Ack, my post got eaten!

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.

I am sure there is not. First, Spells take up a majority of the rules. A majority of spells have no combat implications at all, or are non-lethal. Second, all the rules that apply to combat also apply to non-lethal comabt. Killing is not a requirement.

Generally speaking this "overcoming challenges" thing you speak of is correct. However, as this is a game and [b]we're all a tad sociopathic[b] 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.

Maybe that is how you play, but not me. If that is how everyone played I would just quit and play an MMORPG.

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)

I have no interest in discussing real world ethics. That just leads to flame wars.

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).

So your personal interpretation of the lawful proceedings of an execution is acceptable proof that execution is a Good act according to the SRD?

Execution has nothing to do with innocent life, yes, which means it cannot be Good.

The reason a PC would rather not go through with it is because it is a Neutral act. It does not make the act a personal sacrifice. The person is still killing another creature. He sacrifices nothing but his conscience, because he is not doing Good.

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.

Nope, just the ones that attack me personally.

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.

You're calling the dictionary "biased" when it comes to defining words? Really? I don't know how to respond to that.

Your background may be in medicine, but my education (one of my degrees anyway) is in anthropology.

Actually, my education is in engineering, economics, art, philosophy, and medicine. I have two doctorates, how many do you have?

If you want to get into a discussion of the cultural relativity of concepts like "respect for life", we can do that.

I guess you missed my disclaimer...

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".

Hence, why we use the only one we can use with regards to the rules. The actual definition as defined by the English language.

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

Perhaps you should tell me what the word respect means to you. Since the dictionary is inadequate in your opinion.

So your personal interpretation of the lawful proceedings of an execution are acceptable proof that execution is a Good act according to the SRD?

That is a quandary isn't it? The definition of 'good' is that you followed a lawful procedure that ended in someone's execution? Huh.

All those Nuremburg guys were 'good,' 'cause they were just following lawful orders to exterminate those that their system didn't even regard as having human rights, since they were considered sub-human. Who knew?

Replace 'non-human Orc / Tiefling' with 'sub-human Jew / Gypsy' and I think the question of whether it's 'good' or not to kill people for being different answers itself.

I am saying that there is more than one way to understand terms like respect for life and concern for dignity.

I am saying that innocent life does not enter into the argument at all b/c innocent life is not at issue in the case of BBEGs execution.

The reason the PC would rather not have to execute the individual is it is the (nearly final) solution not b/c the act is not good, the PC would prefer that BBEG accept redemption/atonement.

Tri said
So your personal interpretation of the lawful proceedings of an execution is acceptable proof that execution is a Good act according to the SRD?

Yes.
That it fullfills the respect for life and concern for dignity of the BBEG.
Yes.

You can house rule however you want. No one is stopping you.

Please quote where the phrase "respect for life" is defined in the rule book, else accept that you are talking out of your ass.

I am saying that there is more than one way to understand terms like respect for life and concern for dignity.

In the real world, of course. But for the rules of a game? The least biased way is to use the actually language they are written in.

I am saying that innocent life does not enter into the argument at all b/c innocent life is not at issue in the case of BBEGs execution.

Then why did you bring it up? You were the one who SPECIFICALLY said we were leaving out the term "innocent".

The reason the PC would rather not have to execute the individual is it is the (nearly final) solution not b/c the act is not good, the PC would prefer that BBEG accept redemption/atonement.

Not true. It depends on their alignments.

Tri said

So your personal interpretation of the lawful proceedings of an execution is acceptable proof that execution is a Good act according to the SRD?

Yes.
That it fullfills the respect for life and concern for dignity of the BBEG.
Yes.

Well, it's your houserule. Do what you wish.

I am sure there is not. First, Spells take up a majority of the rules. A majority of spells have no combat implications at all, or are non-lethal. Second, all the rules that apply to combat also apply to non-lethal comabt. Killing is not a requirement.

In categories, the utility of the core pathfinder spells overwhelmingly move towards combat, as there are a decent percentage of spells that hurt people, spells that defend from hurting and spells that aid you in hurting other people. Ok there are some spells that help you move faster, and some that give you food, but only possibly the ones that feed you aren't really useful inside combat.

Maybe that is how you play, but not me. If that is how everyone played I would just quit and play an MMORPG.

