've only seen them played relatively poorly.

I'll admit the kitsune-as-waifu is not a modern invention. Kitsune basically are foxgirl waifu-bait in some versions of legit Japanese mythology.

But those are the less interesting myths. Some myths have them as a darker - not evil, but more complex - character, who are manipulative and essentially preying on people. They're not quite as evil as, say, a succubus, they're not out to damn souls or kill people, but in a good portrayal they do manipulate people using charm and intelligence, usually to some kind of end that only makes sense if you're a mystical spirit.

>>51687057
This is why I'll call for rolls that do nothing. And by that, I mean everyone makes a Perception roll when there's nothing for them to find, just to throw them off in case they're trying to get wise to what matters and what doesn't.

File: bard dad.png (913KB, 3056x4384px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 3056x4384px

>>51686727
>shit that never happened
I'll be honest, unless there's something either physically impossible or at least glaringly improbable I tend to take any story at face value. It's not like whether or not I believe it happened affects my life either way, and enough crazy shit happens in RPGs that any long time player probably has seen a few greentext-able stories.

Seeing surprising or improbable stories in a thread for that exact thing in a forum largely populated by long-time RPG players is, in fact, neither surprising nor improbable. A sufficiently large /tg/ thread may have a couple lifetimes' worth of man-hours in tabletop games amongst all its posters, and anyone contributing a story is cherrypicking one of the few exceptional anecdotes to happen to them. Of those, the most outlandish, interesting, or fantastic of them are the ones that are most commonly saved and reposted. So of course many of them seem hard to believe - they're cherrypicked for that exact reason in many cases.

pic related, it's an epic screencap that may or may not have actually happened, but I sure as hell intend to do something like it in a year or so when my daughter is learning to read. So in a sense, it either did happen, or will.

>>51686959
>also the walls, floor, and ceiling of the room beyond are completely unbreachable to absolutely anything, even the party wizard who can conjure dragon fire

>>51688133

>wasting everyone's time being a dick

>>51688216
>>51686959
You know I was being sarcastic

>>51687960
Is it still Fatal without the rules though?

I hate this trend of making things incredibly grey in morality, thinking it adds nuance or depth.

It doesn't, it makes everything bland as shit. You can have something that's nuanced and complex, but is also pure fucking irredeemably evil.

Instead of batching about something like an alignment system, force yourself to work within those constraints. You're far more creative with restrictions than with a blank grey canvas.

>>51688193
>glaringly iomprobable
I should clarify, as doubltess anyone who declares "that never happened" would say it's in response to something "glaringly improbable." I mean things that, technically, have a nonzero chance of happening, and yet are claimed to. Things like "I got six natural 20s in a row" or "my character won the lottery in game and the next day I won the lottery irl" or whatever are technically possible things that have a nonzero chance of happening, and yet, let's be real, never actually happen.

Something that is merely unlikely, coincidental, or very lucky is something I'd still take at face value.

>>51688251

agree

just saw on /tg/ today "why do demons have to be bad"

fuuuuck off

>>51688246
The point of Fatal is in spells that destroy all existence and the Armour of Niggety Nogg or whatever it's called.

>>51685557
I always play with a GMPC. Not even just to support the party with a healslut or pack mule or other unwanted role, but because if I couldn't play along despite being a foreverGM I'd probably have given up by now.

if it helps, I try to never have them propose any solutions to problems or puzzles or the like, as at that point I'm just playing with myself.

>>51688273
I thought it was all about Anal Circumference

>>51688251
I don't like evil as a descriptor. It's too cartoonist.

It's rather define when with more specific descriptors, like sadistic, aggressive, sociopathic, etc.

Evil is too vague and broad.

>>51688263
>>51688263
Fuck like the Gnoll thread that's still around was so guilty of this.

They're fucking cannibalistic mutated hyena people driven by hunger and the worship of their Demon Lord. They're meant to represent this wicked and terrible folklore image of the hyena. Not actual fucking hyenas. They're not hyena folk, they're Gnolls.

>>51688251
Gray heroes and black villains are by far the best combination. I like heroes that, without being edgelord anti-heroes, have more complex and less perfect motivations than chronic hero syndrome that some games end up having. Give me heroes that are willing to cross the line, but only when sufficiently pressed - or heroes who try to do the right thing, but have their own biases or flaws - or heroes who have human motivations like revenge.

>>51688293
>It's too cartoonist.

I think I'm absolutely ok with that and play with that concept in serious games.

If you treat something silly seriously you get interesting and weird content.

>>51688225
DM 101

>>51688321
Gnolls are tentacled carrots who like emeralds.
t. the creator of Gnolls.

>>51688348
Its true, if you play ridiculous shit totally straight you can wind up with some great games.

>>51688263
>>51688321
I guess I should be cackling at your impotent autistic rage, but unfortunately stupid and close minded people just make me angry myself.

In my local area I find most of the people who play the games I enjoy to be /pol/ level cancerous or turbo-autists.

>>51688329
I think of it more in terms of what gives me more adventure fodder for my games. Good on its own is boring, needs conflict. Evil on its own still has conflict. Evil is more conducive to adventure fodder.

>>51688263
To be honest I see this sort of thing as a natural result of trying to add nuance.

In some settings, demons/devils/fiends/whatever may as well be cartoon characters. They're designated evil, they act evil simply because they...are. It's like asking why a dog licks himself, because that's just what a dog's gonna do. That is, frankly, a little boring - it's unimaginative.

But if you see them as individuals - entities who are capable of some kind of individual reasoning, individuals who do not think in unison with one another, and individuals which do not all share the same motivations or interests, that implies they have variation. That implies, at the least, that not all of them are exactly as evil as one another - at which point asking if they have to be evil is not a radical re-definition, merely a discussion of how much variability is acceptable.

Besides, the "noble demon" is a concept about as old as the concept of demons. It's not exactly a modern trend. Plenty of mythological sources portray demons not as universally evil agents of some incarnation of sin, but rather as powerful beings who see humans the same way humans see tools - as things to be used, like, you don't hate a hammer just because you smack it into things really hard, do you? Plenty of other mythological sources portray demons as at least having some kind of moral code, such as always upholding a contract, without the ebin exact-wording-deliberate-misreading twist.

>>51688384
I'm not close minded. This is my barebones philosophy. >>51688391

>>51688251
Can you give an example of something you think is good/bad? I'm not sure I understand what you wrote.

>>51688329
I prefer a party of mostly "grey" player characters with the one white knight, generally a Paladin, amongst them. He tends to keep the party on the straight and narrow and it offers plenty of interaction between the group when they're working on things outside of combat.

Everyone agrees that the "big bad" should be destroyed, but not everyone is going to agree that stealing from slave owners is okay with a group like this.

