Conflicting political views and ethics - Is this a problem to you too?

[archangel.arcanis]

I don't suppose you considered using Detect Evil on the village before arming them?

If he caused a village of Evil people to destroy itself, isn't that Good?

I think the same applies to stupid people, as shown here.

Just proof of Darwinism in fantasy settings, though doesn't the presense of an omnipotent GM give credit to an inteligent design theory. 

[Solo]

Natural selection at work.

Honestly, though, the idea of people just getting their hands on weapons and then being completely unable to restrain themselves is, as has been noted, pants-on-head retarded. It does not make sense in setting, as there were compelling reasons to not turn on each other and certainly weapons were available to the citizens beforehand, or out of it, considering that such behavior Does Not Happen in the real world when it comes to either crossbows or guns.

[Lycanthromancer]

Natural selection at work.

Honestly, though, the idea of people just getting their hands on weapons and then being completely unable to restrain themselves is, as has been noted, pants-on-head retarded. It does not make sense in setting, as there were compelling reasons to not turn on each other and certainly weapons were available to the citizens beforehand, or out of it, considering that such behavior Does Not Happen in the real world when it comes to either crossbows or guns.

Makes you wonder what happens when a family sits down to eat on Steak Night. All those sharp and pointy knives...

Though if I were part of one of those families, they wouldn't even have access to SPOONS.

No, not even then.

[veekie]

Natural selection at work.

Honestly, though, the idea of people just getting their hands on weapons and then being completely unable to restrain themselves is, as has been noted, pants-on-head retarded. It does not make sense in setting, as there were compelling reasons to not turn on each other and certainly weapons were available to the citizens beforehand, or out of it, considering that such behavior Does Not Happen in the real world when it comes to either crossbows or guns.

I'm not sure how they survive with farm tools even, most of those are pretty deadly. Seriously a crossbow is LESS dangerous to a villager than a scythe, seeing as he had to wind the slow damned thing up, and any farmer worth the name would be stronger than dextrous.

RL gun control has sort of a point, its a peaceful society, you do not generally need a weapon in day to day business, and if you are unskilled in its use it might be better off not to have one.
This is nothing like being in whats basically a war environment.

[Solo]

RL gun control has sort of a point, its a peaceful society, you do not generally need a weapon in day to day business, and if you are unskilled in its use it might be better off not to have one.

Generally speaking, it is a good idea to prevent criminals, the underaged, the mentally ill, and etc from obtaining guns. A law abiding citizen with no mental defects on the other hand should not be restricted.

We all live in peaceful places and we probably don't need it, but that's does not mean that we will always live in peaceful places and we will never need it. Enough crime happens outside of hot spots (the newspaper in the suburbs where I live occasionally reports serious crime such as murder and rape) that I would prefer to have a few contingencies on hand.

And I feel that other people, in general should.

I suppose you could argue that we should have a system in place to make sure people are qualified like with cars, but in America, owning a gun is a constitutional right whereas owning a car is not. And there's just something about requiring tests and taxes for exercising a constitutional right that rubs people the wrong way.

[veekie]

Yeah, but thats a reasoned stance. Not "You armed everyone with a relatively crappy weapon, in a setting where everyone is already armed in some way. Mass murder ensues."

[Solo]

... Hold on, that means he can recoup his expenses!

[Lycanthromancer]

... Hold on, that means he can recoup his expenses!

Time to make some necrosis carnexes!

[ninjarabbit]

RL gun control has sort of a point, its a peaceful society, you do not generally need a weapon in day to day business, and if you are unskilled in its use it might be better off not to have one.

Generally speaking, it is a good idea to prevent criminals, the underaged, the mentally ill, and etc from obtaining guns. A law abiding citizen with no mental defects on the other hand should not be restricted.

We all live in peaceful places and we probably don't need it, but that's does not mean that we will always live in peaceful places and we will never need it. Enough crime happens outside of hot spots (the newspaper in the suburbs where I live occasionally reports serious crime such as murder and rape) that I would prefer to have a few contingencies on hand.

And I feel that other people, in general should.

I suppose you could argue that we should have a system in place to make sure people are qualified like with cars, but in America, owning a gun is a constitutional right whereas owning a car is not. And there's just something about requiring tests and taxes for exercising a constitutional right that rubs people the wrong way.