The phrasing there is somewhat inflamatory but understandable. I am commenting on the base structure of D&D as an RPG not making a remark on your sensibilities of gaming. D&D's roots is in minature tactical combat simulation, it is now, er, much the same but with more narrative elements. Other RPGs are different, but generally this topic of the highly difficult question of "good" and "evil" only comes up in D&D because there are in game terms for it.

I have no interest in discussing real world ethics. That just leads to flame wars.

Uh, this is what this is essentially devolving into because of the disconnect between real world ethics and the assumption that there is an in game term for the ethic, which is somehow distinct. This is why its so hard to discuss this at all in the real world because there is no one unified understanding of good or evil other than "stuff that helps me" and "stuff that hurts me" which there is pointedly only referenceable via your personal point of view.

The reason the PC would rather not have to execute the individual is it is the (nearly final) solution not b/c the act is not good, the PC would prefer that BBEG accept redemption/atonement.

Tri said
So your personal interpretation of the lawful proceedings of an execution is acceptable proof that execution is a Good act according to the SRD?

Yes.
That it fullfills the respect for life and concern for dignity of the BBEG.
Yes.

No, it does not. Killing him is giving up on his redemption and atonement.

As best I can see, this is just another argument of viewpoints. The same reason people can't agree on if capital punishment is morally acceptable, the same reason we have these alignment arguments.

The SRD does not spell out 'these acts are X' it says 'X tends to be this'. So no one can state definitively what any one component is.

You state that intentions make the act, I state that the act makes the act. 'Ends justifies the means' vs. 'the end is not worth the means'.

In categories, the utility of the core pathfinder spells overwhelmingly move towards combat, as there are a decent percentage of spells that hurt people, spells that defend from hurting and spells that aid you in hurting other people. Ok there are some spells that help you move faster, and some that give you food, but only possibly the ones that feed you aren't really useful inside combat.

Just becomes something can be used as a weapon does not mean that is it's only, or even primary use. A majority of divinations, illusions, enchantments, abjurations, transmutations, and conjurations can be used in completely non-aggressive ways.

The phrasing there is somewhat inflamatory but understandable. I am commenting on the base structure of D&D as an RPG not making a remark on your sensibilities of gaming.

Then use terms like "I" and "me" and "my opinion" instead of sweeping generalizations.

D&D's roots is in minature tactical combat simulation, it is now, er, much the same but with more narrative elements.

For some, not all.

Uh, this is what this is essentially devolving into because of the disconnect between real world ethics and the assumption that there is an in game term for the ethic, which is somehow distinct. This is why its so hard to discuss this at all in the real world because there is no one unified understanding of good or evil other than "stuff that helps me" and "stuff that hurts me" which there is pointedly only referenceable via your personal point of view.

It does not need to devolve if people can be mature about it.

Tri said
No, it does not. Killing him is giving up on his redemption and atonement.

Not completely, in PF we can speak w/dead & resurrect/reincarnate).

And there is also the idea of unredeemable (like an expired coupon) (in game terms, not making a leap into the real world there).

I still contend that the main thing is what is the meaning of

respect for life
&
concern for dignity

Beyond just the meanings what do these acts look like. I think we are in a form ve. function debate.

What is the function of X
and what form does X take.

LilithsThrall wrote:

else accept that you are talking out of your ass.

Sigh....

Quote:

Please quote where the phrase "respect for life" is defined in the rule book,

"Respect for life" is not a game term. Hence, why we use the next simpliest, most logical source, the meaning in the dictionary.

Since you neglected to comment on anything else on my previous post, I'll assume you concede those points.

You keep dodging. You've made several appeals to the rule book, but here you finally make clear that the actual source you are using is the M-W dictionary (note, there are several different dictionaries, there is no -the- dictionary).

And now I can respond to a point you argued earlier because it is finally actually relevant. Yes, each and every dictionary is biased. I'm surprised that you've got a degree in Philosphy and you've never studied post-modernism or literary criticism(and, no, that's not an insult, I'm honestly surprised that post-modernism and literary criticism aren't part of an education in philosophy)?

Actually, I think the main thing is exactly what TOZ says. Some of us believe capital punishment is "right" and some think it is "wrong", but in real life we all believe we are "good".

You keep dodging.

Dodge what?

You've made several appeals to the rule book,

Yes, for the definition of GOOD. Since that IS defined by the rules.

but here you finally make clear that the actual source you are using is the M-W dictionary

Yes, for those terms NOT defined by the rules. That has been clear the whole time. Perhaps you should read my posts thoroughly before replying.