>>51688329
Just have characters who have both flaws and virtues. For instance, a warrior who may take extreme measures or use dishonorable tactics, but at the same time also shows great loyalty. You can even do this with villains, too, which may make better characters.

The problem here is amateur writers. They've learned not to make things black or white, but they haven't learned that there are about twenty thousand or so shades of gray in between them. Getting out of the metaphor, you can have a hero with some negative qualities and still have him be a hero - have the qualities something he fights to overcome, like a temptation he has to learn to resist. Meanwhile, the villain can have virtues but express them in negative ways, like a villain who shows great loyalty to his subordinates - who are still his legions of doom or whatever. Or you can have a villain who is a lighter gray than that, who is simply doing what he feels is best for, say, his country or whatever. Think, say, a relatively honorable general who isn't "irredeemable evil," but is still loyal to his country and his cause and opposes you because of it. That's a way better villain than a boring as fuck cartoon devil who does evil things just to be evil.

>>51686910
Me too.

>>51688368
Not even fucking Dunsany actually knew what Gnolls were.

Then it became some godforsaken offspring of a gnome and a troll.

Now its a demonically mutated hyena.

>>51688397

>they act evil simply because they...are

that's the point

a demon is an incarnation of evil; if you are talking about a thing that is not evil incarnate thenyou are no longer talking about a demon

if you want a complex character do not go to the embodiment of a concept

"noble demons" are about as interesting as a world where green on the traffic light means stop

>>51688454
>a demon is an incarnation of evil; if you are talking about a thing that is not evil incarnate thenyou are no longer talking about a demon
Sounds like you've become overly focused on a narrow definition that not everyone shares, broski.

I really hate those type of people who project their own little rule on the world and then devolve into autistic screeching when other people don't follow the rules they invented in their own head.

Who defined a demon as the embodiment of evil? In plenty of systems, that's not necessarily the case. In plenty of mythologies, that's not exactly the case, or at the very least it's more complicated than that. For instance, the "their thought processes aren't so much evil as amoral and/or beyond mortal comprehension" approach is at least as old as the "incarnation of sin" approach if not older.

The purpose of this thread is to say things that would cause people to sperg out without these people actually sperging out. So stop doing that, hide the thread if your autism is too strong to keep silent!

Even the bible has humanized demons. Just look at Legion

>>51688397
I reject this notion because you can be evil and have nuance.

Demons had plenty of depth to them and they're pure fucking evil. Certain demons had certain victims, or methods, or weaknesses. Things they favoured and things they disliked. They had relationships with other demons and angels, being barons and dukes under higher ranked demons, and masters of their own hellish domains and forces. They had unique powers and gifts they could bestow, like the secrets of makeup or the language of beasts . Many times they represent something specific and terrible, like drought or stillborns.

They're still pure fucking evil.

Inpersonally enjoy Matt Wards writing and all his codex's, further more i believe that the dream of a perfectly balanced 40k can only be achieved through Matt Ward writing every codex. He is the chosen one and yet most have forsaken him.

>>51688495

check out OP, says we will try not to judge you

does not say we will try hard much less succeed in not jduging you

>>51688508
I judge you a moron for your fucked up spelling. How do you like my judgement?

This thread just shows the autism inherent in all of 4chan

>>51688501
Flavor and fluff isn't the same as depth or nuance.

And I think you misunderstood the point of my example. I was simply pointing out that, if they are varied individuals, then they are not all exactly as evil as one another - and hence, asking if they have to be evil is not a radical departure but merely a question of degree.

Yes, at SOME point, it's also worth asking "then what makes them demonic?" and I'm not pretending that isn't the case.

I'm just pointing out that this is hardly a modern trend and hardly a question not worth exploring.

>>51688477

well brosephine the trouble with your relativistic bullshit is that it doesn't explain the fact that demons are used in narratives to evoke evil or that the allegedly interesting thing about "noble demons" is that this is a subversion of the ordinary concept

>>51688497
Legion was cowardly, it feared the Abyss. It was still evil.

You can be cowardly and evil.

>>51688524

your clever retort has truly shown me the error of my ways

>>51687974
Man, fuck that grog. Oldcrons blew, and you can still have oldcrons with newcrons.

File: 1482040129548.png (146KB, 1880x575px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 1880x575px

Woo lets get a repeat of last time

>>51688534
>Flavor and fluff isn't the same as depth or nuance.

Yes it fucking is, unless you're talking about mechanical nuance which is a whole other thing.

As for your premise that complexity of character makes them less evil, is something I reject. It's far more interesting when their behaviour is put through the lens on them being evil. Why are they helping you? They're evil and want to corrupt you. Why are they begging not to be went back to the Abyss? They're either trying to trick you or there is something there that even they consider evil.

Also fuck that word fluff, it implies that descriptive text is superfluous to the subject. Fuck that, it's descriptive text that provides context.

>>51688506
Go home Matt

File: 1414426110326.gif (4MB, 294x524px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 294x524px

>>51688537
Yes, brosef, and you're saying subversion is never interesting. Fuck, you can't even call it interesting for the sake of argument, just "allegedly interesting," as if you're the final arbiter of what is or is not interesting.

I will grant that many people do it in a clumsy or amateurish way, but so what, find me something that is NOT commonly done in a shitty way. That is not the same as saying the concept itself is unworkable or not worthwhile.

Nobody but you is propping up the strawman argument that demons are never evil; I am merely stating that it can be worthwhile to explore if all demons always everywhere HAVE to be evil, and stating it can be more interesting if they are not cosmically compelled to be evil.

And if you are arguing that subversion of an expectation, or at least this specific expectation, can never be successful, you're gonna have to lay out why with more than unwarranted condescension.

>>51688617
>Fuck that, it's descriptive text that provides context.
Unless it's a politics heavy game or one where knowing who owes fealty to whom is particularly important, no, that demons have dukes and lords is not in any way providing context, or at least not USEFUL context, which is why I called it fluff. At least in this context I'm using fluff to mean details of a person/place/thing that is not immediately intended to be useful information in, for example, a gameplay context. Knowing a target character is wearing armor is not fluff, knowing the armor is painted black and red because it's the family colors is fluff. Get the difference?

And again, I'm not saying variation inherently makes them not evil, it just inherently makes them not all perfectly 100% equal to one another in evil-ness. And if that condition is true, then asking to what extent they vary is perfectly valid.

I tell my group of friends we are playing D&D 5th edition, even though we're really playing my own homebrew experiment.

We started playing 4th edition about 2 years ago and nobody ever read a single book or questioned rules, so fuck 'em.
Not that big of a secret because they probably wouldn't care, only told them we were playing D&D because they have no clue how deep the /tg/ pool really is, and telling them I was trying to make my own game might have scared them away from playing at all.

