>>346749
Cosmic magic seems like the most useful all around ability in the long run, as we will get a travel speed boost, stronger troops, and be able to modify terrain to our advantage. However, the supposed risks worry me. You didn't say *how* it affected the caster over time, or *how* it was dangerous... care to elaborate on this?

Other abilities I like are Nature magic for infinite glide (that shit is just awesome), and Arcane for spell defense. If I'm not mistaken, Lahamu is more vulnerable to magic than anything else.

If we learned Nature magic, would Lahamu be able to get some better wound recovery too? You listed what kinds of stuff each school did but didn't explicitly say which effects were minor. It seems like you listed more possible benefits from Cosmic magic- is there a reason for that?

>>346755
Oh the polymorphing is generally more "body alteration" by the way - making chitin or claws, things like that.

The lore is that Cosmic mages being to hear "songs" or "whispers" over time, and sometimes do things subconsciously or in fugue states. The more powerful effects supposedly have a chance of creating unwanted side effects, like disorientation or hallucinations. Supposedly, catastrophic failure can tear holes in space, although this may be exaggeration.

Cosmic magic lists more useful things because it comes with theoretical down sides as well.

All of the effects listed are considered "minor," or rather, Lahamu could only do them in a minor way.

For example, if Lahamu is a Shaman caster and she casts a spell to give her soldiers an attack bonus for a combat, it will be a small bonus. A dedicated Shaman casting the same spell will significantly improve the combat effectiveness of the same unit.

An Arcane caster can easily do comparable damage to Lahamu's breath weapon with a fireball, but for her, it's never worth it. It's less than half as effective.

A powerful Nature mage can raise a hurricane or a tornado, but she could basically just glide indefinitely (which is still very useful to her).

yeah, she could also increase healing time, but she basically has to sit and cast the spell the whole time she wants the improved healing. So, it would take her less down time to heal, but she couldn't do something else at the same time.

Essentially, her spellcasting school, should she choose one, would be a useful tool for her, but wouldn't replace her natural abilities in any meaningful way. Utility is probably more important than combat, in other words. I left the combat stuff in so you know some of what other casters can do if she has to fight them.

>>346749
Arcane seems like a good one. Some antimagic would be really nice and there's probably something in there that would basically make us able to truly fly. The others seems like things that the elves or even the gnolls could do better than us with some dedicated spellcasters. They don't really need a big shaman dragon or nature magician. Meanwhile making Lahamu able to take care of her own magiacal defenses would free up others for offensive spells.

Also, cosmic magic sounds quite a bit like Cthulhu magic. Lets not go near that. Whispers of madness seems a bit over the top when the poor dragon already has us in her skull.

Why are magics mutually exclusive? I can perfectly understand why she wouldn't be able to simultaneously learn all of them, it takes time. So that she could only study one magic type at once. If she spent five years learning alteration then decides she wishes to learn elementalism, she starts elementalism from scratch, but can still cast previously learned spells.
But why does taking up magic A permanently prevent any learning of magic B through Z?

The best I can guess, based on the description and the DnD references, is that this is more of a game mechanics issue, where the magics are more of a "class" and multi-classing in magic in DnD is heavily penalized to the point of being worthless (and automatically disallowed to prevent gimping the main character). Some specific types also have further limitations (ex: divine magic requires godly sponsorship)

In regards to which to take:
1. The magic should be something that is useful for her to perform herself rather then having minions perform it. For example, alarm spells are neat, but she can just get an experience elf to cast such spells and TELL her when enemies enter a square. Part of the benefit of being a ruler/patron protector/etc.
2. Ask elves if there are magics which can eventually lead to improving one's natural ability with magic.
3. Ask if there are known external methods (artifacts, divine boons, laylines, gaining a favor from a powerful wizard or magical being, etc) to improve ones natural propensity to magic
4. Resisting baleful mind effecting spells should benefit from willpower... and experience. Get practicing deflecting mind spells being cast on you by allies who wish you no harm. This would be a trained ability, not a magic spell that you learn and cast. You could augment it with actual magic spells though.

