| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Cleric of Bast05-20-05, 10:00 PM | As i was Showing My freind the Paladin Variants He told me to Paladin Of Freedom is Redundent, It Is Just an Excuse to Gain the Paladin's Class Abiliities without Following a Code, So what EXactly Is the Paladin of Freedom's Code and How much one Act? |
| Derren S.05-21-05, 05:00 AM | Imo the paladin of freedom is rather impossible to play. While he is a paragon of good, he is also a paragon of chaos and as such would be against any form of concentration of power so would try to at least make the people question their rulers (when the rulers are good) or even oppose and overthrow them (neutral and evil). And while this might result in something good in the long run, the immediate effects are rather bad and might cause suffering which can't be arranged with the paladins code of beeing good. |
| Count Arioch the 28th05-21-05, 07:00 AM | It's kinda hard to be good, and yet still oppose the good and rightful king of the land. The Paladin of freedom is pretty rigid in that respect. |
| Verelor05-21-05, 07:31 PM | If you didn't know, Unearthed Arcana has some pretty low-quality and cruddy material (but definitely a few superb bits of content that make it worthwhile), but the paladin variants presented in tehre are jsut plain laughable. If you want to play a truly awesome paladin, check THIS (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=158114) out. :D :D :D :D :D :D |
| Verelor05-21-05, 07:34 PM | Btw sorry for the double post but that is why nuetral good is such an alignment to be. You are concerned with the good of the world and are far from blind about it, and are not going to unseat a good-hearted ruler simply because it is your anarchistic standard for everything. |
| The Stray05-23-05, 06:20 AM | As i was Showing My freind the Paladin Variants He told me to Paladin Of Freedom is Redundent, It Is Just an Excuse to Gain the Paladin's Class Abiliities without Following a Code, So what EXactly Is the Paladin of Freedom's Code and How much one Act? The Paladin of Freedom does actually have a code. Their code instructs them to preserve individual liberty, promote the values of free-thinking and individualism, and oppose the works of tyrants and those who would crush the basic inalienable rights that the PoF believes are inherant in all sentient creatures. A Paladin of Freedom's drving creed is "look out for the little guy," for in his eyes, the views of a peasant are just as valid as those of a king, and his life is just as precious. It is not a way to gain the paladin's class abilites without the code...they are supposed to be following an ideal, just like the Paladin of Justice, and those who stray from that ideal should lose those abilites. A Paladin of Freedom will not oppose the good and just king of the land just because he represents "The Man." If he truly is a good and just king, the PoF will gladly agree to live and let live, but in no way does he feel that he should obey the king simply because he is the king. He WILL ask the people to question their rulers and to play an acitve roll in their local politics, because in his view the government that governs least governs best, and that people have a duty to think for themselves instead of letting others do their thinking for them, and he's a true believer in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. |
| Lord Schpungus05-24-05, 01:30 PM | It's kinda hard to be good, and yet still oppose the good and rightful king of the land. The Paladin of freedom is pretty rigid in that respect. The question is, what is a 'rightful' king? Do you think because his great-grandpappy slaughtered the previous line of rulers he is the best man for the job? He fell into the position, and he should just as easily fall out of it if he's inept and cruel. The Paladin of Freedom won't automatically dethrone a good authority, but he will watch closely for abuses of power and threats to individual liberty, both of which are signs that this 'good' and 'rightful' king is neither. |
| Derren S.05-24-05, 01:35 PM | The Paladin of Freedom won't automatically dethrone a good authority, Actually he would. A Paladin of Freedom is also a paragon of chaos, so he battles any form of ruler who exerts control over others. |
| Verelor05-24-05, 07:07 PM | It really is best to avoid paladins of freedom in your games. They really are laughable how they were presented in UA with the other variants (You want an anti-paladin? It's called a BLACKGAURD you dolts, stick your noses in that Dungeon Master Guide). It might be apparent by now that the freedom paladin really isn't nearly so much a spiritual crusader as a political (rather, antipolitical)one. I'm certainly not saying don't play a paladin of freedom. It's just not a very good idea. |
