Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AkumaDaimyo 05-23-07, 12:51 PM	Did that new article on Hexblade and Ninja sound like the guy who wrote it based his whole perception of Ninja on old hollywood sterotypes? Sounds like it to me. I think that dude needs to talk with Heretic. :P
narukagami 05-23-07, 01:44 PM	WotC's designers need a good long talk with allot of people. Including, but not limited to, historians, mythologists, competent game designers, and elementary school English teachers. Also: In before "but its a magical fantasy game".:P
The Ubbergeek 05-23-07, 02:05 PM	Ninja = spies and assassins. So, not good at the very least - they where men who where ready to make... unsavory things for their masters. It was not that bad, because that seems evident - ninja couldn't be good.
AkumaDaimyo 05-23-07, 02:49 PM	Ninja = spies and assassins. Says WHO exactly? Rogues aren't exactly the nicest people ethier. Also by the new D&D rules Ninja can be ANY alingment. It's not limited to non good anymore. That was WAAAAY back in like 1st ed and very early 2cd ed.
The Ubbergeek 05-23-07, 03:49 PM	Says WHO exactly? Rogues aren't exactly the nicest people ethier. Also by the new D&D rules Ninja can be ANY alingment. It's not limited to non good anymore. That was WAAAAY back in like 1st ed and very early 2cd ed. Ninja are a subset of rogues then if you wish - but they are no heroes. In all I have seen, ninja, they do shadow warfare things - assassinations, spying, arson, etc... Things who may not be evil, but all in all, as a whole, not good - because good men wouldn't be able to do some of those things, a more mroal guy would end up a liability. The typical ninja would run the non-good, non-chaotic gamut (even less chaotic than good, strict obediance and order and all that.).
AkumaDaimyo 05-23-07, 05:05 PM	That still doesn't make much sense. Why is the covert killer evil or non good but the crusading killer is good? War is War. How is it more good at all to kill a man face to face than to kill him covertly? He's still dead in the end. You still have not listed your sources ethier.
The Ubbergeek 05-23-07, 06:19 PM	Ninja=Shadowruners. That say it. They can't be good because the job will not push you toward goodness, so to speak. In D&D, the crusader would fight more evil theoricaly - if you speak of the paladin type. They can spare the ennemy, they can not fight if it's against the code. Assassins have no honors and no morale. They are to kill - men, women, children. It's not a question of source, it's the very moral concept of this. Ninja are trainned assassins, backstabers, destroyers. They are dark-hearted.
tedopon 05-23-07, 06:20 PM	That still doesn't make much sense. Why is the covert killer evil or non good but the crusading killer is good? War is War. How is it more good at all to kill a man face to face than to kill him covertly? He's still dead in the end. Thank you. Alignment is effing stupid anyway.
The Ubbergeek 05-23-07, 07:22 PM	Thank you. Alignment is effing stupid anyway. No. It just appears somes here have romanised ideas about the ninja, when they where just spies, assassins and such terrorists of the states and lords. I like the Ninja Gaiden kind of ninja, but that was not how real ninja where.
Azzy 05-23-07, 08:50 PM	Here, let me adress that with simple substitution.... Secret agents = spies and assassins. So, not good at the very least - they where men who where ready to make... unsavory things for their government. It was not that bad, because that seems evident - secret agents couldn't be good.
The Ubbergeek 05-23-07, 09:27 PM	Actually, I'd agree to a point with your correction - at least no shining example of good. Like Shadowrun, grey and darker.
AkumaDaimyo 05-23-07, 11:58 PM	No. It just appears somes here have romanised ideas about the ninja, when they where just spies, assassins and such terrorists of the states and lords. I like the Ninja Gaiden kind of ninja, but that was not how real ninja where. Not wrong. It appears someone else here has even more romanticized ideas that the crusading killer is good while the sneaky killer is not. GEE so I guess commando's are scum huh? Or snipers? Or anyone else in the military who doesn't give warning before he pops you in the head? Because a lot of commando and army style tactis are based on some of the same things ninja do or supposedly did. So I wouldn't say that sneaky killers are scum anywhere near a Army Base. How would you even know what real ninja were like? You've listed NO sources whatsoever to back up anything your saying. I think your ninja expertise comes from D&D sterotypes and kungfu movies. I will write you off now. I also never said Ninja were shining examples of goodness, however I don't like D&D's very unreasearched opinion that most ninja are evil. If they knew jack about their moral code they would realize actually most ninja are more neutral sounding. EVIL would imply that they get their jollies off killing others. They don't. I'd say Ninja are LN, they just follow a different code than Samurai but they DO still follow a code. I also don't belive a ninja could not be of good alingment and in any case by the D&D rules now, ninja may be of ANY alingment but then in this article he typecasts ninja as pretty much being evil by default. That is my issue with it. If your going to bag ninja as being evil then rogues are in the same boat. Oh no you snuck up on someone and killed them. Your evil! How dare you not salute them in the nightly paladin type way!
AkumaDaimyo 05-24-07, 12:02 AM	Thank you. Alignment is effing stupid anyway. I think your one of the few people able to actually think outside the D&D box on this issue. I'm not saying ninja are good actually but I am saying they shouldn't just be typecast as evil. Their code actually sounds far more neutral. Ninja kill without hesistation for example but they don't kill if they don't need to. Also this buisness about ninja being assassins? That's hollywood hype. There is NO documented proof anywhere of any sucessfull ninja assasination. I don't belive there is even documentation of failed assassinations ethier. I'm quoting Heretic on this. He's the resident ninja expert of the boards. I'm surprised he hasn't melded out of the shadows yet. :-p
Thor_axe_impaler 05-24-07, 10:41 AM	I think your one of the few people able to actually think outside the D&D box on this issue. Oh, yes, because there arent threads opon threads of people saying that alignment sucks. I, personally, see some problems with it but for the regular player (someone who would not even readthis, and who the core rulebooks were written for) the system works eficiently. If nothing else, give it that much credit. There is NO documented proof anywhere of any sucessfull ninja assasination. Of course there is no documentaion... they are ninjas after all.
The Ubbergeek 05-24-07, 10:59 AM	I don't base ninjas on movies and all. But the fact they where basicaly clans (or workers teams or military units, etc) of thugs and killers. Hence, as a buddy's PC said in his Shadowrun game - 'You can't believe in humanity's goodness anymore in this world. Morale will get you killed.' Never said they where uberefficient magicaly. And there lay the difference between the samurai and the ninja. In theory, a samurai have at least a code of honor, taboos, traditionaly based on Zen buddhism and Neoconfucianism. Not the ninja, who had only one rule - 'obey and do it'. Even if you could start good, you won't stay like that for long - the job have it's price.
spyone 05-24-07, 11:17 AM	That still doesn't make much sense. Why is the covert killer evil or non good but the crusading killer is good? Because that is how the alignment system works. "You have no honor: you sneak in and take a man's things while he sleeps. At least I have the decency to wake him up and kill him first." (Actual in-character dialogue, party Fighter to party Thief). The alignment system for D&D is based on a time where ruthlessly exterminating infidels was Good, but killing by stealth was Evil. Good people can't use poison, for example. Why not? Because poison is "ungentlmanly", and because Right Makes Might, so a righteous man with God on his side will not need to resort to "trickery" to gain a victory. And resorting to trickery suggests a lack of Faith that God will ensure you prevail. Bad Guys lack that faith, and have no problem resorting to trickery. Sure, it's a weird morality by modern standards. That's part of why it can be fun to play in. I agree that the traditional roles of Ninja (spying, assassination) are firmly in the realm of "necissary evil" as far as the D&D alignments go: may be done in support of a Good cause, but not sanctioned by Good.
spyone 05-24-07, 11:26 AM	There is NO documented proof anywhere of any sucessfull ninja assasination. I don't belive there is even documentation of failed assassinations ethier. I believe the official line is still "there are no ninjas, there were no ninjas, ninjas have never existed outside fiction". So forgive me if I am unsurprised at a lack of recognized historical evidence of their actions. Heck, I think I'd have trouble producing documented proof of the existance of the islamic cult that gave rise to the word "assassin" having killed somebody. I mean, sure some deaths might have been blamed on them, and perhaps they claimed credit for a few deaths, but as such claims were obviously self-serving they might have been false. :) I'm not sure I could document that anyone died in the crusades. IIRC, the very existence of the Crusades isn't terrably well documented. Certainly, most of what we have is second or third hand, so hardly unimpeachable. I'm just saying: evidence is pretty scarse, and conclusive evidence even more so, so we kinda have to take the word of scholars and "experts" on stuff like this.
The Ubbergeek 05-24-07, 12:58 PM	Because that is how the alignment system works. "You have no honor: you sneak in and take a man's things while he sleeps. At least I have the decency to wake him up and kill him first." (Actual in-character dialogue, party Fighter to party Thief). The alignment system for D&D is based on a time where ruthlessly exterminating infidels was Good, but killing by stealth was Evil. Good people can't use poison, for example. Why not? Because poison is "ungentlmanly", and because Right Makes Might, so a righteous man with God on his side will not need to resort to "trickery" to gain a victory. And resorting to trickery suggests a lack of Faith that God will ensure you prevail. Bad Guys lack that faith, and have no problem resorting to trickery. Sure, it's a weird morality by modern standards. That's part of why it can be fun to play in. I agree that the traditional roles of Ninja (spying, assassination) are firmly in the realm of "necissary evil" as far as the D&D alignments go: may be done in support of a Good cause, but not sanctioned by Good. And also, a Good warrior may spare you or only duel in a nonlethal way, he may also help peoples outside of fight, he may be gallant and humble, etc... A ninja would be something else - he kill, point of the line. Or still, or destroy, or arson, or spy. Without a word, without amoral quancy. orders are order. Not necessarly enjoy it, but doing it. So, I peg them as non-chaotic, non-good as a general group.
unundindur 05-24-07, 01:32 PM	Ok, since we are onto the good old debate... Here is my take on this "issue": The name ninja were never used in the times it is said to. There were people who did what the ninja are supposed to have done, that is murder, subterfuge, espionage and general spec-ops work. These people are at times called Shinobi (meaning Spy?), and were usually special trained Samurai, not some secret-secret organization of spiritual fanatics (at a time there were a few temples of such, but they were more warriors than anything). Saying ninja cannot be good is the same as saying rangers cannot be good. I could to a certain degree agree, but that is due to the weirdness of the alignment system and not anything else. Ninja as they are portrayed in DnD are typically evil, in that most who play them, and most times you encounter them they hold the role of assassins. I am among those who like this concept, but I also see that this is but a nichè of "ninja"-activity, and that my atypical ninja character shouldn't force all ninja to be evil. Even in modern cartoons and movies have we seen the "good" ninja. The classic white vs. black ninja is a good example of this. Or what about turtles, were they evil because they supposedly were ninja? I say you either have to go for the historic approach where they were akin to modern day SWAT (which you of course can proclaim to be universally evil...), or you have to accept that ninja is a fantasy term that usually involves evil, but doesn't have to.
tedopon 05-24-07, 05:37 PM	I think your one of the few people able to actually think outside the D&D box on this issue. I'm not saying ninja... It has less to do with OA (which I will abbreviate until they give it a less offensive name, and yes haters, all of my campaigns post 1995 in DnD have been "Oriental"), than it has to do with the entire system. I love the D20 system. Alignment has been absent from all games I've played in for the last 10 or so years. Keep in mind I moved to somewhere completely foreign, 300 miles from my home, and had to meet a new group. My old group played a hybrid 1e/2e game up until I moved in '04 (and they still play it without me). Once I moved, after trial and error with three different groups, I ended up with one who (despite playing a system I had to learn from scratch) was just as fun as the one I originally played with. The only thing these two groups had in common: BOTH THOUGHT ALIGNMENT WAS DAFT AS HELL. In the age of crunch publishing, we should all be more accepting about the fluff we add to our games. It's not going to get any better for fluff people. The trend will go more and more towards crunch for the next ten years at least (and then we'll be lucky if there is a tabletop game still being published). A casualty of this confrontation is alignment. I think everyone benefits, because it was a stupid idea in the first place. Whether or not you agree with me on anything I said, you should at least agree with me that there is no point in picking apart someone's idea (good or bad) based solely on alignment, which is a peripheral stat in the first place, and serves no real purpose, other than to dictate someone's play style. Think about it: WE ALL KNOW HOW A PALADIN SHOULD ACT, why should there be a need to state this in a relativistic, open to conjecture, throwaway value that we all feel compelled to emulate?
AkumaDaimyo 05-24-07, 05:43 PM	Because that is how the alignment system works. "You have no honor: you sneak in and take a man's things while he sleeps. At least I have the decency to wake him up and kill him first." (Actual in-character dialogue, party Fighter to party Thief). Gee but the Fighter kicks down the doors of dungeons and kills whole familys of monsters. So the crusading mass murderer is more good than the sneaky Thief? BS. The alingment system does NOT work that way. Then what about the PrC in some of the books like BoXD and these devine books with sneaky good guys? They assasinate evil yet aren't pegged as evil themselves. Also by your logic then ALL rogues can never ever be good if they so much as sneak attack someone. That logic is so flawed it's laughable. I will never buy into the complete bull that crusading killer good, sneaky killer evil. That line is also laughable because the fighter is saying it's less evil to murder a man and take his things than to just steal from him? Not really.
Salla 05-24-07, 05:49 PM	Did that new article on Hexblade and Ninja sound like the guy who wrote it based his whole perception of Ninja on old hollywood sterotypes? Sounds like it to me. I think that dude needs to talk with Heretic. :P Keep in mind, that article was for Faerun, aka 'stereotypes enforced R us'.
AkumaDaimyo 05-24-07, 05:51 PM	Keep in mind, that article was for Faerun, aka 'stereotypes enforced R us'. Unless of course your Drizzt, however he broke his sterotype by BECOMING his own sterotype due to his own fanboyism. How ironic.
Silverthumb128 05-24-07, 06:16 PM	That still doesn't make much sense. Why is the covert killer evil or non good but the crusading killer is good? War is War. How is it more good at all to kill a man face to face than to kill him covertly? He's still dead in the end. I'm reading the Ninja class's entry, and I don't see anything about "any non-good." I assume you're meaning Ninja. If you mean Assassin, well, not all Ninjas are Assassins. It isn't the killing itself that's evil/good, its the intention and method, blah-blah-blee-blah... Killing a creature for the sake of good and doing what is right isn't related to killing someone to take levels in a PrC/become a member of a secret order.
AkumaDaimyo 05-24-07, 06:39 PM	Yeah Ninja can be any alingment but I'm tired of them being sterotyped as all evil by people who write articles or supplements for games. Your also right, not all Ninja are assasins. I see most ninja as more of a LN or so. However I dislike the very idea that overt killing is good but covert is not. I guess all our sneaky Special Forcs type guys are evil then huh? :rolleyes: Or Snipers? Or dropping a bomb on someone. I mean you don't look them in the eyes when you do it. There are definitly things that are evil. Killing someone sneakily isn't necessarily evil. Killing his entire family, wife kids, ect? That's evil. Killing a good person? That's evil in my book. Killing the really evil bad guy in his sleep for the good of all? Not evil. Though I'm not sure it's a good act ethier but a Ninja could indeed be good. He could sneak in past gaurds and such and challenge the bad guy to single combat. (Who of course would probably cheat and call for his gaurds.) I find it very hypocritical. I've had people tell me that the rogue who sneaks into a badguys place and kills him in the night for the good of the innocent townsfolk is CG but the minute you add a Ninja doing the same act, they are evil or Neutral.
tedopon 05-24-07, 06:46 PM	That's evil ... Not evil... Meh. Why has this thread turned into an argument? Well, probably because it was trolling in the first place, but seriously. There is no reason for this. Take it to the Main DnD forums. Alignment has less relevance here than it does there. Taint and honor (irrespective of morals) should be the talk here.
Kalis Atrud 05-24-07, 06:55 PM	I honestly don't see the problem with the article. Most of the ninja in the city of Teflamm are evil because they are criminals who assassinate to get ahead in the underworld. They see the success of such tactics from that level 14 ninja, Kinju I guess it was, who rose so swiftly through the ranks and take up ninja so they can as well, not caring about the morality of the decision. They do mention a few ninja turning to more positive pursuits, but given that criminal organizations are so willing to hire and pay well for top quality ninja work, most who take up the training are going to be those who want to be criminals. Evil isn't about enjoying the thrill of killing(though it can be), it is being willing to kill on a large scale for your own ends. Killing to keep you, your family and friends safe is neutral, killing to keep you and your family wealthy and powerful is evil. Most good adventurers should not kill goblinoid colonies with a light heart. If the goblinoids could guarantee that they would not strike against the other humanoid settlements the good guys should leave them alone. The problem is that even if the goblins would make that promise, they are evil and likely to break their word. The majority of ninja in Teflamm aren't evil because they are ninja and use ninja combat tactics. They are evil for their uses of their ninjutsu.
AkumaDaimyo 05-24-07, 06:59 PM	Meh. Why has this thread turned into an argument? Well, probably because it was trolling in the first place, but seriously. There is no reason for this. Take it to the Main DnD forums. Alignment has less relevance here than it does there. Taint and honor (irrespective of morals) should be the talk here. So the instant I disagree with someone it's trolling? :rolleyes: And it doesn't need to be in the main forumns really, Ninja ARE more of a OA thing so that's why I put the topic here.
The Ubbergeek 05-24-07, 07:34 PM	Unless of course your Drizzt, however he broke his sterotype by BECOMING his own sterotype due to his own fanboyism. How ironic. Forgotten Realms is as stereotypical as any other setting. And in any case, Ninja are assassins, spies and all. In that kind of jobs, you don't stay good for long. Just look at modern rpg and near future one.... You have to choose between morale and the job. And the morale loose usually. So, ninja should be non-good - also because of the more amoral climate of such campaign settings.
AkumaDaimyo 05-24-07, 07:43 PM	Forgotten Realms is as stereotypical as any other setting. And in any case, Ninja are assassins, spies and all. In that kind of jobs, you don't stay good for long. Just look at modern rpg and near future one.... You have to choose between morale and the job. And the morale loose usually. So, ninja should be non-good - also because of the more amoral climate of such campaign settings. I disagree. Not all ninja are assassins. A spy could be good. So your saying James Bond can't be good alinged? I know he's already been offically classified in a D&D book as Good alinged. I belive he is CG. You once again realize that your also saying Rogues cannot be good alinged. They sneak around, take that which isnt there's and spy and sneak attack people. It's a double standard. Rogues can be good but ninja cannot no matter what they do or don't do. Also ninja are part of clans. It is entirely possible to have a clan of ninja who do not assasinate anyone for hire and would only do so agains the most vile and evil of persons, thus still remaining good. Spies are NOT inherently or automatically evil ethier.
Ranger REG 05-24-07, 07:55 PM	I disagree. Not all ninja are assassins. A spy could be good. So your saying James Bond can't be good alinged? He has the license to kill. Not exactly something you want to flaunt in front of your neighbors at a backyard barbecue party. :P Anyhoo, big deal. I'm sure there is a ninja clan out there in Toril who are dutiful as CIA are (and I say that loosely). After all, someone has to do all the dirty works for a benevolent overlord who cannot be connected to such acts in the face of the general public.
AkumaDaimyo 05-24-07, 08:03 PM	Uh you wouldn't exactly announce your a spy ethier, regardless of if you kill people or not in the line of duty. You also don't just tell everyone your FBI or CIA or whatever and THEY aren't evil. James has a license to kill but he's still CG. Couldn't a ninja be "licensed" in the same way? I could definitly see the Emperor or a good alinged Daimyo giving his ninja that kind of license.(In fact that sounds like a damn cool idea for a game.) James Bond kills people all the time and actually has been told to ASSASSINATE people. Yet he's not evil. In fact didn't he assassinate people in Casino Royale? Right at the very start? But he's still good. A Ninja could be exactly the same thing. He kills who he has to, doesn't kill innocents and gets the job done and still be good while doing it. I do still feel most ninja are actually neutral,not evil but I definitly disagree that they could never be good alinged.
The_Shaman 05-24-07, 08:07 PM	IMO, ninja need not be evil, or non-good. Honor in the eyes of society need not equal good, as far as I know D&D morality. Villains can be the paragon of honor and good manners in their culture, and good folk could care less about social mores. However, more than a few ninjas might be evil or neutral, not because they use stealth, but because if they are ordered to kill someone they would do it without much hesitation, even if the person is innocent and harmless. If your character is told by their boss that some small tribe must be wiped out despite being no threat and he goes forth and does it, then you might have a problem claiming to be good, as per D&D terms. I don't care if it's grand master Sasori, the archmage Vhailon, Lord Stavros, marshal of the empire, or the high priest of Pelor: if your character kills harmless creatures just because s/he's told and has no problem with it, then maybe LN alignment is a much better fit than CG. If your character plays evil, s/he is evil. If s/he doesn't play good, s/he's not good. IMO only the classes that rely on another entity for their features (some clerics, paladins, possibly warlocks, hexblades,etc) should be tied to an alignment. P.S.: Yes, I know quite a few RL saints had less than impeccable resumes. I never said our beatification procedures are perfect, either.
AkumaDaimyo 05-24-07, 08:14 PM	I agree, however people get this incorrect assumption that ninja sit around on their butts all day, never doing anything simply for the clan's benefits and just wait for people to hire them. Ninja could very well turn down a job because they don't agree with it. Thus the good alinged clan of Ninja would probably turn down the baby killing job while the evil Ninja would do it and maybe even enjoy it. I could see the good alinged Ninja trying to figure out about this whole job and stop the evil ninja or assasins who do accept the job. There have also been ideas that good alinged ninja instead of being assasins could protect against assassins. That I could definitly work with for a game. Though I'm a big Tenchu fan and I like the idea of ninja types like Rikimaru and Ayame sneaking around killing the bad guys. I guess I would say that Rikimaru is LN with good tendancies. He would NOT kill kids or innocents at all from what I've seen of him. But he's certainly not Chaotic. Ayame seems more CG really. She still does what shes told but she's pretty flippant at times.
Ranger REG 05-24-07, 08:30 PM	I agree, however people get this incorrect assumption that ninja sit around on their butts all day, never doing anything simply for the clan's benefits and just wait for people to hire them. Well, I don't know how mainlanders think about ninja, so... :smirk: Besides, they don't sit on their butts all day, since most ninja clan are a community-based (be it a village or hamlet), and when they're not on a mission, they live like community members that have to do their own part (hunt, farm, cook, sew, etc.). Otherwise, the community will not survive. You can view some ninja clans are good or somewhat on the good side, but in many other media (even Japanese-produced media), ninja are the bad guys, going around and killing without ceremony and usually without facing their opponent in a duel. After all, they get their information by spying and snooping -- considered bad manner considering the walls of a typical Japanese home is paper-thin, literally -- not by interrogating (usually with a bamboo cane striking across the bare-fleshed back). I don't glorify ninja like you do. Heck, I don't glorify samurai. I just like them for who they are.
Azzy 05-24-07, 08:58 PM	Actually, I'd agree to a point with your correction - at least no shining example of good. So, does Sylvanus Morley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvanus_Morley) support your view that spies cannot be good? Secret agents (whether in fiction or real life) are no more or less good than soldiers or police. Some can be quite evil, while others quite good. Good intelligence (gained though espionage) can actually save lives. Discreetly eliminating pertinent individuals (through assassination) can fold a nefarious plot before it is set in motion. Remember, when the PCs slay the Evil Overlord--it is assassination regardless of whether they did so stealthfully or not (it's still the targeted, and extra-judicial, killing of an important individual). Just remember.... Many Bothans died to bring us this information. Like Shadowrun, grey and darker. Quaint, poetic and romantic, but meaningless tripe nonetheless.
Azzy 05-24-07, 09:09 PM	He has the license to kill. Not exactly something you want to flaunt in front of your neighbors at a backyard barbecue party. :P Says you! :D Still, I agree that Bond has a rather immoral streak that would betray any true goodness. He's patently neutral, with just enough good to keep him from being unrepentantly evil.
Silverthumb128 05-24-07, 10:29 PM	Killing someone sneakily isn't necessarily evil. Killing his entire family, wife kids, ect? That's evil. Killing a good person? That's evil in my book. Killing the really evil bad guy in his sleep for the good of all? Not evil. What I don't think you're seeing is that, in the end, the act isn't what dictates the alignment, its the circumstances. Killing is neutral, its the circumstances that make it good or evil. The act is always the same, its the people on the receiving end that have the final say. I'm sorry, but that's not "thinking outside the box" about alignment at all. That's pretty deep in the box. But I never see ninjas depicted as evil, I only ever see them depicted as antagonists in overly dramatised samurai films and martial arts movies. Except that the ninjas could just as easily be any other martial artists, so that's pretty unimportant. And, yeah, this is better off in the main forums.
Azzy 05-24-07, 11:07 PM	May I redirect all alignment arguments to the Player's Handbook, page 104? That supersedes anyone's opinion about alignment. However, I think we can make the following assumptions based on the alignment descriptions therein: Good people don't like to kill (but may do so to protect themselves and others if necessary). Neutral people don't like killing innocent people (but generally have no compunctions against killing thugs, or whatnot). Evil people will kill anyone (including babies) for a purpose, for fun or for convenience.
sambudak 05-24-07, 11:30 PM	Stereotypes are pretty much the way D&D works, and if the one WotC puts forth on ninjas bothers you it's easy to change for your game. "Historical Accuracy" and "D&D" don't hang out very much-- mostly it's because HA is ticked about D&D getting more MySpace hits and thirteen times the number of friends.
The Ubbergeek 05-25-07, 01:27 AM	Quaint, poetic and romantic, but meaningless tripe nonetheless. Mock me as much as you wish, but this is one of those works that show really how is the world of shadows.... Be it shadowrunners, ninja, secret agents, the Houses, etc... The Game will always exact a cost on you, a mark on your moral - you will find that you will have to do questionable things if you even want to merely survive at times... Descend to evil? maybe not. But fall from grace? yes. The real world is not as pretty as the tale say. But often, dark, very dark...
AkumaDaimyo 05-25-07, 05:05 AM	What I don't think you're seeing is that, in the end, the act isn't what dictates the alignment, its the circumstances. Killing is neutral, its the circumstances that make it good or evil. The act is always the same, its the people on the receiving end that have the final say. I'm sorry, but that's not "thinking outside the box" about alignment at all. That's pretty deep in the box. But I never see ninjas depicted as evil, I only ever see them depicted as antagonists in overly dramatised samurai films and martial arts movies. Except that the ninjas could just as easily be any other martial artists, so that's pretty unimportant. And, yeah, this is better off in the main forums. Uh exactly how is it "INSIDE the box?" I just DID offer a circumstance! I just said killing the evil guy in his sleep for the good of others isn't a evil act. That's circumstances right there and fits your views of thinking outside the box. Pay attention. :rolleyes:
AkumaDaimyo 05-25-07, 05:07 AM	Well, I don't know how mainlanders think about ninja, so... :smirk: Besides, they don't sit on their butts all day, since most ninja clan are a community-based (be it a village or hamlet), and when they're not on a mission, they live like community members that have to do their own part (hunt, farm, cook, sew, etc.). Otherwise, the community will not survive. You can view some ninja clans are good or somewhat on the good side, but in many other media (even Japanese-produced media), ninja are the bad guys, going around and killing without ceremony and usually without facing their opponent in a duel. After all, they get their information by spying and snooping -- considered bad manner considering the walls of a typical Japanese home is paper-thin, literally -- not by interrogating (usually with a bamboo cane striking across the bare-fleshed back). I don't glorify ninja like you do. Heck, I don't glorify samurai. I just like them for who they are. At what point did I glorify ninja? I never said they were great. I just said I dislike the streotype. And spying may be bad manners but it's far less evil than torture wouldn't you agree?
The_Shaman 05-25-07, 06:38 AM	Just to chime in again, in D&D (afaik) honor =/= good alignment. Whether you find the information by asking nice, using divinatios, overhearing a conversation, or sleeping with the BBEG's sister has little immediate effect on the good/evil axis imo. OA made a halfway attempt to reconcise honor with all alignments, not just lawful-chaotic (at least I think it was OA, might have been Rokugan CS, I'm afb at the moment), but I considered it practically laughable. Zero honor equaling CE... right.
Azzy 05-25-07, 10:54 AM	Mock me as much as you wish, I'm not mocking you, I'm mocking your use of titillating terminology that really has no meaning when applied to the larger picture of reality or fiction. but this is one of those works that show really how is the world of shadows.... Be it shadowrunners, ninja, secret agents, the Houses, etc... The Game will always exact a cost on you, a mark on your moral - you will find that you will have to do questionable things if you even want to merely survive at times... May have to. May not. That game is in no way indicative of the experiences of many (let alone) ninja, secret agents, etc. That's like saying that all private detectives are amoral, because of the old noir books and movies. That take on the subject is very one-sided, and doesn't encompass the complete picture. Descend to evil? maybe not. But fall from grace? yes. Not necessarily. No more so than a soldier or police officer. Probably less so than a lawyer or politician. The real world is not as pretty as the tale say. But often, dark, very dark... And more often the real world isn't even all that dark, it's just boring. Please, let's skip being emo.
AkumaDaimyo 05-25-07, 03:14 PM	Just to chime in again, in D&D (afaik) honor =/= good alignment. Whether you find the information by asking nice, using divinatios, overhearing a conversation, or sleeping with the BBEG's sister has little immediate effect on the good/evil axis imo. OA made a halfway attempt to reconcise honor with all alignments, not just lawful-chaotic (at least I think it was OA, might have been Rokugan CS, I'm afb at the moment), but I considered it practically laughable. Zero honor equaling CE... right. I agree with you on the honor thing. Having lots of honor doesn't necessarily make you a good guy as honor doesn't always coincide with doing the good thing. Same as having no honor, sometimes you have to do the right thing vs doing the honorable thing.
spyone 05-25-07, 06:07 PM	I disagree. Not all ninja are assassins. A spy could be good. So your saying James Bond can't be good alinged? Yes, that is rather what I'm saying. The nature of his job is incompatable with Good alignment. James Bond was a Neutral man acting in support of a Good cause (if you accept that Britain is Good. I'm just making room for those that might disagree on that point.) Stanley Lovell, who was head of R&D for the OSS in WWII, said his job was described to him as being "Moriarty" (of Sherlock Holmes fame), but for the US. Let's not forget that under the Geneva Conventions, spies may be executed in the field. I'm not saying that I find James Bond to be evil, or even non-good. I am saying that by the morality of the crusades, and the D&D alignment system, his actions are firmly outside those of Good men.
Zaver 05-25-07, 06:54 PM	Being a ninja is just a skill set. How it's used is up to the individual. Just think along the lines of a single thought seperates a gentlemen from a degenerate. The fighter kicking the door in and killing orcs in his nice shiney platemail may seem to be a good guy, and since he doesn't kill the women or children, just the combantants, it could be said he is. But he's killing the orcs because they're orcs, so his actions are evil. The ninja sneaks into a manor and kills the lord in such a way that it looks like a kidnapping gone wrong. He does this because the lord is corrupt and selling the kingdom out, but his blatant murder will cause strife. His death averts a war that would have cost thousands of innocent lives , so the ninja is good. It's not how something was done, but why.
AkumaDaimyo 05-25-07, 07:08 PM	Yes, that is rather what I'm saying. The nature of his job is incompatable with Good alignment. James Bond was a Neutral man acting in support of a Good cause (if you accept that Britain is Good. I'm just making room for those that might disagree on that point.) Stanley Lovell, who was head of R&D for the OSS in WWII, said his job was described to him as being "Moriarty" (of Sherlock Holmes fame), but for the US. Let's not forget that under the Geneva Conventions, spies may be executed in the field. I'm not saying that I find James Bond to be evil, or even non-good. I am saying that by the morality of the crusades, and the D&D alignment system, his actions are firmly outside those of Good men. Morality of the crusades? HA. Thats a good one. Yeah the Morality of pillaging, raping and burning others who don't belive in the same god under the guise of religion when it was really about money. Sorry no, the crusades and morality don't do in the same sentance unless you throw in the words "lack of morality". I also wouldn't say Bond is neutral at all. He does care about the innocents who get caught in the way and he tries to save people and do the right thing, he just insn't squeaky clean good guy about it. I say he's good.
Azzy 05-25-07, 08:57 PM	I am saying that by the morality of the crusades The actions of the crusaders by and large (and the Crusades in general), by definition of the D&D alignment system, would be considered evil. Just sayin' ;)
Ranger REG 05-25-07, 09:49 PM	At what point did I glorify ninja? I never said they were great. I just said I dislike the streotype. And spying may be bad manners but it's far less evil than torture wouldn't you agree? Is that a rhetorical question, or you seriously asking me, a torture fan? :devil: Seriously ... I love torture. Aside from that, I can't tell whether your OP is one of those "Here they go again with the stereotype, tsk, tsk, tsk" comment or "I'm sick and tired of ninja stereotyping!"
Darth Sephiroth 05-25-07, 10:31 PM	The actions of the crusaders by and large (and the Crusades in general), by definition of the D&D alignment system, would be considered evil. Just sayin' ;) Just about anything involving zealots goes that way, if I remember right it started with a request for funds and assistance by Byzantines in hopes for help from the Pope. The Pope sent fanatics on a holy war. This leads to two groups utilizing religion as a means of justifying their actions and ends up with a nasty situation from both sides.
V8122 05-26-07, 07:20 AM	Historical note-Ninjas were mostly farmers who learned Martial arts in order to protect themselves. Very few were assasins, they didn't do "magic" (smoke, mirrors and hot oil.),And they didn't were all black (farmers, not goths). wizards, you've got alot of explaining to do...
spyone 05-26-07, 12:04 PM	Being a ninja is just a skill set. How it's used is up to the individual. Just think along the lines of a single thought seperates a gentlemen from a degenerate. The fighter kicking the door in and killing orcs in his nice shiney platemail may seem to be a good guy, and since he doesn't kill the women or children, just the combantants, it could be said he is. But he's killing the orcs because they're orcs, so his actions are evil. The ninja sneaks into a manor and kills the lord in such a way that it looks like a kidnapping gone wrong. He does this because the lord is corrupt and selling the kingdom out, but his blatant murder will cause strife. His death averts a war that would have cost thousands of innocent lives , so the ninja is good. It's not how something was done, but why. You're confusing good with Good, and evil with Evil. Under D&D morality, if the Orcs are Evil, slaying them is Good. Even the women and children: failing to kill them is just doing a sloppy job. Under D&D morality, murder is Evil, no matter how noble the motives. Morality of the crusades? HA. Thats a good one. Yeah the Morality of pillaging, raping and burning others who don't belive in the same god under the guise of religion when it was really about money. Yep, that's the one. Which is why the alignment system seems so weird in what it rules "Good" or "Evil". I agree that Bond is a good man (although he is often portrayed as a fairly grey hero, perhaps a little too eager to kill, or to take advantage of a vulnerable woman to get what he wants). But our modern sense of "good" and D&D alignment "Good" are really two different things, and only overlap a little. The actions of the crusaders by and large (and the Crusades in general), by definition of the D&D alignment system, would be considered evil. Just sayin' ;) That really depends on how you view them. That is, from our modern viewpoint, the crusaders were rushing off to slaughter people who weren't any threat to them with very little cause, ostensably over some philosophical differences (like exactly who was the last person to be directly talked to by the One True God). Oh, and to take their land by conquest. And enslave them. and, ... well, it goes on and on. To the Crusader, however, he was engaged in a Holy War against the Forces of Evil, and under orders from the highest religious authority in The One True Church, of The One True God, to exterminate them and take their land. I suppose the main difference is that today, we make room for the other viewpoint; we make room for the possability that the Crusader was wrong. But if someone who really is in touch with the ultimate forces of Good tells you that certain guys are Bad Guys, and need to be exterminated, and thet you even have a special exemption from any previous rule that said you shouldn't do that kind of thing, handed down from the One True God himself, ... well, wouldn't it be evil not to do what he says? It's a big "if", but if the Crusader's viewpoint was the right one, if everything he believed was true, then his actions were actually Good. (It's just that most people in the modern age, myself included lest there be any confusion on the point, think he was terribly, tragically wrong.) Just about anything involving zealots goes that way, if I remember right it started with a request for funds and assistance by Byzantines in hopes for help from the Pope. The Pope sent fanatics on a holy war. This leads to two groups utilizing religion as a means of justifying their actions and ends up with a nasty situation from both sides. Ah, but the acts of fanatics and zealots only leads to Evil if the fanatics/zealots are evil, or if they are wrong. Just ask a Paladin. ;)
narukagami 05-26-07, 12:10 PM	Historical note-Ninjas were mostly farmers who learned Martial arts in order to protect themselves. Actually, most "ninja" were samurai. Iga and Koga especially. Heretic really needs to chime in on this one, outside the whole alignment argument. He's much more knowledgeable on the shinobi and ninpo stuff than I, so can put "many of you frankly have no idea as to what you're talking about" much more eloquently than I.
Zaver 05-26-07, 01:00 PM	You're confusing good with Good, and evil with Evil. Under D&D morality, if the Orcs are Evil, slaying them is Good. Even the women and children: failing to kill them is just doing a sloppy job. Under D&D morality, murder is Evil, no matter how noble the motives. It says in the PHB that good people are care about life and in BoED it says they need to even care about the lives of foes. At most I'll give you that people in the time period might think he is a hero for killing orcs, but Good and Evil aren't mutable. Just because the majority are alright with it doesn't change what it is. At most the ninja assassinating some one is regretable, but only in so far as it had to come to that. Besides, no one questions the goodness of adventures killing other humans because they were bandits or necromancers and the like. If the same fighter who killed the orcs killed the lord, he would have had to fight through dozens of guards, the majority of whom wouldn't have known any thing about their lords actions. He kills them for getting in his way but after he kills the evil lord, the guards are forgotten by pretty much every one and the fighter is a hero. He still callously killed innocent people, people that might have helped him if they knew why he was there.
Azzy 05-26-07, 01:27 PM	You're confusing good with Good, and evil with Evil. Under D&D morality, if the Orcs are Evil, slaying them is Good. Even the women and children: failing to kill them is just doing a sloppy job. Um, no. Orcs are usually evil. Killing orc babies (which would be considered innocent) is still evil. Under D&D morality, murder is Evil, no matter how noble the motives. Um, no again. Read your Player's Handbook (page 104). "Good characters and creatures protect innocent life." If that means assassinating an evil overlord to free the people of the land--so be it. A good character may not like or enjoy having to kill the evil overlord, but if it's necessary for the good of the people--it must be done. At least they're not killing the guards and such (that may not be evil, themselves) that they would have to if they had taken the "storm the castle" approach. No, taking lives when it is unnecessary would be evil. Yep, that's the one. Which is why the alignment system seems so weird in what it rules "Good" or "Evil". Actually, if you read the PHB, it doesn't seem all that weird. That really depends on how you view them. Which, as I said, was through the definition of good and evil in D&D (see again PHB, page 104). That is, from our modern viewpoint, the crusaders were rushing off to slaughter people who weren't any threat to them with very little cause, ostensably over some philosophical differences (like exactly who was the last person to be directly talked to by the One True God). Oh, and to take their land by conquest. And enslave them. and, ... well, it goes on and on. To the Crusader, however, he was engaged in a Holy War against the Forces of Evil, and under orders from the highest religious authority in The One True Church, of The One True God, to exterminate them and take their land. Right, The One True Church of The One True God who was quite explicit in "You shall not murder." Or that later stuff with that hippie Jesus guy. I guess they forgot about that. Convenient how that happens. Hmm. What would Jesus do? Well, I bet you he wouldn't go to another persons nation to start a war of conquest just because... of anything. No, I think he would have had a bigger contention with the corrupt theocrats running the show (again). I suppose the main difference is that today, we make room for the other viewpoint; All of which is irrelevant to my statement that said: "The actions of the crusaders by and large (and the Crusades in general), by definition of the D&D alignment system, would be considered evil." Emphasis added.
Azzy 05-26-07, 01:31 PM	Actually, most "ninja" were samurai. Iga and Koga especially. Heretic really needs to chime in on this one, outside the whole alignment argument. He's much more knowledgeable on the shinobi and ninpo stuff than I, so can put "many of you frankly have no idea as to what you're talking about" much more eloquently than I. I'm surprised he hasn't already. Maybe he's just sick of the topic.
