Search Posts
While I whole heartedly beleive everything I read on the internet, I struggle with people thinking statistics are a reliable source of information about anything. I even read that as many as 80% of statistics were made up on the spot.
what are your thoughts on my fave alignment? i'm thinking it roughly correlates to lawful evil. Alignment: Selfish-Aberrant
....cough cough....... BY THE MOON WHO IS MY GOD I HAVE HAD AN EPIPHANY!! I AM A BELEIVER!!!! [i] ...then run like buggery... [i/]
1. I agree whole heartedly that a perceived threat is a threat that will cause a distraction and therefore open the subject up to attacks of opportunity regardless of the source. 2. I dont like the flip side of this argument that a real threat that is percieved as a non threat is ignored and therefore does not count in flanking stiuations. context:
--dragon--
the dragon knows that I am a threat based on previous attacks.
is the dragon flanked? I'd say yes, but what follows are some of the arguments that are trying to be justified rightly or wrongly in this thread. Scenario 1;
Scenario 2;
Scenario 3 (the one that bothers me most);
this trails into a topic shift about shooting into melee regardless of if you have allies involved that is also a cause of grief.
blah blah blah ... the sky is a background. typically a blue one. also being stealthy implys avoidance of these "breaking" scenario's as a risk treatment.
...and thats my second and last 2c. you may all now return to your roll-playing
..........so your walking along a lonely path and you see something you like in a corn field. you stumble aimlessly in the wrong direction lost and find yourself at a farm. somewhat unsuprisingly there is a farmer and some farm appropriate animals there, like a dog and some chickens, dare i suggest even a cow? OH MY GOD ITS A THEIF KILL IT. BURN IT WITH FIRE!!!! I'm less sure this is the players fault than it is the DM's.
some minor changes as to how i remember it, and i'll try to keep the flames to low.....
objection to the term murder your honour :P
everybody did the bolt with no regard for the consequences of the paladin. good/neutral, lawful/neutral/chaotic, one and all ran for the hills. we could discuss the impacts of this to their alignments but i deliberately didnt bring it up in the session, mal deserved whatever he had coming.
it was amazing to watch the mix of gobbos and kobolds gang up on the heavily armoured dwarf as he kicked off trip attept after trip attempt, grapple attempt after grapple, freeing the horses in the hope they'd scatter the greenskins wading through the masses at first level knowing every pan at -4 to strike due to being an improvised weapon was just as likely to hit as the spears doing subdual, eventually to be mortally wounded to -4 hit points before the gobbo leader healed me and declared i be hung. The gobbo's returned my body to the city with a request that they be allowed to conttinue their shanty town with taxes being paid etc. the Matrician said no. So then the encampment made themselves scarce.... as would I if i had just returned a citizen to the state after he'd been hung....
ahhh yes i felt it only fair that i keep warning them as I wildly swung my great axe lethally.... outnumbered but brave to the end. so no decision needed by the DM as to weather the pallys actions were unpaladin like.... issue swept under the carpet till the next time :) keep em guessing hey!!
........and I have taken a halfling rogue/halfling druid racial substitution all the way baby!! I love this group, every session is an adventure both in game and out. my love forever to everyone involved
Oh goody...and just for the attitude we herein volunteer Kobold Cleaver to write to Kobold Quarterly and offer them the list of 101 Items for Peasants.magic beans are on twice so I figured the repeat doesn't count.Ah, good. That means it's an even 101! Or...odd, but...huh. there's a few concept dupes (spontaneous outhous a couple of times for example) i suggest a few more might be needed.... but my creative skills are somewhat shortened due to the birth of my second daughter.... thanks for the laughs though!!
If I were wearing Pathfinder shoes in a street fight, I . . . . ( please fill in the blank. ) If I were wearing Pathfinder shoes in a street fight, I . . . . would be deeply concerned for my priorities in life.
sounds like you have a great campaign happening there. Don't know how much help this may be??
