From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Paladins
Date: 23 Aug 92 14:46:56 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@pmax1.cis.pitt.edu

In article <66619@hydra.gatech.EDU> ccoprdj@prism.gatech.EDU (Jorge Diaz) writes:
>In article <5082@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp) writes:
>>	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?

	*SIGH*.

	I really wish you didn't take this as though I was believing 
everything personally. I don't, you know.

	I stated, at the beginning of this thread, that I was playing
Devil's Advocate. I don't believe in total relatavism; I believe in some
absolute Good and Evil. However, what a SOCIETY and a DEITY (the only
things that count when it comes to a Paladin) think are good and evil
often vary. Remember, not all that long ago it was perfectly "good"
to own slaves, and even to shoot them if they did something that 
annoyed you.

>"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.

	Oh? So basically what you're saying is that a Paladin should only
interfere with things that directly involve him, unless asked to by some
other party? That kinda waters down the Paladin. One of the points of 
Paladins (both good and bad) to me was that, even if it was a not always
bright thing to do, a Paladin would not tolerate what he thought of as
wrongdoing ANYWHERE IN HIS VICINITY. It didn't matter why or who or where;
right was right, wrong was wrong, and that was that. If the victim said
it was all right, that didn't change anything; you know how people can
be confused, threatened, browbeaten, hypnotized, bewitched, or simply
inured to tolerate evil! You must make an EXAMPLE! Awaken people to
their duties! To the FIGHTING of Evil! 

	And so on...

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

>Wrong.

	As above demonstrates, I stand by my position. A Paladin who only
acts where invited (Unless, say, he's the paladin of the god of Courtesy
or something) will not remain a paladin long. GOD: "WHY didn't you stop
that prostitution ring?"  Paladin: "Well, none of them said there was 
anything wrong with it..."  GOD: "Don't you know that the ladies didn't
dare protest because the leader beat them?"  Pal: "How could I? I would have 
had to spy on them, and no one asked me..."  GOD: "Er, right. Look, you're
a good chap and all, but Milquetoasts Anonymous has an opening for you.
I need some real obnoxious idealistic zealots, not a nice polite twit."

>>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.

	Remember, they're not MY views. Just possible views of a deity.

	In point of fact, I DO believe that someone who deliberately and
with full knowledge chooses to commit a violent crime (Rape, murder, 
assault) HAS given up their rights to any consideration by me or their
victim(s) and had better not expect that I restrain myself in self defense.
But my reasoning, cases, and so on to explain and clarify exactly what I
mean is something far too long to post here.

>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.

	It makes them all good TO THEMSELVES AND FROM THE POINT OF VIEW
OF THEIR WORSHIPPERS. However, to anyone on the OPPOSITE side, they appear
to be EVIL. Most people won't deliberately choose to see themselves as
Bad Guys.

	Now, if you say that your Bad Guys *KNOW* and *ACCEPT* that they
are indeed Bad Guys, then okay. But generally I see even the evil types
as believing that they are completely right in what they do.

	I *DO* assign absolute alignments in my world, but only for 
the convenience of remembering who the Really Good and REally Bad are.
One of the reasons nearly all gods have Paladins/Holy Warriors/etc in
my world is that all of them believe THEY are the good guys and must
fight to promote those causes just like the others, etc...

>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.

	Precisely. Compared to your own beliefs, you're probably good (unless
you somehow ended up doing something you didn't believe in, like a pacifist
who, pushed into a corner, grabbed a gun and shot his attackers).
The alignments as used in the game are just markers for us (the all-powerful
and all-knowing GMs) to denote who is Really Good and Really Evil. But
generally the people down there all think that they are good.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;