>>97896942
>The "To be Lawful or Good" meme is one of the most retarded concepts to have poisoned RPGs and perceptions of alignment.
Insisting there is no possible "catch 22" ruins the rather major purpose of two-axis Alignment that is having a place to file disagreements on what "good" is outside the game.

>>97896942
Explain why you think this.

>>97896942
Oft forgotten (or never read) is that alignment was supposed to run on a scale. Good people can do bad things, but you had your overall disposition

File: judge dredd.jpg (50.3 KB)

50.3 KB JPG

>Flagrant contempt for DA LAW
10 Years Iso Cubes

>>97896969
Catch 22 scenarios are almost always completely contrived (and very often spiteful gotcha moments) and pic related dispels the "need" for them quite well
>>97896972
They caused classes such as paladin to be completely watered down and spread retarded assumptions about alignments
Read OP pic related

File: EA4qosDXYAE6dQS.jpg (143.7 KB)

143.7 KB JPG

Realistically speaking, if the local baron tells the paladin to help stop the Peasant Rebellion, THE PALADIN WILL FALL!

Refusing order from lawful baron = chaotic evil
Suppressing peasant rebellion = lawful evil

It's a lose lose. You fall, Paladin. You lose all your powers. No getting them back.

Paladins falling is literally Chekov's Gun... if it wasn't supposed to happen, there wouldn't be pages of rules about it!

>>97897020
If the local brain is a tyrant and pings Evil, then it would make refusing the order not only just but also a prerequisite to removing him from his office.

>>97897020
THat is not how it works

>>97897020
>"However, a paladin will not honor a law that runs contrary to his alignment."
>"Particularly abhorrent practices, such as slavery and torture, may force the paladin to take direct action. It doesn't matter if these practices are culturally acceptable or sanctioned by well-meaning officials. The paladin's sense of justice compels him to intervene and alleviate as much suffering as he can."unfortunate man who shot you out
>>97897024
>>97897030
It's that type of Reddit tier take that has poisoned D&D
Always contrived gotcha nonsense with zero substance, these 'people' are incapable of thinking outside of muh tropes

>>97896942
Moral alignments were a mistake anyway.

>>97897051
Only if because they ended up being misunderstood by the wider playerbase
Alignments portrayed properly are a useful tool for characterization

>>97897051
Its fine if you actually read how it works

>>97897049
Guideline
>If you find inaction would cause more suffering than would be caused by your action, then you are justified in doing said action

5e peeps
>LOL stopping the tyrant is murder, so you fall

Can they even read? No wonder 5e was dumbed down

>>97897056
>Alignments portrayed properly are a useful tool for characterization
Bullshit. If anything they're a short-circuit that is used to avoid proper characterisation.
>>97897090
Like magically learning or forgetting languages? It's not complicated, but it's not actually useful either.

>>97897098
So address OP pic related and how it is a 'short-circuit' to avoid 'proper' characterization
Your misunderstanding of how alignments work due to not having read material available 30+ years ago but rather based off retarded memes and tropes doesn't invalidate them

>>97897013
>Catch 22 scenarios are almost always completely contrived (and very often spiteful gotcha moments)
It remains that such scenarios being possible legitimizes the Chaotic Good factions, and the same applies in reverse. If there is no discernable friction between being Lawful or Chaotic and being Good, then the framing of staunch objection between those corners of the Alignment wheel as a serious debate on what constitutes "the most Good" is rendered nonsensical because it CAN'T be backed by things like the security versus liberty debate having cases where the Lawful security answer is discernably less Good than the Chaotic liberty answer.

>and pic related dispels the "need" for them quite well
Not really, because it doesn't address Chaos at all.

>>97897098
>magically learning or forgetting languages
alignment languages are philosophical concepts of discussion, not written spoken script dumbass

>>97897020
>Refusing order from lawful baron = chaotic evil
not evil
>Suppressing peasant rebellion = lawful evil
if the peasants are causing ruckus, looting, raping and killing, it's not evil to stop them

>>97897229
That makes even less sense. You still wouldn't learn them by changing alignment, never mind forget them, and they wouldn't function as languages.

>>97897136
Because it's a template that is applied far too broadly regardless of whether it makes sense.
And again, the issue is specifically moral alignments.

>>97897326
It is about philosophical discussion
Not my fault you cant understand what that means for language

>>97897030
Read the OP image. That is literally how it works. Paladins are not obligated to follow obviously morally evil laws or orders. You know sort of like soldiers in the real world and why we have that whole geneva convention thing.

>>97897013
???

the weird conflicts between perfect law and perfect good is the entire point of the paladin class, to the extent that in some versions that's the source of their power

>>97897696
I think he means that the particular example of an evil baron demanding a Paladin put down a peasant revolt doesn’t put them in a situation where they’re forced to give up their powers no matter what they choose, since as you pointed out the Paladin can fully choose to tell the baron he has no authority to command him if the order is clearly unjust.

>>97896942
>in the Paladin's mind
>for the greater good
This is fucking trash. I don't give a fuck what it is "in the Paladin's mind" if he's contravening his god's policies he's out of line. On top of that, the idea of "greater good" outweighing those same policies is retarded.

>>97897020
>Refusing order from lawful baron = chaotic evil
I don't agree with that. Inaction is a choice, but it is not an assumption of responsibility. When confronted with a situation in which the Paladin can not adhere to his god's policies walking away is 100% valid.

>>97897056
If your character can be crammed squarely into one of nine boxes, they're a caricature, not a character.

>>97897098
>Like magically learning or forgetting languages?
How do you feel about spell slots?

File: cleric NOT paladin.png (14.8 KB)

14.8 KB PNG

>>97897893
Paladins do not and never have needed to devote themselves to a specific god. You are thinking of Clerics, which actually are required to follow the tenets of their god, but for some reason nobody talks about it and we don't have a gorillion "lol Cleric falls" bait threads.

Seriously point me to a single line of text in any core rulebook that says Paladins must have gods. You will not find it. And yet everyone on this board insists that's a rule; it's like some Mandela Effect shit.

>>97897920
It is an overall representation
Originally you were supposed to keep track of major actions with points on multiple scales

>>97898005
>Seriously point me to a single line of text in any core rulebook
It's not in any core rulebook I can remember, but it definitely is a part of at least several of the most popular setting rulebooks.

>>97898005
So, in your mind, exactly what the fuck does the Paladin derive his powers from? What causes a Paladin to fall? If a Paladin can just say "I believed I was good :DDDDD" and keep his powers then what the fuck is the point?

>>97898080
1) The alignments are literally forces in themself
2) They can get powers from gods without worshipping them directly

>>97898088
>The alignments are literally forces in themself
So where's the scrappy chaotic neutral socialist rebels that cast spells of pure inane self-righteousness in the name of equity?
>They can get powers from gods without worshipping them directly
What a wonderful way to gain and lose powers at the drop of a hat: Abstract nameless gods that nobody knows the name of with mystery morals that just happen to coalign with the Retardin.

No, that's fucking gay and lazy. If nothing else Paladins need to pick an actual ideology with rules. Allowing a player to arbitrarily pick and choose what they happen to believe is good completely precludes the point of having them fall in the first place and encourages them to make a total fucking mess of the story at a whim.

>>97898080
a paladin is a psion who derives power from the paradox of perfect law and perfect good coexisting

>>97898147
>a paladin is a psion
At least your theory isn't retarded. I don't know if I'd use it, and it still doesn't quite rationalize the process of a Fall, but it works.

>>97898176
it rationalizes it perfectly, if he no longer has simultaneous perfect goodness and lawfulness then the source of his power is gone

>good
>evil
Why is everyone still so fucking spooked? The moralfag mindvirus is strong.

>>97898129
>So where's the scrappy chaotic neutral socialist rebels that
You are a no games troll trying to bait people into a political discussion. All of this is common knowledge for anyone with basic familiarity.

>>97897020
Bro. This is easy. Kill the Baron. Peasant Revolution's over thus the Baron's orders obeyed.

>>97898188
moralfags are more law versus chaos than good versus evil, whether they want to admit it or not

>>97898129
>Abstract nameless gods that nobody knows the name of
No, it's the same gods the clerics pray to.
THere is a difference between worship and acknowledgement.
Or are you retarded and think a Cleric of Pelor ignores every other god as fake?