(note, there are several different dictionaries, there is no -the- dictionary).

Then YOU quote a different one. Then we could at least have a discussion!

So, we've finally made some progress now that you aren't trying to argue that your source is the rule book.

Source for what? Be specific.

Yes, each and every dictionary is biased.

The definition of "respect" and "life" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is biased? Really? PROVE IT!

I'm surprised that you've got a degree in Philosphy and you've never studied post-modernism or literary criticism(and, no, that's not an insult, I'm honestly surprised that post-modernism and literary criticism aren't part of an education in philosophy)?

There are many different degrees of Philosophy, as well as definitions of philosophy. I am surprised YOU didn't know that.

Since you still have not responded to my earlier points regarding the rules, I accept your concession.

This thread is getting heated. I recommend that everyone involved take a deep breath, think before posting, and remember an old adage, attributed to Mark Twain:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Just becomes something can be used as a weapon does not mean that is it's only, or even primary use. A majority of divinations, illusions, enchantments, abjurations, transmutations, and conjurations can be used in completely non-aggressive ways.

That's true. But that doesn't invalidate their primary purpose of laying the smackdown on things for XP.

Then use terms like "I" and "me" and "my opinion" instead of sweeping generalizations.

That is really the heart of the issue is it not? The only correlation we have on the issue is sweeping generalizations? Isn't that really the core of the problem of defining an action under terms like "innocent", "good" and "evil"?

D&D's roots is in minature tactical combat simulation, it is now, er, much the same but with more narrative elements.

-----
For some, not all.

Now that wasn't directed at you at all. I am talking about the pedigree of the origin of gaming which originated with Gygax and Arneson from the roots of a miniature tactical game to, a miniature tactical game (because with the evolution of the ability to produce prepainted plastic minatures it makes miniature collecting less hassle and more profitable), which is self evident if you look in a 3.5 core, or pathfinder. I was assume previous knowledge of the history of D&D was evident, or at least searchable through Wikipedia.

Uh, this is what this is essentially devolving into because of the disconnect between real world ethics and the assumption that there is an in game term for the ethic, which is somehow distinct. This is why its so hard to discuss this at all in the real world because there is no one unified understanding of good or evil other than "stuff that helps me" and "stuff that hurts me" which there is pointedly only referenceable via your personal point of view.

It does not need to devolve if people can be mature about it.

Which doesn't address the thrust of that paragraph at all? You can't describe an incomplete description of a term that in current philosophy or ethics is not used to describe much of anything, inside the narrative context of an RPG and then try to model that narrative context on real life using that incomplete description then get mad at people when they disagree with you.

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Moderator or not, no need to call us all fools.

A quote of a dead person can not call people names...

I will run home and tell everyone mark twain called me a fool...

One time the head developer of Master of Orion 3 called me up to chat about Master of Orion 3. I wish I had gave him a better answer.

That's true. But that doesn't invalidate their primary purpose of laying the smackdown on things for XP.

Who says that is their primary purpose?

That is really the heart of the issue is it not? The only correlation we have on the issue is sweeping generalizations? Isn't that really the core of the problem of defining an action under terms like "innocent", "good" and "evil"?

No, not in my opinion.

Now that wasn't directed at you at all.

How am I supposed to know?

I was assume previous knowledge of the history of D&D was evident, or at least searchable through Wikipedia.

I know it, and have been playing for almost 20 years. No one I've played with has played the way you describe.

In any case. You seem to be just making broad generalizations, I state they do not pertain to me, and then you say you weren't talking about me. Seems a rather pointless dialogue, so I'll just bow out.

Ross Byers wrote:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Moderator or not, no need to call us all fools.

I didn't call anyone anything.

A quote of a dead person can not call people names...

I will run home and tell everyone mark twain called me a fool...

Sigh....

I didn't call anyone anything.

Actually you did. Quoting a reference that infers people in a dicsussion are fools is insulting.

Hopefully you did not mean it as such.

form versus function debate.

It performs the function of "protect innocent life"
and "concern for diginity" and "respect for life"

Now from those functions what form can they take?

This thread is getting heated. I recommend that everyone involved take a deep breath, think before posting, and remember an old adage, attributed to Mark Twain:

"Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference."

Ross, thanks for the quote. I always enjoy learning new quotes from famous people - I'm kind of a buff for that kind of thing.

And, taking your advice, I'm dropping out of this argument.

form versus function debate.