Individual analysis:
Elemental/Nature Magic - Constant flying sounds useful.

Spirit/Shaman Magic - Everything this school can do is better done by a specialist hireling. (Court mages of a dragon queen still need payment). As a bonus, dangerous backfiring will fry them, not you.

Sorcery/Arcane Magic - Magic defense sounds useful.

Divine/Priestly Magic - Sounds like a better version of shaman magic... No current deity you wish to subjugate to though.

Psionic Magic - Why can't she learn it? Could there be a quest she could do to be able to (find and eat lost artifact X, etc)? This sounds like the most powerful and effective method of protecting one's mind... The witch on the mountain is almost certainly using this magic. If forming a successful king, you could advertise far and wide that you are looking for such a teacher and offering good pay. Could this brand of magic allow better control of own mind? say, creating a personality aspect more talented at magic?

Alienism/Cosmic Magic - Might as well hire court mages for your kingdom to do that when needed.

Polymorphing - This seems to heavily overlap several other schools of magic.

Innate Magic - Ok, this is the "special" category, not something lamru can learn... unless she finds one of the above mentioned magic artifact boosties which would probably fall into this category.

Also, can we get a more in depth of the how of each school rather then the what? The what being "alter terrain, flight, defenses", the how being "prepare X/day, draws power from a god, consumes mana/blood/fatigue/nothing/extra dimensional power, etc.

specifically, for each school:
1. Does casting spells fatigue you?
2. Does it require preparation?
3. How often can you cast(X/day spells?, X powerpoints/fatigue points that replenish on rest?, at will?, X power points that require manual replenishing like meditation or harvesting souls or a layline?, etc)
4. What is the source of its energy? (mana? your life force? souls? external dimensions?)

>People claim that using this type of magic is innately dangerous, and affects the caster over time.
I just realized something... affects over time =! negatively affects over time. Did you mean it is negatively affecting the caster? or just affecting? cause a magic school that infuses you with innate magic giving new useful abilities and powers sounds pretty cool.

>>346759
It was mentioned in the last update that she's not really good at magic and with hard study she might be able to learn one school. Not that others have the same limitations. It's just a part of her special breed of dragon, more vulnerable to magic and less able to use it for themselves.

>>346759
Most of the casting schools take years of training (not a problem for her) but also require a certain outlook or view of magic as well as a complex cosmological understanding that makes it very difficult to properly practice more than one school. Lahamu is not academically minded, and magic is difficult and confusing. She is not smart enough to learn more than one school, and she will never be powerful magically.

Casting any type of spell will theoretically fatigue Lahamu, but she is so giant and massive that her spellcastings are essentially totally free.

She could learn Psionics, but would need to find a teacher, and it would take her significantly longer than learning any other school.

The difference between shamanism and divine magic is that divine magic gives good buffs to the caster, shamanism gives good buffs to your armies or curses your opponent's armies. Divine magic is more defensively focused, Shamanism is more offensive.

Yes, getting casters for some of these purposes is better than Lahamu doing it herself.

Almost all spells have long casting times (15 minutes, half an hour, several hours) and then produce an effect for a limited amount of time. The exceptions are things that make combat sense, like throwing a fireball or making a gust of wind. Magic is generally something done in preparation of an event, not on the fly.

Fatigue: Channeling magic tires a person out, just like running or any other physical activity. There are no points or x/days. The caster can continue to cast until they are too tired to continue. Being tired can generate a chance of spell failure. A very tired caster's spells will also be less effective. Casters can continue to cast until they pass out, and just need to take a breather to cast again, depending on how strenuously they've exerted themselves.

Nature
Fatigue on casting? Yes

Components? Simple sacrifices can be made to mitigate fatigue loss. Components are cheap. (Food, drink, some dried herbs, etc.) Any spell can be cast without components at the cost of more fatigue, and vice-versa.