>>97898201
>You are a no games troll
Post your rulebooks, tranny.
>>97898230
>THere is a difference between worship and acknowledgement.
Cool what's that got to do with ignorant ass shit like "as long as Paladins believe they're good they can do whatever they want" and "it's for the greater good :DDDD"

>>97898129
>So where's the scrappy chaotic neutral socialist rebels that cast spells of pure inane self-righteousness in the name of equity?
That ideological bent is absent for being wholly outside the historical reference frame, but you'll find the design space tackled in Dragon #106's "A Plethora Of Paladins" article. The CN one seems to be applying the "warrior of the faith" aspect to nomadic clannish warlordism.

>If nothing else Paladins need to pick an actual ideology with rules.
...That is what a Code of Conduct or Oath is a binding anchor for, yes. Fleshing it out to a decent chunk of ideology would be a horrible waste of page-space compared to just the core touchstone.

>>97898208
Only the high-brow ones that are proper deontologists, most are just idiots ranting about their personal preferences or vaguely motioning toward some scholar or other they feel agrees with them.

File: 1761685323554457.jpg (65.1 KB)

65.1 KB JPG

>>97899061
>wholly outside the historical reference frame
I refuse to brook that excuse when the authors obviously do not give a fuck about historical reference frames.

>>97899128
"Reference" does not demand strict accuracy, and the specific emphasis on High Middle Ages to early Renaissance Europe is well into stigmatization of slavery.

>>97897020
>Supporting someone who has lost the divine mandate and has to rely on corporeal force rather than their faith in order to remain in power
Sounds to me like the Baron is a cuck and it's my sacred obligation to snapplecap his head off.

File: gygax alignment.png (191.1 KB)

191.1 KB PNG

>Meanwhile the actual creator of both the alignment system and Paladins as he saw it

>>97899347
Why does he say a malign law is lawful good and then contradicts himself right after?

>>97899347
>just laws
Ruling out retarded contrived catch 22 scenarios that failDMs put players in

Paladin's handbook does not contradict either
>He does no interfere with a legal execution, so long as the punishment fits the crime.
Aka eye for an eye

>>97899326
And yet this is referring to situation where the paladin has entered into a society where slavery is a legal and institutionalized practice, then defaults to radical abolitionism because for some reason slavery is objectively evil and therefore the law does not matter. Then it goes on to reference what is obviously a postindustrial Marx-esque concept as something the paladin should pursue but may not reasonably be able to do so.

So, on paper, who does the paladin direct its "revolution" toward? The abstract concept of the institution of slavery? The rulers that keep it as status quo? The slave traders? The slave owners? What if none of these people are actually evil? It's just some self-fellating Marxist faggotry projected onto a fantasy world.

Without a concrete game, where little of this matters unless you're playing with obnoxious faggots you likely shouldn't be playing with, it's all moot.

>>97899355
He doesn't? You're illiterate? "Misconduct is punished under just laws" is not malign. An eye for an eye can be tempered with mercy and benevolence if needed - lawful neutral does not allow for benevolence or mercy, only absolute justice as stated by the law. But an eye for an eye can be done under Lawful Good if it is both lawful and necessary for the greater good.

Idiot.

>>97899396
That is entirely fair.

The "lawful good" meme is more of a metaethical problem than an ethical problem.

If morality comes from the state, then the state's laws are automatically good.
Therefore a lawful good character can not disobey them without breaking alignment.

If morality does not come from the state, then the state's laws are not automatically good.
Therefore a lawful good character can or may even be compelled to disobey state laws to uphold their alignment.

>>97899061
>deontology
>high brow
Consequentialists might be retarded but deontologists and virtue ethicists are really no better. The problem is with normative ethics as a whole and deontologists are by far the most likely to just say "it's self evident" or some shit like that.

>>97899405
Yes, but his example is literally the most classically malign type of law there is.

>>97899405
>lawful neutral does not allow for benevolence or mercy, only absolute justice as stated by the law.
That's a misreading too although not as bad as the quoted guy who is I suspect trying to be snide but mostly comes across as illiterate.

What Gygax says is that LNs "countenance" unjust laws, i.e. that they tolerate the unjust ones while LGs do not. (much like I would say LNs tolerate good mercyful ones though this is left unstated and not commented upon by Gygax in that pic)

>>97899424
"I will completely ignore the rest of the sentence that explains that this example is not a literal law being stated but an example of an application of the law that would be appropriate in the genre and style of the game."

You literally ignored the first and last half of the sentence to cherry-pick something he did not actually state. So either illiterate, or idiot. Which are you?

In before someone posts the example of Gary saying the paladin should kill the rogue for slaying his divine steed that was literally sent from heaven to assist the paladin and calling it 'unjustified'.

>>97899459
I'm focusing on the point I want to talk about.

>>97899424
>an eye for an eye is unjust
Yeah nah.
It's literally the basis for ancient human law going back to the code of hammurabi and is where we even get idea of monetary fines as well.
That Christ tolds his followers not to engage in it, while still following a bible that says it's a Law of the Covenant from Moses and he does not come to "abolish it", does not suddenly means it's immoral.
The "punishment fits the crime" (a mangling of Cicero) is a viewpoint of retributive justice.

It is also far more just and good than many of those who argue that the only things courts should deal with is rehabilitation.
>yeah sure he murder-raped your children but we can't punish it because that'd be an eye for an eye! he'll sit out a few years and then you'll have to treat him as a 'good citizen' who 'did his time'!
Absurd in the extreme, and evil besides.

>>97896942
9-point alignment was always retarded in every edition. No matter what. Kill the fat, retarded neckbeard rules lawyer in your head.

>>97899491
Idiot then, got it.

>>97899494
>It is also far more just and good than many of those who argue that the only things courts should deal with is rehabilitation.
rehabilitative justice is for those who care about society and want it to be better for everyone

punitive justice is for those who want people to suffer and make society worse than it already is

>>97899494
It's not the legal system's fault that the man who is kept for many years isn't brainwashed into a compliant citizen.
If the prison systems were half as competent as any given cult, these people would all be destroyed and remade by the time they got out.

>>97899590
there are prison systems in the world where they do that successfully for a large proportion of criminals, but people like >>97899494 don't want that because they don't want criminals to be remade into functional members of society, instead they just want them to suffer

>>97899612
If he wants prisoners to suffer, he better invent a suffering engine, otherwise he's just another commie trying to waste money.

>>97899618
nah, that's the cool thing about slave labor, you can make money off of slaves while they're suffering

File: 1759143379756145.png (619.3 KB)

619.3 KB PNG

>>97899612
>they don't want criminals to be remade into functional members of society
NTA, but if someone raped and murdered children they shouldn't be remade into functional members of society. They should be flayed in public until they die.

>>97899624
At this point that seems highly uneconomical
The cost of feeding and housing someone is larger than the minimum wage style work they are doing would generate.

>>97899630
You're a commie. They should be put into the mind flenser until they come out as a government standard citizen.
This isn't even that sci-fi, we were almost there with lobotomy tech.

>>97899612
And psychopathic murderers/rapists aren't equated with those who commit crimes of passion or desperation to anyone who isn't retarded

>>97899630
Torture is evil.
And those calling for death should be prepared to swing the sword themselves. Cowards are not to be trusted with the responsibility of sentencing others to death.

>>97899578
>rehabilitative justice is for those who care about society
Except the people victimized by anti-socials apparently and would rather center society around criminal elements than those hurt by them.

>>97899630
see the real problem is you're taking a personal point of view on the topic, but society is too huge for the 100-person village model that we have ancient instincts built around to still function

instead think about it statistically, anything that statistically improves society is good, and vice versa

this isn't a problem for your monster pedophile example because obviously you can't let a monster like that anywhere near a victim again, any statistical contribution such a monster could make is not worth the risk of ruining more functional people's lives

which means you don't need to rehabilitate it, or if you do you can only do so partially to some limited extent

i am aware that the point of view you are probably more used to arguing against when it comes to this topic is the bleeding heart "everyone should have a chance" type retard, but that's just the inverse mistake which also comes from the 100-man village unga bunga mindset, and causes just as many problems

instead embrace completely depersonalized math and make the world a better place

>>97899652
The world has no room for your soft sentiment.
They need to be remade entirely in the punishment sphere.

>>97899590
>It's not the legal system's fault that the man who is kept for many years isn't brainwashed into a compliant citizen.
It very much is if they decide to act like they are.
>>97899612
I live in one of those systems unlike thinly-veiled worshippers of criminal strength like yourself.

