And aside from this, does anyone else see a contradiction between "Good implies respect for life" and "good characters make personal sacrifices" ?

No, because sacrifice can mean many different things in that sentence besides suicide.

And aside from this, does anyone else see a contradiction between "Good implies respect for life" and "good characters make personal sacrifices" ?

I think you're confusing personal sacrifices with human sacrifices... =)

Harvesting crops is not respecting life, therefore farmers are not good. Discuss.

In game, or in real life?

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Harvesting crops is not respecting life, therefore farmers are not good. Discuss.

In game, or in real life?

In game, of course. We're discussing the rules.

LilithsThrall wrote:

My point is that that is exactly what you are doing - putting your personal view of "respect for life" on the question of "what is good?"

How do you figure?

Merriam-Webster wrote:

Respect: high or special regard

Life: the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body

Is there some other definition you are using?

No, but out of curiosity when does having a high regard for life == killing means non-good. Which is what you say the rules clearly state.

I think you're confusing personal sacrifices with human sacrifices... =)

No... But I think that sentence implies that a good character is ready to give his own life for another one.

Elgerot wrote:

I think you're confusing personal sacrifices with human sacrifices... =)

No... But I think that sentence implies that a good character is ready to give his own life for another one.

Your own life is yours to give. Other people's lives generally aren't yours to take. There is a difference...

Still the basic argument is that respect for life does not exclude execution.

OR does it?

We have a rulesmonger saying it does exclude execution, and another rules monger saying the rules do not say that....

Fred yep in BOED sacrificing oneself is one of the few ways to get a saint PC.

[I find it curious that a person with an MD is going to an online dictionary to get the definition of a word like 'life'.

Why? We are discussing the rules of a game that uses the English language. Not the modern (non-game) medicolegal definition of life. Once again, you have starting using personal attacks.

Your failing to understand that what exactly "respect for life" means has been a long running debate among health care professionals is disturbing in a person who claims on the Internet that they have an MD.

I know exactly what it means in today's medicolegal arena. Which is irrelevant to the discussion about the game.

You've not read the Alchemist class, for one example.

Nope. Please provide the relevant rules info and your question if you would like a debate on something specific to the game.

You've got to figure out if you want to restrict this discussion to game rules (like you claim) or you want to include things like the Glasgow Coma Scale (which isn't part of the rules).

You aren't allowed to pinch someone to see if they are unconscious? Where does it say that in the rules?

I am familiar with Thanatology.

So why play dumb about my previous statement regarding non-lethal damage?

In game, of course. We're discussing the rules.

Well, you never know. LilithsThral has shifted to personal attacks so I need to make sure.

Well, first I have to ask. What alignment do you think animals should be? Need to make sure we are on the same page.

In a game where death really isn't the end is killing really all that evil. In our society dead is dead. In the game world dead really isn't dead. What would kill a person in the real world just takes a healing spell fix in the game world. A person who actually dies can be risen from the dead or re-incarnated. So dead really isn't dead. But assuming the dead person doesn't come back the knowledge of gods and souls is spelled out so death really isn't death it's just different state of being.

For example back in the second edition days we had game that ended in TPK against a Ancient Red Dragon. Since the whole group was killed and we didn't want to start over the DM though this was the perfect time to make use of his new planescape box set.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

In game, of course. We're discussing the rules.

Well, you never know. LilithsThral has shifted to personal attacks so I need to make sure.

Well, first I have to ask. What alignment do you think animals should be? Need to make sure we are on the same page.

Neutral. I've houseruled that all creatures without an alignment subtype or aura are Neutral as well, but that probably isn't relevant to the discussion.

FOrget all the side issues and examples, real life terms and other crap.

I have an individual telling me what the rules are.

I don't need anyone to tell me what the rules are or explain them, they are self evident.

Summary does respect for life preclude execution as a good and lawful act?

Still the basic argument is that respect for life does not exclude execution.

OR does it?

We have a rulesmonger saying it does exclude execution, and another rules monger saying the rules do not say that....

Fred yep in BOED sacrificing oneself is one of the few ways to get a saint PC.

I assume by one rulemonger you mean me? I am unaware who the other one is?

myself.

calvinNhobbes wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

In game, of course. We're discussing the rules.

Well, you never know. LilithsThral has shifted to personal attacks so I need to make sure.

