I'd say Carrot Ironfoundersson is an example of Lawful Stupid and exactly the person you want to have around if you need to be saved from the bad guys. There's room for some humor in role-playing the paladin's code, which may seem stupid to the other characters, while it is anything but that to the paladin.I wouldn't call him lawful stupid. Not at all. True, he can be naive sometimes. But beyond that dumb exterior is a mind that is probably more cunning and insightful than most. You never really know with Carrot.
Plus, part of his MO is not to be naive about the state of the worl, but to be so persuasive that others can't help to start seeing the world through his eyes.
Whether we call it naive or stupid, I think it's part of what makes the paladin special. I hoped it was clear I don't actually think Carrot (or the paladin) is stupid. (Although you have to admit Carrot's obtuse recital of the Laws and Ordinances at the Mended Drum in Guards! Guards! is pretty funny stuff.)
Arabella in The Female Quixote is another character with exactly the MO you describe. In spite of her "delusion" (the source of her empowerment), she proves to be both insightful and persuasive to those around her.
The "Oh no" reaction Carrot gets from the other members of the night watch is typical of some of the problems paladins cause in a gaming session. However, the fact that the paladin is "stupid" enough to risk his life trying to save you is exactly why you want him around. He's that good; he won't let you down.
I was trying to argue against the "lawful stupid" label not by outright rejecting it (if the shoe fits wear it) but by turning it on its head. I think you're right that it's all about perception. The paladin is undismayed by the negative perception of others, because he perceives the same things through a different lens.
But why save the undercover assignment for the NG rogue when a willing Paladin exists who has the Charisma to spike his Diplomacy skill, so as to be able to talk his way out of a bad situation?
Because undercover operations require you to eventually do things that compromise your principles. In my table's Absalom game, I play a NG vigilante that has had to do things like kill an innocent to save a hundred. Even if it is in the name of the greater good, she's convinced that every similar harsh decision she takes takes her soul a little bit closer to a dark place. There was a time when she was particularly under stress, she used to cry herself to sleep, went through a mental breakdown, and required regular Atonements just to stay sane and functional (we play that spell also like an actual relief of guilt from your conscience).
While I'm aware that this swashbuckling bard might be a bit too much of a bleeding heart, there are things just not meant for good people... and espionage is particularly a most dehumanizing profession if it is to be done effectively.
Having said this... yes, she totally would asociate with the infernalists to save the orphans (provided her Sense Motive told her they won't turn on her after the big bad demons were no longer an issue, that is). The greater good is the bottom line in this example IMHO, everything else are just exercises in "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
I do think that the advantages of playing a paladin are often overlooked. For instance, the fact that a paladin CAN'T lie means that anyone who knows that he's a paladin will trust his word implicitly. Most DMs really underplay what an advantage this would be.
"You lie!"
*raised eyebrow* "I am a Vulcan. I am incapable of lying."(Incidentally, a "lie by omission" is when you make a false statement whose components are true. "I'm not telling you anything" would never be a lie-by-omission).
Exactly.
It was just a jab at the name. He's not "Captain Mankind", but "Captain America". That name evokes titles like "Smiter of Commies" to me.
Cap isn't racist, either.
Last I checked "commies" wasn't a racial group, but please don't let that get in your way.
Last I checked "commies" wasn't a racial group, but please don't let that get in your way.
Why the snark and hostility?
It might have something to do with the implication, however unintended, that Captain America, being an American, was racist (and, by extension, that Americans are generally racist). I doubt that was your intention, but I could see where people read it as that.
Captain America, however, would be my general preference over Superman. Supes is way too powerful to be a legitimate hero. [sarcasm]Oh, yay! Superman defeated bank robbers armed with nothing more than hand guns. Such a trumph! [/sarcasm]
A) Again, CG and NG characters do not smuggle drugs for huts. I think he changed by the end of the trilogy, but at the start, he was a drug runner and smuggler (Han Solo).
B) Nothing about being willing to kill makes you chaotic (Batman). Paladin's are all too happy to kill evil or neutral characters who perform evil acts.
a) Transporting goods isn't a moral act at all. It's not like Han is selling the drugs, and he's certainly not forcing someone to take them. Just because he helps get them from point A to point B doesn't make him a villain. And it's not the only thing that defines him, either.
b) When has Batman ever killed anyone? In canon, I mean. Heck, even in Dark Knight Returns, he doesn't kill people - he may paralyze them or otherwise incapacitate them permanently, but he withholds the death penalty, even from the Joker. Batman is pretty much unwilling to kill, something that has caused him countless problems (if he'd just killed the Joker, Barbara Gordon would still be able to walk, and Jason Todd wouldn't have needed Superboy Prime to punch reality really hard in order to live).
|
A) Again, CG and NG characters do not smuggle drugs for huts. I think he changed by the end of the trilogy, but at the start, he was a drug runner and smuggler (Han Solo).