I'm just going to leave this here
I think the reason no one can agree on alignment outside of the games is simple, it doesn't exsist in the same fashion in RL. Take me, I am a dedecated father, a loving loyal husband, and a hard worker who has loyalty to my company. I do not steal, use drugs(at all actually), and try to be nice to others. Sounds LG so far. I also have temper problems will not hesitate to beat the crap out of a person who curses at me and am prone to violence when pushed. I have been in jail, have pummeled my wifes ex boyfriends when they wouldn't leave her alone, and wouldn't hesitate to leave my job if they screwed me over. So what would that make me? I like the alignment system in game, Heros should be Heros, just as evil should be evil. At a certain point you have to clearly define good/evil in game, and the Paladin should always be good, and behave as such. It seems i have one last thing to say. I try and make my characters as close to how a RL would act, the alignment adds to the flavour and helps define the action in a situation where i the player would act differently. Getting all Dr Phil for a moment. I would like to think I am Neutral good, as I am sure most people would. INSERT JUSTIFICATION FOR TL;DR HERE: Spoiler:
Why Neutral? Well I hanve a basic understanding of what is right and wrong, and what the laws of the land are, and have a self defined set of criteria that tells me when an action would be the wrong thing to do. Example: I think cheating on your significant other is wrong. And yet I have done it. this gives me chaotic tendancies. I have never murdered anyone, this gives me lawful tenadancies. However despite wanting to think that I am Neutral good I accept that I am Chaotic because the things i do in life are more inti establisment than they are because they are the right thing to do. Why Good? well who doesnt want to think they are good? I mean really to accept that you are evil is not something many people would think of being oputside the realms of Charlie Manson and his Ilk. But again reality isnt that simple (and nor should it be for my characters). I know that many of the things i do are non good. I am a father of a gorgeous young girl, a second due any day and i would never do anything to harm them. but harm avoidance is not good behavior. I am brining them up in the way i think is best but this doesnt mean i go out of my way to give them a silver spoon in their mouths. on the flip side i do no evil. sure i make racist jokes fat people jokes have killed my share of ants with a magnifying glass, but would never torture a human etc. so in reality when i take a good look at myself i'd say i'm neutral. TL;DR Alignments can be applied to real life if you are prepared to be honest with yourself and really investigate what they mean to you.
You are correct on Both counts there. however forget you've seen the series and read any material on the characters you can find in half an hour online (even if it is only wikipedia if you can be bothered going further) and see if you come to the same conclusions as i have. I'm jumping back out of the frypan for a while, very interested to see where this goes, especially since noone can agree on what alignment means at all when it comes to non D&D characters.
really?? for me malorie conjures up the perfect chocolate haired doe eyed godess....
i think we will continue to disagree here. you're saying that loosely following a code is lawful where i am saying that their code is deliberately waived when required so let me try a different angle. quoting ObiWan of/to anakin/vader "You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them. You were to bring balance to the force, not leave it in darkness.” the key words here: bring balance to the force. not leave it in darkness or overwhelm it with light. balance. this is the most neutral word ever.
Exactly. to see a grey area is to be influenced by chaos. to seldriss: the point i was suggesting about the non-sith (both good and bad) is that their good/evil defines their approach to action. as opposed to doing what is in line with any particular set of rules which are to be obeyed by the order. consider Anger, a dark side trait: or Wrath as it would be defined by the church (one of the 7 deadly sins and therefore EVIL). it is possible to act lawfully or chaotically while being wrathful, and it is possible to be lawful/chaotic while avoiding being wrathful. thus it is the good/evil trait that defines the jedi far more than the lawful/chaotic nature of their action. of course individuals may be very lawfully inclined, but jedi on the whole are not bound to be lawful. Think of Quai-gon Vs Obi Wan vs Anakin. lawful/neutral/chaotic?? all were jedi. Perhaps Quaigon may be considered paladin like but then why did he continue to allow obiwan to be chaotic?
One can be a "rebel" and still be Lawful. Lawful does not mean mindlessly following the laws. As others have said, Lawful might be better described as Order. i could not agree more. i just dont think that jedi are lawful. they have no concern for law or even a code of action, that goes for both the the "good" jedi and the "evil" be they sith or otherwise. no wait thats not as true as it could be, the sith have a tighter code of action than any other set of jedi and so are closest to lawful. the others are neutral at best. the good jedi do what is good which by default makes them honour their masters/teachers etc. the sith are forced to train under a master and are punished for not doing so.