Source? Naturalists recognize the living energy that flows through all things, and through a combination of learning to manipulate the balance between these forces and maintaining a personal harmony with the natural world, can use these forces to affect change.

Shamanism

Fatigue on casting? Yes

Components? Yes. Many spells require them to cast. Using components greatly reduce or eliminate the chance of spell failure/backfire for some spells. The more expensive and elaborate the sacrifices to the spirits, the less the chance of failure, but the components themselves are easy to acquire (liquor, animal sacrifices, food, burnt offerings of tobacco and similar).

Source?Shamans understand that spirits inhabit all things, and can be coerced and bribed into carrying out the shaman's will. It is a delicate balance between respecting the spirits and demanding their cooperation.

Divine
Fatigue? Yes.

Components? No.

Source? The god that the caster worships grants power directly. The caster is expected to pray and offer tribute to his god routinely, not for any particular spell effect.

Psionic

Fatigue? No, although in the case of psionics, the caster generates mental strain instead of physical exhaustion. Casting too often causes headaches, dizziness and mild disorientation. Lahamu's large size will not let her cast more often.

Components? No

Source? Psions claim that their magic works because all thinking creatures operate through the same mental medium, and the psion learns to tap into this energy directly, bending the minds of other connected beings. This is not scientifically verifiable.

Sorcery
Fatigue? Yes for some. No for spells that require components.

Components? Almost all arcane spells require components that are expensive and hard to acquire (precious metals and gems). The Sorcerer crafts a wand or staff that allows him to channel a spell, and then can essentially cast it all the time for free. Defensive spells usually use fatigue instead. Some powerful effects have components that are consumed in the casting.

Source?
Arcane casters claim that magic is an energy that pervades everything, but unlike the shamans or elementalists, ascribe no sentience or thought to the magical energy. It is a force, and like all physical forces, can be manipulated by learning the rules under which it functions. By using specific designs, symbols and focuses, the energy can be manipulated and translated into physical forces.

Alienism

Fatigue? Yes

Components? No

Source? The Alienist claims that there are powerful forces and existences outside of this universe, and the forces can be used to break the alterable principles of this universe. Once the alien and difficult-to comprehend equations and rules are learned, they can be manipulated to produce effects. Most spells are cast by chanting or mentally drawing certain diagrams and formulae, and willing the rules to bend or break using energy from forces outside of this reality.

>>346766
>Alienism
Wait a second, are you saying that Alienism is learning science then WILLING IT TO BREAK?

>>346786
Yes. That is exactly what it is.

ok then, with the above clarification, lets look at a few issues:
1. Lahamu is naturally not inclined towards magic, decades of study will make her middling in one school.
2. Lahamu is massive, making the physical fatigue component of spells negligible.
3. Lahamu is going to rule a kingdom and can afford to have a staff of mages of various schools.

With those in mind:
Elemental/Nature Magic - Only thing lahamu will ever cast herself is wind control for better flight. Lahamu is already highly mobile, she needs to be a better combatant though (last time she actually ran from a mere army!), pass in favor of something else. Plus the power of nature? hippies!

Spirit/Shaman Magic - Lahamu has nothing she will need to personally cast in this school, minions ahoy. Brokering deals with spirits? meh.

Sorcery/Arcane Magic - Enemy minion mages rendered moot allowing the direct assault of armies. weak defense against other magic attacks (such as mind attacks?), attack spells weaker then innate abilities but allow variety... could it be used to augment abilities? aka make her lightening even MORE powerful?
As a ruler she can afford the expensive components, as a dragon she has enough physical fatigue to not even need most components.
Studying magic as a science sounds cool though.

Divine/Priestly Magic - Direct damage to undead and demons, requires subjugation to deity, pass.

Psionic Magic - Strong protection against illusions, possession, disorienting, and fatiguing.
Awesome, but Lahamu probably cannot learn Psionic magic, fatigue is mental instead of physical putting her at a disadvantage, and teachers are rare. Hireling mages would be rare too.