I tried introducing Catan and that was just too much of an exotic board game for my normie friends.

>mfw at the end of the campaign they find out.

File: kCie2pv.jpg (20KB, 450x330px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 450x330px

>>51688439

>>51688251

You're an idiot.

Bad writing is bad writing. Grey or black and white don't enter into it. Poorly executed "BUT HE WASN'T REALLY EVIL BECAUSE HE HAD REASONS" is trite garbage because it's trite garbage, not because of the nebulous morality.

Not to /v/ it up too much, but the Bloody Baron from Witcher 3 is an almost perfectly executed example of 'grey' morality. An almost completely irredeemably shitty human being, but a human being none-the-less. Affable, friendly, genuinely engaged, and callously brutal. At no point is his spousal abuse cartoonishly vilified, but at no point is it treated as anything other than cowardly and shitty, and his remorse is portrayed as genuine, albeit pathetic. He acts like every vicious little despot throughout history, and is an excellent reminder that 'horrible person' is a two word phrase, and that both words are important.

>>51688454
"Demon is an incarnation of evil"

Borrrring.

They should be evil but with twisted and even understandable motives, like the worst thing you might think you could become.

Not like a 1960s cartoon villain.

>>51688647

>strawman

subversion can be interesting, generally when it is novel

good guy demon has not only been done to death but makes no sense symbolically

as mentioned it is functionally equivalent to saying, green means stop instead of go

>>51688716
>'horrible person' is a two word phrase, and that both words are important.
I am stealing this phrase and hurling it at every faggot GM who tries to give us some boring fucking evil for no reason villain from now on. I am so fucking bored of characters who don't have motivations or thought processes any real person would ever have. Even literal sociopaths still have motivations; "he's a sociopath!" is a diagnosis, not a motive.

File: Heroes.jpg (5MB, 2538x3994px) Image search: [Google]

5MB, 2538x3994px

>>51686727
What do you think about Spiderwoods?

>>51688647
>Get the difference?

Only that I know how irrelevant the word fluff is.

The political relationships between demons provide hooks for games and leverage for PCs.

The colour of the armor is a direct connection or hook to something else in the world, the a lost Legion or mercenary company. Something the PC's can go and discover in the game.

There is no fluff there.

>>51688727

being evil is not mutually exclusive of having a coherent motive, pls focus

>>51688716

you have utterly misunderstood the post ypu are criticizing

>>51688738
>subversion can be interesting, generally when it is novel
Novelty is not what makes subversion or any other literary technique interesting. Plenty of shitty things were unique and it didn't stop them from being merely uniquely shitty. Meanwhile, pretty much every concept you could ever name in any creative work has been "done to death" already.

>>51688755
Are all pieces of information equally relevant, equally useful, at all times? No. Don't be obtuse. You know perfectly well what I am saying and what I mean, and if you don't, then read harder.

Being connected to other things in the world makes it good fluff, not not-fluff.

>>51688727
In what way does being an incarnation of evil prevent them from doing this?

Evil is insidious.

>>51688738

it's not that it makes no sense; rather, it is simply meaningless

>>51688771
>Are all pieces of information equally relevant, equally useful, at all times? No. Don't be obtuse.

Of course not, but that's not fluff then. Fluff has the connotation of useless information. The information is not useless, but it may not be useful at this moment.

That's why I reject fluff, it's dismissive.

>>51688738
I'd prefer to question the relevance of their evil than the fact of it.

Great. So the demon enjoys torturing people because it enjoys making people suffer.

However it's got motivations that mean it goes out of your way to go after the country you're fighting a brutal war with, and they're butchering your people by the thousands, gutting them, and impaling them on pikes while still alive.

The demon proposes an alliance with you, and even offers to a divine pact forcing the alliance to be honored.

>>51687857
Well good thing you haven't played them, you can't spell them either!

>>51688803
If agreed to, this pact also means the demon and its agents could never harm your people.

File: 0386224.jpg (28KB, 600x399px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x399px

>>51688738
>makes no sense symbolically
not him, but how the fuck can you be this dense? inherent in the subject of sin is its inverse, virtue and redemption. the question of whether or not demons could be in any sense of the phrase 'not evil' is perfectly well suited symbolically as a question of the extent of sin itself, nothing less than a question of the nature of good and evil, and perfectly more deep and thoughtful than whatever two bit childish black and white no thoguht allowed games you've ever run.

faggot.

I masturbate while I run games. Online using roll20 because I can't handle being face to face with people.

>>51688771

DESU I should not have used the word novelty

the very first good guy demon was perforce just as hackneyed as the most recent

the issue is not how many times it has been done but that however many times that is, it has been done to death - there is no point in doing it again, much less again and again and again

the reason is not because it has been done previously but rather because whenever it is done it fails to generate meaningful insight into anything

even the archetypal miltonian Satan is interesting because he is EVIL (demonic), not because he is or even was good or noble

>>51688817
Which then makes you think what the demons goals are. What does it want from you? What does it get out of the pact? What is its connection to the enemy?

>>51688833
Sincere question for you: Has the concept of a not-evil demon ever, even once, in any possible context, ever been done well, even once?

>>51687660
I assume every screencapped story is wildly embellished but is based on a kernel or theme of truth. But the story is the end product.

>>51688818

it is in fact you who are the faggot

demons are not the subject of redemption but rather the agents of spiritual ruin

this is about as simple as the subject gets but it is likely too much for you

>>51688825
Same. I don't try to bring up situations that make me hard, it just...happens. Usually any time a character gets captured, tied to anything, hypnotized or mind controlled, or forced to work against their will.

>>51688818
>My demons all represent a Christian sin.
#notallsettings
Seriously though. They might just have to devour souls and be otherwise bestial.

Or maybe they don't represent sin so much as entropy, and they view life as an aberration, and are looking to accelerate the end of intelligent life and expedite the heat death of the universe.

Alternately, maybe they're simply the twisted souls of people who can't cope with the weight of their own mistakes and their aversion to those mistakes has driven them mad.

Or they could just be a nonaging race that evolved on another plane, which didn't develop the same values. Maybe they value order at any cost (tyranny), or self indulgence at any cost (primordial chaos).

Lots of options beyond embodiments of sin.

>>51688818
Sure, but then demons are creatures and embodiments of sin. They become sinful acts personified. That's how you get demons of pre marital sex, or abortions, or sodomy, or blasphemy, or heresy, or again even weird socio-political ideas of sinful behaviour like wearing makeup or disobeying your father.

>>51688853
Yeah. The story of Lucifer as the bringer of truth and free-will and thought is as old as the mythology.

Demons can be non-evil by simply representing the individuality end of the scale of individuality vs. collectivism.