| Ever Lonely Ty05-24-05, 07:38 PM | A Paladin is an exemplar of his moral alignment first and his ethical alignment second. A Paladin of Justice will not uphold a slavery law simply because he is lawful, why would a Paladin of Freedom attempt regicide just because he's chaotic? |
| Matjannan05-27-05, 09:56 AM | Seems to me that the Paladin of Freedom is little more than a D&Dized version of the ACLU. If you have room for that in your campaign, great. Use it. If not. Leave it. |
| Leap05-27-05, 10:01 AM | Seems to me that the intensity needed to be a paladin only comes with lawful alignment..... Chaotic good is just too laid back to have that kind of intensity.... |
| Rocketmonkey05-27-05, 10:45 AM | That's a good point, but you could argue that the Chaotic Good paladin would have an intense, burning passion for freedom that equals the more disciplined dedication of the Lawful Good paladin. |
| Leap05-27-05, 11:02 AM | I am not entirely sure you can have an intense burning passion for freedom. Freedom by its nature is relaxed. Think of the synonyms for free: lax, loose, slack, leeway, easy, wild (as opposed to domestic)....these are all about not being tightly bound, but a paladins intensity is very "tight" and they want to remake the world which is gonna go against the whole "live and let live" basis of CG..... CG doesnt breed crusades, its force is reactive (defensive) rather than proactive (offensive) - you dont get "crusades for liberty" as you cannot force liberty, only give it space. Doesnt mean it is pacifist, just that its not got a bee up its arse about anything :) Exemplars of CG are, to me, rogues and rangers. They dont crusade in its cause, they simply ARE "CG", but occasionally they respond with violence to someone who pushes too hard. |
| Rocketmonkey05-27-05, 11:17 AM | I dunno... people can get pretty worked up about issues such as civil liberties, for instance, organising protests and taking part in marches. That said, CG folk probably wouldn't be up for crusading as much as their LG brethren, as you pointed out. Any typical DND setting would have more than enough evil tyrants for them to react to and struggle against, though: 'live and let live, but I pity the fool who infringes my personal freedom.' Sort of thing. Personally I think the best way to deal with the paladin of freedom would be to emphasize the 'exemplar of good' aspect first, chaos second. (Of course, I also think that the normal LG paladin can just be as difficult to work out ethically and morally, but that's a whole other argument) |
| Grox05-27-05, 12:29 PM | I am not entirely sure you can have an intense burning passion for freedom. Yeah, right. Wait until someone deprives you of yours. |
| Leap05-27-05, 12:32 PM | I dunno... people can get pretty worked up about issues such as civil liberties, for instance, organising protests and taking part in marches. But are they chaotic. That is NG behaviour to me; trying to change the system, whilst CG just ignores the system unless it actively impededs them...then they do just what is necessary to unimpede themselves. |
| Derren S.05-27-05, 12:41 PM | Most terrorists are chaotic. (And not neccessarily evil, that depends who they are fighting) |
| Moon-Lancer05-27-05, 02:21 PM | Just as a thought, America imposes its freedom on others, doesn’t that seem strange to you? we give you free choice but you MUST pick freedom as an option. I think Leap said it quite well. I do think though that freedom gets pretty pro active, but only when their is oppression or a need. A chaotic good paladin doesn’t need to be a zealot like his Lawful twin. They are completely different things. I think alot of people are applying what a lawful character would do if they were for freedom rather then law. This is not the case. We have a chaotic character. He would deal with the issue in a chaotic way, not in a lawful way. This makes for a more relaxed paladin, however they cannot sit back and watch people be oppressed. This does not mean they go to every government and try to take it over. Then they would be the law and break their alignment. (counter culter becomes culter). I think they would overthrow neutral or evil lawful governments, and maybe not even with violence, but not good lawful, because then they are also going agenst their other alignment. |
