He who shall not be named.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-06-2015, 06:32 AM
RE: He who shall not be named.
(27-06-2015 03:21 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  I preferred evil - but lawful - characters, but then I started playing in higschool. And as for the kittens, certainly, though I never meet player who would do that. But slaughter tend to happen.

There's something to be said for the shift in our attitudes through our teenage years, re: identity and life-philosophy. I'd be willing to bet that a gamer who was trained in sociology could gather some excellent data on the subject if they studied the alignment and types of PCs preferred by kids, and how it changes as they go through those years, say 11-18, or 11-21, since many play in college.

I recall Gary, a guy in our first group who had a meathead fighter, named him "Manslaughter." That was his name... to signify how vicious he was, I suppose. Sort of a Madmartigan type, handsome braggart with big arms who liked to kill for a living. He even had a funny way of saying the name like it was an important word that everyone would recognize and tremble upon hearing (hey, we were adolescents!)... Maaaaaaannslaughter.

So I made Gary mad by referring to his PC as "Man's Laughter".

It's interesting to note my tendency toward Chaos, early in my life, except for the class that required a Lawful alignment.

My oldest characters were:
Lawful Good Human Cavalier (age 11-12) (1st Ed)
Chaotic Neutral HighElf Thief-Acrobat (age 12-13) (1st Ed)
Chaotic Good WoodElf Ranger (age 13-14) (2nd Ed)

After that, unfortunately, my family moved, I grew up, graduated and moved away from the family (whose religious-fanaticism BS I was sick of, by then) got interested in flying airplanes and racing motorcycles as my primary hobbies and paycheck-consumers. (We say "motorcycling is an expensive hobby, but cheaper than therapy.")

I didn't start playing D&D again until I was 27 (in 2003), unless you count various videogame D&D-related RPGs, when I found a colleague at the Dep't of Environment who taught me the new 3rd Ed, and we started up again. Wasn't 'till the prison environment that I had the time (and intrigue!) to get that going on a serious level. Now two more Editions have come out, and the "new" 3rd Ed when I went in is gone the way of the dodo.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 06:53 AM
RE: He who shall not be named.
(28-06-2015 06:32 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  There's something to be said for the shift in our attitudes through our teenage years, re: identity and life-philosophy. I'd be willing to bet that a gamer who was trained in sociology could gather some excellent data on the subject if they studied the alignment and types of PCs preferred by kids, and how it changes as they go through those years, say 11-18, or 11-21, since many play in college.

It could be interesting. Maybe someday someone will try?

(28-06-2015 06:32 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I recall Gary, a guy in our first group who had a meathead fighter, named him "Manslaughter." That was his name... to signify how vicious he was, I suppose. Sort of a Madmartigan type, handsome braggart with big arms who liked to kill for a living. He even had a funny way of saying the name like it was an important word that everyone would recognize and tremble upon hearing (hey, we were adolescents!)... Maaaaaaannslaughter.

Never met anyone with character named by favorite thing to do, but players characters who liked killing everyone in their path were quite common. In our sesions violence was often the correct answer. Though while violence was constant theme, innocence was not - I don't remember enemies that one could think as being good.

(28-06-2015 06:32 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  It's interesting to note my tendency toward Chaos, early in my life, except for the class that required a Lawful alignment.

My oldest characters were:
Lawful Good Human Cavalier (age 11-12) (1st Ed)
Chaotic Neutral HighElf Thief-Acrobat (age 12-13) (1st Ed)
Chaotic Good WoodElf Ranger (age 13-14) (2nd Ed)

After that, unfortunately, my family moved, I grew up, graduated and moved away from the family (whose religious-fanaticism BS I was sick of, by then) got interested in flying airplanes and racing motorcycles as my primary hobbies and paycheck-consumers. (We say "motorcycling is an expensive hobby, but cheaper than therapy.")

I didn't start playing D&D again until I was 27 (in 2003), unless you count various videogame D&D-related RPGs, when I found a colleague at the Dep't of Environment who taught me the new 3rd Ed, and we started up again. Wasn't 'till the prison environment that I had the time (and intrigue!) to get that going on a serious level. Now two more Editions have come out, and the "new" 3rd Ed when I went in is gone the way of the dodo.