B) Nothing about being willing to kill makes you chaotic (Batman). Paladin's are all too happy to kill evil or neutral characters who perform evil acts.
a) Transporting goods isn't a moral act at all. It's not like Han is selling the drugs, and he's certainly not forcing someone to take them. Just because he helps get them from point A to point B doesn't make him a villain. And it's not the only thing that defines him, either.
b) When has Batman ever killed anyone? In canon, I mean. Heck, even in Dark Knight Returns, he doesn't kill people - he may paralyze them or otherwise incapacitate them permanently, but he withholds the death penalty, even from the Joker. Batman is pretty much unwilling to kill, something that has caused him countless problems (if he'd just killed the Joker, Barbara Gordon would still be able to walk, and Jason Todd wouldn't have needed Superboy Prime to punch reality really hard in order to live).
His very first appearances, Batman was armed with a handgun and frequently killed his generic gangster enemies. Of course, this was at the time when Superman would threaten to drop mobsters from a thousand feet up so superhero moral standards have changed a bit since then. Once they moved onto supervillains, Batman became more unwilling to kill as that would mean they couldn't use them again.
That said, in current continuity (if such a thing exists) Batman is fervently anti-killing. Extremely fervently, and has been since his first appearance in continuity.
Why the snark and hostility?
Last I checked "commies" wasn't a racial group, but please don't let that get in your way.
Just wondering what made you think to classify Cap as a racist (as opposed to say a nationalist)? You suggested it was his hate of "commies" (actually his real hate is for Nazis, but whatever). That obviously is not the reason you see Cap as a racist, since communists are not a racial group. Perhaps it is something else, I can't say. Perhaps it is like Disciple of Sakura suggested. Some see someone being pro-America (being Captain America and all), and think that equals racist. I can't say, but please don't let my lack of understanding stop you from calling him one for whatever reason you wish. That is all I meant.
(Indeed, a wicked soul might develop a spell or item that temporarily taints someone with an evil aura, sort of like an alignment-aura version of Nystul's Magic Aura, to add to the 'fun' and encourage smite-before-right Paladins to attack and kill other good-aligned people willy-nilly, and turn the surviving good and righteous people of the land to turn against their apparently psychotic 'white knights.')
That soul is called Asmodeus. His infernal healing spell lights you up under detect evil. The greater version lights you up as an evil priest.
But that's not even necessary in my games: If the paladin randomly smites people just because they're evil, he'll be a fallen paladin in no time, as he is acting with dishonour.
I like that way of thinking. I would use temporary outage of bonuses to deter the player from run-of-the-mill deviations from the paladin's code, but taking life outside the code seems to call for something drastic. A paladin who does this is being evil himself. It's evil to kill people for no reason.
Why the snark and hostility?
Last I checked "commies" wasn't a racial group, but please don't let that get in your way.Just wondering what made you think to classify Cap as a racist (as opposed to say a nationalist)? You suggested it was his hate of "commies" (actually his real hate is for Nazis, but whatever). That obviously is not the reason you see Cap as a racist, since communists are not a racial group. Perhaps it is something else, I can't say. Perhaps it is like Disciple of Sakura suggested. Some see someone being pro-America (being Captain America and all), and think that equals racist. I can't say, but please don't let my lack of understanding stop you from calling him one for whatever reason you wish. That is all I meant.
Captain America was conceived of as part of WWII propaganda. That's nationalist at its, but it's pretty hard to find any comics of the period which don't slip into racist caricature. I mean, have you seen the depictions of the The Yellow Claw?
Cappie has been updated with the times, and many of those embarrassing fights have now been swept under the rug or ignored. Kind of like Dazzler's original disco costume. But yeah, they existed, and are part of the character history.
This is also something the writers won't touch with a ten foot pole. It's all well and good to have Spidie get to shake hands with Obama. Now imagine the awkward conversation if Cappie got to talk to Norman Mineta: "Nice to meet you, Captain America. I first heard about you when I was a cubscout in the Japanese Internment Camps. Wow, we've sure come a long way, haven't we?"
Captain America was conceived of as part of WWII propaganda. That's nationalist at its, but it's pretty hard to find any comics of the period which don't slip into racist caricature. I mean, have you seen the depictions of the The Yellow Claw?
Cappie has been updated with the times, and many of those embarrassing fights have now been swept under the rug or ignored. Kind of like Dazzler's original disco costume. But yeah, they existed, and are part of the character history.
This is also something the writers won't touch with a ten foot pole. It's all well and good to have Spidie get to shake hands with Obama. Now imagine the awkward conversation if Cappie got to talk to Norman Mineta: "Nice to meet you, Captain America. I first heard about you when I was a cubscout in the Japanese Internment Camps. Wow, we've sure come a long way, haven't we?"
I'm not sure I understand you here. You seem to be saying that the writers made caricatures of various racial groups and so therefore, the character Captain America was racist. That doesn't quite make much sense. Was Captain America actually making racist comments in these comics? Or is it just that he wasn't a racial caricature (which I think in some people's minds he is actually).
EDIT: To put it another way, it seems by your argument you could call Sylvester the Cat a racist character simply because Speedy Gonzales and Slowpoke Rodriguez are racist caricatures.
I think it's the criticism of the concept and not of the character's personality (which are easy things to confuse when dealing with fictional characters). I'm sure Captain America is a swell guy, though I don't know him personally.
I think it's the criticism of the concept and not of the character's personality (which are easy things to confuse when dealing with fictional characters). I'm sure Captain America is a swell guy, though I don't know him personally.
