Quote from: SHARK;1142862I think that Judeo-Christian ethics and principles are the best for a civilized society.

I respect your opinion and appreciate your sincere post. The Bible is rife with both moral and immoral teachings, by today's standards, which is why I really don't want to get into a religious debate. But thanks for sharing your personal views.

Quote from: Jaeger;1142867No.

Western civilization was built on three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Greco-Roman legacy.

Remove or erode any one of those three pillars, then Western civilization will erode/fall with varying degree's of speed.

Yes.

Which of those pillars came first? Which was the founding pillar? Christianity and Europe don't exist without the foundational Greco-Roman influence on modern Western civilization. You can make up any number of subsequent pillars you wish.

Besides, Western, secular education is based on the Greco-Roman foundation, not Jesus and his influence on Europe. Religious topics are tedious to debate by the very nature of faith, so I'd rather not. Freshman philosophy courses start and focus on the Ancients and briefly define the major terminologies in the field. Morality and ethics being subjective and relative, is a foundational concept for any entry-level course not taught by religious scholars. This isn't even remotely controversial.

And lest we forget, Jesus himself changed the moral and ethical attitudes at the time and was considered a radical, heretical, and dangerously liberal figure and was killed for it. If anyone would be a fan of questioning existing and traditional values, it would be that dude. If someone asked Jesus if the Hebrew way of entering Heaven via their morals and ethics were absolute, what would he say? Would he say that things change and that he has a better idea?

But anyway, WoTC is just exercising their rights. If anyone thinks the current copyright laws should be changed, like jhkim mentioned, that would be a juicy topic.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1142759Wait what?

Where was this? A link?

Its in a huge list of failed or horriffically late kickstarter games and con artist publishers. I'd have to go digging to re-find it. But thats just one of several in the last few years. About a year ago someone else reported their game was confiscated on the docks and destroyed for similar reasons. Weve gone from China holding shipments hostage to extort money. (a fairly frequent thing too if the number of accounts I heard of was any indicator) to just destroying shipments the government has deemed verboten.

And you thought Canada customs was draconian. (I used to know several players and at least two publishers that refused to ship to or from Canada after having game material, especially RPG books destroyed by customs.)

Quote from: Kael;1142878(random blithering about ethics)

You can't have a civilization without rules, Kael. Maybe you think Calvinball is a good thing to base your moral and ethical principles off of, but some of us prefer concrete rules and regulations.

It's possible to build a nonreligious, secular code of ethics; however, moral relativism simply devolves into 'I think it is okay, therefore it is okay'. Which goes over very poorly when I decide that the contents of your wallet should be mine, not yours.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1142935(random blithering strawman attack against Kael)

Contrarily to your false assertion, Kael did not suggest that moral relativism should be the basis of any society or that civilisation can exist without rules. You're putting words in his mouth and arguing against a position he did not make, which is a bad-faith argument. What he actually said is that "Some 21st century guys' interpretation of Christianity" is not the absolute moral and ethical foundation of Western Civilisation, which is a point you completely failed to address in your strawman.

Quote from: Premier;1142961Contrarily to your false assertion, Kael did not suggest that moral relativism should be the basis of any society or that civilisation can exist without rules. You're putting words in his mouth and arguing against a position he did not make, which is a bad-faith argument. What he actually said is that "Some 21st century guys' interpretation of Christianity" is not the absolute moral and ethical foundation of Western Civilisation, which is a point you completely failed to address in your strawman.

Actually, if you want to see strawman attacks, you should watch HappyDaze lashing out at everyone.

Now, if you wanna play 'putting words in his mouth', this is literally from his posts:

QuoteExplain to me the nonreligious reasons why morals/ethics are absolute.
Morality and ethics are relative to yourself.
Morality and ethics being subjective and relative...

As I said, Calvinball is not how you build a civilization. If you don't like that, feel free to offer a rebuttal -- if you can.

Quote from: Kael;1142856Explain to me the nonreligious reasons why morals/ethics are absolute. Your statement above goes against millenia of Western philosophy and I feel very sorry for whomever educated you and the money you wasted.

Western civilization was founded on the basic principles of individual happiness. "Know thyself" and the "pursuit of happiness" for the individual are core tenets of Western civilization and thought. Plato, Socrates, et al. all valued the happiness of the individual above all else. Morality and ethics are relative to yourself. This isn't controversial at all. This is basic stuff. Religion throws those things out of the water, and I don't want to get into religious discussions.

At best, we humans adhere to a loose form of utilitarianism that varies across time and cultures.