| Leap05-27-05, 02:58 PM | Just as a thought, America imposes its freedom on others, doesn’t that seem strange to you? we give you free choice but you MUST pick freedom as an option. And thats before we get to the idea that American freedom is largely tied into the concept of product choice ;) Am not a fan of the word freedom, it's too easily subverted by fascists and control freaks. Far better IMHO is ther term "Leeway". Lawful societies allow very little leeway, Chaotics allow (and require) a great deal. I think Leap said it quite well. I do think though that freedom gets pretty pro active, but only when their is oppression or a need. :D A chaotic good paladin doesn’t need to be a zealot like his Lawful twin. They are completely different things. I think alot of people are applying what a lawful character would do if they were for freedom rather then law. This is not the case. We have a chaotic character. He would deal with the issue in a chaotic way, not in a lawful way. This makes for a more relaxed paladin, however they cannot sit back and watch people be oppressed. This does not mean they go to every government and try to take it over. Then they would be the law and break their alignment. (counter culter becomes culter). I think they would overthrow neutral or evil lawful governments, and maybe not even with violence, but not good lawful, because then they are also going agenst their other alignment. But does the idea of a champion (such as the paladin is) require a marked degree of Zeal (and thus not really make it a chaotic class)? |
| Shlik05-27-05, 05:24 PM | How about protecting people from injustice, no matter what the law says? A chaotic person just plain ignores the law, they can still have a burning passion to help the needy and vulnerable. e.g. Mr Robin Hood was chaotic in how he helped the poor, but I'd have still said he was good. Think of the Paladin of Freedom as the one who steals food from the unethical big-bad-fantasy-style-McDonalds and feeds the suffering people. |
| Moon-Lancer05-27-05, 06:20 PM | hmmm... batman anyone ? I think a champion is someone who shows thier ideal in the clearist light. I think a champion of freedom would help poeple under opression even when all others turnway. Im not sure if any type of paladen needs to be a ravagus pinicale of whatever it is they stand for, but they have to do it well, and honestly beleave what they are doing is right. I think they must revealute if what they are doing is right. As a variant rule, i think if a normal paladen chooses to abandon law, for the freedom of the poeple, he should beable to atone and replace his paladin levels with POF levels. |
| Leap05-27-05, 06:22 PM | That implies a co-ordinated campaign, which isnt really Chaos' style..... If anything, CG leads by example rather than intervention; a shining beacon of liberty with a light touch, not becuase they are trying to be ("trying" is a very lawful thing - chaos goes on whim not plan) but simply because that is who they are. The idea of saving the world is a very lawful thing (lawfuls are trying to remake the world by placing their order upon it). Chaotics dont think the world needs saving, they are ok with it as it is. |
| Leap05-27-05, 06:24 PM | hmmm... batman anyone ? Batman is LG. He does not conform to the same social hierarchy as the police etc, but he is still Lawful Good through and through. |
| Moon-Lancer05-27-05, 06:30 PM | it really depends what batman your talking about. he can range from lawfull good to chaotic evil. Im talking about batman who throws away his very soul for revenge and justice. while still keeping restraint and not harming the innocent. |
| Verelor05-28-05, 12:04 AM | Once again, i am no fan of teh freedom paladin. Have you noticed rather than a mostly divine paragon like the baseline paladin is, he seems to be rather a political one chiefly. Plus, being lax and chaotic kinda goes against the name paladin anyway, which means a dedicated crusader of something. |
| The_Spleen-Splitter05-28-05, 12:56 AM | You only think that because that hasn't been brought to the table yet. And who says PoJ are always serving some diety. In the Players Handbook, it says that clerics can devote themselves to a domain or two instead of a diety.:D It is quite possible to have an athieist PoF. And I like the refference to Robin Hood. It was a good point. :D |
| Sirix05-28-05, 03:55 AM | But does the idea of a champion (such as the paladin is) require a marked degree of Zeal (and thus not really make it a chaotic class)? No Also, I think it only makes sense that the PoF be more strongly good aligned than chaos aligned. After all, the "normal" LG paladin doesn't go around helping tyrants put down uprisings by the oppressed peasantry. A paladin of freedom would probably go after villains that profit from extortion, shady deals, or rule by force. A dwarven merchant who has made his fortune off war profiteering or an ogre mage who demands 'protection money' from surrounding villages would be sworn enemies of the paladin of freedom. |