Silverthumb128 05-27-07, 12:14 AM	Uh exactly how is it "INSIDE the box?" I just DID offer a circumstance! I just said killing the evil guy in his sleep for the good of others isn't a evil act. That's circumstances right there and fits your views of thinking outside the box. Pay attention. :rolleyes: If we're playing the "Pay attention" game, then you should listen, too: I never offered any definition of "outside the box." Its inside the box because its pretty cut-and-dry common knowledge about alignment. Getting defensive has never led to making a valid rebuttal, while we're here.
calronmoonflower 05-27-07, 01:27 AM	Generally the stereotypical ninja tries to remain anonymous. This quite likely the only one you would hear about are the unscrupulous or incompetent ones. Generally I think the most would be lawful neutral following a lord or chaotic following their own ideals.
m00nd0gg 05-28-07, 12:41 AM	First off, this whole discussion is a good argument for useing the Honor system in place of alignment in any OA games. Eastern concepts of "good vs evil " are much more nuanced and ambiguous than the Manichean world view of the West. Moving on, ninja came into existance specifically because daimyo need fighters that could use dishonorable tactics to acheive military objectives. Neither spying nor assassination is honorable under the strict bushido code. Check out the ninja Wiki if you want to see a really well done article about their emergnce and role historically. That being said, a true "asassin" could never be good in the D and d alignment system. Neutral at best. But he could definitly be Lawful , since hes probably working for a daimyo. It's not murder if the man whose word is law says to do it.
narukagami 05-28-07, 01:38 AM	Moving on, ninja came into existance specifically because daimyo need fighters that could use dishonorable tactics to acheive military objectives. Neither spying nor assassination is honorable under the strict bushido code. Yet ninja came into existence long before bushido ever existed. Funny, that. Check out the ninja Wiki if you want to see a really well done article about their emergnce and role historically. That statement is incorrect, it should read "Check out the ninja wiki if you want to see a bunch of total crap and romatic sensationalism incorrectly pushed as history." That being said, a true "asassin" could never be good in the D and d alignment system. Neutral at best. But he could definitly be Lawful , since hes probably working for a daimyo. It's not murder if the man whose word is law says to do it. D&D's black and white alignments completely fail to convey any sense of real world morality, its best to just leave it at that.
Azzy 05-28-07, 06:47 AM	First off, this whole discussion is a good argument for useing the Honor system in place of alignment in any OA games. Eastern concepts of "good vs evil " are much more nuanced and ambiguous than the Manichean world view of the West. If history has taught us anything, it's that morality in the "West" is "much more nuanced and ambiguous" than you would suggest. Really, the whole East/West thing is an artificial distinction, can we please get over it now. Moving on, ninja came into existance specifically because daimyo need fighters that could use dishonorable tactics to acheive military objectives. Neither spying nor assassination is honorable under the strict bushido code. Except the concept of Bushido (much like it's Western counterpart, chivalry) was codified looooong after the fact. Check out the ninja Wiki if you want to see a really well done article about their emergnce and role historically. And here I have a good laugh at your expense. :rofl: That being said, a true "asassin" could never be good in the D and d alignment system. Neutral at best. But he could definitly be Lawful , since hes probably working for a daimyo. It's not murder if the man whose word is law says to do it. But we're not talking about a dedicated assassins, we're talking about ninja (samurai special forces) and secret agents--to whom assassination is merely one facet of their job description. There is nothing in the PHB description of alignment that precludes these people from being good any more so than soldiers, or police officers.
heretic888 05-28-07, 08:25 AM	I'm surprised he hasn't already. Maybe he's just sick of the topic. Actually, I've been leveling up my blacksmithing skill in World of Warcraft. For the Alliance!! :P Now, to the topic at hand.... In all honesty, there has been soooooooo much nonsense and gibberish spouted on this thread that I'm not even gonna bother with the point-by-point analysis and correction. Huge waste of time and not very constructive. So, I'm just gonna toss out a few sentences summarizing how I see things. You can take 'em or leave 'em, its up to you: 1) Morality in D&D, as with morality in real life, is a matter of context, context, context. Identical actions performed by different characters can be "good" in one case and "evil" in the next precisely because of the differing moral contexts. Its all about the motivation, intention, situational circumstances, and a whole bunch of other stuff that makes morality and ethics so deliciously existential and stuff. 2) I really, really, really disagree with the notion that killing another sentient being with an Evil alignment --- for no other reason than that --- is in any way, shape, or form "good". Good protects life, period; Good doesn't kill life because its not Good. 3) To the person who maintained the "ninja" were clans of "trained thugs and killers", that there was some distinction between "ninja" and "samurai", and that the "samurai" had a code of honor whereas the "ninja" did not.... thanks, I just got in my recommended dose of morning chuckles and giggles. I'm good for the day now. :) 4) Although its already been brought up, there isn't a shred of historical evidence that the "ninja" groups of Iga and Koga ever assassinated anybody. There's plenty of myths and legends attributing their involvement in very mundane, very natural deaths, of course --- such Ashikaga Yoshihisa's pnemonia or Uesugi Kenshin's stomach ulcer --- but we just can't say whether these people ever played hitman or not. If they did, there isn't a strand of proof for it. 5) Before people chime in with the stupid comment that has already been leveled at point 4: yes, there is documentation of the "ninja" and, yes, we know they really existed. A lack of documentation for any "ninja" assassination is anomalous, not expected. I would expect a lack of documentation concerning "ninja" espionage and reconnaissance (which was by far their most common role), but not them kerplunking a couple daimyo. 6) If you're going to huff and puff and act like you know your history --- you should, y'know, actually do some real historical research. That's all for now. Ta.
The_Shaman 05-28-07, 11:12 AM	Actually, most "ninja" were samurai. Iga and Koga especially. :confused: Really? I'd be very grateful if you could give me a source. I've read some stories about how they might have evolved from ex-nobles, and there were doubtless some samurai who were more than competent scouts or infiltrators, but I don't know of an entire ninja organization (whatever form the "clan" actually took from an organizational perspective) being composed of members of the samurai class. Though, mind you, that might work out.
narukagami 05-28-07, 12:15 PM	:confused: Really? I'd be very grateful if you could give me a source. I've read some stories about how they might have evolved from ex-nobles, and there were doubtless some samurai who were more than competent scouts or infiltrators, but I don't know of an entire ninja organization (whatever form the "clan" actually took from an organizational perspective) being composed of members of the samurai class. Though, mind you, that might work out. Let me begin by saying that its best to ignore anything that Stephen Hayes has ever written. As a martial artists he may know what hes doing, but he completely fails as a historian. Essentially, if you want to know the REAL history of "ninja", you have to avoid most books specifically written about "ninja". The research of Japanese history and facts is muddled with so much crap about romanticized subjects propagated for the sake of selling books at the cost of doing any actual educating that the casual researcher will be horribly mislead. The romantic view of what people see as "Ninja" and what they see as samurai don't coincide with one another. So most people make up justifications as to why. Thats where you get BS stories about farmers learning martial arts or secret societies and so on. It should also be noted that both the romantic visions of "ninja" and samurai hardly coincide with actual history in the least. In history, as said time and again, they were one in the same. I blame romantics, authors looking for a good story, WW2 propaganda, and their exposure to said propaganda for the misconceptions, but thats just me. Maybe once I finish my bachelors I'll use that as my masters thesis... probably already been done. Now I'm rambling. Oh, also the Edo period and it's bored (and boring) samurai imposing their silly view on their past. Instead, look into things by REAL historians. Let me point you to Stephen Turnbull (if you like authors named Stephen:P ). Also, there are plenty of period documents on the subject, many of which you might be able to find translations of. The Iga-ryu Ninja Museum in the Mie prefecture that was once known as the Iga province. Any book about the history of of the Iga prefecture or Koka City (in the Shiga prefecture) and Iga-ryu or Koga-ryu. Good hunting.:tiphat:
heretic888 05-28-07, 02:43 PM	:confused: Really? I'd be very grateful if you could give me a source. I would recommend The Word Turned Upside Down: Medieval Japanese Society by French historian Pierre Souryi. While he doesn't refer to them as "ninja" as such, he has an excellent exposition on the "Iga Commune" and their sociopolitical context. This is something I have yet to see done in any other source. However, you don't have to look any further than the period accounts (such as Nochi Kagami, Go Kagami, and Iranki) Stephen Turnbull quotes from in his books on the ninja. They habitually refer to ninja as "samurai", "retainers", and "provincials" --- which all pretty much mean the same thing.
Nobunaga Oda 05-28-07, 05:14 PM	Ninja are a subset of rogues then if you wish - but they are no heroes. Hattori Hanzo would be displeased.
AkumaDaimyo 05-28-07, 06:14 PM	Now that heretic is in the house I think the nay sayers that ninja are evil and cannot be good are done for. Commit seppuku now and save face! I think Heretic should be writing articles on where ninja fit into places the Realms. Not some over romanticized guy whose idea of ninja probably comes from old D&D modules and kung fu movies. I like the Sengoku book on Ninja. Sengoku is another RPG, completly different system. It's set in feudal Japan and has some decent sourcebooks. I'm sure the Shinobi/Ninja sourcebook isnt 100% accurate but it's probably far more accurate than any D&D sourcebooks. I'm curious though, are all ninja of the Samurai caste, most or just some? Could a farmer/eta type person be a ninja as well? Did they ever accept anyone in or did you always have to be born into it? Oh and I would have hoped Heretic could avoid the evil that is WoW with his ninja skills. :-( Even a ninja can not escape WoW!
turalisj 05-28-07, 07:14 PM	WotC's designers need a good long talk with allot of people. Including, but not limited to, historians, mythologists, competent game designers, and elementary school English teachers. Also: In before "but its a magical fantasy game".:P Don't forget the gamers themselves. What they need to do is go to websites such as Rpol.net and find out what gamers over there want. Then go to every city where geeks can be found and find out what they want. Some of the people around me haven't even heard of the WotC forums. That being said, a true "asassin" could never be good in the D and d alignment system. Neutral at best. But he could definitly be Lawful , since hes probably working for a daimyo. It's not murder if the man whose word is law says to do it. So, by your logic, a CIA worker is not good? A soldier fighting in any army has to be evil?
heretic888 05-29-07, 12:12 PM	I think Heretic should be writing articles on where ninja fit into places the Realms. Not some over romanticized guy whose idea of ninja probably comes from old D&D modules and kung fu movies. I'm not as familiar with some of the established settings like Faerun and Eberron as others, so I'm not so sure I'm the most qualified to do something like that. As terrible as this is going to sound, I'm actually more familiar with Rokugan than any of the more mainstream settings. As I stated on my class thread, the lion's share of my gaming experience has been in completely homebrewn settings. I prefer it that way, too. I like the Sengoku book on Ninja. Sengoku is another RPG, completly different system. It's set in feudal Japan and has some decent sourcebooks. I'm sure the Shinobi/Ninja sourcebook isnt 100% accurate but it's probably far more accurate than any D&D sourcebooks. Well, Gold Rush Games' Sengoku: Chanbara Roleplaying in Feudal Japan and Shinobi: Shadows of Nihon are hands down the best roleplaying material on the historical samurai and ninja ever published. Period. The authors should be commended for the efforts they made into publishing those, as there's really nothing else like them on the market (to my knowledge, anyway). However, as good as they are, their description of the ninja is seriously hindered by the fact that they get about 70-80% of their information from Stephen Hayes' books. I'm also not a fan of how their Ninjutsu skill is essentially a catch-all bonus for shinobi characters to add to every skill relevant to them (which basically assures shinobi are the most powerful characters in the game). I'm curious though, are all ninja of the Samurai caste, most or just some? Could a farmer/eta type person be a ninja as well? Did they ever accept anyone in or did you always have to be born into it? Hrmm..... those are difficult questions to answer honestly. This is due both to the lack of good information about the ninja, as well who exactly you mean by "ninja" in the first place. While this come as a shock to many, most notable daimyo during the Sengoku Jidai --- such as Takeda Shingen, Uesugi Kenshin, Hideyoshi Toyotomi, and others --- had regular "unconventional" forces under their command. This may have included spy-and-gossip rings, mounted reconnaissance, soldiers trained to lay low in rice fields to observe advance infantry movements. I mean, you didn't have to undergo special training to play the role of a spy or scout for your daimyo. You just had to be in the right place at the right time. As such, most of these types of forces tended to come from peasant or ashigaru backgrounds. This is further confounded by the fact that most of the more revered samurai heroes in Japanese history and mythology were known for "unorthodox" or "dishonorable" tactics. More than a few of these heroes --- such as Minamoto Yoshiitsune and Kusunoki Masashige --- were credited for "founding" their own ninjutsu schools (which is historically absurd but claimed by the schools nonetheless). Even the famous 47 Ako ronin gained their notoriety by essentially planning a methodical ambush of their enemy. Does that make them ninja? Probably not, but it depends on what you mean. Regarding the groups from Iga and Koga, though, these were more or less a special breed. Their training in what has been termed "ninjutsu" went far beyond that of any of the other individuals I have mentioned thus far and they have even published historical treatises detailing these skillsets (i.e, Bansenshukai, Shoninki, and others). They also developed a philosophical tradition concerning the appropriate time and place to employ their skills (which has been termed "ninpo" today). Such a philosophical perspective is absent among other groups and individuals termed "ninja". To answer your queries, though, the "ninja" of Iga and Koga were almost undoubtedly samurai. These were individuals that underwent rather extensive and prolonged training in a number of specialized skills and went they were sent to serve other daimyo (Iga and Koga sold their services to others in a quasi-mercenary fashion), they were treated as what Turnbull called "personal attendants" to the daimyo in question. We know from period accounts that the Iga/Koga groups were held in high esteem by both the Ashikaga and Tokugawa shogunates. However, there is a little wrinkle in the mix here. In Iga, ashigaru that performed bravely would be given the rank of samurai. So, it is conceivable that someone born a lowly farmer in Iga could one day be promoted to a samurai and given training in ninjutsu. But, just as Iga greatly rewarded those that demonstrated their bravery and loyalty, they also harshly punished those that betrayed them. Traitors were punished by beheading and their decapitated heads were posted on top of pikes, along with their lands being seized by the community. I would suggest reading Souryi's book on feudal Japanese sociology. He goes in much more depth about the situation in the Iga Commune than I have here. Oh and I would have hoped Heretic could avoid the evil that is WoW with his ninja skills. :-( Even a ninja can not escape WoW! Well, luckily they do maintenance every Tuesday morning. :P
Angus Cotton 05-30-07, 12:34 AM	Even in modern cartoons and movies have we seen the "good" ninja. The classic white vs. black ninja is a good example of this. Or what about turtles, were they evil because they supposedly were ninja? Leonardo=LE Donatello=NE Raphael=CE Michelangello=CE Master Splinter="Overwhelming" Evil (probably some sort of ninja-lich) I don't know where yall get your information.
AkumaDaimyo 05-30-07, 12:51 AM	I've heard it said though that one can know ninjistu without being a ninja and one can be a ninja without knowing ninjitsu. One is a style of fighting and the other is a philosophy.
Hochiu 05-31-07, 10:54 PM	More correctly, ninjitsu is less a martial art than it is a methodology and practicum in which the adherent is exposed to in order to bolster their stealth, survival, and other skills. It is less an actual martial art than one that incorporates a myriad of other martial disciplines into it for a rounded type of fighting style.
yamiwarlock 06-04-07, 04:54 AM	Really Ninja were more rebellous than anything. Originally they were peasants and farmers who couldn't advance in a feudal society, so instead chose to forge crude weapons and use dishonorable tactics in order to achieve a semi-higher status and get more money then they normally would doing work for higher status persons which would be deemed "dishonorable". Quickly afterwards I see them as organizing into cells...and no I don't think they wear black pajamas... Of course this is a very controversal and romanticized view...the only things we do know about Ninja extend back to the orgins of their taught practice in dojo via spoken tradition up until very recent times from what I know... Their "evil" perception comes from not only the human thought that creatures of the night are evil (since, you know, we can't see well at night and other animals who eat us can), but from the fact that ninja would in fact use tactics that were against the moral code of the society. Theoretically they did so in order to strike back at a society that refused to let these persons advance, however... As for "knowing ninjutsu"...you wouldn't learn the art in ancient times unless you were trying to become a ninja I'd imagine...it just wouldn't make sense to dedicate yourself to a technique that you'd never use (especially one so against societies norms). But its too hard to give them Western standards of "Good" and "Evil", when in the east an honor system is more often used than labels of "you are good and going to heaven" or "you are evil and going to hell". The society is different and, as suggested in both OA and Rokugan, one should use honor>alignment in such a setting anyhow. But really I use the following in at least one of my campaigns: Evil: Looking after yourself above others--the evil methology is that if every being looks after only themselves, society will prosper through "survival of the fittest". Good: Looking after others will in turn inspire others to look after you. Everyone can look after one another and society can prosper through this treatment. Really you also must, when crossing the east and the west, use REALLY simple morals when judging good or evil (look into Egyptian philosophies or Babylonian texts).
heretic888 06-04-07, 11:23 AM	Really Ninja were more rebellous than anything. Originally they were peasants and farmers who couldn't advance in a feudal society, so instead chose to forge crude weapons and use dishonorable tactics in order to achieve a semi-higher status and get more money then they normally would doing work for higher status persons which would be deemed "dishonorable". Nope, sorry. What you described has approximately zero basis in Japanese history. I would suggest researching into the history of Iga Province. Of course this is a very controversal and romanticized view... Probably because it's wrong. ;) the only things we do know about Ninja extend back to the orgins of their taught practice in dojo via spoken tradition up until very recent times from what I know... If you think kuden is the only historical information we have about the "ninja", then all I can say is you should stop typing declarative statements and do some research. Their "evil" perception comes from not only the human thought that creatures of the night are evil (since, you know, we can't see well at night and other animals who eat us can), but from the fact that ninja would in fact use tactics that were against the moral code of the society. There was no "evil" perception. The Iga No Mono are described in reverential language in a number of shogunal period accounts, such as the Nochi Kagami. Hell, members of Iga's Hattori family were personal vassals of both Ashikaga and Tokugawa shoguns. As for this "moral code of society", that is nonsense. Most of the samurai heroes in both Japanese history and legend did things that modern romantics would construe as "dishonorable", the most famous examples being Minamoto No Yoshiitsune and Kusunoki Masashige. Even during the Edo Jidai, heroes like Miyamoto Musashi would use the reflection of his blade to blind his opponents during duels (as well as ambush them when they were unawares) and infamous 47 Ako ronin (who are routinely held as paragons of bushido) avenged their master's death by plotting a large scale break-in and ambush. Theoretically they did so in order to strike back at a society that refused to let these persons advance, however... The "ninja" were the de facto ruling powers in Iga and Koga. They had nowhere else to "advance". As for "knowing ninjutsu"...you wouldn't learn the art in ancient times unless you were trying to become a ninja I'd imagine...it just wouldn't make sense to dedicate yourself to a technique that you'd never use (especially one so against societies norms). What we are referring to as "ninjutsu" was either a sub-curricula within schools like the Katori Shinto Ryu or was a regional tradition with its roots in Iga and Koga. No one else studied it. But its too hard to give them Western standards of "Good" and "Evil", when in the east an honor system is more often used than labels of "you are good and going to heaven" or "you are evil and going to hell". The society is different and, as suggested in both OA and Rokugan, one should use honor>alignment in such a setting anyhow. I don't see why not. The general ideas of "good" and "evil" in D&D conform to moral precepts within Eastern religions like Buddhism as easily as they do to Western Judeo-Christian mores. And, if we're going by actual Western history, just as many "heroes" were amoral pricks in Europe as in Japan. The Crusades, anyone??
Azzy 06-04-07, 02:22 PM	But its too hard to give them Western standards of "Good" and "Evil", when in the east an honor system is more often used than labels of "you are good and going to heaven" or "you are evil and going to hell". The society is different and, as suggested in both OA and Rokugan, one should use honor>alignment in such a setting anyhow. Okay, this whole East/West existing in a mutually exclusive vacuum thing needs to die. That's nonsense. While the "West" has been getting silk from the "East" for an extremely long time, East and West started sharing a lot more with the advent of Alexander the Great. The five Buddhist elements (earth, water, air, fire, void) are based on the late Vedic elements (earth, water, air, fire, akasha) which are, in turn, based on the Classical Greek elements (earth, water, air, fire, aether). Buddhism made it all the way back to Greece and Macedonia (under the rule of Ashoka the Great (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka_the_Great)), while the Greeks influenced Buddhist art and, to some degree, thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism)--which can be seen in Mahayana Buddhism (which spread its tendrils all the way to China, Korea and Japan). Then there's the fact that the Imperial Romans had embassies in China, and China considered Rome (or Daqin, in Chinese parlance) to be its mirror of civilization in the west. The East/West dichotomy is largely trumped up and artificial.
kintire 06-05-07, 10:20 AM	That is, from our modern viewpoint, the crusaders were rushing off to slaughter people who weren't any threat to them with very little cause, ostensably over some philosophical differences (like exactly who was the last person to be directly talked to by the One True God). Oh, and to take their land by conquest. And enslave them. and, ... well, it goes on and on. I realise this is a little off topic, but given the worthy thrust for historical accuracy in this thread, perhaps I might just drop in that the above is almost completely and utterly wrong. The Crusaders were heading off to repel an invasion of an allied state from a group that posed a clear and present danger to them personally. The land they were invading was the former territory of that ally which had been seized from it by force, and they subjected the populations of the area to a rule little different to that of the former lords. While we might now dispute the Byzantine claim to the area, since four centuries had elapsed since its loss, dismissing the Crusaders as clearly in the wrong is unsupportable.
Hochiu 06-05-07, 10:38 AM	Well said. It's just another example of how utterly convoluted historical examples are when trying to fit into the paradigm as promoted by D&D's alignment system. The alignment system works FOR D&D, but nothing else, and people are at fault when they try to cross reference them. What's wrong with Ninja being Evil in the Forgotten Realms? It doesn't exist but for text and glue and paper. No one is going to be offended by it, and if they are they shouldn't be. If there's a problem with ninja being evil in FR, then make them not-evil in your own world. It's one author's interpretation, no matter how right or wrong they are. Given the amount of support that FR has given Kara-Tur, it's surprising they were even mentioned. Also, speaking of FR, nothing else is portrayed historically accurately or are generally sterotyped as something they're not, so why should the ninja cause someone to get so bent out of shape?
The_Shaman 06-05-07, 11:41 AM	I realise this is a little off topic, but given the worthy thrust for historical accuracy in this thread, perhaps I might just drop in that the above is almost completely and utterly wrong. The Crusaders were heading off to repel an invasion of an allied state from a group that posed a clear and present danger to them personally. The land they were invading was the former territory of that ally which had been seized from it by force, and they subjected the populations of the area to a rule little different to that of the former lords. While we might now dispute the Byzantine claim to the area, since four centuries had elapsed since its loss, dismissing the Crusaders as clearly in the wrong is unsupportable. I could contest at least 60% of what you say here, but let's limit it to this: given how crusaders participated in several brutal slaughters of unarmed city dwellers, can we just agree they participated in a lot of less-holy-than-thou business, and not always with extreme abhorrence?
kintire 06-05-07, 11:56 AM	I could contest at least 60% of what you say here, but let's limit it to this: given how crusaders participated in several brutal slaughters of unarmed city dwellers, can we just agree they participated in a lot of less-holy-than-thou business, and not always with extreme abhorrence? They conducted a war according to the techniques of the day, which were frequently extremely ruthless, with no effort to behave in a holy or compassionate manner, certainly. That doesn't make spyone's summary any less nonsense.
Geraturatu 06-05-07, 12:03 PM	Some say that the reason that there is no evidence of ninjas killing people because there wasn't supposed to be any evidence, and the ones getting them to kill probably would have taken care of whatever small amount of evidence there was to show (There was one thing somewhere that had the person investigating a case (ficticious thing somewhere is what I mean) that a ninja was involved and he went "Knife? What knife? I don't know of any knife. He hit that sharp object on that table at an odd angle" meanwhile fingering money in his pocket.) That parenthesis is ficticious as mentioned. But however, there was supposed to actually be some evidence that had not been covered up. Like some famous ninja killing Honzo Hattori (spelled somthing like that), another famous ninja, they were supposed to have some physical evidence of that one. I'm not sure if it's actually true or not, but many many people believed that the evidence was actually there, and some of the people back then had said they'd seen it (though I doubt this last one greatly, since ninja's aren't supposed to be seen doing their work, especially by some commoners). I'm leaving it off here to keep myself from arguing with myself.
Westbound 06-05-07, 12:16 PM	PART I I wish I had gotten into this discussion earlier, so I could set things straight before they got out of hand. A lot of these posts have created some odd premises, made some wrong assertions, and have clouded the issue. Why are ninjas classified as evil? In d20 games, the distinction from class and occupation are fuzzy. A class is a set of abilities and skills imparted to a character, and a handful have particular requirements, such as the Paladin who must be Lawful Good. Could a character be a Ninja and be good? Sure, but if the requirement is that the Ninja must be evil in order to advance in level as a Ninja, then that character cannot take another level as Ninja. Ninjas are not just assassins. In fact, they're specially trained, often hired, agents. They have to be professionals, first and foremost. If they have problems with assassination, with arson and sabotage, or anything else, then they are of no use to their masters or those that hire them for the jobs they are required to do. Now, let's examine some of the premises of these posts... That still doesn't make much sense. Why is the covert killer evil or non good but the crusading killer is good? War is War. How is it more good at all to kill a man face to face than to kill him covertly? He's still dead in the end. Not every crusader is necessarily good, but the crusading knight is not trained or conditioned to be a professional agent of a master's will. He is a soldier, and a soldier does have some freedom of moral will. He doesn't have to serve an evil master if it jars him the wrong way. A trained Ninja has to put aside his personal feelings, his prejudices and his morality in order to do his job. A crusader doesn't necessarily have to do that. It's also a matter of context. If a Ninja is ordered to assassinate someone, he can't give that person a fighting chance, because to do so would jeopardize his chances of success. If that same Ninja encounters a guard who is obstructing his escape, he doesn't necessarily have to kill him, but he must escape and if he has to he will have no qualms about killing him. If stealth is of the utmost, and no one must know of his presence at all, then it might be necessary to kill the guard. The Ninja is not about giving anyone a fair break. He's got a job to do, and he can't do it if he's dead, incapacitated or captured. The idea of a crusader fighting someone face to face is a different context. It is likely that it's not entirely necessary to kill his opponent, but simply to defeat him. If he is defeated, the crusader-type warrior may offer mercy. A Ninja may not ever be in such a position. And even if he were, a Ninja must weigh the consequences of offering mercy to a defeated opponent. His mission is paramount. For a soldier, merely defeating his opponent is enough. If he's evil, then he might let his blood-lust to impact his decisions. But when combat has ensued, it is implicit that both combatants are aware that neither of them might not survive it. Assassination is all about a cold, merciless murder. The target often doesn't know he's even being targeted, and even if he did, the target is almost always attacked the instant his guard is down. The target is not allowed to make any appeal to his killer for mercy, or even allowed to escape if his killer can help it. Now, AkumaDaimyo, you kept wondering why a crusading mass-murderer is Good but the sneaky Thief isn't. The answer is that the mass-murderer isn't necessarily good. In fact, it's likely that he isn't. But if the mass-murderer is murdering evil elements that make up an evil apparatus of a nation's war machine (logistics, for instance) and what he is doing is for a greater good, it could be construed as Good in a certain context. The sneaky Thief is a professional that puts aside morality in order to do his job. to be continued...
kintire 06-05-07, 12:40 PM	Sure, but if the requirement is that the Ninja must be evil in order to advance in level as a Ninja, then that character cannot take another level as Ninja. There is no such requirement in the class writeup. Not every crusader is necessarily good, but the crusading knight is not trained or conditioned to be a professional agent of a master's will. He is a soldier, and a soldier does have some freedom of moral will. He doesn't have to serve an evil master if it jars him the wrong way. A trained Ninja has to put aside his personal feelings, his prejudices and his morality in order to do his job. A crusader doesn't necessarily have to do that. I don't see the difference. Both are members of organisations with specific goals. Both are expected to support those goals by performing missions or participating in operations. Neither is expected to have moral qualms during those missions. I doubt that "oh no... I don't want to charge those archers. Are they really bad people?" is going to go over well with a crusader's commander... It's also a matter of context. If a Ninja is ordered to assassinate someone, he can't give that person a fighting chance, because to do so would jeopardize his chances of success. If that same Ninja encounters a guard who is obstructing his escape, he doesn't necessarily have to kill him, but he must escape and if he has to he will have no qualms about killing him. If stealth is of the utmost, and no one must know of his presence at all, then it might be necessary to kill the guard. The Ninja is not about giving anyone a fair break. He's got a job to do, and he can't do it if he's dead, incapacitated or captured. The idea of a crusader fighting someone face to face is a different context. It is likely that it's not entirely necessary to kill his opponent, but simply to defeat him. If he is defeated, the crusader-type warrior may offer mercy. A Ninja may not ever be in such a position. And even if he were, a Ninja must weigh the consequences of offering mercy to a defeated opponent. His mission is paramount. You present a difference that is no difference. Warriors are not expected to give an even break either. The whole goal of military strategy is to ensure that the battle, when finally fought, is as unfair and uneven as possible. The ideal is for it to be so unfair that the enemy folds and you never actually have to fight it. Even in a melee, a warrior that refuses to use unfair advantages to defeat his enemy is due for a sacking... if his colleagues don't lynch him first. Equally, both the Ninja and the warrior will sometimes have to kill an enemy and sometimes have the option of accepting a surrender. Its true that the soldier will get the latter option more often, but its just a matter of degree. Let me assure you that soldiers' missions are pretty damn paramount too. For a soldier, merely defeating his opponent is enough. If he's evil, then he might let his blood-lust to impact his decisions. But when combat has ensued, it is implicit that both combatants are aware that neither of them might not survive it. Assassination is all about a cold, merciless murder. The target often doesn't know he's even being targeted, and even if he did, the target is almost always attacked the instant his guard is down. The target is not allowed to make any appeal to his killer for mercy, or even allowed to escape if his killer can help it. You have a damn romantic vision of soldiers. A soldier's target doesn't know he's being targetted if the soldier or his commander can possibly arrange it. Ambushes, dawn attacks, deploying in dead ground and charging flanks, sneaking up to castle walls at 1 am and quietly slipping up a ladder are just a few of the many military tactics that have proved highly successful. Of course, soldiers more often fail to gain surprise and actually have to engage in stand up fights than Ninja, but thats not through any superior honour. Now, AkumaDaimyo, you kept wondering why a crusading mass-murderer is Good but the sneaky Thief isn't. The answer is that the mass-murderer isn't necessarily good. In fact, it's likely that he isn't. But if the mass-murderer is murdering evil elements that make up an evil apparatus of a nation's war machine (logistics, for instance) and what he is doing is for a greater good, it could be construed as Good in a certain context. The sneaky Thief is a professional that puts aside morality in order to do his job. Both are professionals, both pick their sides and then try to win. How is a soldier mowing down an evil enemy's logisitcs any better or worse than a ninja stabbing that evil commander in his sleep? it seems to me innocent casualties are likely to be far lower using the ninja method...
Hochiu 06-05-07, 12:43 PM	I could contest at least 60% of what you say here, but let's limit it to this: given how crusaders participated in several brutal slaughters of unarmed city dwellers, can we just agree they participated in a lot of less-holy-than-thou business, and not always with extreme abhorrence? Technically, as long as the pope sanctioned it, it's not evil. In a culture that was principally concerned with salvation of the soul through the guidance of the pontificate in Rome, that means not evil. Geneva conventions aside, it's the quickest way to go about business and it wasn't a crusader-only practice. The saracens would routinely do the same to territory they took back and the concept that Saladin was a noble warrior is often erronous. It was a common, accepted practice that was not necessary viewed as murder. They were enemies of their respective religions and, particularly in the Latin Church, heathenry was met by a force of arms and it was completely acceptable. You cannot judge history thorugh a modern moral lense. To do so is anachronistic.
heretic888 06-05-07, 03:00 PM	Some say that the reason that there is no evidence of ninjas killing people because there wasn't supposed to be any evidence, and the ones getting them to kill probably would have taken care of whatever small amount of evidence there was to show Just for the record, I never claimed that the historical ninja did not "kill" anybody. Only that there is no record of a romanticized "assassination" or "hit" attributed to the people of Iga and Koga (truthfully, assassinations aren't even mentioned in historic ninjutsu treatises like the Bansenshukai or Shoninki). That's it. The problem with the aforementioned speculation here is that you're (and I don't mean you in particular but a more general "you") essentially saying the lack of evidence is the evidence. This is circular reasoning. If we discard evidence as necessary to demonstrate an event, then every and all claims are fair game, no matter how outlandish or absurd.
NorthsDefender 06-05-07, 03:03 PM	Didnt bother to read the whole thread because my time is running. Historically ninja or shinobi where just normal samurai in dark blue cloths who were send on special (military) missions. Some kind of medieval japanese commando soldier. As long as FR's Purple Dragons arent evil, I dont see any point in making ninja an evil character class.:tie: Sorry for being late with this fact
Westbound 06-05-07, 03:50 PM	I don't see the difference. Both are members of organisations with specific goals. Both are expected to support those goals by performing missions or participating in operations. Neither is expected to have moral qualms during those missions. I doubt that "oh no... I don't want to charge those archers. Are they really bad people?" is going to go over well with a crusader's commander... Of course you don't see a difference because you're morally applying equally one activity with another through a warped sense of reality. If we were to continue along your train of thought, you hence believe that all war is therefore evil, all attackers are evil and all defenders are, at best, victimized regardless if they provoked hostilities. When soldiers go to war, their objective is to defeat the enemy, but how they do so is subjective. Depending on training and discipline, which is hardly uniform even in the best of armies, a soldier is expected to perform his task in a military manner. If his orders are to capture a settlement because it sits on a major crossroads that lead directly into the heart of enemy territory, it is not at all implied that he butcher the inhabitants. If so ordered to wantonly slaughter a village of defenseless inhabitants, he may not decide to do it, and if his army has a dedicated chain of command he may take umbrage with superior officers. Armies are like population centers, and they have a general alignment. A NINJA is a trained, conditioned agent that is expected to perform specific clandestine tasks, not the least of which is assassination, which requires the utmost commitment in spite of one's predilections. If he has any qualms about murder, then he's in the wrong business, and he reaps the repurcussions of his decisions should he decide to waver on his mission. Normally, no such person would ever have any qualms about it because a NINJA, as history bears out, is a person born and bred into a unique culture that hones such skills to be used by their masters. To be an assassin, you must not let morality interfere with your job. Ever. This is what makes such people evil. Now, I suppose that perhaps the individual Ninja character may be running around with a Good alignment. That's not the point of this discussion, though, but if he did, he wouldn't make a very good Ninja and his superiors would eventually deem him too weak-willed to be entrusted with important jobs. You present a difference that is no difference. Warriors are not expected to give an even break either. The whole goal of military strategy is to ensure that the battle, when finally fought, is as unfair and uneven as possible. The ideal is for it to be so unfair that the enemy folds and you never actually have to fight it. Even in a melee, a warrior that refuses to use unfair advantages to defeat his enemy is due for a sacking... if his colleagues don't lynch him first. Equally, both the Ninja and the warrior will sometimes have to kill an enemy and sometimes have the option of accepting a surrender. Its true that the soldier will get the latter option more often, but its just a matter of degree. Let me assure you that soldiers' missions are pretty damn paramount too. You don't understand. I never said that warriors aren't expected to give an even break, either. I stated that by virtue of open-combat being something of an optional commitment, at least the opponent of a warrior knows full well that he's in combat and he might not come out alive. An assassin's victims rarely ever know they're even targeted before it's too late. I pointed out that warriors CAN be Good and that Goodness would bear out in certain ways. An assassin cannot be Good because such morality might interfere with his job. Being Good doesn't necessarily do that for the warrior. For the warrior, matters of Good and Evil in war most often occur when the fighting is over, victory is at hand, and the conquered are assessed. Usually, Evil takes it's greatest form in the most expedient solution to a problem (it's hard to do Good things). You have a damn romantic vision of soldiers. A soldier's target doesn't know he's being targetted if the soldier or his commander can possibly arrange it. Ambushes, dawn attacks, deploying in dead ground and charging flanks, sneaking up to castle walls at 1 am and quietly slipping up a ladder are just a few of the many military tactics that have proved highly successful. Of course, soldiers more often fail to gain surprise and actually have to engage in stand up fights than Ninja, but thats not through any superior honour. You are putting words in my mouth and you are making assumptions that aren't there. Never once did I ever say that all warriors are good and pure as the wind-driven snow. And no, Ambushes and Sneak Attacks are not necessarily Evil acts. I am constantly amazed by the utter lack of reading comprehension, understanding, and rational thought. Do I have to quantify everything that soldiers do in warfare as either good or evil for you? When war breaks out, there are normal assumptions made that all is fair game in war. I said that soldiers are in better positions to allow some measure of fair play than Ninjas are. Ambushes and Sneak Attacks are normal activities of warfare, but the targets of such attacks are, or should be, fully aware that they will happen. If anyone has a romantic idea of Ninjas and Assassins, it has got to be you. It seems you are making some rather interesting assumptions. Who said that Ninjas only go after military targets? Ninjas are and were often directed to go after a person that had no direct military value whatsoever. A general's beloved wife, a monarch's infant son who is the royal heir, a village's water-well to spread the notion of a plague, all of these and a whole lot more are activities that Ninjas and perhaps some Assassins might undertake. What kind of person do you think it would take to murder a defenseless baby? For the most part, warrior-types aren't really expected to kill babies, but a Ninja? A Ninja is PRECISELY expected to do just that without hesitation, and without a shred of passion. At least an enemy commander has no illusions that he might one day be assassinated in his sleep. At least a trained military force expects to be caught in an ambush someday during a war (or even in peace, which is a very subjective term). It is entirely possible to have a clan of ninja who do not assasinate anyone for hire and would only do so agains the most vile and evil of persons, thus still remaining good. Spies are NOT inherently or automatically evil ethier. AkumaDaimyo said this. A Ninja that will not assassinate is no ninja (some would call them "shinobi"). Anyone can be a spy. All it takes is a curious ear. Case in Point: Mata Hari. Mata Hari was a renown courtesan before and during World War I. She traveled most of the world performing her famous strip-tease for wealthy and important men. When the war broke out, she found herself struggling to maintain her high-end lifestyle. She would travel across battle-lines to entertain high ranking military officers on both sides of the Western Front. During her routines, she would overhear officers talk about battleplans, supply movements, and other sensitive things. She would then travel to the other side, and in the middle of her dancing, she would offer that information in exchange for money. She did this for a number of months before she was discovered by the French as a double-agent, and she was subsequently executed as a spy. So you see, being a spy requires no real amount of training, although training is very useful. But a Ninja that doesn't assassinate is that much more useless to his employer. If he won't do that, what else won't he do? He may have the training to do it, and may have had a change of heart over the years, but that is something he may not be able to keep secret from his superiors.
heretic888 06-05-07, 03:59 PM	A NINJA is a trained, conditioned agent that is expected to perform specific clandestine tasks, not the least of which is assassination, which requires the utmost commitment in spite of one's predilections. If he has any qualms about murder, then he's in the wrong business, and he reaps the repurcussions of his decisions should he decide to waver on his mission. Normally, no such person would ever have any qualms about it because a NINJA, as history bears out, is a person born and bred into a unique culture that hones such skills to be used by their masters. To be an assassin, you must not let morality interfere with your job. Ever. This is what makes such people evil. Now, I suppose that perhaps the individual Ninja character may be running around with a Good alignment. That's not the point of this discussion, though, but if he did, he wouldn't make a very good Ninja and his superiors would eventually deem him too weak-willed to be entrusted with important jobs. Okay, what precisely are you talking about here?? Is this the Ninja class in Complete Adventurer?? Is this supposed to be the historical "ninja"?? If so, which ones?? Is this your idea of what a "ninja" should be in a D&D setting like Faerun?? I see a lot of declarative statements, but absolutely no context to support them.
Westbound 06-05-07, 04:10 PM	Okay, what precisely are you talking about here?? Is this the Ninja class in Complete Adventurer?? Is this supposed to be the historical "ninja"?? If so, which ones?? Is this your idea of what a "ninja" should be in a D&D setting like Faerun?? I see a lot of declarative statements, but absolutely no context to support them. I assumed that we're talking about the occupation. Evidently, the class has no alignment restrictions. Frankly, it should at least be restricted to non-Good alignments. Where am I wrong in my assessment? But while we're on the subject, let me say something that's going to shock the holy hell out of all of you: In a time of war, attacking civilians of an enemy nation is not necessarily an act of evil, especially when doing so might end the war faster. If attacking non-combatants, as was done during the Crusades, furthers no military goal toward victory, then it is definitely not Good. Actually, given the situation, those atrocities were akin to acts of outright banditry than warfare.
