Could a paladin get in trouble for gambling?

Could a paladin get in trouble for gambling?

Other urls found in this thread:

store.steampowered.com/app/268910/Cuphead
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Depends on the god?

DON'T MESS WITH KING DICE

Depends on everything.

generally yes, but also
fpbp

Gambling is an evil act, one which will cause a paladin to fall.

Only if the paladin loses and doesn't pay his price

Paladin of the Gambling God

This.

Maybe not fall, but a paladin should set an example.

Please don't let the cancer that is gripping /v/ spread here.

Is it against his oath?

Is Cuphead good?

Yeah, it's hard as shit though so if you're a more casual player you might not get full mileage out of it
t. scrub

fuck off it's a good discussion point. Is gambling inherently evil or is its just an earthly pastime?

Casual is a design style, not a difficulty setting.

Yes.

It has the indie game problem of "Bosses have too much fucking health" but other than that it's good

HAHAHAHA PC AND PS4 BLOWN THE ABSOLUFE FUCK OUT BY THE REAL
MASTER RACE: XBOX

sure, but i guess what i meant is that i fucking suck at cuphead

>Bosses have too much health
>You can beat them in two minutes

????

>PC
store.steampowered.com/app/268910/Cuphead

It's almost like if you get really good at a game you can beat it quickly or something

Depends on the debt?

stupid bandwagon normie memes

only if they don't pay what they owe

I know, right? Can't go anywhere without hearing about paladins falling.

It depends on the circumstances but in all likeness yes.

>toaster gets the better game
good heh

It's not getting really good at the game.

Unless you're running some funky slowpoke strats, any winning run should take less than 2 minutes 30 seconds. It might take you several failed tries to get there but it's very difficult to get a winning run that's any slower than that.

I'd say that gambling itself isn't evil so much as everything surrounding it is.

Rolling dice against a man in an inn for beer money isn't evil.
Rolling dice against a man in an alley for his last bit of bread money is evil.
Taking advantage of someone's propensity or addiction to gambling is evil.

Casino Houses and the people owning them are almost certainly evil though, or at least a very, very hard neutral.

Depends on what the local lord thinks of gambling, and what the universal lord(s) think too

I think that gambling is bad because it's technically money for misfortune. To win a bet everyone else needs to lose, so you are actually getting the other people money without offering them anything in return.

Except friendly recreation, which is the only healthy reason for gambling

So how would one do a 30s style campaign, and I do not mean in the toon tabletop game thing.
Like could you explain some of the abilities as due to soul contracts?

>gambling
>evil

I'll give you Chaotic, but come on

Don't Paladins not follow specific God's, just a code?

Yes. A code. Just ONE. In every single game, in every single setting.

What in the absolute fuck are you talking about.

Depends on system

I remember an user who came up with the concept of two twin sister goddesses: Lady Luck and Miss Fortune. They were both in charge and influential of their followers with whimsy and folly. But in short followers of Lady Luck would always come out ahead in the long run. Their luck was just small bonuses and benefits here and there that added up over the long run. Miss Fortune was the high stakes roller of the two. At any time a follower could make a million dollars, but the very next day lose it all and then some. He had pointed out that many would follow Lady Luck, but Paladins of Miss Fortune were far more rare. These were the people who gave their life fully over to chance. Knowing that they might be the sole savior of the kingdom, but the very next day die penniless in a ditch.

I always imagined this fitting a setting like New Vegas mostly. But ever since then I have casually introduced the two dieties into whatever game we are running in my group to explain bad dice rolls or critical hits.

How the fuck is gambling Chaotic?

It's based on probability, an immutable law.

>applying irl laws of reality to magical multiverse shananigans

There is no such thing as Chaos irl so the argument is pointless

Probability is just math. It's not a physical law, it's just a way of expressing the different possible outcomes for an event. It deals with possibilities, uncertainty, and unknowns. Sounds pretty chaotic to me.

If I roll a d20, I have a 5% chance of getting a natural 1, a natural 20, or a fucking 8.