Alienism/Cosmic Magic - Not sure what "transformation" means (how does it differ from polymorphing?), Coolest effects but court mages can do them all as well as bear the risk.
Source is the absolute coolest by far though.
Although, if transformation means "lahamu can become humanoid to explore a dungeon in search of magic artifacts" then this has huge potential.



Based on the above analysis, only arcane and psionic are worth pursuing at all for Lahamu. And of those Arcane seems the better choice. Defending against magical attacks will occur often, defending against mind attacks rarely but is extremely important to resist those... but lahamu has no natural talent there nor any teachers of psionics. She should do her best to protect her mind with arcane magic, see about hiring mages to cast permanent mind defense spells, acquire mind defense artifacts, etc. And if she can, see if she can do a "minor" in psionics with "mind defense only"... that is, find a psionics teacher to teach her mind defense only, she will suck at is, especially because she is primarily an arcane caster, but hopefully it will complement other sources of mind defense. Such a plan will leave lahamu vulnerable to physical attack spells by very powerful casters... Which is well enough as it gives a source of drama to the quest.

>>346804
So Alienism is for mages with big brass balls. Gotcha.

...I'm thinking we should go for Arcane, unless... can you use Arcane magic to protect someone *else* from spells, or only yourself?

As the gnolls are apparently one of the (on average) evil species, some questions on what that specifically says about them:
1. Is there evil nature mostly cultural or biological? In other words, how much can their evil be effected just by shifts in their society/upbringing?
2. You said Evil is magically measurable. It it measured by the subject's intentions, or by the deeds the subject is willing to do? (For example, what would it rank for a fanatic who has noble intentions but ends up slaughtering more innocents than they help? Or a soldier who does evil deeds out of loyalty to their country or ruler?)

More appropriate place to ask this:
>What is Lahamu's diet and how much of it does she need? Is it a few hundred pounds of meat a week, or is she fueled by ambient magic and sunlight and the whispered dreams of orphans? And is Lammy immune to electricity?

>>346840
Dunno about the rest of it, but that last bit is because that's her element. She has a lighting bolt breath weapon and is immune to electrical damage. A firebreather could likewise hang out in a volcano and one with freezing breath would feel right at home on a glacier. Standard dragon stuff really.

>>346853
Has that been said in the quest or is it just assumed because that's the way D&D has worked for 30-odd years?

>>346854

>because that's the way D&D has worked for 30-odd years?

D&D dragons were only immune to their element in 3rd edition.

>>346811
No, you can only shield yourself.

>>346839
Evil is measured by intentions, not actions, but to be clear, someone trying to do good, but the result is more innocent people are killed hasn't done evil. Someone who slaughters babies because their country tells them to has done evil.

Gnolls are evil by nature, although their culture reinforces their desire to cause harm.

>>346840
Lahamu has to eat, although her metabolism is extraordinarily efficient, and she is slightly sustained magically. Even still, she is extremely large and has to eat a significant quantity of food. The current biome is rich in game, so it hasn't been an issue.

Lahamu is not immune to lightning at all. A dragon's breath weapon element is less effective against that dragon, but if you throw a fire breathing dragon in a volcano, they will die horribly in a very short period of time. A natural lightning strike would still hurt Lahamu, and a mage throwing a lightning bolt will likewise still injure her, but a fire ball would be more effective.

Just so you guys know, combat is partially resolved with dice. Lahamu had an OK chance of winning the fight, but failed to do so. I think a game is pretty boring if the characters always win all the time, but don't want to arbitrarily make them fail either. Also, there was really no planning involved. It was a charge-in-and-battle thing. Somebody mentioned something about poisoned game. That would have been a pretty clever idea. A good plan has the ability to significantly weight the results, or make victory certain. Doing things with little to no planning will result in straight up dice rolling, more or less.