>>97899652
>>97899643
see >>97899655

File: plethora of paladins.png (124.9 KB)

124.9 KB PNG

>>97898129
>So where's the scrappy chaotic neutral socialist rebels that cast spells of pure inane self-righteousness in the name of equity?
You ask this as if alternate-alignment paladins with a bunch of silly names haven't existed for decades.

>>97899662
see >>97899655

rehabilitation is the rational choice, punishment and permissiveness are both the irrational emotional choices

>>97899662
So, what, do you think the legal system should sue the prison system or something?
Because yes, the prisons are absolutely dropping the ball, we've known how to break people into cultists since prehistory.

>>97899663
>see there's too many people
Cool, then let's remove power from those centralizers and drag it down to the village level if they think it's impossible to do it at their level.
Let's see how fast they change their tune.
>b-but my magic monkeysphere pop-cult article said we can't care above 150 people
Pseud drivel.

>>97899678
We can always go try to eat the rich again.
I'm sure we won't get distracted by racism or trannies or whatever this time, right?

>>97899678
you can't even conceive of ten thousand people as actual people, forget billions

>>97899646
>Torture is evil.
"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones."
>And those calling for death should be prepared to swing the sword themselves.
Deal.
>>97899655
>instead embrace completely depersonalized math and make the world a better place
After a lifetime of seeing how people lie and mislead with statistics, frankly I prefer the unga bunga.

>>97899685
If you do, keep in mind it's the rich distracting you with them as always.

>>97899689
>After a lifetime of seeing how people lie and mislead with statistics, frankly I prefer the unga bunga.
yeah, because unrestrained emotions aren't any good for manipulation and deception by comparison, clearly that's the superior choice

>>97899670
>rehabilitation is the rational choice
By criminals, for criminals, yes.
>irrational
There's few things more rational than an eye for an eye.
That's why you need religion to step away from it.
>>97899671
I think that you should stop pretending to care about rehabilitation and simply admit that to you justice isn't a thing.
I know full well most people who argue for it are just afraid of the state coming from them, which is fine by me.
But then they go around and act all apalled when someone else says that's not just or good.
Prisons aren't there to 'change' people.
They're there to render justice. If they're not then the only way to actually get justice is to get it yourself and that leads to blood vendettas and normal people forced into crime.

More simply put. If people refuse to enact justice out of fear then someone else will.
That's how you get ethnic/religious courts outside the government and often were the sprouts of organized crime.

>>97899685
He says while repeating Soviet religious mantras about blank slate theory adapted by economic liberals.
>>97899687
Then by all means break it down to the local level if you can't do right by people and have to pretend we're a "society" to avoid governing.

>>97899716
>By criminals, for criminals, yes.
not at all, by society for society

>There's few things more rational than an eye for an eye.
it's completely irrational on anything larger than the personal scale, and the only way you can think it's rational is if you're willfully ignorant, a very irrational standpoint of our own

>>97899721
>Then by all means break it down to the local level if you can't do right by people and have to pretend we're a "society" to avoid governing.
there is no local level anymore outside of some remote island that has a population of 300, so you literally can't break it down like that

File: 1754791320963686.jpg (53.5 KB)

53.5 KB JPG

>>97899700
>because unrestrained emotions aren't any good for manipulation and deception by comparison, clearly that's the superior choice
A statistician's perspective is taken into account and rejected without prejudice upon consideration. A deceiver looking to manipulate the headsman is playing a fool's game. You buy yourself a product and you get what you pay for.

>>97899689
That example isn't torture as flaying is, and doesn't provide the inane spectacle.
>>97899655
Sure, but this is a thread about D&D not le modern world. Cities in D&D don't approach the populations of even many towns nowadays.

>>97899736
>You buy yourself a product and you get what you pay for.
what year do you think this is, 1750?

>>97899742
>Sure, but this is a thread about D&D not le modern world. Cities in D&D don't approach the populations of even many towns nowadays.
they're still cities of thousands and countries in the low millions, they are civilizations far more advanced and populous than stone age unga bungas

>>97899742
>That example isn't torture as flaying is
Fates worse than death are universally torment.
>and doesn't provide the inane spectacle.
Terrorizing the wicked is a deterrent, a prospective mercy to those who have not yet committed the crime.

>>97899383
>It's just some self-fellating Marxist faggotry projected onto a fantasy world.
No, it's self-fellating liberalism projected onto a fantasy world, in keeping with the history of abolitionism by military force (liberal brits and yanks), due to that being the societal norms of basically all the writers (a collection of 1970s-80s yanks).

>>97899419
>Consequentialists might be retarded but deontologists and virtue ethicists are really no better.
They get cushier seats farther up the ivory tower, though.

>>97899578
>rehabilitative justice is for those who care about society and want it to be better for everyone
In practice, overwhelmingly a horribly naive fashion that broadly ignores some people can in fact dig themselves in a run of asshole behavior beyond helping without being horrifically brutalized first.

>punitive justice is for those who want people to suffer and make society worse than it already is
While the vindication of seeing a wrongdoer suffer is a very real part of it, the systematic purpose is improving society via deterrence for antisocial behavior.

>>97899646
But corporal punishment like lashings have a non-Evil subset, at least according to the Obeisance table in Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells on page 31.

>>97899655
Purely statistical utility-functions have a nasty habit of reward-hacking, fuzzier and less formalized approaches to social goals tend to be more successful and durable.

>>97899678
>Cool, then let's remove power from those centralizers and drag it down to the village level if they think it's impossible to do it at their level.
Devolution and separation of powers lets you sort authority according to where the incentives align relatively easily, so this is somewhat a false dichotomy.

>>97899751
And they don't operate with the same laws and morals as either unga bunga or modernity?

>>97899716
I think you're just afraid of the mind flenser.

>>97899731
By bleeding heart retards for criminals*

>>97897024
>pings evil
Fucking read how "detect evil" works. Your average evil person won't register because they do not give off an evil aura.

>>97899775
>Purely statistical utility-functions have a nasty habit of reward-hacking, fuzzier and less formalized approaches to social goals tend to be more successful and durable.
while close this is not quite true, what you actually need is a cultural investment into the system which sterile ones haven't developed yet, but if you had investment into such a system you'd soon see malicious compliance and similar hunted down without issue

>In practice, overwhelmingly a horribly naive fashion that broadly ignores some people can in fact dig themselves in a run of asshole behavior beyond helping without being horrifically brutalized first.
>>97899793
>By bleeding heart retards for criminals*
...no, these are just a problem with permissiveness, but remember that permissiveness should be avoided as much as pointless punishments, you don't want to punish pointlessly but you also can't let anyone get away with anything either

>>97899731
>it's completely irrational on anything larger than the personal scale
No, it's the very well proven first-order social optimization to clean up cyclical transgressions. Nominally uninterested third-party has aggressor punished roughly in-scale with their transgression, so the aggrieved party doesn't take it into their own hands and end up provoking the aggressor into even more transgressions.

>there is no local level anymore outside of some remote island that has a population of 300
Settlement-specific councils are still quite common, and prove quite responsive to public interest out to quite a few thousand through low-order network-of-network effects that often get ignored in these discussions. It seems to take hundreds of thousands or severe socioeconomic mis-matches for municipal governments to consistently break down.

>>97899806
>...no, these are just a problem with permissiveness
The permissiveness comes from a distension of rehabilitative justice concepts, though. The legal theory can be very clearly traced to numerous specific judges being ruinously lenient in sentencing. A mandatory minimum sentence for recidivism would probably "catch" that breakdown, but good luck defending it from the bleeding heart retards.

>>97899835
>No, it's the very well proven first-order social optimization to clean up cyclical transgressions. Nominally uninterested third-party has aggressor punished roughly in-scale with their transgression, so the aggrieved party doesn't take it into their own hands and end up provoking the aggressor into even more transgressions.
victims becoming criminals in reprisal is an entirely separate problem, but luckily rehabilitation fixes that too, and eventually you can remove such behavior from the culture you're in

>The permissiveness comes from a distension of rehabilitative justice concepts, though.
that doesn't mean rehabilitation doesn't work, you just need to actually implement it instead of allowing corruption to take off with it

and punitive justice has its own corruption problems of a very similar nature, before you try to turn that around

>good luck defending it from the bleeding heart retards.
just win the culture war paladinbro, it's the right thing to do, i believe in you

>>97898005
For the record the 2e Complete Priest's Handbook specifies that clerics can follow philosophies or forces instead of gods.