To be fair some people live in rural areas where you owning a gun is a good idea for protection and hunting. In some places law enforcement is thinly spread out (or even in some urban areas) and you need something for immediate self-defense. Plus a deer can help feed a family of 4 for about a month and it's a huge savings on the grocery bill given the price of meat nowadays.

[Solo]

Plus, no synthetic hormones or antibiotics.

Granted, it's perfectly safe to eat food that has been raised with synthetic hormones or antibiotics in the US and Europe due to our stringent food safety laws and inspections, but there's nothing wrong with 100% natural meat either.

[Lycanthromancer]

Plus, no synthetic hormones or antibiotics.

Granted, it's perfectly safe to eat food that has been raised with synthetic hormones or antibiotics in the US and Europe due to our stringent food safety laws and inspections, but there's nothing wrong with 100% natural meat either.

That's what they say, but there's got to be a reason why boys and girls are starting to go into puberty at 7 and 8 years old.

[Solo]

Actually, the average age of puberty is still around 10-13 years of age. The ancient Romans recorded it as being around 10-12, so not much has changed.

I am aware of incidents where meat treated with synthetic hormones has been linked to early puberty, but to my knowledge there was never a definite link established.

To quote from Consumer Concerns on Hormones in Food,

Can steroid hormones in meat affect the age of puberty for girls?

Early puberty in girls has been found to be associated with a higher risk for breast cancer. Height, weight, diet, exercise, and family history have all been found to influence age of puberty (see BCERF Fact Sheet #08, Childhood Life Events and the Risk of Breast Cancer). Steroid hormones in food were suspected to cause early puberty in girls in some reports. However, exposure to higher than natural levels of steroid hormones through hormone-treated meat or poultry has never been documented. Large epidemiological studies have not been done to see whether or not early puberty in developing girls is associated with having eaten growth hormone-treated foods.

A concern about an increase in cases of girls reaching puberty or menarche early (at age eight or younger) in Puerto Rico, led to an investigation in the early 1980s by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Samples of meat and chicken from Puerto Rico were tested for steroid hormone residues. One laboratory found a chicken sample from a local market to have higher than normal level of estrogen. Also, residues of zeranol were reported in the blood of some of the girls who had reached puberty early. However, these results could not be verified by other laboratories. Following CDC's investigation, USDA tested 150 to 200 beef, poultry and milk samples from Puerto Rico in 1985, and found no residues of DES, zeranol or estrogen in these samples.

In another study in Italy, steroid hormone residues in beef and poultry in school meals were suspected as the cause of breast enlargement in very young girls and boys. However, the suspect beef and poultry samples were not available to test for the presence of hormones. Without proof that exposure to higher levels of steroid hormones occurred through food, it is not possible to conclude whether or not eating hormone-treated meat or poultry caused the breast enlargement in these cases.

In addition, the idea that cow hormones can affect human development lacks biological plausibility. Bovine hormones are not recognized by the human endocrine system and cannot activate it. Ingested food that contains hormones is denatured in the stomach, which would destroy the hormones before they reached the bloodstream.

[PhaedrusXY]

Bovine hormones are not recognized by the human endocrine system and cannot activate it. Ingested food that contains hormones is denatured in the stomach, which would destroy the hormones before they reached the bloodstream.

For at least some hormones (estradiol, etc) they are in fact exactly the same across at least some of the animal kingdom. Some are no doubt converted to other forms by the digestive system, but those forms may also be active steroids, and be more harmful than the originals. For example, estradiol, which is found in cow milk in small amounts, is converted to estrone in the digestive system, which is further converted to estrone sulfate. Estrone sulfate levels can act as a marker for the aggressiveness of prostate cancer (not necessarily cause-effect, but who knows?).

[Solo]

Current research suggests that whatever forms make it through the digestive system do not have a significant effect on human development. That may change as more comprehensive studies are done, but so far there doesn't seem to be anything worth worrying about.

[oslecamo]

Plus, no synthetic hormones or antibiotics.

Granted, it's perfectly safe to eat food that has been raised with synthetic hormones or antibiotics in the US and Europe due to our stringent food safety laws and inspections, but there's nothing wrong with 100% natural meat either.