| Masterful_Norg05-28-05, 01:44 PM | The association made between chaos and a lack of dedication seems false to me. A paladin of Freedom would do what he does because he chooses to and enjoys doing it, thus as long as he's interested in helping the oppressed people (which remains true for as long as he's granted his abilities) then he should have the appearance of being highly driven and dedicated towards that end because he finds his work the ultimate expression of his own freedom. The mention of Robin Hood makes a very good point. |
| Gilean05-28-05, 01:51 PM | cG paladin goes for the benefit of weak individuals, meaning the oppressed ones who can't help themselves, mainly. He sees no great benefit in helping the societies already helping the weak. lG paladin helps mainly societies that help the weak (eg good societies). |
| Yak of Darkness05-28-05, 01:57 PM | Imo the paladin of freedom is rather impossible to play. While he is a paragon of good, he is also a paragon of chaos and as such would be against any form of concentration of power so would try to at least make the people question their rulers (when the rulers are good) or even oppose and overthrow them (neutral and evil). And while this might result in something good in the long run, the immediate effects are rather bad and might cause suffering which can't be arranged with the paladins code of beeing good.IMO, the paladin of justice is rather impossible to play. While he is a paragon of good, he is also a paragon of law, and as such would be for any form of concentration of power. So he would try to make people not question their rulers (even when the rulers are evil), or even accept and support them. This, however, won't result in anything good in the long run, and the short run is just as pooched, with suffering all around because nobody had the cojones to step in and give chaos a chance. Wait, no, that sounds ridiculous. Nevermind. Paladins of justice and freedom are both devoted to good ideals. The paladin of justice, however, would tend to see the most good in the world coming from a structured and ordered society, while the paladin of freedom sees the greatest good in individual liberty. Their law/chaos distinction is a definite philosophical difference, but the paladin of freedom isn't going to do his best to tear down a good society any more than the paladin of justice will wave the Big Damn Flag of Oppression. Both of them have better things to fight for, what with all the evil in the world. After all, both of the paladins' codes require them to never perform an evil act. There is nothing in there referencing lawful or chaotic acts (as a whole, certainly the justice paladin's prohibition against lying is a prohibition against a single specific chaotic act, but they won't lose their powers just for committing any chaotic act). It seems clear that while the law/chaos axis will determine what kind of causes a paladin will most likely fight for, the good/evil axis is the one that matters most. |
| Josuwar05-28-05, 02:09 PM | A Paladin is an exemplar of his moral alignment first and his ethical alignment second. A Paladin of Justice will not uphold a slavery law simply because he is lawful, why would a Paladin of Freedom attempt regicide just because he's chaotic? No Also, I think it only makes sense that the PoF be more strongly good aligned than chaos aligned. After all, the "normal" LG paladin doesn't go around helping tyrants put down uprisings by the oppressed peasantry. In Mulhorand (FR) slavery is common, slaves are considerd property of the temple and hired to people who require slaves. The most important god in Mulhorand is the LG god called Horus-Re. The ruler of Mulhorand is a Paladin of Horus-Re. There are lots of Paladins of Horus-Re running around in Mulhorand, and they definately aren't doing anything about the slavery. The slaves are treated very well, I believe, and if you damage them you will have to pay a fine to the temple... so its a lot milder than what most slaves endure, but I'm sure there are groups of slaves in that country who see their rulers are tyrants. Makes me wonder what the paladins would do in case of a slave uprising, but I think they would put it down. Edit: This was just a random note for consideration, I'm not defending any side in this argument. My group currently does not use paladins of freedom, and there are no plans to use them... so I won't have to think about it :). |
