Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
As a D&D player I just want to point out someone who strictly follows the law, regardless if it is harmful or not is lawful neutral. Not Lawful-Good. Lawful-Good is someone who makes laws (or tries within the range of legalities to change the laws) for the well being of the people.
Sorry the off topic.
As a roleplayer I just want to point out its so, so past time we got rid of alignments, they are a caricature of good roleplaying.
I always felt the classic alignments were a fun tool to labeling how people are in real life.
President Trump....Lawful Evil?
I believe in the end, we're going to find that he wasn't very lawful
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
As a D&D player I just want to point out someone who strictly follows the law, regardless if it is harmful or not is lawful neutral. Not Lawful-Good. Lawful-Good is someone who makes laws (or tries within the range of legalities to change the laws) for the well being of the people.
Sorry the off topic.
As a roleplayer I just want to point out its so, so past time we got rid of alignments, they are a caricature of good roleplaying.
Nah, they are great. Even better when used with point system (0 to 100). Just people misunderstadns them... The same way people misunderstands Nature and Demeanor in Storyteller.
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
As a D&D player I just want to point out someone who strictly follows the law, regardless if it is harmful or not is lawful neutral. Not Lawful-Good. Lawful-Good is someone who makes laws (or tries within the range of legalities to change the laws) for the well being of the people.
Sorry the off topic.
As a roleplayer I just want to point out its so, so past time we got rid of alignments, they are a caricature of good roleplaying.
I always felt the classic alignments were a fun tool to labeling how people are in real life.
President Trump....Lawful Evil?
eNeutral-evil, actually. Someone that is selfish and does not care much about order or chaos, just want to make things the way he wants to.
Nothing good happens when you bring RL Politics into things, because while you may think your right, others may think you are deranged. Its like football teams, now if i said Liverpool were the best team ever, you might disagree and think your right, whereas i'd know you were wrong.
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
As a D&D player I just want to point out someone who strictly follows the law, regardless if it is harmful or not is lawful neutral. Not Lawful-Good. Lawful-Good is someone who makes laws (or tries within the range of legalities to change the laws) for the well being of the people.
Sorry the off topic.
As a roleplayer I just want to point out its so, so past time we got rid of alignments, they are a caricature of good roleplaying.
Nah, they are great. Even better when used with point system (0 to 100). Just people misunderstadns them... The same way people misunderstands Nature and Demeanor in Storyteller.
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
As a D&D player I just want to point out someone who strictly follows the law, regardless if it is harmful or not is lawful neutral. Not Lawful-Good. Lawful-Good is someone who makes laws (or tries within the range of legalities to change the laws) for the well being of the people.
Sorry the off topic.
As a roleplayer I just want to point out its so, so past time we got rid of alignments, they are a caricature of good roleplaying.
I always felt the classic alignments were a fun tool to labeling how people are in real life.
President Trump....Lawful Evil?
eNeutral-evil, actually. Someone that is selfish and does not care much about order or chaos, just want to make things the way he wants to.
Nothing good happens when you bring RL Politics into things, because while you may think your right, others may think you are deranged. Its like football teams, now if i said Liverpool were the best team ever, you might disagree and think your right, whereas i'd know you were wrong.
plus the others choices had the same alignment so meh, at least with trump the US economy did get a lot better
If I was EA, I would probably fight it if I thought I had a real chance. But every country is going to be different and have different laws, and losing could embolden other countries to do the same.
My prediction is that if lootboxes ever get mass banned as gambling, those devs will just sell an overpriced bundle that has one or two things players really want and a bunch of crap. It probably won't be nearly as lucrative but it will be more profitable than selling things individually.
Pretty sure Belgium will lose if this goes to court, no offense, but I'm confident that EA have better lawyers than Belgium(not the country as a whole, but those that work for the government) and they have already gone through all possible scenarios and are certain that they can win.
They are breaking Belgium rules, they will go to a court in Belgium. They can comply or stop servicing their games there. EA has been on the losing end since the beginning, and i'm fine with that.
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
As a D&D player I just want to point out someone who strictly follows the law, regardless if it is harmful or not is lawful neutral. Not Lawful-Good. Lawful-Good is someone who makes laws (or tries within the range of legalities to change the laws) for the well being of the people.