Well, first I have to ask. What alignment do you think animals should be? Need to make sure we are on the same page.

Neutral.

Ok, animals eat plants and other animals for survival, correct?

This makes them Neutral. Therefore, if humans eat plants and animals for survival, what kind of act do you think that is?

HOWEVER, and this is important. The rules do NOT say you are prohibited from performing actions against one's alignment. Moreover, the do not state that doing such will necessarily change one's alignment. I must state this, otherwise you will tell me no one can be anything but Neutral. Although you've already houseruled it this way, so you hopefully get where I'm coming from.

I know exactly what it means in today's medicolegal arena. Which is irrelevant to the discussion about the game.

Then your entire argument has no basis, because, if one excludes today's medicolegal arena, you are just pulling stuff out of your ass.

You aren't allowed to pinch someone to see if they are unconscious? Where does it say that in the rules?

Seriously? In a world where somebody can here a whispered converation from 200 feet away, jump 90 feet in a single bound, etc. you think no one can possibly avoid responding to being pinched if they are faking being knocked out?

myself.

Really? If you say so.

FOrget all the side issues and examples, real life terms and other crap.

I have an individual telling me what the rules are.

I don't need anyone to tell me what the rules are or explain them, they are self evident.

So why bother replying at all. Simply say you disagree.

Summary does respect for life preclude execution as a good and lawful act?

Once again you are confusing good with lawful. A true rulemonger would not make such a mistake.

LT,

you are onto the same thing there.

There seems to be implications around the rules and we are getting different implications.

One person says the rules say, when really they are saying to me the rules imply.

And others are saying I don't get how you made that leap to me it is or can be otherwise.

HOWEVER, and this is important. The rules do NOT say you are prohibited from performing actions against one's alignment. Moreover, the do not state that doing such will necessarily change one's alignment. I must state this, otherwise you will tell me no one can be anything but Neutral. Although you've already houseruled it this way, so you hopefully get where I'm coming from.

Yeah, I think we are in agreement. Execution can be used 'for the greater good' but it will never be a Good act.

I am saying it can be both good and lawful, no mistake. That those two things can overlap.

Then your entire argument has no basis, because, if one excludes today's medicolegal arena, you are just pulling stuff out of your ass.

The English dictionary is "stuff out of your ass". I see it is impossible to have a mature discussion with you.

My point is that "respect for life" means different things to different people and that it does mean, in some circumstances, taking someone's life. You assert (though offer no basis for it) that "respect for life" has a specific meaning.

It has a specific meaning in the rules of a game based on the English language, yes? I do not care what it personally means to you.

Occam's razor puts the onus on you.

Please clarify.

Seriously? In a world where somebody can here a whispered converation from 200 feet away, jump 90 feet in a single bound, etc.

Strawman and hyperbole.

you think no one can possibly avoid responding to being pinched if they are faking being knocked out?

And how do you expect to know they are dead and not faking? As you said, it is a magical world.

Yeah, I think we are in agreement. Execution can be used 'for the greater good' but it will never be a Good act.

Good to know. Although I hate the term "greater good" since it is ambigous and really no different that "lesser evil". In general, if something is considered a "greater good" or "lesser evil" it is just neutral. By calling something the "greater good" makes people believe it is actually good. Typical political propaganda.

I am saying it can be both good and lawful, no mistake. That those two things can overlap.

You misunderstood. You keep throwing in the lawful alignment as justification for something along the good-evil axis. Just because it is a lawful act, and something a LG person might do, does not make it a good act. See the difference?

I like the strawman and hyperboyle that is great, I think I saw it re paladins and my description of "Dudley dorights" playing lawful stupid alignment. Which I thought was more humerous and funny than hyperboyle....

Occam's razor is simply
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

LT is saying that the burden of proof is on you to from the SRD support your position. And that you have failed to do so, b/c you will not directly engage the core question.

Can execution be a lawful and good act? Using core and not your personal stuff.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Yeah, I think we are in agreement. Execution can be used 'for the greater good' but it will never be a Good act.

Good to know. Although I hate the term "greater good" since it is ambigous and really no different that "lesser evil". In general, if something is considered a "greater good" or "lesser evil" it is just neutral. By calling something the "greater good" makes people believe it is actually good. Typical political propaganda.

