From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:05:59 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

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. 

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

>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.

>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.

	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.

>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.

>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.

>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. 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?"

>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."

	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.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;