Anyway, it's not a total loss. Lahamu is badly injured, but Gnaws Bones is also injured and will need to heal as well. It will probably take Lahamu about a month to heal fully if she just lays around doing nothing.

Also, keep in mind what Lahamu is focused on:

She is very Strong and Tough, but not quick or stealthy at all. She is a reasonably skilled fighter.

Her breath weapon is good against single, huge targets, and excellent against single, small targets (note how she blew the lich entourage out of the water with almost no effort). It's bad against structures and hordes of creatures. Her breath weapon has a longer range underwater, but that's it. It does not do more damage or anything like that.

Lahamu can swim and hold her breath for a long time.

Lahamu can glide as long as she takes off from an elevated terrain feature (Hills or mountains). It takes her one day to cross one square on foot, or one day to cross two squares flying. She can fly well enough to fight another flying creature, especially in an elevated terrain feature.

Lahamu is bad at magic, and magical effects work well against her. Having spells cast on her will not give her any resistance to magic.

This is mostly stuff from the chargen. I just thought I'd post it here so people didn't forget what her strengths/weaknesses were.

I find it kind of interesting that in this setting lightning type attacks are bad against groups. It kind of goes against the usual use of electrical attacks as something that arcs to other enemies. Although it really does make more sense this way.

>>346860
>can only shield yourself
So then Arcane magic gives us a large benefit that we CANNOT get by hiring someone. I say that cinches it. Arcane all the way.

interesting that the lightening shot works underwater... in some ways it makes sense.
IRL lightening is impossible to aim, it takes the path of least resistance through the air and would disperse through water. Whatever magic lets the lightening fire as a coherent beam that is aimable also allows it to do the same through water. This is very beneficial.
Part of why I was so concerned to get gnawed bones out of the water is because the fear that the lightening would be useless if he was in the water.

You know, there is one way to make lightning follow a coherent beam. All you have to do is ionize the air in a stream. This can be done by, for example, a laser. Now, it is of note that some of these dragons are capable of firing high-intensity radiation beams. Maybe the lightning dragons can fire a much weaker one that ionizes the air as they discharge electricity.

>>346937
true, but I don't think that would work underwater.

>>346975
Lightning grounds out in the water. impure water conducts electricity better than air. If you can aim a lightning bolt horizontally in air, you can aim it in water. It would make no sense not to work that way. If Lahamu is shooting from the air into the water, it will just ground out though.

Gnaws Bones attack is also significantly more powerful in water. He doesn't need any magic at all to make it work in the air. He just has to be freaking massive (check).

>>346976
I was saying that in IRL using a laser to create an ion channel to direct the lightening wouldn't work in water. In air it works because the air is normally a poor conductor, so the ionic channel is the obvious path for the electricity to take.
In the water (naturally occurring impure water) you already have a conductive material so the lightening will simply disperse (unless there is magic at work). Shooting a laser through it... I am not sure what it would do but I doubt it would be an ion channel.

Thanks for clarifying that if she is to shoot from air into water it would just disperse. So she can shoot coherent lightening in air or water, but not from air to water...

What about if she is underwater and shoots out and up? what would happen when it reaches the air?

The reason mortal shrimp can shoot in air but not in water is that water, unlike air, is extremely hard to compress. Air's compressibility makes shockwaves drastically less effective. So if he can hit as hard as he did from that distance in air (without magic {not counting basic cube/square law avoidance}), he can probably one hit kill us underwater.

>>347000
yes.

A question more about intent-based ethics systems in general than this one in particular:

To recap the previous example:
A noble hero differs from a ruthless fanatic in that the fanatic is willing to harm innocents in pursuit of their goals.

We have established that both can be considered good because they are equally committed to the same noble goals (saving the world or something like that).
Now consider:

A clever merchant differs from a murdering bandit in that the bandit is willing to harm innocents in pursuit of their goals.

They are both equally committed to the same goal (obtaining the money of others), but it seems absurd to call the merchant evil or to say the bandit has done nothing wrong. What makes these cases different?