How is that chaotic?

Not him, but I would call gambling chaotic because it's basically living outside the common rules of earning capital.

A more lawful person for example would prefer to earn money through working, through managing or other proven, coded ways into society. A more chaotic person wouldn't mind risking money in a flip of coin, in a quick competition or something that doesn't have a typical income.

>A more lawful person for example would prefer to earn money through working, through managing or other proven, coded ways into society. A more chaotic person wouldn't mind risking money in a flip of coin, in a quick competition or something that doesn't have a typical income.

But that's retarded. Casinos are businesses, too.

You have this frankly retarded idea that all gambling is done by scummy con artists in a dirty back room somewhere.

Have you ever fucking gambled, kid?

Earthly past time. Gambling isn't soul-damning Evil with an E.

>But that's retarded. Casinos are businesses, too.
Of course I was talking about gamblers and not casino owners. Casino owners don't actually 'gamble' their money, you know? There is something called house edge. For them income is almost certain.

>Paladin of a god of fortune
>trouble for gambling

You tell me.

Gambling takes wealth from many people and gives it to one, causing great inequality.

Furthermore it doesn't actually produce any wealth itself, it just rearranges it amongst the populace, but at the same time, it entices some people to consider it a substitute or at least a partial substitute for acquiring wealth, as opposed to a job that actually creates something, and thus has economic value.

Basically, gambling is a harm to the society, thus it is evil.

>Rolling dice against a man in an alley for his last bit of bread money is evil.
not at all, so long as you dont cheat its neutral at worst

>Furthermore it doesn't actually produce any wealth itself, it just rearranges it amongst the populace
Tourism. It generates wealth from Tourism, and people visiting the place form elsewhere to gamble.

Yes?
What class DOESN'T get in trouble for gambling?
I can't think of anybody to whom honest gambling is not an incredible threat.

Not him, but keep in mind you know that this person is on the last of his money. And that he is probably a compulsive gambler.

You are literally taking advantage of the situation, regardless if you are cheating or not, and that's evil.

Which of the two is more likely to run on a toaster?

Rogues are actually expected to be gamblers. But I take this is along with their reputation as being dirty crooks.

>You are literally taking advantage of the situation
if i sought them out for the purpose of abusing their stupidity perhaps

if they propose a bet for their last gold and i accept then i simply dont fix their bad habits

their faults dont matter or reflect on what i can and cant morally do, if a known braggart challenges me to a duel and gets shitstomped that is no worse than if he was an actual fighter

course he would, he's the only idiot in the tavern without weighted dice

>It just rearranges it amongst the populace

Tourism is exactly that, just on a global scale.

gambling is neutral, it has no real benefit- but its also not actively harmful, the people who suffer from it do so of their own choice

You are missing the point user. You don't need to sought them to be abusing of the situation.

You know that this person is literally on the last of his legs. His life is almost over, he just have a few saved coins for like another meal. And you know that. And you know that he came to you because he is compulsive, he is literally sick. Like a drug addict. Otherwise no way would he risk the last of his liverhood in such a foolish deal.

And then you go and finish him off, and you wash your hands because 'he should have know better?' I'm sorry, but after the moment you know he isn't well you are definitely taking advantage of the situation, ergo you are evil.

I didn't know that being your own choice makes something not actively harmful. So self cutting isn't actively harmful either?

>i know he is compulsive
assumptions, i see a man give me a bet and nothing more- why should i even consider his life circumstances?

also no, i did not "finish him off"- he did that on his own, i am merely an unwitting implement of his self destructive nature

>assumptions, i see a man give me a bet and nothing more- why should i even consider his life circumstances?
Please read what that user said before commenting. You know that this is his last bread, because if you didn't then it's completely irrelevant. It would be just another game for you.

Also you are not unwitting if you know about that. Not how this works.