My bad, those were meant to be sarcastic air quotes. As you say, someone may have good intentions with it (capital punishment) but it is still not an act of good.

Occam's razor is simply

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1]), is the meta-theoretical principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) and the conclusion thereof, that the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

I know the principle, I wanted clarification on how it thought it was relevant. No point in responding to an ambigious statement.

LT is saying that the burden of proof is on you to from the SRD support your position.

Which I already did. And instead of addressing that position, he has resorted to remarks of a personal nature.

And that you have failed to do so, b/c you will not directly engage the core question.

I obviously suceeded since he has resorted to immature behavior.

Can execution be a lawful and good act? Using core and not your personal stuff.

I've never used my "personal stuff". According to the rules, execution is not a good act. How many more times do you want me to say it? You obviously disagree, but have provided no argument to support it besides stating your opinion.

Can execution be a lawful and good act? Using core and not your personal stuff.

Someone who says they will execute a person and does so would be committing a Lawful act, as far as I can tell. So yes, execution can be a Lawful act.

Someone who executes another being to protect innocent life cannot truly state the act is protecting innocent life. So no, execution cannot be a Good act.

Therefore, execution cannot be a Lawful and Good act.

Core SRD

Good
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Lawful

Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties. Chaotic characters follow their consciences, resent being told what to do, favor new ideas over tradition, and do what they promise if they feel like it.

Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

Please use this to explain how it is impossible for lawful and good to preclude execution.

My bad, those were meant to be sarcastic air quotes.

Ah, no offense. I figure that was the case, so I continued their use for emphasis.

As you say, someone may have good intentions with it (capital punishment) but it is still not an act of good.

Exactly. The good intentions to "protect innocent life" are there, but the act "killing others" is defined as evil. Making it neutral.

Of course, if the intentions were also evil, the capital punishment could be considered an evil act instead of neutral.

Please use this to explain how it is impossible for lawful and good to preclude execution.

I already did. Please reread the thread. If after doing so you still do not understand then I can't help you.

Of course, if the intentions were also evil, the capital punishment could be considered an evil act instead of neutral.

I think if the execution was carried out with the knowledge that the victim was wrongly accused, then it would be an evil act, as it was destroying innocent life.

Please use this to explain how it is impossible for lawful and good to preclude execution.

I'm confused, did you mean 'include'? I thought you were trying to prove execution could be a Lawful Good act. I already proved it cannot be a Good act.

You don't actually know much about tortoises do you? trust me a tortoise Running for 10 minutes would be no-where near 5 feet away. A tortoise that is actually running and not hiding in it's shell is actually a fast little bugger, easily covering 5ft as a move action. giving him 10ft a round or 40ft as a full run, 10 rounds in a minute gives him 100ft (400ft full run), and 10 minutes gives him 1000ft (4000ft full run) Unless you're PCs were obsessively watching him/ in a large empty parking lot, that tortoise is gone. [/threadjack]

Hehe, I'm definitely not a biologist nor a student of tortoises to be sure. I have played with some turtles in my youth, and seen the big tortoise at the local zoo. The point being that in no way, shape, or form was the BBEG going to "escape" from the party in tortoise form. They were watching him the whole time (although he didn't know it). It was quite humorous.

I think if the execution was carried out with the knowledge that the victim was wrongly accused, then it would be an evil act, as it was destroying innocent life.

Yes definitely. Like executing political rivals/prisoners. That is basically the definition of LE.

It has a specific meaning in the rules of a game based on the English language, yes? I do not care what it personally means to you.

No dictionary is an authoratative source on the English language. If "respect for life" had a specific meaning, there wouldn't be a long standing debate among professionals (clergy, medical professionals, lawyers, ethicists, etc.) as to what it means.

Please clarify.

Occam's razor == the law of parsimony

And how do you expect to know they are dead and not faking? As you said, it is a magical world.

I don't. I don't need to. You are the one who is arguing that these people are helpless (which implies that the PCs know that they are helpless). You are the one who needs to answer that question.

calvinNhobbes wrote:

It has a specific meaning in the rules of a game based on the English language, yes? I do not care what it personally means to you.

No dictionary is an authoratative source on the English language. If "respect for life" had a specific meaning, there wouldn't be a long standing debate among professionals (clergy, medical professionals, lawyers, ethicists, etc.) as to what it means.

Sorry, this is so blatantly true that I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that you aren't getting it.