Geraturatu 06-05-07, 04:24 PM	Just for the record, I never claimed that the historical ninja did not "kill" anybody. Only that there is no record of a romanticized "assassination" or "hit" attributed to the people of Iga and Koga (truthfully, assassinations aren't even mentioned in historic ninjutsu treatises like the Bansenshukai or Shoninki). That's it. The problem with the aforementioned speculation here is that you're (and I don't mean you in particular but a more general "you") essentially saying the lack of evidence is the evidence. This is circular reasoning. If we discard evidence as necessary to demonstrate an event, then every and all claims are fair game, no matter how outlandish or absurd. I was not saying that the lack of evidence is the evidence. I did not say that at all. Now, I know other people say that, but I really don't fit into that category since instead of deciding whether or not they really assassinated people, my brain sits there going "Ooohhh,... ninja's..." While I go "Brain! Quite getting side tracked! Rah!" Oh, and, on a side note, why would they mention assassinations so that others could find out that they were responsible? Honestly, you have to burn any such contracts after the agent has finished, if the mission fails, or for any other reason. If they even made any records at all. These people wouldn't want to leave a track showing they were responsible for the death of such and such. Just pointing out some things the smart person would do, I mean, people today don't even leave records of those things when they hire a hitman. If people today don't leave records, then why would they have in those ancient days? The only diffrence is the level of technology. Though I don't want to start up another argument. :D
Azzy 06-05-07, 04:48 PM	I assumed that we're talking about the occupation. Evidently, the class has no alignment restrictions. Frankly, it should at least be restricted to non-Good alignments. Where am I wrong in my assessment? No they shouldn't. If they did, then any combatant class should have the same restrictions. There is nothing that precludes the ninja from being good. But while we're on the subject, let me say something that's going to shock the holy hell out of all of you: In a time of war, attacking civilians of an enemy nation is not necessarily an act of evil, especially when doing so might end the war faster. If attacking non-combatants, as was done during the Crusades, furthers no military goal toward victory, then it is definitely not Good. Actually, given the situation, those atrocities were akin to acts of outright banditry than warfare. Stop. Leave real world morality out of this. Go pick up your PHB, read the alignment section, and then get back to us.
Azzy 06-05-07, 04:56 PM	Technically, as long as the pope sanctioned it, it's not evil. Ah, but this discussion revolves around the D&D definition of good and evil, so for our intents and purposes they're still evil.
turalisj 06-05-07, 05:33 PM	The Dnd aligment system sucks. Rip that page out of your PHB, and go use the allegiance system in the D20 Modern book.:P
The_Shaman 06-05-07, 05:44 PM	Technically, as long as the pope sanctioned it, it's not evil. In a culture that was principally concerned with salvation of the soul through the guidance of the pontificate in Rome, that means not evil. A) the D&D alignment, faulty as it is, at least is uniform. For the average peasant in Wallachia, what some pompous bishop in Rome decides doesn't matter much. Not to mention the view of a merchant from Jaffa. Geneva conventions aside, it's the quickest way to go about business and it wasn't a crusader-only practice. The saracens would routinely do the same to territory they took back and the concept that Saladin was a noble warrior is often erronous. It was a common, accepted practice that was not necessary viewed as murder. Well, it depends. From what I know, it was relatively uncommon and it did not bring excessive popularity. The Mongols, for example, commonly massacred cities that opposed them, but they were infamous for it. So while it happened, it was very seldom accepted practice among onlookers, at least neutral ones. They were enemies of their respective religions and, particularly in the Latin Church, heathenry was met by a force of arms and it was completely acceptable. You cannot judge history thorugh a modern moral lense. To do so is anachronistic. I can, it just won't be an accurate assessment of the previous age. However, crusaders were among the more devastating armies even in that period, from what I know. So even if the Saracens were hardly saints (although mind you, the Mamluks were worse) they could have been better simply in comparison.
Westbound 06-05-07, 06:45 PM	No they shouldn't. If they did, then any combatant class should have the same restrictions. There is nothing that precludes the ninja from being good. Wrong. If every combatant class should have the same restrictions, then you must stupidly believe that all warfare is evil and wrong and bad and horrible and awful and therefore must be condemned as such. However, in order to be an assassin, a Ninja, a person that is specially trained in such activity that includes cold-blooded murder, then you have to check morality at the door. Because any moral code that has ANY respect for life in general or even a concept of right and wrong has NO place in the heart of an assassin. An assassin cannot afford to have them and do his job. The job in and of itself might have good intentions (to end the rulership of an evil dictator, to prevent a potential war, etc.), but a true assassin also does jobs that have no good intention, often done privately, sometimes to eliminate a rival, sometimes to sow terror, or whatever else. The assassin need not derive pleasure from what he does (which would seriously be evil), and doing so might also impair his performance as an assassin, but he can't have any qualms about murdering a completely innocent person. And the operative term is Murder. When war has broken out, it is clearly understood (by most rational creatures) that all pretense of morality has stopped being a norm and now has become a privilege endowed by the armed. Savagery is not necessarily tolerated, but if it helps to win the war, so be it. The best good that comes from the waging of war is to keep it as short and sweet as possible, without compromising one's own position (meaning, don't surrender unless you absolutely have no choice but to do so - to do otherwise is cowardly, and will not endow you with any respect from your conqueror). Stop. Leave real world morality out of this. Go pick up your PHB, read the alignment section, and then get back to us. When you grow up and get a sound education, get back with me. Morality is not relative, and the alignment system, even as flawed as it is, is based on modern concepts of good and evil. What's more, it is not dependent upon culture. Even in thoroughly repugnant societies, like the Aztecs, there were people who realized right from wrong based on concepts that were not as narcissitic as the moral relativism you believe in. So, until you understand this concept, you are way out of your league. Come back when you've read a book or two.
heretic888 06-05-07, 07:11 PM	I assumed that we're talking about the occupation. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but ninja is not an "occupation". As used by historians like Friday and Turnbull, the term refers to a wide variety of individuals from varying backgrounds in feudal Japan, a rather insignificant portion of whom would actually be considered "assassins" in the current discussion. The vast majority of people identified as "ninja" by such authorities tend to be ashigaru trained to hide in rice fields to observe troop movements or peasants that passed along rumors. As Turnbull himself pointed out on national American television (on a Discovery Channel special on the subject, if memory recalls accurately), we just don't have much evidence of any "ninja assassinations" in premodern Japan. There were assassinations, mind you, but they weren't committed by some super-secret, highly-trained assassins guild like you seem to surmise. I generally use the term "ninja" to refer the specialist groups of Iga Province and the Koga district of Omi Province. To be blunt, your claim that they would "check morality at the door" is glaringly at odds with historic ninjutsu treatises produced by these people, such as the Bansenshukai and Shoninki. The Shoninki in particular makes a stark differentiation between a ninja (shinobi-no-mono) and a thief (nusubito), pointing out the nusubito has "no regard for life" and that "this should not considered skillful means". I also find your distinction between "ninja" and "shinobi", to be perfectly blunt, laughably absurd. "Ninja" and "shinobi-no-mono" are just different ways of pronouncing the same kanji. They are written identically and would have the same meaning to a Japanese speaker. Quite frankly, I don't think you have half a clue about the people you are morally analyzing. It just strikes me all as silly. Evidently, the class has no alignment restrictions. For the same reason the Rogue has no alignment restrictions. Class abilities do not determine how or why they will be used. Class =/ character. Frankly, it should at least be restricted to non-Good alignments. Where am I wrong in my assessment? The part where you decide the goals, intentions, and motivations for characters for them. Last time I checked, that was up to the players. But while we're on the subject, let me say something that's going to shock the holy hell out of all of you: In a time of war, attacking civilians of an enemy nation is not necessarily an act of evil, especially when doing so might end the war faster. If attacking non-combatants, as was done during the Crusades, furthers no military goal toward victory, then it is definitely not Good. Actually, given the situation, those atrocities were akin to acts of outright banditry than warfare. So, when it comes to murdering defenseless innocents, the ends justifies the means. But, when it comes to murdering bloodthirsty tyrants, assassins are evil!! Uh huh. Sure. :rolleyes:
Azzy 06-05-07, 08:52 PM	Wrong. If every combatant class should have the same restrictions, then you must stupidly believe that all warfare is evil and wrong and bad and horrible and awful and therefore must be condemned as such. However, in order to be an assassin, a Ninja, a person that is specially trained in such activity that includes cold-blooded murder, then you have to check morality at the door. Because any moral code that has ANY respect for life in general or even a concept of right and wrong has NO place in the heart of an assassin. An assassin cannot afford to have them and do his job. The job in and of itself might have good intentions (to end the rulership of an evil dictator, to prevent a potential war, etc.), but a true assassin also does jobs that have no good intention, often done privately, sometimes to eliminate a rival, sometimes to sow terror, or whatever else. The assassin need not derive pleasure from what he does (which would seriously be evil), and doing so might also impair his performance as an assassin, but he can't have any qualms about murdering a completely innocent person. And the operative term is Murder. Since you weren't paying attention, let me reiterate that ninja (shinobi) are not assassins--assassination may be a tool employed by a ninja, but so is espionage, reconnaissance, intelligence, etc. A ninja is no more evil than a member of the special forces, CIA, etc. that uses the same tools. When war has broken out, it is clearly understood (by most rational creatures) that all pretense of morality has stopped being a norm and now has become a privilege endowed by the armed. Huh, if this isn't the same moral relativism that you later accuse me of. Don't be a hypocrite--if your stance is that there's is only one moral path, then stick to it. Savagery is not necessarily tolerated, but if it helps to win the war, so be it. That's a slippery slope, my friend. The path to hell is paved with good intentions. In D&D, since that's the only moral code that is relevant to this topic, killing innocent people is evil no matter which way you look at it. The best good that comes from the waging of war is to keep it as short and sweet as possible, without compromising one's own position (meaning, don't surrender unless you absolutely have no choice but to do so - to do otherwise is cowardly, and will not endow you with any respect from your conqueror). Which is why ninja and their ilk (intelligence officers, spies, snipers, etc.) are so important to warfare--they are a means to obtaining objectives that allow a war to be won quicker than through pure brute force. When you grow up and get a sound education, get back with me. Considering the stance that you take, perhaps you'd benefit from your own advice. Morality is not relative And you told me to get an education? Hmm, the fact that what is considered moral varies from culture to culture kinda implies that what is moral is relative to the culture at hand. Whether or not you agree with that culture's moral stance does not change the fact that culture has it's own definition of morality. End of story. But that's neither here nor there, as we're discussing morality as it applied in D&D. and the alignment system, even as flawed as it is, is based on modern concepts of good and evil. Correction... based loosely on the modern, Euro-American concept of good and evil. Still has no relevance. What's more, it is not dependent upon culture. Right.... Morality is derived from culture and religion, there are no immutable laws like those of physics that govern morality across religio-cultural boundaries. That's why even within a single religion/culture what is considered moral evolves over time. For instance, you don't see even the most orthodox of Jews practicing levirate marriages (yibbum) even though it is part of the Mosaic Law. Even in thoroughly repugnant societies, like the Aztecs, I take it that your understanding of the Aztecs comes from a historically inaccurate Mel Gibson movie rather than from any real research. there were people who realized right from wrong based on concepts that were not as narcissitic as the moral relativism you believe in. Considering that people within the same religion, within the same country, can (and do) have wildly disparate ideas of right and wrong, I'm going to have to go out on a limb and ask what fictional world you're living in? So, until you understand this concept, you are way out of your league. Come back when you've read a book or two. Right. Actually, once you "read a book or two" it becomes obvious that moral absolutists cannot see past their own nose.
Hochiu 06-05-07, 11:35 PM	Ah, but this discussion revolves around the D&D definition of good and evil, so for our intents and purposes they're still evil. I'm of the mind that individual organisations and institutions make their own definitions for the term that are broadly applied. I don't like to apply the traditional notions of alignment, even from D&D, onto such an overwhelmingly vast world I can create through the system. In my games intention fuels alignment as much as actual actions - so a church forming an office of inquisition to stamp out a potentially volatile pagan/heathen movement before it becomes a probem is justifying it to itself. Others may claim it to be evil, but to the church in question, it has done it's job. In other points: To claim that the notions of morality and right/wrong or good/evil are universal is utterly wrong. It violates everything that the social sciences have viewed for more than a hundred and fifty years. Seriously, if you have any general questions about it, take your basic intro to Cultural Anthropology courses. Culture is as diverse as any other entity and evolves its traditions and belief structures because of different reasons and stimuli exerted on the culture. I can't even begin to start to explain how wrong the notion is that morality is immutable.
kintire 06-06-07, 07:02 AM	Of course you don't see a difference because you're morally applying equally one activity with another through a warped sense of reality Translation: Someone disagrees with me. Do I a) try to understand why or b) Assume that anyone who disagrees with my GREAT LEETNESS is obviously wrong, and do some half baked psychonanlysis I can just make up instead? hmmm... b) is so much easier... :P If we were to continue along your train of thought, you hence believe that all war is therefore evil, all attackers are evil and all defenders are, at best, victimized regardless if they provoked hostilities. Buddy, you got on the wrong train. Actually, are you sure that isn't a bus? "Both Ninja and Soldiers kill people by stealth" leads to "all war is evil" only if you also believe that "Killing people by stealth is always evil": and that is YOUR train of thought, not mine. If his orders are to capture a settlement because it sits on a major crossroads that lead directly into the heart of enemy territory, it is not at all implied that he butcher the inhabitants. If so ordered to wantonly slaughter a village of defenseless inhabitants, he may not decide to do it, and if his army has a dedicated chain of command he may take umbrage with superior officers. Armies are like population centers, and they have a general alignment. And how is this different from a Ninja? If a Ninja's orders are to kill an enemy commander, it is not at all implied that he should butcher the inhabitants of the village or camp that the commander is in. He may not decide to do it, and if his organisation has a dedicated chain of command he may take umbrage with his senior officials just like a soldier. Ninjas are not all freelance. many are members of political or religious organisations, which will have a general alignment. A NINJA is a trained, conditioned agent that is expected to perform specific clandestine tasks, not the least of which is assassination, which requires the utmost commitment in spite of one's predilections. If he has any qualms about murder, then he's in the wrong business, and he reaps the repurcussions of his decisions should he decide to waver on his mission. Normally, no such person would ever have any qualms about it because a NINJA, as history bears out, is a person born and bred into a unique culture that hones such skills to be used by their masters. To be an assassin, you must not let morality interfere with your job. Ever. This is what makes such people evil. A Ninja is a trained conditioned agent OF SOMEONE. Few are the Ninjas who kill out of personal reasons. Most are in the service of an organisation or cause, just like a soldier. Like a soldier, their alignment will depend quite strongly on the cause they pick to support. A Ninja "murdering" then enemies of a righteous cause may well be righteous himself. Just as much as the soldier killing those same individuals on the battlefield. A Ninja is not expected to let morality interfere with his job, but neither is a soldier. Both are expected to pick an employer who fits with their moral outlook, or otherwise get their moral qualms sorted out before the mission begins. An assassin's victims rarely ever know they're even targeted before it's too late. Obviously, they don't at a tactical level. But then again, neither does the soldier who doesn't know the enemy are rushing his camp until the arrow hits him. At a strategic level, there isn't the slightest reason to suppose a ninja's target is any more unaware than the soldiers. It all depends who is being assassinated, and why. You are putting words in my mouth and you are making assumptions that aren't there The irony is unbearable... Never once did I ever say that all warriors are good and pure as the wind-driven snow. Never once did I say you did. You are AGAIN projecting on to me YOUR opinion that sneaky=evil. It doesn't. I am constantly amazed by the utter lack of reading comprehension, understanding, and rational thought. I sympathise. But with practice, you will develop these things. I said that soldiers are in better positions to allow some measure of fair play than Ninjas are. I daresay they are, but the competent ones do not. It seems you are making some rather interesting assumptions. Who said that Ninjas only go after military targets? Ninjas are and were often directed to go after a person that had no direct military value whatsoever. A general's beloved wife, a monarch's infant son who is the royal heir, a village's water-well to spread the notion of a plague, all of these and a whole lot more are activities that Ninjas and perhaps some Assassins might undertake. What kind of person do you think it would take to murder a defenseless baby? For the most part, warrior-types aren't really expected to kill babies, but a Ninja? A Ninja is PRECISELY expected to do just that without hesitation, and without a shred of passion. Oh, I'M making the assumptions am I? Let me point out right here the assumption that you are making, the one which is driving you off the rails. You seem to be assuming that all Ninjas MUST be prepared to do everything that all ninjas in history and fiction have ever been known to do. That is absurd. Yes, actually, I am assuming that Good Ninjas serving Good organisations will, in fact, only be sent after legitimate targets like enemy generals, evil priests, crime bosses and so on. Evil Ninjas may well go after innocents and babies, but they do that because they are evil, not because they are Ninjas. There is exactly nothing in either the class or the material that the class is derived from to suggest that ALL Ninjas do these things. Or even most. But while we're on the subject, let me say something that's going to shock the holy hell out of all of you: Kidlet, you flatter yourself. There are some of us who have been around long enough to have heard far more shocking things than this. attacking civilians of an enemy nation is not necessarily an act of evil, especially when doing so might end the war faster. And assassinating their leaders is? You have consistency issues here... Wrong. If every combatant class should have the same restrictions, then you must stupidly believe that all warfare is evil and wrong and bad and horrible and awful and therefore must be condemned as such. Keep trying with that rational thought thing. It'll come. The argument here is that: 1) Ninjas do not necessarily do anything more evil than other combatants do. 2) Other combatants are not necessarily evil. Conclusion: Ninja are not necessarily evil. The argument denies that war is evil, not asserts it. but a true assassin also does jobs that have no good intention, often done privately, sometimes to eliminate a rival, sometimes to sow terror, or whatever else. The assassin need not derive pleasure from what he does (which would seriously be evil), and doing so might also impair his performance as an assassin, but he can't have any qualms about murdering a completely innocent person. And the operative term is Murder. Who was whinging about assumptions earlier? This is rubbish. A "true assassin" is someone who assassinates people. It isn't relevant why. An assassin can perfectly happily spend his entire career offing diabolical cultists, ruthless crime lords and priests of Ultimate Darkness without ever saying a gruff word to an innocent, and he's just as much an assassin as Carnage the Goodiestabber. To claim that the notions of morality and right/wrong or good/evil are universal is utterly wrong. It violates everything that the social sciences have viewed for more than a hundred and fifty years. Seriously, if you have any general questions about it, take your basic intro to Cultural Anthropology courses. Culture is as diverse as any other entity and evolves its traditions and belief structures because of different reasons and stimuli exerted on the culture. I can't even begin to start to explain how wrong the notion is that morality is immutable. Actually, in the spirit of displaying that not all moral objectivists are arrogant schoolboys, Cultural Anthropology courses come to this conculsion from a very simplisitic idea of what morality is all about. In brief summary, it consist of two facets. What is Good? and What does that mean we should actually do? While the second is indeed extremely variable, generally speaking the first isn't. Objectivists don't necessarily believe that the application of the basic precepts a culture uses are objective, but the precepts are.
heretic888 06-06-07, 10:45 AM	To claim that the notions of morality and right/wrong or good/evil are universal is utterly wrong. It violates everything that the social sciences have viewed for more than a hundred and fifty years. Seriously, if you have any general questions about it, take your basic intro to Cultural Anthropology courses. Culture is as diverse as any other entity and evolves its traditions and belief structures because of different reasons and stimuli exerted on the culture. I can't even begin to start to explain how wrong the notion is that morality is immutable. :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:
The_Shaman 06-06-07, 10:50 AM	"To claim that the notions of morality and right/wrong or good/evil are universal is utterly wrong. It violates everything that the social sciences have viewed for more than a hundred and fifty years. Seriously, if you have any general questions about it, take your basic intro to Cultural Anthropology courses. Culture is as diverse as any other entity and evolves its traditions and belief structures because of different reasons and stimuli exerted on the culture. I can't even begin to start to explain how wrong the notion is that morality is immutable." Hmm, can't quite agree... I'd say there are often core values that can be considered good across moralities. However, how they are translated into "good" behavior varies, especially if we are talking about a situation that is viewed from several cultural angles. For example, most cultures hold altruism to be good, but different manifestations are appropriate in different cultures. Back to D&D: "Savagery is not necessarily tolerated, but if it helps to win the war, so be it. " So we've come to the point where "anything if it helps" is a viable moto even for good-aligned characters? Great. This is getting worse than the mature boards and torture (I blame 24 and a gang of jackals in lawyer's clothing). Welcome to the Good lite alignment. Get yourselves an " I <3 Grey Guard" baseball cap and you're set. I may not be an expert on the codes of conduct on RL ninja, whatever they really engaged in, but the PHB alignment is at least relatively simple. If it thinks like LE, acts like a LE, talks like LE, and smells like LE (in decreasing order of importance), chances are it is LE, even if it says it's doing it for the greater good.
Hochiu 06-06-07, 11:54 AM	Of course, there are differences between cultural concepts of good and evil and philosophical concepts of good and evil. I think there's some confusion on a basic level as to the differences there, but I could be wrong. Besides, I won't touch philosophical concepts with a fifteen foot pole in a sertilized environment namely because I: 1. Hate philosophical theory with an undying passion of undying hatred. 2. Am not versed in philosophical debate and so will not try pull stuff out of my arse like the majority of people on these forums do. 3. Really, really, REALLY hate philosophy. Now are we done with this foolishness? Seriously, this sidetracked too far into an alignment debate for my tastes. Can we get this thread back on track, or are we completed with it and can go on to other matters?
Azzy 06-06-07, 12:01 PM	I'm of the mind that individual organisations and institutions make their own definitions for the term that are broadly applied. I agree. However.... I don't like to apply the traditional notions of alignment, even from D&D, onto such an overwhelmingly vast world I can create through the system. In my games intention fuels alignment as much as actual actions - so a church forming an office of inquisition to stamp out a potentially volatile pagan/heathen movement before it becomes a problem is justifying it to itself. Others may claim it to be evil, but to the church in question, it has done it's job. The problem with D&D, is that alignment in tied to mechanics (something that I do find annoying), so it's presented in a manner that is fairly universal regardless of culture (unlike in the real world). The thing that keeps be from ripping the alignment page out of my PHB (like another poster suggested) in that alignment in D&D isn't how an individual, religion or culture defines morality, but a "god's-eye-view" of morality that is a universal constant. So, while an inquisitor of Pholtus (using a Greyhawk reference) considers himself the servant of absolute good (a character's self-perceived alignment versus...), his use of torture to convert heathens to the path of Pholtus is evil (...D&D's absolutist alignment). The upside of this situation is it provides a fairly clear cut definition that will remain pretty consistent from game table to game table (so paladin, and like characters, won't get screwed by individual DMs' varying definitions of alignment). On the downside, however, the creating a sense of moral ambiguity is sometimes tougher (or nigh impossible) because of the universalist nature of D&D's alignment system. In other points: To claim that the notions of morality and right/wrong or good/evil are universal is utterly wrong. It violates everything that the social sciences have viewed for more than a hundred and fifty years. Seriously, if you have any general questions about it, take your basic intro to Cultural Anthropology courses. Culture is as diverse as any other entity and evolves its traditions and belief structures because of different reasons and stimuli exerted on the culture. I can't even begin to start to explain how wrong the notion is that morality is immutable. No argument there. The real world is not nearly as cut and dried or black and white as D&D. If it were, I suspect that there would likely be less inter-cultural strife (until humanity found something else to kill each other over).
kintire 06-06-07, 12:20 PM	Of course, there are differences between cultural concepts of good and evil and philosophical concepts of good and evil Not quite what a meant. I was referring to the difference between the precepts (eg treat others as you would wish to be treated) and the cultural efforts to put that into practice. The latter vary widely, the former far less so. 1. Hate philosophical theory with an undying passion of undying hatred. 2. Am not versed in philosophical debate and so will not try pull stuff out of my arse like the majority of people on these forums do. 3. Really, really, REALLY hate philosophy. If you don't want to discuss philosophy, don't make statements about it. Especially extremely contentious ones.
Hochiu 06-06-07, 03:21 PM	My post was actually in response to The_Shaman's post which immediately preceded mine and I was basically attempting to identify the differences in interpretations and angles about alignment that one can take. I was offering the reasons exactly WHY I wouldn't be arguing from a philosophical standpoint so as to back up my actions of not doing so and there was no contention intended. So please kintire, respectfully, get off of my back and sit back down in your corner.
Professorpain 06-06-07, 04:15 PM	WotC's designers need a good long talk with allot of people. Including, but not limited to, historians, mythologists, competent game designers, and elementary school English teachers. Also: In before "but its a magical fantasy game".:P I don't see why. Most gamers I know play specialty settings to revisit classic hollywood flicks anyways. For instance, When I play Oriental adventures, I am just looking for a good adventure chock full of characters from movies like shogun and the last samurai. I want fun, not historically acurate portrayals of 15th century Japan. Same for any other historical setting. Pirate setting? Guess what, I want Treasure Island and Pirates of the Carribean. Arabian Setting? I want Sinbad and Ali Baba and racial stereotypes galore. I really don't understand why people insist on games reflecting myth and history accurately. Its just fun. If you want accurate history enroll in a graduate history program. Because it is "a magical fantasy game." Huzzah for evil ninjas and Samurai with rigid notions of honor who commit suicide at a moments notice.
Azzy 06-06-07, 07:09 PM	I don't see why. Most gamers I know play specialty settings to revisit classic hollywood flicks anyways. For instance, When I play Oriental adventures, I am just looking for a good adventure chock full of characters from movies like shogun and the last samurai. I want fun, not historically acurate portrayals of 15th century Japan. Same for any other historical setting. Pirate setting? Guess what, I want Treasure Island and Pirates of the Carribean. Arabian Setting? I want Sinbad and Ali Baba and racial stereotypes galore. I really don't understand why people insist on games reflecting myth and history accurately. Its just fun. If you want accurate history enroll in a graduate history program. Because it is "a magical fantasy game." Huzzah for evil ninjas and Samurai with rigid notions of honor who commit suicide at a moments notice. Then again, some of us find the real deal far more entertaining and awe inspiring than ignorant stereotypes. Take the movie 300, for instance. Fun, entertaining, and all that, but... The macho grandstanding in that movie pales in comparison with the historical battle of Thermopylae and the concurrent Battle of Artemisium and their context in history. Mindless fun is okay, but fun doesn't have to be mindless. For the most part, with D&D, it's not so much a concern with historical accuracy, but cultural authenticity. In the case of the ninja, it would be nice if the designers understood the facts behind them before deviating from the facts. Otherwise, why did you bother to call it ninja in the first place?
narukagami 06-06-07, 08:26 PM	FYI, the "elementary school English teachers" part is ment to convey the fact Wizards has a horrid editing team, if they even have one at all. That was a jab at the relyance on errata. The "competent game designers" part, well, thats just me being mean :P.
Professorpain 06-07-07, 06:21 AM	For the most part, with D&D, it's not so much a concern with historical accuracy, but cultural authenticity. In the case of the ninja, it would be nice if the designers understood the facts behind them before deviating from the facts. Otherwise, why did you bother to call it ninja in the first place? I guess we just disagree on what makes the game fun. I really don't care about cultural authenticity in my game, in fact too much cultural authenticity makes the game dull for me. Most players have an image of the ninja taken from movies and cheap novels, I say give them what they expect from an asian setting.
kintire 06-07-07, 09:30 AM	I was offering the reasons exactly WHY I wouldn't be arguing from a philosophical standpoint so as to back up my actions of not doing so and there was no contention intended. The contentious statement I was referring to was: To claim that the notions of morality and right/wrong or good/evil are universal is utterly wrong. If you're under the impression THAT isn't contentious, you're living in a box. So please kintire, respectfully, get off of my back and sit back down in your corner. Cry me a river. You make one of the most contentious possible statements about morality, one of the more contentious subjects in the repertoire, and then complain when people contend it? I haven't a shred of sympathy. For the most part, with D&D, it's not so much a concern with historical accuracy, but cultural authenticity. In the case of the ninja, it would be nice if the designers understood the facts behind them before deviating from the facts. Otherwise, why did you bother to call it ninja in the first place? Its true that Ninja carries a lot of different baggage depending on whether you are coming from history or pop culture, and I don't see why you can't accomodate both. The fewer restrictions you place on the class, the more flexible the archetype becomes. As it stands, you can build a Ninja that works in both styles (well, obviously not the superhistorical style, because of the Ki abilities). This is one of the reasons why I'm against alignment restrictions and culture based features in Character classes. They limit flexibility. And, of course, the OP isn't bothered by either type, because Ninja aren't always evil in pop culture either.
Hochiu 06-07-07, 10:22 AM	Depends. There are other ninja classes out in the publishing world of d20 that could suit a (somewhat) less fantastic version of ninja, but not by much. Namely, the Rokugan d20 version, which is the one I'll personally try to use more so than the one in Complete Adventurer. And I'm sure publishing companies like Mongoose, Green Ronin, et al have published their own class variations of the ninja. It'd be interesting to see if the number of ninja classes mirror the number and type of ninja-theories. :plotting: kintire, you sir, need to quote the passage in question that you're referring to throughout your posts. As can clearly be seen, I was under the impression that the passages from my post that you quoted was what was viewed as contentious. Which, now that you've cleared it up, seems silly. Yes, that excerpt is contentious. But it doesn't make it any less true. :P
The_Shaman 06-07-07, 11:04 AM	Well, if I wanted to build a very ninja-ish ninja, I'd buff up on my reading and probably go for OA ninja spy. Maybe without the restrictions, maybe with them. Just because your character is TN doesn't mean they should be boring.
kintire 06-07-07, 11:20 AM	Which, now that you've cleared it up, seems silly. Yes, that excerpt is contentious. But it doesn't make it any less true. Well, I try to keep my quoting to a minimum. But this time it seems I took it too far! However, my quote isn't irrelevant. The point I was making is this: you've made this statement. Its false. To explain why, I'd need to go into a bit of philosophy. You flatly refuse to talk philosophy. So what now? No, the fact that its contentious doesn't make it any less true. But there are other reasons that do. If you find that weak, and it is, its your own fault! Depends. There are other ninja classes out in the publishing world of d20 that could suit a (somewhat) less fantastic version of ninja, but not by much. Namely, the Rokugan d20 version, which is the one I'll personally try to use more so than the one in Complete Adventurer. I am at a disadvantage here as I am forbidden to read anything in any sourcebook about any Rokugan ninja. Which worries me a little... still, it must be said that a Ninja without actual magic would be better in my opinion. After all, if you want a magic ninja you can always multiclass. If I try to run an actual historical campaign, I won't use any Ninja class at all. I'll go for [whatever class I'm using as Bushi] with a few levels of Rogue.
heretic888 06-07-07, 02:51 PM	Its true that Ninja carries a lot of different baggage depending on whether you are coming from history or pop culture, and I don't see why you can't accomodate both. The fewer restrictions you place on the class, the more flexible the archetype becomes. As it stands, you can build a Ninja that works in both styles (well, obviously not the superhistorical style, because of the Ki abilities). I disagree. I don't feel the CV Ninja fits the "ninja" of Japanese history or legend very well at all. At best, it fits a very narrow niche within mange/anime "ninja" depictions. My personal opinion is that the best published "ninja" classes are: 1) Swordsage (with focus on the Diamond Mind and Setting Sun disciplines, and a light speckling of Shadow Hand). 2) Scout (focus on melee, finesse-based combat). 3) Rogue is an excellent choice for multiclassing with the aforementioned classes, but does not make a good "ninja" by itself. Or any combination thereof. But, that's just my opinion.
Hochiu 06-07-07, 06:20 PM	I am at a disadvantage here as I am forbidden to read anything in any sourcebook about any Rokugan ninja. Which worries me a little... still, it must be said that a Ninja without actual magic would be better in my opinion. After all, if you want a magic ninja you can always multiclass. If I try to run an actual historical campaign, I won't use any Ninja class at all. I'll go for [whatever class I'm using as Bushi] with a few levels of Rogue. An argument can be made for the OA Ninja Spy prestige class, with levels of Rogue taken as base. I know REG likes to use that one.
Azzy 06-08-07, 12:50 AM	Its true that Ninja carries a lot of different baggage depending on whether you are coming from history or pop culture, and I don't see why you can't accomodate both. The fewer restrictions you place on the class, the more flexible the archetype becomes. As it stands, you can build a Ninja that works in both styles (well, obviously not the superhistorical style, because of the Ki abilities). Well, I think that the best way to accommodate both the historical ninja and the various disparate pop culture ninja is to not have a "ninja" base class because doing so inherently limits your ability to simulate wildly disparate ninja stereotypes. As it stands, the ninja various stereotypes can easily be recreated with an existing base class (with or without multiclassing, as dependent on the abilities you require). This is one of the reasons why I'm against alignment restrictions and culture based features in Character classes. They limit flexibility. For the most part I agree. Some classes are so tied to alignment (eg, paladins, various prestige classes, etc.) that it's easier to accept an alignment restriction than others (eg, bards).
kintire 06-08-07, 05:16 AM	I disagree. I don't feel the CV Ninja fits the "ninja" of Japanese history or legend very well at all. At best, it fits a very narrow niche within mange/anime "ninja" depictions. I dunno. Its a flexible class with decent skill points and list, ambush ability, and escape and evasion powers. I think it works quite well. You have to ignore much of the "flavour" text of course. 1) Swordsage (with focus on the Diamond Mind and Setting Sun disciplines, and a light speckling of Shadow Hand). 2) Scout (focus on melee, finesse-based combat). 3) Rogue is an excellent choice for multiclassing with the aforementioned classes, but does not make a good "ninja" by itself. I'm not very familiar with Swordsage, but I'm not convinced by Scout. Too based on running about the place, and not enough up front punch. Well, I think that the best way to accommodate both the historical ninja and the various disparate pop culture ninja is to not have a "ninja" base class because doing so inherently limits your ability to simulate wildly disparate ninja stereotypes. For historical Ninja this is certainly the way to go. After all, as far as I can see the main (not the only) difference between the historical the fictional is not so much what they do, but the fact that the fictional version has the same omnicompetent person doing it all, whereas historically different aspects of covert operations were done by specialists.
Azzy 06-08-07, 06:56 AM	For historical Ninja this is certainly the way to go. After all, as far as I can see the main (not the only) difference between the historical the fictional is not so much what they do, but the fact that the fictional version has the same omnicompetent person doing it all, whereas historically different aspects of covert operations were done by specialists. Actually, it's better for the (various) fictional varieties, too. Some pop-ninja are much more fighter/ranger/ToB warrior types with some disguise and mega-jumping, some are super rogues, some are very sorcerous.... The fictional ninja is too varied to pin a single class on it.
unundindur 06-09-07, 07:03 AM	I agree the swordsage works well. I also think the Rokugan base class works well for a "more" historical version, and last of all if I limit myself to the core books I could make a ninja a rogue/ranger/monk (any combination of those).
heretic888 06-09-07, 07:39 AM	I dunno. Its a flexible class with decent skill points and list, ambush ability, and escape and evasion powers. I think it works quite well. You have to ignore much of the "flavour" text of course. First off, if the CV Ninja is your idea of a "flexible" class, I'd hate to see what you consider an "inflexible" class!! Despite your claim to its "flexibility", the CV Ninja can really only play one niche with its ability set (sneaky assassin-type) and, even then it only does so marginally better than the Rogue. I say marginally better because the Ninja's various stealth abilities (while somewhat nice) have limited uses per day and are negated with an antimagic field, see invisibility, true seeing, and probably a couple other things I'm forgetting about. At higher levels, you're probably better off with mundane stealth than magical stealth (since the occurrence of opponents that possess these things are increasingly more common). The CV Ninja essentially sacrifices the genuine flexibility of the Rogue for being marginally better in a very limited skillset that the Rogue is already pretty competent in. Meh, if you ask me. As for the class's similarity with the historical ninja, you'll note that everything you said could equally apply to the Rogue, as well, but I also don't consider it a suitable match for the archetype (at least not a pure Rogue, anyway). The truth of the matter is that when your descriptions are to such a level of vague abstraction as "decent skill points and list, ambush ability, and escape and evasion powers", then really half the classes in the game could fill your match. At the very least, the Rogue, Monk, Ranger, Scout, and certain Swordsages all fit that description just as well. I'm not very familiar with Swordsage, but I'm not convinced by Scout. Too based on running about the place, and not enough up front punch. Okay, hold on a minute here.... the Scout is "not enough up front punch", but the CV Ninja is?? Huh?! :confused: I'm not really sure how much you know about the historical "ninja", but they were spies, scouts, and commandos in their occupation. They were not the frontline infantry, so the ability to "up front punch" would not have been as important to them as "running about the place". In fact, several of the sword kata from Togakure Ryu Ninjutsu involve a bit of "running about". If I couldn't use a Swordsage or my own class, the Scout is by far the closest match to the historical "ninja" of Iga and Koga in the game. Hands down. For historical Ninja this is certainly the way to go. After all, as far as I can see the main (not the only) difference between the historical the fictional is not so much what they do, but the fact that the fictional version has the same omnicompetent person doing it all, whereas historically different aspects of covert operations were done by specialists. I disagree with the premise that we need multiple base classes to accommodate various "ninja" archetypes. It all depends on design flexibility and elegance. My own Shinobi class, for example, can fill a reasonable number of "ninja" archetypes (both historical and fictional) depending on the maneuvers and class abilities that are chosen for your character. Once I actually finish it, that is. However, barring something like the Shinobi from one's game, I would agree that multiple base classes are suitable, depending on what "ninja" actually means in one's campaign world.
heretic888 06-09-07, 07:50 AM	I agree the swordsage works well. No argument here. I also think the Rokugan base class works well for a "more" historical version, and last of all if I limit myself to the core books I could make a ninja a rogue/ranger/monk (any combination of those). I don't really agree with your sentiments about the Rokugan Ninja class here. Its basically the same vein as the CV Ninja in that its a Rogue that has sacrificed some of its flexibility to become marginally better in a specific niche (in this case, upfront combat). The BAB is nice, but the initiative and speed bonuses are basically irrelevant (it is easy as pie to get an abundance of both at mid-to-high levels). Still, with the same hit die as a Rogue, a more or less equivalent AC (actually a Rogue's is probably better overall), fewer skill points, and no Evasion or Improved Evasion, the flexibility and survivability of the Rokugan Ninja is definitely not in the same league as the Rogue's. Honestly, you'd be better off multiclassing Rogue/Fighter than taking the Rokugan Ninja (especially as some of the Ninja's class abilities are Scorpion Clan feats in Rokugan). In any event, I still think the Scout is a better match.