Chuck Norris shook his hand once (it fell off), so he can't be that bad.
Keep in mind that the products that Han was smuggling out of Kessel were contraband because they weren't leaving through approved channels (i.e. the monopoly). Nowhere is it mentioned Kessel spices as being illegal at all...I believe they are simply rare cooking spices, and with a market as big as a galaxy, incredibly expensive, especially if you tighten up supply!
--------------
Know ALignment got removed? When did that happen? Eesh. They still have Undetectable ALignment (on the paladin list, no less...so yes, a paladin can go 'undercover'...and lying to further a Good goal is a minor chaotic act, not an evil one). Note Cleric True Seeing reveals alignments, too.
That is freaking strange. No Know Alignment, but the reverse of the spell is still around? Weird....
I'd probably have the paladin double-checking with Detect Magic, then, and specifically trained to recognize aura-dampening effects which would block his ability. Know Alignment would, of course, generate a complete negative also, confirming that such effects were in place. Detect Evil is an extremely potent weapon against Evil, and paladins should train in its usage. ANd again, Sense Motive as a fallback, since one of the uses is gettng a clear impression of Alignment.
===Aelryinth
"You lie!"
*raised eyebrow* "I am a Vulcan. I am incapable of lying."
Are you saying that Mr. Spock is a paladin (har-har)?
(Incidentally, a "lie by omission" is when you make a false statement whose components are true. "I'm not telling you anything" would never be a lie-by-omission).Exactly.
OK, try telling a spouse who finds out his/her partner is cheating, and who "hasn't been told anything" that he or she has not been lied to! :-P
Seriously, I see where you are coming from; I was speaking of "omission" in the sense of leaving something out, so yes, technically saying nothing is not omission. However, I have played in several games where situations such as the one I described were an every-session issue. Either another player or (thankfully less often) the GM was constantly trying to force the paladin into an impossible choice. The paladin was (quite literally) damned if he did and damned if he didn't. I object to this because it comes out of a foolishly literal interpretation of the rules that I don't believe is necessary.
|
|
But that's not even necessary in my games: If the paladin randomly smites people just because they're evil, he'll be a fallen paladin in no time, as he is acting with dishonour.
The only thing I disagree with here is that you stopped at "acting with dishonour" and didn't proceed with "acting evil"... So I'll continue on with that.
Killing someone just because they "ping" evil is murder. And, well, murder isn't exactly on the list of Goodly things... in fact, rather, it's on the the list of Evil things.
Heck, one of those people that pings evil may be a wretched individual, but has never acted on his evil nature because he's either too cowardly or intelligent enough to know that it's not worth facing the potential repercussions. Sure, there's a chance that one day he may bring harm upon others, but there's also a chance that he may never do so... or the he may even reform.
Reaching into the Big ol' Box of Good, we find things like compassion, mercy, forgiveness and love. With evil people and creatures, if there's no "Always" in front of their Evil alignment and they're not actively performing evil, there's a possibility to help or inspire them change... if only a enough to stop/prevent them from performing evil acts in the future. And that far more Good than just killing them, y'know.
|
|
Why the snark and hostility?
Last I checked "commies" wasn't a racial group, but please don't let that get in your way.Just wondering what made you think to classify Cap as a racist (as opposed to say a nationalist)? You suggested it was his hate of "commies" (actually his real hate is for Nazis, but whatever). That obviously is not the reason you see Cap as a racist, since communists are not a racial group. Perhaps it is something else, I can't say. Perhaps it is like Disciple of Sakura suggested. Some see someone being pro-America (being Captain America and all), and think that equals racist. I can't say, but please don't let my lack of understanding stop you from calling him one for whatever reason you wish. That is all I meant.
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
Keep in mind, Pes, that KY is not a native English-speaker (though that's easy to forget at times as is doesn't show much). I believe that KY was intending to say "bigot" rather than more narrowly defined term "racist", and then only in a joking manner (that his name, Captain American, implies that he is championing only America rather than all of mankind, something that can seem a bit exclusionary to non-Americans).
But why save the undercover assignment for the NG rogue when a willing Paladin exists who has the Charisma to spike his Diplomacy skill, so as to be able to talk his way out of a bad situation?Because undercover operations require you to eventually do things that compromise your principles. In my table's Absalom game, I play a NG vigilante that has had to do things like kill an innocent to save a hundred. Even if it is in the name of the greater good, she's convinced that every similar harsh decision she takes takes her soul a little bit closer to a dark place. There was a time when she was particularly under stress, she used to cry herself to sleep, went through a mental breakdown, and required regular Atonements just to stay sane and functional (we play that spell also like an actual relief of guilt from your conscience).
While I'm aware that this swashbuckling bard might be a bit too much of a bleeding heart, there are things just not meant for good people... and espionage is particularly a most dehumanizing profession if it is to be done effectively.
OK, I can see I'm not going to bring anyone around on this point, and Dogbert, you make a solid, cogent argument. I'm curious about what you think, however, of the other part of that same post, about a paladin's ability to retreat in battle (which is what I was trying to get at with "discretion being the better part of valor")?
