No, You May Not Roll on Items for Another Class and Strip Out the Mods

People keep attempting to moralize this choice, and morals aren't involved. Morality may or may not be objective depending on your personal view (which is a contradiction in itself, though one that isn't germane to this discussion), but the bottom line is this: loot is amoral. When you have a system in place, that system becomes your final authority until a different system is put in place. A system is only an authority when enforceable. In this case, no matter player perspectives, the only enforceable system is "Need Before Greed". The system doesn't analyze motive for the choice you make, it simply accepts that you made the choice and proceeds accordingly.

Within that system, if you roll Need on it, your roll takes higher priority than Greed. If no one else rolls Need, it's yours. If someone else does, the higher of your rolls determines who gets it. It doesn't need to be more complex than that.

Those attempting to moralize the issue are ultimately attempting to force others to behave as they believe those people should, which serves little purpose since they can't enforce their chosen mode of behavior. So they get upset, and attempt to guilt people into behaving as they desire, or attempt to apply social pressure to achieve that goal. Neither work particularly well as there's no objective means of enforcing either, since we lack consensus. These forums, for or against a given issue, don't come close to providing consensus, as we represent a statistical minority of the overall player base.

Do as your personal conscience leads you, and don't worry about anyone else. If social pressure somehow emerges, decide if you want to accept it or not. No one can force you to act in a method contrary to your own desires. If you're fine rolling Need on an item to strip out its mods (yes, they bind to you, but it doesn't mean you can't apply them to orange gear on a companion), then do so. You don't require anyone else's permission.

I answered this in my previous post. I roll need for something I will use on my person, and honestly, half the time I LOOK at what gear the other contenders have and typically pass if I already have better since it's a bigger upgrade for them. But that's MY moral path. I DO NOT expect ANYONE to follow it.

Like someone else said here, Morals have nothing to do with how the system works, but people wish to inject them anyways. If you don't like how someone plays, blacklist and move on. If you go to the forums or fleet chat and slander, more power to you, but realize it just lowers that moral level you hold in such regard,

Seems like the real issue is people applying a very selfish definition of 'need'.

You can't 'need' something just because you like the looks!
You can't 'need' something for you companion!

...and on and on

Looks are more important to some people than stats - just because you're a stat whore doesn't mean your preferences are more important.

If something's a +2 damage improvement for you you can need it, but if it's a +20 damage improvement for Vette (which will have a much greater impact) I can't need it?

<shrug> I'm sure there's plenty of people who think their limits on what I can need are fine and I should live by them, and may not ever group with me again. Honestly, they're doing me a favor. Nobody throws a fit if someone who'd see a +2 improvement from an item rolls when someone else in the group would see a +10. If the deepest your thought can extend to is "Ugg need Cunning, Ugg most important, you no take Ugg's shiny clothes!" then I'm just as happy not to have to play with you.

Edit for clarity: "Need" should be an option for claiming something that improves your character. Whether that item is something that makes your primary stats better, makes your secondary stats better, makes you like your character's look better, makes your companion hit harder or makes your companion look better - they're all ways to improve your character. IMHO trying to decide which improvements are and aren't worthwhile for my character is the selfish thing - not prioritizing my looks over your stats.

Good point and very true. There's no point in trying to convince others how they should loot items. A thread based on, "You shouldn't need on X" is already flawed because people will do what they want within the rules of the game. There is no rule to determine when to need/greed. The game gives you the option and you pick. End of story.

The only valid argument, IMO, is to petition BW to give a tool to fit every scenario and let the players pick what to use.

Need/Greed, Master Loot, Auto Loot, All Greed

Heck, i'd even love to have a "Duel Need". Two people need? Duel it out and winner take all!

*Ignoring most of your post for irrelevance to the issue. The gun analogy went over your head, moving on*

Exactly!, and some people think they're entitled to everything, for any reason. With zero discretion, or even an attempt to think of others. That's where people like you come in.

I know exactly what you're talking about. Rolling on an orange piece of gear for the mods, for the look of the piece is a greed roll. You want it for looks. GREED. You don't need to look like that. You need to have higher stats to continue playing effectively.

These are basic concepts that you don't get.

Rolling for companions is a greed roll, why? Because after all added up, you'll be able to roll need on EVERYTHING, otherwise. But really, that's a concern for the party leader before the run takes place.

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about your attitude of anything is doable if the game allows you to. when personal responsibility trumps game mechanics every time.

You're like the jerks back on WoW who would roll need on leather for their paladin over rogues, whose only options come from leather, just because it suited you right then and there. Because it's all about YOU. Or the hunters who would roll need on the most powerful two handed weapons just for a stat boost, and **** the warriors.

^ This

The reality is that they thinking "You can't need on that because I want it... and my want is somehow more special than your want"

agreed

and that poster is an authority on what exactly?

That post is a big load of ********. When faced with actions that affect other human beings over the self, morals are involved. To say otherwise, shows an ignorance toward what morals are on a fundamental level.

That poster basically said "It's teh internet" in as many words as possible.
Using an ignorant poster as an appeal to authority fallacy won't work.

eh. i hit foundry with a guy that rolled on every piece of loot (need) for his companions

So, i guess this story isnt that bad

Alot of kids play this game. Surprise, surprise...