From: Rannou@info.polymtl.ca (Patrick Rannou)
Subject: Re: Paladins
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal, Canada
	<5099@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 08:47:02 GMT

In article <5099@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:


   In article <66696@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
   >Again, Captain America might be considered good, but he is not lawful
   >for the reason you mentioned.  I've never read CA, but I've read Batman,
   >and he is like what you described CA to be.  If CA is like Batman, then
   >he is *NOT* lawful.

	   Cap isn't like Bats at all. Batman is like Dirty Harry, while
   Cap is a goody goody like Superman. Cap never killed anyone that I know 
   of until he was completely backed into a corner... and then he paid
   for it with long agonizing nights...

   >Superman would be a better example of LG.  He operates within the law,
   >and he never killed anyone.

	   Sigh. You just don't GET it, do you?

	   That's YOUR definition of Lawful Good.

	   As I made very clear in my prior post, BOTH Superman and Dirty Harry
   are covered under MY definition: Both FOLLOW a SET OF RULES RELIGIOUSLY.

	   Superman, by the way, does NOT operate within the law. It is
   illegal for him to do many of the things he does.


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, not the way
society tells him he should enforce justice. He's chaotic all right, and
of you staret saying that he's lawful good according to his definition of
law and good, then EVERYBODY is lawful good. And if you measure up his
LGoodedness by some sort of absolute scale which stays the same for
everyone in the gaming world, then I strongly question your definition
of "good". Your definition of Lawful is on gthe mark, but Dirty Harry
DOESN'T follow a set of rules. Being predictable has NOTHING to do with
following a set of rules. Example: You know a very chaotic person who
always do as he wants and is very lazy. Whenever he has something to do, he
always put it on the backburner and do it later or not at all. In short:
in: He's CHAOTIC and VERY PREDICTABLE. I repeat again: Dirty Harry isn't
following a sset of rules. When he faces a problem, he solves it HIS way,
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."

If you still think Dirty Harry is Lawful after that, then I'm won't try to
coivince you otherwise. Chaotic is the characterisdtic is the guy who
choose for himself and follow the other's laws only when he want to, lawful
is the characteristic of the guy who follow the law even if he doesn't want
to. Following a set of rules should be taken more like "restriction of
one's personnal liberty of choice" rather than "predictable", which has
NOTHING to do with lawful/chaotic. A guy can be quite chaotic and
predictable.

BatMan ISN'T like Dirty Harry. BatMan is GOOD, he will not kill. Dirty
Harry is Chaotic Neutral: he just doesn't care about thowse he kills, he
views them just as "the world is better off rid of them creeps". BIG
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!).

BatMan and SuperMan follow a set of rules. They both will not kill, even
tough they really want to do so. Dirty Harry just choose the course of
action the most expeditive and which suits HIM best. That makes BatMan
more Lawful than Dirty Harri. I'd purt BatMan Neutral Good or even with
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.

BatMan could fill the role of Paladin, he's the kind of person that you
might call "Defenseur de la Veuve et de l'orphelin". 

SuperMan does OF COURSE, he's the utlimate role model.

Dirty Harri being a paladin? Don't make me laugh. 

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. 

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! So What I mean is: what do you
find more important: laawful in respect to how a persons RELATES TO SOCIETY
or lawful according to how a person simply acts, whatever her lifestyle and
beliefs? Both help define who that person is, but AD&D's alignment system.,
IMHO, was intended to be perceived more like the first definition.

Lawful = laws, society.
Good = morals, individual.

Simple, really.

Pat.




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