The_Shaman 06-09-07, 08:10 AM	Actually, if scouts had sudden strike or SA, I agree it would be quite good to the concept. By the way, am I the only one who thinks that the CV spymaster might make a very good ninjaish PrC?
kintire 06-09-07, 01:19 PM	First off, if the CV Ninja is your idea of a "flexible" class, I'd hate to see what you consider an "inflexible" class!! Fighter. As for the class's similarity with the historical ninja, you'll note that everything you said could equally apply to the Rogue, as well, but I also don't consider it a suitable match for the archetype (at least not a pure Rogue, anyway). Well, yes, that's largely true. The Ninja's escape and evasion is superior because of the Ki powers, but if you ignore that (or your GM hands out see invisibility too much) you can make a perfectly acceptable Ninja with Rogue, adding various H-H classes for the more stand up types. At the very least, the Rogue, Monk, Ranger, Scout, and certain Swordsages all fit that description just as well. Rogue to a degree. Ranger lacks the social skills. Monk can work, but lacks the high up front damage. Still stunning fist can be a big leveller for that... increasing your "up front" period by rounds. Assuming they fail the save of course. Okay, hold on a minute here.... the Scout is "not enough up front punch", but the CV Ninja is?? Huh?! Absolutely. If a Ninja surprises the target, they get sudden strike, for considerable damage. Then, if they beat the target's initiative they can do it again. At higher levels they get iterative attacks in the first round, and can and a juicy little Con poison to the surprise. Of course, it sucks a bit if they don't get initiative, but even the surprise round will be a fistful of d6 damage up front (hmm.. argument for a Dex poison actually... but I digress). Scouts, by comparison, suck. They also get bonus damage, but about half as much. And it gets worse: they have to move ten feet, ie take a move action, to get it. So, no extra damage in the surprise round: its only a partial round, so no moving and attacking for you. You get it in the first round, of course, but only once. As soon as iterative attacks and/or dual wielding arrive, the Scout is seriously trailing. You can't move and full attack, so the Scout gets multiple attacks OR skirmish damage, not both. Whereas the Ninja can unload that twice-as-much bonus damage into the flatfooted target as many times as he has attacks, the scout gets one and only one. Of course, up front damage isn't the only valuable thing, and the Scout then keeps getting that bonus damage round after round. Whats more, he'll probably be outdamaging the adversary, because they'll be moving to keep up, and thus won't be full attacking either. In a battle of attrition, Scout FTW... but if there's one thing Ninja are NOT, its attrition specialists. I'm not really sure how much you know about the historical "ninja", but they were spies, scouts, and commandos in their occupation. That's a fallacy. If there's one thing this discussion has proved, its that just because a dnd class is called something, that doesn't mean its identical with a historical role of the same name. Ninja were indeed scouts, but that doesn't mean they were Scouts (tm). However, barring something like the Shinobi from one's game, I would agree that multiple base classes are suitable, depending on what "ninja" actually means in one's campaign world. I can agree with this. When I say that you need multiple base classes to make a good Ninja, I'm making a statement about the current state of play, not an eternal principle. I'd be very interested to see your Shinobi class!
The_Shaman 06-09-07, 03:23 PM	That's a fallacy. If there's one thing this discussion has proved, its that just because a dnd class is called something, that doesn't mean its identical with a historical role of the same name. Ninja were indeed scouts, but that doesn't mean they were Scouts (tm)." Ah, but it cuts both ways, and we went over that more than a little already. Just because there may be ninjas in D&D, doesn't have to mean they need to have even a level in the Ninja class. Ranger lacks the social skills. Monk can work, but lacks the high up front damage Ranger is fine for those agents who were specialists in guerilla warfare. By the way, if Heretic chooses scout as his non-ToB favourite apparently he can also compromise in the social skill departments. Maybe they had a few cross-class ranks in diplomacy, bluff or sense motive - these ninja were okay spies, just not the oriental Mata Haris. OK, if I were to make a ninja with ranger levels, I would try to multiclass, ideally with rogue (although the swift hunter + scout levels is a serious combo, too). Monks can make good sneaksmen, they just don't have the huge amount of extra precision damage. OTOH, a monk's high unarmed damage can easily be the equivalent of at least one or two d6s, plus you get more attacks with FoB, and you don't have to worry about any stuff like flat-footed, etc. So overall, I'm not so worried about damage (which isn't much lower than that of rangers anyway): it's their lower number of skill points that gets to me. if there's one thing Ninja are NOT, its attrition specialists. Oh, come on. Three words: hit and run. In more words: apparently my idea of attrition is a lot different than yours, and need not include standing there and duking it out. Guerilla tactics are an important aspect of attrition, and the CV ninja is actually quite good at those. You can do extra damage if they don't see you (ki step or just sniping), you can have poison, and you know how to disappear after each hit. What more do you need, a -bleep-ing sniper rifle?
Hochiu 06-09-07, 04:10 PM	What's to stop you from having a multiclass rogue/monk, whereby the monastic order is able to continue in monk levels if they take rogue levels (a la Forgotten Realms) and call it a ninja? Light armour, fast movement, enough mysticism to placiate the hollywood ninja fanboys, a range of specailized weapons that can be adapted with their fighting style.... Can you even stack rogue Sneak Atack damage dice with a monk's Flurry of Blows? I'm honestly not sure. It seems like I'm going to have to agree with Heretic on what most of what he says. Ignore the class names, call them "Generic sneaky character class ALPHA" or something, would that make such a big deal after the fact, when everything is said and done?
The_Shaman 06-09-07, 06:43 PM	What's to stop you from having a multiclass rogue/monk, whereby the monastic order is able to continue in monk levels if they take rogue levels (a la Forgotten Realms) and call it a ninja? I don't know why you'd need any order, it's not like there aren't enough monk PrCs. Heck, you could unearth the crescent moon concept and devise a prestige for the occasion. Can you even stack rogue Sneak Atack damage dice with a monk's Flurry of Blows? I'm honestly not sure. Don't see why not, iirc SA applies on any attack that meets the conditions.
Hochiu 06-09-07, 11:13 PM	I don't know why you'd need any order, it's not like there aren't enough monk PrCs. Heck, you could unearth the crescent moon concept and devise a prestige for the occasion. Well, as a DM who likes to dictate the number and type of prestige classes available, I always try to find solutions for character ideas within base classes first. Prestige classes to me are not granted, they're well..prestigious.
Evil DM Mk3 06-10-07, 08:11 AM	As I understand things they are more steriotyped as Chaotic and in a Feudal society (Eastern or Western) that is enough to be a pyriah. Evil is somthing quite differant.
Azzy 06-10-07, 11:50 AM	*sigh*
The_Shaman 06-10-07, 02:28 PM	Well, as a DM who likes to dictate the number and type of prestige classes available, I always try to find solutions for character ideas within base classes first. Prestige classes to me are not granted, they're well..prestigious. Sure, you are within your limits to approve or deny PrCs. However, if you want a monk/rogue hybrid, and there are PrCs that are similar to that concept, why not include them?
yellowdingo 06-10-07, 08:59 PM	THE ALL IMPORTANT DAY JOB Frankly this is the same problem as with the Paladin. The Paladin is seen as the Lawful Good hero which he never was historically. Historically a Paladin is a position of power held by a brutal thug who has slaughtered people opposed to his authority...and the authority of his church. The heroic version is church propaganda. Frankly the NINJA is an Executioner or a Hitman or a scout, or a spy. The Mystaran Setting has a NPC class called a headsman (a fighter-thief SKILLED IN KILLING, POISONS, LANGUAGES)...it has two subcategories: The Thug which is the killer for hire who is evil and blackmails the client as need be and The Executioner which is the guy who the king employed to chop off the heads of criminals up for death and is any neutral and has a day job (select random Profession) when he isnt wearing the mask and chopping off heads. As A scout or Spy the ninja is pretty much any alignment. AS A TEMPLATE The Ninja (like the Paladin) is more a template to fit on one or more of the four central classes (being Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief). If you want a Ninja who who can throw shruiken (enhanced with a magic missile variant so they autohit) or use blowguns (from which spray such spell effects as sleep, Web, poison cloud), you select a wizard. If your Ninja is into swords and bows and wearing armor to spy as a Samuari then Fighter is your base class. If you like to get into stealth then perhaps thief is more the class you need as ninja.
Azzy 06-10-07, 09:25 PM	*sigh*
yellowdingo 06-10-07, 10:00 PM	*sigh* Its like that is it? Fine! Ninja (Kaidatcha Template) RACE Australian Aboriginal PRIORITY SKILLS Craft (Poison), Move silently, Knowledge(Religion) PRIORITY FEATS RUN, ENDURANCE, TRACK, GREAT FORTITUDE, EXOTIC WEAPON (Blowgun-used to spray poison) Equipment Emu Feather Boots-providing stealth bonuses and interfering with the capacity of others to track the wearer of the boots. Poison-blown across their face as the victim sleeps. made from Termite Mound Chewings, functioning like fine glass so the victim bleeds to death in the lungs. Alignment: Any Lawful THe Kaidaitcha is deployed by the elders to dispose of any young warrior who threatens their rule.
kintire 06-11-07, 05:29 AM	Ah, but it cuts both ways, and we went over that more than a little already. Just because there may be ninjas in D&D, doesn't have to mean they need to have even a level in the Ninja class. A fearsome rebuttal. Sadly, I don't think you are arguing with the person you think you are! As I said earlier If I try to run an actual historical campaign, I won't use any Ninja class at all. I'll go for [whatever class I'm using as Bushi] with a few levels of Rogue. I'm just saying that the CV Ninja class is useable. Oh, come on. Three words: hit and run. In more words: apparently my idea of attrition is a lot different than yours, and need not include standing there and duking it out. I'm sorry, obviously I've been unclear. Duking it out? The main plan of assassins and commandos is that the enemy should be dead before they've realised they are under attack, before they can raise the alarm, and before they can organise. This does not involve slowly whittling them down over a darawn out fight, it involves whacking them in round one. The Ninja is equipped to do this: the Scout is not. That may qualify as attrition on a strategic level, but not on a tactical one.
The_Shaman 06-11-07, 11:10 AM	Ah, okay. I don't have any mechanical problem with the CV ninja, it's just not quite the catch-all - or necessary - ninja class. Rather, I would consider it a pseudo-generic mystic rogue. As for the attrition debate, I'm a little confused. AFAIK the main use of the word in terms of combat is, to quote Webster: "the act of weakening or exhausting by constant harassment, abuse, or attack" Hemce. what you descripbe can not be attrition, at least not tactical one (i.e. you can't weaken them by constant attacks and harassment if they're dead). Duking it out - standing and fighting until one man/group/army drops - might be a form of attrition, but neither scout nor ninja are particularly good at it.
kintire 06-11-07, 11:42 AM	As for the attrition debate, I'm a little confused. AFAIK the main use of the word in terms of combat is, to quote Webster: "the act of weakening or exhausting by constant harassment, abuse, or attack" Hemce. what you descripbe can not be attrition, at least not tactical one (i.e. you can't weaken them by constant attacks and harassment if they're dead). The key to the debate is: weakening or exhausting what? Ninja are good at strategic attrition. They cause attrition to armies, by killing a few of its people in rapid raids, by taking out supply wagons, by eliminating officers and commanders, intercepting messengers and so on. They don't do tactical attrition (by preference): they take people down fast and hard. Scouts do tactical attrition as well. They whittle down people with consistent damage, much less up front, but more over the long haul. Ninja are commandos: Scouts are skirmishers. Thats the difference. Duking it out - standing and fighting until one man/group/army drops - might be a form of attrition, but neither scout nor ninja are particularly good at it. I never said they were.
The_Shaman 06-11-07, 11:59 AM	Okay, I can live with that. I wanted to point out that if ninjas wanted to do what you call tactical attrition (or small-scale attrition) they can do it. Their abilities are also suited to different pursuits, sure, but in the theoretical case of an encampment too big to overrun in one raid they are well-suited to whittling away the defenders. Can we leave it at that?
kintire 06-11-07, 12:07 PM	Okay, I can live with that. I wanted to point out that if ninjas wanted to do what you call tactical attrition (or small-scale attrition) they can do it. Their abilities are also suited to different pursuits, sure, but in the theoretical case of an encampment too big to overrun in one raid they are well-suited to whittling away the defenders. Can we leave it at that? Yes, I'm happy with that
The_Shaman 06-11-07, 06:00 PM	Peace. BTW, ninja might not be evil, but be careful, they can be a bit... touchy. Case in point (http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/comic.php?d=20070608) : there's only so much s..t they can put up with.
Geraturatu 06-13-07, 08:20 PM	Here's a summary of it: They don't have to be evil, but that doesn't mean that they're necassarily gonna be good. They certainly CAN be good, but that's not what I meant. So there :) (Do I get a cookie:bigeyes: lol)
Ranger REG 06-14-07, 04:12 AM	(Do I get a cookie:bigeyes: lol) I have sashimi.
Sleepwalker13666 06-19-07, 04:46 AM	Ninja = spies and assassins. So, not good at the very least - they where men who where ready to make... unsavory things for their masters. It was not that bad, because that seems evident - ninja couldn't be good. In my game assassins, ninjas etc can be good, but walk the fine lines of it, the line from Remo williams "Assassination is the highest form of public service." has convinced me.
The_Shaman 06-19-07, 10:18 AM	WTH is that, a book or something? Darn sure it wasn't in any of the definitions of civic-mindedness I came across in college ;)
Sleepwalker13666 06-19-07, 02:01 PM	WTH is that, a book or something? Darn sure it wasn't in any of the definitions of civic-mindedness I came across in college ;) Remo Williams: The Adventure begins is an old movie, it's about an excellent cop who is nearly killed, so a secret organization, fakes his death, and begins to train him, one of his teachers is a martial arts master named Chun, and he talks about the assassination of several historic tyrants in the past, Remo tells him you speak about it as if it was some kind of public service and Chun follows up with "Assassination is the highest form of public service."
Hanzo187 06-19-07, 10:52 PM	I'm new to this conversation, so please bear with me: I never believed there was anything wrong with a Ninja being of any alignment. It opens the door to many different kinds of Ninja. Of course, I felt a True Neutral Ninja is best, mostly because it doesn't have extremes either way (a peace-of-mind sort of thing). But that doesn't mean some Ninja aren't Good. After all, some of those Good Ninja may be farmers or villagers trained in the shadow arts who secretly take up arms to defend their village. They could also be Ninja thieves, sneaking in at night, knocking out the guards, and making off with the crown, tome, or scepter, like a stealthier and oriental-style Robin Hood. The Evil Ninja could be indiscriminant assassins, while the Neutral Ninja will do what is necessary, but will not go to extremes. To be honest, I run a CG Wood Elf Ninja that has worked quite well. He's far from a goody to-shoes, but he kills when he feels it necessary. He's basically a good guy with an edge. Anyway, who's to say a Ninja can't be Good. Are they restricted? Not necessarily. Even many Neutral characters don't kill without a reason.
Twilight_Blade 06-20-07, 05:06 PM	Whatever n00b stereotyped the ninja as evil didn't know the first thing about the origins of ninjutsu. ninjutsu was originally developed in the mountain Iga and Koga reigions of Feudal Japan by Farmers who were generallymistreated by those higher up the social ladder. Ninjutsu was created to protect life, lland and family. If that isn't good, I don't know what is.
Azzy 06-20-07, 10:24 PM	Whatever n00b stereotyped the ninja as evil didn't know the first thing about the origins of ninjutsu. ninjutsu was originally developed in the mountain Iga and Koga reigions of Feudal Japan by Farmers who were generallymistreated by those higher up the social ladder. Ninjutsu was created to protect life, lland and family. If that isn't good, I don't know what is. Oh, c'mon!!!! At least read the darned thread--you might learn some facts that way.
Holy_Beholder 06-21-07, 12:42 AM	Well, considering that ninjas are also stereotyped as wearing all black, having unique swords, and other stuff like that, what do you expect? Whoever made the stereotype had never heard of disguise(Because if there are lots of peasants, who will notice one more, then you can throw a knife, and leave amid the peasants) It usually works better than camouflage that can't adapt well. Then there is the unique sword, so anyone who sees it or even sees the cut it leaves(yes that is a stereotype) knows you did it. Sheer brilliance. So the evil is really minor.
Acedykstra 06-21-07, 01:17 PM	Im not sure what all the issue is with alignment... The way that I have always understood the alignment rule is that is was meant to give your players something to role play... You can play just about ANY class I think with just about ANY alignment. (I say almost, obviously paladins are lawful good, though you could easily edit the class and make it a dark hero and smite good stuff) So dont necissarily stereo type any class as good or evil, but make sure whatever alignment you take, you play that kind of character. A good character is a good person, wherever fate has landed him as far as profession. A good ninja, for example, may not kill the children, seeing them as irrelevent to their mission, and possibly bluff to his employer that they are dead. There are always ways to make it work. It just takes some devoted RP. Its just a game after all.
AkumaDaimyo 06-21-07, 01:37 PM	Actually a good ninja would never work for such a employer. He'd decline or maybe even kill the employer instead if he's got a vigilantee streak in him. Besides Ninja don't have employers so much. They have a clan and a clan head who gives them missions of importance to the clan. So it's more like you have a boss who is in charge of the contracts he gets from others to do missions. So if your clan is good he wouldn't take "kill the children" type missions. I've already thought of games around good alinged ninja cathing wind of contracts like that.
The_Shaman 06-21-07, 05:07 PM	Well, killing them would probably be a bit too much, and likely frowned on by the others. Still, leaking a few rumors here and there can solve the situation just as... finally.
Twilight_Blade 06-23-07, 05:40 PM	Oh, c'mon!!!! At least read the darned thread--you might learn some facts that way. I know plenty of facts, I am a student of Ninjutsu!
Azzy 06-24-07, 03:01 PM	I know plenty of facts, I am a student of Ninjutsu! Case and point.
DarthVicious074 07-03-07, 03:41 PM	Ok, since we are onto the good old debate... Here is my take on this "issue": The name ninja were never used in the times it is said to. There were people who did what the ninja are supposed to have done, that is murder, subterfuge, espionage and general spec-ops work. These people are at times called Shinobi (meaning Spy?), and were usually special trained Samurai, not some secret-secret organization of spiritual fanatics (at a time there were a few temples of such, but they were more warriors than anything). Saying ninja cannot be good is the same as saying rangers cannot be good. I could to a certain degree agree, but that is due to the weirdness of the alignment system and not anything else. Ninja as they are portrayed in DnD are typically evil, in that most who play them, and most times you encounter them they hold the role of assassins. I am among those who like this concept, but I also see that this is but a nichè of "ninja"-activity, and that my atypical ninja character shouldn't force all ninja to be evil. Even in modern cartoons and movies have we seen the "good" ninja. The classic white vs. black ninja is a good example of this. Or what about turtles, were they evil because they supposedly were ninja? I say you either have to go for the historic approach where they were akin to modern day SWAT (which you of course can proclaim to be universally evil...), or you have to accept that ninja is a fantasy term that usually involves evil, but doesn't have to. Actually, Ninja did exist and few of them were EVIL. They were spies and commandoes, period. Commandoes did assassinate people from time to time but that was mostly to further their aims, not for money as is stated in the assassin PrC. Simply put Ninja's were warrior monks trained in clandestine and unconventional warfare. They were NOT evil assassins who killed for kicks. They were mostly spies, commandoes. And during the Tokugawa era, they were the Shogun's secret police, and un-uniformed bodyguards, often scene and artisans or gardeners, or even Samurai. Indeed many believed that the most well known Ninja in history, Hanzo Hattori or Hattori Hanzo (whichever you prefer, and yes he was a real person) was a Samurai. It was mostly Hollywood that came up with the whole nonsense of Ninja being evil assassins, and Samurai being Japan's equivilent to Western Paladins. And although the Ninja encouraged this line of nonsense, that doesn't take away from what they TRULY were, highly efficient spies and commandoes. And Shinobi is the proper term for Ninja.
DarthVicious074 07-03-07, 03:44 PM	Actually a good ninja would never work for such a employer. He'd decline or maybe even kill the employer instead if he's got a vigilantee streak in him. Besides Ninja don't have employers so much. They have a clan and a clan head who gives them missions of importance to the clan. So it's more like you have a boss who is in charge of the contracts he gets from others to do missions. So if your clan is good he wouldn't take "kill the children" type missions. I've already thought of games around good alinged ninja cathing wind of contracts like that. The clan head was called a Jonin, Chunin were the most commonly thought of when we think of Ninja, and genin were begginers. Yes, Naruto actually got the terms correct.
DarthVicious074 07-03-07, 05:09 PM	Wrong. If every combatant class should have the same restrictions, then you must stupidly believe that all warfare is evil and wrong and bad and horrible and awful and therefore must be condemned as such. However, in order to be an assassin, a Ninja, a person that is specially trained in such activity that includes cold-blooded murder, then you have to check morality at the door. Because any moral code that has ANY respect for life in general or even a concept of right and wrong has NO place in the heart of an assassin. An assassin cannot afford to have them and do his job. The job in and of itself might have good intentions (to end the rulership of an evil dictator, to prevent a potential war, etc.), but a true assassin also does jobs that have no good intention, often done privately, sometimes to eliminate a rival, sometimes to sow terror, or whatever else. The assassin need not derive pleasure from what he does (which would seriously be evil), and doing so might also impair his performance as an assassin, but he can't have any qualms about murdering a completely innocent person. And the operative term is Murder. When war has broken out, it is clearly understood (by most rational creatures) that all pretense of morality has stopped being a norm and now has become a privilege endowed by the armed. Savagery is not necessarily tolerated, but if it helps to win the war, so be it. The best good that comes from the waging of war is to keep it as short and sweet as possible, without compromising one's own position (meaning, don't surrender unless you absolutely have no choice but to do so - to do otherwise is cowardly, and will not endow you with any respect from your conqueror). When you grow up and get a sound education, get back with me. Morality is not relative, and the alignment system, even as flawed as it is, is based on modern concepts of good and evil. What's more, it is not dependent upon culture. Even in thoroughly repugnant societies, like the Aztecs, there were people who realized right from wrong based on concepts that were not as narcissitic as the moral relativism you believe in. So, until you understand this concept, you are way out of your league. Come back when you've read a book or two. First off. You are SOOOO WRONG in so many ways I can't even begin to go into why. To murder innocents is to commit EVIL. Murder is EVIL. And I REALLY suggest YOU get an education in history before you start with your Neo-Conservative B.S. Machiavelli states that any action taken in defense of the nation is good is more wrong than right (I partially agree to this as I am a U.S. Marine). But it precludes that the ends justify the means. This line of thought is one that allows torture (which IS EVIL with a capital 'E'), to exist. Killing is not evil (yes I am bring semantics into this). Killing is taking a life to prevent loss of life or, in the case of hunting and fishing, to provide food. Murder is to kill with malicious or evil intent according to Websters dictionary. So a Ninja or Shinobi is essentially a soldier or spy as I said earlier in my previous posts. If I was a sniper in World War II and I could have assassinated Hitler, or Mussolini, You're damn right I would have taken the shot. And any Ninja or Shinobi (who did in fact use firearms), would have done so as well. Although I would have prefered to take them alive for trial so that they would not be considered Martyrs (not really possible to prevent, but at least I'd try). And yes there are some who consider Hitler to be a Martyr. They're called Neo-Nazis or Skinheads
Wiseblood 07-03-07, 05:14 PM	it's silly to assign an alignment to an occupation as broad as being a ninja. If there were a class called Mutilating Torturer (which of course mutilates and tortures) then yeah. Ninja were people and people can be good or bad. They could certainly be capable of evil even well equipped logistically to do evil but that does not make them so. :schemes:
The_Shaman 07-03-07, 05:44 PM	The clan head was called a Jonin, Chunin were the most commonly thought of when we think of Ninja, and genin were begginers. Yes, Naruto actually got the terms correct. Actually, I would like to hear someone's opinion on the article in Dragon 318, because it provided a convincing point. In it, it said, the jonin were the group leaders and strategists, perhaps an aristocracy of a sorts. Chunin were the infiltrators, and genin were the field agents... enforcers, if you will. The three were more specializations rather than ranks.
Westbound 07-03-07, 10:38 PM	First off. You are SOOOO WRONG in so many ways I can't even begin to go into why. To murder innocents is to commit EVIL. Murder is EVIL. And I REALLY suggest YOU get an education in history before you start with your Neo-Conservative B.S. Machiavelli states that any action taken in defense of the nation is good is more wrong than right (I partially agree to this as I am a U.S. Marine). But it precludes that the ends justify the means. This line of thought is one that allows torture (which IS EVIL with a capital 'E'), to exist. Killing is not evil (yes I am bring semantics into this). Killing is taking a life to prevent loss of life or, in the case of hunting and fishing, to provide food. Murder is to kill with malicious or evil intent according to Websters dictionary. I realize that what I said disturbed you, but truth is truth. It isn't "Neo-conservative" truth (which, by the way, a Neo-Conservative would actually agree with you because he doesn't understand war - back to that in a moment), it is simply truth. If you can win a war and avoid civilian casualties, fantastic. It's a pipe-dream, however, to believe that civilians are completely innocent - they may not be combatants, but they contribute to the war effort even if they are opposed to the war effort anyway. By virtue of contributing to the economic system of his nation, he contributes to the war effort. If he really doesn't like the war, he should leave, refuse to pay taxes to his home nation, and seek asylum somewhere else rather than contribute to the system that wages war. I'm not advocating the deaths of civilians in and of itself. The Germans in WWII used to specifically target civilians that were fleeing cities in a ruthless effort to sow chaos for their enemies. It was very effective in Poland, France, and Russia but could embolden enemy resolve. In one sense, the Germans waged war correctly that their wars with Poland and France were over within a month of onset. Had they stopped with those countries and made overtures for peace, we might still see a Third Reich today (do not mistake this analysis for a promotion of Nazism). A war that instead lasted six years might've lasted only two or three months, though I don't believe Churchill would've gone for it, given Hitler's own duplicitous diplomacy. You were raving about "neo-conservative BS", but I state that given the current state of affairs in Iraq, "neo-conservatives" are not as ruthless as you believe. Part of our problem with Iraq is that we went in with lofty expectations rather than our own national self-interest. Instead of protracting a war that would sunder the foundations of islamofascism in the Middle East, we have undertaken a program of "nation-building," which is inherently defensive and makes no pretense of winning tangible objectives especially amidst a people who are more interested in petty revenge for decades old grievances than governing their own nation. In one sense, it's extremely altruistic, but in another, it's inept because war is most effective when one is prepared to do what is necessary to defeat and conquer, to break an enemy's will to fight and to dominate the region for decades to come. Instead of stopping to build a republican form of government in a region of the world that would rather exist as bands of nomadic tribes with Quisinarts and satellite TV, we should've kept going, invaded Iran, deposed the mullahs, turned our attention on Syria and depose their regime. If we were as ruthless as you ascribe "neo-conservatives" we might've done that. If you really were a Marine, you might understand this (but I'll take your word for it). As for Machiavelli, he advocated prudence and ruthlessness, because in defense of one's nation and the protraction of policy, such attitudes are absolutely necessary. It is mental laziness to believe that there is no action not warranted by virtue of the good of a nation (which, is a socialist view, by the way), but Machiavelli believed, like Clausewitz who was merely adding to his views, that war is merely the protraction of a nation's policy by other means. I doubt that Machiavelli or Clausewitz ever read Sun Tzu, but Master Sun would've likely agreed to most of their ideas except the policy of "gentleman" rules of warfare. Such rules only get in the way of proper thinking of how best to achieve a victory in the quickest, most thorough means possible.
suparman999 07-04-07, 12:26 AM	Islam is not evil. Islam does not promote terrorism. Get your facts straight. The terrorists are called extremist nutcases. Although, you've been wrong on most all of your other points in this thread. I'll be back to lurking now. Bye.
Ranger REG 07-04-07, 02:15 AM	Killing may be evil -- even from an Eastern perspective -- but so's committing suicide. Yet they ... especially samurai ... do that if it is warranted. Though a ninja clan would appear mercenerial, they do the job because it is their duty. It's how they survive in the old days.
The_Shaman 07-04-07, 08:34 AM	Westbound, DarthVicious, please keep in mind the CoC. RL Political and religious discussions, and especially political or religious slurs, should be avoided. In D&D terms, I see no reason a murder, especially not in self-defense, should be anything but evil. It could be a part of series of acts and circumstances that allow non-evil alignment, but the act itself is evil. Hence, someone who has no objections to it and would perform it for no higher motives than gold (or, for that matter, honor) does imo warrant evil behavior. In D&D, at least, you can aid a good cause or hamper an evil one and still have an evil alignment. And by the way, we do know where Machiavelli was when he was writing "The Prince," and why he might have been trying to appeal to a certain political power, don't we? ;)
Hanzo187 07-05-07, 06:53 PM	In D&D terms, I see no reason a murder, especially not in self-defense, should be anything but evil. It could be a part of series of acts and circumstances that allow non-evil alignment, but the act itself is evil. Hence, someone who has no objections to it and would perform it for no higher motives than gold (or, for that matter, honor) does imo warrant evil behavior. In D&D, at least, you can aid a good cause or hamper an evil one and still have an evil alignment. All of this depends on what your interpretation of murder is. IMO, a murder is a killing that was done w/out reason or provocation. If an guy comes after you with a knife and you are cornered in an alley, you're not gonna throw your hands and say, "why can't we be friends?". No, you're going to fight back, and if you turn the knife on him and kill him, so be it. You killed a man because you had no choice. Would you rather let the guy run his knife in you or would you take initiative. Even a priest would fight back, and I wouldn't look down on him if he did kill his assailant. From what I could gather (sorry if I'm wrong), it sounds like you think just about everybody who takes a life is considered evil, even though, for all intents and purposes, 99% of the PC's in D&D will kill, whether for the right or wrong reason. In my campaign, I run a CG fella, and I prefer to sneak around my enemies, partly because I don't care for killing, but mostly because stealth is what people like me do. If I have to fight, then I fight, but I feel few qualms about killing someone if I must. In the end, you've only got one life, and when your life or the assailant, you'll think "better him than me", plain and simple.
AkumaDaimyo 07-05-07, 07:34 PM	Westbound, DarthVicious, please keep in mind the CoC. RL Political and religious discussions, and especially political or religious slurs, should be avoided. In D&D terms, I see no reason a murder, especially not in self-defense, should be anything but evil. It could be a part of series of acts and circumstances that allow non-evil alignment, but the act itself is evil. Hence, someone who has no objections to it and would perform it for no higher motives than gold (or, for that matter, honor) does imo warrant evil behavior. In D&D, at least, you can aid a good cause or hamper an evil one and still have an evil alignment. And by the way, we do know where Machiavelli was when he was writing "The Prince," and why he might have been trying to appeal to a certain political power, don't we? ;) So you agree then that adventurers kicking in the door of monsters, killing them and taking their stuff is evil? There have been more adventures than I can count with greedy adventurers in a dungeon killing monsters who don't even really leave that dungeon or bother anyone at all who doesn't go into that dungeon. Yet the adventurers are somehow shining paragons of goodness. Yeah right. Let me stiffle a laugh. I know if any of us killed someone who came into our house and started killing our family, friends and pets and tried taking our things we certainly wouldn't be evil. So sorry no, murder is not always evil. Killing a truly evil person in his sleep shouldn't be evil if your doing it for the good of others. It's neutral.
Kalis Atrud 07-05-07, 08:08 PM	snip A murder is planning to kill the person before you go in, no matter what. If he surrenders and throws his sword on the ground, you still run him through(which is what an assassin would do). If you went to try to stop his mad scheme and ended up killing him in a fight, it is not murder. If you went to stop his mad scheme and kill him for killing/hurting/cutting off in traffic/harrassing your wife/dog/child/etc it is murder. He isn't saying it is wrong to kill people if the fight happens to go that way. It is wrong if you plan to kill him no matter what he says or does. Like he is a henchman of the BBEG realizes the error of his ways and wants to help, then after the BBEG is dead you kill the henchmen because he really angered up the blood during past encounters. The problem is, in D&D anyway, that most evil baddies(as controlled by the dm) are totally unwilling to change and just fake the surrender and wish for redemption to try to find an advantage to use against the characters. This leads to the characters just wanting to kill the villain, because if you don't the DM is going to screw you over when the villain inevitably goes back to villainy and you had the chance to stop him and didn't take it.
Ranger REG 07-05-07, 08:27 PM	The problem is, in D&D anyway, that most evil baddies(as controlled by the dm) are totally unwilling to change and just fake the surrender and wish for redemption to try to find an advantage to use against the characters. This leads to the characters just wanting to kill the villain, because if you don't the DM is going to screw you over when the villain inevitably goes back to villainy and you had the chance to stop him and didn't take it. Meh. D&D is like telling or re-enacting a story, for most which you have a clearly obvious good guy and a clearly obvious bad guy. If you watch some Japanese shows, like Abarenbo Shogun you know who they are (psst ... the villains are the ones with the sinister-looking eyebrows). The same goes for stories like The Lord of the Rings, where you don't have a Drizzt-like conscience-filled Uruk-Hai. But let's face it, gamers. How often do we even offered our orcish opponents a chance to surrender in a dungeon crawl? Slim and none, because we know they're evil and they would turn on us when they get a future opportunity. So, why bother to offer? Would it be different if the opponents are humans, elves, dwarves, or gnomes?
Hochiu 07-06-07, 01:00 AM	(psst ... the villains are the ones with the sinister-looking eyebrows). Or mirror universe individuals with goatees. But you need to be careful. Sometimes, a goatee just makes you look like a disaffected member of Generation X.
Ranger REG 07-06-07, 03:07 AM	Or mirror universe individuals with goatees. Oddly enough, it was the "goateed" Spock that turned out to be the good guy.
The_Shaman 07-06-07, 09:41 AM	All of this depends on what your interpretation of murder is. IMO, a murder is a killing that was done w/out reason or provocation. If an guy comes after you with a knife and you are cornered in an alley, you're not gonna throw your hands and say, "why can't we be friends?". No, you're going to fight back, and if you turn the knife on him and kill him, so be it. You killed a man because you had no choice. Would you rather let the guy run his knife in you or would you take initiative. Even a priest would fight back, and I wouldn't look down on him if he did kill his assailant. First, did you read that part about self-defense? I do make a difference between murder and killing. Acts taken in self-defense and warfare usually do not fall under the former category to begin with. However, premeditated killing of someone who is not an immediate threat and has not given grave provocation is hard to justify from any non-evil character. @Akumadaimyo: Once again, killing and murder are not necessarily one and the same. Second, while killing someone in combination with other factors (revenge, public good, etc) could constitute a neutral act altogether, killing only or primarilyout of spite, for fun, or just because it is the most convenient method would probably be evil. Sure, there may be exceptions: just as there are exceptions to the truism that jumping out of the seventh-story window is a bad idea, and just as often. The DM and players should have some discretion, but also mind the alignments somewhat. To bring things back to the start, if in your campaign the ninja behave like a clan of assassins, then they would have the alignment of a clan of assassins. If you don't mind killing anyone who you're paid to or who you think may have recognized you, you will not be LG just because you are throwing pointed stars around.
Netherek 07-08-07, 12:54 AM	But let's face it, gamers. How often do we even offered our orcish opponents a chance to surrender in a dungeon crawl? Slim and none, because we know they're evil and they would turn on us when they get a future opportunity. So, why bother to offer? Would it be different if the opponents are humans, elves, dwarves, or gnomes? I have many a time. One particular one ended up killed by an opportunistic PC shortly after allowing the "Evil" Orcs to surrender... Come to think of it, most of my character's met their end at the hands of PC's, glad I play in a new group nowadays.
AkumaDaimyo 07-08-07, 01:10 AM	I never offer a surrender, but I do accept them. A good alinged character better accept one no matter who gives it. Killing someone who surrenders to you is a evil act. Even if you know he'll betray you and kill you, your kids, your mom and dad, your dog and everyone you know; if you kill him when he's begging for his life your evil. Book of Exhaulted Deeds says so.
Hochiu 07-08-07, 01:30 AM	I never offer a surrender, but I do accept them. A good alinged character better accept one no matter who gives it. Killing someone who surrenders to you is a evil act. Even if you know he'll betray you and kill you, your kids, your mom and dad, your dog and everyone you know; if you kill him when he's begging for his life your evil. Book of Exhaulted Deeds says so. At the risk of this turning into an alignment argument (which it already is, to a point) I'm going to point out that there is no reason why a good character has to accept the surrender. You're fighting an evil warlord who has singlehandedly been the cause of thousands of peoples deaths, starts a cult to exercise his power around a snake god and he begs to surrender to you and that you would show him mercy. Just as one act of kindness doesn't immediately redeem a villain, the act of surrenduring ones self to a Good character is up in the air. The good character is still within his right to end the threat. However, once the Good character accepts the surrender then there is absolutely no excuse for them allowing anything to happen to the captive until the "right" people can take care of him. Accepting a warlord's surrender, and then stabbing him in the back is evil, yes. It really depends on the actual good alignment and how you play it. LG and CG are both the ones that would probably have the most extremes. On one hand a LG character is tasked with upholding the law as well as goodness, or at least believes in a strong personal code that may warrant the immediate execution of any enemy of significant threat. While a CG may balk at the idea of letting a long and tiresome bureacratic process prevent retribution. Likewise, LG may accept surrender so that they see justice is done, and CG may accept it to prevent the estabished order from being recognized. The Book of Exalted Deeds may say so, but the Book of Exalted Deeds is also a way to tell you how to die. A LG character capturing a "surrendering" CE character is a dead man.
Ranger REG 07-08-07, 04:51 AM	I never offer a surrender, but I do accept them. A good alinged character better accept one no matter who gives it. Killing someone who surrenders to you is a evil act. Even if you know he'll betray you and kill you, your kids, your mom and dad, your dog and everyone you know; if you kill him when he's begging for his life your evil. Book of Exhaulted Deeds says so. So, a good character is not obligated to give their opponents a chance to surrender. Just keep your mouth shut and kill them before they do throw up the white flag. :devil: The devil says "sweet."
AkumaDaimyo 07-08-07, 01:25 PM	Sadly yes that seems to be the gist of it. :P But the other guy is very wrong. You DO have to accept the surrender if it is offered and your good alinged, especially a LG. A LG isn't accepting his own death. He's playing his alingment, something I ssee is very hard for most people to do anymore. True roleplaying is playing your alingment/concept even if it could get you killed. It's hard to do but that's what real honest to god roleplaying boils down to for me. And yes, this topic has completly gotten away from it's original intent. You know we could just let it die as well since it seems no one can keep on topic.
Hanzo187 07-08-07, 01:31 PM	I never offer a surrender, but I do accept them. A good alinged character better accept one no matter who gives it. Killing someone who surrenders to you is a evil act. Even if you know he'll betray you and kill you, your kids, your mom and dad, your dog and everyone you know; if you kill him when he's begging for his life your evil. Book of Exhaulted Deeds says so. That so? If you believe that, read Lone Survivor. It's a true story about a couple SEAL's in Afghanistan in '05. In the book, the author and his three SEAL teammates were spotted by Afghan farmers. They saw the hatred the farmers had for them in their eyes, knowing if allowing them to live, the farmers would alert the Taliban and be on them in two hours. Though military procedure stated the farmers had to be silenced, the four voted to let them go. They did so b/c if they killed the farmers, the Taliban and Al-Jazeera would have spun a story saying they were murderers. What's even worse is that the media here would have believed the Taliban before the SEALS, and would have smeared them for life. Instead, the team let the farmers go. Two hours later, three SEALS were killed by a group of 200 Taliban fighters, and the fourth (the author) was rescued by Rangers about a week later, after events I won't spoil. Now, if this were in the D&D world, could you REALLY accept the surrender of a truly evil person. Could you live with yourself if this caused your friends to be killed? Frankly, I'd rather kill the guy than face the possibility of my friends getting murdered.
AkumaDaimyo 07-08-07, 01:37 PM	That so? If you believe that, read Lone Survivor. It's a true story about a couple SEAL's in Afghanistan in '05. In the book, the author and his three SEAL teammates were spotted by Afghan farmers. They saw the hatred the farmers had for them in their eyes, knowing if allowing them to live, the farmers would alert the Taliban and be on them in two hours. Though military procedure stated the farmers had to be silenced, the four voted to let them go. They did so b/c if they killed the farmers, the Taliban and Al-Jazeera would have spun a story saying they were murderers. What's even worse is that the media here would have believed the Taliban before the SEALS, and would have smeared them for life. Instead, the team let the farmers go. Two hours later, three SEALS were killed by a group of 200 Taliban fighters, and the fourth (the author) was rescued by Rangers about a week later, after events I won't spoil. Now, if this were in the D&D world, could you REALLY accept the surrender of a truly evil person. Could you live with yourself if this caused your friends to be killed? Frankly, I'd rather kill the guy than face the possibility of my friends getting murdered. Doesn't matter. That's how D&D alingment works. Yes you could really accept their surrender. BTW comparing real world stuff to D&D doesn't work at all. Try something else. Cause in D&D they could have rezzed the dead SEALS. SO please for the love of god stop with the real world vs D&D crap. It don't work. You also basically just spit on the morality of those SEALS. You seem to have completly missed that part. THAT is what makes them the good guys in that story and the Taliban the bad guys. Even though they knew they couldn't trust the bad guys they let them go cause killing them in cold blood like that was evil. So I think you need to read the story a bit more closely. I don't think the point was 'Yes let's be murdering SOBs like our enemy is.' I'd recomend you just not play a good alinged PC then. Problem solved.
