|
In both Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms there are plenty of Independent cities and towns (hamlets), however there are few that I would consider as "Sanctuary Cities", open to illegals, criminals or unwanted ethnic or racial groups. One such example is Ten Towns, who was open to Drittz Do'Urden (a Drow), who would normally be shunned or even hunted down in most other settlements. This also taints the impression of these settlements or cities, and I find it curious and worthy of discussion: What are the pros on cons of Sanctuary Cities? Can it be legitimately argued that they impact in a positive or negative way the broader community, outside of its sanctuary granted jurisdiction? What alignment would be best attributed to a Sancuary City? - this question is the most confusing to me to answer. Since a sanctuary policy is lawful in nature, it being a policy that is followed. However, it is open a supports freedom, which tends to be more chaotic. The suspension of judgement, is not either good or evil, so clearly any Sanctualry City would have "Neutrality" as a component of its alignment. I'm debating between LN, N and CN. As always I like to tie my gaming discussion and debate issues to real world locations or events, so: What alignment would the city of San Francisco be? Not just based on its Sanctuary status, but maybe with other considerations as well.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Darksun is better and no city is ruled properly without a Sorcerer King.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Thri-kreen hives are the only sustainable cities in Athas, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Every municipality should be a Sanctuary Municipality, friend
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Abner Cadaver II posted:Thri-kreen hives are the only sustainable cities in Athas, imo. When Hamanu's city (Urik) was wrecked by a big defiler battle he just had people truck in cartloads of soil from elsewhere to get productive agriculture again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Lady of Pain/Joe Biden 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
I would argue that providing support and space for marginalised groups often requires extra-legal methods to get there (as the entrenched majorities often create oppressive structures which cannot be altered without such means), but the ultimate aim is to influence legislation such that society adopts and embraces a pluralistic, tolerant, and egalitarian stance with minimal intrusion in personal beliefs and affiliations - no more than is necessary for the maintenance of basic social order - at a constitutional and judicial level. Therefore, I must believe that Sanctuary Cities are inherently True Neutral, in that they recognise the realpolitik necessity of illegal methods to attain the desired cultural outcomes, but ultimately idealise integrating these desired outcomes into a legal framework to create a truly egalitarian society.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Artificial Idiocy posted:I would argue that providing support and space for marginalised groups often requires extra-legal methods to get there (as the entrenched majorities often create oppressive structures which cannot be altered without such means), but the ultimate aim is to influence legislation such that society adopts and embraces a pluralistic, tolerant, and egalitarian stance with minimal intrusion in personal beliefs and affiliations - no more than is necessary for the maintenance of basic social order - at a constitutional and judicial level. I struggle with putting "desired cultural outcomes" in the same paragraph and potential thought process as "truly egalitarian". For me that sounds very much like "egalitarian outcomes" which I don't see as possible with it being artificial and forced. Equal access may be a desired cultural outcome, but even that will likely be dependent on equal traits, or qualifications to function as a gating mechanism before the access (equal or otherwise) is granted. Bottom line, true equality rarely exists or perhaps never exists because no one is truly equal or deserving of equal treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
There is no such thing as artificial egalitarian outcomes, if we are talking about equal treatment under the law in terms of rights and freedoms. The mechanisms used to arrive at that outcome do not compromise the legitimacy of the outcome; whether it takes armed slave revolts and violent demonstrations, or is possible through policy reform and education, speaks more to the nature of the oppressive society and the level of entrenchment of its prejudice at a personal an institutional level, rather than to anything about the marginalised group. Neither of these routes makes the eventual state artificial or forced, nor do the attributes of being artificial and forced even meaningfully detract from the legal equality produced. Certainly, at non-institutional levels, people will likely retain their old prejudices. But your concern that no society can ever be truly egalitarian because of the differing levels of talent, ability, education, or 'deservingness' between people presents an impossibly high standard of what egalitarian means. Eliminating racism from society doesn't require that every individual gets the same results, but that, all other things being equal, race alone is not a factor in the 'deservingness' leading to better outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Artificial Idiocy posted:There is no such thing as artificial egalitarian outcomes, if we are talking about equal treatment under the law in terms of rights and freedoms. The mechanisms used to arrive at that outcome do not compromise the legitimacy of the outcome; whether it takes armed slave revolts and violent demonstrations, or is possible through policy reform and education, speaks more to the nature of the oppressive society and the level of entrenchment of its prejudice at a personal an institutional level, rather than to anything about the marginalised group. When I mentioned "traits" I was suggesting character traits, and not physical / racial traits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Wrong D&D dude.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
chaos rhames posted:Wrong D&D dude. Yeah, gently caress Forgotten Realms.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:Yeah, gently caress Forgotten Realms. I have to admit, I never played in Forgotten realms, other than in PC games. I stopped playing AD&D before 2nd edition was released and my group never shifted away from Wold of Greyhawk setting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Artificial Idiocy posted:I would argue that providing support and space for marginalised groups often requires extra-legal methods to get there (as the entrenched majorities often create oppressive structures which cannot be altered without such means), but the ultimate aim is to influence legislation such that society adopts and embraces a pluralistic, tolerant, and egalitarian stance with minimal intrusion in personal beliefs and affiliations - no more than is necessary for the maintenance of basic social order - at a constitutional and judicial level. wouldn't that make them neutral good? the D&D alignment matrix pretty explicitly does not equate legality with goodness
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
D&D alignment system is hilarious and on par with other fantasies like elves and wizards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:wouldn't that make them neutral good? the D&D alignment matrix pretty explicitly does not equate legality with goodness This is true. Where a sanctuary city falls on the alignment between true neutral and neutral good might depend on their motivations and foreign policy. For example, if the only reason for racial equality is because racism hurts trade potential and causes violence/ other inefficiencies, and a city is a major trade hub, I would hesitate to describe their alignment as caring about 'good' (equality as a pragmatic consequence of a free market). On the other hand, if a sanctuary city views equality as an inherent social good, and actively tries to promote that agenda encouraging reform in other cities, then it would sit far more appropriately in neutral good. So really, I guess it depends how the city role-plays its equality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Do you guys often find that Sanctuary Cities demand a certain level of conformity from those they give shelter? Does a Sanctuary City require that it's inhabitants give up a certain amount of what makes they and their cultures unique in order to function in the new society? Is this censorship enforced through implied violence?