I'm not talking about a Battle of Thermopalye-type, story-driven sacrifice for the greater good. That's what paladins are all about.
However, I once had an argument with another player who claimed that a paladin would and should charge into battle, outdistancing any and all support, make idiotic choices during the battle concerning targeting enemy personnel, and would fight to the death, even if the battle was lost and the only consequence of staying in battle was the paladin's death, because... wait for it... "he is a paladin and the enemy is evil." in my mind, this is the kind of behavior that the term "Lawful Stupid" was invented for.
A paladin being stubborn in defense of good? Yes. Acting like a beacon of truth, refusing to "hide his light under a bushel," so to speak? I can see that. Even obnoxiously preachy? OK, if it made sense for the character. But the paladin's code artificially creating a moron? Absolutely not.
OK, I can see that I need to get off of my soapbox now. :-\ Sorry if I came across to anyone as being too strident.
But that's not even necessary in my games: If the paladin randomly smites people just because they're evil, he'll be a fallen paladin in no time, as he is acting with dishonour.The only thing I disagree with here is that you stopped at "acting with dishonour" and didn't proceed with "acting evil"... So I'll continue on with that.
Killing someone just because they "ping" evil is murder. And, well, murder isn't exactly on the list of Goodly things... in fact, rather, it's on the the list of Evil things.
Heck, one of those people that pings evil may be a wretched individual, but has never acted on his evil nature because he's either too cowardly or intelligent enough to know that it's not worth facing the potential repercussions. Sure, there's a chance that one day he may bring harm upon others, but there's also a chance that he may never do so... or the he may even reform.
Reaching into the Big ol' Box of Good, we find things like compassion, mercy, forgiveness and love. With evil people and creatures, if there's no "Always" in front of their Evil alignment and they're not actively performing evil, there's a possibility to help or inspire them change... if only a enough to stop/prevent them from performing evil acts in the future. And that far more Good than just killing them, y'know.
+1, and well argued, Azzy.
But that's not even necessary in my games: If the paladin randomly smites people just because they're evil, he'll be a fallen paladin in no time, as he is acting with dishonour.The only thing I disagree with here is that you stopped at "acting with dishonour" and didn't proceed with "acting evil"... So I'll continue on with that.
Killing someone just because they "ping" evil is murder. And, well, murder isn't exactly on the list of Goodly things... in fact, rather, it's on the the list of Evil things.
Heck, one of those people that pings evil may be a wretched individual, but has never acted on his evil nature because he's either too cowardly or intelligent enough to know that it's not worth facing the potential repercussions. Sure, there's a chance that one day he may bring harm upon others, but there's also a chance that he may never do so... or the he may even reform.
Reaching into the Big ol' Box of Good, we find things like compassion, mercy, forgiveness and love. With evil people and creatures, if there's no "Always" in front of their Evil alignment and they're not actively performing evil, there's a possibility to help or inspire them change... if only a enough to stop/prevent them from performing evil acts in the future. And that far more Good than just killing them, y'know.
Murder is illegal killing. Murder is a legal definition, not necessarily a moral one.
As to the issue of it might be "worthy" of being killed for being evil, I would say that depends greatly on how evil is defined in the particular game. If evil is broad, so that bullies who give swirlies to kids who play with strange shaped dice are considered evil, then I would agree, killing them for simply being "evil" would be unwarrented. If on the other hand if being evil requires a much higher level, then simply being "evil" may very well warrent death, much as seeing a fiend might.
But that's not even necessary in my games: If the paladin randomly smites people just because they're evil, he'll be a fallen paladin in no time, as he is acting with dishonour.The only thing I disagree with here is that you stopped at "acting with dishonour" and didn't proceed with "acting evil"... So I'll continue on with that.
Killing someone just because they "ping" evil is murder. And, well, murder isn't exactly on the list of Goodly things... in fact, rather, it's on the the list of Evil things.
Heck, one of those people that pings evil may be a wretched individual, but has never acted on his evil nature because he's either too cowardly or intelligent enough to know that it's not worth facing the potential repercussions. Sure, there's a chance that one day he may bring harm upon others, but there's also a chance that he may never do so... or the he may even reform.
Reaching into the Big ol' Box of Good, we find things like compassion, mercy, forgiveness and love. With evil people and creatures, if there's no "Always" in front of their Evil alignment and they're not actively performing evil, there's a possibility to help or inspire them change... if only a enough to stop/prevent them from performing evil acts in the future. And that far more Good than just killing them, y'know.
I'm not sure that bad intentions or motives are sufficient for someone to have an evil alignment in game. If someone has evil desires or motives or what not and never acts on them I don't believe they meet the definition of evil in the game. I believe behavior and actions are the primary determinant.
This doesn't mean that evil can never be shown mercy, but if someone pings as evil there is a reason for it.
Murder is illegal killing. Murder is a legal definition, not necessarily a moral one.
The moral definition of murder is valid appart from the legal one (for instance, most holy texts reference it. "Murder" is a very old concept, much older than the word itself).
Also, the legal definition of murder isn't just "illegal killing". Not all illegal killing qualifies as murder.