Azzy 07-08-07, 03:40 PM	Sadly yes that seems to be the gist of it. :P But the other guy is very wrong. You DO have to accept the surrender if it is offered and your good alinged, especially a LG. Not necessarily. If a character is fulfilling a duty laid upon him by government or law, the populous, his church or god, or some other authority he is then empowered to make such judgments and perform summary executions on behalf of said authority if deemed necessary. This is especially relevant when the pleading bad guy is someone or something that mundane law enforcement or prison is ill-equipped to handle (say like a high level cleric, sorcerer, evil overlord, etc.) or someone that has committed grievous atrocities.
turalisj 07-08-07, 04:05 PM	Does anyone watch History Channel? Theres a new series coming out on the 20th called human Weapon that seems to be about ninja...
AkumaDaimyo 07-08-07, 04:08 PM	Not necessarily. If a character is fulfilling a duty laid upon him by government or law, the populous, his church or god, or some other authority he is then empowered to make such judgments and perform summary executions on behalf of said authority if deemed necessary. This is especially relevant when the pleading bad guy is someone or something that mundane law enforcement or prison is ill-equipped to handle (say like a high level cleric, sorcerer, evil overlord, etc.) or someone that has committed grievous atrocities. YES you do. You do have to accept the surrender. A character assinged to make "executions" doesn't exactly sound like a good guy to me. That sounds more like a neutral PC at best to me. It's not relevant whatsoever. A good alinged PC has to accept surrenders or he will change alingment. Period. End of story. Please stop discussing and go back to the topic at hand which is NINJA. NOT ALINGMENT. Make your own topic if you want to argue alingment.
Drew1369r 07-08-07, 04:49 PM	Ninja still has honor... They are not just assassins and spy's thos some are still that sterotypical misconception. Ninja are also masters of exotic weaponry and objects of distraction. They are also the door openers for an invading army... to soften the beachhead before the landing, much like say the Navy seebees or Green Berets being out before the main invasion. As with any spec ops you do have to have a different moral compess. Thats why I wouldn't view the Ninja as good, but not all evil as well...
Azzy 07-08-07, 05:01 PM	YES you do. You do have to accept the surrender. A character assinged to make "executions" doesn't exactly sound like a good guy to me. That sounds more like a neutral PC at best to me. It's not relevant whatsoever. A good alinged PC has to accept surrenders or he will change alingment. Period. End of story. Oh, not even. When a character is vested by an authority to take action on behalf of that authority, said person may pass judgment as deemed necessary. Saying otherwise is tantamount to saying that a verdict of death passed by the same or similar authority, but in a normal manner (such as a trial), must be overturned because the villain begs for mercy. Please stop discussing and go back to the topic at hand which is NINJA. NOT ALINGMENT. Make your own topic if you want to argue alingment. Considering that this thread has been about alignment since the second page, it's a little late to cry foul now. Especially considering everything that needed to be said about ninja has already been said.
Hochiu 07-08-07, 05:41 PM	The "Problem" with Alignments (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/alignments.htm) Read it. Learn it. Live it. I generally use it as a guide for paladins, since that's what the last little section of it is for, but it can easily be adapted to inform you about anything, including ninja. Also. The thread's been about alignment since you first typed in the title of the thread.
turalisj 07-08-07, 05:48 PM	I don't even use alignment anymore. I mean, why? Why use it when it's easier not to. Instead, I just use the allegiance system. So a ninja can be allied to himself, his clan, whatever. Same with a paladin, although he has to stick with his chosen alignment.
The_Shaman 07-09-07, 07:35 AM	Alignments and allegiances are like apples and pears though. Somewhat similar, and that is it: you can definitely use both, or pin one against the other (among the oldest plots there is). Actually, here is something weird: could a ninja accept surrender, in what conditions, and would it be an evil act if s/he did not? Because if you are strongly loyal to a certain group (your organization, let us presume the ninja is), and you are ordered to kill someone, it may still be a little, well, evil to kill someone who is begging for their life, offering to defect or disappear. After all, they could be doing it against their will. OTOH, then we come to the old question: would a "good" ninja accept pure assassination missions? @Azzy "When a character is vested by an authority to take action on behalf of that authority, said person may pass judgment as deemed necessary." - true, but that would normally involve said person going through the required process of the authority. If you are allowed to dispense justice, you might have to accept that surrender to give trial, even if you then dispense the punishment.
kintire 07-09-07, 10:08 AM	@Azzy "When a character is vested by an authority to take action on behalf of that authority, said person may pass judgment as deemed necessary." - true, but that would normally involve said person going through the required process of the authority. If you are allowed to dispense justice, you might have to accept that surrender to give trial, even if you then dispense the punishment. True, but the process could be a very brief one, and if you are confronting someone already convicted, a prison escapee perhaps, or convicted in absentia, you might not even have to pause. Actually, here is something weird: could a ninja accept surrender, in what conditions, and would it be an evil act if s/he did not? Its a bit of a general question. Circumstances will vary wildly; there will be some where you can, and it is certainly possible that there will be some where you can't. Example: a minor daimyo has raided and plundered a series of defenceless, non martial monasteries to fuel his war effort. To cover his tracks, he routinely slaughters all residents to remove all witnesses. Captured plans indicate that he is about to raid another, a ninja has been sent in to kill him before he can. Ninja is detected at the last minute... Daimyo surrenders and begs for his life. In the middle of his castle with all his guards within a few yards capture is impossible: he has a history of breaking oaths. I think a good case can be made that killing him is consistent with a good alignment. Not a good act in itself perhaps, but not an evil one either.
Hochiu 07-09-07, 02:16 PM	I think in that instance, the ends justify the means, as well, kintire.
Ranger REG 07-09-07, 05:11 PM	The "Problem" with Alignments (http://home.earthlink.net/~duanevp/dnd/alignments.htm) Read it. Learn it. Live it. I generally use it as a guide for paladins, since that's what the last little section of it is for, but it can easily be adapted to inform you about anything, including ninja. Also. The thread's been about alignment since you first typed in the title of the thread. Meh. I just use the Allegiance system from d20 Modern. A paladin can (and should) pick Lawful Good as part of their three allegiances. Ninja will just pick his clan, and whoever he is attached to (in the case of a Shogun's spy, the Shogun).
kintire 07-10-07, 09:27 AM	Meh. I just use the Allegiance system from d20 Modern Nothing wrong with that, but its not an answer to alignment issues. Allegiances are different from alignment.
Hochiu 07-10-07, 02:21 PM	Yeah, but the allegiance system just adds extra rules for people to learn who may not be interested in it. Understanding alignment is something that everyone should grasp from the beginning of their D&D-playing life.
heretic888 07-10-07, 05:58 PM	Does anyone watch History Channel? Theres a new series coming out on the 20th called human Weapon that seems to be about ninja... *shudders*
The_Shaman 07-10-07, 06:49 PM	Is it that bad, or do you shudder at the very thought :P
heretic888 07-10-07, 06:54 PM	Is it that bad, or do you shudder at the very thought :P Uhhh.... both?? :P Let me put it this way. Anytime the Discovery Channel or History Channel have attempted any kind of "ninja special", the result is always, without exception, complete garbage and nonsense. I expect this one to be no different. So, bleh, bleh, and more bleh. :pbbbtt:
UFCCHAMP 07-10-07, 08:59 PM	Uhhh.... both?? :P Let me put it this way. Anytime the Discovery Channel or History Channel have attempted any kind of "ninja special", the result is always, without exception, complete garbage and nonsense. I expect this one to be no different. So, bleh, bleh, and more bleh. :pbbbtt: Yeh, they always try to make the modern ninja guys look mega bad. But none of the stuff they do would ever work.
heretic888 07-10-07, 09:16 PM	Yeh, they always try to make the modern ninja guys look mega bad. But none of the stuff they do would ever work. I'm not going to get into the "what works in martial arts?" debate because, quite frankly, it is an unfalsifiable question whose answers consist of nothing more than personal anecdotes and sweeping faith assertions (no matter what your particular answer is). Of course, given both your username and your join date, I suspect you've come here to stir trouble with this particular issue (I believe we all remember Bullshido). All I'm going to say now is that its off-topic and irrelevant to this forum's purpose. I would also offer some friendly advice that we have a low tolerance for trolls here, if that is your purpose. If not, then enjoy posting. The point I was trying to get across is that the historical value of these programs is next to nil. Not even a minimum of research is employed, with the result being a rather absurd exposition of Japanese history and culture. That is all.
Professorpain 07-10-07, 09:31 PM	I'm not going to get into the "what works in martial arts?" debate because, quite frankly, it is an unfalsifiable question whose answers consist of nothing more than personal anecdotes and sweeping faith assertions (no matter what your particular answer is). Of course, given both your username and your join date, I suspect you've come here to stir trouble with this particular issue (I believe we all remember Bullshido). All I'm going to say now is that its off-topic and irrelevant to this forum's purpose. I would also offer some friendly advice that we have a low tolerance for trolls here, if that is your purpose. If not, then enjoy posting. The point I was trying to get across is that the historical value of these programs is next to nil. Not even a minimum of research is employed, with the result being a rather absurd exposition of Japanese history and culture. That is all. I am going to take UFC champ at face value (based on his other post) and say that I think he has a point about how the styles are represented on those shows (though you are right heretic that we should avoid getting into specifics about which style is better). I remember that they had a show that was supposed to be a scientific treatment of the different martial art schools, but their methods seemed heavily flawed (at least to me). For instance they would do things like measure the power of a technique from one style without comparing it to the others (from what I saw at least--I could have missed them doing this). It also seemed like they were treating the different practitioners with kid gloves.
UFCCHAMP 07-10-07, 09:34 PM	I'm not going to get into the "what works in martial arts?" debate because, quite frankly, it is an unfalsifiable question whose answers consist of nothing more than personal anecdotes and sweeping faith assertions (no matter what your particular answer is). Of course, given both your username and your join date, I suspect you've come here to stir trouble with this particular issue (I believe we all remember Bullshido). All I'm going to say now is that its off-topic and irrelevant to this forum's purpose. I would also offer some friendly advice that we have a low tolerance for trolls here, if that is your purpose. If not, then enjoy posting. The point I was trying to get across is that the historical value of these programs is next to nil. Not even a minimum of research is employed, with the result being a rather absurd exposition of Japanese history and culture. That is all. Sorry to stir up trouble, I thought that kind of debate was tolerated here. I will stay away from that kind of stuff. P.S. Thats my user name because I am an amateur MMA fighter, not because I want to prove anything about other martial arts.
heretic888 07-10-07, 09:54 PM	I am going to take UFC champ at face value (based on his other post) and say that I think he has a point about how the styles are represented on those shows (though you are right heretic that we should avoid getting into specifics about which style is better). I remember that they had a show that was supposed to be a scientific treatment of the different martial art schools, but their methods seemed heavily flawed (at least to me). For instance they would do things like measure the power of a technique from one style without comparing it to the others (from what I saw at least--I could have missed them doing this). It also seemed like they were treating the different practitioners with kid gloves. Ah, yes. The "Ultimate Weapon" program. :rolleyes: Like I said, you should take pretty much everything on these types of shows with a grain of salt.
heretic888 07-10-07, 10:03 PM	Sorry to stir up trouble, I thought that kind of debate was tolerated here. I will stay away from that kind of stuff. Nope, not on this forum. The efficacy of a martial arts system doesn't have much to do with roleplaying Asian fantasy. ;) However, you can discuss all sort of things over on the general forum. I'd suggest trying your hand there. :P P.S. Thats my user name because I am an amateur MMA fighter, not because I want to prove anything about other martial arts. No problem. ;) You have to understand that not so long ago, we had a new poster by the name of Bullshido who came here pretty much for the sole purpose of "disproving" martial arts "myths". It was a very interesting time for the board, but full of lots of off-topic discussion. No matter, its all good.
Hochiu 07-11-07, 12:16 AM	However, technically, an Asian-inspired martial arts system does have a greater place here than it does on D&D General, since we're pretty much the place for Asian-inspired roleplaying. You can cross a lot of our topics over with other forums, but generally anything Asian-related (Read: NOT Anime). People just need to realize that the term "Martial Arts" =/= "Asian". Not I'm implying that UFC doesn't, by the way. Just as an overall.
The_Shaman 07-13-07, 04:26 PM	I guess that's kind of off-topic, but what is UFC anyway? Universal fighting championship or something?
heretic888 07-13-07, 05:11 PM	I guess that's kind of off-topic, but what is UFC anyway? Universal fighting championship or something? Ultimate Fighting Championship.
turalisj 07-13-07, 07:42 PM	Edit: Nevermind. I saw the = sign.
The_Shaman 07-16-07, 08:51 AM	Ah, okay, thanks. I remember seeing the abbreviation on some martial program, but did not really pay it much attention.
Hochiu 07-16-07, 04:12 PM	Heh, was it on SPIKE?
Teh_Ninja 07-18-07, 07:48 AM	I was really tired and not thinking straight when I typed this so it had to go.
Ranger REG 07-19-07, 02:59 AM	If this has already been said, oops. I couldn't bring myself to read all seven pages. :eek: From what little I know of ninja, they started off as farmers... Samurai started off as farmers.
The_Shaman 07-19-07, 04:36 AM	Everyone started off as farmer - or as a hunter, in some cases :P
heretic888 07-20-07, 10:19 AM	I guess that's kind of off-topic, but what is UFC anyway? Universal fighting championship or something? http://www.askaninja.com/UFC
Hochiu 07-20-07, 12:30 PM	Everyone started off as farmer - or as a hunter, in some cases :P TECHNICALLY, everyone started off as hunter-gatherers. Technically. :P
turalisj 07-20-07, 12:40 PM	Actually, everyone started off as single celled bacterium. :P Heheheheh....ugly french clowns.... :D
yetisithlord 07-31-07, 10:05 PM	Actually according to what most historians of the time know. Samurai were brutal towards the poor. They would slice your head off just as soon as talk to you. Its that whole warped honor system. The people who defended the poor from the Samurai were.......TAH DAH!!!! The Ninja Clans. The poor would paint a symbol on the side of a cow or hang a certain colored flag in the window. A mediator would arrange a deal and then the Ninja would take care of it. Its the whole 1980's and Sho-Gun movie mentality that made the Ninja the bad guy. Historically the idea of a Lawful Good Samurai makes me giggle. Lawful Good conflicts alot with the ideas of honor. Honor and goodness are different things all together. Ninja = spies and assassins. So, not good at the very least - they where men who where ready to make... unsavory things for their masters. It was not that bad, because that seems evident - ninja couldn't be good.
yetisithlord 07-31-07, 10:16 PM	Of course cause attacking a whicked Samurai out of the Shadows to take advantage of the fact that you do not wear armor is of course not as honorable or good as simply walking up to a poor farmer and slicing his head off with your Katana cause he did not bow in a proper manner to you. In combat there is no honor. You fight to win. If someone has a knife and they throw it on the ground guess what? Someone is going to pick the knife up and stab them with it. It doesnt make them good or evil. It makes the person who tossed it down foolish and the one who picked it up smart. I don't agree with Ninja being a prestige class. They should be a class like the Samurai. The Ninja are not thieves though they do share certain abilities like striking from concealment, using hidden weapons and acrobatics.. I would say they are more in line with a monk if anything. A Ninja can be honorable and lawful. Most Ninja in the true sense were defenders of the weak. The Samurai came and demanded unfair taxes, They took what they want from the poor. They pilidged and raped and all the while held up the belief that they were the lords of the land and the sworn protectors of their people. When your protector is burning your house and killing the men in your family due to a slight perceived insult who do you depend on...Oh wait yes. The evil Ninja. Cause they are evil thats why they helped people. They did so for a little food or maybe a barn to sleep in. The whole Clan of evil assassin ninja... Yeah thats TV talking. Thats to Sho Kusugi Ninja movie and the BS of American NInja #'s 1-821 Do some actual research and look into the history and practice of the ninja. Then do the same for the Samurai of Japan and see which one you would rather be friends with. You know why the culture shows Ninja as evil... Written word. Written by the Samurai. Ninja are a subset of rogues then if you wish - but they are no heroes. In all I have seen, ninja, they do shadow warfare things - assassinations, spying, arson, etc... Things who may not be evil, but all in all, as a whole, not good - because good men wouldn't be able to do some of those things, a more mroal guy would end up a liability. The typical ninja would run the non-good, non-chaotic gamut (even less chaotic than good, strict obediance and order and all that.).
narukagami 07-31-07, 10:25 PM	Do some actual research and look into the history and practice of the ninja. Then do the same for the Samurai of Japan and see which one you would rather be friends with. You know why the culture shows Ninja as evil... Written word. Written by the Samurai. Actually, you'd find that ninja and samurai were one in the same. :P
yetisithlord 07-31-07, 10:31 PM	Ninja is the on'yomi reading of the two kanji 忍者 used to write shinobi-no-mono (忍の者), which is the native Japanese word for people who practice ninjutsu (忍術, sometimes erroneously transliterated as ninjitsu). The ninja use of stealth tactics against better-armed enemy samurai does not mean that they were limited to espionage and undercover work: that is simply where their actions most notably differed from the more accepted tactics of samurai. Their weapons and tactics were partially derived from the need to conceal or defend themselves quickly from samurai, which can be seen from the similarities between many of their weapons and various sickles and threshing tools used at the time. Ninjas as a group first began to be written about in 15th century feudal Japan as martial organizations predominately in the regions of Iga and Koga of central Japan, though the practice of guerrilla warfare and undercover espionage operations goes back much further. At this time, the conflicts between the clans of daimyo that controlled small regions of land had established guerrilla warfare and assassination as a valuable alternative to frontal assault. Since Bushido, the Samurai Code, forbade such tactics as dishonorable, a daimyo could not expect his own troops to perform the tasks required; thus, he had to buy or broker the assistance of ninja to perform selective strikes, espionage, assassination, and infiltration of enemy strongholds Though typically classified as assassins, many of the ninja were warriors in all senses. In Stephen Hayes's book, Mystic Arts of the Ninja, Hattori Hanzo, (Yes the maker of Katana) one of the most well-known ninja, is depicted in armor similar to that of a samurai. Hayes also says that those who ended up recording the history of the ninja were typically those within positions of power in the military dictatorships, and that students of history should realize that the history of the ninja was kept by observers writing about their activities as seen from the outside. There is no evidence that historical ninja limited themselves to all-black suits. In modern times, camouflage based upon dark colors such as dark red and dark blue can be used to give better concealment at night. Some cloaks may have been reversible: dark colored on the outside for concealment during the night, and white colored on the inside for concealment in the snow. Some ninja may have worn the same armor or clothing as samurai or Japanese peasants. The stereotypical ninja that continually wears easily identifiable black outfits (shinobi shozoku) comes from the Kabuki theater. Prop handlers would dress in black and move props around on the stage. The audience would obviously see the prop handlers, but would pretend they were invisible. Building on that willing suspension of disbelief, ninja characters also came to be portrayed in the theater as wearing similar all-black suits. This either implied to the audience that the ninja were also invisible, or simply made the audience unable to tell a ninja character from many prop handlers until the ninja character distinguished himself from the other stagehands with a scripted attack or assassination. Ninjatsu (Ninja) devolved and developed as a way of life for the survival of a Japanese people culturally opposed to the ruling Samurai class of the day. With a traceable history of 1000 years the Ninja were most notable for their skills and activity during the Japanese Civil War periods of the l3th-l6th Centuries. All martial arts were stripped of warrior significance when peace came to Japan in 1868 (Meiji Restoration) but the teachings of Ninjutsu went underground and was brought to modern times by the 33rd Grandmaster, To*****ugu Takamatsu. As the lore of the Ninja were passed down to the 34th Grandmaster, Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi (Dr. Hatsumi is classed as a living treasure in Japan). Check your local book stores for books by Dr. Hatsumi if you are looking for accounts of actual Ninja and Samurai history. Feel free to message me if you have questions.
kintire 08-01-07, 05:03 AM	Their weapons and tactics were partially derived from the need to conceal or defend themselves quickly from samurai, which can be seen from the similarities between many of their weapons and various sickles and threshing tools used at the time. Really? The sickles and threshing tools of the time must have looked a lot like swords and spears... In Stephen Hayes's book, Mystic Arts of the Ninja, Hattori Hanzo, (Yes the maker of Katana) one of the most well-known ninja, is depicted in armor similar to that of a samurai. Hattori Hanzo is depicted in the armour of a samurai because, like other ninja, he WAS a samurai, and a very senior one. I'm sorry, your picture of the ninja as a fearless resistance fighter is totally false. they were members of the samurai class, and just as likely to exploit their people as any other. And while I am sure that Dr Hatsumi is an excellent writer, any suggestion that ancient ninja still exist in the modern day through secret teachings is romance.
Azzy 08-01-07, 08:57 AM	any suggestion that ancient ninja still exist in the modern day through secret teachings is romance. Wow. Ninja are Wiccans!!! (If you're curious, I'm comparing Hayesian ninjaz to those deluded Wiccans that seriously believe that there's is an "old religion" rather than being founded by Gerald Gardner in the 1950s. Apologies to any Wiccans not of the deluded sort.)
heretic888 08-01-07, 11:14 AM	Do some actual research and look into the history and practice of the ninja. I would suggest you do the same. And no, Google and the books of Stephen Hayes don't count. I don't have the time nor the willingness to correct all the mistakes and revisionist gibberish in your last few posts (the notion that there was some such thing as "bushido" before the Edo Jidai was particularly amusing), however let me say this. Contrary to what is written in Hayes' publications, Hatsumi Sensei has never advocated nor endorsed the "highly illegal counterculture" BS that often gets attached to his name on Internet discussion forums like this. So, please, stop what you're doing here. It is precisely stunts like this that are an embarrassment to the Bujinkan.
Hochiu 08-01-07, 06:02 PM	Wow. Ninja are Wiccans!!! (If you're curious, I'm comparing Hayesian ninjaz to those deluded Wiccans that seriously believe that there's is an "old religion" rather than being founded by Gerald Gardner in the 1950s. Apologies to any Wiccans not of the deluded sort.) ROFL! You win the thread. I have the same problem with that group of people, not the religious aspect, but the fact that they think its somehow managed to survive through a massive effort at Christianizing Europe. Do I think there are traditions that existed? Yes, but not what Gardner found and crafted. But at the same token, and in actual line with the thread, I can't stand when people don't bother to look up their own history and find out that they may or may not be descended from a tradition. Reconstructionist is one thing, but don't make the assumption that you know exactly what it was like, or that you're even doing it right.
Sudnji_cas 08-01-07, 06:42 PM	But what source can you really trust? How can you see true from false on the Internet? Anyone could just say they are citing official historical documents, but can you be sure until you see the very scripts?
guru7892 08-01-07, 07:21 PM	The poor would paint a symbol on the side of a cow I'm pretty sure PETA would call Ninja evil then... just saying...
Professorpain 08-01-07, 07:46 PM	I would suggest you do the same. And no, Google and the books of Stephen Hayes don't count. . Stephen Hayes should have his head cut off by samurai simply because of the way he dresses. What a fruit.
heretic888 08-01-07, 08:14 PM	But what source can you really trust? Well, academic sources are a good place to start (i.e., Karl Friday, Stephen Turnbull, Koyama Ryutaro, Nawa Yumio), as opposed to populist martial arts writers (i.e., Stephen Hayes, Donn Draeger, the Secrets of the Samurai guys). How can you see true from false on the Internet? The same way you see true from false on anything else. There's nothing unique or magical about the Internet in this regard. Anyone could just say they are citing official historical documents, but can you be sure until you see the very scripts? Simple. You check their sources.
heretic888 08-01-07, 08:17 PM	Stephen Hayes should have his head cut off by samurai simply because of the way he dresses. What a fruit. If nothing else, Stephen Hayes is a salesman and an actor. Hell, the man has a degree in theater....
Professorpain 08-01-07, 08:46 PM	If nothing else, Stephen Hayes is a salesman and an actor. Hell, the man has a degree in theater.... I just remember seeing his smug looking pictures in old blackbelt magazines. Usually they were bulletpointed with such things as " former body guard to asian spiritual royalty" (whatever that means).
heretic888 08-01-07, 08:56 PM	I just remember seeing his smug looking pictures in old blackbelt magazines. Usually they were bulletpointed with such things as " former body guard to asian spiritual royalty" (whatever that means). He was a bodyguard for the Dalai Lama.
narukagami 08-01-07, 08:57 PM	edit: nevermind.
Lordflashheart 08-01-07, 11:12 PM	Back onto the subject of ninjas being stereotyped as evil. I feel the stereotype is warranted. Every ninja I have ever met has done me wrong. Sure there is the occasional ninja dressed in white who saves the innocent...but for every white ninja there are hundreds, if not thousands, of black ninja serving an evil criminal mastermind.
narukagami 08-02-07, 12:22 AM	Back onto the subject of ninjas being stereotyped as evil. I feel the stereotype is warranted. Every ninja I have ever met has done me wrong. Sure there is the occasional ninja dressed in white who saves the innocent...but for every white ninja there are hundreds, if not thousands, of black ninja serving an evil criminal mastermind. Those guys are annoying, I can't seem to walk down to the corner store to buy some ice cream without those jerks hopping out of shadows and trees looking for a kung fu fight. :P
Nitan 08-02-07, 12:50 AM	Thank goodness AkumaDaimyo is here to stop the terrible libel against ninja. Ninja have suffered far too much int he past to let them get away with this tripe. More seriously though, the idea of ninja in D&D is that of an assassin or saboteur which seems to be innately evil. Touch luck guys.
ShinoAburame 08-02-07, 02:22 AM	Actually according to what most historians of the time know. Samurai were brutal towards the poor. They would slice your head off just as soon as talk to you. Its that whole warped honor system. The people who defended the poor from the Samurai were.......TAH DAH!!!! The Ninja Clans. Damn those bleeding heart commie ninja! We must defend samurai honor! *Whipsout katanna blade* Historically the idea of a Lawful Good Samurai makes me giggle. Lawful Good conflicts alot with the ideas of honor. Honor and goodness are different things all together. People confuse honor with chilvary that's the problem. Honor just means you'll do something thats self limiting for self preservance of the ego or your family/government's good graces. It's lawful alignment and nothing more. Chivalry could be described as lawful good. Doing compassionate jesters of good manners like holding a door for a woman, or never belching after a meal infront of guests. Frankly I'd rather implement the crazy chaotic alignment of internet ninja genre. Or better yet, Inuyasha's. "NINJA FOOD!" How many coppers should instant ramen cost?:P
Hochiu 08-02-07, 02:35 AM	Back onto the subject of ninjas being stereotyped as evil. I feel the stereotype is warranted. Every ninja I have ever met has done me wrong. Sure there is the occasional ninja dressed in white who saves the innocent...but for every white ninja there are hundreds, if not thousands, of black ninja serving an evil criminal mastermind. And then those white ninjas have this habit of summoning these giant flying dragon-mechs and it all just goes to hell. I mean, seriously. Also. Narukagami fights five thousand ninja a day. I've seen it. But you need to watch out for the ones that come in on kites. And burrow. And explode. And all the awesome things ninja can do in Duel to the Death.
Ranger REG 08-02-07, 03:04 AM	More seriously though, the idea of ninja in D&D is that of an assassin or saboteur which seems to be innately evil. Touch luck guys. Sabotage is evil? :uh-huh: I mean if a particular incident of sabotage directly includes the loss of innocent human lives than yeah, it would be considered evil. But to say sabotage in general is evil is a load of...
Professorpain 08-02-07, 09:07 AM	He was a bodyguard for the Dalai Lama. I hope that is not true. The dalai lama came to mind but I just couldn't see why he would hire a "ninja" to be his body guard.
heretic888 08-02-07, 09:17 AM	Sabotage is evil? :uh-huh: Its not. Contrary to what Nitan asserted, the only thing "innately evil" in D&D is the channeling of negative energy (because doing so increases the presence of evil in the universe). And even this is debatable. For every purportedly "innately evil" action in D&D, I could quite easily come up with a scenario where it is, at the very least, neutral.
heretic888 08-02-07, 09:26 AM	I hope that is not true. It is. Sorry.
Professorpain 08-02-07, 01:16 PM	For every purportedly "innately evil" action in D&D, I could quite easily come up with a scenario where it is, at the very least, neutral. But these scenarios are obvious exceptions to a more general rule. For instance rape, murder of the innocent, torture etc, can all safely be labeled inately evil within the context of the D&D alignment system. There may be exceptional cases where each of these is required for the greater good, but that does not remove the stain of evil that the action brings.
heretic888 08-02-07, 01:29 PM	But these scenarios are obvious exceptions to a more general rule. For instance rape, murder of the innocent, torture etc, can all safely be labeled inately evil within the context of the D&D alignment system. There may be exceptional cases where each of these is required for the greater good, but that does not remove the stain of evil that the action brings. The very fact that there are "obvious exceptions" simply demonstrates that they are, in fact, not "innately evil". "Evil most of the time" is not "innately evil". In actuality, the very existence of these "obvious exceptions" demonstrate that it is the situational context of the action as well as the motivating intention behind it that determine its alignment. An action, in and of itself, does not have an alignment (with the possible exception of those that channel divine or profane energy). The reason? Because actions can't make moral decisions, only sentient beings do. This is also why, contrary to popular opinion, groups and nations don't really have alignments, either. Only conscious individuals can make moral decisions. In point of fact, the alignment of an individual is generally determined by the goals that underlie his or her actions. Those that wish to help innocents are generally good, those that wish to help those close to them are generally neutral, and those that wish to inflict pain on others are generally evil. These goals can be accomplished via a number of various means. Evil characters, in particular, can be particularly insidious in this regard by performing services that appear to be "good" (i.e., rescuing a village) but their actual goal is to proliferate dominance and control over others (i.e., performing a number of "heroic" acts so the villagers don't mind so much when you tax them into starvation). In the same way, good characters sometimes face situations that require underhanded methods in order to protect the innocent (i.e., sabotage or assassination, depending on both context and motivation). Sorry, kids, but morality ain't black and white. Not even in D&D.
Hochiu 08-02-07, 09:20 PM	Not arguing anything, just adding my thoughts: I don't want this thread to get TOO mature, but... things like the above topics are generally evil through cultural mores and institutions, at least those except "murder of innocents". If it doesn't actively benefit a culture or a group of people it is most often sought to be diminished and the easiest way to do that is to classify it as evil and anathema. For a less controversial example (depending on how you look at it), the ancient Israelites found eating pork to be religiously sinful - thus evil. Why? I highly doubt that any deity would come down from the heavens and point to His people and say, "Pigs are gross. You'll burn if you eat them!" (although it has been known to happen in personal religious experiences). There's a current anthropological theory that pigs are so reviled as a food in the Jewish and Muslim cultures/faiths because they (the pigs) need to survive on the ariable land that's better suited for raising crops - humans don't get as much energy from the base plant material if its consumed and used by the pigs first. Its inefficient. So pigs are thus lowered in importance compared to goats and cattle which CAN live off of the chaff in the less-fertile lands, thus providing energy to people where they couldn't previously get it. It is later written into religious laws as a reflection of a cultural trend. But, back to D&D, the debate that "negative" energy is evil, I think, is completely unfounded. Negative energy powers evil spells, but unless the spell has the [Evil] descriptor, it's not an evil act to cast it. Positive energy is JUST as harmful as negative energy in D&D. They're immutable, primal elements that go beyond the ken of petty alignments - that's why they're powered by Inner Planes. Its the Outer planes that have alignments to them. Unless, of course, it was in the BoVD that it was stated that Negative energy was evil. If that's the case, I'd throw it out, since no non-core book can technically be considered canon as all suppliments are up to the individual DM to allow.
Professorpain 08-02-07, 11:25 PM	The very fact that there are "obvious exceptions" simply demonstrates that they are, in fact, not "innately evil". "Evil most of the time" is not "innately evil". In actuality, the very existence of these "obvious exceptions" demonstrate that it is the situational context of the action as well as the motivating intention behind it that determine its alignment. An action, in and of itself, does not have an alignment (with the possible exception of those that channel divine or profane energy). The reason? Because actions can't make moral decisions, only sentient beings do. This is also why, contrary to popular opinion, groups and nations don't really have alignments, either. Only conscious individuals can make moral decisions. In point of fact, the alignment of an individual is generally determined by the goals that underlie his or her actions. Those that wish to help innocents are generally good, those that wish to help those close to them are generally neutral, and those that wish to inflict pain on others are generally evil. These goals can be accomplished via a number of various means. Evil characters, in particular, can be particularly insidious in this regard by performing services that appear to be "good" (i.e., rescuing a village) but their actual goal is to proliferate dominance and control over others (i.e., performing a number of "heroic" acts so the villagers don't mind so much when you tax them into starvation). In the same way, good characters sometimes face situations that require underhanded methods in order to protect the innocent (i.e., sabotage or assassination, depending on both context and motivation). Sorry, kids, but morality ain't black and white. Not even in D&D. I would have to disagree. The actions listed are still inately evil (rape, murder of innocents, torture). Even when they are performed by good people, the actions themselves are evil. There are some exceptional circumstances, where a good character may be required to perform one of these actions, but (if he was good) he would still recognize it as an evil action. It may not change his alignment however, but the action itself would be evil. When we speak of exceptions, we are not saying there are moments when these actions are in fact good, but the only option available that will cause the least amount harm. The goals that underlie our actions are sometimes less important than the actions we take. History is replete with evil people who had the best of intentions (Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot all come to mind). In dungeons and dragons alignment is absolutely black and white (by design). The PHB is rather explicit about this point.
Hochiu 08-03-07, 12:15 PM	I would have to disagree. The actions listed are still inately evil (rape, murder of innocents, torture). Even when they are performed by good people, the actions themselves are evil. There are some exceptional circumstances, where a good character may be required to perform one of these actions, but (if he was good) he would still recognize it as an evil action. It may not change his alignment however, but the action itself would be evil. When we speak of exceptions, we are not saying there are moments when these actions are in fact good, but the only option available that will cause the least amount harm. The goals that underlie our actions are sometimes less important than the actions we take. History is replete with evil people who had the best of intentions (Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot all come to mind). In dungeons and dragons alignment is absolutely black and white (by design). The PHB is rather explicit about this point. Nothing in D&D is. Its not black and white if its open to interpretation. And alignment and morality in D&D is one of the most interpreted things within the system. Alignment is vague and half-arsed, being a guidebook to what the characters should keep in mind. Most of it is influenced by our modern sensibilities. There's no such thing as the Geneva Convention in D&D. Would treating prisoners of war horribly be considered "Evil" if everyone, even the "good" guys are doing it? Do the ends justify the means? Or are you Damned, even if you fight for the greater good? You're trying to tell me that there's no grey area there? There's no way that assassinating someone like Hitler would have been a good act, even BEFORE he started on his final solution?
Professorpain 08-03-07, 12:23 PM	Nothing in D&D is. Its not black and white if its open to interpretation. And alignment and morality in D&D is one of the most interpreted things within the system. Alignment is vague and half-arsed, being a guidebook to what the characters should keep in mind. Most of it is influenced by our modern sensibilities. There's no such thing as the Geneva Convention in D&D. Would treating prisoners of war horribly be considered "Evil" if everyone, even the "good" guys are doing it? Do the ends justify the means? Or are you Damned, even if you fight for the greater good? You're trying to tell me that there's no grey area there? There's no way that assassinating someone like Hitler would have been a good act, even BEFORE he started on his final solution? I have to disagree. Good, Evil, Neutrality, Chaos and Law are all forces in D&D. They are not Subjective moral judgments like they are in real life. A good character may perform an evil act like torture because he has no other choice (and would be allowed to remain good because of this). But he has still performed an evil action. This is why Paladins lose their abilities for such things until they atone. I am saying no such thing. You are confusing real world moral issues with D&D moral issues, which are totally different. If there were a hitler in D&D of course a good character would assasinate him, because in this case assasination is the lesser of TWO evils. It is still an evil and chaotic act, but it is also the most efficient option available.
The_Shaman 08-03-07, 06:51 PM	I would have to disagree. The actions listed are still inately evil (rape, murder of innocents, torture). Even when they are performed by good people, the actions themselves are evil. There are some exceptional circumstances, where a good character may be required to perform one of these actions, but (if he was good) he would still recognize it as an evil action. It may not change his alignment however, but the action itself would be evil. When we speak of exceptions, we are not saying there are moments when these actions are in fact good, but the only option available that will cause the least amount harm. In dungeons and dragons alignment is absolutely black and white (by design). The PHB is rather explicit about this point. I agree about the first part: a normally good character may have to resort to an evil act, but it will be an evil act and they should be aware of that (and roleplay it properly). Doing it too often or just finding it anything less than abhorrent would probably indicate an alignment change. I do think that good characters should refrain from some acts, no matter what. As for the second statement, the PHB very strongly says that alignments are guidelines, indicating one's general disposition. Even a paladin does not need to act LG in every single minor thing. This may seem to conflict with the previous paragraph, but there is a big difference between minor and major acts, and between non-good and vile ones.
Hochiu 08-03-07, 08:21 PM	I have to disagree. Good, Evil, Neutrality, Chaos and Law are all forces in D&D. They are not Subjective moral judgments like they are in real life. A good character may perform an evil act like torture because he has no other choice (and would be allowed to remain good because of this). But he has still performed an evil action. This is why Paladins lose their abilities for such things until they atone. I am saying no such thing. You are confusing real world moral issues with D&D moral issues, which are totally different. If there were a hitler in D&D of course a good character would assasinate him, because in this case assasination is the lesser of TWO evils. It is still an evil and chaotic act, but it is also the most efficient option available. I'm not the one that brought up a slew of real world historical despots and dictators that have "evil actions with good intentions" in an argument about D&D morality and alignment issues. You did. I merely commented on that fact. So you need to look at who is confusing what and speak accordingly, please. My point was that D&D alignments were a reflection of modern-day perception of morality and what we consider to be a proper alignment as of the printing of the rules and, in that instance, culturally, some of what we consider "evil" could be accepted as not in the appropriately flavored world. And I'll have to disagree with your disagreement. I feel that the energies of Law and Chaos and Good and Evil are completely and wholly subjective, representative of their personal avatars (Gods, Angels, Demons, Devils, etc) to decide what is right under that alignment or not. There's no list in the RAW that tells you exactly what each requires. There's a list of alignments in the SRD and core books that tell you what particular alignments act on as guidelines. You cannot tell me that a ruling on the matter is wholly universal for each and every group of players, because they're not. If they weren't subjective, you wouldn't have the disagreements that pop up because of them. I don't know. But its what I feel on the matter.
Professorpain 08-03-07, 11:46 PM	And I'll have to disagree with your disagreement. I feel that the energies of Law and Chaos and Good and Evil are completely and wholly subjective, representative of their personal avatars (Gods, Angels, Demons, Devils, etc) to decide what is right under that alignment or not. There's no list in the RAW that tells you exactly what each requires. There's a list of alignments in the SRD and core books that tell you what particular alignments act on as guidelines. You cannot tell me that a ruling on the matter is wholly universal for each and every group of players, because they're not. If they weren't subjective, you wouldn't have the disagreements that pop up because of them. I don't know. But its what I feel on the matter. Thats an old debate, is it good because God says so, or does God say so because it is good. Of course people are going to interpret alignment and therefore alignment (and everything else in the world for that matter) is going to be subjective. But the concept of alignment in D&D is that good and evil are objective forces not subject to cultural whim. In real life, sure I agree good and evil are judgments dependant on culture, but in D&D the rules of good and evil apply to all in a given world.
Hochiu 08-04-07, 12:16 AM	In real life, sure I agree good and evil are judgments dependant on culture, but in D&D the rules of good and evil apply to all in a given world. Eh, unless that world is something like Rokugan, that places far more value on Honor than it does on Alignment. And thus..tying us into actual Forum-based information again! Whee!
heretic888 08-04-07, 08:10 PM	Professorpain, I think we're confusing concepts here. The sheer existence of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos is most certainly absolute in D&D and taken for granted by pretty much all the characters in the multiverse (unless you're in a campaign world like Rokugan where they don't even care about them at all, the concept of Honor being far more paramount). So, D&D is black and white on the level of metaphysics. On the level of ethics, however, there is absolutely nothing black and white in D&D. We are given very general and vague guidelines as to what makes up Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos in actual play --- but the vast majority of ethical legwork in any campaign is wide open to interpretation (essentially, an agreement between the DM and players). At no point in the core ruleset are we given a specific set of rules as to what actions do or do not adhere to a given alignment. We are given general principles and that's it. In this regard, the Honor system in Rokugan is a far more exact and precise alignment orientation than regular D&D alignment. Honorable and dishonorable actions are clearly defined and laid out for the players. Even alternate Honor guidelines, such as the Scorpion's worship of loyalty, are laid out in at least some detail. The core rules, however, give us nothing like this for constituting evil, good, chaotic, or lawful actions. These are all open to interpretation.
