From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Subject: Re: Paladins
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada
	<RANNOU.92Aug27034702@zuse.info.polymtl.ca>
	<5253@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:52:25 GMT

In article <5253@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:

   In article <RANNOU.92Aug27034702@zuse.info.polymtl.ca> Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou) writes:
   >Dirty Harry, following a set of rules? HA! He just does want he WANTS to
   >do, he's chaotic good 100%! He enforces justice HIS way

	   Sort of, but he still has rules. He believes in the punishment of
   criminals, but he has a structure to the way he does it. There ARE rules
   that he follows. I suppose I could even write a few of them down:

	   1) Go through the proper procedure unless someone is making it
   impossible (like, when you're getting shot at is not a time to read'em
   their rights).
	   2) When the system fails, enforce the more important law -- the 
   DUTY WITH WHICH YOU ARE CHARGED FIRST, to PROTECT the PEOPLE.
	   3) Always try to bring the dude in alive if reasonable. But
   if you KNOW that this guy will get away to kill again, follow rule 2.

	   There are others, but if you watch he follows these rules. Even
   the Zodiac Killer, who'd gotten away from him before, had shot him, etc.,
   was given a chance to go in alive. He chose to take his chances and ended
   up dead. 

You call that rules? I call that:

"OK, I'll try to do that. If it's too hard, I'll do that istead. If it's
still too hard, then I'll do that instead". These aren't rules, an ideal
which he tries to do his best to uphold. If they really were rules, he'd
have to regret some decision, thinking "it would be so much easier if I
simply killed him, but I'm not like that, so I won't fall to that". There
is a BIG difference between someone who has a code ands adhere to it
strictly EVEN WHEN IT DOESN'T SUIT HIM, and someone who make up his own
"rules" so that it will suit him eveyr time! If you disagree, then
EVERYBODY has "a strict set of rules".

Here's an easy one, just to prove you're in the potato field:
The guy's a murderer who doesn't like women. Here are his rules:
"If the person isn't a girl, I'll be nice"
"If she;s a girl but is strongly protected or in a public place, then I'll
fake nice, and if she doesn't trouble me I wont try to go after her"
"If she's alone, I'll rape her"
"If she resist, I smash her face"
"If she still resist and start looking dangerous, I'll kill her."

RTHese aren't rules: It's a PERSONNALITY description. The "rules" you gave
for Dirty Harry are not a code, but a personnality description too.

	   A chaotic would have just blown Zodiac away THE FIRST TIME because
   it was easier.

Ooohh, sure. THINK. If a chaotic was too let loose every time, what would
happen? *HE* would be the one to go into jail. If your chaotic thought he's
SURE to get away with it and nobody won't EVER notice, then he'd do it
right the first time, maybe, but that wouldn't be chaotic good, that would
be evil. The chaotic good wil think "I'll give him his chances... according
to how ****I**** view his chances and if he does as I say, then he'll live
to not regret it.". That's good because he's giving the guy a chance.
That's chaotic, because HE is arrogant enough to think that he should be
sole judge of these chances instead of society itself.

If Dirty Harry would be to start shootin everyttime things don't go his
way, then he would end up in jail. Even if he's chaotic, he knows that
it';s very hard to make evidence disappear. Or very bad to punish someone
you aren't SURE is the culprit, even if things seem to be so (another one
could be behind inm the shadows, making it look like the "to be killed evil
red shirt guy" is the real bad man, in order to create himself an alibi an
thus come out clean himself). The chaotic knows all that and he knows that
it's very hard to make a dead guy talk. The chaotci guy, like Dirty Harry,
will think "Ho, do I wish to shoot my bullets through his ugly face, that's
all his kind deserves. But if I do that I'll go to jail. I must do what's
right." while the lawful guy will think: "Ho, do I wish to shoot my bullets
through his ugly face, that's all his kind deserves. But that would be
against the law, and even if I disagree I'm not one to decide alone for
society itself. I must do what's right."

You see the difference? The chaotic think more for himself, while the lawful
act with premade rules in mind, be it his own rules or those of others.