The 5.5e DMG reiterates this (although it doesn't explain how that works with their Divine Intervention feature).

>>97899854
One can support both rehabilitation for the cases that warrant it and punitive justice for those who deserve it.
>so long as the punishment fits the crime.

>>97899883
i mean, maybe you can do that for some other sorts of those concepts, but not as i've presented them here, since my version of rational justice is diametrically opposed to emotional justice

>>97899891
It isn't rational to attempt to rehabilitate a psychopath.
Context always seems to escape these theoretical models, though.

>>97899903
no, you misunderstood, the point is to always just do whatever is most beneficial to society in a rational way, and not allow emotions, either vengeful or merciful ones, to intrude

if a psychopath is utterly unfit for society then yeah, there's no point in rehabilitation either, but in the majority of cases you can get a lot more value out of rehabilitation than just throwing someone into a box

>>97899924
Sure, I agree with regards to our world but in D&D the infrastructure required for rehabilitation at scale simply isn't present, so the balance shifts toward punitive justice out of necessity.

>>97899967
a paladin is supposed to be an idealist, not make excuses for a broken system

honestly the paladin would probably have an easier time of actually doing this shit too, his actual enemies are the forces of cosmic evil in the absence of which the forces of cosmic good would just make the world like a pokemon suburbia

>>97899854
>victims becoming criminals in reprisal is an entirely separate problem, but luckily rehabilitation fixes that too
...No, it does not.

>and eventually you can remove such behavior from the culture you're in
Such social engineering demonstrably does not work, going by death penalty support polls. Especially when you prompt specific egregious crimes.

>that doesn't mean rehabilitation doesn't work, you just need to actually implement it instead of allowing corruption to take off with it
It is not corruption, it is simply your favored theory of justice in its broader sense failing because its premises do not have a clear cause to stop at the functional extent. You will not be allowed to "No True Scottsman" your pet theory with generally-used terms like a Communist.

>and punitive justice has its own corruption problems of a very similar nature, before you try to turn that around
So? We're not the utopians in this argument, our position doesn't need to be perfect.

>>97899873
Also core in 3.5, though IIRC not 3e. Gets brought up a lot in optimization for Domain cherry-picking.

>>97899891
>but not as i've presented them here, since my version of rational justice is diametrically opposed to emotional justice
Your "rational" justice is not the full extent of rehabilitative justice that we're lampooning as a sole framework as you've presented several times, nor is your "emotional" justice the full extent of punitive justice that we're defending.

>>97899924
>no, you misunderstood, the point is to always just do whatever is most beneficial to society in a rational way, and not allow emotions, either vengeful or merciful ones, to intrude
Insisting that the vindication of witnessing a murderer's execution CAN'T have a prosocial value is itself irrational, because we're social creatures for overwhelmingly emotional reasons. Thus any necessary course-correction will be permanently counter-intuitive and thus unlikely to be at all efficient.

>>97899924
>no, you misunderstood, the point is to always just do whatever is most beneficial to society in a rational way, and not allow emotions, either vengeful or merciful ones, to intrude
Okay, so the best way to act in a society you argue for would be to ignore the state and either enact your own justice or find those who are willing to.
Basically you've absolved yourself from actual justice and think that means people won't ask for it.

>>97899983
>...No, it does not.
sure it does, just rehabilitate them both and the problem is solved

>Such social engineering demonstrably does not work, going by death penalty support polls.
just look up rehabilitative justice successes, it works fine and your example of death penatly support polls is a literal inverse example, an example of american justice culture which is one of the most punitive ones in the world

>So? We're not the utopians in this argument, our position doesn't need to be perfect.
this is a very poor argument since we're arguing what makes a better world, you just declaring that you don't actually care if the world is better is more like a concession than an argument

>Your "rational" justice is not the full extent of rehabilitative justice that we're lampooning as a sole framework as you've presented several times, nor is your "emotional" justice the full extent of punitive justice that we're defending.
so you want to argue against some other position?

>Insisting that the vindication of witnessing a murderer's execution CAN'T have a prosocial value is itself irrational,
but i never said that? i just said that you should do what's best for society from a rational standpoint, if you think that the psychopath is impossible to rehabilitate you may as well execute them

>because we're social creatures for overwhelmingly emotional reasons.
that's not an excuse to indulge in it, especially in a world where alternatives are thoroughly proven to work better

>Thus any necessary course-correction will be permanently counter-intuitive and thus unlikely to be at all efficient.
this is nonsense, cultures can and do constantly change

>>97900009
no, in this sense you just tell them that they need to be satisfied with whatever debt to society the criminal was saddled with, which is no different than any actual justice system in the world currently, there's always plenty of people who want more

>>97900019
>no, in this sense you just tell them that they need to be satisfied with whatever debt to society the criminal was saddled with
In other words "because I say so".
Cool, hope you like vigilantes and organized crime because you've just made a world where that is preferable for the majority of people.

>>97900032
>"because I say so".
no, "because it makes the world a better place for everyone, it reduces crime and increases value"

>>97899977
Less 'broken system' and simple reality of the context in which a given D&D game takes place in. If you are unable to divorce yourself from modern thinking and immerse yourself in the setting then why bother? There are plenty of modern setting games to partake.
And that besides the point, "so long as the punishment fits the crime."
A paladin never kills for personal gain (gratification) or someone he does not perceive to be a threat and is to avoid killing whenever possible.

>>97900042
"simple reality" is just another excuse for a broken system, you should not be playing a paladin with that mentality

>>97900036
Provably not true. It makes the world a better place for the criminally violent and the scumbag kind of people who look at those as the baseline for society and not their victims, victims they rarely ever deign to notice except those few times they take matter into their own hands.

>>97900053
He says, preaching the morality of general buck naked

>>97900053
>Provably not true.
provably true, check rehabilitation statistics, anything that lowers recidivism rates in an entire country by double-digit percentages after implementation is a massive success for that entire country's society

>>97900062
>recidivism rates
Fun fact, the actual highest correlation with low recividism rates are not 'rehabilitation' but old age.
The highest ones are for short penal sentences of sub-6 months.

>>97900080
i'm confused, did you deliberately try to make your two points knock each other out?

>>97900060
You mean the cannibal turned preacher realizes there ought to be punishment for murdering children?
Whoa, how horrible. We really ought to rehabilitate him from such horrendous judicial views.

>>97900088
>i'm confused
That much is obvious.
No, I won't explain why you're being retarded.

File: 1711750256506795.png (915.1 KB)

915.1 KB PNG

the goyim really buy this shit huh

>>97900109
i'll take that as a yes and move on to bemused

>>97900115
Yeah white people tend to debate and split hairs over what constitutes justice rather than consulting some bronze age desert savage bullshit for answers. That's kind of why most of the world runs on something vaguely resembling the Roman Republic model rather than the Judean Theocratic Monarchy model.

>>97900050
It literally is the reality when we're discussing a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting. If you can't understand that then you should not be playing in such settings.
And I've already laid out how a paladin should strive in spite of it even though he lacks the centuries of hindsight that you or I and living in a world where we take for granted the infrastructure that gives us our easy lives.
But then again IC and OOC separation have clearly become a lost art.

>>97900178
>It literally is the reality when we're discussing a pseudo-medieval fantasy setting.
that's not how idealism works, if you can't understand that then you aren't suited to playing an idealist character

>>97900050
>"simple reality" is just another excuse for a broken system
The simple reality is that all systems break and will inevitably fail. Thinking otherwise doesn't make you an idealist, it makes you a fool.

>>97900190
And the paladin should strive in spite of it. Doesn't mean he would possess the same 20/20 hindsight you or I have or even fathom the world we live in where everything given to us is taken for granted.
Is that so difficult to understand?

>>97900212
>The simple reality is that all systems break and will inevitably fail.
bro you're exhibiting literal full-force cynicism in a context where you're supposedly trying to prove you know what idealism is, lmao

>>97900215
there is no such thing as simple reality to an idealist because to admit that there is such a thing as simple reality is to stop being an idealist, it doesn't matter what the world is like or how well or poorly it measures up to the ideals, all that matters is that it needs to be changed for the better

>>97899664
I feel like the word "holy" is being stretched to some incomprehensible limit here.

>>97900236
Thanks for confirming you aren't reading my posts at all and are just responding ad naseum to two words from several posts ago.