Paladin examples?Rooster Cogburn, in True Grit. from wikipedia: Because of his drunkenness and questionable tactics with firearms, aging U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn has been stripped of his badge.i lol'd
Carpenters powers are granted to him not through prayer or by his god but by Spoiler:
the nail from christsd crucifix embedded in his sword in fact there is a member of his knightly order who preffesses to be
Spoiler:
AGNOSTIC
again from wikipedia: Murphy is something of vigilante.
Fraser has had an unfortunate recurring relationship with Victoria Metcalf, a bank robber with whom he became infatuated after pursuing her into and then helping her survive a lengthy winter storm. After the storm was over, Fraser turned Victoria in to the authorities and she was sent to prison. She later resurfaced in Chicago, blackmailing Fraser into helping her use the money from the bank robbery to buy jewels on the black market, threatening to have Ray Vecchio framed for corruption and finally Jedi surely they are neutral good. in eps 1-3 they were with the incumbent, 4-6 with the rebels. good determins what their code will accept. i consider them more akin to the games Druids.
Just popping by to say I've been reading along, lots of great points and interesting back and forwards.
GREAT!! as it is ruled, so shall it be, i love role playing, and during my times as a DM i have rolled less than 100 dice. VIVA LA ROLE PLAYING!! also just haad a chat with Zamboyoshi:
In before Nazi Killer Super Heros.
If anyone has any questions about the campaign setting, feel free to ask me, and I shall answer as best I can. Until our DM gets in here (which I'll ask him to do just not at 230AM current time) I'll throw a few answers as much as I know them. The party hasnt really been thrown against racial types this borderline before... all my comments will have NOTHING to do with the paladins opinions, his time for speaking is over as tempted as the player is to further input. Also the player is more than happy for the DM to disagree with what the player says, its his homebrew and his choice. Can Goblinoids be considered innocent. The answer would be yes. the same as humans, animals and plants. Good and evil are mutually exclusive to innocence/guilt on a case by case basis. Obviously Evil objects are more likely to be guilty at some point because laws are loosely based on good behaviour. Heavily; as are diplomacy, etc. And yes if memory serves there was a roll made. Acts of evil are deliberate, knowing acts. the player presumes that evil is defined as being for pleasure or personal gain in a manner that is deliberwately bereft of good intent. in short an evil act cannot be an accident. This encounter was very deliberately worded that as avatars of the law the punishment was to be determined by the characters so long as when they got back to town they could justify their actions. To answer the question explicitly, the death penalty is known nto have been applied many times particularly for acts of treason. it is also known to be a penalty for escalated minor penalties. The goblin markets are already accused of stealing from the king by charging a toll on his road, however that is what the party was sent to discover, so is likely but undetermined. Cost to the state for imprisoning a tribe of gobbos may or maynot come into consideration against the weight of theor crimes, at this point the player is unable to comment on precisely on how this works. When the player played a justicar, all criminals were taken directly to prison where appropriate. if this was not possible, the home of the justicar was equipped with a very costly cell that could handle all varieties of inmate upto and including medium to large demons. I'm sure the watchman will be available to comment soon, hopefully he can shed more light than I can for you :)
From a fanboy perspective, Robotech by Palladium. ...............In short, this is one of the worst licensed RPGs I've come across. Shame, I loved its alignment and skill systems but the experiance model was a little haphazard. As for the mech not living upto the series ... ever heard the phrase "but the books were so much better" ... i can deal with the fanboy. My Fave setting was espionage with cyclones in the congo. EDIT: to stay on topic, StarWars d6. luck dice was cool but everything else dated FAST
...stay on target...stay on target... and yet i missed it.... MUST>>>LURK>>>>MOAR
... I'm a little lost at where some of the hostility is coming from. some interesting points were (re)raised though and i think i'll take one last post to summarise the actions as the paladin sees them, rightly or wrongly then i'm going to take a back seat to any further comments that occur. Goblins are the equivalent of weapon carrying Chimpanzees, only they have the cheek to try to sell goods to the greater species. They are not aable to be the targets of racism as they are just animals. This particular group of animals was suspected of murdering humans and selling their items. One of the Chimps was found in possession of an extreeme value (over 90 years human wages worth, the equivalent of an amazing house with change, can you imagine a chimp owning a 3,6 million dollar home based on a 40,000 average wage?). The Paladin found this to be overwhelming evidence of deception, either the gobbos killed the humans or were in possession of stolen items and sentenced the gobbo with the items to summary execution. this is a punishment that is acceptable for humans who commit this crime and innocent until proven guilty does not apply. It is unfortunate that the paladin felt that lethal force was required, since the law does not apply to the lesser species, lawful punishment should not have been needed, and the paladin is very sad for these actions. however, if he had not acted in this way there were 2 possible outcomes. either he leaves it well alone and does not recover the illegally gained possessions, or risks an all out fight with all the gobbos possibly then needing to do lethal damage to multiple opponents. Neither of these would have served the good of the dead humans. i have previously discussed the merits of a detect evil and quote myself here: Spoiler:
he may have been given the items by the killer and accepted them without knowing their source, if he bought them from the killer this act would not be evil, but then other questions come into play lioke, where did the gobbo get the money from in the first place especially if he paid a reasonable price (900gp) or is it a standard arrangement and each knows what the other party does, which would be evil. fact is: possession of stolen items is a crime. This extends to all kill it if it is evil scenarios which I dont think is a paladins obligation at all as I have also mentioned. Naturally as a player I am quite attached to the character. As I beleive all good players should, I have a desire to keep the game fair fun and interesting. The character will take any prize or punishment given him for his action. As a player I feel satisfied that I have been able to take actions that were justifiable even if they are wrong and in so act as my character would and keep that as seperate to how I would act as a person. oncfe more thanks to all for their comments :D
I'll say this. The paladin in question definitely didn't commit a neutral act. I respectflly diagree with the insinuation that it was evil.
I fear I'm about to ruffle some feathers, so I shall premise this with I agree wholeheartedly with alot of what everyone said, it is interesting that viewpoint of even some key commenters have swung about a couple of times, mostly out of empathy or a lack thereof for the paladin before he opened his intelligence 10 mouth. Our table sees the rules as a set of guidelines to be lent on if things get a bit out of hand and for that (amongst a million other reasons) I really value our DM. This discussion I know has made me grow as a player which is all anyone can ask for and i hope everyone else has gained from it as well and therefore all our games will be richer for it.so onto the feather ruffling. in relation to the above quotes, i think they are all wrong.
Spoiler: to be selfish is not evil, it is in fact difficult for humans to do either evil or good at either extreeme. pick any truely good act and there are an equal number of evilo acts that a human would find just as hard to do. what is easy is to be lazy, apathetic, or nonchalant. granted I am not a scholar of international renown but nor am I a deliberate and knowing rebel against the laws of the powers that be whos influence preys upon the weak of mind and weak of spirit. I'll let you guess which of the quoted that refers to most, It's not as obvious as first appears.
For someone supposedly so willing to be proven wrong, there seems to be a lot of fallacious logic flying around which is beginning to possibly impune that claim. i'll admit alot of the "logic" used is serving more purposes than purely relating to the actions of the character so please excuse any that you think dont deserve discussion. perhaps what I am about to say is an example of such, but it is still of interest to me. It seems that the paladin in question chose to when unsure of whether to follow the law or do what is good, executed the law (rightly or wrongly and/or preemptively, allthough the law has no burden of proof, ie innocent untill prooven guilty does not apply).
Evil is: the intent to cause harm for pleasure. the paladin took no joy in his action. therefore his act was not evil. i agree with the majority of what you say. i have a further point to raise: the dwarf was not being racist. a gobbo is not of the same species. call me a hair splitter but someone had to say it, wish it wasnt me.
since we are talking about a dragon eating people and no motivation being given as to why then a judgment cannot be made as to whether the act was good or evil. Evil is: the intent to cause harm for pleasure. the paladin took no joy in his action. therefore his act was not evil. if elves had no rights and actions to cause them harm were done for the pleasure of the character this would be evil. but to be fair their rights mean nothing in the determination of good and evil. they do have sway in whether or not actions are lawful/chaotic. Martin Luther King Jr was an agent of chaos. not an agent of evil. EDIT: and for the record, a detect evil would have proven nothing. if he came up as non evil he could have bought or otherwise procured the items without having done an evil act. if he had have come up evil, it still doesnt mean he knowingly commited the crime i accuse him of.
... hook, line and sinker buddy. vampires are undead, therefore of lesser status in the world and undeserved of judicial process... like straud or dracula or whoever... but what of the "Blade" scenario or any good character with the (half?)vampire template? demons and devils... if they are just fallen angels surely the reverse is possible..... drow, minotaur etc... if i come accross one of these under suspicious circumstances i'll be doing the same thing. a drow (for example) is found with weapons and armour that arnt of the under dark, and a family is known to have died in the vicinity: measure his strength and if I can take him I do.