The line isn't always easy to see, but most time we don't do what we would
like to do not because we feel it's the wrong thing to do but because we
know that if we do it, we'll be somehow, somewhen, punished for it. That's
chaotic. But if you don't do it because it's not the right thing to do, not
because you'd get punished for it, then it's lawful. And it's the same
thing on the good/evil scale, but this time it's according to moral things
instead of social things.

   >the way he wants to solve it because he wants to do it like that. We NEVER
   >hear him say.... "Aaagh, it would be so much simpler to deal with that
   >creep by putting a bullet in his head, but *MY* wants and views aren't the
   >absolute truth of the world (tm), I must follow the rules and not do what I
   >want to do everytime, so I must restrict myself."

	   The hell we don't. He gives the system plenty of chances. But he is,
   in a way, a Paladin of a different god. He may be a cop, but he's serving
   the god of JUSTICE, not the one of DUE PROCESS. So when Due Process and
   lawyers and luck of the devil get in the way of the Laws of Justice, Harry
   goes out and follows his TRUE duty.

Thre is no such thing as a paladin of a different god. The word "paladin"
is "wearing" a whole set of beliefs and way of life all by itself. You
can't be a paladin without also wearing the same set of beliefs, or you're
not a paladin. Well, of course we could strecth it to say that the type of
character doing the NEAREST equivalent role for his god that the paladin
does for the god of "pure lawful gooddeness" COULD be called a paladin too.
But I far prefer to use the term "Holy Warrior", which doesn't bring along
with it all the connotations of the Modern view of the european middle age
paladin as a "role model". Then according to what you say, you mean Dirty
Harry woiuld be a Holy warrior of Justice? Now, that looks good. But
somehow to me a god of justice ISN'T lawful good. It's NEUTRAL NEUTRAL.
Because whatever the chances of repentance of the wrongdoer, the Holy
Warrior of the god of Justice will see to it that "Justice is served". If
he can use the law to do it, fine. If he can't, too bad but he will do it
anyway because he must do it, according to his own view of things. He'll
break laws if he have to in order to bring Justice to the world. And when
he finally meet his target for the death blow, I say he's not neutral good
but neutral evil because the "Justicier", as I would call that sub-class of
the HolyWarrior class (the paladin being another sub-class of the same
class), then he will think "his kind deserve no less". He's doing it for
the good of the world, ofd course, but he doesn't have pity for the guy, he
doesn't feel compassion, and doesn't regret having had to kill him. I'm not
saying he hates the guy, is angered at him and feels happy about it
afterward. Don't think I'm going from one exterme to the other.

The Justicier, he does what he does because he's simply "doing his job",
and what he do for the Cause (tm). That makes him neutral neutral, because
like druids he doesn't get involved as long as it's not "for the cause",
and when he does, he won't rest until he brough justice (in this case) to
the world.

A good person cares about life. Who says that this criminal might not, if
put in prison instead of being killed, in twenty years time, become a good
man, and truly repent from his crimes? Then killing him now is just
assuring that this soul will go to hell. That's not good. Of course, you
might say that the mediaval guiy doesn't think about that, but the TRULY
GOOD guy do, whatever era he lives in. The Justicier will be the kind to
start a war if it is what it takes to bring justice to the world (i.e.
Dirty Harry not like to but be ready to start a war between the crime-rings
and the police if it is whayt is really needed in order to get to a
criminal and punish him). The truly good guy (tm) will instead try to make
peace. You might say that if everybody in the world would be lawful and/or
good, then the world would quikcly get pretty boring very fast. There is an
aspect of STABILITY in good and lawful, and an aspect of instability and
chanbe in chaos or evil, that will always be there no matter what. The
truly good guy will also, UNLIKE Dirty Harry, value not only the
life/good/health/value/state of society, but the
life/good/health/value/state of the individual also. ALL individuals, not
only those whom he likes and who fit neatly into his own beliefs and way of
life. He will respect people, even when these people are wrong. He will NOT
give "eye for eye, stone for stone".