I never played as chaotic character, always lawful be it evil, good or neutral. I don't like concept of untrustworthiness or not abiding (sensible) rules even in games. Hovewer my lawful character were very literal - everyone was getting exactly what he was asking for; letter not spirit of agreement.

Now I have no one to plays with, university and books also takes time. I would glady returned to playing, but it isn't very popular in my area. There are always videogames and Witcher 3 seems to be good game judging by reviews.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 09:13 AM
RE: He who shall not be named.
(28-06-2015 06:53 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  I never played as chaotic character, always lawful be it evil, good or neutral. I don't like concept of untrustworthiness or not abiding (sensible) rules even in games. Hovewer my lawful character were very literal - everyone was getting exactly what he was asking for; letter not spirit of agreement.

Now I have no one to plays with, university and books also takes time. I would glady returned to playing, but it isn't very popular in my area. There are always videogames and Witcher 3 seems to be good game judging by reviews.

That's what got me, when I went off to college. I studied science, went to flight school, and worked part-time, so I had a LOT of work to do, labs, and preflight prep and aerial lessons. Raced motorcycles once a month with my buddies. Not much time for gaming.

Well the Chaotic Good Ranger is pretty much the default stereotype; Robin Hood specifically was mentioned in the 1st or 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, if I recall correctly. I consider myself Chaotic Good because I hold very little respect for civil laws, especially now that I've seen how they can be manipulated by the Lawful Evil (judges, prosecutors, etc) for their own purposes. Skepticism is, to me, the nature of Chaos, in the sense it's used in Alignment, because we do not follow laws simply because a man made a rule, we follow behavior patterns that our minds have reasoned are worthy of being followed. This is Chaotic; because I am deeply empathic and care about the well-being of others often over my own, I call myself Good. In many of my arguments with fundies, I think of them as Lawful Good (or as we often say in our group, Lawful Annoying) types who do not realize that following the rule-set they cherish, without questioning it closely, is verging on pushing them out of the Good alignment axis. Tongue

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
28-06-2015, 10:04 AM
RE: He who shall not be named.
(28-06-2015 09:13 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  That's what got me, when I went off to college. I studied science, went to flight school, and worked part-time, so I had a LOT of work to do, labs, and preflight prep and aerial lessons. Raced motorcycles once a month with my buddies. Not much time for gaming.

Considering the amount of things to do lack of time for playing isn't surprising.

(28-06-2015 09:13 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Well the Chaotic Good Ranger is pretty much the default stereotype; Robin Hood specifically was mentioned in the 1st or 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, if I recall correctly. I consider myself Chaotic Good because I hold very little respect for civil laws, especially now that I've seen how they can be manipulated by the Lawful Evil (judges, prosecutors, etc) for their own purposes. Skepticism is, to me, the nature of Chaos, in the sense it's used in Alignment, because we do not follow laws simply because a man made a rule, we follow behavior patterns that our minds have reasoned are worthy of being followed. This is Chaotic; because I am deeply empathic and care about the well-being of others often over my own, I call myself Good. In many of my arguments with fundies, I think of them as Lawful Good (or as we often say in our group, Lawful Annoying) types who do not realize that following the rule-set they cherish, without questioning it closely, is verging on pushing them out of the Good alignment axis. Tongue

Chaotic Good could be default stereotype but in games rather than in real life. I would say that IRL it's wise to appear lawful and as a person one can depend on; actual dependablity could be less important that apperance of it.

Rules certainly can be manipulated but I don't see this as a reason for disregarding them. It's better to use them to one own advantage, without breaking them.

As for being empathic - it could (would?) be nice to say that I really care for others but I don't. I see no reason tu hurt them, nor I want them to be hurt, but it is my well-being that is really important. Having said that freedom is important to me, but if others would be hurt by excersising it then I don't really care - one can do whatever one wish as long as one doesn't hurt others.

Lastly I think fundies are neither lawful nor good - they don't life according to some holy book like Bible (all that shit about food, tatoos, stoning and fabric) and by forcing their sometimes primitive taboo on others they're certainly aren't good in my books. If I were to classify them by D&D alignment system I would call them Hypocritically Lawful Neutral/Evil.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
28-06-2015, 12:58 PM
RE: He who shall not be named.
There was a cute movie called Paradise which was very low budget but had Russell Brand and Holly Hunter, of all people. (It almost seemed like a student film.)

