From: ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 23 Aug 92 07:15:09 GMT
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology

In article <5082@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:

>>Killing a thief without even giving him the right to defend himself
>>is not good.

>	Why not? If, as I already pointed out, the god itself has said that
>theivery is a heinous crime and must be punished extremely? He GAVE UP
>the right to defend himself, or even to posess his life, by the example
>I gave. He HAS no rights.

Then you and I have very different views on rights.  I don't think someone
sacrifices all his rights just because he commits a crime.  Spitting on
the sidewalk is a crime too.  Should the paladin kill someone who does
that?

>>paladin.  Who did he steal from?  If it was the ranger, then the paladin
>>has no business in the matter.  If it was the paladin, then that's a more
>>grey area, but I still don't believe that any good deity would condone
>>cold-blooded murder.

>	First: if it is a god's decree that stealing is a heinous evil,
>then from a PALADIN perspective it does not MATTER WHO YOU STOLE FROM.

Bullsh*t.  If the thief stole from the ranger, and the ranger says
"Oh, well, I didn't really need that +3 longsword anyway", then the
paladin can't do anything about it.  It doesn't affect him, he has
nothing to do with it, and to stick his nose in where it doesn't belong
is just asking to get his ass kicked.

>He is by his duty BOUND to act in the matter no matter who was involved.

Wrong.

>	Second: Murder only applies to people. By the example I gave before,
>the theif gives up his rights, from both the Paladin and his god's perspective,
>by stealing at all, period. Therefore, the theif is NOT A PERSON by the 
>standards of the god or the Paladin, but is a pest.

I see.  So anyone who commits a crime not only sacrifices all his rights,
but is also no longer a person?  What else happens?  They've already
given up their rights and their humanity.  What else do they lose?  I want
to know, because I'd hate to be the guy that drove over the speed limit
in *YOUR* world.

>	Now, you'll say, "Well, that's not a GOOD god, then." But that
>presumes that what YOU think is GOOD is what the GOD (who, after all,
>determines what his/her/its paladins can and can't do) thinks is good.
>If the God believes that the only true EVIL is to sing, then the
>Paladins of that god must stop singing at all costs, even if it means
>wholesale slaughter of church choirs.
>	From the point of view of the GOD, "Good" is usually what the
>GOD believes in. 

This is really getting ridiculous.  There must be a universal good
and a universal evil.  Otherwise, all gods would be good.  They are
all doing what THEY believe in, so that must make them all good.  Funny,
because Bane is an evil god.  Is he doing the opposite of what he believes?
That wouldn't make a whole lot of sense, now would it?  What about neutrality?
The only way to be neutral is to not do anything at all.  Because if you
do something, it will either be in accordance with what you believe in
(good) or not in accordance with it (evil).

>	"But YOU said the Doctor was EVIL!"
>	"FOOLISH BOY! I AM THE *BLACK* GUARDIAN! THE DOCTOR'S GOOD IS
>MY *EVIL*!"

You just proved my point.  So the black guardian's good is what we
would consider evil.  There must be an absolute good, or alignments
wouldn't mean anything at all; everyone would be considered good -
compared to their own set of beliefs.


-- 
Jorge Diaz                       | Sign in a restaurant:
Georgia Institute of Technology  | 
Office of Information Technology |   "We reserve the right to serve refuse to
ccoprdj@prism.gatech.edu         |        anyone."