Ranger REG 08-05-07, 02:14 AM	I'm pretty sure PETA would call Ninja evil then... just saying... Scoffs. PETA itself is an evil organization. :devil: Never trust a person who won't eat meat.
Ranger REG 08-05-07, 02:17 AM	But, back to D&D, the debate that "negative" energy is evil, I think, is completely unfounded. Negative energy powers evil spells, but unless the spell has the [Evil] descriptor, it's not an evil act to cast it. I thought all evil spells are marked with an "[Evil]" descriptor. It's possible to use a non-evil spell for evil purpose or deed, though. And by that act it can be considered evil.
Professorpain 08-05-07, 10:01 AM	Professorpain, I think we're confusing concepts here. The sheer existence of Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos is most certainly absolute in D&D and taken for granted by pretty much all the characters in the multiverse (unless you're in a campaign world like Rokugan where they don't even care about them at all, the concept of Honor being far more paramount). So, D&D is black and white on the level of metaphysics. On the level of ethics, however, there is absolutely nothing black and white in D&D. We are given very general and vague guidelines as to what makes up Good, Evil, Law, and Chaos in actual play --- but the vast majority of ethical legwork in any campaign is wide open to interpretation (essentially, an agreement between the DM and players). At no point in the core ruleset are we given a specific set of rules as to what actions do or do not adhere to a given alignment. We are given general principles and that's it. In this regard, the Honor system in Rokugan is a far more exact and precise alignment orientation than regular D&D alignment. Honorable and dishonorable actions are clearly defined and laid out for the players. Even alternate Honor guidelines, such as the Scorpion's worship of loyalty, are laid out in at least some detail. The core rules, however, give us nothing like this for constituting evil, good, chaotic, or lawful actions. These are all open to interpretation. But ethical precepts in a world with absolute good and evil will also be absolute. I do not deny that the rules themselves are vague (though harming the innocent explicitly evil in the alignment descriptions--as are a few other general categories of action). However the very existence of absolute good and evil, means that morality in each individual campaign is going to be absolute as well. The designers clearly wanted to simplify real world morality as much as posible, largely to avoid getting into real world religious teachings. The readers are expected to use common sense and apply the most accepted moral concepts from modern western culture. So while it would be a stretch to say that eating shellfish is evil in D&D. I think few would dispute that actions such as rape, torture, and murder of the innocent are inherently evil in the game.
The_Shaman 08-05-07, 10:10 AM	I thought all evil spells are marked with an "[Evil]" descriptor. It's possible to use a non-evil spell for evil purpose or deed, though. And by that act it can be considered evil. Of course. One can do more evil with a creatively used dominate person than with, say, summon undead 3.
Hochiu 08-05-07, 07:04 PM	I thought all evil spells are marked with an "[Evil]" descriptor. It's possible to use a non-evil spell for evil purpose or deed, though. And by that act it can be considered evil. They are, but I remember seeing the arguments on these forums about the Negative Energy plane being "evil", becuase it "always hungers for life". It was apparently enough to classify the non-aligned inner planes with alignments, despite the fact that the Positive Energy plane is just as indescriminate with who it kills. There's also the fact that the negative energy provides the catalyst for the creation of Undead, where people think it is evil. My point that I was trying to make was that [evil] spells may be powered by negative energy, but negative energy is not powered by Evil. But, Professorpain, where does it say in the core rule books that Good and Evil and all the other moral structures are universally absolute concepts? I'm honestly curious, point me in the direction and page, if you could.
heretic888 08-05-07, 09:38 PM	But ethical precepts in a world with absolute good and evil will also be absolute. I do not deny that the rules themselves are vague (though harming the innocent explicitly evil in the alignment descriptions--as are a few other general categories of action). However the very existence of absolute good and evil, means that morality in each individual campaign is going to be absolute as well. We're still going around in circles, Professorpain. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. You are arguing metaethics, I am arguing ethics. They are not the same. I acknowledge that in the context of D&D, Good and Evil are absolute cosmic forces that have mechanical relevance to the characters (i.e., spells that are affected by alignment). This is not in dispute on my part. However, this doesn't change the fact that I have been arguing all along that we don't know anything about Good and Evil other than that they exist and the general abstract principle they consist of. What are and are not "good" actions are not defined in the core ruleset. Nor are what are and are not "evil" actions ever so defined in the core rules. The precepts may be "absolute", as you claim. But that doesn't change the fact that we don't know what those precepts are in the first place. We have nothing metaethical first principles and a general idea to go by. The precepts, as it were, are a moral interpretation devised by the DM and players (in essence, an agreement between the two of them as to how alignment works in the campaign). Alignment is indeed "open to interpretation" because what is "good" in one campaign is not necessarily "good" in another, with the core rules being completely neutral on the issue (except in very extreme cases). The designers clearly wanted to simplify real world morality as much as posible, largely to avoid getting into real world religious teachings. You're in the right direction, but still a little off here. The designers clearly avoided defining alignment too exactly so that individual players and DMs could devise their own system of morality for use in their games. They didn't necessarily expect readers to do any such thing but to construct a moral system appropriate for their games. Alignment is vague on purpose, so as not to straightjacket or shoehorn players into predetermined niches. I think few would dispute that actions such as rape, torture, and murder of the innocent are inherently evil in the game. The actions themselves are not good, evil, or anything else because actions don't make moral decisions. The agents of those actions, however, do make moral decisions. It has to do with the intent and situational context of the moral agent (which in most situations, the actions you describe would be "evil" because their intent is generally to cause unnecessary harm to others).
Holy_Beholder 08-05-07, 09:42 PM	Do the ends justify the means? Or are you Damned, even if you fight for the greater good? You're trying to tell me that there's no grey area there? There's no way that assassinating someone like Hitler would have been a good act, even BEFORE he started on his final solution? Assassination isn't by default evil. If you read the description, killing innocents is evil. Hitler was not innocent. Therefore it wouldn't be evil to kill him. Also assassination is only addressed once with morals and thats with the prestige class, which is evil because they have to kill someone for the express purpose of getting in. Coup de Grace is not evil, sneak attack is not evil, sudden strike is not evil. Deal.
Professorpain 08-05-07, 10:49 PM	We're still going around in circles, Professorpain. You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. You are arguing metaethics, I am arguing ethics. They are not the same. I acknowledge that in the context of D&D, Good and Evil are absolute cosmic forces that have mechanical relevance to the characters (i.e., spells that are affected by alignment). This is not in dispute on my part. However, this doesn't change the fact that I have been arguing all along that we don't know anything about Good and Evil other than that they exist and the general abstract principle they consist of. What are and are not "good" actions are not defined in the core ruleset. Nor are what are and are not "evil" actions ever so defined in the core rules. The precepts may be "absolute", as you claim. But that doesn't change the fact that we don't know what those precepts are in the first place. We have nothing metaethical first principles and a general idea to go by. The precepts, as it were, are a moral interpretation devised by the DM and players (in essence, an agreement between the two of them as to how alignment works in the campaign). Alignment is indeed "open to interpretation" because what is "good" in one campaign is not necessarily "good" in another, with the core rules being completely neutral on the issue (except in very extreme cases). You're in the right direction, but still a little off here. The designers clearly avoided defining alignment too exactly so that individual players and DMs could devise their own system of morality for use in their games. They didn't necessarily expect readers to do any such thing but to construct a moral system appropriate for their games. Alignment is vague on purpose, so as not to straightjacket or shoehorn players into predetermined niches. The actions themselves are not good, evil, or anything else because actions don't make moral decisions. The agents of those actions, however, do make moral decisions. It has to do with the intent and situational context of the moral agent (which in most situations, the actions you describe would be "evil" because their intent is generally to cause unnecessary harm to others). Heretic Please do not lecture me on philosophy. I understand the distinctions between normative ethics, meta ethics, and applied ethics. And I do not dispute that there is lots of room for interpretation on specific precepts from campaign to campaign. What I am saying is that in each campaign those precepts are going to be absolute because they are derived from universal forces. The end of your post is outside the domain of D&D. You are getting a discussion about ethics. I think it is overly simplistic to state that intentions are what determine the moral quality of an action. I urge you to give me an example where rape would be anything other than evil (not simply justified), the same for murdering an innocent person. The problem with your model of ethics is that it only considers the actor. I would encourage you review Humes explanation of morality. Clearly the agent acting is important but so is the person being acted upon.
Professorpain 08-05-07, 10:52 PM	The actions themselves are not good, evil, or anything else because actions don't make moral decisions. The agents of those actions, however, do make moral decisions. It has to do with the intent and situational context of the moral agent (which in most situations, the actions you describe would be "evil" because their intent is generally to cause unnecessary harm to others). We describe actions as good or evil all the time. Murder in the abstract is considered evil. Someone who commits murder is considered evil because they are committing an evil action. Again I would refer you to Hume and suggest that before you lecture people on philosophy you brush up a little.
Ranger REG 08-06-07, 02:24 AM	We describe actions as good or evil all the time. Murder in the abstract is considered evil. Someone who commits murder is considered evil because they are committing an evil action. I thought murder must be premeditated. Is a battered spouse considered evil after drugging her violent husband to sleep, put him on a bed soaked with gasoline and light the fire? Is it bad for me to pity her and revile her husband and not the other way around?
kintire 08-06-07, 06:58 AM	However, this doesn't change the fact that I have been arguing all along that we don't know anything about Good and Evil other than that they exist and the general abstract principle they consist of. What are and are not "good" actions are not defined in the core ruleset. Nor are what are and are not "evil" actions ever so defined in the core rules. The precepts may be "absolute", as you claim. But that doesn't change the fact that we don't know what those precepts are in the first place. A moral system consists of two steps. First, "what are we trying to achieve" (usually described as "what is Good", but given the additional alignment axis...). Second is "how do we achieve it?". In core DnD, the first is completely clear. Good, for example, is protecting innocent life: altruism, respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. These precepts are absolute (obviously a GM can change them, but if we're going to have a debate on the D20 boards we can't cover houseruling... just take that as read). The second step takes up most of most moral systems. It often covers concepts like virtues, precepts for daily life, that sort of thing... the bits you actually use. There is less of this in DnD, and you have to extrapolate it from the examples. That's where all the debates come from. Its my opinion that this is a sensible design decision, but that's a sidetrack. But ethical precepts in a world with absolute good and evil will also be absolute. The first stage precepts will. The second stage will not. For all the helpfulness of general rules, there will be occasions where they don't apply. "Don't lie", for example, is a common precept. Its a good one too: rarely does deceiving someone result in the protection and assistance of others. But sometimes, just sometimes, it does. The Jews in the cellar example is famous. Then, it becomes good. We describe actions as good or evil all the time. Murder in the abstract is considered evil. Someone who commits murder is considered evil because they are committing an evil action. I'm not convinced we are right to. Murder is not an act, its a type of act. Its a type of act which is usually evil, even more so than lying. But not always. I'm very reluctant to go around saying that any class of acts is "evil". The only one I can't construct a situation where it is justified is rape.
heretic888 08-06-07, 09:23 AM	Heretic Please do not lecture me on philosophy. I understand the distinctions between normative ethics, meta ethics, and applied ethics. Perhaps so, but your posts demonstrated no such understanding. And I do not dispute that there is lots of room for interpretation on specific precepts from campaign to campaign. What I am saying is that in each campaign those precepts are going to be absolute because they are derived from universal forces. Who is to say these "precepts" exist in the first place?? All the core rules tell us are that Good and Evil are general principles of cosmic importance. We are never given a laundry list of rules that define them, just vague concepts and guidelines. If such "precepts" do exist in your games, they are a creation of your DM. In any event, the purportedly "absolute" precepts within any campaign are an interpretation of morality and alignment agreed upon by the players and DM. The precepts are not supported by the core rules and, in fact, are a construct or artifact created solely for the purposes of that campaign setting. Your argument also makes the assumption that a given action is going to always have a given alignment associated with it. This is not justified by the text nor is it a guarantee within any campaign. It is nothing more than an assumption on your part. The end of your post is outside the domain of D&D. You are getting a discussion about ethics. I think it is overly simplistic to state that intentions are what determine the moral quality of an action. I urge you to give me an example where rape would be anything other than evil (not simply justified), the same for murdering an innocent person. The problem with your model of ethics is that it only considers the actor. I would encourage you review Humes explanation of morality. Clearly the agent acting is important but so is the person being acted upon. As you stated, this is beyond the domain of D&D. However, for the sake of clarification, I never maintained that "intentions are what determine the moral quality of an action". I did state that it was intention in concert with the situational context that determines such moral quality. As for "evil" situations, I would argue that in the real world, "evil" has not been demonstrated to exist outside of the heads of the people that believe in it. As such, asking me to demonstrate a given scenario is or is not "evil" is akin to asking me to demonstrate a given scenario is or is not the "will of God".
heretic888 08-06-07, 09:30 AM	We describe actions as good or evil all the time. Yes, and there's a reason for that. Its the same reason as to why people regularly refer to inanimate objects such as boats, countries, or cars as "her", why they attribute an understanding of linguistics to their pet dogs and cats, and why "intelligent design" is so popular. It is because human beings regularly engage in flawed irrational thinking and have a propensity to project intention, motivation, and "deliberate plans" to objects which have nothing of the sort. Anthropomorphism at its finest. Murder in the abstract is considered evil. Someone who commits murder is considered evil because they are committing an evil action. Burden of Proof, Mr. Don't Lecture Me About Philosophy.
Professorpain 08-06-07, 09:35 AM	As for "evil" situations, I would argue that in the real world, "evil" has not been demonstrated to exist outside of the heads of the people that believe in it. As such, asking me to demonstrate a given scenario is or is not "evil" is akin to asking me to demonstrate a given scenario is or is not the "will of God". Actually I do not disagree with you. For my part I think that good and evil are simply judgments that we make about things. Evil is simply the strongest term available to describe something that we regard as bad. It is still useful however.
Professorpain 08-06-07, 09:39 AM	Yes, and there's a reason for that. Its the same reason as to why people regularly refer to inanimate objects such as boats, countries, or cars as "her", why they attribute an understanding of linguistics to their pet dogs and cats, and why "intelligent design" is so popular. It is because human beings regularly engage in flawed irrational thinking and have a propensity to project intention, motivation, and "deliberate plans" to objects which have nothing of the sort. Anthropomorphism at its finest. . There is nothing about the word evil that requires intention, motivation, or "deliberate planning". Evil can simply exist in an action or object depending on waht defintion of evil you are using. The traditional definition of evil in western (christian) philosophy was simply having the least amount of existence, being as far away from God as possible. The definition has changed radically over time. You seem to attach the idea of intention to evil, and so I can understand how you might think that there must be concious mental activity in order for there to be evil. But if evil is merely a third party judgement it makes perfect sense for objects or actions to be regarded as evil.
heretic888 08-06-07, 10:09 AM	Actually I do not disagree with you. For my part I think that good and evil are simply judgments that we make about things. Evil is simply the strongest term available to describe something that we regard as bad. It is still useful however. I don't think "evil" is a particularly useful label to apply to a person or event in the real world, because of all the cultural baggage that goes along with it. When most people refer to something as "evil", it usually goes far beyond "bad". However, as before, this is definitely getting beyond the parameters of the thread topic. I think it something about ninjas.... :P
Roxlimn 08-06-07, 12:52 PM	As a side comment, groups and Nations in D&D apparently have "dominant alignment" though they could be said to have alignment in the same manner as an individual. Churches and committees, as well as tightly grouped orders and organizations are often noted to have this or that "alignment." kintire: The person in question is going to killed as a virgin sacrifice. If the only way to prevent it is to make her into NOT a virgin, and he or she is too stupid to realize the import of it, then perhaps it's justifiable to force it. Not saying that I would rule that way. Just playing devil's advocate here.
The_Shaman 08-06-07, 04:03 PM	Ugh, let's not get into the evil-act-for-good-purpose, please.
kintire 08-07-07, 04:59 AM	The person in question is going to killed as a virgin sacrifice. If the only way to prevent it is to make her into NOT a virgin, and he or she is too stupid to realize the import of it, then perhaps it's justifiable to force it. Not saying that I would rule that way. Just playing devil's advocate here. Its certainly more compelling than anything I managed to come up with. You might have to swap in "magically influenced" for "stupid", but its close.
kintire 08-07-07, 05:04 AM	Ugh, let's not get into the evil-act-for-good-purpose, please. Given the main argument for Ninja being evil is that they murder people, the argument that you can't say that murder is always evil is actually relevant. And its not "evil act for a good purpose" its "no category of acts can be called evil, it depends on the circumstances."
Professorpain 08-07-07, 08:53 AM	Given the main argument for Ninja being evil is that they murder people, the argument that you can't say that murder is always evil is actually relevant. And its not "evil act for a good purpose" its "no category of acts can be called evil, it depends on the circumstances." I would suggest that even in circumstances where murder is somehow justified it is still regarded as an evil. That is why modern nations frown on assassination. It may actually serve the greater good under certain conditions, but the act itself is widely considered morally wrong (even under those conditions).
Professorpain 08-07-07, 08:58 AM	Perhaps so, but your posts demonstrated no such understanding. My posts demonstrated a deeper understanding of Ethics (which is the general category that meta ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics fall into) than you realize. I know enough about philosophy to recognize that the subfields are all related and highly interdependant. There is bound to be some cross over, in fact it is required for complete dialogue on ethics. The normative ethics of a dungeons and dragons campaign will follow from the meta ethics. You my friend are mired in a very limited aspect of applied ethics (I cannot say for sure based on my limited observations fo your posts but you seem to be a situational ethicist). Whereas my posts demonstrate knowledge of a variety of schools of thought in the subject of applied ethics and normative ethics, yours demonstrates the rigidity of a finite understanding of that spectrum. But I do agree that this thread has veered too far away from the subject of ninjas.
heretic888 08-07-07, 09:13 AM	I would suggest that even in circumstances where murder is somehow justified it is still regarded as an evil. Indeed. That is why, henceforth, all adventurers (including Paladins and Clerics of Pelor) should immediately have their alignments changed to evil (or, at the very least, neutral). Unless we're talking about the real world again, in which case "evil" doesn't exist other as a useful label for stopping all discussion and criticism (not unlike referring to someone as a "saint"). That is why modern nations frown on assassination. But are just in love with war, political corruption, and social inequality?? The more logical reason, of course, is because if you endorse assassinating a sovereign nation's leader that opens the door for your nation's leader to being assassinating. It has less to do with "serving good" and more to do with establishing a sort of international order and cooperation (which is usually self-serving on all parties' parts). It may actually serve the greater good under certain conditions, but the act itself is widely considered morally wrong (even under those conditions). "Widely considered"?? Exactly how is what is or is not "widely considered" the final arbiter of morality?? By this logic, slavery is really okey-dokey because at one time it was "widely considered" acceptable social practice, as well.
heretic888 08-07-07, 09:18 AM	The normative ethics of a dungeons and dragons campaign will follow from the meta ethics. Sure. The problem is that the applied ethics you advocate do not follow from the meta ethics of the core rules. You my friend are mired in a very limited aspect of applied ethics (I cannot say for sure based on my limited observations fo your posts but you seem to be a situational ethicist). Nope, but thanks for playing. Whereas my posts demonstrate knowledge of a variety of schools of thought in the subject of applied ethics and normative ethics, yours demonstrates the rigidity of a finite understanding of that spectrum. As opposed to your infinite understanding of the spectrum, eh? :rolleyes: Seriously, are you actually listening to yourself??
kintire 08-07-07, 10:26 AM	I would suggest that even in circumstances where murder is somehow justified it is still regarded as an evil I would suggest that this is incoherent. If an action is justified, it isn't evil. That's what "justified" MEANS. That is why modern nations frown on assassination. It may actually serve the greater good under certain conditions, but the act itself is widely considered morally wrong (even under those conditions). Modern nations frown on assassination because murder is not seen as an appropriate way to do business. Murder is usually wrong: and usually in this case means almost always. But occasionally it isn't. Whereas my posts demonstrate knowledge of a variety of schools of thought in the subject of applied ethics and normative ethics, yours demonstrates the rigidity of a finite understanding of that spectrum. Actually, your posts demonstrate a firm adherence to derived rules as opposed to fundamental principles, with no apparent understanding of the difference. Also, a disturbing habit of talking down to other posters with interesting points at great length. Unless we're talking about the real world again, in which case "evil" doesn't exist other as a useful label for stopping all discussion and criticism (not unlike referring to someone as a "saint"). I'll just point out that this statement is contentious, and can't be taken as obviously true.
heretic888 08-07-07, 10:29 AM	I'll just point out that this statement is contentious, and can't be taken as obviously true. Granted. ;)
Holy_Beholder 08-07-07, 02:41 PM	I would suggest that even in circumstances where murder is somehow justified it is still regarded as an evil. That is why modern nations frown on assassination. It may actually serve the greater good under certain conditions, but the act itself is widely considered morally wrong (even under those conditions). Yes, but why is is better to kill someone who has no hope in a duel than it is to kill someone in their sleep? Also, snipers are assassins in warfare. Part of the reason is that if you assassinate a leader, warfare breaks out, which isn't wanted. On the other hand, they don't have an issue killing someone who is already in a war. Assassinating a general attacking you is okay, assassinating a corrupt civilian leader isn't.
Professorpain 08-07-07, 07:32 PM	Indeed. That is why, henceforth, all adventurers (including Paladins and Clerics of Pelor) should immediately have their alignments changed to evil (or, at the very least, neutral). Unless we're talking about the real world again, in which case "evil" doesn't exist other as a useful label for stopping all discussion and criticism (not unlike referring to someone as a "saint"). But are just in love with war, political corruption, and social inequality?? The more logical reason, of course, is because if you endorse assassinating a sovereign nation's leader that opens the door for your nation's leader to being assassinating. It has less to do with "serving good" and more to do with establishing a sort of international order and cooperation (which is usually self-serving on all parties' parts). "Widely considered"?? Exactly how is what is or is not "widely considered" the final arbiter of morality?? By this logic, slavery is really okey-dokey because at one time it was "widely considered" acceptable social practice, as well. My personal opinion is that assasination is evil even when used for good ends. However, since we were talking earlier of evil merely as a linguistic descriptor of things people consider morally bad, I thought it useful for the discussing to point out that the united nations forbids it, thus it is widely considered evil. Does this in fact make it evil? I say no, but you do not appear to believe in evil, so I am not certain why you even object.
Professorpain 08-07-07, 07:35 PM	Sure. The problem is that the applied ethics you advocate do not follow from the meta ethics of the core rules. The last sentence alone demonstrates that you either do not know what applied ethics is, or you completely misunderstood my earlier posts since I never proposed a model of ethics to apply. What I was deriving normative ethics from meta ethics. And I still maintain that they do. I urge you to read the alignment section again. you will see that each alignment has a set of "implied" precepts (which are stated explicitly). From these it is rather easy to derive actual precepts.
Professorpain 08-07-07, 07:38 PM	I would suggest that this is incoherent. If an action is justified, it isn't evil. That's what "justified" MEANS. Modern nations frown on assassination because murder is not seen as an appropriate way to do business. Murder is usually wrong: and usually in this case means almost always. But occasionally it isn't. Actually, your posts demonstrate a firm adherence to derived rules as opposed to fundamental principles, with no apparent understanding of the difference. Also, a disturbing habit of talking down to other posters with interesting points at great length. I'll just point out that this statement is contentious, and can't be taken as obviously true. I was using the term justified in the sense of something being permissible. I would argue that I do not talk down to other posters. I only added heat to my tone when heretic began talking down to me. i invite you to review his posts.
Professorpain 08-07-07, 07:39 PM	Yes, but why is is better to kill someone who has no hope in a duel than it is to kill someone in their sleep? Also, snipers are assassins in warfare. Part of the reason is that if you assassinate a leader, warfare breaks out, which isn't wanted. On the other hand, they don't have an issue killing someone who is already in a war. Assassinating a general attacking you is okay, assassinating a corrupt civilian leader isn't. This line of reasoning has led many to conclude that there can be no just war. That killing for any reason is evil.
heretic888 08-07-07, 08:12 PM	The last sentence alone demonstrates that you either do not know what applied ethics is, or you completely misunderstood my earlier posts since I never proposed a model of ethics to apply. What I was deriving normative ethics from meta ethics. And I still maintain that they do. I urge you to read the alignment section again. you will see that each alignment has a set of "implied" precepts (which are stated explicitly). From these it is rather easy to derive actual precepts. No, each alignment has a guiding principle which serves as a guideline by which players may approximate any number of normative ethics. At no point is it ever implied that there is only one way to be good or, as you put it, only one set of "good" precepts by which to follow. I would argue, based on the content of your last several posts, that you are projecting (knowingly or unknowingly) your own moral beliefs onto D&D and then speaking as if they are core rules. They are not. They are just your interpretation of the rules. Particularly on the issue of assassination or sabotage, the core rules are neutral to this debate. We are told killing innocent life is "evil", but it is tacitly accepted that adventurers can and will kill the not-so-innocent. As such, it is absurd to single out stealthy executions over the kick-down-the-door-mow-down-dozens-of-minions-and-cause-immeasurably-more-damage-and-loss-of-life approach that adventurers regularly chose. In fact, the former seems markedly less "evil" than the latter. Point being, if you accept that "good" characters in D&D go out and eliminate "evil" baddies in order to prevent them from doing "evil" stuff (which is, after all, pretty much what the Paladin's job description is), then it is plainly absurd to then add "oh, but you can't be skillful or stealthy about, as all good characters must chose the way that is the most dangerous to both themselves and others". That just don't add up.
Professorpain 08-07-07, 08:51 PM	Particularly on the issue of assassination or sabotage, the core rules are neutral to this debate. We are told killing innocent life is "evil", but it is tacitly accepted that adventurers can and will kill the not-so-innocent. As such, it is absurd to single out stealthy executions over the kick-down-the-door-mow-down-dozens-of-minions-and-cause-immeasurably-more-damage-and-loss-of-life approach that adventurers regularly chose. In fact, the former seems markedly less "evil" than the latter. . Again both assasination and killing the not so innocent are instances were circumstances have made killing permissible, but still undesirable. However, if we take your stance and make use of situational ethics, targetted assasination and 'kick down the door mow down minions" are simply not on the same plane ethically if you apply (here I am using applied ethics) the law of unforseen consquence then the group who kills minions in pursuit of some other goal are less morally culpable than the assasin. In one instance you are deliberately targetting one for death, that is your express purpose when you assasinate someone (though there may be some greater motivating factor driving the assasination). When a party kills minions in the process of infiltrating a a dungeon, they did not set out expressly to kill minions. They had some greater goal that had to be achieved, so they kicked down the door and encountered minions. In one instance the agent is on the offensive (the assasin), in the other defensive (the players being attacked by minions--who in a sense are also on the defensive because they are presumably just protecting their boss's lair). Also, in the case of assasination death is the only desired outcome. In the case of kick down kill minions, a mere wounding or knock out blow can suffice.
Professorpain 08-07-07, 09:02 PM	No, each alignment has a guiding principle which serves as a guideline by which players may approximate any number of normative ethics. At no point is it ever implied that there is only one way to be good or, as you put it, only one set of "good" precepts by which to follow. I would argue, based on the content of your last several posts, that you are projecting (knowingly or unknowingly) your own moral beliefs onto D&D and then speaking as if they are core rules. They are not. They are just your interpretation of the rules. Particularly on the issue of assassination or sabotage, the core rules are neutral to this debate. We are told killing innocent life is "evil", but it is tacitly accepted that adventurers can and will kill the not-so-innocent. As such, it is absurd to single out stealthy executions over the kick-down-the-door-mow-down-dozens-of-minions-and-cause-immeasurably-more-damage-and-loss-of-life approach that adventurers regularly chose. In fact, the former seems markedly less "evil" than the latter. . There is more than a guiding principle at work in the alignment system. They begin with guiding principles ("Good characters... protect innocent life. Evil Characters... debase or destroy innocent life"-PHB 104). But the PHB fleshes this out saying "Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the DIGNITY (emphasis added) of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifice to help others"-PHB 104. Then if you look at the alignments individually they are each given about 3-5 precepts in addition to these guiding principles for good, evil, law and chaos. For instance Lawful Good says: "A lawful good person acts as a good person is expected or required to act. She combines commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. She tells the truth, keeps her word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice [ed. sounds like precepts to me]. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished. Alhandra, a paladin who fights evil without mercy and protects the innocent without hesitation is lawful good."-PHB 104-05. While this does lend credibility to your notion that the context of a given action must be considered, it also supports my claim that there are in fact explicity precepts in the D&D alignment system.
kintire 08-08-07, 05:00 AM	I was using the term justified in the sense of something being permissible You consider that something can be both evil and permissable? Interesting. I don't. This line of reasoning has led many to conclude that there can be no just war. That killing for any reason is evil But not all, or even most. And this certainly isn't the position within DnD. Again both assasination and killing the not so innocent are instances were circumstances have made killing permissible, but still undesirable. However, if we take your stance and make use of situational ethics, targetted assasination and 'kick down the door mow down minions" are simply not on the same plane ethically if you apply (here I am using applied ethics) the law of unforseen consquence then the group who kills minions in pursuit of some other goal are less morally culpable than the assasin. In one instance you are deliberately targetting one for death, that is your express purpose when you assasinate someone (though there may be some greater motivating factor driving the assasination). When a party kills minions in the process of infiltrating a a dungeon, they did not set out expressly to kill minions. The contrast you are trying to make here is forced and unsustainable. First, it simply isn't true that all assassinations have only death as their motivation: most are motivated by some other goal, for which the death is necessary. Second, its absurd to suggest that a group using the mowing down the minions tactic in a dungeon "didn't expressly set out to kill minions". They are pursuing a goal that requires them to kill the minions, just as the assassin is pursuing a goal that requires him to kill his target. Their is no ethical difference at all. And what if the goal of the minion mowing stand up fighters is "kill the evil wizard before he sacrifices the princess?" Now they are entering the dungeon to kill someone. Are you suggesting it would be better if they just let the princess die?
Professorpain 08-08-07, 09:35 AM	The contrast you are trying to make here is forced and unsustainable. First, it simply isn't true that all assassinations have only death as their motivation: most are motivated by some other goal, for which the death is necessary. Second, its absurd to suggest that a group using the mowing down the minions tactic in a dungeon "didn't expressly set out to kill minions". They are pursuing a goal that requires them to kill the minions, just as the assassin is pursuing a goal that requires him to kill his target. Their is no ethical difference at all. And what if the goal of the minion mowing stand up fighters is "kill the evil wizard before he sacrifices the princess?" Now they are entering the dungeon to kill someone. Are you suggesting it would be better if they just let the princess die? I simply must disagree for the reasons I previously stated. You misunderstood my point. Of course in an assasination there will be another goal motivating the killing. But the aim of the act is to kill a specific individual. It is the forseen consequence and the only acceptable outcome. In the case of mowing down minions, the aim of the PCs is simply to get where they are going. They do not know what they will encounter when they "kick down the door". Also in the kick down the door scenario, the minions are given a fair shot at survival. They have the options to fight, flee or surrender. In the case of the victim of the assasin, he has no options and no fair shot at survival. No I am not suggesting it is better to let the princess die. I am merely saying that assasination and killing minions in a stand up fight are not the same ethically speaking.
Professorpain 08-08-07, 09:37 AM	But not all, or even most. And this certainly isn't the position within DnD. ? No it is not the position within D&D. A lack of popular support doesn't make it any less true (as heretic already pointed out).
kintire 08-08-07, 11:31 AM	I simply must disagree for the reasons I previously stated. You misunderstood my point. No, I understood it completely. I just disagree. In the case of mowing down minions, the aim of the PCs is simply to get where they are going. They do not know what they will encounter when they "kick down the door". I'm sorry, this is just sophistry. Its a dungeon full of minions whose sole role is to prevent the PCs from going where they are going. To act all surprised and innocent when they attack you for kicking down the door is nonsensical. Also in the kick down the door scenario, the minions are given a fair shot at survival. They have the options to fight, flee or surrender. In the case of the victim of the assasin, he has no options and no fair shot at survival. Again, false dichotomy. In the fight case it's a contest of weapon skills, in the assassination case its different skills... usually disguise or stealth vs some perception or other. You talk as if all assassinations automatically work. And anyway, what compulsion are we under to make things fair? If someone needs to be killed to save innocents, its wrong to make things "fair" for them... it puts the innocents at greater risk. No it is not the position within D&D. A lack of popular support doesn't make it any less true Nor does it make it more true.
Professorpain 08-08-07, 12:22 PM	I'm sorry, this is just sophistry. Its a dungeon full of minions whose sole role is to prevent the PCs from going where they are going. To act all surprised and innocent when they attack you for kicking down the door is nonsensical. Again, false dichotomy. In the fight case it's a contest of weapon skills, in the assassination case its different skills... usually disguise or stealth vs some perception or other. You talk as if all assassinations automatically work. And anyway, what compulsion are we under to make things fair? If someone needs to be killed to save innocents, its wrong to make things "fair" for them... it puts the innocents at greater risk. . 1)It is not sophistry. It is an important distinction. In reality the PCs do not know who or what they will encounter when they enter a dungeon. Nor do they go in with the intent to commit murder. Granted they must fight whatever they face, but this an unforseen consequence of entering the dungeon. Besides they also have the option of not killing and merely incapacitating whatever they encounter. There only interest is neutralizing the threats that they face. Sometimes that involves murder or killing but not always. Assasination in order to be succesful must involve murder or killing. Dungeon delving can be succesful without murder or killing. 2)Not a false dichotomy at all. Yes they are both "contests" but in the case of face to face confrontation the playing field is much more level with more options for survival. In the case of assasination the victim is at a tremendous disadvantage and much more likely to die. Of course assasination will not automatically work. But it is far more likely to succeed with the victim not even knowing he is under attack. 3) Because because fighting fair respects the dignity of sentient beings whereas killing them in their sleep does not.
Roxlimn 08-08-07, 12:55 PM	I'd have to agree there. In Dungeon Delving, PCs don't really make it a point to kill things and people. They're just defending themselves from lethal attack. I imagine they'll be just as happy to haul out the treasure with no resistance whatsoever. In assassination, killing a very specific someone is the only end in mind.
kintire 08-08-07, 01:01 PM	Granted they must fight whatever they face, but this an unforseen consequence of entering the dungeon. :uh-huh: No it isn't. Its a completely foreseen consequence. Not a false dichotomy at all. Yes they are both "contests" but in the case of face to face confrontation the playing field is much more level with more options for survival Rubbish. It completely depends on the skills involved. A face to face confrontation between a level 20 barbarian and a level 1 commoner is just as uneven as any assassination. Because because fighting fair respects the dignity of sentient beings whereas killing them in their sleep does not. How? a swift clean death in bed vs a brutal hacking apart? And once again, it depends on the skills. An assassination by a Move Silently 5 assassin against a Listen 5 victim is far far more even than the "fair" fight above. But once again, nothing obliges you to be fair. No fight is, no fight should be. A fair fight is one you have a fifty fifty chance of losing, and trying to arrange that is "respect for dignity" its "boneheaded incompetence".
kintire 08-08-07, 01:02 PM	I imagine they'll be just as happy to haul out the treasure with no resistance whatsoever Fine, if your on a looting expedition. What if its kill the dragon and rescue the princess?
Roxlimn 08-08-07, 01:06 PM	I'd think that it would be more like "Rescue the Princess and Get Out As Soon As Possible." Again, I think they'd be just as happy to sneak out with the princess if they thought they could get away with it. Now an expedition like "Kill the Dragon, period," would be more along the right situation to ask about.
Professorpain 08-08-07, 01:08 PM	:uh-huh: No it isn't. Its a completely foreseen consequence. Rubbish. It completely depends on the skills involved. A face to face confrontation between a level 20 barbarian and a level 1 commoner is just as uneven as any assassination. How? a swift clean death in bed vs a brutal hacking apart? And once again, it depends on the skills. An assassination by a Move Silently 5 assassin against a Listen 5 victim is far far more even than the "fair" fight above. But once again, nothing obliges you to be fair. No fight is, no fight should be. A fair fight is one you have a fifty fifty chance of losing, and trying to arrange that is "respect for dignity" its "boneheaded incompetence". 1) no it is not. it is one of many possible outcomes. 2) Because when you fight someone face to face you show them the courtesy of being able to attempt to protect themselves. It is your skills against their's. In assasination you are doing everything in your power to prevent any attempt on their part to protect themselves. In strict D&D terms there is some skill vs. skill aspect to assasination. But when someone is asleep there is very little they can do to protect themselves. Perhaps you do not consider murdering someone in their sleep more cowardly and disrespectful than trying to kill them face to face. But I suspect that most resonable people do. The difference is really one of respect. If you and I have a beef over a woman. And I set out to beat you up. In which scenario am I displaying more respect for you? Scenario one, where I sneak into your bedroom and punch you in the stomach while you sleep or Scenario two where I call you outside and challenge you to a fight. 3) A good 20th level barbarian has liberty (and is even compelled) to show the 1st level commoner mercy. To kill such a weak opponent would be an act of brutal excess. 4) The whole point of assasination is to attack someone when they are prone, unaware, and at serious disatvantage. The whole point of fighting minions is simply to get past them without suffering too much damage. 5) Fighting fair is not one where both sides have a fifty fifty chance of winning. A fair fight is when both sides abide by basic rules of civilized conduct and allow for the possibility of surrender. Attacking someone in the back has long been considered a no no in any honorable fight. In a fair fight your opponent should at the very least be aware that a fight is taking place. This is not to say that assasination is never permissible, only that it is wholly different from a face to face confrontation. If you cannot recognize the distinction, then I do not know what I can say to convince you. But most people readily accept that there is a difference.
heretic888 08-08-07, 01:32 PM	Here's the thing. "Fighting fair" has nothing to do with being "good" or with respecting "the dignity of life". This is especially absurd, given the overwhelming majority of such "fair fights", both in reality and in D&D, end in someone's painful death. More to the point, I would imagine that even for good characters, assassination would be employed as a last resort only. You can argue that "fighting fair" is in accordance with "civilized conduct" and may therefore be relevant to certain ways of being "lawful", but that's it. To Good, killing is killing is killing. It certainly matters who you're killing and why you're killing them, but the tactics you employ (provided you make it as relatively painless as possible) don't mean a copper to Good. Law quibbles over tactics, honor, and "fighting fair". Good couldn't care less, as long as innocent life is protected from Evil.
Roxlimn 08-08-07, 01:50 PM	Arguably, Good would also sometimes protect Evil from Evil, depending on who was the offending Evil at the time.
heretic888 08-08-07, 02:32 PM	Arguably, Good would also sometimes protect Evil from Evil, depending on who was the offending Evil at the time. That's true. "Evil" isn't synonymous with "guilty", after all.
Hochiu 08-08-07, 02:50 PM	I'd have to agree there. In Dungeon Delving, PCs don't really make it a point to kill things and people. They're just defending themselves from lethal attack. I imagine they'll be just as happy to haul out the treasure with no resistance whatsoever. In assassination, killing a very specific someone is the only end in mind. Oh yeah, since the PCs are supposed to be in the dungeon in general. :D The monsters in the dungeon are just defending themselves from a brutal invasion. :P
Professorpain 08-08-07, 03:28 PM	Here's the thing. "Fighting fair" has nothing to do with being "good" or with respecting "the dignity of life". This is especially absurd, given the overwhelming majority of such "fair fights", both in reality and in D&D, end in someone's painful death. More to the point, I would imagine that even for good characters, assassination would be employed as a last resort only. You can argue that "fighting fair" is in accordance with "civilized conduct" and may therefore be relevant to certain ways of being "lawful", but that's it. To Good, killing is killing is killing. It certainly matters who you're killing and why you're killing them, but the tactics you employ (provided you make it as relatively painless as possible) don't mean a copper to Good. . This is goes against just about every usable definition of good (including the one in the PHB). You were self point out assasination would be used as a LAST RESORT. Obviously there is a difference between assasination and open conflict. I am not arguing that good characters would never engage in assasination. My point is that the ends do in fact matter on the good-evil spectrum. And that assasination has a different moral value than fighting face to face. The fact that fair fights end in painful death only demonstrates that the stakes are high enough that conflict would be approached with the utmost seriousness. And that issues of fair play are important. It is not absurd that fighting fair demonstrates respect for the DIGNITY (not sanctity) of life. How one dies is a matter of dignity. Having one's throat slit in the middle of the night or dying courageously in battle are absolutely different in this respect. Allowing a sentient being to meet its end in battle rather than in sleep, clearly shows a level of respect for dignity that assasins lack. Tactics are important to good and evil. That is why we recognize certain acts (like genocide or torture) as violating the rules of war. There are instances where good may resort to torture in order to achieve a greater good, but it would still be recognized as a highly undesirable act and only utilized to prevent a greater evil. The same can be said of assasination. Nice try but no dice.