>>97900252
are we keeping score? because i think you're at five or six posts for not getting the idealist mindset

>>97900236
Okay, if it's so cynical then name one system that has never broken or a system that is not currently broken. You are conflating the idea of idealism with a bull-headed assumption of perfect righteousness that only ever produces positive outcomes no matter what problems it faces. That is absurd, and idealists that are not fools build new systems with rules and procedures in an attempt to prevent forseeable breakages. No matter how hard they try it will not be perfect, nor can it become or remain perfect. In a funny sort of way you're the one that believes idealists are idiots by definition.

>>97900257
>And the paladin should strive in spite of it. Doesn't mean he would possess the same 20/20 hindsight you or I have or even fathom the world we live in where everything given to us is taken for granted.
If you can't respond to this in good faith then I think we're done here.

Normie education on philosophy is really bad. I don't know why it isn't taught more in schools.

>>97900269
my response is, as i've already given, that there is no simple reality from the point of view of a paladin and he would always consider how to make the world a better place rather than be complacent about the literal code of hammurabi or the rule of the sicilian mob or whatever shit gygax was projecting when he wrote that brainfart

>>97900115
Its called slave morality for a reason

File: 1753924865769066.png (462.4 KB)

462.4 KB PNG

DM:
>"As the evening grows darker so do your surroundings: The market bustles with conventional trade but many of the stalls you pass peddle wares of a human variety. This city-state, the head of an ancient empire, still cleaves to the institution of slavery. It dawns on each of you that the lich may have chosen to ply its trade here because the raw material for its armies can simply be purchas-"
Paladin:
>"I want to start a cultural revolution."
DM:
>"You...what?"
Paladin:
>"Yeah I say we incite a slave rebellion, find the king of the city, and kill him. Slavery is evil and I have to be making the world a better place."
DM:
>...

>>97900376
Correct way to play a paladin.

>>97900019
>sure it does, just rehabilitate them both and the problem is solved
Not the problem of people's lack of emotional resolution leading to reciprocal crimes occurring in the first place.

>just look up rehabilitative justice successes, it works fine
Many criminals "can be" rehabilitated, but as a systematic approach the trend is restorative justice legal theory collapsing into permissiveness in short order while punitive legal theory focused on deterrence and removal of bad actors successfully neuters crime.

>and your example of death penatly support polls is a literal inverse example, an example of american justice culture which is one of the most punitive ones in the world
I was thinking about the UK's stats on the matter, specifically because their detached elites decided to reject public opinion to attempt to implement it.

>this is a very poor argument since we're arguing what makes a better world
No, YOU are arguing what makes THE BEST POSSIBLE world according to your categorical rejections, which we are arguing against.

>so you want to argue against some other position?
The closeness of relation to demonstrably dysfunctional legal theory without a clear barrier is a valid counter-argument for you, just as it is for the Communists trying the same defense that THEIR form of Communism won't fail the way all the others did.

>but i never said that?
I'm assuming you posted this, given the overlap in argumentation:
>>97899670
>rehabilitation is the rational choice, punishment and permissiveness are both the irrational emotional choices

>that's not an excuse to indulge in it, especially in a world where alternatives are thoroughly proven to work better
It is in fact a reason to include it in the reasoning, given alternatives haven't worked at-scale.

>this is nonsense, cultures can and do constantly change
But human sociality coming from emotions rather than reason does not.

>>97900385
Because the resulting unrest, instability, and chaos shall surely thwart the undead monster that definitely won't take advantage of the situation.

>>97900396
>Not the problem of people's lack of emotional resolution leading to reciprocal crimes occurring in the first place.
if you as the government treat the people like cattle they will behave like cattle, the only way they will ever be more than cattle is if they take responsibility for their own actions

>Many criminals "can be" rehabilitated, but as a systematic approach the trend is restorative justice legal theory collapsing into permissiveness in short order while punitive legal theory focused on deterrence and removal of bad actors successfully neuters crime.
not at all, rehabilitation is more successful at neutering crime, while the worst examples of punitive justice actually encourage crime, even turn it into a symbiotic industry

>No, YOU are arguing what makes THE BEST POSSIBLE world according to your categorical rejections, which we are arguing against.
no, i'm arguing that the best actual examples we have in the world are the ones that should be emulated, while the worst-performing ones should be abolished

>The closeness of relation to demonstrably dysfunctional legal theory without a clear barrier is a valid counter-argument for you
no it's not since i've shown the barrier several times, including in some of the stuff you're greentexting in this very post

>It is in fact a reason to include it in the reasoning, given alternatives haven't worked at-scale.
but they have? even the uk example you used earlier reduced crime significantly, and it wasn't even close to the most successful example such as the scandinavian ones

"the alternatives don't work" while defending the demonstrably worst option is some kind of statement for sure

>But human sociality coming from emotions rather than reason does not.
clearly it can, or else rehabilitation wouldn't exist in a successful state

File: 1618565152088.png (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB PNG

>>97900376
>>"Yeah I say we incite a slave rebellion,
You sure about that?

>>97900451
The John Brown Experience, except she probably didn't get executed after.

>>97900376
Dude, if I were DMing and I include an ancient empire clinging to slavery, I would LOVE the players electing to overthrow that injustice. Hell, it even progresses their ultimate goal. Can't buy an army if it's not for sale, so the lich's plans are slowed, lowering the time pressure for the duration of the excursion. No setbacks, a whole adventure added to the campaign, everybody fucking wins here.

>>97900399
Assuming what you say happens because of various failures on the part of the paladin... You're just proving that the Paladin is incompetent. You're not proving that he is immoral. If he compromises and conspires with the evil lich, he should 100% fall. That's not even a question. If he does nothing because he is demoralized he might also fall, why is he even a paladin if he is weak in mind and character like that? If he's taking a strategically viable path to abolishing slavery and such, then he's in the clear even if he doesn't immediately ram his face into a wall. But why did your imagined paladin just go about the revolution in the worst way possible, as if he's a caricature of stupidity? Maybe that's the real problem you should consider.

>>97900436
Ah I see, you are retarded. Scandinavian justice works on Scandinavians. NOT retarded niggers. If you don't understand this fact, you are irrational.

>>97900487
>if you as the government treat the people like cattle they will behave like cattle

>>97900459
>Hell, it even progresses their ultimate goal. Can't buy an army if it's not for sale, so the lich's plans are slowed, lowering the time pressure for the duration of the excursion.
Except they just threw an entire Empire into chaos, probably incited a civil war, and the Big Bad is going to have entire piles of corpses to ressurrect for free. You drop a hook like "he buys his victims" and instead of them doing some detective work you'd prefer they run off and kill someone that probably isn't even actually evil?
>>97900468
>You're just proving that the Paladin is incompetent. You're not proving that he is immoral. If he compromises and conspires with the evil lich, he should 100% fall.
Sure, but then I get called an asshole DM because I indulged the behavior without rewarding success in it.
>But why did your imagined paladin just go about the revolution in the worst way possible
Because it's based off of the behavior system set forward in OP's cited handbook?

>>97900492
>Because it's based off of the behavior system set forward in OP's cited handbook?
No, it's very easy to imagine progressing lawful good in both stupid and smart ways. Just because a stupid way exists isn't a sufficient explanation for why you didn't acknowledge smarter ones also do.

>>97900451
>>97900457
Temporary social upheaval is not an excuse for policies like slavery. Live free or die.

>>97900436
>if you as the government treat the people like cattle they will behave like cattle, the only way they will ever be more than cattle is if they take responsibility for their own actions
...Brainwashing them into the government's idea of a Productive Member Of Society is less treating them as cattle than blunt punishments and direct repayment of damages? Restorative justice is a third thing, not inherent to rehabilitative justice you keep using as the term for your primary legal theory.

>not at all, rehabilitation is more successful at neutering crime
In isolated programs you haven't cited, not as primary legal theory that keeps being implemented due to permissive bleeding heart rhetoric with details resulting in an explosion of recidivism following accordingly.

>while the worst examples of punitive justice actually encourage crime
While the best examples of punitive justice boast some of the greatest demonstrations of handling bad-actors in bulk in history, like El Salvador's turn-around from one of the worst shitholes on the planet under rehabilitative legal theory.

>no it's not since i've shown the barrier several times
You've asserted the premise that approaching it rationally is a barrier. You have done nothing to show such a barrier is resilient to the bleeding hearts who are the proponents actually in politics.