It performs the function of "protect innocent life"
and "concern for diginity" and "respect for life"

Now from those functions what form can they take?

Well, according to some people (not me), it is impossible to define any of those terms, hence impossible to define function, and therefore impossible to define the form. Ultimately, the debate is impossible.

I agree with that. Is this the 7-8th alignment thread debate? At least that I have been involved in...

There will probably be another one or at least a new post on an old one later tonight anyway.

I agree with that.

So you agree the debate is impossible, but went on like you did anyway?

Well, Ross, I apologize. You were correct. Apparently we are all fools....

FatR wrote:

Nobody also said being the good guy mandated idiocy.

So having a respect for life, devotion to the welfare of others and a consideration for the dignity of all is being an "idiot"?

No, in part, because that's precisely the qualities that demand the treatment of the evildoers based on their crimes, not on their lack of willingness to die by the sword after living by the sword. You cannot truly have respect for life if you let known murderers off the hook. You cannot truly be devoted to welfare of others if you refuse to ensure it by eliminating known threats to society. You cannot truly be considerable of the dignity of all if you refuse to stop those who spit on it. PHB definition of Good, if you look at what it actually says, practically demands from you to dispatch evildoers. Note, that it's probably intentional, because killing things and taking their stuff is the core of DnD gameplay, after all.

So? Authority or not, good people (by the rules) would rather not kill people, guilty prisoner or otherwise.

"“Good” implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others. “Evil” implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master. " (c) 3.5 SRD. You must be blind to not notice that actually having listed Good traits demands from you to do your best to eliminate the ability of beings with listed Evil traits to act upon their tendencies. Which, within realities of DnD, generally means eliminating said beings (see just about any DnD adventure for proof). Note, that the description of LG states that being PHB-Good is perfectly compatible with punishing the guilty.

Stupid or not, thems the rules!

Except, there are no such rules. Actual rules are geared towards justifying dealing with Evil by stabbing it right in the face.

Well, every single campaign I've run, it is evil, since every campaign I've run you can effectively imprison anyone.

And then you've ran campaigns that have very, very little in common with the usual image of DnD.

Tri said

No, it does not. Killing him is giving up on his redemption and atonement.

Not completely, in PF we can speak w/dead & resurrect/reincarnate).

And there is also the idea of unredeemable (like an expired coupon) (in game terms, not making a leap into the real world there).

I still contend that the main thing is what is the meaning of

respect for life
&
concern for dignity

Beyond just the meanings what do these acts look like. I think we are in a form ve. function debate.

What is the function of X
and what form does X take.

Nitpick, Speak with Dead doesn't let you have a discussion or conversation with the subject, just access his memories. And the subject being willing to resurrect does not mean he is also willing to atone.

Unfortunately, the meaning of respect for life and concern for dignity are subjective. We can argue it all day long. It's just another argument about what Lawful Good means. We will each interpret it in a way that validates and benefits our position. You want execution to be a Lawful Good act and will interpret as such. I want execution to be a Lawful Neutral act and will interpret as such. It's been quite fun, and I look forward to the next subject we disagree on.

Really, because I'm running a paizo AP right now so lets look at it maybe you've heard of it,

I run it currently. It, as written, mainly consists of party going into danger areas by themselves (even if they are not in wilderness) and killing - or, maybe, sometimes, sparing, if they can be milked for information - encountered beings as they see fit. Your argument is unsupported.

No, in part, because that's precisely the qualities that demand the treatment of the evildoers based on their crimes, not on their lack of willingness to die by the sword after living by the sword.

No? So you are disagreeing with yourself?

You cannot truly have respect for life if you let known murderers off the hook. You cannot truly be devoted to welfate of others if you refuse to ensure it by eliminating known threats to society. You cannot truly be considerable of the dignity of all if you refuse to stop those who spit on it.

Agreed, but you can also punish people without killing them.

PHB definition of Good, if you look at what it actually says, practically demands from you to dispatch evildoers.

Which definition of "dispatch" are you using. If you mean to "to kill with quick efficiency", then you are wrong by the rules as written. But feel free to use whatever houserules suit you.

Note, that it's probably intentional, because killing things and taking their stuff is the core of DnD gameplay, after all.

Where does it say that? I've never played that way. And if I was, I'd never play a good aligned character.

You must be blind to not notice that actually having listed Good traits demands from you to do your best to eliminate the ability of beings with listed Evil traits to act upon their tendencies.