Sorry the off topic.
As a roleplayer I just want to point out its so, so past time we got rid of alignments, they are a caricature of good roleplaying.
I always felt the classic alignments were a fun tool to labeling how people are in real life.
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
As a D&D player I just want to point out someone who strictly follows the law, regardless if it is harmful or not is lawful neutral. Not Lawful-Good. Lawful-Good is someone who makes laws (or tries within the range of legalities to change the laws) for the well being of the people.
Sorry the off topic.
As a roleplayer I just want to point out its so, so past time we got rid of alignments, they are a caricature of good roleplaying.
Nah, they are great. Even better when used with point system (0 to 100). Just people misunderstadns them... The same way people misunderstands Nature and Demeanor in Storyteller.
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
As a D&D player I just want to point out someone who strictly follows the law, regardless if it is harmful or not is lawful neutral. Not Lawful-Good. Lawful-Good is someone who makes laws (or tries within the range of legalities to change the laws) for the well being of the people.
Sorry the off topic.
As a roleplayer I just want to point out its so, so past time we got rid of alignments, they are a caricature of good roleplaying.
I always felt the classic alignments were a fun tool to labeling how people are in real life.
President Trump....Lawful Evil?
eNeutral-evil, actually. Someone that is selfish and does not care much about order or chaos, just want to make things the way he wants to.
Well if they take as much notice of them as most players do of their N&D, then alignments would not be such a problem. I have never had anyone say "But I am an Architect, that's what I would do." But I am sure you have seen "But I am a Lawful Neutral blah blah".
I always though the amoral - and amoral evil - alignments worked well for assassin's as well. Would they work for folk who enrich themselves, bankrupt companies - and economies?
I always though the amoral - and amoral evil - alignments worked well for assassin's as well. Would they work for folk who enrich themselves, bankrupt companies - and economies?
If I am Lawful Good and decide a great evil needs assassinating would I not be working for the good of all?
If I am a Lawful Evil ruler and decide to protect my country by bankrupting a trading guild that is threatening to take over my countries economy am I working for good or evil?
If I am a True Neutral and I decide to enrich myself, make myself richer, and in the process employ many people in the business who owe their livelihood to me am I good, evil or neutral?
It is just a bag of worms for roleplaying and it never occurred in fantasy literature until DnD shoe horned it in.
Some people get too frgigging hung up on legal gambling definitions with
all of their exceptions and technicalities when they should really be
looking at whether something is a simple and above board transaction or
something rigged that has more in common with what you find in fair
midways or back alleys.
I don't know why this partciular issue gets me hung up. I know lootboxes are a predatory practice.
I just don't agree with a ban or an age restriction.
That's probably because you're lawful good and I'm chaotic good
You want to see good laws applied logically and justly... I just want the fucking things eradicated from gaming by any means
As a D&D player I just want to point out someone who strictly follows the law, regardless if it is harmful or not is lawful neutral. Not Lawful-Good. Lawful-Good is someone who makes laws (or tries within the range of legalities to change the laws) for the well being of the people.
Sorry the off topic.
As a roleplayer I just want to point out its so, so past time we got rid of alignments, they are a caricature of good roleplaying.
I always felt the classic alignments were a fun tool to labeling how people are in real life.
President Trump....Lawful Evil?
I also love the use of the Alignment Table, but I think Trump is Chaotic Good. Where his motive or goal is "good" in the sense he wants to help the people in his country, (Rebuild Industry, Jobs, and the like) but, he has no real plan or order to how he hoped to accomplish it.
And.. if you look at this chart.. it really lines up..
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Meanwhile an average Belgian gamer works all day, pays his taxes, goes home to his wife, his dog, and his EA game, gets lootboxes, and somehow all this money will go to court to either fund better lootbox development, so less money for the gamer, or to have them shut down the game, so all that money gone to literal waste. Who gets f***ed in the end? Yeah. The gamer.
I always though the amoral - and amoral evil - alignments worked well for assassin's as well. Would they work for folk who enrich themselves, bankrupt companies - and economies?
If I am Lawful Good and decide a great evil needs assassinating would I not be working for the good of all?