Thin kabout the original situation again: The thief tries to steal a magic
item, but fails. In short, he accomplishe nothing except getting the ire of
his companions. Now, th paladin kills him. I'd call that a TAD
overreacting. Example #2: If the thief had hidden the magic item, then the
paladin wouldn't have killed him right away, he would have interrogated him
instead (or let his friends do the actual "violent" interrogating). Since
his decision is different in the two cases. that can only mean ONE thing:
something in there justify this change of decision, and is more important
than whatever other reason he had to kill the thief in the first place,
because otherwise he would not have changed his actions. That something is
easy to find: Wanting to recuperate the sword. I didn't say greed. But it's
clear that to the paladin, the sword is more valuable than the thief's
LIFE.
And placing an ITEM more important than a being's LIFE, that surely CAN'T
be good. Not "true uppermost good", anyway. And the paladin is the one
who's supposed to be soooo much LG.



   >BatMan ISN'T like Dirty Harry. BatMan is GOOD, he will not kill. Dirty

	   The Dark Knight is quite willing to kill when he knows it's the
   best way to deal with the problem. Maybe you've been reading too many
   early 70's Batman. The one I saw in Dark Knight won't kill a surrendering,
   helpless chump, but if they're full of fight, don't bet on his mercy.

1) Just WHERE do you get that info from? i.e. what images, panels?
2) If you would have read MY post correctly, instead of concentrating only
on the parts which suited you (yes, this IS a flame), you would have read
that I EXCLUDED the "Broody violent Dark Knight 90's version of BatMan"
from the BatMan concept altogether, so these doesn't count. I didn't say
the "Dark Knight" BatMan was LG nowhere. I did say the BatMan we know from
the other comics is LG. SO BIG a difference that I flamed.
3) He ALWAYS does his killing as a LAST resort, and everytime it happens he
wishes he hadn't or regret it. He NEVER does it by choice. Heck, once he
had the chance to kill the Joker just after that one killed many people,
abnd he didn't. It's true, a couple of times he said "enough is enough!!!"
and said he wwas going to kill the Joker, and sometime even made a move
against him. But that oonly mean that absolute LG is impossible to attain
at all times: the BatMan is human, he can have weaknesses too. When he
tried to kill deliberately, THEN he surely wasn't acting LG!!! He was
acting on revenge.
4) He fights because he has to, but maybe you HAVEN'T been reading BatMan,
just looked at the pictures, because what *I* remember from what is WRITTEN
along with these pictures is that he nearly always take GREAT care NOT to
give mortal blows, just to put unconscious. Considering that BatMan's
fighting skill are so good that he can kill just about anybody with a
single well placed blow, and that fighting against 20+ thugs would be far
more easier for him if he was putting all his dealdy moves in it, and if
the thugs KNEW that BatMan was fighting for the kill, and thus would be
much more afraid and panic and fight even less good, then I think that
BatMan's actions are very GOOD on the alignment scale.

I really cna't see how you can say BtaMan isn't good, while saying at the
same time that Dirty Harry is good. The first respect his oppenents and try
his best never to kill them, and if it happens he feels sorry about it. The
other give them "their chance" and kill them when they don't do what he
say, and thereafter he feels that they got what they deserved, and you
still say that Harry is more good than BatMan???

That's sick. 

	   And even if he won't kill, TORTURE is good while KILLING is not?
   Because Bats DOES beat the living hell out of people to get information.

He doesn't torture them. And he doesn't like doing it neither. You haven't
seen torture until you've read about the medieval ways to torture in
history books. I had a friend who read such a book, and he told me what was
in it. Real torture is SOOO horrible that I had NIGHTMARES about it.

Often, torturers get a great rush out of seeing their victim suffer, too. I
mean, putting a guy naked on a plate fully covered with tiny spiky balls,
and having hungre rats eat him from inside is pretty sick. THAT'S torture.