Errr, no it doesn't. No where in the rule text does it say "Good should kill evil". I don't see. Assuming by elimiante you mean kill of course.

Which, within realities of DnD, generally means eliminating said beings (see just about any DnD adventure for proof).

Like I said, I've never played that way in the last 20 years.

Note, that the description of LG states that being PHB-Good is perfectly compatible with punishing the guilty.

Punish is not the same as kill.

I actually agreed with the following statement...

according to some people (not me),

Note, that it's probably intentional, because killing things and taking their stuff is the core of DnD gameplay, after all.

---

Where does it say that? I've never played that way. And if I was, I'd never play a good aligned character.

I think this is the core of the disconnect. Tell us what happens in one of your games, like what is the encounter structure like? Also how do you resolve the discrepancy in wealth/equipment in high level play if you don't take stuff from dead people, or er possibly tied up people.

Ross Byers wrote:

I didn't call anyone anything.

Actually you did. Quoting a reference that infers people in a dicsussion are fools is insulting.

Hopefully you did not mean it as such.

It was clearly a warning not to get dragged down into an emotional place where you regret the things you say towards another human being. I should know. I let it happen all the time.

I actually agreed with the following statement...

according to some people (not me),

I know. You said you agreed with my post, which included that statement. No need to post the same thing twice.

Tell us what happens in one of your games, like what is the encounter structure like?

There can be dozens if not 100s of possible encounter structures. The simplest is using obstacles that aren't alive to begin with (ie traps, undead, constructs), or the game considers non-sentient (vermin, plants).

Also how do you resolve the discrepancy in wealth/equipment in high level play if you don't take stuff from dead people, or er possibly tied up people.

Buried treasure. Rewards from people of importance who hired you. Gifts from thankful townfolk. Gifts from thankful celestial beings. Etc, etc.

I find it hard to believe this is a ground breaking idea. Have you really never played in a campaign with any versimilitude?

It was clearly a warning not to get dragged down into an emotional place where you regret the things you say towards another human being. I should know. I let it happen all the time.

That was clear from his post BEFORE the quote. The quote was unncessarily rude in my opinion, even if apparently true.

Loopy wrote:

It was clearly a warning not to get dragged down into an emotional place where you regret the things you say towards another human being. I should know. I let it happen all the time.

That was clear from his post BEFORE the quote. The quote was unncessarily rude in my opinion, even if apparently true.

I think that you're a bit over-sensitive.

I think that you're a bit over-sensitive.

I think you are a bit under-sensitive.

Loopy wrote:

I think that you're a bit over-sensitive.

I think you are a bit under-sensitive.

I think you're very contrary.

calvinNhobbes wrote:

Loopy wrote:

I think that you're a bit over-sensitive.

I think you are a bit under-sensitive.

I think you're very contrary.

I know you are, but what am I?

It's eerie that I thought about posting that myself.

Everyone in this thread is either evil or from Iowa.

CaspianM wrote:

Tell us what happens in one of your games, like what is the encounter structure like?

There can be dozens if not 100s of possible encounter structures. The simplest is using obstacles that aren't alive to begin with (ie traps, undead, constructs), or the game considers non-sentient (vermin, plants).

Quote:

Also how do you resolve the discrepancy in wealth/equipment in high level play if you don't take stuff from dead people, or er possibly tied up people.

Buried treasure. Rewards from people of importance who hired you. Gifts from thankful townfolk. Gifts from thankful celestial beings. Etc, etc.

I find it hard to believe this is a ground breaking idea. Have you really never played in a campaign with any versimilitude?

A fair chunk, many of them tend not to be in the D20 mould however. Ok, so to be good, many of your lethal game encounters are with things without agency or sentience, that's interesting, very limited but as you like. So for you killinging non-sentients is fine, but why? In the case of the undead or constructs you're clearly destroying someone's property.

But you see there, you have encounters, they are with things that are trying to kill you, core function of D&D. I'm glad your GM works around your hangups.

Its not really a ground breaking idea or anything. I'm aware you're trolling and am just curious as to how deep your troll cover is, that's really it.

Ok, so to be good, many of your lethal game encounters are with things without agency or sentience, that's interesting, very limited but as you like.

Limited? Perhaps for you. I guess I must have more creativity than the average person. Moreover, there is nothing stopping me from having encounters that are lethal but do not violate the definition of good, for example encounters focused on protecting innocent life.

So for you killinging non-sentients is fine, but why?