If you are truly playing as LG you don't have the option to assasinate anyone regardless of the benefit to society.
If you choose to ignore this then the dungeon master will likely declare you as another alignment, Lawful Neutral if with in the confines of the law.
If I am a Lawful Evil ruler and decide to protect my country by bankrupting a trading guild that is threatening to take over my countries economy am I working for good or evil?
Evil of course, but still legal. Evil actions can provide great positive benefits, but are the result of evil acts.
If I am a True Neutral and I decide to enrich myself, make myself richer, and in the process employ many people in the business who owe their livelihood to me am I good, evil or neutral?
It's been argued TN is the most difficult alignment to roleplay as your actions have to be as random as tossing a coin for every one taken much like Two Face from Batman lore.
I dont view the employment of others or working to enrich yourself as either inherently good or evil so I'd go with neutral.
It is just a bag of worms for roleplaying and it never occurred in fantasy literature until DnD shoe horned it in.
One could almost argue D & D practically invented the fantasy role playing game genre so not surprising its alignment system is widely known.
I'd argue prior to D & D there wasnt a whole lot of places or situations people were actively fantasy role playing in.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I always though the amoral - and amoral evil - alignments worked well for assassin's as well. Would they work for folk who enrich themselves, bankrupt companies - and economies?
If I am Lawful Good and decide a great evil needs assassinating would I not be working for the good of all?
If you are truly playing as LG you don't have the option to assasinate anyone regardless of the benefit to society.
If you choose to ignore this then the dungeon master will likely declare you as another alignment, Lawful Neutral if with in the confines of the law.
If I am a Lawful Evil ruler and decide to protect my country by bankrupting a trading guild that is threatening to take over my countries economy am I working for good or evil?
Evil of course, but still legal. Evil actions can provide great positive benefits, but are the result of evil acts.
If I am a True Neutral and I decide to enrich myself, make myself richer, and in the process employ many people in the business who owe their livelihood to me am I good, evil or neutral?
It's been argued TN is the most difficult alignment to roleplay as your actions have to be as random as tossing a coin for every one taken much like Two Face from Batman lore.
I dont view the employment of others or working to enrich yourself as either inherently good or evil so I'd go with neutral.
It is just a bag of worms for roleplaying and it never occurred in fantasy literature until DnD shoe horned it in.
One could almost argue D & D practically invented the fantasy role playing game genre so not surprising its alignment system is widely known.
I'd argue prior to D & D there wasnt a whole lot of places or situations people were actively fantasy role playing in.
Just to point out I did not post the penultimate paragraph.
But indeed D&D single handily invented fantasy roleplaying for the commercial market and therefore all roleplaying as there was no other sort at the time. Unless you want to count people playing war games who thought they were Napoleon and Wellington.
it is because D&D was the first that the archaic and unworkable alignment system is still with us. Nature and Demeanour is far more workable but both are best played in a very flexible way. Otherwise that Paladin is not going to get out the door of the inn to start your game until the establishment lives up to his beliefs on fair pricing, not watering down the beer and making sure all the staff go to the Temple at least once a week.
Comments
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
They are breaking Belgium rules, they will go to a court in Belgium. They can comply or stop servicing their games there. EA has been on the losing end since the beginning, and i'm fine with that.
If I am a Lawful Evil ruler and decide to protect my country by bankrupting a trading guild that is threatening to take over my countries economy am I working for good or evil?
If I am a True Neutral and I decide to enrich myself, make myself richer, and in the process employ many people in the business who owe their livelihood to me am I good, evil or neutral?
It is just a bag of worms for roleplaying and it never occurred in fantasy literature until DnD shoe horned it in.
And.. if you look at this chart.. it really lines up..
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
But indeed D&D single handily invented fantasy roleplaying for the commercial market and therefore all roleplaying as there was no other sort at the time. Unless you want to count people playing war games who thought they were Napoleon and Wellington.
it is because D&D was the first that the archaic and unworkable alignment system is still with us. Nature and Demeanour is far more workable but both are best played in a very flexible way. Otherwise that Paladin is not going to get out the door of the inn to start your game until the establishment lives up to his beliefs on fair pricing, not watering down the beer and making sure all the staff go to the Temple at least once a week.