|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 13:27 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|