Is the same true of a Vampire? Should you wait until you have proof that it is not a benefit to society before attacking it? and then when you do attack it should you declare it to the Vamp before stiking? where do you draw the line....... especially in a setting where there are no solid lines.... I've played a justicar. He fought in the biggest war the realm has ever seen. he was slain by a balor if memory serves and despite being very dear to the palyers heart chose not to be resurrected as the way of the law of the universe is that things die. it was probably the most dificult decision i have had to make as a player in relation to the actions of my character. sweet class justicar, but not this characters style at all. nor is vigilante, too personal. ooooh and thanks for the compliment Tronos...I think :D
So pre-emptive strike = badAgainst a non-aggressive being and based on "evidence" that would charitably be described as flimsy, yes. the paladin viewed the action as being required to be preemptive due to the circumstances in which the situation unravelled. was it his most shining moment as an upholder of good? no.
just because the paladin beleives the dragon acted in a way that is true to its nature doesnt mean that it wouldnt defend the humans. in this way we can see a motive for two lawful good entities to have reason to fight. something i find dreadfully lacking in the game.
dammit, backtracked too far..... glad to see we are coming to a consensus. the paladin is juvenile and will grow. it is highly dependant on whether the city determins his actions to be justified. the red dragon.... the paladin would not hesistate to beleive that it is LG with LN tendancies as the humans may not have caused him or his species any harm and therefore no evil was done and the actions were in line with the way of nature.
No Probs Tronos, I feared I may have tainted the discussion by letting everyone know that I was the paladin in question, but Its also interesting the number of posts that proclaim that I obviously wanted to keep the potions. Only you are aware of the 7 virtues I am questing to attain and the method I am using to track positive and negative examples of attainment so I can see why they may think this way. To all:
In relation to the metagaming idea of "well he died with one hit so he must have been low level": while this was discussed afterwards, it is a circular and counter intuitive scenario, particularly if you condsider the possibility of a low constitution creature potentially with the puny flaw meaning that they did not neccessarily gain any HP per level and may have been a level 20 character if <10 HP is the only defining factor. The paladin judged the gobbo as not having had significant worldly experiance in order to be able to make such items due to a complete lack of the accoutrements of one with such experiance. granted a cauldron is a relatively expensive item, but outside this there was no indication of social status or wealth of the individual that would suggest he had seen the kind of life that would give a being the experiance required to create such a varied and potent array of potions. To the paladin, the only real question at play is the one originally asked by Tronos. Are gobbo's worthy of treatment as though they were human/dwarf/etc?
... however, the goblin is lesser than the paladin and so the law of nature is returned. you have made me smile. and in that you have done enough hehehe the combat was a success, it was neccessary due to the numbers of other gobbos nearby that it be done in a way that would not cause alarm. i would have prefered one to one combat face to face, however this was not an option that was available. having said it was a success, the way in which it was a success matters not when defining whoo was the superior being. it is certain that gobbos are not always evil in this setting. the combat bonus does apply in this setting, although no game play has given a reason for its existance and as a dream dwarf the typical greenskin bonuses do not apply to the paladin. the incarnation of the god this dwarf follows beleives dwarves to be a superior species in comparison to gobbos and this is backed up by the law of the land, however dm judgement is yet to come.... the player knows he is treading into dubious waters by allowing the character to act as it has. the character thinks it is doing what is right. the character will naturally accept any punishment if found guilty.
hehehehe interesting, however paladin #1 is of a species who is subject to the laws of the land and so would be treated with the decency granted to citizens of the land.
yes raoul is the paladins player, who is very open to be proved wrong as it would in a way complete the angle of attaining a the seven virtues (the opposite of the seven sins) and this would just make for a plot spike to refocus his efforts. that said; i stand by the actions of the dwarven paladin. if the kitten killed a human in order to resell his goods, killing it would neither be evil nor non lawful. the goblin may indeed have been better than the original owner, however, the goblin is lesser than the paladin and so the law of nature is returned.