You notice in games they define terms as the pertain to the game. Also in law statutes start with definition as they pertain to the statute. Even licensing for software has definitions in the license agreement.

When something is not defined specific to topic then traditional definitions are used. Now this doesn't mean that any one dictionary is right. In fact in court of law you could parade expert witnesses that show the definition differs from what the dictionary states. Basically in law the guy with most paper saying their definition is right wins unless the definition defined specific the topic.

I'm no lawyer just going off some law classes I took back 17 ago. So my memory could be off and it was 17 years ago.

Sorry, this is so blatantly true that I have a hard time wrapping my brain around the fact that you aren't getting it.

Great, more insults... please try to act mature.

No dictionary is an authoratative source on the English language.

I never said it was. It was simply what I was using. I can't think of another source that would be less biased. It is obvisouly less biased than personal opinion, which you seem so fixed on using.

If "respect for life" had a specific meaning, there wouldn't be a long standing debate among professionals (clergy, medical professionals, lawyers, ethicists, etc.) as to what it means.

Hence why I use the least biased definition I can think of. Seems the simplest thing to do. Speaking of which...

Occam's razor == the law of parsimony

As far as I can tell, the definition I use for "respect for life" IS the simpliest way to approach the argument. Using the modern medicolegal debate about euthanasia is certainly NOT simpler. That is for sure.

I don't. I don't need to. You are the one who is arguing that these people are helpless (which implies that the PCs know that they are helpless). You are the one who needs to answer that question.

Actually, I'm not arguing that at all. Please reread the thread. You brought it up, not me.

Ah evil, I've always enjoyed seeing this discussion when people talk about D&D.

Uh, strictly by the original iteration of D&D, and to a higher level of detail now in Pathfinder evil can be encompassed as the guys who you are hitting to gain XP, ie the antagonists in the story. This is a rather old philosophical point of view and amusingly, extremely racist, well in the specific term that by the DMGs of all periods, all races have a very similar alignment, unless they are PCs. Evil PCs are generally jerks, which is the defining trait, except when they play a very strict iteration of LG that inhibits gameplay, then they're also still jerks.

There will always be a problem with the definition of evil in the game when combat is the main source of XP.

There will always be a problem with the definition of evil in the game when combat is the main source of XP.

No necessarily. XP is given for overcoming challenges, not specifically for killing things. Moreover, even if combat is deemed necessary, it is not required to be lethal.

Why the distinction in the rules of protect innocent life rather than just protect life.

I think someone is excluding the word innocent from the rules as written.

If the rules said protect all life and that it said hold all life as sacred beyond repute, you might have a point.

The rules however specify
"innocent life"
and "respect for life"

You say good having respect for life means execution can not be a good act, I say bologna, that is not what the rules say.

Why the distinction in the rules of protect innocent life rather than just protect life.

Protect and respect mean different things.

I think someone is excluding the word innocent from the rules as written.

And you would be wrong.

If the rules said protect all life and that it said hold all life as sacred beyond repute, you might have a point.

Or I would also have a point if respect and protect were two different words with different meanings...

You say good having respect for life means execution can not be a good act, I say bologna, that is not what the rules say.

Well, I could say the rules allow a 1st level rogue to cast 9th level arcane spells. Doesn't mean it is supported by the rules. Just like you saying execution is a good act is not supported by the rules either. Like I said, use whatever houserules you want to. Just make sure your players know.

You say good having respect for life means execution can not be a good act, I say bologna, that is not what the rules say.

Good

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.

Execution does not protect innocent life.

Where in the definition of Good by the SRD do you see execution being a Good act?

Where in the definition of Good by the SRD do you see execution being a Good act?

Ya, I don't get where he is coming from either!

I have asked you (point blank) to use the rules not my quotes and not personal reading into the rules to demonstrate proof positive that an execution is always (at all times and is impossible) excluded as both a good and lawful act.

I will give those from the PF srd again and even take out the confusing c, N, and evil stuff.

Good
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life

Lawful
Lawful characters tell the truth, keep their word, respect authority, honor tradition, and judge those who fall short of their duties.
Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should.

I have asked you (point blank) to use the rules not my quotes and not personal reading into the rules to demonstrate proof positive that an execution is always (at all times and is impossible) excluded as both a good and lawful act.