It's in fact I think the only way to believably run demons! Traditional sadistic true evil is best left to factions, of course in these circumstances there would be high congregations of evil shitbirds. But the good and neutral demons, different from any sense of goodness found in the angels, are the justification for all of them.

>>51688853

I have never yet seen of it

every instance I have seen of this has been a human in the shape of a demon ... so definitionally superficial

>>51688855
There's no reason to assume even that much. The kernel on which the story is truly based is in all likelihood just a cool thought a player got during one of his games.

>>51688842
Exactly. And that's interesting.

>>51688853
Sure. Demons as animalistic soul eaters has been done interestingly. Often given orders by evil things, but the demons themselves aren't so much evil as hungry.

File: 1312835942161.jpg (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>51688869
okay, i'll type slower so you understand me better. inherent in the subject of sin is its inverse. as a representative of the concept of a sin, the discussion of whether demons are irredeemably evil is nothing less than a discussion of the nature of evil itself. it is, at least, a question that can be worth asking in a setting.

>>51688893

that is not a story about a demon; that's prometheus

>>51688768

Possible. My point remains true, regardless.

>>51688893
>>51688901
If the answer is yes, then whether or not it frequently is done well or poorly is irrelevant, it CAN be done well and, thus, it is worth asking of demons have to be evil and exploring what other contexts could a demon not be evil in and still functionally be a demon.

>>51688897
If the answer is no, then why bring up at all whether or not it's been done to death if that fact is irrelevant to the question at hand?

>>51688897
>Human in the shape of
The fiction is written by humans. Any creature in fiction with motives and intelligence is a human in the shape of something. Because the authors are human, and have no other intelligent life to base it on.

So everything is "humans but for the following exceptions."

>>51688853
Paradise Lost.

>>51688914
See also:

Lucifer.

>>51688903

take some time to realize that your supposedly worthy question is actually "can evil ever be good?"

>>51688941

nope, Milton's Satan is evil

>>51688950

I don't think you know what the word 'atheist' means.

File: 1410002350249.png (89KB, 387x260px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 387x260px

>>51688950
that is the question only if, if, demons are inherently synonymous with evil. not all demons are, which other people have pointed out to you before.

other anon was right, you make up rules for yourself and get pissy when others don't follow them. your definition is not some kind of official definition that noone may ever violate.

>>51688893
>The story of Lucifer as the bringer of truth and free-will and thought is as old as the mythology.
>Demons can be non-evil by simply representing the individuality end of the scale of individuality vs. collectivism.

Actually, I prefer the idea of demons still being pure evil, but it's God's that determine what is good.

Lucifer disobeyed God, above all other things and that is Evil because God says so.

Come to think of it I fucking love that idea. Be the God cruel or uncaring or compassionate, they determine what is Good, and acting against that is Evil.

>>51688969

To be fair, neither do a lot of 'atheists'.

>>51688950
What is the nature of evil?

>>51688938

wrong

it is possible to invent a creature that is solely the embodiment of a concept

for the concept of evil, this fictional creature is called a demon or devil

by contrast, a human person is not the emodiment of anything; a person is an agent - he can fall into evil and be redeemed

the narrative function of the demon concept is to peesonify the sin persons encounter

>>51688950
Nah, man. His question is "are living things capable of change?" Or "What makes a man a man?" a friend of mine once wondered. Is it his origins? The way he comes to life? I don't think so. It's the choices he makes." -John Myers, Hellboy

It's a question if fate and of free will.

>>51688992
Only if the setting designer or author decides that is the case.

There's nothing stopping anyone from defining demons as agents with their own free will. I mean, for fuck's sake, that's the basic premise of the fall of Lucifer.

>>51688950
>>51688992
In many settings, demons, devils, fiends etc are not interchangeable with the concepts they represent. If that is true, which it is in many settings, then it can be asked if they must represent said evil or if they can (as in, are physically capable of doing so) voluntarily choose not to for some reason.

You are insisting on an overly-narrow definition that does not cover all settings or mythologies in which demons or fiends are represented. Therefore, we are both making correct statements, because our statements are correct to the differing definitions we are using.

>>51688974
No.

Demons can be synonymous with evil but express that evilness if a different way than other demons. It does make them less evil. They're still fucking evil.

>>51688974

nope others have stuck the label "demon" on things that are not demons, such as persons or beasts: we know this is the case because those categories exist independently of the category "demon"

in your setting you can say, this kind of person is called a demon - fine, in your world "demon" is just the name of type of person, rather than being something other than a person

File: 43790.jpg (275KB, 900x1625px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 900x1625px

I often play adventurers who are close to their family or are father/mother figures to others.

Not because I don't like dark backstories or enjoy the chance to RP more, but because I secretly crave the feeling of being loved unconditionally and having the chance to teach and guide someone who looks up to me along the path to greatness; that they are worthy of the love they receive from others and that anything can be accomplished through perseverance, since I've never really got to experience such things IRL.

Also I don't like 3.5e, have played in multiple furry games and my vampire fetish sometimes has an effect on the games I GM.

>>51688995

if you are talking about "persons" or "men" then you are not talking about demons

I play alone

>>51688991
Tragedy

>>51689036

that's called masturbation, nothing to be ashamed about anon

>>51689026
>>51689035
The notion of concepts in living form with intelligence but no free will at all is retarded.

If they're even as intelligent as a wild animal, they have free will.

Your notion of demons as "unwilled embodied sin" rather than as agents is contradicted in many mythologies, and also retarded.

>>51689055
>>51689035
Also, evil behaviors without the will and potential to choose otherwise is not evil at all, it's mechanical. The only thing evil could be the free willed being that created them. Free will is a prerequisite to moral accountability.

>>51689014
That's the point. In many modern fantasy settings and also many real mythologies, they still have free will. If being evil is a choice rather than an inherent and unchangeable nature, then it logically follows that they are capable of not being evil - if they were not, then it would not be a choice and they would not have free will.

Indeed many theorists have concluded that evil is only evil if it is chosen - for instance a tiger isn't evil if it eats you. This is a very common answer to the logical problem of evil - asking where evil comes from assuming the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent god. The simple fact of the matter is it is a consequence of free will.

In my opinion a demon that does not have free will and does not choose to be evil is no more evil than a bear that attacks a hiker in the woods. The bear is inherently not a moral agent, it is merely acting on its own nature, and therefore is not evil.

>>51689026
>>51689022
Who the fuck are you to decide what is or is not a demon? That's the question.

>>51689055
>>51686708

you see faggot, there are things called symbols in stories

symbols fo not require free will in order to serve their narrative purpose

>>51687266
I like you.