If you say that BatMan's beatin up of thugs to get information is torture,
then you might as well say that every parent who spank their child's ass
instead of confining them to their room when they had done something bad
did such a horrible thing: he tortured them!!! If the parent enjoyed it,
then I say yes he did torture them. Now, I don't want to go in the "so, if
a guy does something, the value of that action must be juged by what he's
thinking at the moment he's doing it?" thread again, so please don't 
"torture" me... ;-)



   >difference. Sometimes, SeaWasp, I wonder what happens in your head. You
   >have a big imagination, but your views of alignemewnts are one of the most
   >UNIQUE I've ever seen (and boy, do I've seen many!).

	   Well, I've used this view ever since I had to decide how I would
   work alignments 12 years ago. It works pretty well for me.

THen I don't have all the info, or it doesn't show up as much in your
games, because I can't think ALL of your players could agree with your
views of alignements.

AND... well, I've played for 7 years, I worked my alignemen's viewt 6 years
ago, decided it was a big hole in the rules 5 or 4 years ago and use
personnality descriptions instead, and let me tell you, no one of my
players has ever said he had a problem with the way I worked alignements!
OF COURSE THEY DIDN'T. It's not as if I actually sdat down with them and
we started talking about ouw I view alignements. THEN I'm sure things
would pop up. But until the info get passed down to your players, then it
doesn't matter if 1 or 10 years have elapsed. They base THEIR view of an
NPC on the way you roleplay it after all, and they can't se what's going on
in their head, and apart from the single time where they started palying
and you explained to them (the players() what the alignements where, and of
course back then they just didn't care too much about it... after all it's
just a game, and the campaign is starting so let`s not judge too hastily,
and saying you don't completely agree with the GMs view of alignements and
starting an argument with him is stupid because it's the best way to make
sure hte GM doesn't like you too nmuch and kick you out before you're even
in!

Sheesg, it's like if you said "I've lived in the same house for 20 years
and my girlfriend doesn't have a problem with my parents" while she only
sees them when there's a holiday. She never got to live with them, so how
could she possibly know them? The analogy may be awkward, but you get the
idea. Sometimes, I happen what happens in my head. These day, I wonder what
happens in yours. Truly. That doesn't mean I think you're crazy. If that's
true, then we ALL are crazy.


   >string lawful tendencies, because he doesn't operates outside the law by
   >choice, but because he's forced to in order to be able to do what he does.
   >And he doesn't do it by choice either, he does it because "Somebody has to
   >do it, and nobosy else can", and he cooperates strongly with the police.
   >All these alspects are lawful, while I'm sure Dirty Harri could get nailed
   >pretty easily with all the killing he's made.

	   Uh- HUH? Batman does pretty much the same thing Harry does, for
   precisely the same reasons -- heck, Harry even uses LEGAL means quite
   a bit (he obviously does a lot of regular arrests and so on that we never
   see) -- but BATMAN, because he's a vigilante (breaking the law off the
   bat, so to speak) is LAWFUL, while HARRY is not.

Well, now you finally have a strong point in your favor. I'm not trying to
prove BatMan is Lawful. At leaast he's good. Dirty Harry, I don't know him
as well, so I guess you coul;d make him Lawful. But Lawful Good? Doubtful.
Even then, he would NOT be the "ultimate" lawful good, and thus not be a
Paladin. Personnally, I'd put BatMan as Neutral Good, and Dirty Harry as
Lawful Neutral, just to make you happy. But a guy who kills and doesn't do
his damnedest best to prevent it ISN'T good. When you think that a Lawful
Evil character can be just about any policeman you see, just because he
makes people respect the law.. it's just that they themselves have no
respect for the people who don't respect the law, well that surely can't be
good. Now, if they start having fun doing it, then it's evil. No need to
think of evil as "I'm gonna KILLL KILL KILL everyone HAHAHAHAHA!". Many
more people that appear compeltely good from the surface are in fact evil.
it's just that there is NO reason for them to ACT evil unless there is a
good reason too. Like that trucker you talked with at the gas station
yesterday seemed such a nice guy, but in truth he raped and killed a girl
last month. You saw him as good, he is evil.

Tha'ts why i don't put Harry as good. Following the law when it suits you
just fine, or doing good actions when it suits you just fine, don't mean
ANYTHING. It's when it DOESN'T suits you that still following the SAME
rules, wheter you like it or not, that you the hallmarks of lawful (or
good) comes up. That's why I hesitate to put Dirty Harry in the Lawful
category. I did anyway to make you happy and prove I'm more open-minded
than I may seem.