>but they have? even the uk example you used earlier reduced crime significantly, and it wasn't even close to the most successful example such as the scandinavian ones
As. Isolated. Programs. As a system, the Scandinavians have smugglers treat them as a fucking vacation and immigrant gangs doing grenade attacks because the EXACT same people pushing rehabilitative justice also pushed mass migration as humanitarian aid because the primary political fuel for both is bleeding hearts. And the lunatics using UK prisons as recruiting grounds are rather infamous.

>>97900504
Engaging in social activism rather than dealing with the antagonist is stupid at its root concept. The only way in which it is even capable of being "smart" is the campaign is structured in such a way that the monarch is directly involved with the lich, and I'm not particularly fond of letting a Retardin hijack my plot.
>>97900527
>Live free or die.
I'm sure the Lich would be more than happy to indulge the latter.

>>97900491
>outside people can't have a worldview that just actually hates the government's premises
Not going to make it in a multicultural world, which the United States is thoroughly stuck with.

>>97900532
>...Brainwashing them into the government's idea of a Productive Member Of Society is less treating them as cattle than blunt punishments and direct repayment of damages?
yes, it's like the difference between what you teach your cow and what you teach your child

>In isolated programs you haven't cited
no, in entire countries like for example norway

>While the best examples of punitive justice boast some of the greatest demonstrations of handling bad-actors in bulk in history
which worked against a general gang problem, and was somehow not repeated anywhere else with gang problems

>You've asserted the premise that approaching it rationally is a barrier. You have done nothing to show such a barrier is resilient to the bleeding hearts who are the proponents actually in politics.
just as punitive justice isn't resilient to corruption that uses it for its own ends, like in american industrialized prisons

since both sides are vulnerable to corruption, that sufficiently demonstrates that corruption isn't a relative metric here, and we can return to recidivism rates

>the EXACT same people
nope, there's a lot more nuance to it than that, you can in fact have rehabilitative systems without the bleeding heart problem just as you can have punitive justice without turning crime into an industry

therefore since both systems can be run without succumbing to corruption, we can return to looking at a metric that actually matters, like recidivism

>>97900492
>Except they just threw an entire Empire into chaos, probably incited a civil war,
"Incited" nothing. They will fight that civil war. It will be their excursion.
>and the Big Bad is going to have entire piles of corpses to ressurrect for free.
So burn the bodies as you win your war. Plan your revolution, it doesn't have to be haphazard. There's no obligation to leave a profitable situation when you are the active agents here. Players have the power.
>You drop a hook like "he buys his victims" and instead of them doing some detective work you'd prefer they run off and kill someone that probably isn't even actually evil?
You know they can do several things at once, right? They can cut off the lich's supply line WHILE bringing forth a new order. And if the slaver-king isn't actually evil, you realize instead their societal revolution can be quite easy in that case, yes? And it doesn't have to be a civil war at all if the leader is not evil, but simply convincing the emperor?

>>97900315
All right thanks for confirming you don't care to engage in good faith.

>>97900538
The lich would not waste money purchasing slaves. Slaves are valuable primarily because they are alive. Dead slaves have no value at all. It would be much more rational for the Lich to purchase dead slaves, or dead bodies in general. Or buy slaves, rent them out, then collect their corpses when they are done. Or more realistically, just steal some fresh corpses because people die all the time.

I mean the entire cost of the slave trade is in catching and transporting live humans. It's a million times easier to deal with corpses, especially for a lich.

>my plot
ngmi you nogaems retard
it's the player's plot, not the gm's

>>97900596
sorry that you weren't able to come up with a convincing argument anon

>>97898129
Socialists would be Lawful Neutral. They believe in carefully managed, planned, and calculated societies in order to achieve equity. "Scientific Socialism" was the core of the sales pitch. Communists are the ones who believe that equity will spontaneously result once there are no governments.

>>97900591
>So burn the bodies as you win your war.
Do you have any idea how time consuming that is?
>And if the slaver-king isn't actually evil, you realize instead their societal revolution can be quite easy in that case, yes?
Yes I'm sure you think it's very easy for an entire empire to instantly abolish slavery over night. Doesn't cause any socioeconomic problems, nor would banditry become rampant. Everything's just sunshine and lollipops because you love freedom.
>They can cut off the lich's supply line WHILE bringing forth a new order.
Slaughtering thousands of people and collapsing an empire is the opposite of order my dude. Who is even going to be in charge after?
>>97900599
>it's the player's plot, not the gm's
And the players will pay for fucking it up. That's the deal.

>>97900617
Communism is a moralistic idea so it would be on the good versus evil axis (I'll leave it to you to decide if it should be good or evil itself), which is pretty fucking rare in politics since most other political ideas that have ever come into practice are lawful. Both capitalism and democracy would be lawful for example.

>>97900600
You went on a non sequitur instead of responding, I'm pretty sure you didn't read it at all
Anyway the others can deal with your duplicitous non-arguments

>>97900635
anon it should be completely clear what my position is and why it's not modified by your argument unless you're pretending to be retarded

>>97900644
I'm sorry you can't read

>>97900266
Yeah didn't you know idealist = retarded
And if you don't agree you're not an idealist
Checkmate chud

>>97900266
none of this matters, idealism is the belief in and pursuit of some ideal, the fact that you're focusing of faults instead of solutions means that you're not in the mentality of an idealist

now i never said there's anything wrong with being either a cynic or idealist in general, but there definitely is something wrong with trying to play a paladin as a cynic

>>97900584
>yes, it's like the difference between what you teach your cow and what you teach your child
Okay, totalitarian.

>no, in entire countries like for example norway
I direct your attention to the rape statistics. You are not beating the allegations of your proposal being co-opted by bleeding hearts before it can get anywhere.

>which worked against a general gang problem, and was somehow not repeated anywhere else with gang problems
The relevant matter would be attempting similar only for it to fail, not the lack of an attempt in the first place. Notably, it isn't actually the first time, merely the most drastic. Here in the US, such changes in approach were in fact successful in breaking up larger organized criminal enterprises.

>since both sides are vulnerable to corruption, that sufficiently demonstrates that corruption isn't a relative metric here, and we can return to recidivism rates
What, like how it's the primary fuel of urban recidivism in the United States hand-in-hand with some of the most obscene corruption in the country? Because if you want to compare like for like, the fact of the matter is that the relative concentrations here track inversely with your assertions. Hence my staunch refusal of rehabilitative justice as the primary systematic approach, because we literally are trying it right now and it's actively worse than the older punitive approach.

>nope, there's a lot more nuance to it than that, you can in fact have rehabilitative systems without the bleeding heart problem just as you can have punitive justice without turning crime into an industry
Not in real-life track-records there isn't. You asserting its theoretical possibility in the face of commonplace dysfunctions while putting down punitive justice for fringe outlier dysfunction is nonsense.

>>97900709
>Okay, totalitarian.
that's rich coming from the guy advocating for corporate prisons that lobby for more crime

>I direct your attention to the rape statistics.
i direct your attention to the corresponding legal definitions of rape

>The relevant matter would be attempting similar only for it to fail, not the lack of an attempt in the first place. Notably, it isn't actually the first time, merely the most drastic. Here in the US, such changes in approach were in fact successful in breaking up larger organized criminal enterprises.
okay, but this still presupposes that larger organized crime is the only problem that faces a justice system

>What, like how it's the primary fuel of urban recidivism in the United States hand-in-hand with some of the most obscene corruption in the country? Because if you want to compare like for like, the fact of the matter is that the relative concentrations here track inversely with your assertions. Hence my staunch refusal of rehabilitative justice as the primary systematic approach, because we literally are trying it right now and it's actively worse than the older punitive approach.
okay, so you care more about political tribalism than about literally any aspect of the quality of life of your country, got it

i mean, i can see that you have a point, but that point sums up to "our politics are too fucked to focus on anything else for the moment", too bad you're not doing anything about changing that either

>Not in real-life track-records there isn't.
yes there is, even if you're fucked on a political level that doesn't mean the principle isn't sound, it just means american politics are so fucked up they're fucking everything else in your lives too, while the rest of the world doesn't necessarily have that problem

>>97900624
>Do you have any idea how time consuming that is?
Not very in a world with magic.
>Yes I'm sure you think it's very easy for an entire empire to instantly abolish slavery over night.
Never said it has to be overnight, but if the emperor has no power, then revolution was inevitable to begin with. Or the emperor has power, and convincing him to exercise it is the correct thing to do.
>Slaughtering thousands of people and collapsing an empire is the opposite of order my dude. Who is even going to be in charge after?
It's how every order is founded. Order does not spring into being naturally, it is forged. Presumably the player characters will figure that out as they go, either seeking candidates within their revolution or seeking counsel for a ruler to instate. Make one, you're the fucking DM. Jesus christ you're such a nogame whiner.