Because you don't know which result you'll get before you roll? When you roll a dice you know you have a 5% chance to roll a 20, that doesn't mean if you've gone 19 rolls without getting a 20 you are guaranteed to roll one now. Hell it's possible for a perfectly fair die to never roll a 20, it's extremely unlikely, but possible. You can determine the odds for a certain number or series of numbers to come up but there's no way to be absolutely certain what your next roll will be.

>My name's Johnny and it might be a sin, but I'll take your bet, you're gonna regret, 'cause I'm the best there's ever been

gabling the last of his bread=/= compulsive gambler, for all i know hes drunk

but even then, its neutral- im choosing to let him act the way he would towards himself

a good person would help him
a neutral person wouldnt care
an evil person would seek to increase his suffering and see how else he can abuse his faults

...

Nigga flagellation is a mark of piety, of course a good paladin self harms.

>gabling the last of his bread=/= compulsive gambler, for all i know hes drunk
First off, a rational person wouldn't gamble the last of his bread. If he comes to this point he is compulsive. Second, are you trying to undermine your own point? Because if he is drunk, and I mean actually drunk not tipsy, that also means he is currently incapable of sane judgement. You are still taking advantage of him.

>but even then, its neutral- im choosing to let him act the way he would towards himself
Actually neutral doesn't mean 'completely insensible'. But that doesn't change that taking advantage is an evil action.

>Gambling takes wealth from many people and gives it to one, causing great inequality.

Why is this bad is they do it voluntarily?

That's literally just Tymora and Beshaba from Forgotten Realms.

>Basically, gambling is a harm to the society, thus it is evil.
That's not what evil is. Evil is harm to life. Harm to society is Chaotic.

considering you're talking about Paladins, and i'm assuming D&D, depends on the edition

im not taking advantage, i did not seek him out or provoke his impulses, i simply did nothing to prevent them

its like this= there is a man going to jump off a roof

>the good action is to talk him out of it
>the neutral action is to let him
>the evil action is to encourage him to jump off or to be the cause of his predicament


neutral is ambivalence, its not caring

Yes, that's why the spellcaster who has a probability of things being randomly selected from a list is the Law sorcerer. Random chance = chaos, dingus.

>im not taking advantage, i did not seek him out or provoke his impulses, i simply did nothing to prevent them
Listen closely. You don't need to seek someone to take advantage of him, that's irrelevant. What matters is:
A) You know that this person is altered, he isn't currently of able mind or think straight.
B) You still do it, even through you know that if he was sane he wouldn't do that because it's completely self destructive.

Your example is entirely wrong, because in this situation you have input. You cannot wash your hands like 'but I didn't have anything to do with this' when you are one of the major players. It would be like a suicidal man asking permission to jump from your roof. Since when a neutral action would be "Sure, your choice."

Neutral isn't being completely devoid of morality.

>Since when a neutral action would be "Sure, your choice."
why not? if they want to let them, the choice is theirs

>why not? if they want to let them, the choice is theirs
Are you reading the posts you are replying? You are missing the part that they aren't of able mind. You cannot wash it as 'their choice', since making a choice requires being able to think.

they are able to think

i am choosing to have no input on them- that is neither good nor evil

No, but the one who got the game going will be if a hint of unfairness is around. Nothing like a smite can't solve.

> they are able to think
Not really. In both examples, compulsion in a self destructive level (which is actually a mental issue) or drunkness (which is a common incapacitator) removes the person ability to make healthy judgements. You cannot say 'they are able to think' when you know they aren't.

>i am choosing to have no input on them
Furthermore, you cannot say that when you are actually having an input, which is doing it. You cannot imply you didn't do anything when you just did something.

Busking takes wealth from many people and gives it to one, causing great inequality.

Furthermore it doesn't actually produce any wealth itself, it just rearranges it amongst the populace, but at the same time, it entices some people to consider it a substitute or at least a partial substitute for acquiring wealth, as opposed to a job that actually creates something, and thus has economic value.

Basically, busking is a harm to society, thus it is evil.

Of course, your post is ignoring the fact that casinos employ many people, and are reliant on a whole slew of suppliers and subcontractors in their daily operations.

