Paladins

On Dec 31, 8:34 am, Keith Davies <keith.dav....TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org> wrote:
> Tetsubo <tets....TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > But did Luke kill his Father? No. He discovered within himself the
> > strength and wisdom to see the truth.
>
> That, and Vader kicked his ass.  Again.

Not sure what movie you're thinking of. Luke and Vader's first fight,
in "The Empire Strikes Back", was won easily by Vader. Vader revealed
that he was Luke's father only after the fight was effectively over,
Luke having lost his hand.

Their second fight, in "Return of the Jedi", was much more evenly
matched. Luke bests Vader only after giving in to his anger,
temporarily embracing the dark side, but he stops himself from killing
a helpless Vader, disappointing the emperor.

> > If it had been an entirely internal struggle it would have been a
> > fairly boring film. So we got a big flashy fight scene. But in the
> > end, Luke sees the light and decides that his own death is preferable.
>
> Because he refuses to join the Dark Side and serve the Emperor, yeah.
> This does not mean his initial act -- trying to kill his father -- was
> not evil.
>
> If he was only fighting Vader to protect others (good intent) then it
> would have been a good act.  However, as I recall this wasn't why he was
> fighting.  If it had been, or he had been fighting so he could be close
> enough to try to lure Vader away from the Dark Side (which would be
> another good act), then the Emperor, the Dark Side, would have no hold
> on him.
>
> That there was an internal struggle indicates that his motives weren't
> pure.  He wanted to kill Vader, for personal reasons.  *That* is what
> would've brought him over to the Dark Side.

Actually, Luke's motives were pure. He surrendered voluntarily for
two reasons. One, his presence was detectable by Vader and thus
endangering his freinds' mission, and two, he wanted to confront his
father and talk him away from the dark side.

However, the Emperor successfully goads Luke into attacking him, and
this starts the fight with Vader. Luke, though fights mostly
defensively, even hiding at some point, to avoid killing Vader.
Finally, Vader tells Luke that if he won't turn to the dark side, then
perhaps his twin sister will. Luke loses it, becomes angry, embraces
the dark side, and defeats Vader. Luke comes to his senses in time to
avoid killing him, though.

Just FYI.

Mike

Tetsubo <tetsubo RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Evil is about actions. What you do is more important than what you
> think about doing. By your definition I have, at points in my past, been
> evil. Even though I never committed a truly evil act. I may have broken
> nine of the ten commandments, but I never killed anyone.
>
> I did more than covet my neighbors wife.

How is that evil?

An old Keith Laumer story (IIRC author), the devil showed up to talk to
a scientist. The scientist's wife was concerned by this.

"Aren't you evil?"
*wince* "No, we deal in sin."
"What's the difference?"
"Evil is things that hurt others -- torture, murder, theft. Sin is
anything else that looks like it might be fun."


Keith
--
Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
keith.davies RemoveThis @kjdavies.org receive spam with
keith.davies RemoveThis @gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.

Keith Davies wrote:

> Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Evil is about actions. What you do is more important than what you
>>think about doing. By your definition I have, at points in my past, been
>>evil. Even though I never committed a truly evil act. I may have broken
>>nine of the ten commandments, but I never killed anyone.
>>
>>I did more than covet my neighbors wife.
>
>
> How is that evil?
>
> An old Keith Laumer story (IIRC author), the devil showed up to talk to
> a scientist. The scientist's wife was concerned by this.
>
> "Aren't you evil?"
> *wince* "No, we deal in sin."
> "What's the difference?"
> "Evil is things that hurt others -- torture, murder, theft. Sin is
> anything else that looks like it might be fun."
>
>
> Keith

That last line was for humors sake.

But at one time I had many, many thoughts that could be described as
'evil'. I never acted on them however. I don't consider myself evil, now
or then. But if having evil thoughts makes a person evil... then I was.
Which is why I consider acts to be of much greater import than thoughts.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
> Allen Wessels wrote:
>
>> So The Emperor radiating pure malice is less evil than Luke wanting to
>> take apart Vader because Vader taunted him?
>>
>> My intuition disagrees.
>
> Does either act on these impulses? If not, neither is acting in an evil
> manner. They may well 'ping' a Paladins senses of course. One doing so
> much more strongly then the other.