Roxlimn 08-08-07, 03:55 PM	I think he means that "fighting fair" registers on the Law/Chaos aspect rather than on the Good/Evil one, not that assassination in particular was of that nature. I also think that a CG character would "cheat" as far as he could in pursuit of defending the helpless.
Professorpain 08-08-07, 05:18 PM	I think he means that "fighting fair" registers on the Law/Chaos aspect rather than on the Good/Evil one, not that assassination in particular was of that nature. I also think that a CG character would "cheat" as far as he could in pursuit of defending the helpless. He might "cheat" but I doubt he would kill someone while they slept.
Roxlimn 08-08-07, 05:28 PM	He might. It wouldn't be consistent with his Good alignment, but it would be consistent with his Chaotic alignment.
Professorpain 08-08-07, 05:37 PM	He might. It wouldn't be consistent with his Good alignment, but it would be consistent with his Chaotic alignment. Which means it would not be chaotic good to do so.
Hanzo187 08-08-07, 08:09 PM	Which means it would not be chaotic good to do so. Not necessarily. As heretic has pointed out, alignment is more or less about interpretation, but the one thing I've noticed about Chaotic Good is that there are usually focused on helping the greater good. Naturally, this could be achieved by many means, but assassination can be one of those. After all, if there is a good reason, a Good person will kill. The Paladin knows that as well as anybody. Let's just say you found a serial killer in your city and you're CG. He's been tried but acquitted twice. If you're LG or NG, you'll likely arrest him and hope for a conviction, but as a CG, you know he can't be allowed to live, so you kill him before he can get to another. It's assassination. It may not have been your finest hour, but you prevented him from killing another innocent, which is clearly in defense of the greater good. Even so, as I said, this is all about interpretation, but this is what I believe.
samuraiking 08-08-07, 08:18 PM	what a completely pointless debate. how geeky can you be. normal people don't argue over this stuff. you guys are all just wrong. no one here knows what they are talking about.
narukagami 08-08-07, 09:10 PM	Has it been a month already? I was wondering when the next troll was scheduled to arrive.
kintire 08-09-07, 09:49 AM	1) no it is not. it is one of many possible outcomes. You're serious? You really believe that killing the inhabitants of the dungeon is an unforeseen consequence of kick in the door dungeon crawling? Ahh.. no! You're kidding me. Good one! really had me going there. Because when you fight someone face to face you show them the courtesy of being able to attempt to protect themselves. It is your skills against their's. In assasination you are doing everything in your power to prevent any attempt on their part to protect themselves. One of the main thrusts of human endeavour throughout history has been the development of martial skills. These skills, both strategical and personal, are solely devoted to ensuring that face to face confrontations are as unfair as can possibly be arranged. There may be some people who prefer fair fights: they are called "irresponsible idiots". Natural selection has largely confined them to organised sports. If you and I have a beef over a woman. And I set out to beat you up. In which scenario am I displaying more respect for you? Scenario one, where I sneak into your bedroom and punch you in the stomach while you sleep or Scenario two where I call you outside and challenge you to a fight. That's easy: neither. A good 20th level barbarian has liberty (and is even compelled) to show the 1st level commoner mercy. To kill such a weak opponent would be an act of brutal excess. So you admit that open fights can be unfair? The whole point of assasination is to attack someone when they are prone, unaware, and at serious disatvantage. The whole point of fighting minions is simply to get past them without suffering too much damage. And you do that by attacking them, preferably while they are at a serious disadvantage. This is not to say that assasination is never permissible, only that it is wholly different from a face to face confrontation. If you cannot recognize the distinction, then I do not know what I can say to convince you. But most people readily accept that there is a difference. Well, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. If you're arguing that there is a practical difference, that's trivially true. If you are arguing that there's a moral difference, then that's false. If you have decided to kill someone, then the morality of that decision is based on the reasons for making that decision, not on the methods you choose to use. This is goes against just about every usable definition of good (including the one in the PHB). You were self point out assasination would be used as a LAST RESORT Killing would be a last resort. Assassination is just a type of killing. Allowing a sentient being to meet its end in battle rather than in sleep, clearly shows a level of respect for dignity that assasins lack. No it doesn't. This is purely a matter of your personal taste, and an apparent belief that might is right and cleverness is wrong. Your contempt for the weak and glorification of the strong has nothing to do with any sort of good alignment, in DnD or outside it.
Professorpain 08-09-07, 10:23 AM	No it doesn't. This is purely a matter of your personal taste, and an apparent belief that might is right and cleverness is wrong. Your contempt for the weak and glorification of the strong has nothing to do with any sort of good alignment, in DnD or outside it. Now we are getting at the heart of your objection. You feel fair play puts the intelligent (and or weak) in a weaker position. I am not suggesting tactics are less moral than charging blinding into the fray, just specific tactics that involve murdering someone while they sleep. Why do you think I believe that might makes right? I do not happen to believe that at all. Why do I have "contempt for the weak and glorification for the strong"? I have already stated that it would be highly immoral for a 20th level barbarian to kill a 1st level commoner. I am not suggesting that people shouldn't fight smart, just that they shouldn't kill people while they cannot defend themselves. At that point you have already won and there is no need to kill anyone. I also made it clear that in some situations assasination will be the only option a good character can choose (with the qualification that it is still an evil act). I am sorry but means are equally important as the ends in moral equations.
Professorpain 08-09-07, 10:32 AM	You're serious? You really believe that killing the inhabitants of the dungeon is an unforeseen consequence of kick in the door dungeon crawling? Ahh.. no! You're kidding me. Good one! really had me going there. It is unforseen in that it is not the direct intention of the characters to kill minions. Before they "kick down the door" they cannot predict what will be on the other side. Could be a trap, monsters, friendly NPCs, treasure, or nothing. One of the main thrusts of human endeavour throughout history has been the development of martial skills. These skills, both strategical and personal, are solely devoted to ensuring that face to face confrontations are as unfair as can possibly be arranged. There may be some people who prefer fair fights: they are called "irresponsible idiots". Natural selection has largely confined them to organised sports. Again, I am not opposed to getting an edge in any confrontation. I am opposed to attacking the defenseless. There is a difference. This is what I mean by fighting fair. That's easy: neither. This just shows that you have no real answer to my scenario because you know I am right. So you admit that open fights can be unfair? Of course they can. And that is why it would be wrong for the barbarian to destroy a 1st level commoner. But even in this case it is less evil than assasination, because the commoner is concious of the confrontation and still has some options available to defend himself (run away, reason, hide, fight very dirty etc). Still it would be evil for the barbarian to kill him. Well, I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. If you're arguing that there is a practical difference, that's trivially true. If you are arguing that there's a moral difference, then that's false. If you have decided to kill someone, then the morality of that decision is based on the reasons for making that decision, not on the methods you choose to use. Killing would be a last resort. Assassination is just a type of killing. Yes, and the type of killing matters here. Just look at our justice system. We distinguish between different types of murder because most people recognize these distinctions make for different moral values. This is also why the UN prohibits assasination.
kintire 08-09-07, 10:44 AM	I am not suggesting tactics are less moral than charging blinding into the fray, just specific tactics that involve murdering someone while they sleep. Yes. And you are completely unable to offer any coherent reason as to why you are making this arbitrary restriction. Why do you think I believe that might makes right? I do not happen to believe that at all. Why do I have "contempt for the weak and glorification for the strong"? You believe that a direct face to face trial of might is morally superior to other means of killing. This is a point of view that clearly and directly benefits those who are effective in this style of confrontation, and carefully biases against those who are not. I have already stated that it would be highly immoral for a 20th level barbarian to kill a 1st level commoner. You have stated that: 1) A fair fight is one which is held in the open, and involves a trial of skills in which both sides are aware that the trial is going on. 2) A fair fight does not necessarily involve an exact 50/50 chance of victory: using one's skills to gain advantage is acceptable. 3) A 20th level barbarian defeating a 1st level commoner in just such a conflict is immoral. Your position is incoherent. 1) and 2) together deny 3). You cannot consistently maintain all of these positions. I chose to believe that you didn't quite mean 3): was I wrong? I am not suggesting that people shouldn't fight smart, just that they should kill people while they cannot defend themselves. At that point you have already won and there is no need to kill anyone Nonsense. You may have an advantage at that precise moment, but it won't last. as soon as they wake up, your position of power is gone. I also made it clear that in some situations assasination will be the only option a good character can choose (with the qualification that it is still an evil act). I am sorry but means are equally important as the ends in moral equations I am sorry but... which of the last two statements do you, in fact, believe? They are inconsistent with each other! I believe the second. I do not believe that evil means are ever justified, even if the means are good. If something is justified, it is by definition not evil. You may believe that the ends do justify the means, and evil means are usable. You can't believe both!
kintire 08-09-07, 10:53 AM	It is unforseen in that it is not the direct intention of the characters to kill minions. Before they "kick down the door" they cannot predict what will be on the other side. Could be a trap, monsters, friendly NPCs, treasure, or nothing. Only with extreme special pleading. Those of us who conduct basic scouting before bursting in tend to have a rather better idea. Again, I am not opposed to getting an edge in any confrontation. I am opposed to attacking the defenseless. There is a difference I'm sorry, there isn't. Attacking the defenceless is just the total success condition of getting an edge. Your dividing line is totally arbitrary. This just shows that you have no real answer to my scenario because you know I am right. No, it shows that your scenario is uninteresting, because it presupposes that stealth or open attack makes a difference, which is exactly what I'm denying. But even in this case it is less evil than assasination, because the commoner is concious of the confrontation and still has some options available to defend himself (run away, reason, hide, fight very dirty etc). Still it would be evil for the barbarian to kill him. And if the boot's on the other foot? The commoner is Good and the barbarian is a chaotic evil mass murderer, unstoppable in battle, who has decided in the morning to massacre a village, just because he can. But, he has Wis 8 and has never dropped a rank into listen. You're saying the commoner has to challenge him to an open battle, and sneaking up on him would be evil? If so, you are saying Might is Right. Yes, and the type of killing matters here. Just look at our justice system. We distinguish between different types of murder because most people recognize these distinctions make for different moral values. I'm not sure where you live, but I think you'll find that different types of murder are distinguished by intent, not method. Premeditated murder by walking up to someone, saying "your time has come!" and shooting them is absolutely no better than premediated murder by stabbing while asleep.
Professorpain 08-09-07, 11:01 AM	Yes. And you are completely unable to offer any coherent reason as to why you are making this arbitrary restriction. You believe that a direct face to face trial of might is morally superior to other means of killing. This is a point of view that clearly and directly benefits those who are effective in this style of confrontation, and carefully biases against those who are not. You have stated that: 1) A fair fight is one which is held in the open, and involves a trial of skills in which both sides are aware that the trial is going on. 2) A fair fight does not necessarily involve an exact 50/50 chance of victory: using one's skills to gain advantage is acceptable. 3) A 20th level barbarian defeating a 1st level commoner in just such a conflict is immoral. Your position is incoherent. 1) and 2) together deny 3). You cannot consistently maintain all of these positions. I chose to believe that you didn't quite mean 3): was I wrong? Yes you were wrong. Because you are selectively taking my statements and building an argument that I never actually made. As with most discussions on these boards my argument evolved as different points were made by people on all sides. If you paid attention to my last post you would notice that I greatly changed my language. I no longer maintain 1) as you have it phrased. 1) should not read "a fair fight is one in which both sides are capable of defending themselves". I did not mean in an open space. My only requirement is that both sides are aware so that they can defend themselves. Again I am not universally stating that all other acts must be prohibitted, just that they have a different moral value than a direct confrontation.
Professorpain 08-09-07, 11:02 AM	[QUOTE=kintire;13359634] I'm sorry, there isn't. Attacking the defenceless is just the total success condition of getting an edge. Your dividing line is totally arbitrary. [QUOTE] Again, when someone is defenseless then you have already won. Making them defensless is the success condition, not killing them once they are. I do not see how this is an arbitrary distinction.
kintire 08-09-07, 11:26 AM	If you paid attention to my last post you would notice that I greatly changed my language. I no longer maintain 1) as you have it phrased. 1) should not read "a fair fight is one in which both sides are capable of defending themselves". That's fine. The statements are still inconsistent even as rephrased. Again, when someone is defenseless then you have already won. Making them defensless is the success condition, not killing them once they are. This just isn't true. Its true if they then STAY defenseless on a long term basis, but in most situations their defenseless state will be strictly temporary.
Professorpain 08-09-07, 01:05 PM	That's fine. The statements are still inconsistent even as rephrased. How is it inconsistent. Fighting fair is when both sides are capable of defending themselves. In the case of the barbarian and the 1st level commoner, the commoner is clearly all but defenseless against the attacks of such a powerful character. He certainly is more capable of defending himself than the target of an assasination, but he has little to no chance of surviving. But even if I never modified my position the three statements can all exist and remain consistent. Again I want to clarify that I am not stating that good characters should never fight fair. Only that there is a moral difference between fair fighting and unfair fighting. In a fair fight you show mercy when someone is defenseless. However a good character will sometimes have to resort to killing a defensless opponent. But he will recognize it as being less desirable than not killing them. You seem to be under the impression that I was trying to make an airtight syllogism. But there are two problems. First, in the example you give 1) and 2) are completely unrealated to 3). Second, I am making no such attempt. What you call a contradiction I would simply term an exeption. This just isn't true. Its true if they then STAY defenseless on a long term basis, but in most situations their defenseless state will be strictly temporary. It is true. Once someone is defenseless you can tell give them the opportunity to surrender. There are going to be cases when you must kill someone who is defensless. Frankly I think we are just coming from very different places. But whether you like it or not, the PHB clearly says that good characters respect the dignity of sentient beings. I do not see how you can regard killing someone who is defensless as having respect for the dignity of sentient beings.
Professorpain 08-09-07, 01:20 PM	You have stated that: 1) A fair fight is one which is held in the open, and involves a trial of skills in which both sides are aware that the trial is going on. 2) A fair fight does not necessarily involve an exact 50/50 chance of victory: using one's skills to gain advantage is acceptable. 3) A 20th level barbarian defeating a 1st level commoner in just such a conflict is immoral. Your position is incoherent. 1) and 2) together deny 3). You cannot consistently maintain all of these positions. I chose to believe that you didn't quite mean 3): was I wrong? ! 1) and 2) DO NOTHING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT FAIRNESS OR UNFAIRNESS OF A CONFLICT IS IMMORAL. So 3) doesn't make a whole lot sense. 3) should read "A 20th level barbarian defeating a 1st level commoner in just such a conflict is unfair. But nothing in 3) contradicts 1) and 2). Just because it iis acceptable to use one's skills in a fight does not mean that it is acceptable for someone with overwhelming skill to take on someone who has no skills. Just because a fair fight doesn't have to be 50/50, that doesn't mean that there isn't a reasonable cut off say 90/10. At some point it clearly becomes unfair. Just like in say a boxing match. It would be two similar sized boxers to fight each other if one has been fighting professionally for 10 years, and the other for 7. Certainly not a 50/50 situation. Still fair though. But if one has been fighting for 10 years, and the other is just an amateur who has been at it for 6 months, then it is not a fiar fight. Again you might have a point if I was constructing airtight syllogisms, but I was obviously making rather open statements that required common sense to apply.
kintire 08-10-07, 06:11 AM	How is it inconsistent. Fighting fair is when both sides are capable of defending themselves. If you believe this, then it isn't inconsistent. But you haven't been arguing this at all. You've been claiming that a contest where both sides are defending themselves with Attack Bonus and AC is "Fair" while a contest where one side is using Move Silently and Hide and the other is using Listen and Spot is not. You have now accepted that an "open fight" is NOT necessarily "fair". Thats progress! I'd like to take it one step further. The type of conflict it is is not relevant at all. Both open fights and assassinations can be unfair to either party. Consider the lone assassin with hide and MS at 5 who is trying to assassinate the lord of a castle with fifty guards at Spot/Listen 20. Not very fair on him! I'd like to make another point too. Killing someone is a decision that should be a last resort. In other words, there should be a really good reason why they have to die. They will kill innocents if you don't, for example. In that event you have a duty to do everything you can to ensure success. The lives of those innocents depend on your victory! At that point, making it a fair fight is no longer in the least "Good"... its vainglorious foolishness. If you lose, those innocents die. I see no compulsion to give any advantage away. Of course we are not in the business of performing evil acts, but I've seen no convincing argument yet that assassination is evil. Appeals to the dignity of death in battle leave me unmoved. I don't really see how an axe in the face is any more dignified a way to go than a knife in the throat. It is true. Once someone is defenseless you can tell give them the opportunity to surrender. There are going to be cases when you must kill someone who is defensless. And then they cease to be defenseless, and they kill you. As I say, making someone defenseless is only a win condition if the state of defenselessness lasts. 1) and 2) DO NOTHING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT FAIRNESS OR UNFAIRNESS OF A CONFLICT IS IMMORAL You are correct. The idea that fairness or unfairness equals moral or immoral is the central plank of your entire position, but I should have stated it in the premises rather than taking it for granted.
ORC_Sinister 08-10-07, 07:33 AM	Good and Evil A debate that never seems to end when trying to make alignment. Honestly I just tell my group what I think is good and evil and it's up to them to fit a character into my vision, that way everyone is on the same page for the game. As to ninja, well certainly a samuari would find the idea distasteful since it's a rather honor-less profession. I've played L5R since it's first edition with AEG and can say that I've witnessed a real "westernization" of the culture in that game where we seem to idolize the assassin as cool. I think the whole Ninja vs. Pirate debate is proof of how far that idolization has gone. Neither Ninjas or Pirates were the nicest of folk either in reality or indeed the mythos if you will of the two groups. We tend to think of them as lovable rogues like jack sparrow.
Roxlimn 08-10-07, 09:24 AM	Professor Pain: Shrug. Even that's debatable. If you're going to kill him anyway, why bother to be fair about it? If you're not going to kill him, what's the point of discussing the fairness of methods of killing him? My view is that it's not consistent with Good to want people to die. A Good view would endeavor to see its ends without loss of life, for as long as possible, sometimes even beyond reason. This is an idealized view of Good, but then again, it's also sort of idealized for Evil characters to want to kill people just for the heck of it. In many games, characters will be more complicated. The "ends justify the means" philosophy is Machiavellian, used to justify war for conquest and public executions of political enemies. I cannot see it as consistent with Good. The "greater good" argument has likewise been used to justify fatal experimentation on humans and the extermination of peoples and nations. I cannot see it as consistent with D&D's Good either. Thus, aiming to see someone dead as a specific end "for the protection of others" does not seem justified. Is it "Chaotic Good" to assassinate someone? It depends on interpretation. WizO Sinister: Actually, if anything, equating Ninjas with Pirates in the first place is a Western idolization thing in itself. Ninjas weren't always the nicest of people, but neither were Knights and Samurai. At least Ninjas sought to an ideal for the betterment of humanity. Pirates don't have that kind of ideal.
ORC_Sinister 08-10-07, 10:10 AM	[ WizO Sinister: Actually, if anything, equating Ninjas with Pirates in the first place is a Western idolization thing in itself. Ninjas weren't always the nicest of people, but neither were Knights and Samurai. At least Ninjas sought to an ideal for the betterment of humanity. Pirates don't have that kind of ideal. Bah, Any historical context can be found where a particular group (knights, soldiers, pesants) aren't being nice. Ninjas don't do anything to the betterment of the society, anymore than knights slaughter saracens (for the benefit of society) good and evil are relative to the person or lord in these cases not to some grand ideal. Samurai and Ninjas both would never consider the good and evil of their actions if their lord commanded it, they would just do what was commanded of them on the spot. That is their way. This unyielding code is so ingrained in Japanese culture that you have Kami-kaze, and bonzai attacks in WWII. They never question their leader, right or wrong. Heck those aboard the Yamato battleship at the end of the War knew they were going to their deaths and you did not hear of any protests from the sailors. Western society question leaders all the time. Cowboys are about the closest thing we have to Samurai, great warriors of the American West. However, loyalty and simply following orders is not something the cowboy ever valued. In fact in old west fiction and indeed the real old west following the directives of leaders (sheriffs, judges, marshals, etc.) is not something they did. Rather the cowboy ideal is following your own code of ethics in the face of people trying to tell you otherwise. Self determination, a single person triumphing over the system( corrupt or not), a poor man forging a life from nothing, these are the key elements to and old west story. As for pirates, you could very well argue that privateers are pirates and they felt like they were working for the benefit of society by hunting down and stealing from pirates, but do you think they gave back to the owners what was stolen?
Roxlimn 08-10-07, 10:18 AM	WizO Sinister: Samurai and Ninjas both would never consider the good and evil of their actions if their lord commanded it, they would just do what was commanded of them on the spot. That is their way. You have to take that in context. Remember that we're not talking about D&D morality anymore. This is real world stories and real world judgments we're rendering. Samurai and Ninja don't consider the implications of their orders because that is what is moral. Absolute obedience to your lord was viewed as the mortar of society - the very thing that separates civilized men from animals and barbarians. The most moral of men, the Paragon of Goodness, in this view is not someone who follows his heart, but one who dutifully discharges his obligation to his people and the Celestial Order. In a sense, this view of morality is similar to Le Guin's morality in Earthsea. The best of men don't do what they want or what they think is right, but those who do what they must in service to Earthsea itself. We cannot hold these people to account for a moral view they don't even know. For comparison, a Western style cowboy is actually very different from a Samurai and more in line with Ronin, who typically embody both anarchy and free thought. That is why ronin are both feared and admired at the same time. As for pirates, you could very well argue that privateers are pirates and they felt like they were working for the benefit of society by hunting down and stealing from pirates, but do you think they gave back to the owners what was stolen? Privateers were a very specific type of pirate and by no means are representative of the whole of piracy.
ORC_Sinister 08-10-07, 10:22 AM	Good Call! I agree with your comments. I always thought DnD alignments should be heroic, anti heroic, villianous, and some sort of reformed villain
kintire 08-10-07, 10:36 AM	My view is that it's not consistent with Good to want people to die. A Good view would endeavor to see its ends without loss of life, for as long as possible You wouldn't want someone to die, you would be preventing more deaths. Implicit in the idea of innocence is the idea that it is possible to lose that state. You would try for redemption, obviously, but not to the point that innocents are placed at risk. However, you are quite right that whatever the outcome of this debate, it doesn't matter whether you are killing by stealth or not. Ninjas don't do anything to the betterment of the society How so? Covert ops have no value? Intelligence services should all be abolished? Samurai and Ninjas both would never consider the good and evil of their actions if their lord commanded it, they would just do what was commanded of them on the spot. That is their way. Any military organisation works like this. But given that there are records of Samurai killing themselves to protest an action of their lords', I don't think they were quite as unthinking as that. However, loyalty and simply following orders is not something the cowboy ever valued. Remember the Alamo? As for pirates, you could very well argue that privateers are pirates and they felt like they were working for the benefit of society by hunting down and stealing from pirates, but do you think they gave back to the owners what was stolen? Originally, the Privateers WERE the owners of what was stolen. You got a letter of marque to recover your goods by force. Later, they became mercenary warships and doubtless restoration became less of a goal. Apart form anything else, they spent more time fighting national enemies, they weren't just pirate hunters.
Roxlimn 08-10-07, 10:46 AM	Actually, historically speaking, many pirates were Privateers. The development of piracy in the late 17th century in the Carribean is the most famous in Western history and probably the one the games refers to. In the Carribean, privateers were given letters of marque to chase down and plunder the goods of rival nations. Theoretically, this applied to all the Explorer nations, but in practice, what really happened was that the lesser nations targetted the rich ships of the Spanish and Dutch, particularly the Spanish Galleons of the Manila Galleon Trade route. Many historians trace the earliest signs of the decline of the mighty Spanish Armada to this period.
kintire 08-10-07, 11:17 AM	Actually, historically speaking, many pirates were Privateers. The development of piracy in the late 17th century in the Carribean is the most famous in Western history and probably the one the games refers to. Oh indeed... that was the "later" of which I spoke. Although there were distinctions between pirate and privateer, blurred only a little by the fact that people switched careers. Of course, unemplyed mercenaries resorting to plundering in time of peace is not a problem unique to the sea!
Roxlimn 08-10-07, 11:19 AM	I gathered that it's generally a problem associated with Dungeons.
Professorpain 08-10-07, 11:48 AM	If you believe this, then it isn't inconsistent. But you haven't been arguing this at all. You've been claiming that a contest where both sides are defending themselves with Attack Bonus and AC is "Fair" while a contest where one side is using Move Silently and Hide and the other is using Listen and Spot is not. I have been arguing no such thing. I never said all forms of stealth were unfair. Just assasination and other instances where the target has no ability to defend himself. You have now accepted that an "open fight" is NOT necessarily "fair". Thats progress! I'd like to take it one step further. The type of conflict it is is not relevant at all. Both open fights and assassinations can be unfair to either party. Consider the lone assassin with hide and MS at 5 who is trying to assassinate the lord of a castle with fifty guards at Spot/Listen 20. Not very fair on him! Of course. Like I said I was not making universal statements of truth, just generalizations that will have some exceptions. Your example is one such exception (however, once the assasin gets past the guards, the king is unable to protect himself). However, you are presenting a false dilemma. There are a number of options in between an open straight forward fight and assasination. It is not simply a choice between the two. I'd like to make another point too. Killing someone is a decision that should be a last resort. In other words, there should be a really good reason why they have to die. They will kill innocents if you don't, for example. In that event you have a duty to do everything you can to ensure success. The lives of those innocents depend on your victory! Of course. As I said sometimes killing is the lesser of two evils. That doesn't make it a good thing though. At that point, making it a fair fight is no longer in the least "Good"... its vainglorious foolishness. If you lose, those innocents die. I see no compulsion to give any advantage away. Of course we are not in the business of performing evil acts, but I've seen no convincing argument yet that assassination is evil. Appeals to the dignity of death in battle leave me unmoved. I don't really see how an axe in the face is any more dignified a way to go than a knife in the throat. Again, good characters are not required to act good all the time. Sometimes they have to behave in ways more becoming of evil or neutral characters in order for the greater good to be served. The difference between assasination and an axe in the face is the targets ability to surrender or defend himself. And then they cease to be defenseless, and they kill you. As I say, making someone defenseless is only a win condition if the state of defenselessness lasts. Then kill them. That doesn't make it good. Just permissible. I am not advocating that PCs walk around like Ghandi. Just assigning moral values to the acts they perform. In this case it would be more good to show mercy and allow the person to surrender than to kill them. There are going to be cases where that is not possible and a good character has to perform the distasteful act of murder. You are correct. The idea that fairness or unfairness equals moral or immoral is the central plank of your entire position, but I should have stated it in the premises rather than taking it for granted. To be fair you constructed that syllogism, not me. You merely extracted it from a number of things I had said and then tied me down to their precise meanings.
kintire 08-10-07, 12:48 PM	Just assasination and other instances where the target has no ability to defend himself. Spot and Listen ARE "abilities to defend yourself". Again, good characters are not required to act good all the time. Sometimes they have to behave in ways more becoming of evil or neutral characters in order for the greater good to be served. Oh, the ends justify the means do they? Not in DnD they don't. Then kill them. That doesn't make it good. Just permissible. I am not advocating that PCs walk around like Ghandi. Just assigning moral values to the acts they perform. Indeed. You are assigning moral values to acts without any consideration of context, motivation, or availiable options. And every effort I make to point out the importance of those things is met with a variation on the theme: well of course. But sneaky assassination is wrong and fighting is right! The difference between assasination and an axe in the face is the targets ability to surrender or defend himself. No it isn't. No it isn't! no it isn't. We've covered this. A level 1 commoner has no ability to defend himself from an axe in the face from a level 20 Chaotic Evil barbarian, and a king has every chance to defend himself form a lone assassin. And you have yet to provide any coherent account of why the target's ability to defend himself even matters, morally speaking. To be fair you constructed that syllogism, not me. You merely extracted it from a number of things I had said and then tied me down to their precise meanings. Yes. And pointed out that you believe things that are incompatible with each other.
Holy_Beholder 08-10-07, 04:54 PM	For those of you who think a face to face fight is better than assassination, consider this: Going with the example of the wizard in his tower, when you have to save the princess(or some minor noble, or a commoner) how is it better to kick in the door and kill everybody than to assassinate the wizard? People don't go into places blind, unless they want to get killed. There are divination spells, you can send in a familiar, there are ways to know what you are up against. Now assuming that most of the wizards guards are forced to serve, because if they don't the wizard will kill their families. So they aren't evil. So how is it better to kill all of the non evil people, then fight the wizard, than to sneak in, assassinate the wizard, show people he is dead, and leave the innocent guards who had no choice in the matter alive? It isn't.
Professorpain 08-10-07, 11:31 PM	Spot and Listen ARE "abilities to defend yourself". In this case they would be passive skills. The important distinction is the target is unaware that he about to be attacked. Oh, the ends justify the means do they? Not in DnD they don't. Sometimes they do justify the means, but they do not make them good, which is exactly my point. Indeed. You are assigning moral values to acts without any consideration of context, motivation, or availiable options. And every effort I make to point out the importance of those things is met with a variation on the theme: well of course. But sneaky assassination is wrong and fighting is right! No, I have in fact considered the context. I have stated numerous times the act of killing has a different moral value depending on the targets ability to defend himself. Every effort I make to provide substantive debate is met with sidestepping of the primary issues and selective reading of my posts. To be more precise "sneaky assasination is less good than fair fighting". If you had paid any amount of attention to my posts you would see that I never made arguments by simply restating my proposition as you suggest. Please do me the favor of paraphrasing my posts respectfully and correctly. This is not the first time you have misrepresented my arguement and turned it into a straw man for yourself. I have done you the courtesy of taking your points seriously and interpreting them as I believe you would want them interpreted. Please do the same for me. No it isn't. No it isn't! no it isn't. We've covered this. A level 1 commoner has no ability to defend himself from an axe in the face from a level 20 Chaotic Evil barbarian, and a king has every chance to defend himself form a lone assassin. And you have yet to provide any coherent account of why the target's ability to defend himself even matters, morally speaking. I have provided numerous coherent arguments on this front, and you have chosen to ignore or misunderstand them. I already responded to your point about the commoner and believe that I disproved your point on the matter. Why does a target's ability to defend himself matter? A number of reasons. The first of which is the natural negative emotional reaction most humans have to "kicking a man when he is down". One component of our moral judgments, it has been argued, is emotional. In terms of the usefullness of assigning a negative moral value to "kicking a man when he is down" one can apply the veil of ignorance or the golden rule. Not knowing whether or not I will be the one being assasinated or assasinating, I would much prefer to live in a world where assasination is frowned upon, and likely so would you. Personally I want to have a chance to defend myself if attacked. Another reason is the amount of cowardice involved in assasination. It is an act of cowardice wherreas a fair fight is an act of bravery. And cowardice is a negative character trait. So without any other information about the person engaged in a fair fight or the assasin we know that the assasin possesses negative character trait and the "fair fighter" posseses a positive one. I would also point to my argument about the dignity of sentient beings. Most people would find being assasinated an undignified way to die. Whereas dying courageously in battle has long been regarded as one of the most dignified ways to die. Yes. And pointed out that you believe things that are incompatible with each other. And I pointed out that you were wrong and using bad logic to make this point. Please refrain from using your surface level knowledge of rhetoric and philosophy to try to appear intelligent. At this point it is just clear that you are being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, and not paying any attention to the substance of my points.
kintire 08-11-07, 06:33 AM	Sometimes they do justify the means, but they do not make them good, which is exactly my point. Well, here we may have to agree to differ. As far as I'm concerned, if something is the right thing to do, its Good to do it. And if its Good to do it, the action is Good. No, I have in fact considered the context. I have stated numerous times the act of killing has a different moral value depending on the targets ability to defend himself. But that's not what I mean by context. Killing someone who cannot defend themselves is an act. What's the situation that act is taking place in? Who is doing it to whom? Why? I've provided an example of the act in a context. I'm waiting with interest for your comments. I'll repost it for your convenience "And if the boot's on the other foot? The commoner is Good and the barbarian is a chaotic evil mass murderer, unstoppable in battle, who has decided in the morning to massacre a village, just because he can. But, he has Wis 8 and has never dropped a rank into listen. You're saying the commoner has to challenge him to an open battle, and sneaking up on him would be evil?" So there we are. The commoner is standing over him, dagger in hand. Coup de Grace, or not? Please do me the favor of paraphrasing my posts respectfully and correctly. This is not the first time you have misrepresented my arguement and turned it into a straw man for yourself. As far as I am aware I have done no such thing. Sneaky = bad, open fight = good is a simplification, of course, but you have argued this. In fact, it seems to be the cebtral point of your position. Of course, I'm assuming as a given that the person in question has a legitimate reason to kill his opponent. I'm not suggesting that you actually think that all open fights are necessarily right, although I will point out again that Might = Right is an inevitable consequence of your position. Unintended, I suspect. I have provided numerous coherent arguments on this front, and you have chosen to ignore or misunderstand them. Excuse me, follow your own advice. I've answered all the ones I saw. I already responded to your point about the commoner and believe that I disproved your point on the matter. err, no, you accepted my point on the matter. As I said, the 20 Barb vs Commoner is just as "unfair" as any assassination. You accepted that. The obvious conclusion is that fairness or unfairness isn't directly associated with assassination vs open fight. You seem reluctant to draw that conclusion. Why does a target's ability to defend himself matter? A number of reasons. The first of which is the natural negative emotional reaction most humans have to "kicking a man when he is down". One component of our moral judgments, it has been argued, is emotional. It has been, but emotivism isn't widely accepted. Our emotions sometimes match morality, but often they don't. In terms of the usefullness of assigning a negative moral value to "kicking a man when he is down" one can apply the veil of ignorance or the golden rule. The golden rule is the basis of DnD "Goodness". However, it doesn't apply in such a simple way. A priori, there is a good reason to kill the person we are killing: they represent a threat to innocents for example. We are thus going for a best possible outcome. Futhermore, I contest that the golden rule provides a useful distinction here. True, I don't want to be assassinated or live in a society where assassination is routine: but then, I don't want to be killed in a fight, or live in a society where that is routine either. Another reason is the amount of cowardice involved in assasination. It is an act of cowardice wherreas a fair fight is an act of bravery. You complained above that I characterised your argument as "sneaky = bad, open = good" and called it a straw man. What is this argument if not exactly that? How is attempting an assassination of a well guarded tyrant, knowing that even if you succeed, escape is impossible cowardice? How is confronting a foe woefully inferior in skill bravery? I would also point to my argument about the dignity of sentient beings. Most people would find being assasinated an undignified way to die. Whereas dying courageously in battle has long been regarded as one of the most dignified ways to die. By people who have never seen a battle, maybe. In any case, killing someone is sufficiently more serious than harming their dignity, that I think this point is moot. If the former is justified, so is the latter. And I pointed out that you were wrong and using bad logic to make this point. I omitted a premise I thought was obvious. Other than that, the logic is sound. Please refrain from using your surface level knowledge of rhetoric and philosophy to try to appear intelligent Please refrain from petty snarking.
Professorpain 08-11-07, 01:51 PM	Well, here we may have to agree to differ. As far as I'm concerned, if something is the right thing to do, its Good to do it. And if its Good to do it, the action is Good But that's not what I mean by context. Killing someone who cannot defend themselves is an act. What's the situation that act is taking place in? Who is doing it to whom? Why? I've provided an example of the act in a context. I'm waiting with interest for your comments. I'll repost it for your convenience. But I have considered the context. The context of a situation is what makes a bad action permissible. But the action itself is still morally less good than options which might not be available at the time. So there we are. The commoner is standing over him, dagger in hand. Coup de Grace, or not? The most good action in this case would be to show him mercy and take him prisoner. If that is not possible then as I have said again and again, you perform the less good action of killing him. As far as I am aware I have done no such thing. Sneaky = bad, open fight = good is a simplification, of course, but you have argued this. In fact, it seems to be the cebtral point of your position. Of course, I'm assuming as a given that the person in question has a legitimate reason to kill his opponent. I'm not suggesting that you actually think that all open fights are necessarily right, although I will point out again that Might = Right is an inevitable consequence of your position. Unintended, I suspect. :rolleyes: You have not even managed to understand my central position up to this point. First I never established fair fighting as the central pillar of my ethical system. I only suggested that fair fighting is more ethical then unfair fighitng. And that assasination can be categoried (generally speaking) as unfair fighting. However if I did present this as the central precept, it would never lead to might makes right, because might makes right is the natural outcome of unfair fighting (the strong oppressing the weak--which is the greatest example of unfair fighting). That is why a fair fight must involve mercy to the weak. err, no, you accepted my point on the matter. As I said, the 20 Barb vs Commoner is just as "unfair" as any assassination. You accepted that. The obvious conclusion is that fairness or unfairness isn't directly associated with assassination vs open fight. You seem reluctant to draw that conclusion. I never said that it was. Just that an even involving assasination is far more likely in almost every instance to be unfair. You need to understand the difference between general statements taht accord with 99% of our experience and precise statements of universal truth. It has been, but emotivism isn't widely accepted. Our emotions sometimes match morality, but often they don't. On the contrary it is widely accepted by many academic philosphers to this day. Many feel that our moral judgments are nothing more than emotional judgments. I think that while this does not explain everything about morality it remains useful. The golden rule is the basis of DnD "Goodness". However, it doesn't apply in such a simple way. A priori, there is a good reason to kill the person we are killing: they represent a threat to innocents for example. We are thus going for a best possible outcome. Futhermore, I contest that the golden rule provides a useful distinction here. True, I don't want to be assassinated or live in a society where assassination is routine: but then, I don't want to be killed in a fight, or live in a society where that is routine either. The golden rule has nothing to do with "a best possible outcome" merely treating others as we would have treat us. On your second point you merely prove that both actions are wrong. That any form of killing is bad. Please refrain from petty snarking. Dude, read your own posts, they are about as snarky as can be. My snarkiness was just a response to your own.