>>347138
>A noble hero differs from a ruthless fanatic in that the fanatic is willing to harm innocents in pursuit of their goals.
Hypothetical: Your goal is to protect the innocent and save people. A child is possessed by a demon and is slaughtering innocents. You do not have the power to restrain it or banish the demon but you know it to be possible. You choose to kill the innocent child to save many innocents.

>>347141

Congratulations, good act.

The problem with the idea of 'moral conundrums' in issues of quantifiable morality systems is that they completely ignore that said morality is quantifiable. There is no conundrum. Killing the possessed child is not an evil act.

>>347145
So what ratio of innocents harmed to saved makes an act justifiable? There are points where it is clearly justifiable (the classic 'throw a guy on the tracks to save the crashing train'), and points where it is clearly not justifiable (harvesting the life force of an innocent every month to keep your dying mother alive).

>>347154
Ah, but the mere existence of a ratio is incompatible with your argument that only a fanatic would ever harm an innocent for achieving their goals.

>>347138
This is a false distinction. Intentions are what mattered, like I said. Neither the fanatic or the hero are evil if they are acting on non-evil intentions. My example was someone who was commanded to perform an evil act explicitly by his government. That guy is doing evil.

Someone who knows they have to kill a child to save the world isn't performing evil. The question is are the interests for which you are acting good or not? Someone who is murdering people for self-interest (his own mother) is neutral at best, but clearly not good, unless there is some reason why her life is more important than the lives of the victims (more important quantifiably, not just to him).

The merchant and the bandit are both acting toward a neutral goal - making money. One is harming people (evil) the other is not (neutral). Neither is doing good.

>>347155
Ok, yeah. What I meant was kill lots of people (relative to the perceived benefit).

>>347156
My general position is that harming innocents makes a course of action less good (or more evil), but that course may be good overall from good things outweighing it. My point (admittedly nitpicky) is that that is somewhat murkier than entire intention based.


(Random Tangent): Is it a morally good action to go around stealing the second kidneys of healthy people and giving them to people who can't afford the kidney transplants they need? On one hand it on average helps people significantly more than it harms them, but it is still kind of an organ harvesting rampage...

>>347160
This isn't intention based, though. That's a results-based morality system. Intention-based means that the end result of the action doesn't matter, only the intention going into it. If there's a gray-area distinction based on the number of people harmed versus helped, you aren't operating in an intention based system.

The dichotomy becomes unworkable when you start talking about potential specific numbers harmed versus helped. I would say that harming innocents is never good, but it's not necessarily evil either. Remember, it's knowing you are going to harm innocents and doing it anyway. That's only a good action if you think it's the only way to accomplish your good goal.

Of course stealing kidneys isn't good under any system. If it's results-based, you are distributing harm all over the place and everyone involved is probably going to die. Somebody can live with one kidney, but their quality of life is shittier forever, not counting the fact that infection and rejection are likely. Even if it's based on intent - you are intentionally causing great harm and probably death to someone to slightly improve some other random person's quality of life. It's not good to cause harm to anyone. For a harmful act against innocent people to be good, it has to be an important part of accomplishing a good act that would be improbable or impossible to achieve otherwise, and not strictly a rubric of weighing benefit versus harm.

>>347162
Having one kidney doesn't work like that. People with one kidney left can live their life normally apart from the fact that kidney diseases now pose a greater threat to them.
People with no working kidneys, on the other hand, do experience significant medical problems, and getting a kidney can do them quite a bit of good.
Also, there isn't currently an effective way to replace kidneys without getting the kidney from another human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidney_transplantation

>>347170
Only you said "stealing" kidneys, which does not imply a proper facility. If you are running around hacking organs out of people, they are going to die.

Also, wikipedia reference that doesn't actually speak to the issue at all. Because we screen extensively and have regular post-op care available, a donor can lead a normal life afterwards. You are not doing that. You are kidnapping people.