Have you watched these movies? They've only been out about twenty-five
or thirty years.

Luke did his level best to kill Vader -- become a knowing patricide. He
failed because his father was still stronger.

The Emperor was just fine with Vader and son trying to kill each other
because he would end up with the stronger of the two afterward, and the
other will have been removed as a threat. Within the setting, Luke
killing Vader would have been an evil act.

That he *failed* does not absolve him. Even trying would still be an
evil act.


Keith
--
Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
keith.davies.DeleteThis@kjdavies.org receive spam with
keith.davies.DeleteThis@gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.

Keith Davies wrote:

> Tetsubo <tetsubo.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Allen Wessels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So The Emperor radiating pure malice is less evil than Luke wanting to
>>>take apart Vader because Vader taunted him?
>>>
>>>My intuition disagrees.
>>
>>Does either act on these impulses? If not, neither is acting in an evil
>>manner. They may well 'ping' a Paladins senses of course. One doing so
>>much more strongly then the other.
>
>
> Have you watched these movies? They've only been out about twenty-five
> or thirty years.
>
> Luke did his level best to kill Vader -- become a knowing patricide. He
> failed because his father was still stronger.
>
> The Emperor was just fine with Vader and son trying to kill each other
> because he would end up with the stronger of the two afterward, and the
> other will have been removed as a threat. Within the setting, Luke
> killing Vader would have been an evil act.
>
> That he *failed* does not absolve him. Even trying would still be an
> evil act.
>
>
> Keith

But did Luke kill his Father? No. He discovered within himself the
strength and wisdom to see the truth. If it had been an entirely
internal struggle it would have been a fairly boring film. So we got a
big flashy fight scene. But in the end, Luke sees the light and decides
that his own death is preferable.

My fights where always internal. So I guess my life would be a fairly
dull film. Not that anyone needs to see a movie about a fat, bald, white
gamer.

--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

Mart van de Wege <mvdwege_public.TakeThisOut@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Baird Stafford <baird.TakeThisOut@newstaff.com> writes:
>
>> In article <gjd549$r34$1@news.motzarella.org>,
>> Tetsubo <tetsubo.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> We could argue that thinking evil thoughts is bad for a person. And I
>>> would agree. But you don't arrest, charge, try and possibly convict a
>>> person for those evil thoughts.
>>
>> Depends on the laws of a lawful society. If the law says that thinking
>> evil thoughts is a capital offense, then it's a capital offense.
>
> NO, NO, NO.
>
> It can't be hammered at enough: Lawful in D&D has *nothing* to do with
> the laws of the land. Otherwise a Paladin could be constrained to
> follow Evil laws.
>
> Lawful has to do with a respect for order and tradition over
> individual judgment. The fact that this usually leads to being
> law-abiding is a side effect.

While what you say is true, Baird's point can also be valid.

The 'rule' against a paladin attacking evil people, as identified by
/detect magic/, on sight may be a social matter. It can be very
disruptive to the society[1], it can be dangerous to the locals[2], it
can cause a great deal of unhappiness and fear among the populace[3].
The inability to prove the paladin *did* /detect evil/ is another big
part. An overzealous paladin (i.e. no longer a paladin because he made
some mistakes) who lacks the ability to /detect evil/, but has not been
identified as having fallen (he still pings LG, if anyone checks) might
kill someone and declare "I determined he was evil"... but there's no
way to prove it, corpses don't ping any alignment.

The law may have a great interest in not letting paladins, or others who
can /detect evil/, kill evil people on sight. I've described a number
of reasons this might be so. While a paladin is not necessarily
constrained by the law of the land, as you say, the disruption caused by
violating this law may be generally greater than the obvious benefit
(and getting your order banned from a town or country is a fairly large
inconvenience).

On the other hand, if the local law *does* allow it (your order is well
trusted by the populace, which might reduce a lot of these problems)
then the paladin may well kill on sight because someone pinged evil.

A paladin is not required to follow, to obey, a law that is counter to
his Code of Conduct. However, a law that *allows* him to do something,
rather than requiring him to do so, is another matter. The law does not
constrain him, so he doesn't have to worry about breaking it in order to
stay true to his Code.

[1] trigger-happy *anything* can cause trouble, never mind what it means
to suddenly lose someone doing an important function in the town.
Yeah, the sheriff is a bastard who really *enjoys* 'interrogations'
and executions... but offing him will be a huge pain in the ass for
all involved, he's *effective*.
[2] riling someone who already pings evil, especially if it's strongly,
can open the way to a huge amount of collateral damage. Take it out
of town, please.
[3] a lot of people are uncomfortable around police in *today's*
society; can you imagine what it would be like if a cop could look
at you, know that you're guilty of *something*, and arrest you to
find out what (let alone kill you on the spot because he *knows* you
did *something* to warrant it)? You're going to have a very nervous
populace.


Keith
--
Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
keith.davies.TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org receive spam with
keith.davies.TakeThisOut@gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.

Tetsubo <tetsubo.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> But did Luke kill his Father? No. He discovered within himself the
> strength and wisdom to see the truth.

That, and Vader kicked his ass. Again.

> If it had been an entirely internal struggle it would have been a
> fairly boring film. So we got a big flashy fight scene. But in the
> end, Luke sees the light and decides that his own death is preferable.

Because he refuses to join the Dark Side and serve the Emperor, yeah.
This does not mean his initial act -- trying to kill his father -- was
not evil.

If he was only fighting Vader to protect others (good intent) then it
would have been a good act. However, as I recall this wasn't why he was
fighting. If it had been, or he had been fighting so he could be close
enough to try to lure Vader away from the Dark Side (which would be
another good act), then the Emperor, the Dark Side, would have no hold
on him.

That there was an internal struggle indicates that his motives weren't
pure. He wanted to kill Vader, for personal reasons. *That* is what
would've brought him over to the Dark Side.

It seems that Star Wars does follow your philosophy on this. In the
cases where we've seen someone change sides, or have the potential to,
there was a single act that marked when it happened. Luke, it would've
been killing his father. Anakin, when he wiped out the Jedi Juniors.
They were both on the path to the Dark Side, but in each case it
would've been a specific act that marked the switch.

He may have released the path he was on and, by refusing to follow
further, managed to redeem himself almost immediately. He hadn't done
very much and was recoverable... but it doesn't mean he wasn't trying to
do something evil.

Incompetence, the lack of success in an evil endeavor, doesn't excuse
the intent. The intent is what makes an act (or attempted act) evil or
good (though some acts are so bad, for example, that you'd be hard
pressed to come up with an intent that made it not evil).


All that aside, alignment in 3.x is about general behavior and attitude.
Luke could have been conflicted about his father, but still generally
good enough that that didn't change his alignment. He was good, he
stayed good, but struggled with it in some areas. No problem. This
doesn't mean those thoughts weren't evil, he even acted on them but
could stay good overall[1].

In your case, you might be generally good as well (you're probably
actually neutral, fwiw; most people are). Being good doesn't preclude
evil thoughts, alignment is a *tendency*.

However, someone who thinks about it enough to ping as evil probably
dwells on and dreams about doing evil -- perhaps *especially* if he
hasn't actually done it. If you *are* a casual murderer (evil acts)
then you might not even think about it, it's just what you do. Intent
is there, in a general sense, but it's the acts that really make it
show. Someone who just *thinks* about it, constantly, daydreaming about
how he wants to murder this person, torture that one, rape the ones over
there... for him to ping as evil based on thought alone, it seems to me
that he's *only* lacking opportunity.

Killing the murderer is punishment, killing the only-thinker might be
self defense or societal preventative maintenance.

[1] paladins would have a problem here; they're held to a higher
standard


Of course, the entire problem is avoided if you just don't have the
only-thinkers ping evil. Define evil to be actionable, and people can
act. Define evil as possibly not relevant (you can only act *after* the
evil guy does) and you raise problems. However, since you *do* define
what cases would make someone 'actionably evil' rather than 'just looks
evil', just change the definition and the problem goes away.


I'm considering for my next campaign 'cosmic team jersey' alignments.
Mundane people simply don't trigger as any alignment, it requires an
actual supernatural connection to a power to register an alignment. You
have a pact with a demon (or an angel), for whatever reason, you'll ping
as the appropriate alignment.

Yes, even the LG (in RAW terms) wizard would register as CE if he had a
pact with a demon for power. The demon wants to tempt him, so offers
the power, the wizard has to stay vigilant and resist the temptation.
This offers his order access to power they wouldn't have had otherwise,
but it's risky -- they depend on the strength of will of their brave,
brave companion. Only the most proven and trustworthy are asked to fill
this role, and they're carefully watched by their comrades for signs of
failure.


Keith
--
Keith Davies You know you're working too much when you
keith.davies.TakeThisOut@kjdavies.org receive spam with
keith.davies.TakeThisOut@gmail.com "Subject: Erection issues resolved!"
http://www.kjdavies.org/ and you go looking for the trouble ticket.

Allen Wessels wrote:

> In article <gjgjl9$t78$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Then I guess we're screwed.
>>
>> Because if I have the power to stop a person from being persecuted for
>>their *thoughts* I'm going to do it.
>>
>> I'd rather see the whole thing fall apart then start tossing people in
>>jail for their thoughts.
>
>
> There is a difference between thinking about something and actually
> considering doing it.
>
> *Intent*.
>
> Thinking about something doesn't mean you would ever do it. Engaging
> the will makes the difference.
>
> It's the difference between "what are the possible outcomes of this
> situation" and "how can I best screw with that guy". It's ok for you to
> map out the angles because you need to know how it might look for the
> other guy. But mapping out the best way to screw with the other guy -
> that's where evil comes in.

Than by that definition I am evil. Because I really, really wanted to
kill certain people in my past. It consumed me. I just never did it.

>
> As a DM you're probably best off using the action=evil metric. It
> avoids potential judgement calls and issues of bias.

I use the metric in real life as well. Because if a person thinks about
something but never does it they only harm themselves.

>
> - Allen


--
Tetsubo
--------------------------------------
"The apparent lesson of the Inquisition is that insistence on
uniformity of belief is fatal to intellectual, moral and spiritual health."
-The Uses Of The Past-, Herbert J. Muller

BLUP

In article <gjgvag$t5d$1@news.motzarella.org>,
Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:

> Allen Wessels wrote:
>
> > In article <gjgjl9$t78$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> > Tetsubo <tetsubo.DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Then I guess we're screwed.
> >>
> >> Because if I have the power to stop a person from being persecuted for
> >>their *thoughts* I'm going to do it.
> >>
> >> I'd rather see the whole thing fall apart then start tossing people in
> >>jail for their thoughts.
> >
> >
> > There is a difference between thinking about something and actually
> > considering doing it.
> >
> > *Intent*.
> >
> > Thinking about something doesn't mean you would ever do it. Engaging
> > the will makes the difference.
> >
> > It's the difference between "what are the possible outcomes of this
> > situation" and "how can I best screw with that guy". It's ok for you to
> > map out the angles because you need to know how it might look for the
> > other guy. But mapping out the best way to screw with the other guy -
> > that's where evil comes in.
>
> Than by that definition I am evil. Because I really, really wanted to
> kill certain people in my past. It consumed me. I just never did it.

You would have pinged as evil briefly at those times, IMO. Acting on
those impulses might have pushed you over the line.

> > As a DM you're probably best off using the action=evil metric. It
> > avoids potential judgement calls and issues of bias.
>
> I use the metric in real life as well. Because if a person thinks about
> something but never does it they only harm themselves.