I do the same. I just plan less, because honestly once it starts, the story just flows. May not make the most sense who so fucking what? Im happy, they're happy, the BBEG is dead or replaced by them and they got fat tons of loot

>>51689079
I'd argue it's less evil than the bear. Animals have been shown to make choices and even bond with people.

A demon without free will isn't even an animal, it's a complex preprogrammed machine. No more evil than a car that runs someone over.

>>51689079

I didn't decide; thenconcept of a demon is something that exists in culture

just because I explain to morons what a car is doesn't mean I decided what I'm describing is a car

>>51689016
>>51689055

Demons traditionally have been understood as personification of sin and sinful behaviour. Their motivations and actions are coloured by this, but it doesn't prevent them from having free will.

They do evil freely. Not by some compulsion, but by what they are.

>>51689097
But if it's not an anent it can't be evil.it may be dangerous, but it's just a machine. That's not worthy of contempt, it's worthy of no moral consideration whatsoever.

It might remind you of something real, but so can a pattern on the floor.

>>51689115
If they have free will that means that means that it's entirely possible for them to *choose* not to be evil and do evil things, despite their instincts.

The question "Can demons be not evil?" inherently assumes the premise that demons are capable of making a moral choice.

Arguing back that demons can't make such a decision due to their nature is simply loudly declaring that you don't understand the question.

It's also incorrect. It is an undeniable fact that many mythologies - and more to the point of /tg/, many RPG's settings - have explicitly described or portrayed demons as having free will.

>>51689106
>>51689115
>I didn't decide the sky is blue, it just is blue.
While the sky frequently is blue, it can also naturally be black, orange, red, violet, gray, whitish...

You are excluding historical and modern examples that don't fit what you have decided the "correct" definition is. So, yes, you decided it.

>they do evil freely
Then they are capable of choosing not to do evil. Ergo, asking if demons can be not-evil is not inappropriate.

>>51689115
Also, there are demons outside Christian mythology. And, they can very possibly represent sin without being pure embodiments of it.

But if they can't act against their nature's they don't have free will and are therefore unaligned, like a gun, or a sword.

>>51689153
Even demons in Christian mythology have at times been portrayed as being moral agents - as having free will.

>>51689115
If God created the demons and the demons can't choose not to do evil, then the question is not whether the demon is evil or redeemable. The question is whether that means the god that made them is evil.

>>51689144

lol please realize this is not a debate on moral theology - we are talking about a kind of literary device, not a person (the proper subject of morality); if you define "demon" as the name for a category of person then you are not talking abouut the literary device any longer

a narrative personification of evil does not need to have the free choice between good and evil - that's not the point of this narrative device

>>51689103
>Animals have been shown to make choices and even bond with people.
To be fair, it's very rare in the animal kingdom to see animals hurt other animals without some kind of survival need, like hunting or protecting young or fending off competition or predators.

>>51689183
THIS.

The most commonly cited answer to the logical problem of evil is that evil is a result of free will. That it is self-contradictory to have a free will that will never choose evil.

I played in, and ran, several Fallout themed My Little Pony game.

I had a good time despite the source material, and was lead to my current regular group of the past 4 years.

The entire group is furries and bronies, and they are the best group I've had in years.

I am not a brony or a furry, although I am a xenophile.

>>51689135
>free will

Does this mean the ability of choice? Or do you mean the ability of judgement without compulsion, be a use if it's the latter not even humans have totally free will then.

If it's the former, the ability to choose but still doing evil makes them all the more evil. They could do good, but they won't, why should they? They're fucking demons, evil is what they do.

File: 1479885133360.jpg (68KB, 688x688px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 688x688px

>>51689192
>lol please stop making points that show what a fucking retard I am
No.

>>51689192
>"Literary device"
Nobody is talking about a literary device. We're talking about mythological creatures and how they can be used in games and fiction.

If they're not agents, they do not represent or have any moral weight.

>>51689144

>You are excluding historical and modern examples that don't fit what you have decided the "correct" definition is.

lolno

what I did was say that if a demon is something other than a person then stories where a person looks like a demon are not stories about demons

you keep insisting that demons can be persons or other-than-persons or like you know whatever man ... sure fine, if not thinking about things works for you, flow with it

>>51689192
>we are talking about a kind of literary device
No, I'm talking about a mythological creature.

Asking if a literary device can be not-evil is nonsensical.

>>51689214
It means the propensity to make choices, including the choice to become different than your natural inclinations through deliberate actions.

If your instincts cannot be overridden through choice, there is no morality in your actions, you're simply a machine.

>>51689219

holy hell you are fucking dumb

mythological creatures are nothing but literary devices; that is literally their entire substance

>>51689243
[Citation needed]

>>51689192
Not all settings or mythologies define a demon as "a narrative personification of evil."

>>51689215

hahahaha is that your counterpoint??? a strawman and an anime girl

>>51689251

[education needed]

File: 1311232546278.jpg (63KB, 551x758px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 551x758px

>>51689192
Yes it fucking is. Are you dense or just trolling?

Evil does not exist without will. Evil is a result of will. Inherent in the concept of evil itself is a choice to be evil, and thus, a choice not to be.

>>51689267
[reading comprehension needed]

>>51689268

lol faggot how hard is it to realize that a personification of evil does not need to be ab;e to choose evil ??

>>51689256
That wasn't a strawman.

That was him recognizing that you suddenly moved the goalposts to something ridiculous and calling you out for it.

>>51689267
So you've got nothing to back up your claim, and you're talking out your ass. Glad we've cleared that up.

>>51689242
>If your instincts cannot be overridden through choice, there is no morality in your actions, you're simply a machine.

I disagree simply by the fact it's invalidated by the ability to choose.

Also if they are representations if evil, then they ARE the moral weight and consequence. They aren't machines be void of morality. Morality is their substance, they're incredibly moral, but evil morals.

File: 1359592024688.gif (431KB, 241x199px) Image search: [Google]

431KB, 241x199px

>>51689243
Then we're discussing the morality of a mythological creature and the point of free will still stands. Your move, fucko.

>>51689239

you are almost there anon but the correct answer is

asking if a literary device whose purpose it is to symbolize evil can be not-evil is nonsensical

study it well!

>>51689277
lol faggot how hard is it to realize that many settings and mythologies do not define a demon as a personification of evil ??

>>51689297

provide an alternate definition and we cam test whether that accounts for something that is its own category or whether it is a case of afgixing the label "demon" to an existing category (such as "monster")

>>51689296
see>>51689144
>The question "Can demons be not evil?" inherently assumes the premise that demons are capable of making a moral choice.
>Arguing back that demons can't make such a decision due to their nature is simply loudly declaring that you don't understand the question.

You are still inappropriately insisting on an overly narrow definition of the term that others are not using. Therefore,
>>51689016
>You are insisting on an overly-narrow definition that does not cover all settings or mythologies in which demons or fiends are represented. Therefore, we are both making correct statements, because our statements are correct to the differing definitions we are using.