   >And SuperMan not operating within the law: just where have you gotten that
   >from? From every movie I've seen, every comic book EXCEPT some of the most
   >recent ones WHERE HE'S DEPICTED IN A DARKER WAY ( so that doesn't count),
   >h'es ALWAYS has been admired by everybody, and the police counts on him to
   >save the day. 

	   Vigilantism is against the law.

Yeah, then why are these guys adored by the masses? Lawful is not according
to a bunch of words on a paper of law. It's according to society itself. In
fact, the Lawful/Chaos axis is VERY much similar to the Good/Evil axis,
only that one is made toward the social things, and the other toward the
moral things. Anyho, thats how *I* view alignements. You have the right to
reamin slien.. .huhh, to have a different basis for these axis, though.


   So is eavesdropping. So is assault,
   breaking and entering, and a whole HOST of other things that superheroes 
   do as a matter of course. Superman has better press and looks nicer and talks
   nicer, so he gets the shining rep while Batman stays frightening and shadowy,
   but make no mistake, both of them START OUT BREAKING THE LAW as soon as
   they put on their funky gear, and KEEP ON BREAKING IT EVERY DAY. "I saw
   Lex Luthor planning the destruction of Metropolis." Attourney: "Ah. And
   HOW did you see this?"  Supes: "With my X-ray vision." Attourney:"I see.
   And did you have a warrant to invade my client's privacy?"

Oh. Great. Yeah, it's true that they break the law, but they don't break
the spirit of the law, the reason why the law exist: to attain the best
health of society itself. So if Supes would have refrained from using his
X-Ray vision because it's not right to eavesdrop, even if he DOES have some
doubts about Luthor preparing a nasty something, it's not a Law/Chaos
thing here but a Good/Evil thing here. If he refrains from doing it, it's
because of his respect for the individual. He does eavesdrop, still
,because in that case the needs of the many outweigths the needs of the
one.

In short, Law/Chaos can be defined related to "The needs of the many",
while Good/Evil can be defined related to "The needs of the One". If
someone care ONLY about himself, then surely he isn;t good, because when
ytou look at how he cares for "the needs of the one", you see that he
practice "two weigths, two balances to measure them". And he isn''t lawful
either because he doesn't care about the needs of the many at all, he has
different rules for different situations, etc... He's CE. What's so bad
about being CE??? Yes, it's bad, but no need to try to kill everybody on
sight to be CE. People who are CE simply care for nothing but themselves,
that's all. LE care for the needs of the many because they follow the
rules, even if they wish to change them. And when they can change them,
that's usually because they are "on top" of things, thus it shows that
their decisions will have great effects in their society. You just have to
look at how orderly the guy runs things to see if he's lawful. If he's
chaotic, he won't CARE about the needs of the many for a stable society,
and while maybe he will like to lead, he won't like at all all the ruling
chores that go with it.


   >Really, you have strange views of lawful and good. Thus, if a criminal
   >mastermind does his crimes in a predictable fashion, he's lawful? Well,
   >maybe, but hew breaks the law constantly!


	   I only consider lawful to mean "governed by a set of laws, WHETHER
   EXTERNAL (society) or INTERNAL (code of behavior) which they do not break
   of their own accord."

Since any internal code of behavior is, by definition, made according to
the guy's own desires, thhhen it doesn't count. BatMan's code of behavior
is inherited from his martial arts masters, superman from his parents. I
simply don't believe in internal codes, IMHO it's too much like saying
1 + 1 = 2 because 2 = 1 + 1... And given your definition of Lawful, then
EVERYBODY is lawful, because everybody has a set of rules that don't break
by their own accord... it's just that the guy's rules will always fit just
what he wants to do.