Even if this weren't the case, remember - you also inflict pain and trauma on the unwilling donor by kidnapping and mutilating them. These people's lives are theoretically equal to start with. Inflicting harm on an innocent person in this scenario can't be good. Nobody did anything wrong, no greater good is served by accomplishing the act. It's entirely possible that the person with failing kidneys will get a kidney on their own, so this is far from the only way to save them.

Also, we do have the technology right now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9hEFUpTVPA
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/doctors-stem-cells-grow-windpipes-cell-engeneered-organs-besser-medical-breakthrough-113
09468
(the second vid uses the same technology)

There was a longer video with both segments that talked about how pig kidneys are structurally identical. It takes a long time for new surgical methods to be approved here, though.

>>347160
really? it sounded like you were saying "black & white morality" where now its shades of gray.

>>347156
While overall I agree, to play the devil's advocate... The "intent only" argument has some issues though. For all intents and purposes it is a question of "how bad you feel about it".
1. Belief you are evil: An untouchable teenager in india might feel like the greatest sinner in the world for trying to escape india to somewhere where they can hide their caste and rise in the world, yet do it anyways.
2. Desire to harm: A young teen who led a sheltered life hates another young teen and decides to harm her in the worst possible way she can think of... she does so by humiliating her in public. Her intent is "evil" but the actual harm done is insignificant.
3. Belief you are good: Your average bigot or not so average one (woo! godwinned!) might feel he is acting with the best of intents when they try to "cleanse the world of evil".
4. Self Sacrifice for others: By "intent only" and even "self sacrifice measurement" Suicide bomber terrorists really are martyrs.

>>347175
Yeah, those are true.

Of course, in a fantasy world where evil is measurable, certain intents either are or aren't evil and you can actually tell. "Your whole society is evil." "nuh uh, it's just evil to you" *cast detect evil "Oh, I guess you're right."

There really isn't much room for a relativistic argument.

>>347176
it is true that a spell makes it absolute...
Ofcourse then the meta comes up in two distinct ways.
To the characters: How does the spell make such a determination? either it is programmed a certain way by the spell's author and thus is merely his/her personal beliefs. Or it is decided by a greater force (eg: gods, primordials, D&D style sentient alignment forces, etc). Thus it is still ultimately an arguable opinion.
To the players: The DM is the one who ultimately decides it, and again it is just the DM's opinion.

On the character based meta I would point at epicurus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus
>“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Besides all of that... unless you have a true monotheistic fantasy setting (which I have only ever seen in webcomics by devout chrtistian authors), you run into a case of conflicting godly definitions.

There is the human god of justice and goodness who provide a detect evil spell that shows orcs to be evil... while the Orc gods decry that as bigotry on the hands of the human gods, who are frauds who believe themselves superior to all and are not really paragons of virtue as they claim to be.

>>347184
The problem with all this is that the orc god is evil, doesn't care that he's evil, and wants the orcs to be evil. You seem to be operating under some kind of misapprehension that everyone wants to avoid the label.

In D&D setting or similar some gods are good and some are evil. It's never a matter of opinion because the spell pings the same thing no matter who casts it. It would be totally useless if it didn't operate that way.

>>347175
The "black and white" bit is the way the spell classifies things (technically good, evil or neutral, but still a fairly sharp divide) rather than my opinions.

I think I was operationally trying to go for what you said in your arguments there, but I failed pretty badly at explaining it clearly.

>>347186
I think that is a different type of ork he is referring to (likely the honor fixated ones rather than the always-chaotic-evil ones).
In good, neutral, or evil systems, are good gods always allied with each other?

And a Detect Evil spell that depends on the deity providing it or on the caster's views would be rather useful (a cop sensing how trustworthy an informant is), if also quite conductive to all sorts of dystopias (Detect Heretics, for example). (Now that I think about it, in D&D is there a Detect Chaos spell, and is it ever used that way?)

>>347188

>I think that is a different type of ork he is referring to (likely the honor fixated ones rather than the always-chaotic-evil ones).