I agree that the exact line between "neutral" and "evil" is fuzzy, but there are innumerable rules references to evil creatures who become good later on (i.e, you don't have to be irredeamable or inhuman), and also references to evil creatures who don't really cause any harm (though they would have no compunctions against doing so if forced).
The moral definition of murder is valid appart from the legal one (for instance, most holy texts reference it. "Murder" is a very old concept, much older than the word itself).
Murder is illegal killing. Murder is a legal definition, not necessarily a moral one.
See bolded part of the quote.
Also, the legal definition of murder isn't just "illegal killing". Not all illegal killing qualifies as murder.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
I agree that the exact line between "neutral" and "evil" is fuzzy, but there are innumerable rules references to evil creatures who become good later on (i.e, you don't have to be irredeamable or inhuman), and also references to evil creatures who don't really cause any harm (though they would have no compunctions against doing so if forced).
No one is arguing that redeeming evil beings isn't a noble and good act. I also think Bitter Thorn's viewpoint has merit as well.
I'm curious about what you think, however, of the other part of that same post, about a paladin's ability to retreat in battle (which is what I was trying to get at with "discretion being the better part of valor")?
Er, I don't remember having commented that, but ok... o_o
While a paladin is the first one at the frontlines, and the last one to retreat, he is under no obligation to go kamikaze or disregard his own safety. Yes, a Paladin has a responsibility towards his fellow man, but he also has a responsibility to himself, because if he dies the people he protects will be left either helpless or in the hands of people with different agendas.
I'm not sure I understand you here. You seem to be saying that the writers made caricatures of various racial groups and so therefore, the character Captain America was racist. That doesn't quite make much sense. Was Captain America actually making racist comments in these comics? Or is it just that he wasn't a racial caricature (which I think in some people's minds he is actually).
EDIT: To put it another way, it seems by your argument you could call Sylvester the Cat a racist character simply because Speedy Gonzales and Slowpoke Rodriguez are racist caricatures.
Yes, but is Speedy himself racist?
Captain America, the two-fisted good-soldier American hero who generally does anything the US army tells him is a good idea--from injecting himself with untested steroids to not even bothering to think about stuff like the Japanese internment camps, despite the fact that he lived through that era--is obviously not a card-carrying member of the KKK, but at very least a deeply clueless about a great number of things.
He can be excused from some of the Civil Rights era due to being frozen in an iceberg at the time, but since then?
He's also a fictional character. He may have uttered racist comments somewhere in his sixty odd years of existence--in fact, I'd be heartily surprised if he hadn't used the fashionable ethnic slur for Japanese sometime back in the 1940s--but like Dazzler's disco outfit, this is glossed over. The questions of whether he's racist is subject to the question of which iteration of the character, what past events are considered canon and which are ignored.
I'm curious about what you think, however, of the other part of that same post, about a paladin's ability to retreat in battle (which is what I was trying to get at with "discretion being the better part of valor")?Er, I don't remember having commented that, but ok... o_o
No, you didn't say that; I did. I had a post a little ways back where I brought up two things: possible paladin espionage and the ethics of advancing to the rear in battle. Several people commented on the first part, but no one mentioned the second. What you have quoted there is a little nudge by me about the second part of my original comment.
I apologize if you thought I put words in your virtual mouth. :-)
It was just a jab at the name. He's not "Captain Mankind", but "Captain America". That name evokes titles like "Smiter of Commies" to me.
Cap isn't racist, either.
Technically "Smiter of Nazis"....
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
Keep in mind, Pes, that KY is not a native English-speaker (though that's easy to forget at times as is doesn't show much). I believe that KY was intending to say "bigot" rather than more narrowly defined term "racist", and then only in a joking manner (that his name, Captain American, implies that he is championing only America rather than all of mankind, something that can seem a bit exclusionary to non-Americans).
What he said. It was a joke. I didn't even bother to try to come up with a proper term for his discriminatory ways, because it wasn't meant seriously. In fact, because this was meant to be a bit of a caricature, the "improper" term added to the humour of the situation. Same with the commies.
He's also a fictional character. He may have uttered racist comments
Heh. Who didn't?
[ulr=www.superdickery.com]Superdickery[/url]
Look up the gallery of "Propaganda Extravaganza".
See bolded part of the quote.The moral definition of murder is valid appart from the legal one (for instance, most holy texts reference it. "Murder" is a very old concept, much older than the word itself).
Murder is illegal killing. Murder is a legal definition, not necessarily a moral one.
Huh?
The post you quoted was one that used "murder" as a moral term. Answering with "murder doesn't HAVE to be a moral term" makes no sense; he clearly meant it as such.
All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
Still not true. It's very easy to use the term "murder" in a situation where the act was perfectly legal or took place outside of any established human law.
i.e, "Cain murdered Abel".
b) When has Batman ever killed anyone?
In A Death in the Family, he had the firm intent of killing the Joker near the end before one of his escorts freaked out, shot everyone inside, and sent the chopper crashing on the ocean. Also, soon after Jason's training was done (Todd, not Bulhman) and they went after Two-Face, he left in Jason (again Todd, not Bulhman... and certainly not Voorhees) the decision of whether Two-Face lived or died... he certainly didn't look like being ready to stop Jason should he had chosen death.