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Rodnik posted:Do you guys often find that Sanctuary Cities demand a certain level of conformity from those they give shelter? Does a Sanctuary City require that it's inhabitants give up a certain amount of what makes they and their cultures unique in order to function in the new society? Is this censorship enforced through implied violence? No, it is a voluntary by-product of free market capitalism and globalisation. Half-orcs, Drow, or Gnome - as long as people have full bellies and are making bank, their cultural rituals and beliefs matter less, and they all just want to bling out their horse and carriage with after market gilded trim while wearing the latest fashionable cloaks from Neverwinter.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Bluddwolf posted:In both Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms there are plenty of Independent cities and towns (hamlets), however there are few that I would consider as "Sanctuary Cities", open to illegals, criminals or unwanted ethnic or racial groups. One such example is Ten Towns, who was open to Drittz Do'Urden (a Drow), who would normally be shunned or even hunted down in most other settlements. The fundamental issue with "sanctuary cities" - and other libertarian utopias - is that it only works so long as the "right people" take advantage of it. It's great when it's inhabited solely by streetwise Robin Hoods with a heart of gold, but not so much when it's ruled by slasher gangs that have no law to fear. Ten Towns turns into Rapture pretty quickly. Bluddwolf posted:What alignment would be best attributed to a Sancuary City? - this question is the most confusing to me to answer. Since a sanctuary policy is lawful in nature, it being a policy that is followed. However, it is open a supports freedom, which tends to be more chaotic. The suspension of judgement, is not either good or evil, so clearly any Sanctualry City would have "Neutrality" as a component of its alignment. I'm debating between LN, N and CN. Any particular "Sanctuary City" could vary as to its adherence to law, but on the whole I'd say that a place like Ten Towns would be Neutral, whereas Rapture would be Chaotic Neutral, and Ankh Morpork would be Lawful Neutral. quote:As always I like to tie my gaming discussion and debate issues to real world locations or events, so: What alignment would the city of San Francisco be? Not just based on its Sanctuary status, but maybe with other considerations as well. San Francisco would be Lawful Good, as would most real-world cities in the world. They're generally run by people who have the positive interests of the majority in mind, with an eye toward law and order, and the class/race/gender/etc. issues of modern politics wouldn't enter into it. The closest thing we have to "sanctuary cities" would either be something like an outlaw town (such as Hole-in-the-Wall in Wyoming, which was run by cowboy outlaws) or a UN refugee camp (which are often dominated by local warlords). If they don't break up themselves due to the lack of law and order, then they end up getting invaded by outsiders who are tired of being raided by pirates/thugs/what-have-you. Kaal fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The fundamental issue with "sanctuary cities" - and other libertarian utopias - is that it only works so long as the "right people" take advantage of it. It's great when it's inhabited solely by streetwise Robin Hoods with a heart of gold, but not so much when it's ruled by slasher gangs that have no law to fear. Ten Towns turns into Rapture pretty quickly. this is some next level poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 06:48
|
|
|
Rodnik posted:Do you guys often find that Sanctuary Cities demand a certain level of conformity from those they give shelter? Does a Sanctuary City require that it's inhabitants give up a certain amount of what makes they and their cultures unique in order to function in the new society? Is this censorship enforced through implied violence? To a certain degree, certainly. And that's fine. Not murdering a Drow for worshiping their evil spider goddess is one thing, but that doesn't mean you're gonna let demon gangs run through the streets murdering everyone just because that's the culture in the Abyss.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:To a certain degree, certainly. And that's fine. Not murdering a Drow for worshiping their evil spider goddess is one thing, but that doesn't mean you're gonna let demon gangs run through the streets murdering everyone just because that's the culture in the Abyss. It should probably be noted that since Drow culture is nominally predicated on worshiping a demon queen through evil and violence, that's a mighty fine line that you're drawing there. I mean this kind of thing obviously has limited real-world application, since D&D-type fantasy openly embraces concepts like inherent racial behavioral traits, and broad stereotypes that would be uniformly rejected if they were applied in the modern-day. Earth doesn't have evil creatures that are born with the intent to destroy all that is good, and our philosophic structures generally reflect that. Kaal fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Jul 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Kaal posted:Earth doesn't have evil creatures that are born with the intent to destroy all that is good 
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2015 22:38
|
|