Because the rules say so.

Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.

In the case of the undead or constructs you're clearly destroying someone's property.

That would fall on the lawful-chaotic axis, not good-evil axis, therefore irrelevant in this discussion.

But you see there, you have encounters, they are with things that are trying to kill you, core function of D&D.

Are they trying to kill you? Or are you trying to kill them? Who is the aggressor? Defending a town against invading orcs is different than invading the lair of said orcs, killing them and robbing them. Would you not agree?

I'm glad your GM works around your hangups.

What makes you think I play good aligned characters? Moreover, any DM worth anything is there to make sure the players have fun, not to press their own agenda.

Its not really a ground breaking idea or anything. I'm aware you're trolling and am just curious as to how deep your troll cover is, that's really it.

I'm not trolling at all. I'm trying to have a discussion, if don't wish to have a mature discussion, then YOU are the one who is actually trolling.

trolls

but trolls regenerate, quick get fire.

here is the problem and at the core it becomes personal attacks.

Telling people your position is core/RAW and there position is homebrew/houserule IS a personal attack.

I agree that the act of execution can be any of the following
Good (situationally)
Evil (possibly)
Neutral (often)
Chaotic (rarely)
Lawful (usually)

That is why there is no list that designates acts A-R are good and acts S-Z are evil....

Telling people your position is core/RAW and there position is homebrew/houserule IS a personal attack.

I didn't make up the rules, they are there for everyone to read. If you choose not to, that is not a personal attack. That is your own ignorance and laziness.

I agree that the act of execution can be any of the following

Good (situationally)
Evil (possibly)
Neutral (often)
Chaotic (rarely)
Lawful (usually)

Like I said, you can use whatever houserules you want. I'm not really interesting in discussing your houserules.

TOZ and I have already shown the rules, with regard to how good is defined by the game, do not support your hypothesis, hence it is your own house rule. Play as you wish.

That is why there is no list that designates acts A-R are good and acts S-Z are evil....

No, the reason is because that would take up too much space and in the world of publishing, space is limited.

I accuse you of houseruling and being also both ignorant and lazy....
Still sounds like a personal attack to me.....

trolls

but trolls regenerate, quick get fire.

here is the problem and at the core it becomes personal attacks.

Telling people your position is core/RAW and there position is homebrew/houserule IS a personal attack.

I agree that the act of execution can be any of the following
Good (situationally)
Evil (possibly)
Neutral (often)
Chaotic (rarely)
Lawful (usually)

That is why there is no list that designates acts A-R are good and acts S-Z are evil....

There's a thing here mate, clearly calvinNhobbes despite his insistance to the otherwise is trolling, that being explained as as:

"Trolling is a game about identity deception, albeit one that is played without the consent of most of the players. The troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group. "
(Donath, Judith S. (1999). "Identity and deception in the virtual community". in Smith, Marc A.; Kollock, Peter. Communities in Cyberspace (illustrated, reprint ed.). Routledge. pp. 29–59. ISBN 9780415191401. http://books.google.com/books?id=210IkjyN8gEC. Retrieved 2009-03-24. )

I could be wrong, but calvinNhobbes doesn't acknowledge the difference between the RAW definition (that doesn't exist as its a partial guideline) and the real life guideline (that doesn't exist definitively but is more indepth and quite frankly a very difficult question to answer rationally, especially in the light of a clear universal understanding within the narrative context of the alignment system)

Also terminology wise, I think the terms, mature, and discussion might be used incorrectly. Firstly:

Maturity is a psychological term used to indicate that a person responds to the circumstances or environment in an appropriate and adaptive manner. This response is generally learned rather than instinctual, and is not determined by one's age. Maturity also encompasses being aware of the correct time and place to behave and knowing when to act with appropriate emotion for the situation.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maturity_(psychological))

and discussion:
–noun
an act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discussion)

with argument:
noun
1.an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument)

In regards to the discussion at hand, there is a definate axis of good and evil extent within the alignment system. In application, its purpose is to serve to note who acts in opposition to you in a D&D game. Killing people may be considered an evil act, but in a psychological sense, er anything in the game is a figment and exists purely for the entertainment of everyone at the table. Whether the narration follows a sociopathic or non sociopathic bent is up to the beings involved locally and not really the purview of talking heads on the internet. This narration can however be said to be similar in structure to real life insomuch as the information towards the nature of good and evil is biased by the point of view of the locality/person.