Set wrote: TriOmegaZero wrote: 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.
Lolwhat? While we surf the Godwin wave to the shore, let's forget that the game isn't real and in the game setting Tieflings are Outsider(evil) spawn and Orcs are like the Mongols of legend with the raping, pillaging, and killing for the glory of the Orc god of ruining your stuff.
Freddy Honeycutt wrote: I accuse you of houseruling You can make all the false accusations you like, doesn't make them true.
Quote: and being also both ignorant and lazy.... I never said you were ignorant or lazy. I said IF you choose not to read the rules then you were being ignorant and lazy. Which is true. That is different than calling someone ignorant and lazy.
Quote: Still sounds like a personal attack to me..... Take is however you wish.
The fact that you have decided to focus the dicsussion on what is and is not a personal attack, as opposed to our original debate, I humbling accept your concession on said debate.
Freddy Honeycutt wrote: 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.
Cartigan wrote: Orcs are like the Mongols of legend with the raping, pillaging, and killing for the glory of the Orc god of ruining your stuff. Yes, orcs are a very misunderstood and oppressed race. Perhaps if you stopped your genocidal purging they would be a little more civilized towards you.
You did say (responding directly to me).
"That is your own ignorance and laziness."
Which I said is a personal attack, pretty much the only thing going on here. I requested a form vs function discussion....
You have one immovable and limited viewpoint, not actually based on "thems the rules" no matter how much you say it it does not make it true it is based on your interpretaion of the rules.
I am curious are you interested in discussing the issue or in insulting others AKA proving your intelligence/superiority?
Guess what your interpretation is no more valid than anyone elses, you only really need it to be.
calvinNhobbes wrote: Cartigan wrote: Orcs are like the Mongols of legend with the raping, pillaging, and killing for the glory of the Orc god of ruining your stuff. Yes, orcs are a very misunderstood and oppressed race. Perhaps if you stopped your genocidal purging they would be a little more civilized towards you. Not according to the Orc cultural report in the PF SRD. Insert rolling eyes here.
Freddy Honeycutt wrote: You did say (responding directly to me).
"That is your own ignorance and laziness." Which I said is a personal attack, pretty much the only thing going on here.
You can quote out of context all you like, that does not make it true.
Quote: I requested a form vs function discussion.... Which I gave you, and you agreed such a dicussion was impossible, so why have it?
Quote: You have one immovable and limited viewpoint, not actually based on "thems the rules" no matter how much you say it it does not make it true it is based on your interpretaion of the rules. It's your perogative to ingnore the rules and English language all you want. Doesn't make you correct.
Quote: I am curious are you interested in discussing the issue or in insulting others AKA proving your intelligence/superiority? I have never initiated any personal attacks on this thread.
Quote: Guess what your interpretation is no more valid than anyone elses, you only really need it to be. Except that it is not an interpretation. If you believe it to be so, please provide proof. You have yet to do that. I have provided the text of the rules and their meaning as defined by the english language.
What have you provided except opinion backed by personal attacks?
If you want to have a discussion, then provide a point and references to support it.
Cartigan wrote: Not according to the Orc cultural report in the PF SRD. Insert rolling eyes here. The 3.5 MM would disagree. Insert rolling eyes here.
I have done that several times.
I suggest we cover good(and lawful)one line at a time. In order to get from here to there.
Starting at the first line
Good
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life
So what, if anything does that ((Good characters and creatures protect innocent life)) mean to you in reference to LG executions?
Freddy Honeycutt wrote: I have done that several times. If so, then you have communicated very poorly.
Quote: I suggest we cover good(and lawful)one line at a time. In order to get from here to there. Wait, stop there. Why do you keep including lawful? I don't care about lawful. Lawful has nothing to do with this discussion.
Quote: So what, if anything does that ((Good characters and creatures protect innocent life)) mean to you in reference to LG executions? Once again, the discussion is not about lawful.
Please rephrase your point so that it is on topic.
I think the issue here is that calvinNhobbes has the definition of
Maturity: 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)
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)
and argument:
noun
1.an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument)
confused in this particular instance. The structure of your argument follows the third definition moreso than the other two.
calvinNhobbes wrote:
I have never initiated any personal attacks on this thread.
calvinNhobbes wrote:
I never said you were ignorant or lazy. I said IF you choose not to read the rules then you were being ignorant and lazy. Which is true. That is different than calling someone ignorant and lazy.
The difference in your phraseology and intent is minute. Please change the language of your discussion if you want to avoid the moniker of troll.
calvinNhobbes wrote:
Orcs are like the Mongols of legend with the raping, pillaging, and killing for the glory of the Orc god of ruining your stuff.
----
Yes, orcs are a very misunderstood and oppressed race. Perhaps if you stopped your genocidal purging they would be a little more civilized towards you.
To quote Jon Stewart: "We have this saying in Brooklyn. I'm not saying your mother is a wh*re, I'm saying she has sex for money... with people." Er...
You clearly avoid the acknowledgement of "real life" morality, then interject it opportunistically when it suits your purpose to denigrate other people in the thread. Sounds kind of trollish. You're clearly trying to diferentiate you "good" and everyone else who opposes you "stupid and lazy" which is a sad thing to see.
Trolling:
"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. )
To get back on topic:
Structurally, the axis of good and evil does exist in the alignment system as a hook to hang for extra damage and effects off of. It exists in the definition of oppositions which is an outdated morality system but is a structure here so fine. There is a relationship between that and real life but its closer to the narrative convention of Protagonist (PCs) and Antagonist (villains/NPCs). Any more indepth discussion of it comes down to personal preference, which there is a difference of opinion* here.
*–noun
1.a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion)
CaspianM wrote: I think the issue here is that calvinNhobbes has the definition of
Maturity: 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)
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)
and argument:
noun
1.an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation: a violent argument.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/argument)
confused in this particular instance. The structure of your argument follows the third definition moreso than the other two.
Nope, not confused at all.
Quote: The difference in your phraseology and intent is minute. Minute as you think it is, there is a difference.
calvinNhobbes wrote: Cartigan wrote: Not according to the Orc cultural report in the PF SRD. Insert rolling eyes here. The 3.5 MM would disagree. Insert rolling eyes here. Guess what Pathfinder isn't.
CaspianM wrote: Please change the language of your discussion if you want to avoid the moniker of troll.
Trolling:
"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. )
You can call a dog a cat, but that does not make it so.
Quote: You clearly avoid the acknowledgement of "real life" morality, Because "real life" morality is undefined, both in reality and in the game. Using it would only result in a flame war.
Quote: then interject it opportunistically when it suits your purpose to denigrate other people in the thread. This is purely speculation unless you have a refernce.
Quote: Sounds kind of trollish. And you would be wrong.
Quote: You're clearly trying to diferentiate you "good" Nope, just the good defined by the rules.
Quote: and everyone else who opposes you "stupid and lazy" which is a sad thing to see. Only if they choose not to read the rules or my logic. You can disagree all you want, but please provide a logical argument within the scope of the rules to do so.
CaspianM wrote: To get back on topic: yes, about tiem you stopped the trolling...
Quote: Structurally, the axis of good and evil does exist in the alignment system as a hook to hang for extra damage and effects off of. Agreed.
Quote: It exists in the definition of oppositions which is an outdated morality system but is a structure here so fine. I have no idea what you are trying to say with this statement, please clarify.
Quote: There is a relationship between that and real life but its closer to the narrative convention of Protagonist (PCs) and Antagonist (villains/NPCs). I would disagree. Please provide rule text to support this statement.
Quote: Any more indepth discussion of it comes down to personal preference, which there is a difference of opinion* here. If that were true then the alignment system would not even need to exist as is. It could simply be replaced by colors and work just the same.
Cartigan wrote: Guess what Pathfinder isn't. So orcs don't have Alignment "Often CE" in PF? Did PF change all the monster alignments? Interesting, good to know, thanks!
You keep asking for
please provide a logical argument within the scope of the rules to do so.
And keep getting, from me at least LG. I am sticking with LG since that includes the most rules from SRD for us to look at.
So what, if anything does Good characters and creatures protect innocent life mean to you in reference to L or good or LG executions?
calvinNhobbes wrote: Cartigan wrote: Guess what Pathfinder isn't. So orcs don't have Alignment "Often CE" in PF? Did PF change all the monster alignments? Interesting, good to know, thanks! Your reference to the 3.5 MM to attempt to override my citing the Pathfinder SRD is laughable.
My original point stands.
Freddy Honeycutt wrote: And keep getting, from me at least LG. I am sticking with LG since that includes the most rules from SRD for us to look at. But the discussion is not about LG. It is about Good. If you want to have a discussion about LG, then go ahead, it has no relevance to my discussion.
Quote: So what, if anything does Good characters and creatures protect innocent life mean to you in reference to L or good or LG executions? Once again I don't care about L or LG.
Moreover, since I have already stated my view on what it means for Good (as has TOZ), how about YOU tell me your hypothesis for what is means for Good only (no lawful please).
Cartigan wrote: Your reference to the 3.5 MM to attempt to override my citing the Pathfinder SRD is laughable. I'm confused, didn't I just say it is good to know Orcs in PF have alignment "Always Evil" like fiends and dragons do in 3.5? It says right there in the PFSRD that orcs are born evil. Right? It has nothing to do with their culture, right? It does say that, right?
Quote: My original point stands. What point was that? That you approve of genocide?
Quote:
So what, if anything does Good characters and creatures protect innocent life mean to you in reference to L or good or LG executions?
Once again I don't care about L or LG.
Then leave those out (b/c of the ORs in the sentence you can do that).
SO about those Good executions????
Freddy Honeycutt wrote: SO about those Good executions???? I've already answered that, so has TOZ. Now please provide your hypothesis. Thanks.
calvinNhobbes wrote:
What point was that? That you approve of genocide?
No, that none of you have real arguments so you just set fire to strawmen.
Cartigan wrote: No, that none of you have real arguments so you just set fire to strawmen. So you weren't providing anything to the actual discussion. Which meant you were just trolling. Good to know.
Why reference the rules and then refuse to go through them one at a time in order?
Debates are usually point by point or line by line, so lets start at the begining and find our common ground and differences. And stick with the first line until we either agree, disagree, or feel we should move on to the next part.
PFSRD
Good
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life
And how does that apply to executions?
I will re-state that "protecting innocent life" is irrelevant to executions, just as tax codes are irrelevant to a traffic rules.
Please share your view on what this part of good gives to the discussion, and then, if you must, disagree with my assertion. I want to clearly understand your position.
Cartigan wrote: calvinNhobbes wrote: Cartigan wrote: Guess what Pathfinder isn't. So orcs don't have Alignment "Often CE" in PF? Did PF change all the monster alignments? Interesting, good to know, thanks! Your reference to the 3.5 MM to attempt to override my citing the Pathfinder SRD is laughable.
My original point stands. The only problem with your point is when you find an orc or tiefling who isn't CE. And I'm sure somewhere in the adventure paths, you'll find one. Lavender Lil comes to mind, but I don't recall her alignment.
She's CN. Maybe I'll take the time to run through them and find you a non-CE orc to completely disprove your point.
Freddy Honeycutt wrote: Please share your view on what this part of good gives to the discussion, and then, if you must, disagree with my assertion. I want to clearly understand your position. Again, an act cannot be Good by the rules if the rules do not explicitly state it is Good. Execution is not mentioned in the description of Good, therefore it cannot be Good.
Freddy Honeycutt wrote: Why reference the rules and then refuse to go through them one at a time in order? I haven't, you are. You refuse to give your point. I have already given mine.
Quote: Debates are usually point by point or line by line, so lets start at the begining and find our common ground and differences. And stick with the first line until we either agree, disagree, or feel we should move on to the next part. Sounds great, give me your point then.
Quote: PFSRD
Good
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life
And how does that apply to executions?
Excellent question, please tell me.
Quote: I will re-state that "protecting innocent life" is irrelevant to executions, just as tax codes are irrelevant to a traffic rules. You lost me. If it is irrelevant, then why are you bringing it up and expecting me to comment on it?
Quote: Please share your view on what this part of good gives to the discussion, and then, if you must, disagree with my assertion. I want to clearly understand your position. I don't know what your position is so how can I comment on it. All you've said so far is that the rules are irrelevant. Doesn't leave much room for a discussion, does it?
calvinNhobbes wrote: You can call a dog a cat, but that does not make it so. Er, that's rhetoric, not anything concrete. How are you proving I am wrong other than saying I am wrong?
Quote:
Because "real life" morality is undefined, both in reality and in the game. Using it would only result in a flame war.
Which you are seemingly instigating, versus so far everyone else left in the thread.
Quote:
This is purely speculation unless you have a refernce.
calvinNhobbes wrote:
I have never initiated any personal attacks on this thread.
calvinNhobbes wrote:
I never said you were ignorant or lazy. I said IF you choose not to read the rules then you were being ignorant and lazy. Which is true. That is different than calling someone ignorant and lazy.
Cartigan wrote:
Orcs are like the Mongols of legend with the raping, pillaging, and killing for the glory of the Orc god of ruining your stuff.
calvinNhobbes wrote:
Yes, orcs are a very misunderstood and oppressed race. Perhaps if you stopped your genocidal purging they would be a little more civilized towards you.
To quote Jon Stewart: "We have this saying in Brooklyn. I'm not saying your mother is a wh*re, I'm saying she has sex for money... with people."
CaspianM wrote:
It exists in the definition of oppositions which is an outdated morality system but is a structure here so fine.
calvinNhobbes wrote:
I have no idea what you are trying to say with this statement, please clarify.
The idea that there are absolute oppositions in morality is going back to the idea of ultimate powers, er like "God" and the other force's "God", ie your "satan". In D&D this is true, but it allows for too much crazy manipulation in real life, and too much consternation with people trying to consolidate absolute morality with perspective morality, like in this thread.
CaspianM wrote:
There is a relationship between that and real life but its closer to the narrative convention of Protagonist (PCs) and Antagonist (villains/NPCs).
calvinNhobbes wrote:
I would disagree. Please provide rule text to support this statement.
Er, you first. The structure of D&D is narrative, and thusly antagonistic because of the narrative convention. Its kind of like the thing with D&D, its a story, if you don't understand narrative convention in relation to D&D I don't really know what to say to you.
Narrative:
A narrative is a story that is created in a constructive format (as a work of writing, speech, poetry, prose, pictures, song, motion pictures, video games, theatre or dance) that describes a sequence of fictional or non-fictional events. It derives from the Latin verb narrare, which means "to recount" and is related to the adjective gnarus, meaning "knowing" or "skilled".[1] (Ultimately derived from the Proto-Indo-European root gnō-, "to know").[2] [3], but can also be used to refer to the sequence of events described in a narrative. A narrative can also be told by a character within a larger narrative. An important part of narration is the narrative mode, the set of methods used to communicate the narrative through a process called narration.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narrative)
Protagonist:
A protagonist (from the Greek protagonistes, "one who plays the first part, chief actor"[1]) is the main character (the central or primary personal figure) of a literary, theatrical, cinematic, video game, or musical narrative, around whom the events of the narrative's plot revolve and with whom the audience is intended to share the most empathy. In the theatre of Ancient Greece, three actors played all of the main dramatic roles in a tragedy; the leading role was played by the protagonist, while the other roles were played by deuteragonist and the tritagonist.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagonist)
Antagonist:
An antagonist (from Greek - antagonistes, "opponent, competitor, rival"[1]) is a character, group of characters, or an institution, who represents the opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend. In other words, 'A person, or a group of people who oppose the main character, or the main characters.'[2] In the classic style of story wherein the action consists of a hero fighting a villain, the two can be regarded as protagonist and antagonist, respectively.[3]
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antagonist)
Quote:
Any more indepth discussion of it comes down to personal preference, which there is a difference of opinion* here.
calvinNhobbes wrote:
If that were true then the alignment system would not even need to exist as is. It could simply be replaced by colors and work just the same.
Basically yes, its just a measure of narrative opposition from any given point.
CaspianM,
Your post is so long and garbled that I have no idea how to approach it, I can't even reply without most of it being cut off. If you expect to have a discussion, please present your argument in a clear and concise manner and I'll do my best to respond. Thanks!
calvinNhobbes wrote: Cartigan wrote: No, that none of you have real arguments so you just set fire to strawmen. So you weren't providing anything to the actual discussion. Which meant you were just trolling. Good to know. And I wasn't talking to you. I was countering the ridiculous Godwin pulled by the other guy.
Cartigan wrote: And I wasn't talking to you. I was countering the ridiculous Godwin pulled by the other guy. Oh sorry, didn't realize the forum rules were you could speak only when spoken to. Those are the rules, right? You can reference such a forum rule, right?
FH:
I will re-state that "protecting innocent life" is irrelevant to executions, just as tax codes are irrelevant to a traffic rules.
CNH:
You lost me. If it is irrelevant, then why are you bringing it up and expecting me to comment on it?
I take this to mean...
You agree that the first component of the definition of good from PF SRD is irrelevant.
Can you clarify for me. Just so I am certain....
you agree that (protect innocent life) is irrelevant to executions
You have no comment
You disagree and are formulating your position
calvinNhobbes wrote: Cartigan wrote: And I wasn't talking to you. I was countering the ridiculous Godwin pulled by the other guy. Oh sorry, didn't realize the forum rules were you could speak only when spoken to. Those are the rules, right? You can reference such a forum rule, right? Have you yet to post something that isn't the literary equivalent of looking down your nose at some one?
Wow,
What a long thread! I would like to offer my own opinions on some of the subjects being discussed.
On the topic of the OP: I feel that killing the tieflings was probably an evil act. If you have never encountered an opponent before and that opponent has done nothing specifically to harm the character or those the character cares for, then I see no reason why surrender would not be acceptable. Being in a thieves hideout, likely makes the tieflings not so much good folks, but their presence there does not mean that killing them is justifiable as good or even neutral act. The characters did not seem to have any information about them other than they were likely involved somehow. That seems like not enough information on them to make a morally high value judgment on their lives after they had already surrendered.
Now if the characters had encountered the tieflings before and knew that accepting their surrender would not put a stop to their badwrong, or they had done something specific to the party that demanded recompense I might be steered to believe that it would be considered a neutral act. It seems more like they were killed because it was convenient. Why leave potential threats behind in an adventure site? Sure its the most effective way to play, but it is very gamist. But in the end its really up to the group whether or not it is truly evil. At a glance it seems evil, but perhaps there is more story-wise with the cleric and tieflings that would put it solidly in the neutral arena.
On the topic of execution never being a good act. I disagree. I think it can be a good act in the right circumstances. If the person who is being executed is a threat to innocent life (usually determined by them killing innocents previously) then they need to be stopped. Now depending on how "good" the group is, execution likely may not be the first course of action. Perhaps they would try to subdue, or redeem, or banish the threat depending on their moral views. But killing the source the loss of innocent life should not be irrevocably non-good.
It should not be an act taken lightly for good characters (or sometimes even neutral ones), but I do feel that with the taking of life that it can be a good thing. But a lot of that depends on the intent of the lifetaker, and the views of the society they live in.
For example killing an evil wizard who has killed hundreds of innocents, enslaved others and sold them to denizens of the lower planes, escaped from capture several times, and is planning another assault on a peaceful community of gnomes, should not be an evil act if the reason for killing him was to save the gnomes and bring justice to the fallen. Doing so would appease the Lawful spectrum of alignment as it offers some justice to those who have been slain by this villain and it appeases good as it protects the innocent gnome village and any other potential targets the villain may target in the future.
You could have another group trying to kill the same evil wizard for an entirely different reason and it not be a LG act. Say a rival wizard wanted to kill the evil villain because he wanted access to his library. That would certainly be an evil act, despite the fact that it would have side effects that helped the greater good.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that the alignment system in D&D does not work well on a plane. It has a lot to do with the intent of the characters. Good characters can do things that would sometimes be considered neutral or evil and still serve the greater good, and some villains are hopelessly evil but have soft spots and do good occasionally. This does not mean that they are no longer bad guys.
I try and keep it from being black and white in my games. I use the rules as guidelines in the arena of alignment and not as absolutes. If a character of a particular alignment in one of my games crosses the guideposts set in the PFRPG book then we talk about it and figure out why the act was done, if it was not done for a reason that strongly supports the story and moral values established for the character then I note it and move on. Even if it strongly supports the morals of the character I will begin to note it if infractions are constantly offered with the same excuse. Depending on the character this will have different effects. I am a little more strict with divine characters. But ultimately I move towards shifting alignments towards what the characters are actually playing if the infractions are habitual. But this a process I involve the players with and alignment change has long been a theme in our games and it is one our group enjoys.
But YMMV, as intent, moral happenings, and even the very concepts of good and evil will vary between groups and individuals. But alignment is not a terrible mechanic as long as it is used in a way that is applicable to the story and players. Acting out of alignment makes for diversity and often very dramatic conflicts that can add a great deal of depth to a story. Many great works of fiction have strongly defined characters troubled with acting out of their nature and coping with doing those things to further their ideals. Sometimes the very story itself is about a characters path of changing values. In fact, one the reasons I like Paizo's work so much is that a lot of the villains and NPCs use their personal motivations as a focal point and the alignment while present, does not seem to be the main concept of a lot of the NPCs. This makes them more interesting to read about and certainly more fun for me to run.
Thanks for reading my longwinded post.
love,
malkav
Freddy Honeycutt wrote: FH:
I will re-state that "protecting innocent life" is irrelevant to executions, just as tax codes are irrelevant to a traffic rules.
CNH:
You lost me. If it is irrelevant, then why are you bringing it up and expecting me to comment on it?
I take this to mean...
You agree that the first component of the definition of good from PF SRD is irrelevant.
Can you clarify for me. Just so I am certain....
you agree that (protect innocent life) is irrelevant to executions
You have no comment
You disagree and are formulating your position
Oh, my bad, so you statement is that it is irrelevant, and you want to know if I agree with that.
Yes, I agree with you, it is irrelevant, next line.
calvinNhobbes wrote: CaspianM,
Your post is so long and garbled that I have no idea how to approach it, I can't even reply without most of it being cut off. If you expect to have a discussion, please present your argument in a clear and concise manner and I'll do my best to respond. Thanks!
Key points:
1) you are being a troll
2)The idea that there are absolute oppositions in morality is going back to the idea of ultimate powers, er like "God" and the other force's "God", ie your "satan". In D&D this is true, but it allows for too much crazy manipulation in real life, and too much consternation with people trying to consolidate absolute morality with perspective morality, like in this thread.
3) Basically yes, alignment just a measure of narrative opposition from any given point. (its the last line, look harder)
Cartigan wrote: Have you yet to post something that isn't the literary equivalent of looking down your nose at some one? Yes. To all those presenting mature, logical, concise dicussions.
CaspianM wrote: 1) you are being a troll Then so are you.
Quote: 2)The idea that there are absolute oppositions in morality is going back to the idea of ultimate powers, er like "God" and the other force's "God", ie your "satan". In D&D this is true, but it allows for too much crazy manipulation in real life, and too much consternation with people trying to consolidate absolute morality with perspective morality, like in this thread. I agree, which is why I prefer to simply use the rules as they are written, the definitions which the rules happen to define, and the dictionary for those that it does not. Avoids that real life messiness as much as possible.
Simple, eh?
Quote: 3) Basically yes, alignment just a measure of narrative opposition from any given point. I would disagree. I would not call "altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" and "hurting, opressing, and killing" to be merely oppositions of narrative.
Quote: its the last line, look harder Hello kettle, your black...
The next line from PF SRD is.
Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings.
I suggest that we also find a definition that is agreeable for the component parts.
dictionary.com is possible (if it is OK with you)?
imply
–verb (used with object),-plied, -ply·ing.
to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.
al·tru·ism
–noun
1.the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others
re·spect
esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
Concern
–verb (used with object)
to relate to; be connected with; be of interest or importance to; affect: The water shortage concerns us all.
to trouble, worry, or disquiet: I am concerned about his health.
–noun
something that relates or pertains to a person; business; affair:
worry, solicitude, or anxiety: to show concern for someone in trouble.
important relation or bearing: This news is of concern to all of us.
dignity
bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect or appreciation of the formality or gravity of an occasion or situation.
Any problems with the definitions presented?
Mods, please close thread. No further value exists herein.
Thanks
Freddy Honeycutt wrote: Any problems with the definitions presented? Only that I expect each of us to interpret those definitions in the best way to support our arguments. As I pointed out before.
You want it to be LG, I want it to be LN. And we're never going to come to an agreement.
psionichamster wrote: Mods, please close thread. No further value exists herein.
Thanks
This. As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with the OP any more.
But, is it a "good" act to be a troll? What if you're trolling to stop an "evil" troll? Is that a good act?
Hrmmm...
Hey tri
do you agree or disagree with the first line....
Freddy Honeycutt wrote:
FH:
I will re-state that "protecting innocent life" is irrelevant to executions, just as tax codes are irrelevant to a traffic rules.
CNH:
You lost me. If it is irrelevant, then why are you bringing it up and expecting me to comment on it?
I take this to mean...
You agree that the first component of the definition of good from PF SRD is irrelevant.
Can you clarify for me. Just so I am certain....
you agree that (protect innocent life) is irrelevant to executions
You have no comment
You disagree and are formulating your position
Oh, my bad, so you statement is that it is irrelevant, and you want to know if I agree with that.
Yes, I agree with you, it is irrelevant, next line.
....
I think this thread is done.
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