That's what they say, but there's got to be a reason why boys and girls are starting to go into puberty at 7 and 8 years old.

Last time I checked the lead theory was that the earlier puberties are because of higher calory consuption leading to overweight kids.

Many causes of early puberty are somewhat unclear, though girls who have a high-fat diet and are not physically active or are obese are more likely to physically mature earlier. "Obese girls, defined as at least 10 kilograms (22 pounds) overweight, had an 80% chance of developing breasts before their ninth birthday and starting menstruation before age 12 – the western average for menstruation is about 12.7 years."

[Kormoran]

I do avoid comments about such a way in DMing.

About the matter: the paladin did not exceded in violence - ie. did not kill the pickpocketer - so nothing to argue. May be judged at worst more Lawful than Good... but as far as I remember, Chaotic Good chars going brawling each other for a misunderstood is not so strange and aligment wise is acceptable. The use of deadly weapon could change the story.

About the village murderous outburst... no comment, really.
One of the most Chaotic Evil society, the Drow one, never indulges in such outburst without a sense. Even CE drows fight side by side in front of an enemy... only AFTER the DEFEAT of the ENEMY, the quickest one push 20 inch metal in the back of someone... and still FOR A REASON.

Talking more in general... the problem of alignment and perception on Good-Evil axis is always a problem.
Granted there is not a clear and universal goodness, it's almost impossible to determine in absolute terms if an action is good.

Alignment, in my opinion, has to be managed from "personal/cultural" point of view only putting aside specific Vows.

If a LG cult trains its paladins to Kill On Sight Orcs, they will Kill On Sight Orcs and still they are Paladins of such cult.
Killing a young orc is wrong? may be because he's not a warrior... but he'll grow up and become an orc warrior razing human hamlets.

A teacher of mine often said that Evil does not exist in an absolute sense: a murder usually, does not kill for sake of blood, but for something good for HIMSELF: killing is doing good from his personal perspective.
Even in a fantasy enviroment, almost no evil char is doing EVIL for the EVIL. He's acting in a EVIL way for the commoners, but he's sacrificing virgins for the GOOD of his god and his station in front of his cult. In a strange way, a Necromantic Cleric obeying a Death God is doing GOOD killing and raising skeletons.

A mind flayer eating a brain, is simply getting knowledge and feeding himself - something good.
Thusly we should start thinking about a lot of creature in D&D as A-moral not Im-moral, or better, with moral beliefs completely alien to the "normal ones in an human society".

[archangel.arcanis]

Perhaps the gun control talk should be spun off into its own thread, probably in BLYHT, so we quit derailing this one.

[veekie]

Eh it's a natural extension of the main topic, we all conflict, but even those who do support gun control would see the business with the villagers as a strawman and a terrible one at that.

[archangel.arcanis]

Eh it's a natural extension of the main topic, we all conflict, but even those who do support gun control would see the business with the villagers as a strawman and a terrible one at that.

Ok not a big deal to me.

Yeah the villagers reaction was so over the top it is hard to believe it was anything other than the GM being hyperbolic with it. I live in a state where there are virtually no gun controls without much of any problem. While it is our right to own a gun I do think that nation wide they should require a safety training course as well as a basic test to own a gun, much like driving a car. I know it would be shot down as unconstitutional, but there are too many stupid & irresponsible people with guns.

I'll frame all of that by saying i'm a firm advocate of the 2nd amendment, but we have shown that we can take away constitutional rights (the 2nd amendment explicitly) when someone has show they can't be trusted with those rights (most if not all felony offenses). I just want to weed out the stupid/irresponsible who will likely cause injury or death to themselves or someone close to them before they get to own a gun*. While I don't personally own a gun yet (we plan on getting a plinker when we have some extra money), I do shoot some with my daughter's god father, we go to the sheriff's range every few months and fire off some of his many guns.

*a gun power power projectile. I don't think we should be extending this to pellet or paintball guns. While they can cause injury it is normally minor and death is exceedingly rare.

[veekie]

Also if you're talking about a gun, in D&D thats probably better off as something like a Necklace of Fireballs or some other use activated magic item. A crossbow isn't even going to reliably kill a cat at point blank.