The main character is a christee girl who survives and accident and goes off to Vegas in order to "sin". I'm not kidding; someone was paid to write this shit. Anyway, Holly Hunter plays her mom and she is describing her own experience with "questioning" the rules "Pastor" lays down in his sermons.

She says, "For example, when he preached against yoga, I thought that was bunk. I went to the library and looked at some of the books about it and I decided to try it. I think it's ok and I'm gonna keep doing, too. Of course, I change up some of the names ... in my mind ... I switch "down dog" to "down Satan" ... things like that."

So sweet and so sincere, Hunter was hilarious! But yes ... these people exist.

(YouTube Janine Turner &" Christoga")

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
28-06-2015, 01:43 PM
RE: He who shall not be named.
Kim - only one thing to say about that.... *shudder*

Szuchow - I agree that many aren't Good in the sense that their devotion to The Law (as given by God, as they see it) is often downright evil, and has evil effects. But most of them *mean* well, and a charitable "benefit of the doubt" is that they are Good people corrupted into Neutral status by following Laws that are themselves Evil in nature.

Personal favorite of such laws: "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (God = Psychopath?)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 02:03 PM
RE: He who shall not be named.
(28-06-2015 01:43 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Szuchow - I agree that many aren't Good in the sense that their devotion to The Law (as given by God, as they see it) is often downright evil, and has evil effects. But most of them *mean* well, and a charitable "benefit of the doubt" is that they are Good people corrupted into Neutral status by following Laws that are themselves Evil in nature.

I can't agree. They don't do what their holy book command them, only pick what suits them, so they're not lawful. And while they may be not evil - especially in D&D sense - I wouldn't call them good. Not harming others cause of hope of reward or fear of hell is akin to merely following orders.

I don't really care if believers are good or evil as these are somewhat muddy concepts. As long as they do not try to force their beliefs onto others I could not care less about how they live. It's freedom that is important to me.

(28-06-2015 01:43 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Personal favorite of such laws: "If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her." - Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (God = Psychopath?)

Not psychopath just god made in image of his creators. And such image speaks volumes about people who created said tyrant and also about people who believe in him nowadays.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 02:19 PM
RE: He who shall not be named.
(27-06-2015 10:37 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I know a few people who make "angel eggs". Instead of using the egg yolks and mayo for the filling they use hummus or yogurt to make the eggs lighter and healthier. I tell them "You realize what you've just done to them poor eggs is the work of the devil right?"

Actually, that yogurt substitute sounds pretty good and I can't believe I haven't tried it.

Of course, I'd call them dead baby chicks with yogurt ... I don't like to fuck around. Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 02:22 PM
RE: He who shall not be named.
(28-06-2015 02:19 PM)kim Wrote:  Of course, I'd call them dead baby chicks with yogurt ... I don't like to fuck around. Dodgy

Bwahahahahahaha! Laugh out load

Let me know how that goes, at your next neighborhood BBQ.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-06-2015, 02:29 PM
RE: He who shall not be named.
(28-06-2015 02:03 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  Not psychopath just god made in image of his creators. And such image speaks volumes about people who created said tyrant and also about people who believe in him nowadays.

Should have been more specific. I'm from a Christian fundamentalist (evangelical, they prefer to say; same thing) background, so it's a question I like to ask of people who talk to me about their "Loving God" and the "God-Breathed" scriptures by which they purport to live, wholly, literally, and without editing. You're damned right they cherry-pick which parts of "The Laws of God" they will ignore and which parts to tell me are REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT sins, usually while they're either telling me I am "lost" or that I need to just "read the Bible and I will See The Truth", et cetera. When faced with that, I have a small stock of pre-loaded rounds in the chamber, ready to ask them, "Well okay, your God commanded this, one chapter after the stuff you're telling me now... is your God a psychopath or what?"

Then I get to hear all about how "bitter" I am, or listen to them whine about "why are you so angry at God?", or worst of all (after they ignore what I just said about the psychopathic, deeply-immoral rules I'm rejecting, which set them off in the first place) that I "only reject God because you don't want to live by His Rules." Blink

What... the... ?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: