Spoony the Pussy One: Life is in the Render Queue

[Tony Schiavone]

Spoony's greatest fear shouldn't be Trump, or nukes, or whatever the hell else he thinks politically is out to get him.

He should be afraid of the day when the whole world gets better, and everyone else moves on. And it's just him, stuck way far behind. When no one wants to listen to or play nostalgia crap anymore and he's only left remembered by a few acquaintances said and surprised that has never tried to change at all since his frozen moment in time.



When all the monsters died.

[Guest]

Also he had no idea what Pillars of Eternity was.

Its not like he missed anything. That game is massive waste of everyone's time.



That guy in the video has this in the description:

Original Dungeons and Dragons had only three alignments: Lawful, Neutral, and Chaos.

I always suspected it, good to know. They should have build upon that in a meaningful way but instead we got this autism

[MegaNigger]

Spoony's greatest fear shouldn't be Trump, or nukes, or whatever the hell else he thinks politically is out to get him.

He should be afraid of the day when the whole world gets better, and everyone else moves on. And it's just him, stuck way far behind. When no one wants to listen to or play nostalgia crap anymore and he's only left remembered by a few acquaintances said and surprised that has never tried to change at all since his frozen moment in time.



When all the monsters died.

That movie invalidates it's whole message though. Robbie was already mentally unstable to begin with. His mom states it.

Maybe he plays the holy man because this was before the priests diddling little boys was outted?

[Stranger]

we got this autism

alignment pic here

See, my problem with this alignment system isn't so much that it's bad as the fact that they don't treat it properly in any way. Law and Order, Neutrality, and Chaos are great. Leave those the way they are. The whole Good, Neutral, Evil thing is where the issues come in.

The two shouldn't be combined. It should be Law/Neutral/Chaos is your alignment and Good/Neutral/Evil is your nature and they should be treated as separate issues entirely. You can still claim to be playing a Chaotic Neutral character but your thought process should always keep in mind only the appropriate attribute, rather than the overall alignment as a whole.

This would also allow Paladins to be more than just Lawful Good since religiously driven figures are notorious for being selfish, when you get down to their true motivations.

[MegaNigger]

we got this autism

alignment pic here

See, my problem with this alignment system isn't so much that it's bad as the fact that they don't treat it properly in any way. Law and Order, Neutrality, and Chaos are great. Leave those the way they are. The whole Good, Neutral, Evil thing is where the issues come in.

The two shouldn't be combined. It should be Law/Neutral/Chaos is your alignment and Good/Neutral/Evil is your nature and they should be treated as separate issues entirely. You can still claim to be playing a Chaotic Neutral character but your thought process should always keep in mind only the appropriate attribute, rather than the overall alignment as a whole.

This would also allow Paladins to be more than just Lawful Good since religiously driven figures are notorious for being selfish, when you get down to their true motivations.

Now we gotta talk Paladins.

D&D; What is the real difference between a Paladin and a Cleric? Functionally, they are Fighters that cast Divine spells based on the God they worship. What is the difference?

The only thing separating them really is that a Paladin was the highest level of lawful and good you could be and you better not fuck up or you lose all your powers until you atone for your sins!

Why can a Lawful Good Cleric of St. Cuthbert fir example still aid in evil acts and not lose any powers?

[Stranger]

The difference, in my experience, between a Paladin and a Cleric has always been similar to the difference between a Fighter/Cleric and a Cleric/Fighter, respectively.

Paladins are more of a, "fighter that can heal things and cast some buffs but is actually much better at fighting and focuses more on that," whereas Clerics are more, "healers that can also fight things but focus more on healing and support."

Metagaming has turned Clerics into ridiculous powerhouses, though, since Clerics can get such a wide variety of buff spells and have decent enough equipment available to them that a person rolling a solo Cleric can, theoretically, make themselves super powerful for short bursts of time.

Cleric Metagaming doesn't even hold a candle to some of the newer stuff people are coming up with, though.

EDIT: I realize you may have meant morally and idealistically moreso than mechanically but I have nothing to add except that one chooses to be a Paladin for the narrative benefit over choosing to just roll a Cleric. There are far more situations you can realistically be in as a Paladin that you wouldn't be able to as a Fighter, Knight, or Cleric.

[casual pleb]

So he slept for two hours and went right back to tweeting and now he is going at the rate of about 1 tweet every 5 minutes. Has anyone died from twitter addiction before? Is this the laziest way to go he could come up with?

[Guest]

First off, speaking largely to 3.5 and Pathfinder: A cleric absolutely can lose his powers if he pisses off his God. The difference there is that the God simply refuses to refresh spent spells since they use them differently, and will generally make it known that he's displeased long before it gets that far.

Also, clerics are bound to staying within one shift of their god's alignment. So, going from, say, having a Lawful Good god and being a Neutral Good character who actively works to undermine the state (even for good reasons) can get him cut off surprisingly quickly if you've got a good (or vindictive) GM.

Paladins are just hit harder because it's immediate and most people see Lawful Good as a tiny box. Plus, there's more fluff that makes what happens more explicit.

In terms of alignment, though, the issue is less Lawful Good and more Lawful Tightwad. If the player and the GM aren't on the same page as to what a paladin should do, this goes south quickly. The other side is Chaotic Moron, which virtually every Chaotic Evil or (often worse) Chaotic Neutral character I've ever seen becomes.

It's true, though, that paladins just don't fit into most parties; mostly because most groups have a Chaotic Moron in them.

[rabidtictac]

To add to the shitty debate about alignments, Lawful Evil should absolutely be a viable alignment for clerics and paladins both. Lawful Evil as a philosophy fits perfectly into the teachings of most organized religions. And don't think I'm just shitting on religions because I want to tip my bedora. Lawful Evil as a philosophy doesn't mean EVIL in the same way as Hitler or whatever other godwin'd example. It's a way of seeing the world.

Most judges and lawyers in America are arguably Lawful Evil individuals, if we were to categorize people that way. That's their fucking job. A D&D classification as "evil" shouldn't be a moral judgement, merely a classification of philosophy.

Except for Chaotic Moron of course, because Chaotic anything is pretty retarded if it's shorthand for being random. Most people aren't random. Even unpredictable people follow an internal belief structure which seems consistent to them.

Obviously there's the tabletop shit I don't know about because I don't play tabletop shit, but the games at least always seemed to have a very shallow understanding of alignments.

[MegaNigger]

Yeah, the axis of Law to Chaos was much better. Good and Evil are subjective, Law is established rules, Chaos is opposite, much more concrete for a solid character building block.