I have proved to you (point blank) that this is the case. So has TOZ.

CaspianM wrote:

There will always be a problem with the definition of evil in the game when combat is the main source of XP.

No necessarily. XP is given for overcoming challenges, not specifically for killing things. Moreover, even if combat is deemed necessary, it is not required to be lethal.

I don't have a core handy but I'm sure there is more page count devoted to the particulars of killing people as they are wont to kill you too, and then also with the corpse looting. Compare that to the page count used for challenges that don't kill people like social ones. Compare the complexity of the two.

Generally speaking this "overcoming challenges" thing you speak of is correct. However, as this is a game and we're all a tad sociopathic regardless of our real life morals, this tends to end with someone at -10, or drop from 100 ft above the ground, or a knife jammed so deep into a person's kidneys that he can taste it. Because in essence the great bulk of the D20 mechanical structure is tactical, and generally about fighting people, disposing of them (usually gruesomely) and taking their stuff so you will be adequate to the next cycle of this challenge.

Though there is a secondary point to be made. Its not just killing people that is evil, it is the intent on harm, and thus combat itself is evil. This is true for the most part in the real world, barring war, (because politics removes the moral restraint we normally have in our cushy modern existence about shooting someone in the face, through demagogery and propaganda)

Now in a game, where the moral structure is essentially narrative, because it is a game, not an accurate model of real life, people come up to kill me (the player) all the time. Or otherwise I hear of some cool series of caves within which lies a bunch of gold, who's inhabitants are rather startled and angry that you've walked into their home, and so forth. Challenges are set at a group of PCs because they are stressful and hopefully enjoyable. D&D models the challenge in a binary sense, you and the other guy generally, and its this binary setting that suggests the split between what is "good" and what is "evil". The evil if there is any is narrative, not real, and while it is tangentially related to our modern western christian perspective of morality, it isn't related, with the exception on who to point fingers or swords at, and to get an extra 2d6 holy damage from.

I have asked you (point blank) to use the rules not my quotes and not personal reading into the rules to demonstrate proof positive that an execution is always (at all times and is impossible) excluded as both a good and lawful act.

I will give those from the PF srd again and even take out the confusing c, N, and evil stuff.

Good
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life

You cannot call an act a Good act when the rules describing what a Good act is do not state the act is a Good act. I used the SRD definition of Good, and execution does not fit any of the descriptions of what a Good act is.

I used the bloody rules, and you are ignoring them.

If execution is not a Good act, it cannot be a Lawful Good act.

Execution does not protect innocent life, therefore making it NOT a Good act.

Great, more insults... please try to act mature.

Stop acting like everything is an insult. You'll know when I insult you. There will be no ambiguity.

You seem to be calling every point I make an insult so that you can avoid responding to it.

I never said it was. It was simply what I was using. I can't think of another source that would be less biased. It is obvisouly less biased than personal opinion, which you seem so fixed on using.

less biased????

How are you measuring that -exactly-?

You aren't, not really, because you can't. What you might be doing is thinking something isn't biased because it agrees with you.

As far as I can tell, the definition I use for "respect for life" IS the simpliest way to approach the argument. Using the modern medicolegal debate about euthanasia is certainly NOT simpler. That is for sure.

Your background may be in medicine, but my education (one of my degrees anyway) is in anthropology. If you want to get into a discussion of the cultural relativity of concepts like "respect for life", we can do that. The Clif notes version is what I've been saying and which you are manifestly refusing to listen to. There is no canonical definition of "respect for life".

Even if we limit ourselves to what the rule book says, nothing like "respect for life is in opposition to taking life".

Where is the list of stated good, evil, neutral, chaotic and lawful acts?

This is what I am talking about

Tri said...
Execution does not protect innocent life.
Execution does not respect life.
Execution does not show a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
Execution is not making a personal sacrifice to help others.

Execution has nothing to do with innocent life, no innocent life is involved in the execution.

Going through a trial, hearing witnesses and rendering a verdict demonstrate the respect for the life, so does offering opportunities for redemption.

This is also a dignified process (as opposed to torture)where the BBEG can say/do whatever.

IF the PC would rather not go through with the execution or feels bad that the BBEG was unwilling to atone, then yes there is a sacrifice. That issue may or maynot fit into the argument (ie not relevant to all cases, similar to preotect innocent life not being relevant to execution).