(if he'd just killed the Joker, Barbara Gordon would still be able to walk, and Jason Todd wouldn't have needed Superboy Prime to punch reality really hard in order to live).
Which begs a question that has been asked already: At which point do the Joker's murders start becoming Batman's fault? Fortunately for all dnd players, choices like this are simplified since most cities hang any criminal that do things as serious as to warrant to sic a band of adventurers after him, so it makes little to no difference whether you kill him on the spot or just drag him back to the city to die in the gallows.
Now, if the comic was set in a dnd setting, I was a deity, and Batman was my paladin, I'd have taken his powers away and disowned him a dozen times over. Every time he refrains from killing the joker he becomes guilty by omission of at least three soon-to-come murders. Jail is only for people who will -remain there-, if you already know your target will either escape or bribe his way out then not killing him actually makes you into his acomplice.
The real intentions of RL Chivalric codes had nothing to do with justice, they were written as tools of the (mostly evil)catholic church to keep their men under control, making those old writs into an aberration if you try to use them in a fantasy setting where the clergy of good gods is actually -good-. Such fantasy churches would never do the folly of writing codes that only allowed you to do as told while keeping your hands tied against the inequities commited by -your own superiors-. A code that prevents you from doing your job isn't worth a plastic badge.
The moral definition of murder is valid appart from the legal one (for instance, most holy texts reference it. "Murder" is a very old concept, much older than the word itself).
What we know as today's humanism is a relatively new term. The average dark-ages man didn't give the same intrinsic value to human life and human dignity than the average renaissance man did, who in turn doesn't have the same vision as we do today. Contrary to popular belief, back in the inquisition's day, inquisitors were highly respected and LOVED among the populace, extracting confessions of witchery through torture was something totally accepted, and burning witches at the stake was seen as natural.
Now, high fantasy settings like Faerun and Golarion like to put together in the same planet settings from completely different historic periods. If I was to don the Odious Rules Lawyer hat, I could say that these cultures have completely different viewpoints based on their Progress Level. So, while it's only normal for a numerian barbarian to slay a passing goblin "just to be on the safe side", if you suggest slaying that same passing goblin to an Absalom citizen he'd be likely to ask you -why-.
Then again, just for debating's sake, anyone could rebut this saying that it's always about where are you born, as no matter historical period, it's all about how exposed is the people to violence from the environment. Your average London citizen won't have the same viewpoint about pulling a trigger point blank against another human being than say, someone from Colombia (and let's not even get into different countries' legal systems and their take on corporal punishment, death penalty, etc).
Now, is a Keleshite champion of law who gleefully chops your hand off for stealing Lawful Good because his society accepts such punishments as correct and natural? Well, no more Lawful Good than the people who tortured Joan of Arc before burning her if you ask me...
...which is to say, HELL NO!
You're right, I didn't mean to imply that murder as we understand it today was an old concept.
My cross-cultural definition of murder would probably be "killing someone that you don't have a right to kill". Note that "right" is both an ethical AND a legal concept, and a society or individual's view of what it means to "have a right to kill" someone might vary for the legal definition of the same time and place.
(Edit: this is still simplifying a bit. For instance, Christian scholars often reference the idea of "lying in wait" (i.e. premeditation) when defining murder, as does US law. But still, that's the jist of it)
Not killing the Joker doesn't make one an accomplice to the Joker's crimes. Otherwise, everyone in Gotham city is an accomplice, because no one's ever killed him. There's a whole chapter on whether Batman is guilty by not killing the Joker in Batman and Philosophy, but I'm inclined to agree that I'm not guilty of another man's actions.
The other things you cite? He still didn't kill anyone, and there's no telling whether or not he would have actually let Jason Todd kill someone - he could very well have been testing him to see if he was up to the role Batman wanted him to play (ie, someone who doesn't kill). I can't say as I've read it entirely, but it's not an uncommon thing.
Captain America, the two-fisted good-soldier American hero who generally does anything the US army tells him is a good idea--from injecting himself with untested steroids to not even bothering to think about stuff like the Japanese internment camps, despite the fact that he lived through that era--is obviously not a card-carrying member of the KKK, but at very least a deeply clueless about a great number of things.
So now you want to brand every single American that was alive during that time and didn't speak out about it (if they even were aware of it), as racist. Nice.
He can be excused from some of the Civil Rights era due to being frozen in an iceberg at the time, but since then?
Ah, has he treated any other characters poorly based on their different racial/ethnic backgrounds? Or is he guilty until proven innocent? Does he have to go beyond just not acting racist. Maybe there will be a comic where he goes and beats up that cop for arresting Pres. Obama's buddy. Maybe Spidey can web the cop down for him.
He's also a fictional character. He may have uttered racist comments somewhere in his sixty odd years of existence--in fact, I'd be heartily surprised if he hadn't used the fashionable ethnic slur for Japanese sometime back in the 1940s--but like Dazzler's disco outfit, this is glossed over. The questions of whether he's racist is subject to the question of which iteration of the character, what past events are considered canon and which are ignored.
"He may have ...", you don't know? You're the one that brought up "The Yellow Claw" to show how racist he was, and you don't know if he said anything racist in those issues? Seriously, maybe instead of assuming he did, you find out first.