>>97900754
>Not very in a world with magic.
Okay Anon we'll just commission the local wizards to build a mobile Auschwitz. Very ethical, exceedingly Lawful Good.
>Never said it has to be overnight, but if the emperor has no power, then revolution was inevitable to begin with.
Empires have completely collapsed doing less than pulling the rug out from under their entire labor system.
>It's how every order is founded. Order does not spring into being naturally, it is forged.
Yeah, an ancient empire's order forged on tradition which you have just destroyed. Great job hero.
>Presumably the player characters will figure that out as they go, either seeking candidates within their revolution or seeking counsel for a ruler to instate.
And all while somehow tracking down an antagonist that is apparently sitting around twiddling his thumbs, bored and forgotten.
>Make one, you're the fucking DM
Again, you want to hijack the plot I'm going to torment you with the consequences of your actions. It is what you have chosen.

>>97900728
>that's rich coming from the guy advocating for corporate prisons that lobby for more crime
No, I'm advocating for the primary legal theory to remain "punish the wrongdoers", you're just inserting that is synonymous with a very peculiar failure mode that's much exaggerated because it's a very good emotional trigger.

>i direct your attention to the corresponding legal definitions of rape
I've never heard of Norway repeatedly changing its definition of rape in a fashion that just happens to produce a clear upward trend coinciding with the expansion of immigration driven by most of the same politicians behind its shift to a rehabilitative justice system.

>okay, but this still presupposes that larger organized crime is the only problem that faces a justice system
No, it presupposes that a good justice system must be capable of dealing with that should it emerge.

>okay, so you care more about political tribalism than about literally any aspect of the quality of life of your country, got it
Can you actually show that "bleeding-heart liberal judges letting criminals off with soft sentences under rehabilitative legal theory produces an outsized part of our recidivism rate" is an inaccurate assessment, or are you just fishing for gotchas because you think any criticism of Big Progressive Cities MUST be sidesbrain at work?

>yes there is, even if you're fucked on a political level that doesn't mean the principle isn't sound, it just means american politics are so fucked up they're fucking everything else in your lives too, while the rest of the world doesn't necessarily have that problem
But you haven't demonstrated the principle is sound, you just keep going "but American recidivism because for-profit prisons!" And I keep seeing increasingly nonsensical coalitions and failure to form thereof from European politics' desperate attempt to remain unresponsive to public opinion, mostly regarding immigration.

>>97900269
>what is metagaming 101

>>97900791
>you're just inserting that is synonymous with a very peculiar failure mode that's much exaggerated because it's a very good emotional trigger.
is this some kind of deliberate strawman? you're now claiming my claims are at least significantly if not entirely opposite to what they actually are, because what, you hate the left and a bad word i use reminds you of them?

>No, it presupposes that a good justice system must be capable of dealing with that should it emerge.
no, it really doesn't, that's the only thing it's good for and you're somehow turning that to mean other options can't also be good against it for some reason, which is very faulty reasoning

>Can you actually show that "bleeding-heart liberal judges letting criminals off with soft sentences under rehabilitative legal theory produces an outsized part of our recidivism rate" is an inaccurate assessment,
why would i need to??? emotion-based law is literally what i'm arguing against

>And I keep seeing increasingly nonsensical coalitions and failure to form thereof from European politics' desperate attempt to remain unresponsive to public opinion, mostly regarding immigration.
why the fuck are you bringing immigration into this now???

>>97900781
>Okay Anon we'll just commission the local wizards to build a mobile Auschwitz. Very ethical, exceedingly Lawful Good.
You don't have to burn them alive. In fact there's no rules at all for setting flame to something, it takes 6 seconds so long as it's flammable, and it burns for however long the DM pleases.
>Empires have completely collapsed
And new ones have been built. Turns out "empires completely collapsing" aren't as big a deal as they seem.
>Yeah, an ancient empire's order forged on
Evil. Forged on evil. Its destruction is good.
>And all while somehow tracking down an antagonist that is apparently sitting around twiddling his thumbs, bored and forgotten.
His plans have been setback, and as the DM you can say exactly how far they've been set back and for how long, yes. The antagonist isn't real, you see. He is part of the world, he moves in accordance to the whim of the narrative.
>Again, you want to hijack the plot I'm going to torment you with the consequences of your actions.
You're giving the players what they want, fool. You are playing with them. You must dance as they dance, and if the way they dance in this case is asking for candidates from you. You cannot throw up your hands and say "i'unno". You are the world. They cannot create NPCs from the aether, and demanding it from them is so ass-backwards I would think you have literally never played a game in your life.

>>97900852
>You don't have to burn them alive.
Okay? You know the Nazis gassed them first too, right? What you have described is genocide by the way. Like the actual internationally accepted definition of genocide.
>Evil. Forged on evil.
Says the retard committing genocide.
>His plans have been setback
Fuck how and why? You just gave him the perfect distraction to just outright abduct people. He'll probably even frame you for it too.
>He is part of the world, he moves in accordance to the whim of the narrative.
You do realize who constructs this narrative, yes?
>You're giving the players what they want, fool.
In a perfect world, sure, I'm giving them the experience of going on a moralist crusade to fight systemic "evil" when actual literal supernatural evil is watching them and thinking "wow I love how fucking STUPID moralfags are."

>>97900874
>Okay? You know the Nazis gassed them first too, right? What you have described is genocide by the way. Like the actual internationally accepted definition of genocide.
Burning the dead is a holocaust, but it's not a genocide because you don't have a genos to cide. You're acting against the institution of slavery, "slaver" is not an ethnicity to be genocided.
>Fuck how and why? You just gave him the perfect distraction to just outright abduct people.
By not getting his army. And who's he going to abduct? We're right there. Is Mr Lichy so sneaky he can steal the people that we're fighting against, man? Party members have eyes you know. He better have passed that stealth check.
>You do realize who constructs this narrative, yes?
Everyone at the fucking table, you nogames loser.
>In a perfect world, sure, I'm giving them the experience of going on a moralist crusade to fight systemic "evil" when actual literal supernatural evil is watching them and thinking "wow I love how fucking STUPID moralfags are."
In D&D, both systemic mortal evil and supernatural evil are ACTUAL COSMIC WEIGHTS upon the scale of reality and BOTH must be corrected if good is to triumph. Allowing either to prosper will result in the slide towards evil's ultimate victory. And again: party members can do multiple things at the same time. They can kill all the slavers, and then kill all the lich agents who are apparently attempting kidnapping, and all they have to worry about is running out of spell slots.

>>97898129
>So where's the scrappy chaotic neutral socialist rebels that cast spells of pure inane self-righteousness in the name of equity?
Nowhere because that is metagaming with one's OOC knowledge in settings where such characters make absolutely no sense.
But the modern roleplayer does not care about IC and OOC separation as multiple anons ITT have demonstrated.

File: 1770155645590521.jpg (159.5 KB)

159.5 KB JPG

>>97900931
>it's not a genocide
Argue with the UN.
>And who's he going to abduct?
Anon this is an empire full of people. What are you gonna do to protect anybody from the predations of a lich with a growing mass of undead minions? You are a bit busy fighting a war.
>Everyone at the fucking table
I'm starting to understand why you are so retarded. You think this is some process where the players can just be complete chucklefucks and I feed them little treats and pat them on the head for it instead of constructing a world that reacts to their decisions the way it ostensibly would. You are deeply fucking boring.
>They can kill all the slavers, and then kill all the lich agents who are apparently attempting kidnapping
You just play these games to be a Mary Sue, don't you?
>>97900933
>Nowhere because that is metagaming
Correct, much like backfeeding abolitionist bullshit into a fantasy setting.

>>97900960
Not that guy but the UN definition is retarded.
The intent to destroy 'in part' makes the killing or "serious bodily or mental harm" of pretty much any person a genocide.

>>97901079
welcome to international political terminology

for me it was when i tried to find out what the definition of terrorism was

>>97901097
Indiscriminate attack against civilian population outside of a declared war?