Yeah, still standing by what I said after this clownish reply.

Quote from: rocksfalleverybodydies;1142256Just an FYI, I just got those Premium POD versions of the D&D 1e PH, DMG, MM, UA delivered.

Slick covers, or faux-leather-feel?

Quote from: kythri;1142984Slick covers, or faux-leather-feel?

Mine are slick.

Quote from: Brad;1142978Yeah, still standing by what I said after this clownish reply.

Not surprised. At least we are having a good time repeating ourselves. So again, explain to me the nonreligious reasons why morals/ethics are absolute. I'm sure we'd all love to hear your thoughts since you seem to have such a strong opinion on the matter.

Otherwise, it's fine to admit that you lack intelligence. We all already know it based on your own empty, clownish replies.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1142935You can't have a civilization without rules, Kael.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1142962As I said, Calvinball is not how you build a civilization. If you don't like that, feel free to offer a rebuttal -- if you can.

I don't disagree with you at all. Every society needs agreed upon rules/laws to function properly, as I've already said.

You can build an entire prosperous and lawful civilization with nothing but guns and tanks, horses and spears, or muskets and cannons, if you wish, and the morality of such lawful activities will be different depending on which side you are on.

If Civilization A conquers and enslaves Civilization B to expand their resources, which side is morally superior? The answer: it depends on the individual's perspective. If an individual from Civilization A is merely trying to improve their position in life or needs to put food on the table to feed their family and acquiring land/people/resources helps to achieve that goal of happiness/survival, then they are morally obligated to do so. A person in Civilization B is going to have a much different attitude about the laws that govern such activities, obviously.

Nowhere did I say that laws were unimportant to a functioning society. Maybe reading comprehension isn't your strong suit?

Quote from: Kael;1143014I don't disagree with you at all. Every society needs agreed upon rules/laws to function properly, as I've already said. Maybe reading comprehension isn't your strong suit?

QuoteExplain to me the nonreligious reasons why morals/ethics are absolute.
Morality and ethics are relative to yourself.
Morality and ethics being subjective and relative...

These are your words, from your posts.

Exactly how am I supposed to read them? Shall I read your mind?

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1143017Exactly how am I supposed to read them? Shall I read your mind?

If I need to teach you how to read, then maybe you should go back to school. What is it exactly that you want to know or are confused about? Do you need help understanding the differences between laws and ethics? Do you claim that morality is absolute, and if so, would you kindly share your reasons why? I'd like to hear them, honestly.

Quote from: Kael;1143023If I need to teach you how to read, then maybe you should go back to school. What is it exactly that you want to know or are confused about? Do you need help understanding the differences between laws and ethics? Do you claim that morality is absolute?

If you want a functioning society, yes, you need absolutes.

One of the points I've been making for a while is that liberal fascination with moral relativism is what's caused us so much grief. You can build a secular morality and ethical base -- assuming you're willing to lay down ground rules and refuse to deviate from them. But the desire to pull away from the moral absolutes proposed by religion -- good or bad -- caused people to view ANY absolute as a fallacy, and to embrace moral relativism. The idea that no concept -- or culture -- is somehow inherently bad.

Which is a recipe for disaster, because some cultures are NOT better than others, even by secular non-moral concepts like 'self-sustaining' or 'stable'.

But hey, continue to drag this thread off topic. I'm out before Pundit banhammers us all.

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1143024But the desire to pull away from the moral absolutes proposed by religion -- good or bad -- caused people to view ANY absolute as a fallacy, and to embrace moral relativism.

Clearly we are miscommunicating because I don't disagree with you. A society needs absolute laws. I've said that twice in as many posts now. Also, an individual's religious views are indeed absolute. I won't argue or deny that, either.

But even the Bible has rules/laws/ethics/morals that aren't absolute and no longer apply, and are thus: relative to the time when they were written. You must be able to see that right? There are lots of "rules" in the Bible that people willfully ignore or now consider metaphorical where they were once literal. Many of these changing views aren't based on logic or reason, they are based on a combo of convenience, modern knowledge/science, and yes, changing morals. Thus, religion is tedious and often impossible to debate, especially online, so I'd rather not. Also, people get very emotional about religious discussions, which makes discourse very difficult.

So once again, I don't want to get into a religious debate, I just want to express my support of WoTC's actions, even if I don't like them or think they are necessary at all.

And for the record, I'm simply responding to people that have reponded to me, in kind, outside of my intitial post in this thread. Hopefully that's allowed, but if not, I'll stop responding to posts and let everyone else have the last say.