D&D has planes of evil. Evil isn't a subjective concept, it is literally a thing that you can go and walk around on. If you are in the right places you can look at it, touch it, smell it, and taste it. It is a fundamental aspect of the universe. If the detect evil spell is picking up on orcs as evil, it is because those orcs are evil. If someone says that he is casting 'detect Evil' but is actually casting 'detect orcs,' they are a charlatan.

>>347186
Orks exist in more then one setting, and even DnD proper (aka, WOTC) has many different settings with varying approaches (what with being designed by committee)

But as you said, in some settings not everyone wants to avoid the label, which is a problem in of itself when they take it on improperly.

It gets to the point where "evil" can be a wholesome loving one big happy family. A team no different then "blue vs red". Where "good" can commit atrocities while "evil" is, well, not evil.

Furthermore, it merely goes back to the 4 issues I specified here >>347175
Only now they are being applied by gods who determine how a spell called "detect evil" works.

That is, of course, assuming that the universe's morals are the most valid ones. There's always the possibility that whoever defines the world's objective morality could be fallible, or that the force people think of as such is actually just another mystical power source.

>>347215
Only it doesn't speak to those issues at all, because these worlds have an absolute definition of good and evil.

In worlds with a "detect evil" spell, evil is already an independantly measurable force, and the spell detects it. I was using orcs as an example because you did, not because they always must be evil. The gods don't choose to be good or evil either, because it's an independently measurable quantity that applies to all sapient things, including gods. If it was defined one way or the other by different gods, it would ping irregularly, making the spell useless. The gods also didn't sit down and design these spells together in one room. Good and Evil are forces like magic or physics, only less mutable than either.

In a world where 'good' and 'evil' are independently measurable forces that actually exist, they are functions of the existence, not things made up and debated by individuals.

If evil covers a certain set of behaviors or ideas in the world, and you can detect when a behavior or idea is defined as good or evil, then there is no question as to whether something is evil or good. The only question is whether or not an individual thinks it should be good or evil, but that doesn't change its actual category.

What gets to the point where they are indistinguishable teams? I am not seeing that anywhere in the examples.

>>347216
This is largely irrelevant, if you think about it. Good and Evil still have absolute definitions in these types of settings. Whatever their source, that's what they are defined as. But I would argue, as above, that they weren't defined by anything in settings like these, and are a function of existence.

>>347221
if you are referring to D&D, then yes evil is a "force"...
But it is a sentient force; a step above the gods. It along with the sentient force "good" determine what ACTIONS are good/evil and then imbue people with their essence based on said actions.

Being that all actions are essentially judged by to people (sentient being is a person, no matter how powerful), then there is certainly room for error.

>>347227
Except there isn't, because how they define it is what it is. That's like saying that you can argue about the value of gravity on a world because it was created by a potentially flawed god. You can't. The value is set by the being, but the value is still set.

>>347227

>Being that all actions are essentially judged by to people (sentient being is a person, no matter how powerful), then there is certainly room for error.

See:

>>347145

Specifically:

>The problem with the idea of 'moral conundrums' in issues of quantifiable morality systems is that they completely ignore that said morality is quantifiable.

You are attempting to apply subjectivity to a system which is, within the context of the setting, objective. Your justification is 'well if it is subjective it isn't objective any more,' which is not only completely obvious it is also utterly irrelevant bullshit. If people could fly at supersonic speeds nobody would ever ride a bicycle, but we can't so it is a non-issue.

Also:

>if you are referring to D&D, then yes evil is a "force"...
>But it is a sentient force; a step above the gods.

It isn't. It is a fundamental absolute on which the universe is constructed. It is no more sentient than gravity. Do you honestly believe that the only reason we don't go spiraling off into space is that the earth wants to hold us close?

>>347236
Also, I think this argument/discussion has reached an arbitrary volume that I designate as shitting up this thread. As such I kindly request you don your mod hat and remove it to the big dumb argument thread post haste.