Remember that for characters of *ANY* alignement, the actions they do isn't
onjly the result of alignemnt, but also from the pressures of society,
because they know that there is a thing called "punishment". Today, a
chaotic evil guy might follow the law to the letter, not because he's
lawful but because he KNOWS that if he doesn't, he'll go to jail or have to
pay a fine. It's the threat of punishement whiich changes the "natural"
first reaction here.

And after a while, say a couple of years, if a character's general
situation stays reletiveley the same, like Harry will probably still be a
cop in tyhe same cityfacing ther same kind of criminals, well it's no
wonder that the "rules" we seem to see are just the natural effect of
the natural choices of the character over time, when he was a few years
younger. And your "rules" can't be accepted as such if they are only the
result of observation. The character himself must also acknoledge them. If
you asked him "What are your rules", then Supes and BatMan might say "I
will not kill" in their set, but what would Dirty Harry say?

    "Go through the proper procedure unless someone is making it
   impossible (like, when you're getting shot at is not a time to read'em
   their rights)."

Wow, what a great rule! Wondrous words of wisdom!

It's like saying "I'll try to walk unless there is a wall in front of me."
A rule with an "if" in it is not a code of behavior, it's a personnality
description or a viewpoint, or thought patterns.  Your rule sounds just as
stupid as if BatMan said "I'll try not to kill them unless they force me
too". See, its like if the guys always leaving himself an easy (or not so
easy) way out. A possibility to choose something else. The only "rules"
that can fit into a LAWFUL behavior do NOT include any "ways out". They
pose a CODE of conduct, and you apply to it the best you can, and must feel
ashamed when you didn't live up to it. That's lawful. 

Example: Today`s world. You drive a car. There is a rule that say "you
will stop at red lights". The rule isn't "you will stop at red light unless
a crazed bunch of killer are chasing you (or whatever other reason).". And
the rule is there to make you do it at all times where thee isn't other
factors to justify not following the rule. The rule isn't "built up" on a
way out. It's built up on the law and what you should do. Now, it's there
so that IF you happen to fire a red ligfht, then you really should feel
ashamed of having done that... in normal circumstances.

Nowe, if a crazed bunch or killers really chased you, and you didn't stop
at the red light, sure you broke the rule (while if it was formulated "you
do it unless you can't" you'd never get to break the rule), but you had a
REASON to, and a very good one, and most of all when looking at it others
will see that you had the RIGHT to break the rule, and that means you still
acted lawful, so they wonrt bother you. I.E. If a policeman said I had to
pay the fine for firing a red light after I just escaped from the bunch of
killers, and the police capture the killer just before they got me, then
i'd look at the policeman and think he was humoring me.).



	   A criminal mastermind, for example, like Doctor Doom, who has a very
   strong code of behavior and honor and the "proper" way to do things, is
   Lawful Evil. One like The Master (particularly in his later incarnations)
   who will do ANYTHING in order to accomplish his goals, make any promises,
   and so on, is not following a SET of laws, but ONE law only: Whatever Works.

OK, Doom is LE, I don't know the Master but he's chaotic all right.
Is Galactus, according to YOUR definition, Lawful? Well, I'd say he's not
so Lawful...

I mean, we now see that there are MANY ways of describing "lawful":

1- Following the letter of the law
2- Following a code of behavior
3- Acting in a consistent/constant way
4- Acting regarding the spirit of the law
5- Acting regarding the needs of society
6- Following a set of rules

We could, I suppose, go on... But I'll just concludes on ONE thing we ALL
agree on:

That to make a good character concept, wwe should first define his
PERSONNALITY, then the GM gives a temporary alignement based on his views
of that personnality, in it's myriad aspects, and then, after a few sessions of
gaming the character, the GM gives the "final" alignement of the PC, which
may well be the same as before, but anyway the alignement is, at all times,
considered to be just a gross "indicator" of the personnaloty of the
character, and may anyway change anytime as the character's personnality
evolve through roleplaying and major events in the character's life.



				    Sea Wasp
				      /^\
				      ;;;



--
/---------------------------\
| Patrick "Paradak" Rannou. |
| Rannou@info.polymtl.ca    |
\---------------------------/

Xref: sparky rec.games.frp.dnd:3041 rec.arts.sf.written:11475