When an explicit punishment is in place, to not enforce it is non-lawful behaviour. where there is a sliding scale of penalties like the real world there is room for compassion and therefore goodness while remaining lawful. outside of this, punisment can be delt in a good way if it deals less harm to the greater number of beasts rather than a small amount of harm to a significant portion of the "community".
truth and honour to the gobbo are not burdens of the paladin because it is a creature that does not deserve them. just as any vermin of the realm is undeserved of it. rats, monkeys, cattle, dogs etc do not deserve to be held to the same standards of truth and honour as a dwarf or a human. if the scenario had swapped all the gobbos for chimpanzees would we be having this discussion?
nature is lawful as i pointed out. as for whether it is good, it depends on the intent of the user, like anything else. as for the law of the land not being lawful good..... not the paladins problem. he just needs to enforce it while doing as much good as possible. in this case doling out legal punishment upon the gobbo who was in possession of the excessive amount of potions that were most likely stolen from the missing persons.
What horrible splat book are you talking about? this is also relevant to my interests.....
....anyone seen "Otto: or up with dead people"? no spoiler if i told you it was about zombies who are "accepted" by humans as part of life and have jobs etc. spool forward to some graphic penis in abdomen gay porn then complete the movie feeling entirely unsatisfied that it was an excuse to artfully discuss the nature of some humans who exist their way through life.
hmmmmmmmmm interesting
i fail to understand why compassion is a lawful behaviour. the law does not dictate compassion, instead it sets typically explicit and sometime extreemly non-compassionate rules for punshment of crime. example, steal a loaf of bread, lose your hand. is this compassionate? one would need to display elements of chaotic behavior to not dole out legal punishment.
proof isnt a paladins burden. the concept of innocent until proven guilty is not applicable to the laws of the realm, nor is it the way of nature. the fact that you refer to the possessions of the goblin as being loot indicates exactly why the paladin beleived what he did.
Surely a persons actions should be judged based on how they acted with the knowlege they had at the time?? a gobbo is not a person they are animals. the paladin does not suffer this moral complaint.
First Apologies to Lord Fyre, I should have rrealised that the native american vs white american relationship at the time would have been simmilar to when australia was declared Terra Nullis by the first white settlers.
although some questioning was done (the gobbo claims he can make them himself) it is irrelevant as the paladin does not beleive a gobbo with no obvious signs of living a profitable life should have in excess of 900gp of items of any type. let alone that ANY gobbo should be able to own 90 years worth of human wages in items.
Since when is stereotyping unlawful or nongood in D&D?? what do PCs do when they see a vampire/drow/centaur/nymph/angel/avatar of their god?
fair comment. but what is right? this paladin beleives that the way of natural selection and nature generally is right. it follows distinct laws that are unbaised by the thoughts of "man" and is for all intents and purposes pure.
the paladin would certainly state that he worked within the law of the land to do what was right I.E. return the valuable item to the populace that was most likely the origional owner since the recent deaths on the road probably mean the actuall owners are no longer able to receive them. In relation to least woe... had the level one paladin done any less he would have needed to bring more woe to the entire camp.
Lord Fyre's example is another where the victim of the killing is of a race/species that is assumed to be of equal value as a being as the killer.
the Paladin would argue that goblinoids even though humanoid, are NOT in anyway considered peers or equals, and in fact have the same or lower status than animals, therefore while killing one for no reason is a dubious act it is not unlawful. In this case the paladin had a reason, even though it may have been based on "evidence" that was some what "circumstantial". Further at worst it could be considered a neutral act and not evil. there was no torture nor undue/prolonged harm caused by the act. Infact by minimising the implications to the rest of the goblins immediate health (also being sllain) by attempting to bring justice for the potential crimes in a quiet manner he reduced the amount of harm needing to be caused. At this point (if only because it has not been addressed earlier to my recollection) it should be noted that the paladin in question is a LEVEL 1 character and subduing the goblin any other way would have significantly increased the risk of the situation considerably.
Exactly. Judge, jury, executioner. And further; MAKER OF LAWS when needs be. Not that any of this legal non-sence means anything if the creature killed is unter menchen. If it was a lion that had slain a family, it would be brought to justice also.
I disagree, for the lion scenario above, however human brigand as also being OK is an interesting gedanken.
cheers big ears :P
I like the Judge Dredd similarity... does it also stretch to MAKING the law so long as he can justify his/her actions? |