>>51689268
It can be surmised as this.

They have the ability to choose, but they're also a choice.

>>51689287

no moron, no it doesn't

because the personfication of evil for the purposes of telling a story does not need to be able to chose to be evil

>>51689316
I know this disingenuous game and, if you don't mind, I will skip to the end.

>repeats definition that has already been laid out for you several times in this very thread
>nuh uh that doesn't count only the definition I choose counts

Did I miss anything?

>>51689296
If it's just a symbol it has no morality, it simply reminds people (who are capable of morality) of it.
If it's an agent that can have morality, it can by definition choose not to be evil if it wants to.

Either not all demons are evil, or demons have not innate morality at all.

>>51689332
Demons.

In many mythologies and settings.

Are not defined as.

"The personification of evil."

Kill yourself.

>>51689341
At this point he's just trolling. He's been cornered by the free will-evil point and he knows it, which is why he's resorted to repeating himself. Trolls aren't worth getting mad over, bro.

>>51689334
>demons have not innate morality at all.

No, demons ARE one side of morality. Morality is their substance.

>>51689318

this is still wrong

please see

>>51689316

>>51689357
Conceptual morality without free will is by definition without substance, weight, or importance.

>>51689357
No, EVIL is that side of morality. The word "evil" and the word "demon" are not interchangeable.

>but demons are the personif-
No they're not. Not in many mythologies and settings. The nature of the question implicitly assumes that they are not, and therefore this comeback is merely shouting that you don't understand the question.

Cutting through the bullshit, the answer seems to be:
>If demons have free will and choose to commit evil, then it stands to reason they are capable of not being evil.
>If demons do not have free will and are evil by their nature, such as being the personification of a moral extreme rather than a moral agent, then the question is nonsensical.

Therefore the answer, as with everything on /tg/, is
>It depends on the setting.

>>51689357

finally yes correct

>>51689350

does lying to yourself make you feel better?

the point about free will is immaterial because we are only talking about the portrayal of evil as a symbolic creature, not about moral agency

>>51686708
Because a natural 20 will punch through it and everything will be wrong again

>>51689381
>we are talking about
No, YOU are talking about. Have you noticed how people keep correcting you on this point?

>>51689212
my nigga

The character I'm most proud of creating originated from a Fallout Equestria inspired game. I also met two of my now best friends in that group.
I've never watched the show and only joined because I always wanted to play in a post-apocalyptic game and I was invited by the GM through a mutual friend. but god damn I am glad I took the chance.

just waiting for the proposed alternate definition of demon

should not be hard considering how many times you guys have appealed to "other settings and mythologies"

>>51689370
I fundamentally disagree. By being that side of the coin they are given importance and substance.

They are the Adversary.

>>51689389

again see:

>>51689399

>>51689399
As a fucking moral actor that chooses to be evil, you fucking retard. How many times does it have to be re-stated for you?

In some settings, demons are a race created by the devil or whatever devil-analogue the setting has, a race created to do the devil's evil deeds. However, they are commonly portrayed as having free will and acting autonomously.

>>51689407
If you ignored the 50 other posts explaining it I really don't understand why I should say it once again.

You are insisting on an overly-narrow definition that excludes their portrayal in many other works. It's like insisting the sky is blue when I can look out my window and see that, as of right now, it is black. Is the sky often blue? Yes. But that doesn't mean the sky over my head right now is blue, and yet it is undeniably still sky.

>>51686924
Kronk hiss

>>51689407
see
>>51689376
>Cutting through the bullshit, the answer seems to be:
>>If demons have free will and choose to commit evil, then it stands to reason they are capable of not being evil.
>>If demons do not have free will and are evil by their nature, such as being the personification of a moral extreme rather than a moral agent, then the question is nonsensical.

>>51689404

well in any case he is wrong

the evil quality of, for example, an act is not contingent upon whether the actor could have chosen otherwise and knowingly did not; sometimes people do evil by mistake

>>51689434

that is not a definition

please provide a defintion of demon as an alternative to the defintion "personification of evil"

>>51689435
The question of whether or not a sincerely unintentional act should be called evil is a lot more complicated than "yes".

Many philosophies and laws hold that evil cannot be done without malice or knowledge. If a toddler handles a gun and shoots their sibling, tragedy has been done, but not evil.

>>51689376
>No they're not. Not in many mythologies and settings.

True, but they are always the Adversary. In many they're embodiments of sin and sinful behaviour. In others they're heathen subjects of worship, or creatures like us but separated from divinity.

If it's the gods that make the moral compass of Good, then they are by definition Evil.

>>51689442
see
>>51689423
>If you ignored the 50 other posts explaining it I really don't understand why I should say it once again.
and the ignored alternative definition proposed in the very post above that one, proving its point. >>51689412

>>51689412

So here is your propsed defintion of demon:

>As a fucking moral actor that chooses to be evil, you fucking retard.

A human being is a moral actor. If he choses to be evil the by your defintion he is a demon.

>>51689442
Some base assumptions:
1. Creatures called demons exist.
2. A singular creature called the devil, Satan, Lucifer, or a similar such analogue also exists.
3. The creature in 2 is distinct from the creature in 1.
4. The creature in 2 is seen as remarkable, special, or unique.

All of the above are true in many settings, including Christian mythology.

A question: What actually is the difference between demons and the devil? Is the devil also a personification of evil, just...eviler?

>>51689446

now you're just conflating morality and culpability

>>51689446
Sure, but it's far more interesting when there is a demon of fratcricide or gun accidents.

>>51685557
I spend a lot of time researching and collecting systems, but I don't really dm that much. people think I know a lot more about doing than I actually do. I don't find it intimidating but it's hard for me to focus on prep because of my adhd

>>51689465
>>51689412
>In some settings, demons are a race created by the devil or whatever devil-analogue the setting has, a race created to do the devil's evil deeds. However, they are commonly portrayed as having free will and acting autonomously.
That's the definition, you fucking retard.

>>51689473

I don't think there is any diff in Christian mythology; obviously D&D distinguished because of alignment-based cosmology

>>51689480
forgot to mention, I also think that typical sessions last too long. I can only stand to play for about 3 hours before I need to take an hour break or just get really fucking high. my attention span just cannot sustain beyond that

>>51689478
Many philosophies hold that culpability is an important part of evil.

Quoth the dictionary, something is evil when it is "profoundly immoral and malevolent." An accident obviously lacks malevolence.

Evil, as a noun, is defined in same as "profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, especially when regarded as a supernatural force." Again, an accident obviously lacks wickedness and depravity.