>>97901079
>Not that guy but the UN definition is retarded.
Yeah I know, but that's part of the point. Applying modern sociopolitical standards, like SLAVERY IS OBJECTIVELY EVIL AND SLAVERS SHOULD BE KILLED, is retarded and boring as fuck. Enforcing the standards of the real world on a tabletop fantasy game is the exact opposite of roleplaying unless the world itself provides meaningful pushback and consequences. Anything else and it just becomes a circlejerk.

>>97901107
no, even generally it would still be discriminate and with political goals of some sort

the problem is that different countries call different groups terrorists based on their current political alignments and there's no authority that could say otherwise, so it's ultimately just namecalling

>>97900960
>Argue with the UN.
Not destroying the nation, just an institution within that nation. IF the nation resists unto death to preserve that institution, then it's an inadvertent genocide at best.
But of course, they wouldn't. When faced with the invincible and unstoppable force that is the player characters, it is far more logical to yield and abandon traditions than hold them unto death.
>Anon this is an empire full of people. What are you gonna do to protect anybody from the predations of a lich with a growing mass of undead minions? You are a bit busy fighting a war.
Yes. Anon, D&D characters don't have stamina. Stamina is roleplay. They can fight for 18 hours a day.
>I'm starting to understand
You understand nothing. The players are the only reason your game exists, idiot. If you are not dancing with them, and they are not dancing with you, then THERE IS NO GAME. The world you have built has nobody within it. You need your players to weave the narrative. TTRPGs are collaborative act.
I am quite certain you genuinely do not play games to not be able to grasp that base rate concept.
>You just play these games to be a Mary Sue, don't you?
Anon, it's D&D. You're a walking god as soon as you hit level 7. You should see what happens at level 11. Teleport is a really fun spell for fighting a war.

File: 1750825714347298.jpg (55.7 KB)

55.7 KB JPG

>>97901139
>i didn't mean to commit genocide im a good boy
Jesus Christ this conversation is tiring. I feel genuinely bad for your DM.

>>97901148
Jokes on you nigger I am the DM half the time. And the other half? Loves it to death when players have aspirations beyond "kill the bad guy". Not that we're ever so fucking incompetent as to have a singular obvious "BBEG" in our stories because that is the lowest brow campaign setting imaginable.

>>97900821
>is this some kind of deliberate strawman?
No, it's that private prisons alone, let alone for-profit ones, are actually under 10% of the prison population, so your constant motioning toward them is itself a strawman. We genuinely have more issues from corrupt government-run prisons breaking various laws than the private ones.

>you're now claiming my claims are at least significantly if not entirely opposite to what they actually are
No, I'm claiming they're too thoroughly entangled in the things you wish to divorce them from in any meaningful political practice to trust it to be implemented.

>no, it really doesn't, that's the only thing it's good for and you're somehow turning that to mean other options can't also be good against it for some reason, which is very faulty reasoning
If you're so confident rehabilitative or restorative justice can deal with organized crime rings so powerful they routinely assassinate politicians, you're welcome to give an example. If I understand the social engineering side of your argument correctly, such an intense failure-state "should be" disqualifying from an attempt.

>why would i need to??? emotion-based law is literally what i'm arguing against
Because emotion-based law constitutes most restorative justice legal theory proponents. If you're to have it implemented, you need to deal with the vast majority of likely support for comparable legal reforms being such opponents.

>why the fuck are you bringing immigration into this now???
Because you brought up America's political dysfunction, and immigration is the cause of most of Europe's comparable if not more severe issues.

>>97901256
i have no intention of putting effort against strawman arguments anon, either engage with what i'm saying or

>>97901269
>no u

>>97901295
i said it first, you can't no u on the third bounce

>>97901256
here, i changed my mind

>Because emotion-based law constitutes most restorative justice legal theory proponents.
i don't give a shit about this tangent, try again

>Because you brought up America's political dysfunction
no i didn't, you did, i actually kind of cringed when you forced it into the conversation you direction-brained moron

>If you're so confident rehabilitative or restorative justice can deal with organized crime rings so powerful they routinely assassinate politicians
i said several times that the principle is to do the best you can for society as a whole rather than to gratify egos, any situation you bullshit up where it's somehow not viable doesn't disporve that it's the best choice in 99% of cases, trying to get me to take the position that i'm saying only rehabilitation ever works is a strawman

>No, I'm claiming they're too thoroughly entangled in the things you wish to divorce them from in any meaningful political practice to trust it to be implemented.
well they're not, they work fine all around the world therefore it's possible to fix your shit, so fix your shit

what the fuck kind of cucked slave defeatism is this anyway, you're literally using absolutes here even though you have countless examples of it working fine in the rest of the world

>We genuinely have more issues from corrupt government-run prisons breaking various laws than the private ones.
those are also based on and fed by the punitive model, they have the same incentives, more prisoners is more funding

>>97901297
NTA but IDC about what some metagaming twat has to say about who can 'no u' or not.

>>97901373
i didn't make the rules, you just look dumb when you no u after you did the same thing yourself

>>97901381
Ah yes I forgot to refer to the rulebook, my bad
Still a metagaming twat

>>97901387
man you seem to have some history with this, tell me more

>there are still people who think 'lawful' means 'follows the law'

They fucked up hard by not calling the axis order <> chaos

>>97901393
You wouldn't read it anyway just like you haven't bothered reading what anyone says except for cherrypicking.
Don't you have a heckin' spunky socialist to RP?

>>97901409
no, it'd be boring to roleplay normal everyday things

>>97901422
Yet you insist on shoving modern ideas in fantasy setting concepts

>>97901475
no i don't

>>97899419
Shots fucking fired.
The fuck you get your deontology understanding from? Deontology works on the basis of seeking out, elevating, and adopting the least context dependent ethical precepts possible. It doesn't say ethics are "lol self-evident". It says if some minor detail changing suddenly makes your ethical system break, then one of your precepts needs work/refinement/reconsideration. It extolls one to adopt principles, and apply them context invariantly for as long as possible. Hold on to the ones that survive longer, work on or refine the ones that don't last long until you get to something that does. The important part is that "what is right" exists, and we can get closer to it, and most importantly, we owe it to one another to make the attempt. (Hence the Categorical Imperative. Act in accordance to maxims which one would see elevated to a Universal law; or phrased in a way a bit more resonant to the "what's in it for me" types, treat others as you would have them treat you.)

This is why deontology is best ethics. It's completely consistent under the categorical Imperative to wipe out those that'd wipe you out. They set the level on which they are comfortable being dealt with. Even if you normally wouldn't do violence, you are ethically justified in doing so, then turning around and not doing the same to someone else who didn't aggressively first. Consequentialists would shit their pants at this, and Utilitarians would be too busy marshalling their army of accountants to ensure the numbers worked out. Shitty deontologists don't even muck up the system, because by not putting in the effort to improve their ethic's context invariance over time, they trip the ethics violation switch of the other deontologists in the room, necessitating action to resolve the inconsistency created, which causes a realignment or adjustment. Self-regulating/healing ethics that for the most part trends in a net positive direction.

...Most of the time, at least.

>>97901178
Then I'm glad you found a group of people that are as ignorant, reductionist, and privileged as you are. I can only imagine how many of them have rainbow hair dye or are constantly dosing themselves on hormones.

>>97901640
>The important part is that "what is right" exists
Yeah man this is literally the entire problem. That shit does not exist. It's made up. Realism is the bedrock of your moral system and it is based on nothing. The justifications deontologists give are no better (and are often much worse) than proponents of other ethical systems.

For Kant specifically, the key assertion is that treating something as a reason inherently commits you to universality. Citing reasons for things is an appeal to a universal, not just reporting a personal motivation.

This is total horseshit. Obviously if you define "reason" as something that generates universalizable normative justification, you will find universalizable normative justifications in "reason". This is exactly what was meant to be justified in the first place, though. Baking the definition of morality into reason then saying that reason implies morality is begging the question.
The ordinary usage of reason in no way implies universal normativity. That is just not what anyone means when they say they have reason to do something.

And not all deontologists are Kantians (most probably aren't). A lot of them, naturalists especially, will explicitly just say that moral laws are self evident (e.g. Ross). I mean, the Declaration of Independence is one of the most famous documents of all time. Not to mention divine command theorists who literally just say "god said so".

All of these deontological theories avoid deriving normativity from purely descriptive premises by positing a non-reducible normative primitive (reason, intuition, nature, or divine will). But none of them explain why that primitive has normative authority without either circularity or brute assertion.