ITT: Things that crack you up

>people who play 3.pf criticize older editions for having confusing, abstract bullshit
>people who play 3.pf criticize GURPS for having too many rules
>people who play 3.pf criticize other systems at all
What makes you laugh Veeky Forums?

>people who care what other people play

People who make threads on Veeky Forums as a substitute for genuine human interaction.

>people who play incredibly obnoxious cunts and think people wont stab their character in their sleep
>people who do this twice

>people who don't realize that GURPS is the superior system, and Apocalypse World is damn close.

>People who think you can derive an ought from an is

This is some really low energy trolling.

0/10.

We all miss having quest threads on Veeky Forums, friend.

people who try to apply bad ideas that don't work in context, and get pissy when you suggest there may be something wrong with that

>how butthurt 3.pf grognards will act in this thread

>suffering is bad
>we ought not to suffer or to let others suffer

Checkmate, Hume.

GMs who are amusing to watch when they hear a pun. Case in point:

> Starting a fight against the area boss inside lower levels of library.
>It summons two golems made of scrolls and books.
> Me, pointing to one IC: "Quick Barbarian, break its spine!"
> GM's head immedietly hits the table.

>suffering is bad
Prove this. One could just as easily assert that suffering is simply a part of nature and the human condition, the same as any other emotion, and carries no intrinsic value.
>we ought not to suffer or to let others suffer
Prove this. If something is 'bad' why ought I to go out of my way to prevent it?

All forms of morality establish suffering of at least yourself as bad. Even biology urges you too avoid suffering because getting hurt, starving or any other kind of suffering feels bad

Also I'm fairly sure the word suffering just means "bad things happening to you" so yea suffering is bad

>GURPS

Okay system. Lots of material, which is nice.

I fucking despise the player base. You're all worse than OSR cucks and 3.PF fags.

>All forms of morality establish suffering of at least yourself as bad.
The is ought gap isn't about that. Most forms of morality appeal to a higher power of some kind, and from that you can indeed get an ought. The issue is about people claiming one can get morality from nothing but existence itself.
>Even biology urges you too avoid suffering because getting hurt, starving or any other kind of suffering feels bad
Like this actually. This is the sort of thinking the divide refuts.
Your biology tells you to avoid suffering. What about that implies some kind of moral aspect to suffering? My biology tells me to do all sorts of things, these simply are. There isn't a good or bad to them.
>Also I'm fairly sure the word suffering just means "bad things happening to you" so yea suffering is bad
Sure, I can say suffering is something I want to avoid. I can say suffering is painful to experience. But does any of that mean that it's 'bad' or 'wrong'? Does someone not liking something, wanting to avoid it, confer morality on it?

>The is ought gap
What did user mean by this?

You can't get statements about right and wrong simply from statements about the way things are.

Suffering is ontologically bad. Moreover, if 'bad' is to mean anything then it has to include that'.

>bad
>that which is undesirable

Leads to:

>I am a being that desires to not suffer
>I ought not to suffer

The problem with assuming a split between is and ought is that it requires everything to be essentially static and have no agency. It seems plain to me that people are essentially variable agents with a degree of control over their condition and that is and ought are not separated at all.

Yes, but does the gap ought the is?

>Suffering is ontologically bad.
We're going in circles here. You keep asserting that suffering is bad without trying to back it up. Why is suffering bad? What about it makes it bad?
>>bad
>>that which is undesirable
Hume is talking about morality, not whether something is undesirable.
>>I am a being that desires to not suffer
>>I ought not to suffer
That's a logical leap. Why is it immoral to suffer simply because you don't want it? Do human desires determine what's right and wrong? Humans desire all kinds of things, Hitler earnestly desired to exterminate the jews.
>The problem with assuming a split between is and ought is that it requires everything to be essentially static and have no agency.
Hume isn't assuming anything. He's pointing out the fact that facts about nature don't carry any moral statements with them. Also how exactly dos it require everything to be static?

>people who think 5e is not just for normies and newcomers

lol everytime.

>not liking something, wanting to avoid it, confer morality on it?

I'm not sure it confers morality on it but its certainly a value judgement and I would say a totally legitimate value judgement.

I'm not well read enough to put this in a good way but nobody has ever set out simply to suffer and because of this I would say it is immoral, Only real example I can think of is the Geneva convention where is says not to use weapons that cause unnecessary suffering this is probably more of an an appeal to authority than a good moral argument but I would agree with that concept that unnecessary suffering in any context is morally wrong

>Apocalypse World

I think suggesting GURPS is just a meme around here. I also only do it ironically to my friend who hates it.

Sorry, friend.

>Why is suffering bad? What about it makes it bad?
Because that's the definition of the word.
People noticed things that made them feel bad and they called that feeling suffering, therefore, by definition, suffering is bad.
>but why if I LIKE suffering?
Then you're not actually suffering, as it is not bad for you. You like a certain feeling that people consider suffering, but it is not actually suffering because you don't feel bad about it.

>people whose pee pees are as small as ops

>people who think that banning content or houseruling is bad and you should just fight fire with fire
>people who think that Leadership is in any way an acceptable feat for anything other than a mount that doesn't die like a bitch
>people who think that Handle Animal is a free license to turn encounters into 20v5s, fuck the DM's time
>people who call shit DM the second the DM puts any kind of roadblock on a player