So no, it can easily be argued that evil cannot in fact be done by mistake. Sure, tragedy can - harm can be done by mistake, yes. But if evil requires wickedness, immorality, depravity, and malevolence, then no, it cannot be done by mistake.

>>51689485

love how angry you're getting as you finally begin to realize you are wrong

your defintion results in identifying some human beings as demons

but obviously neither of us are actually talking about human beings

something has gone wrong for you

>>51689465
Okay, autist:

An otherplanar creature native to a hellish plane with a predisposition to some sort of evil acts or another without an inability to reject that nature and behave otherwise. Reflecting some of the worst things that mankind can become.

>>51686108
Fuck you man I wish people like you would have all died at birth

>>51689508
I knew you'd ignore that definition. Please let me repeat it so you can ignore it again!

In some settings, demons are a race created by the devil or whatever analogous being the setting has, a race created to do the devil's evil deeds. However, they are commonly portrayed as having free will and acting autonomously.

"you mad?" is a childish and petulant reply. Please try to do better.

>>51689478
Culpability is a prerequisite for morality.

>>51689504

this is exactly why there is a distinction between morality and culpability - because someone can commit an act that is considered to be evil under circumstances where it would not make sense to punish them in the same way as someone who had intentionally done the same

>>51689526
No, one cannot unintentionally commit an act that is considered to have been done through malevolence, wickedness, and depravity.

>>51689396

It was a twisted tale that started in /tg/

Filename thread, someone posted the FO:E cover art. I had a moment of "Huh, that's a thing" Then I see it as a mod pack for Dwarf Fortress. Curious after reading the descriptions, I give it a try, because the other Fallout mods were lacking.

After my encounters with a Hellhound and Cazaborable, I decided to check the source material so I knew what the fuck these things are.

Three days with about 12 hours during, I read the entirety of the fanfic. Decide to check out the community. Find a game within a few days, and have one hell of a time during it for about a year and half with him before moving over to the other group.

I still troll around the IRC chat from time to time, until I got kicked by the room over for being too nihilistic.

Spoilered because no pony faggotry, but well, this IS a sins thread, and I imagine most fa/tg/uys would see this as the most cardinal of sins.

As for the technocolored equines, I've only seen a handful of episodes, mostly at the behest of friends who enjoyed it. WAY too sweet for my tastes, but I can understand why some folks enjoy it. All things in moderation though.

Way I see it, all fandoms are the same. You have perfectly normal and decent folks that like thing, and then you have people who like thing WAY, WAY too much.

>>51689526
Evil requires malevolence (an intent to do evil).

Malevolence requires intent (willful and knowing desire).

Ergo, evil cannot be done unintentionally.

>>51688748
Not him but that one's good

File: Ragepony.png (2MB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x700px

>>51689535

I failed at spoiling the image.

>>51689504
How do you explain then demons of accidents or things beyond the control of people, like stillborn and drought?

There is mythological precedence. Are they not evil then? I can tell you for a fact they are. Does that mean people imprint morality onto thinks that are without morals?

Definitely.

>>51689510
>>51689520

distinction without difference, you have just dressed up your bad human being in D&D monster clothes - this is called begging the question

oh but u are mad

>>51689544
A = B.

B = !C.

Therefore A = !C.

This isn't even philosophy - this is basic formal logic.

>>51689557
Natural evils are not the same as moral evils, you fucking retard.

>>51689565
Oh look.

>>51689333
This exact reply was called half an hour ago.

>>51689557
>I can tell you for a fact they are.
Apparently they aren't, then. Almost like these personification definitions of demons are in fact not evil because they are not moral agents.

>>51689576

hahaha amazing

let's just lay out what you are proposing and bracketbthe D&D windo dressing

[otherplanar] being [created by greater evil being to do its bidding] capable of making moral decisions and choosing evil

so it's still just a human being who intentionally does bad things, he's just dressed up to LARP

this is all you've given me friendo and anyone can see the problem for you is still that you have defined a bad human when we were supposed to be talking about demons

>>51689587
You have an incredibly narrow view of evil that's frankly really boring.

You try telling that to the mother that just lost her child that it's the result of an immoral universe.

People want things to blame. Demons serve that purpose as the representatives of these things.

And so they are representative of Evil.

>>51689451
>If it's the gods that make the moral compass of Good, then they are by definition Evil.
If you will cede that it is possible for a demon to be a creature rather than a personification of something, and that these creatures have will, then as previously discussed by several people, they therefore have the capability of not being evil. Whether or not they act on this capability is irrelevant to the question.

This question has been solved. If they are personifications of blah blah blah, the question of their morality is nonsensical and meaningless. They are no more evil than an earthquake, they are more akin to a force of nature or a machine. If they are willing agents, then by the very definition of free will, they have the possibility of not being evil. This is the answer. It's not an opinion or a guess or whatever, it's a plainly obvious result of basic logic and the definition of the terms.

>>51689568

Giving my two cents about this moral discussion

One of the whole point of RPGs is to give a nice clear black and white line for good and evil. They are evil, you are good, go forth and be the big damn hero.

Shades of grey, lesser of two evils, the greater good and so forth are all problems of real life, where we have to agonize and justify over just what shade of grey we are. I'd love to give those homeless kids and hungry bums all a hot meal and a place to live, but I'm fucking poor. In a game, I can loot tombs, kill evil monsters that are EVIL, no question asked, and use my murder plunder to help people.

Leave discussions of "What is good, what is evil" for real life, not table tops. I for one play games so I don't need to ponder upon my shade of grey. I do it so I can be a fucking hero in a world where I'm just another member of the faceless masses.

I used to use Gaia Online

>>51689587

keep in mind this guy was one of the hobos arguing we shouldn't exclude non-conforming examples and yet here the fucker is doing just that - there are examples from mythology of personfications of evil acts and occurences and yet they do not fit his Christian moral theology of intention so I guess they just don't exist

>>51689557
If they're beings causing these accidents deliberately, and they're moral agents, yes. Otherwise, no they're not evil.

Evil requires:
>Understanding of consequences
>Freedom to choose otherwise

You can absolutely have a demon of miscarriages be an evil thing.

As a humanlike actor choosing to cause miscarriages, with the freedom to do otherwise.

>>51689619
It's not an immoral universe, it's an amoral one. The universe is not out to visit evil upon the house of a stillborn child. The universe does not give a shit and the stillbirth was essentially a fluke.

>>51689622

haha yes it's amazing that we've wasted so much time in defense of this basic premise of fantasy as a genre

>>51689568
>Natural evils are not the same as moral evils, you fucking retard.

Evil is Evil now?

It's far more interesting when both are considered equal and represented as such. Even to the point that where one can directly cause the other.

Dont kill your father or your farm will wither and die. Because that's sinful and leads to Demons.