By the way, I do have a HeroClix of Dazzler in her disco outfit, so evidently it wasn't glossed over more than ... what, 7 years ago. Also wasn't she in her disco outfit in that X-Men arcade game in the late 80's-early 90's?
Otherwise, everyone in Gotham city is an accomplice, because no one's ever killed him.
Not everyone in Gotham has the power to kill the joker.
Remember what Parker's uncle taught us.
Otherwise, everyone in Gotham city is an accomplice, because no one's ever killed him.Not everyone in Gotham has the power to kill the joker.
Remember what Parker's uncle taught us.
I think what Hydro is saying is that Batman's refusal to kill the Joker, when he had the power and opportunity to do so, and knowing that the Joker's continued existence will almost certainly lead to more deaths, makes Batman morally and ethically, if not legally, responsible (at least in part) for the Joker's future actions.
Not sure I completely agree with it, but it's an interesting line of reasoning.
I certainly don't agree with it, but I think a lot of it comes down to us as gamers feeling that badguys should just be killed, because it's easier than trying to deal with them in a humane way. We get reinforcement for that in games, action movies, etc - the bad guy gets killed by the good guy, and everything's okay. But in comic books, traditionally a hero does his best to avoid loss of life, even a villain's. This is especially key in cases like Batman, who operate outside the law. If he just starts running around being judge, jury, and executioner, how is he any better from the murdering psychopaths who he fights? He's decided to do his best to prevent crime, but he is trying to leave it to the actual judicial system to deal with the criminals themselves. The fact that the Joker has never been executed is entirely the fault of the judicial system as a whole, not Batman's.
|
|
I certainly don't agree with it, but I think a lot of it comes down to us as gamers feeling that badguys should just be killed, because it's easier than trying to deal with them in a humane way. We get reinforcement for that in games, action movies, etc - the bad guy gets killed by the good guy, and everything's okay. But in comic books, traditionally a hero does his best to avoid loss of life, even a villain's. This is especially key in cases like Batman, who operate outside the law. If he just starts running around being judge, jury, and executioner, how is he any better from the murdering psychopaths who he fights? He's decided to do his best to prevent crime, but he is trying to leave it to the actual judicial system to deal with the criminals themselves. The fact that the Joker has never been executed is entirely the fault of the judicial system as a whole, not Batman's.
It's not a bad way to look at it but I'm going to speak much more practically on Batman not killing the Joker. Honestly, everything the Joker's done, I honestly believe Batman would have offed him by now and took that guilt and burden.
... but the Joker is an iconic villain. He sells. He will not be killed anytime soon/ever/forever.
After some point the writer's have to keep coming up with reasons/morals/whatever to justify inactions like this but reality check tells me the Bat would have chunked J off a building by now.
EDIT: Also our group decided to try and base the Paladin's code off the respective god/goddess they worship like we have been doing. Unlike most groups I read about, our Paladins have never been jerks and have been honest, fun, and deep characters. If it's working this way I don't see a reason to change it.
Otherwise, everyone in Gotham city is an accomplice, because no one's ever killed him.Not everyone in Gotham has the power to kill the joker.
Remember what Parker's uncle taught us.
I think what Hydro is saying is that Batman's refusal to kill the Joker, when he had the power and opportunity to do so, and knowing that the Joker's continued existence will almost certainly lead to more deaths, makes Batman morally and ethically, if not legally, responsible (at least in part) for the Joker's future actions.
Not sure I completely agree with it, but it's an interesting line of reasoning.
Moral/ethical responsibility is a complex thing. I won't say outright that he is "responsible".
However, I WILL say that Batman has been faced with a choice between the death of a single psychopath and the death of dozens or hundreds of innocents. He chose to allow the innocents to die so that the psychopath might live.
Whether you call it right or wrong, that is what it is.
If he just starts running around being judge, jury, and executioner, how is he any better from the murdering psychopaths who he fights?
I was cool with your statement up to this point. Surely you are not trying to make a moral equivalence between someone that kills innocent people and someone that kills someone that kills innocent people.
As for if Batman should kill the Joker or not, perhaps it depends on what he sees his role to be. Should he be deciding how best to protect society from its worst elements, in which case maybe he should be killing alot of people. I mean those drug-users who rob people at the beginning of the first movie are eventually going to kill someone, why not take them out?
If on the other hand, Batman sees his role as merely helping society in dealing with its problems as it sees fit, then capturing them and turning them over, no matter how often they escape or are released would be appropriate.
Frankly it is the citizens that tolerate a system where repeated murderers are not stopped permenantly. Batman should go to the ballot box and try to pass a law that says the Joker can be shot on sight if he gets free.
... but the Joker is an iconic villain. He sells. He will not be killed anytime soon/ever/forever.
After some point the writer's have to keep coming up with reasons/morals/whatever to justify inactions like this but reality check tells me the Bat would have chunked J off a building by now.
From Sergio Aragones Destroys DC:
Batman: Give me one good reason I shouldn't finish you off once and for all, right now!
Joker: Merchandising. You can't afford to lose your best villain.
Batman: He's right, the warner stores would never forgive me. Maybe we'll just exchange jokes and note how much alike we are for a few pages.