Gambling is entertainment. Gambling with someone who you know is addicted to it might be evil, but suggesting a paladin would fall because he gambles? Does the paladin fall if he pays to see a play? Or a concert?

>just did something.
i allowed them to do what they would, i did not interfere

this is the neutral action


the good action would be to help them

the evil action would be to find a way to further benefit from the situation beyond their impetus

He can he just needs to make sure of a few things before hand. He needs to be able to accept the risk of losing the stakes without incurring harm to himself or anyone in his care. Basically, the stakes should be "disposable" money. Every player must make the gamble with full knowledge and consent. Playing a hand with a drunk is a no-no. All players must have also an equal chance of winning. The game must be fair, no New Orleans cajun bingo bullshit. The motive for playing the game should be one of pleasure rather than of gain. One must not depend upon gambling for one' s livelihood.

All of this being said as long as he can recognize when he’s gone past these things and he can stop himself then he’s good.

>i allowed them to do what they would, i did not interfere
No you actually helped them, which makes you accountable. Giving someone something self destructive, when you know they aren't thinking straight is definitely evil action.

I think the problem is that your mind is stuck on this 3 way alignment system, without realizing that in each situation can be countless different resolutions that can differ into different moralities.

The ideia of neutral is 'non-caring' is a gross simplification of the morality system, which shouldn't be used to justify literally any action. Here have a completely exaggerated example:

You are a gun owner shop, who have the freedom to sell or refuse anyone you want. Suddenly a guy comes through your door and asks you to buy some guns, and then explicitely tells you that he wants to shoot the nearby school. In your three way logic, it would go like this:

> Good: refuse him
> Neutral: sell him the weapons because you don't care, even through you know explicit what he is going to do with those
> Evil: sell him and even offer him extra weapons, for money and because you enjoy chaos and mayhem

Now tell me if you really see the common average person doing something like this.

>> Good: refuse him
>> Neutral: sell him the weapons because you don't care, even through you know explicit what he is going to do with those
>> Evil: sell him and even offer him extra weapons, for money and because you enjoy chaos and mayhem
thats sounds right


good=moral
neutral=amoral/morally ambiguous
evil= immoral

I'm sorry user, but not even DnD morality works like that. I'm afraid we won't go further than that. Peace.

Inaction does not equal neutrality user. In the gun shop situation presented, you are effectively consenting to a mass shooting.

not directly but yes, which is why its not a good action

A Proper Neutral response would actually be
> Neutral: Refuse, but don't alert anyone about them.
Because in the end you would see lower sales from people with a sense of morality if you actually sold things to him AND knew about it.
Also, Good would actually go like this.
> Good: Refuse, but go out of the way to get him some help. And/Or talk to the police about them.

> Good: refuse him
> Neutral: sell him the weapons because you don't care, even through you know explicit what he is going to do with those
> Evil: sell him and even offer him extra weapons, for money and because you enjoy chaos and mayhem

You would refuse to sell a gun to your fellow American, you no-good commie.

Read for the proper neutral response. You are neither assisting or hampering. You have stayed out of the conflict. It is the neutral choice.

In 5e they follow a code. In other editions they follow a god. In some editions they follow a god and a code.

5e just watered down paladins a lot.

>ever gambling without being sure you'll win because you rigged it

What's his alignment?

>Doesn't produce any wealth, just rearranges it
So does...everything except minting currency?

>Basically, gambling is a harm to the society, thus it is evil.
Unless the ones who own the casinos are indigenous people who had their land taken from them and their culture erased, in which case gambling would actually be a noble thing because you're giving back to them.

Busking is performance, which is creating something, even if it's abstract.

>rigging the game
That's, like, missing the entire point. If you are sure of the outcome, then it's no longer gambling, it's just swindling.

Probably not, unless specifically forbidden or he puts it over his/her code/god/LG.

But there is also question of whatever the people running place are wholesome. An LG paladin probably shouldn't give them profits.

That's why you don't tell anybody dingus

Besides casinos are rigged on some level so the house profits anyways.