>>51689610
>so it's still just a human being
But it's not. And see, I knew and correctly identified that you would move the goalposts in this fashion, which is why I didn't bother directly trying an answer earlier. This argument is utterly disingenuous.

You have set up a fallacious argument.
>Can you provide a different definition of demon?
>But the only acceptable definition of demon is my own.
>Ha, see, you can't provide a different definition of demon!

The terms of your question are unfair and not worth further discussion. Shame on you for thinking people are stupid enough not to figure that out.

>>51689610
The humanlike actor you're complaining about "just being a bad human" is the definition of demons actually capable of evil. Yours is merely a symbol or object with no moral weight, which only reminds people of the evil they are capable of, like a cloud might remind you of a bunny.

>>51689636
How incredibly boring.

>>51689622
Not everyone plays games for the same reasons you do. I for one like exploring questions I will never be able to in real life, such as, is a demon (defined as some kind of evil-aligned but free-thinking creature) even potentially redeemable? That's not a question I will ever face IRL.

>>51689621
>>51689619
>>51689568
>>51689544
>>51689526
>>51689504
>>51689478
>>51689465
>>51689446
>>51689442
>>51689434
>>51689376
>>51689370
>>51689357
>>51689341
>>51689334
>>51689318

This is a gaming sin thread, not a "What is sin" thread. While /tg/ did not become the board it is today by staying on topic, I want to get a laugh at people confessing their dark secrets, not listen to a bunch of arm chair philosophers.

I'm sure there's a thread just for this topic. This isn't the one. Kindly take it else where, or at least provide some material for us to laugh at.

File: begging-the-question.png (240KB, 741x542px) Image search: [Google]

240KB, 741x542px

>>51689653

>>51689627
I feel you, it's how I got into RP which eventually led into tabletop games. Anyone who's used the site has cringey memories, but we got better because of it. Just don't think about that character concept you thought was cool back then and kept using for so many RP threads.

Don't think about it.

>>51689634
What if miscarriages are a thing and a demon exists because of them?

Are they evil?

>>51689653

no goal posts have been moved

another way we could phrase your definition is, a human but in certain details completely incidental to the question of morality not like a human (like, where he comes from not being Earth/the Material Plane/whatever)

this isn't about me not accepting your defintiom

it's about you defining a demon as a human who does bad things on purpose

>>51689670
I got into tabletop gaming after spending years in furry forum and chat RPs. I eventually wanted something with more structure than freeform also it's hard to find non-crazies in furry communities and I grew out of it and that's what led me to tabletop gaming.

I still feel freeform is a perfectly viable system for an RPG, but it requires players who are very good about being on the same page, else you get all sorts of problems.

>>51689667

That is answered with one simple statement:

Depends on setting and DM.

You want that story? Find a DM who's willing to run it, who likes the idea. Don't bicker about the various semantics about things that don't exist via the Filipino scrimshawing image board.

I like redemption arcs, and did in fact redeem a demonized pony warlock who was bound into an arcane tome. It was a struggle, there were sacrifices, and my character could be summed up as "Bestial Paladin" for the later parts.

But again, it's all up to the DM. Some have it "Devils are EVIL, because they are." Others might not. Up to the DM and setting, no a great question for the ages.

>>51689670

it never should have been about philosophy because the proper issue is storytelling - anon and I confessed that we don't like when people want to make everything morally gray, including extreme-end examples like demons

then the arm chair philosophers showed up

>>51689687
The fact that they were created by an explicitly evil being for the purposes of evil is not incidental to the question, you fucking retard.

As was called ahead of time and explained afterwards, you set up an unfairly and illogically limited presence with zero intellectually honest intention of allowing any definition of your own to be used.

>>51689696
>Don't bicker about the various semantics about things that don't exist via the Filipino scrimshawing image board.
/tg/ - Traditional Games is all about bickering about the various semantics about things that don't exist.

Obviously there is no "real", as in extant in the real world, answer, because we are talking about fictional creatures.

>>51689700
As the anon who initially complained about the morally grey, FUCKING THIS.

>>51689694

I see freeform RPG as a form of group improv. More a form of acting than a game. I still go freeform RPing, but it's just roleplay. Any fighting is always done for as creative exercises between the two, a show of give and take.

I do it time to time when I just feel like roleplaying but none of my groups have any reason for downtime side sessions between characters.

A couple SS13 servers I play on I tend to just slum around as an assistant and roleplay on the more sedate servers.

File: 1358271160542.png (369KB, 1140x1448px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 1140x1448px

>>51689723
To be honest, too damned bad. That's how conversation works - the topic constantly evolves and changes as the conversation progresses. This is all too common on 4chan and, for that matter, literally every form of communication between humans.

>>51689704

it is absolutely incidental that they are created by an evil being to do their will because in the same breath you render this insignificant by also stating that even despite being reated by something evil to do evil they still have free will and thus are capable of choosing to do other than evil

so we're left with this: a being that has free will and chooses evil

and that is potentially a human being when we are tryingbto talk about something that is not human

call me a fucking retard all younlike, strapping red horns on your head and exercising your free will to do evil does not make you a demon*

*note - I am assuming you are human for the sake of argument

>>51689661
From a literary standpoint, a demon can serve purposes other than being a cautionary reflection of people's inner fears of the evil they think they are capable of, or unfortunate accidents to which people want something to blame it on - such as exploring the question of whether one can truly overcome their instincts, or the struggle to suppress your darkest desires, or the nature of regret, and the potential downfalls obsession with your past failings.

>>51689733
It's group storytelling, really. But then, so are some RPGs, especially narrative-heavy ones like for example Fate. All Fate is is a set of rules governing group storytelling.

The flaw with freeform is the rules - of course they still exist - are unwritten, which means everyone must be on the same page as to what they are. In any RPG, you at least can open a rule book, point at it, and say "Here, this is what's supposed to happen." In freeform there's no concrete rule governing that. If that isn't an obstacle to the players, I think it can be quite ideal.

>>51689740
Conversation that misses the point is wasted words.

>>51689686
It's the demon causing the miscarriages of their own free will, maliciously?

If no, then no.

>>51689758
>stating that even despite being reated by something evil to do evil they still have free will and thus are capable of choosing to do other than evil
Yes, that is the point. That, in other valid definitions of demon - valid as in, actually in use by RPG settings - demons are not irredeemably evil.

>and that is a human being-
No, fuck off with this re-definition bullshit. I'm not biting.

>>51689719

And the thing about fictional creatures is they can be whatever you want them to be.

No need to bicker back and forth about how this is evil, but maybe it's not, but it could be and should be, so on and so forth. Leave that shit for the DM and your group to decide. Saves derailments like this from happening.

I can enjoy a good derail, but I find the morality of make believe monsters to not be one of them.