It all depends on how you define act. We learn from each other, mostly
by observing expressions and overt behaviors. I think very few truly
evil people can hide it all the time. Humans given enough data can
figure out who is *mean*.

- Allen

In article
<awessels-DAF017.17060230122008 RemoveThis @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Allen Wessels <awessels RemoveThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <baird-E9EAF7.18011130122008 RemoveThis @news.giganews.com>,
> Baird Stafford <baird RemoveThis @newstaff.com> wrote:

> > In article
> > <61f9ecb3-2192-47f9-8938-f454653e885b RemoveThis @m12g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> > Firelock <firelock_ny RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

> > <snip>

> > > My favorite example is the "Wow, I'd like to torture and kill
> > > these people, but I'm chained to a wall in a dungeon right
> > > now and can't move." Such a villain effectively can't act at
> > > all, but they can certainly still be evil.

> > Erm. Good folks can think exactly the same things under those
> > conditions....

> You're not Good if you're wanting to torture someone. It may feel good
> to think it, but evil folk do feel good about the evil oftentimes.

Don't know many combat veterans or former POWs, do you?

Baird

--
Bumper sticker: "If you can't operate your turn signal,
what makes you think you can drive the rest of the car?"

In article <baird-F6E477.18470031122008.RemoveThis@news.giganews.com>,
Baird Stafford <baird.RemoveThis@newstaff.com> wrote:

> In article
> <awessels-DAF017.17060230122008.RemoveThis@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Allen Wessels <awessels.RemoveThis@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <baird-E9EAF7.18011130122008.RemoveThis@news.giganews.com>,
> > Baird Stafford <baird.RemoveThis@newstaff.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <61f9ecb3-2192-47f9-8938-f454653e885b.RemoveThis@m12g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Firelock <firelock_ny.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > My favorite example is the "Wow, I'd like to torture and kill
> > > > these people, but I'm chained to a wall in a dungeon right
> > > > now and can't move." Such a villain effectively can't act at
> > > > all, but they can certainly still be evil.
>
> > > Erm. Good folks can think exactly the same things under those
> > > conditions....
>
> > You're not Good if you're wanting to torture someone. It may feel good
> > to think it, but evil folk do feel good about the evil oftentimes.
>
> Don't know many combat veterans or former POWs, do you?

I don't care if the emotions are understandable or if you were driven to
it. Wanting to torture someone is evil. Just because I feel sorry for
them and any reasonable person would do the same doesn't mean it isn't
evil.

I don't know any POWs. I lived on Okinawa for 8 years, so I have some
exposure to vets from all the branches and what war can do to a place
and a people.

None of that matters. Evil is evil.

- Allen

In article
<awessels-25C139.17100230122008 DeleteThis @newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Allen Wessels <awessels DeleteThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:

<snip>

> But I can have zombies commit evil acts all day and they're never
> evil?

Right. Zombies are mindless tools. The person who directs them to
commit evil acts is evil, but not the zombies. Unless, of course, you
want to argue that Lizzie Borden's axe was evil - but I warn you,
that'll be a hard sell as far as I'm concerned.

<snip>

Baird

--
Bumper sticker: "If you can't operate your turn signal,
what makes you think you can drive the rest of the car?"

In article <baird-9D5CD6.18492531122008.RemoveThis@news.giganews.com>,
Baird Stafford <baird.RemoveThis@newstaff.com> wrote:

> In article
> <awessels-25C139.17100230122008.RemoveThis@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Allen Wessels <awessels.RemoveThis@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > But I can have zombies commit evil acts all day and they're never
> > evil?
>
> Right. Zombies are mindless tools. The person who directs them to
> commit evil acts is evil, but not the zombies. Unless, of course, you
> want to argue that Lizzie Borden's axe was evil - but I warn you,
> that'll be a hard sell as far as I'm concerned.
>
> <snip>
>
> Baird

I understand why Zombies aren't evil. But you can't have it both ways.
If intent doesn't count, then it's the act. Substitute someone that's
been tricked into committing an evil act when they expected a good
outcome.

When does the trickster ping as evil?

- Allen