Surely you are not trying to make a moral equivalence between someone that kills innocent people and someone that kills someone that kills innocent people.
I would. An evil act reflects on the morality of the person performing it, not on the victim. "It's okay to lie to a liar" and all its variations are nothing but glib rationalizations that in reality fail to absolve one for his or her misdeeds.
Surely you are not trying to make a moral equivalence between someone that kills innocent people and someone that kills someone that kills innocent people.I would. An evil act reflects on the morality of the person performing it, not on the victim. "It's okay to lie to a liar" and all its variations are nothing but glib rationalizations that in reality fail to absolve one for his or her misdeeds.
I would agree and disagree.
I would agree, that if someone is killed for evil reasons, then it doesn't matter if the victim was evil. e.g. Fiends aren't good for killing other fiends in the Blood War.
I would disagree though that a person who kills people for evil reasons and a person who kills such a person to try to protect other people and/or punish such a person are morally equivalent. e.g. A police sniper who takes out a criminal sniper who is targetting random innocent citizens are not morally equivalent.
e.g. A police sniper who takes out a criminal sniper who is targetting random innocent citizens are not morally equivalent.
Of course not -- if he prevents civilian casualties thereby. Then he's 1 murder balanced by a bunch of saved people, rather than a number of murders and no one saved. But he still committed that one murder, and still has to live with it -- which is harder for most people than Kiefer Sutherland would lead you to believe.
"Punishment" as a motivation is irrelevant. All that matters is whether additional suffering is prevented -- which taking a murderer out of circulation by killing (or imprisonment without parole or escape) does... as would reforming him, if we could get it to work. Otherwise, "punishing" him merely puts an onus of misdeeds on his tormentors and serves no useful purpose, moral or otherwise.
"Punishment" as a motivation is irrelevant. All that matters is whether additional suffering is prevented
Punishment does prevent additional suffering by serving as a deterrent to evil acts.
Conversely, vigilantism may cause additional suffering beyond the scope of direct consequence, if it inspires other, less defensible justice-killings.
You'll find that very little is irrelevant here: it's quite a complex issue.
So now you want to brand every single American that was alive during that time and didn't speak out about it (if they even were aware of it), as racist. Nice.
How could any American, apart from extremely small children and people in mental institutions, be unaware of the Japanese interment camps?
So yeah, racist.
Ah, has he treated any other characters poorly based on their different racial/ethnic backgrounds? Or is he guilty until proven innocent? Does he have to go beyond just not acting racist. Maybe there will be a comic where he goes and beats up that cop for arresting Pres. Obama's buddy. Maybe Spidey can web the cop down for him.
Or maybe you can go to the "superdickery" website and see the cover of the Pearl Harbor issue where Cappie is beating in the faces of people with bright yellow skin, slanted cross eyes, and crazy buck teeth.
"He may have ...", you don't know? You're the one that brought up "The Yellow Claw" to show how racist he was, and you don't know if he said anything racist in those issues? Seriously, maybe instead of assuming he did, you find out first.
Well, the cover was racist enough. Not really necessary to go beyond that.
He's a fictional character.
By the way, I do have a HeroClix of Dazzler in her disco outfit, so evidently it wasn't glossed over more than ... what, 7 years ago. Also wasn't she in her disco outfit in that X-Men arcade...
No, she was in her 80s jazzercise outfit in the Xmen arcade game--the one with the pixie haircut, blue headband, and dark blue leotard. The Disco outfit was her in the bright white Saturday Night Fever pantsuit, longer Charlie's Angel hair, the KISS style star makeup around her eyes, and the actual disco-ball pendant around her neck.
How could any American, apart from extremely small children and people in mental institutions, be unaware of the Japanese interment camps?
So yeah, racist.
Well considering there were people who didn't know about the OJ case while it was going on, it is quite easy to be out of the loop if it is something that does not concern you. If someone was in an area with practically no asian population, it would be quite easy to not be aware of it. I mean it wasn't like there was a Depression and a War going on or anything.
Or maybe you can go to the "superdickery" website and see the cover of the Pearl Harbor issue where Cappie is beating in the faces of people with bright yellow skin, slanted cross eyes, and crazy buck teeth.
Well, the cover was racist enough. Not really necessary to go beyond that.
He's a fictional character.
If you are going to describe a character as racist, you might as well actually look at the character itself. If the argument was, was the Captain America comics during this era racist? The answer would be, yes. But if the question is, was the character Captain America racist during this era? Well to know that we need to see how the character actually was portrayed interacting with other characters or speaking/thinking about them. You want to call the artists, the company, and the product racist, hey I support that. But if you are going to describe the character as racist, well back that up. It can't be that hard to do.
No, she was in her 80s jazzercise outfit in the Xmen arcade game--the one with the pixie haircut, blue headband, and dark blue leotard. The Disco outfit was her in the bright white Saturday Night Fever pantsuit, longer Charlie's Angel hair, the KISS style star makeup around her eyes, and the actual disco-ball pendant around her neck.
Looks like I was wrong about the game (but not the HeroClix which was more recent). I never played her on the game (sticking with Wolvie, Nightcrawler, and Colossus), but I remember she was in it. Guess I remembered wrong about the outfit. Good catch.