Tuah 08-11-07, 08:48 PM	Don't forget about blowguns with knockout poison! :D Effective, non-lethal, and dignified! And anyway, if a Daimyo is going to take over another Daimyo's land, is assassination less honorable, even though he's going to die anyway? Same result for the Daimyo, but a lot more people left alive. Ninja weren't just assassins anyway. That was very rare, and was no different than the average Samurai would have done. So it's really just a matter of espionage, theft, escort, and kidnapping that's left to debate. :P
Nitan 08-11-07, 10:00 PM	Sabotage is evil? :uh-huh: I mean if a particular incident of sabotage directly includes the loss of innocent human lives than yeah, it would be considered evil. But to say sabotage in general is evil is a load of... I think you missed a word. More seriously though, the idea of ninja in D&D is that of an assassin or saboteur which seems to be innately evil. Touch luck guys.
kintire 08-13-07, 07:09 AM	But I have considered the context. The context of a situation is what makes a bad action permissible. But the action itself is still morally less good than options which might not be available at the time. Well, I admit to a degree of practicality in Ethics. I'm happy to rule out options which aren't availiable. The most good action in this case would be to show him mercy and take him prisoner. If that is not possible then as I have said again and again, you perform the less good action of killing him. Well, it isn't possible, obviously. And since killing him is the best availiable option, how is it less good to take it? I think from both the above that one difference between us is that you seem to apply moral values to types of act, independent of any context, but accept that individuals may be forced by circumstance to take those acts. I, on the other hand, apply moral values to individual actions. So, for example, you seem to say "killing by stealth is evil". I would consider that meaningless. I would say "killing this man by stealth is evil" with reference to the context to say why. That's what I mean by "ignoring the context". As far as I can see, the statement "killing by stealth is evil" can be refuted by providing an example where it isn't. I have done that. Its a simple matter to provide more. Of course, if you believe that "killing by stealth" is just wrong in a general way you won't be impressed by that, but you must understand that it seems rather arbitrary. Most moral reasoning is derived from precepts, such as "do as you would be done by" or "greatest good for the greatest number". Blanket bans on whole types of act, as you seem to be attempting, are very hard to sustain. You have not even managed to understand my central position up to this point. First I never established fair fighting as the central pillar of my ethical system. I only suggested that fair fighting is more ethical then unfair fighitng Actually, the misunderstanding here is yours. Although I could have been more clear! I don't mean to suggest that fair fighting is the central plank of your entire ethical thought! By "your position" I meant "your position in this thread about this particular topic". However if I did present this as the central precept, it would never lead to might makes right, because might makes right is the natural outcome of unfair fighting (the strong oppressing the weak--which is the greatest example of unfair fighting). That is why a fair fight must involve mercy to the weak. You have previously denied that "fair fighting" involves fights between equal opponents. Your definition contains inconsistencies, but it seems to center on both sides being aware and ready. If this is the only morally permissable way of settling disagreements that have relapsed to violence, then it follows that those who are particularly accomplished in such confrontations will generally get their way, both because they win them, and because their position in earlier negotiations will be much stronger because they can afford to push the matter to the limit while their opponents cannot. This will lead to the dominance of the strong over the less strong. Sometimes, probably more often than not, the strong will ignore your precepts about mercy, and absent any other options there is nothing the less strong can do about it. The obvious conclusion is that fairness or unfairness isn't directly associated with assassination vs open fight. You seem reluctant to draw that conclusion. I never said that it was. Actually, you largely did... Also in the kick down the door scenario, the minions are given a fair shot at survival. They have the options to fight, flee or surrender. In the case of the victim of the assasin, he has no options and no fair shot at survival. No I am not suggesting it is better to let the princess die. I am merely saying that assasination and killing minions in a stand up fight are not the same ethically speaking. 2)Not a false dichotomy at all. Yes they are both "contests" but in the case of face to face confrontation the playing field is much more level with more options for survival. In the case of assasination the victim is at a tremendous disadvantage and much more likely to die. Of course assasination will not automatically work. But it is far more likely to succeed with the victim not even knowing he is under attack. 3) Because because fighting fair respects the dignity of sentient beings whereas killing them in their sleep does not. And that assasination has a different moral value than fighting face to face. The fact that fair fights end in painful death only demonstrates that the stakes are high enough that conflict would be approached with the utmost seriousness. And that issues of fair play are important. It is not absurd that fighting fair demonstrates respect for the DIGNITY (not sanctity) of life etc etc. On the contrary it is widely accepted by many academic philosphers to this day. Many feel that our moral judgments are nothing more than emotional judgments. Emotivism as an explanation of Philosophy is dead. It foundered on the rock of reality: if morality was based on our emotions, it would approve of everything our emotions do, and disapprove of everything they don't. It doesn't. In fact, the match is extremely poor. Those who claim our moral judgements are emotional these days are attempting to deny morality... and they are rarely philosophers. The golden rule has nothing to do with "a best possible outcome" merely treating others as we would have treat us. On your second point you merely prove that both actions are wrong. That any form of killing is bad. If you accept the golden rule as your precept, you will try to apply it to each situation. The "best possible outcome" is the one which accords with it most closely. The second proves that both forms of killing are morally identical. This is the essential problem here. You seem to have a distaste for stealth, and a rather romantic view of face to face combat. As such, you are attempting to claim that killing by stealth is worse than killing, period. I've yet to see any support for that. You claim killing by stealth is "unfair". I've pointed out that the fairness or unfairness of a killing are unconnected with stealth. I've also pointed out that if its Good to kill someone, then you should do everything you can to kill them. Artificially limiting yourself so that the good outcome becomes less likely is surely wrong! You've claimed its "undignified", and used a rather forced interpretation of the alignment rules to claim that's wrong. I've pointed out that killing is worse than degrading, and if we have already decided the former is justified, the latter obviously is! Have I missed anything? It seems we are reduced to your claim that killing by stealth is Just Wrong. If so, we probably can't go any further, except to comment that this seems to be your personal taste, underived from any moral precept in DnD, or out of it in fact, and while you are entitled to your opinion, its no reason to set the morality of an entire DnD class. Dude, read your own posts, they are about as snarky as can be. My snarkiness was just a response to your own. I'm sorry, PP, but that's just not true. Of me, or heretic888 who you snarked far worse. The only thing I've said is that your arguments are wrong. Your habit of insulting your opposite's intelligence isn't very mature. Please stop.
Professorpain 08-13-07, 09:11 AM	Emotivism as an explanation of Philosophy is dead. It foundered on the rock of reality: if morality was based on our emotions, it would approve of everything our emotions do, and disapprove of everything they don't. It doesn't. In fact, the match is extremely poor. Those who claim our moral judgements are emotional these days are attempting to deny morality... and they are rarely philosophers. I am sorry, having spent years in an academic setting with philosophers I can tell you that you are just wrong on this point. Many philosophers hold that morality is nothing more than a kind of moral judgment. Emotions might not accord with our morality in every case (because emotivism is not the only explanation for morality) but in a great many cases it does. Emotivism is just as alive as any other school of thought in meta ethics. Remember, there are still a large number of philosophers who accept plato's notion of forms (granted they don't accept everything he said about forms--but there are serious philosophers who still hold on to this notion---I was trained by one in grad school). I invite you to visit any major american university and you will see that emotivism is not only alive, but stronger than ever. If anything Stevenson has won. This is the essential problem here. You seem to have a distaste for stealth, and a rather romantic view of face to face combat. As such, you are attempting to claim that killing by stealth is worse than killing, period. I've yet to see any support for that. You claim killing by stealth is "unfair". I've pointed out that the fairness or unfairness of a killing are unconnected with stealth. I've also pointed out that if its Good to kill someone, then you should do everything you can to kill them. Artificially limiting yourself so that the good outcome becomes less likely is surely wrong! You've claimed its "undignified", and used a rather forced interpretation of the alignment rules to claim that's wrong. I've pointed out that killing is worse than degrading, and if we have already decided the former is justified, the latter obviously is! Have I missed anything? It seems we are reduced to your claim that killing by stealth is Just Wrong. If so, we probably can't go any further, except to comment that this seems to be your personal taste, underived from any moral precept in DnD, or out of it in fact, and while you are entitled to your opinion, its no reason to set the morality of an entire DnD class. First, I would suggest it is never Good (in D&D) to kill someone. It is always a bad thing, and sometimes must be done. But a good character is going to recognize the evil embedded in the act of killing. Again I have tried to draw a distinction between broad generallizations and precise statements of universal truth. I am of the school of thought that it is okay to say something is true if it is so 99% of the time, because most people understand that there will always be exceptions. I have not been claiming that stealth killing is always in every instance wrong (though for the purposes of a game like D&D I think this simplifying like this is helpful), just that more often than not it will be more wrong than killing someone face to face. I also want to be clear. You and I have shifted back and forth, sometimes unclearly, between real world morality and D&D morality. In D&D I think it is perfectly good and useful to assign moral values to specific actions. There are always going to be situations where a bad act is permissible, but in D&D it remains a bad act (that is why paladins lose their abilities for inintentionally performing evil acts). In real life, I do not believe this. I think in reality that whether something is good or bad is determined by a given culture at a given time and place. That does not mean that good and evil are useless terms. They are a culture's emotional response (shaped by by its history and cultural expectations). It is just a way of describing what we consider "bad" or "good". This does not mean that the emotional response is all that is at work here. There have to be reasons for the emotional response in the first place. For instance you are raised an a faith that says eating uncooked meat is evil. Your negative emotional reaction to someone eating raw meat is grounded in your faith. And your faith probably acquired this belief because eating raw meat is an obvious way to get sick and die. But your immediate response "this is evil!) when you see someone eat meat, is an emotional reaction. I'm sorry, PP, but that's just not true. Of me, or heretic888 who you snarked far worse. The only thing I've said is that your arguments are wrong. Your habit of insulting your opposite's intelligence isn't very mature. Please stop. You and heretic are the worst offenders on this board. I encourage you to re-read your posts and see how they might be interpreted as insulting and snarky.
Professorpain 08-13-07, 09:14 AM	You have previously denied that "fair fighting" involves fights between equal opponents. Your definition contains inconsistencies, but it seems to center on both sides being aware and ready. If this is the only morally permissable way of settling disagreements that have relapsed to violence, then it follows that those who are particularly accomplished in such confrontations will generally get their way, both because they win them, and because their position in earlier negotiations will be much stronger because they can afford to push the matter to the limit while their opponents cannot. This will lead to the dominance of the strong over the less strong. Sometimes, probably more often than not, the strong will ignore your precepts about mercy, and absent any other options there is nothing the less strong can do about it. Now you are just changing my argument and ignoring what I said. It does not center on both sides being aware and ready (though that is important), and the inconsistencies are because I am thinking as I write, so of course there is going to be minor editing on the way. Simply put if there is a code of chivalry involving notions of mercy and not attacking the weak, the strong will uphold the law and protect the weak in most cases. That is the very foundation of civization itself. The idea that the weak are protected from the strong. [QUOTE=kintire;13394725]Actually, you largely did... etc etc.[quote] This post was a mistake. Pasted the wrong quote from you when I made this reply. I do not deny that I said this.
Roxlimn 08-13-07, 09:34 AM	kintire and heretic888 aren't intentionally snarky. You can ask them to clarify their points or to confirm a perceived insult without returning the favor intentionally.
Professorpain 08-13-07, 10:32 AM	kintire and heretic888 aren't intentionally snarky. You can ask them to clarify their points or to confirm a perceived insult without returning the favor intentionally. They certainly have the appearance of being intentionally snarky and mean spirited. But that is generally the case on the oriental board, which has a reputation elsewhere on the wizards site for aggressive, rude and pedantic postings.
Roxlimn 08-13-07, 10:35 AM	They can be rather short and quite blunt, but that's usually because of long experience with people who come onto the OA boards spamming or trolling or pontificating with grossly incorrect "facts" and then insulting everyone who comes along to give his or her more informed opinion. I'm sure it's unintentional. If you suspect intentional snarkiness, all you have to do is ask.
Professorpain 08-13-07, 11:51 AM	They can be rather short and quite blunt, but that's usually because of long experience with people who come onto the OA boards spamming or trolling or pontificating with grossly incorrect "facts" and then insulting everyone who comes along to give his or her more informed opinion. . This is exactly the kind attitude that has earned you the reputation as the most hostile board on the wizard's site.
Roxlimn 08-13-07, 12:22 PM	It's probably well-deserved, too, but that doesn't make it intentional. To a lesser extent, the Psi boards are the same way.
Professorpain 08-13-07, 12:36 PM	It's probably well-deserved, too, but that doesn't make it intentional. To a lesser extent, the Psi boards are the same way. Have not been to the psi boards.
narukagami 08-13-07, 01:36 PM	This is exactly the kind attitude that has earned you the reputation as the most hostile board on the wizard's site. Have you ever been to Equipment and Combat? They're not ones to talk. All you have to do is TYPE the words "katana" and/or "monkey grip" and you're in for an OPENLY HOSTILE flamefest. A "snarky" comment here or there is nothing compared to the flaming that goes on in over half the other boards. I really don't know where this so called reputation comes from, considering all the very open and rampant hostility in the entire Wizards.COMmunity. We're probably the friendliest board compared to most, but people come along and cry "you're mean" when they start up a debate and then start losing. Thats mainly where this undeserved reputation comes from, people don't like it when you prove them wrong. PS: Its bad form to start crying "you're mean" in an attempt to save face when in a debate. :P
Roxlimn 08-13-07, 02:01 PM	You're mean.
narukagami 08-13-07, 02:01 PM	You're mean. :weep:
Professorpain 08-13-07, 04:30 PM	PS: Its bad form to start crying "you're mean" in an attempt to save face when in a debate. :P Not really. I was handily winning, and was still irked by the tone of this board.
Breetai 08-13-07, 06:16 PM	Pirates Beat Ninja's :P
Tuah 08-13-07, 06:24 PM	Pirates Beat Ninja's :P Woah! I just realized, I've never made a pirate and a ninja character just for the sake of having them fight! *scurries off*
samuraiking 08-13-07, 11:29 PM	Pirates Beat Ninja's :P Ninja's and pirates are both limp. I would take good old fashioned necromancy any day of the week. Nothing can defeat the necromancer!
turalisj 08-13-07, 11:55 PM	Pirates Beat Ninja's :P Not according to Doctor Mcninja! (http://www.drmcninja.com/) He's a doctor, and a ninja! :P
kintire 08-14-07, 06:24 AM	I am sorry, having spent years in an academic setting with philosophers I can tell you that you are just wrong on this point. I have also spent years in an academic setting with philosophers, and I have the MA to prove it. Emotivism has been demolished, and has no significant following any more. Emotions and moral precepts simply don't map. Of course, emotion is important in any judgement we make, and ignoring it entirely in examining the process of make moral judgements is a serious error, but emotion as the BASIS for morality is dead. Again I have tried to draw a distinction between broad generallizations and precise statements of universal truth. I am of the school of thought that it is okay to say something is true if it is so 99% of the time, because most people understand that there will always be exceptions. I'm not convinced that assassination is wrong 99% of the time either. Certainly ina fantasy world, and I'm not convinced in the real world either. After all, what are military snipers but assassins? In real life, I do not believe this. I think in reality that whether something is good or bad is determined by a given culture at a given time and place. Another dead position. I refer you to Bernard Williams for the most comprehensive demolition of Cultural Relativism, but there are others. That does not mean that good and evil are useless terms Actually, it means exactly that. Now you are just changing my argument and ignoring what I said. Well, the fact your argument keeps changing doesn't help. Simply put if there is a code of chivalry involving notions of mercy and not attacking the weak, the strong will uphold the law and protect the weak in most cases. Your extremely sunny view of human nature is noted. I beg to differ, however. History suggests that if there is a code of chivalry involving notions of mercy and not attacking the weak, the strong will rather often ignore it completely apart from a few surface nods, and oppress the weak with enthusiasm. That is the very foundation of civization itself. The idea that the weak are protected from the strong. It is indeed, and you don't achieve that by denying the weak the ability to take sneaky measures against the strong when necessary! quite the reverse, usually. You and heretic are the worst offenders on this board. I encourage you to re-read your posts and see how they might be interpreted as insulting and snarky. I have reread them. I can find nothing that either of us said that is insulting or snarky, except that we have repeatedly said that you are wrong. If you find that insulting, internet messageboards are perhaps not the best hobby! If you have any specific concerns, please quote them. I was handily winning, and was still irked by the tone of this board. Handily winning, hah! And YOU were irked by the tone of this board? Again I would refer you to Hume and suggest that before you lecture people on philosophy you brush up a little. Whereas my posts demonstrate knowledge of a variety of schools of thought in the subject of applied ethics and normative ethics, yours demonstrates the rigidity of a finite understanding of that spectrum. Please refrain from using your surface level knowledge of rhetoric and philosophy to try to appear intelligent I can find nothing that anyone else has said in this thread that is half as snarky as any one of these. You brought the tone with you!
Professorpain 08-14-07, 07:37 AM	I have also spent years in an academic setting with philosophers, and I have the MA to prove it. Emotivism has been demolished, and has no significant following any more. Emotions and moral precepts simply don't map. Of course, emotion is important in any judgement we make, and ignoring it entirely in examining the process of make moral judgements is a serious error, but emotion as the BASIS for morality is dead. Another dead position. I refer you to Bernard Williams for the most comprehensive demolition of Cultural Relativism, but there are others. I am sorry you are simply wrong on these points. Cultural relativism, post modernism, emotivism etc, etc; are the assumptions at most American Universities in the humanities today( I have a Phd to prove my experience). Of course people like Williams have made convincing arguments and deserve recognition. They are hardly dominant voices. But you mistake my position, I am not a cultural relativist. I just believe that morality is grounded in linguistics and emotions. However it is still possible to demonstrate that a given culture has a more useful, and therefore better, application of the terms good and evil.
Professorpain 08-14-07, 07:41 AM	I have also spent years in an academic setting with philosophers, and I have the MA to prove it. Emotivism has been demolished, and has no significant following any more. Emotions and moral precepts simply don't map. Of course, emotion is important in any judgement we make, and ignoring it entirely in examining the process of make moral judgements is a serious error, but emotion as the BASIS for morality is dead. I'm not convinced that assassination is wrong 99% of the time either. Certainly ina fantasy world, and I'm not convinced in the real world either. After all, what are military snipers but assassins? Another dead position. I refer you to Bernard Williams for the most comprehensive demolition of Cultural Relativism, but there are others. Actually, it means exactly that. Well, the fact your argument keeps changing doesn't help. Your extremely sunny view of human nature is noted. I beg to differ, however. History suggests that if there is a code of chivalry involving notions of mercy and not attacking the weak, the strong will rather often ignore it completely apart from a few surface nods, and oppress the weak with enthusiasm. ! Actually I have a rather dark view of human nature (which is why I respect honor codes--without them humans take serious advantage of one another). This is why libertarianism is such a dangerous school of thought. It naturally leads to the strong exploiting the weak. I agree that that too often such codes are ignored. Such systems require constant effort to maintain. I am sorry if you don't like that my argument keeps changing. But as I said, I write as I think, and expect readers to apply a certain amount of common sense to messages quickly posted on a D&D message board (this is why I have been kind with your own contradictions). Bear in mind it is not so much my position that keeps changing, but the language I use to express it.
kintire 08-14-07, 08:48 AM	I am sorry you are simply wrong on these points. Cultural relativism, post modernism, emotivism etc, etc; are the assumptions at most American Universities in the humanities today( I have a Phd to prove my experience). Oh I'm sure they are. There is a reason why Cultural Relativism is called "the Anthropologist's Heresy". Historians are also very prone to it. But you won't find many people who actually study Ethics giving it the time of day. Similarly the others. But you mistake my position, I am not a cultural relativist. I just believe that morality is grounded in linguistics and emotions. Now, you see, you're doing it again. You just said: In real life, I do not believe this. I think in reality that whether something is good or bad is determined by a given culture at a given time and place. This is Relativism. I am sorry if you don't like that my argument keeps changing. But as I said, I write as I think, and expect readers to apply a certain amount of common sense to messages quickly posted on a D&D message board Well, I'm afraid that doesn't work. We have no access to your train of thought. All we can see is what you post. If what you post does not reflect what you actually believe, or reflects it poorly, I have no other material to base any "common sense" upon. It is very irritating when you say, to paraphrase "assassination is unfair because the target doesn't know that they are under attack" and when I tackle that idea you then say "well, obviously I didn't mean that exactly!" Whats worse, you don't just do that, you then blame me, or whoever you are talking to, for your own shift. You're doing it again here. You just said that in the real world you believe a certain thing, and that thing is a definition of Relativisim that really can't be faulted. In your next post you say that actually you're not a relativist, your an emotivist and linguist (linguistic philosophy! ye gods, are there still some of you out there?). And how do you cover this change? You blame me for it. But you mistake my position, I am not a cultural relativist I'm sorry, PP, I do not "mistake your position" YOU have explained it poorly. And lest you think this is a nitpick, you have been doing the same thing throughout. For example, you said: My personal opinion is that assasination is evil even when used for good ends. 2)Not a false dichotomy at all. Yes they are both "contests" but in the case of face to face confrontation the playing field is much more level with more options for survival. In the case of assasination the victim is at a tremendous disadvantage and much more likely to die. Of course assasination will not automatically work. But it is far more likely to succeed with the victim not even knowing he is under attack. 3) Because because fighting fair respects the dignity of sentient beings whereas killing them in their sleep does not. The whole point of assasination is to attack someone when they are prone, unaware, and at serious disatvantage. The whole point of fighting minions is simply to get past them without suffering too much damage. 5) Fighting fair is not one where both sides have a fifty fifty chance of winning. A fair fight is when both sides abide by basic rules of civilized conduct and allow for the possibility of surrender. Attacking someone in the back has long been considered a no no in any honorable fight. In a fair fight your opponent should at the very least be aware that a fight is taking place It is not absurd that fighting fair demonstrates respect for the DIGNITY (not sanctity) of life. How one dies is a matter of dignity. Having one's throat slit in the middle of the night or dying courageously in battle are absolutely different in this respect. Allowing a sentient being to meet its end in battle rather than in sleep, clearly shows a level of respect for dignity that assasins lack. I am not suggesting tactics are less moral than charging blinding into the fray, just specific tactics that involve murdering someone while they sleep. And that is why it would be wrong for the barbarian to destroy a 1st level commoner. But even in this case it is less evil than assasination, because the commoner is concious of the confrontation and still has some options available to defend himself (run away, reason, hide, fight very dirty etc). Still it would be evil for the barbarian to kill him. So, I responded: You've been claiming that a contest where both sides are defending themselves with Attack Bonus and AC is "Fair" while a contest where one side is using Move Silently and Hide and the other is using Listen and Spot is not. And you replied: I have been arguing no such thing. Read the quotes, from you, above and tell me again that you never said this. whats more, you then go on to say: Originally Posted by kintire Spot and Listen ARE "abilities to defend yourself". In this case they would be passive skills. The important distinction is the target is unaware that he about to be attacked. Which is saying it again. And what do we get next? Every effort I make to provide substantive debate is met with sidestepping of the primary issues and selective reading of my posts. To be more precise "sneaky assasination is less good than fair fighting". [...] This is not the first time you have misrepresented my arguement and turned it into a straw man for yourself. I have done you the courtesy of taking your points seriously and interpreting them as I believe you would want them interpreted. Please do the same for me. I'm sorry, what straw man? In what sense is "sneaky assasination is less good than fair fighting" not a completely fair and accurate summary of your arguments above? I have no problem with your arguments changing, PP. That's partly what debate is all about. But pretending they haven't and blaming me for "not understanding them" is a bit off, and accusing me of dishonesty is more so. (this is why I have been kind with your own contradictions) Very kind I'm sure! You've accused me of stupidity, dishonesty and discourtesy as debating tactics, and you think I believe you've been terribly nicely passing over pointing out contradictions in my arguments? Please, my dear Professorpain, reverse your policy I implore you! Pointing out contradictions in my arguments is perfectly legitimate, and in fact I keenly encourage it. You can point out some specific examples of that insulting and snarky behaviour you complained about in your last vague accusation while you're at it.
Professorpain 08-14-07, 09:09 AM	Oh I'm sure they are. There is a reason why Cultural Relativism is called "the Anthropologist's Heresy". Historians are also very prone to it. But you won't find many people who actually study Ethics giving it the time of day. Similarly the others. This is Relativism. And historians call postmodernism/cultural relativism/whatever the "linguistic turn", yet they still embrace most of the baggage that comes along with it. The same in ethics. I would argue that postmodernism is so pervasive in our society that people in academia take it for granted even when they are arguing against it. It depends on the ethicist. Like it or not, most acknowledge that cultural relativism is an issue that must be recognized and contended with. At the very least it has forced many objective moralists to greatly modify their positions. Frankly I agree with you about cultural relativism. It is a distraction. It paralyzes all conversation and debate. And it is a heavily flawded concept. However it is rooted in a strong linguistic argument that must be taken seriously (however incorrect it may be). And again I am not a cultural relativist. I believe that the culture I live in is superior by many objective human standards of measurement to the cultures of certain regions. I believe that our laws and ethics are superior (again by these same measures). But to fail to observe that notions of right and wrong change over time and place is foolish. While I do not think there is a single set of precepts that are right, there are better and worse sets. :rolleyes: No it is not. It is merely observing the truth that different cultures label different thinks good and evil. However, that does not make them all equally useful or good. Well, I'm afraid that doesn't work. We have no access to your train of thought. All we can see is what you post. If what you post does not reflect what you actually believe, or reflects it poorly, I have no other material to base any "common sense" upon. It is very irritating when you say, to paraphrase "assassination is unfair because the target doesn't know that they are under attack" and when I tackle that idea you then say "well, obviously I didn't mean that exactly!" it. Yes you should always use common sense when communicating with people in any medium. Like I said learn the difference between precise statements of fact (which are rarely uttered on a message board) and broad generalizations open to exceptions. I am not building a Leibnizian system here. I am trying to have a conversation with you. All you are doing is trying to find holes in my posts (which is fairly easy to do in this setting) rather than defending your own position. You want to keep cutting and pasting my prior posts to show that I am contradicting myself, that is up to you, but frankly I am not very interested in what I had to say about the D&D alignment system two hours ago, let alone two days ago. In terms of clarity I think my posts have been fairly clear. When you presented a problem with the way I have phrased something, I have happily modified my statement in order to avoid a bogged down linguistic debate. I am trying to allow the conversation to progress while you keep chewing on qualifiers and commas (again something fairly easy to do).
kintire 08-14-07, 09:17 AM	oh, by the way: Of course people like Williams have made convincing arguments and deserve recognition. They are hardly dominant voices Stanford encylopedia of Philosophy: Bernard Williams (1929-2003) was a leading influence in philosophical ethics in the latter half of the twentieth century http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/williams-bernard/ University of California: Bernard Williams, Monroe Deutsch Professor of Philosophy, and one of the world’s most important and most distinguished philosophers, died in Rome on June 11, 2003, during a brief family holiday. http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/inmemoriam/bernardaowilliams.htm Oh, and the Times: Professor Sir Bernard Williams will be remembered as the most brilliant and most important British moral philosopher of his time. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article1141892.ece Professor Sir Bernard Williams, "not a dominent voice? Ha!
Professorpain 08-14-07, 09:38 AM	oh, by the way: Stanford encylopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/williams-bernard/ University of California: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/inmemoriam/bernardaowilliams.htm Oh, and the Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article1141892.ece Professor Sir Bernard Williams, "not a dominent voice? Ha! :rolleyes: How sophmoric. Still quibbling over qualifiers and commas I see. Like I said he was important, but not dominant. There is a difference. Should students know him, yes. But his school of thought is by no means the Zeitgeist of the age (perhaps within his own school of thought but not universally so). He is no more a dominant voice than Peter Kreeft (who is dominant within his own school of thought), he just happened to die sooner.
kintire 08-14-07, 09:48 AM	All you are doing is trying to find holes in my posts (which is fairly easy to do in this setting) rather than defending your own position Well, I'm trying to find flaws in your arguments, yes. The fact it's so easy should be cause for concern. And you haven't attacked my own position. You've attacked me, but not my position. I believe that the culture I live in is superior by many objective human standards of measurement to the cultures of certain regions. I believe that our laws and ethics are superior (again by these same measures). But to fail to observe that notions of right and wrong change over time and place is foolish. While I do not think there is a single set of precepts that are right, there are better and worse sets. You are entirely mistaken, I'm afraid. I'll requote my post from so long ago: A moral system consists of two steps. First, "what are we trying to achieve" (usually described as "what is Good", but given the additional alignment axis...). Second is "how do we achieve it?". In core DnD, the first is completely clear. Good, for example, is protecting innocent life: altruism, respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. These precepts are absolute (obviously a GM can change them, but if we're going to have a debate on the D20 boards we can't cover houseruling... just take that as read). The second step takes up most of most moral systems. It often covers concepts like virtues, precepts for daily life, that sort of thing... the bits you actually use. There is less of this in DnD, and you have to extrapolate it from the examples. That's where all the debates come from. Its my opinion that this is a sensible design decision, but that's a sidetrack. If you believe the first step is defined by culture, you are a relativist. That it what Relativism is. The second step obviously does vary by culture. There's no dispute about that! However, it is common to confuse the two steps. No it is not. It is merely observing the truth that different cultures label different thinks good and evil. However, that does not make them all equally useful or good. If this refers to the first step "what is Good" stage, then your comment is incoherent. If "Good" varies by culture, it is senseless to say that one culture is "better" or "more good" than another. In the absence of a universal "good" such comparisons are meaningless. If it refers to the second step, its trivially true. You want to keep cutting and pasting my prior posts to show that I am contradicting myself, that is up to you, but frankly I am not very interested in what I had to say about the D&D alignment system two hours ago, let alone two days ago. In terms of clarity I think my posts have been fairly clear. When you presented a problem with the way I have phrased something, I have happily modified my statement in order to avoid a bogged down linguistic debate. I am trying to allow the conversation to progress while you keep chewing on qualifiers and commas (again something fairly easy to do). In other words, no defense of your blaming your own incoherence on me, no support for your own argument, and no specifics on these mysterious discourtesies or inconsistances. Just a lot of words to try and cover that. Fine, lets move on. My position: 1) Stealth or lack of it is irrelevant to the moral value of killing someone. 2) The concept of a "Fair" fight has no moral worth. In fact, in many cases it is actively bad, as seeking "Fairness" places your cause at possibly your followers/allies at greater risk. If your cause is just and your followers innocent, seeking "fairness" can be an evil, or at least indefensibly reckless, act. 3) The defenselessness or otherwise of a person at a particular moment in time has no bearing on the morality of killing them unless the defenceless state can be reasonably expected to last. Conclusion: killing someone by assassination is morally no worse, or better, than killing them any other way. Therefore, there is no basis for insisting that assassins in general or Ninja in particular should have an evil alignment. I would also state that stealth has no bearing on the fairness or unfairness of a given confrontation, but the truth or falsity of that has no bearing on the main argument. Your position, as I understand it, is: 1) Killing someone by stealth is unfair. 2) Killing someone unfairly is morally wrong. 3) Killing someone by stealth is undignified. 4) Killing someone in an undiginified manner is morally wrong. Conclusion: Killing someone by stealth is morally wrong, and those that do so (such as assassins and Ninjas) should be Evil aligned. My counter to this, by premise: 1) There is no reason to suppose that killing someone by stealth is any fairer or less fair than killing someone face to face. Both are contests of skills and resources, and there is no reason to prefer one form of contest over another. 2) See my point 2 above. 3) Death in battle is often undignified as well. Its not at all clear that dying in your sleep is worse! 4) In any case, practical morality demands that we go for a best case result. Perfection does not exist in practice. Given that we have decided that the best possible result is reached by killing this person, the sacrifice of their dignity is an unavoidable side effect for which we are not morally culpable. Also, it is entirely insignificant compared to the decision to kill them at all. Conclusion: My side is stronger. Your only point where my rebuttal seems weak is your point 3) and that isn't relevant because it relys for its strength on point 4, which fails. Comments welcome. Do bear in mind that all of your points above are well sourced in your posts, and if you've changed your position without notice, that isn'y my fault!
kintire 08-14-07, 09:52 AM	How sophmoric. Still quibbling over qualifiers and commas I see. Ad hominem! I love seeing those. A sign no better answer exists! Like I said he was important, but not dominant. There is a difference. If anyone is ever dominent in an area, he was. And he was far far more so than the old refuted ideas you're still pushing. Kreeft is certainly important in Philosophy of religion, which has overlap into Ethics. And you won't get the time of day for emotivism from him either!
Hochiu 08-14-07, 10:56 AM	*rubs his forehead* Philosophical debates make my head hurt.
Professorpain 08-14-07, 06:19 PM	Well, I'm trying to find flaws in your arguments, yes. The fact it's so easy should be cause for concern. And you haven't attacked my own position. You've attacked me, but not my position. You are entirely mistaken, I'm afraid. I'll requote my post from so long ago: If you believe the first step is defined by culture, you are a relativist. That it what Relativism is. The second step obviously does vary by culture. There's no dispute about that! However, it is common to confuse the two steps. If this refers to the first step "what is Good" stage, then your comment is incoherent. If "Good" varies by culture, it is senseless to say that one culture is "better" or "more good" than another. In the absence of a universal "good" such comparisons are meaningless. If it refers to the second step, its trivially true. In other words, no defense of your blaming your own incoherence on me, no support for your own argument, and no specifics on these mysterious discourtesies or inconsistances. Just a lot of words to try and cover that. Fine, lets move on. My position: 1) Stealth or lack of it is irrelevant to the moral value of killing someone. 2) The concept of a "Fair" fight has no moral worth. In fact, in many cases it is actively bad, as seeking "Fairness" places your cause at possibly your followers/allies at greater risk. If your cause is just and your followers innocent, seeking "fairness" can be an evil, or at least indefensibly reckless, act. 3) The defenselessness or otherwise of a person at a particular moment in time has no bearing on the morality of killing them unless the defenceless state can be reasonably expected to last. Conclusion: killing someone by assassination is morally no worse, or better, than killing them any other way. Therefore, there is no basis for insisting that assassins in general or Ninja in particular should have an evil alignment. I would also state that stealth has no bearing on the fairness or unfairness of a given confrontation, but the truth or falsity of that has no bearing on the main argument. Your position, as I understand it, is: 1) Killing someone by stealth is unfair. 2) Killing someone unfairly is morally wrong. 3) Killing someone by stealth is undignified. 4) Killing someone in an undiginified manner is morally wrong. Conclusion: Killing someone by stealth is morally wrong, and those that do so (such as assassins and Ninjas) should be Evil aligned. My counter to this, by premise: 1) There is no reason to suppose that killing someone by stealth is any fairer or less fair than killing someone face to face. Both are contests of skills and resources, and there is no reason to prefer one form of contest over another. 2) See my point 2 above. 3) Death in battle is often undignified as well. Its not at all clear that dying in your sleep is worse! 4) In any case, practical morality demands that we go for a best case result. Perfection does not exist in practice. Given that we have decided that the best possible result is reached by killing this person, the sacrifice of their dignity is an unavoidable side effect for which we are not morally culpable. Also, it is entirely insignificant compared to the decision to kill them at all. Conclusion: My side is stronger. Your only point where my rebuttal seems weak is your point 3) and that isn't relevant because it relys for its strength on point 4, which fails. Comments welcome. Do bear in mind that all of your points above are well sourced in your posts, and if you've changed your position without notice, that isn'y my fault! Ahhh. To be young and have time again. Why don't you throw the kitchen sink while your at it. First, I disagree with your two step moral approach. You keep trying to establish linguistic groundrules for the debate, but that just means you can determine its course (I am beginning to think you are a sophist). So I must reject your two step moralilty. All of your other criticisms disolve after that. Second, as I have stated over and over again with great futility, I am not asserting that killing by stealth is always unfair (apply this logic to your other points). Just that it is going to be unfair 95-99% of the time( and there is great reason to believe that it would be so). So I feel no need to qualify a statement that is so commonsensical and of a general nature. You are holding me to statements of absolute truth which I am not making.
Professorpain 08-14-07, 06:20 PM	If anyone is ever dominent in an area, he was. And he was far far more so than the old refuted ideas you're still pushing. Kreeft is certainly important in Philosophy of religion, which has overlap into Ethics. And you won't get the time of day for emotivism from him either! You certainly wouldn't, but I love his sense of humor. And he is a good man.
Professorpain 08-14-07, 06:31 PM	Well, I'm trying to find flaws in your arguments, yes. The fact it's so easy should be cause for concern. And you haven't attacked my own position. You've attacked me, but not my position. You are entirely mistaken, I'm afraid. I'll requote my post from so long ago: If you believe the first step is defined by culture, you are a relativist. That it what Relativism is. The second step obviously does vary by culture. There's no dispute about that! However, it is common to confuse the two steps. If this refers to the first step "what is Good" stage, then your comment is incoherent. If "Good" varies by culture, it is senseless to say that one culture is "better" or "more good" than another. In the absence of a universal "good" such comparisons are meaningless. If it refers to the second step, its trivially true. I do believe that good is defined by culture but I am not a "hard relativist". Here is why. I do not believe God. WIthout a God I can see little reason to believe in an absolute moral good or evil. However just about every society identifies certain things as being one of the two. Just like we identify certain foods as being salty or sweet. Good and evil are ways of describing things in the world that can have negative and positive consequences. They are useful. If we establish the usefullness of a moral system as a criteria, then we can objectively determine which moral system is better. Now a certain amount of flexibility is needed for this approach, and a recognition that what is most useful today may not be so tommorrow. Morality is not a two step process.
kintire 08-15-07, 06:07 AM	First, I disagree with your two step moral approach. This is basic ethics. You have your precepts, you derive your actions from it. This isn't really contentious! What's more, it definitivly is the way DnD morality works, so if you're making comments about DnD classes you have to stick with it I'm afraid! Second, as I have stated over and over again with great futility, I am not asserting that killing by stealth is always unfair (apply this logic to your other points). Just that it is going to be unfair 95-99% of the time And, as I have said over and over again, firstly killing by stealth is unfair about the same proportion of the time as killing not by stealth is, and secondly that it doesn't matter anyway, because fairness or unfairness are irrelevant to alignment. You are holding me to statements of absolute truth which I am not making. In fact, it's becoming increasingly apparent that you are making no statements at all, apart from possibly that assassination is evil because you say so. I do believe that good is defined by culture but I am not a "hard relativist". The position you describe in the following paragraph is indistinguishable from Relativism. I reserve the possibility that other aspects of your ideas, not given here, make you something else. I do not believe God. WIthout a God I can see little reason to believe in an absolute moral good or evil. Yes, I think that's fair. There have been some efforts at objecitivism without God, but they aren't convincing in my opinion. However just about every society identifies certain things as being one of the two Yes... interesting, that. Just like we identify certain foods as being salty or sweet. Indeed. Of course, the reason we do this is that certain foods really, objectively are salty or sweet. They are useful. If we establish the usefullness of a moral system as a criteria, then we can objectively determine which moral system is better. Now a certain amount of flexibility is needed for this approach, and a recognition that what is most useful today may not be so tommorrow. We can determine which moral system it would be most useful for us if people followed it, and hence which is better from a purely practical viewpoint. But this is not morality any more. Useful systems of rules that its handy if people follow are called "laws". As you have correctly followed through, although ducking the actual consequences, Relativism as a position is incoherent. It rapidly collapses either into subjectivism, or into amoralism as you have. This is a sidetrack of epic proportions, of course. As far as the actual point goes, my summary post stands. The sum total of your counter seems to be that you didn't quite mean anything you said, so I can't possibly be right, and your now-traditional condescending ad hominem. Oh, and a smiley. Can't forget the smiley. Ooo that got though my guard, that smiley. :D
Professorpain 08-15-07, 11:35 AM	This is basic ethics. You have your precepts, you derive your actions from it. This isn't really contentious! What's more, it definitivly is the way DnD morality works, so if you're making comments about DnD classes you have to stick with it I'm afraid! And, as I have said over and over again, firstly killing by stealth is unfair about the same proportion of the time as killing not by stealth is, and secondly that it doesn't matter anyway, because fairness or unfairness are irrelevant to alignment. In fact, it's becoming increasingly apparent that you are making no statements at all, apart from possibly that assassination is evil because you say so. The position you describe in the following paragraph is indistinguishable from Relativism. I reserve the possibility that other aspects of your ideas, not given here, make you something else. Yes, I think that's fair. There have been some efforts at objecitivism without God, but they aren't convincing in my opinion. Yes... interesting, that. Indeed. Of course, the reason we do this is that certain foods really, objectively are salty or sweet. We can determine which moral system it would be most useful for us if people followed it, and hence which is better from a purely practical viewpoint. But this is not morality any more. Useful systems of rules that its handy if people follow are called "laws". As you have correctly followed through, although ducking the actual consequences, Relativism as a position is incoherent. It rapidly collapses either into subjectivism, or into amoralism as you have. This is a sidetrack of epic proportions, of course. As far as the actual point goes, my summary post stands. The sum total of your counter seems to be that you didn't quite mean anything you said, so I can't possibly be right, and your now-traditional condescending ad hominem. Oh, and a smiley. Can't forget the smiley. Ooo that got though my guard, that smiley. :D [Sigh] Grad students.
kintire 08-15-07, 11:44 AM	[Sigh] Grad students. I'll take this contentless ad hominem as a confirmation you have nothing more to say. Cheers then!
Professorpain 08-15-07, 12:01 PM	I'll take this contentless ad hominem as a confirmation you have nothing more to say. Cheers then! If you must. I was just observing that like many grad students, you entirely miss the point of philosophy and are still stuck in the text book phase of your thought. And you have a habit of attacking people's posts at too many junctions. Just try responding with a single one or two pragraphy of your own. Your approach just leads to flame wars and confusion. It also demonstrates an inability to hold multiple ideas in your mind at once. Cheers then.
The_Shaman 08-15-07, 03:01 PM	Guys, come on now, let it pass.
Professorpain 08-15-07, 03:09 PM	I'll take this contentless ad hominem as a confirmation you have nothing more to say. Cheers then! I have been assuming the same thing about your ad homs. I think we can both agree to hold the other person in low esteem for lacking substance and making vacuous claims.
samuraiking 08-15-07, 05:27 PM	While I think both you professor and kintire are coming from good places, you are realy being cruel to one another. It looks to me like both of you messed up in your posts a bit and wont admit it to one another. Don't take this the wrong way, I can tell you guys are both really smart (I can barely understand half of what you are saying). I respect that. It is just starting to look like you have both dug yourlves into a hole. Come up for some air, and relax guys.