| Gilean05-29-05, 03:22 AM | Slavery isn't evil. |
| Count Arioch the 28th05-29-05, 03:42 AM | According to the BoED, yes in fact slavery is evil. You may not agree with it, but that's teh standard put forth in the D&D game. |
| Gilean05-29-05, 04:38 AM | There are lots of Paladins of Horus-Re running around in Mulhorand, and they definately aren't doing anything about the slavery.According to the BoED, yes in fact slavery is evil. You may not agree with it, but that's teh standard put forth in the D&D game.With conflicting sources, common sense prevails. And the quality of BoED is umm... not worthy of commentary. |
| Draco Strang05-29-05, 04:53 AM | Slavery isn't evil. I can't believe I'm hearing this. Go back.....read what you wrote. Ok, I'll wait. Done? No? Ok, I can keep waiting. Now can you seriously stand by that statement? |
| Derren S.05-29-05, 04:56 AM | Forcing a convicted criminal to work (a common practice) is also a form of slavery. |
| Leap05-29-05, 05:20 AM | What is slavery? No seriously, what constitutes slavery that it is not compatible with LG? Ooops, thread rot, sorry :( |
| Draco Strang05-29-05, 05:36 AM | Forcing a convicted criminal to work (a common practice) is also a form of slavery. I don't want to turn this thread into an ethics/morality debate, but consider this: Criminals perpetrated whatever act it was that got them incarcerated. Essentially, they made their own bed, and now they're lying in it. In addition, they're paid a nominal wage for what they do. And, light is at the end of the tunnel for those who haven't committed too heinous of a crime. And, through it all, they have at least a few rights. Slaves on the other hand are the property of another individual. They have nothing but what is given to them. |
| Leap05-29-05, 05:51 AM | The association made between chaos and a lack of dedication seems false to me. because he finds his work the ultimate expression of his own freedom. The clue is in the word "dedication". When you dedicate something you give it up - being dedicated means giving up yourself to something else. This is not however a CG thing. CG folks dont give up themselves to anything, they remain free and flexible. A LG paladin is a shepherd, rounding people up to protect them. A CG paladin would be a beacon, leaving people free to choose what they do but living as a shining light of liberty, drawing others to such if they are so inclined. LG is more heavyhanded. The mention of Robin Hood makes a very good point. Which version of Robin Hood? ;) If you mean the Robin of Sherwood version (spookily just started reshowing on ITV2 for us Angles :) ) then yes there is a superb quote from Herne describing robin as a Paladin but am not sure it is CG "They are all waiting; the blinded, the maimed, the men locked in the stinking dark all wait for you. Children with swollen bellies, hiding in the ditches wait. The poor, dispossessed, they all wait. You are their hope. " |
| Nani?05-29-05, 02:53 PM | The clue is in the word "dedication". When you dedicate something you give it up - being dedicated means giving up yourself to something else. This is not however a CG thing. CG folks dont give up themselves to anything, they remain free and flexible. Actually they do. The CN are the people don't give themeselves up for anything and sneak away at the fist sign of trouble. The CG defy heavy authoritain power to protect the freedom of others. Some RL examples, people who hid Jews from the Nazi's (also NG, hardly lawful good), many NA leaders who opposed the conquest of the Americas, particularly those had a problem with land ownership as even a concept. People who distrust the power multinational corparate power (LE to LN in most cases). People who distrust organized, established religion (at least the chaotic part, often good). A LG paladin is a shepherd, rounding people up to protect them. A CG paladin would be a beacon, leaving people free to choose what they do but living as a shining light of liberty, drawing others to such if they are so inclined. LG is more heavyhanded. Agreed. The mention of Robin Hood makes a very good point. Which version of Robin Hood? ;) If you mean the Robin of Sherwood version (spookily just started reshowing on ITV2 for us Angles :) ) then yes there is a superb quote from Herne describing robin as a Paladin but am not sure it is CG "They are all waiting; the blinded, the maimed, the men locked in the stinking dark all wait for you. Children with swollen bellies, hiding in the ditches wait. The poor, dispossessed, they all wait. You are their hope. " The tactics of that Robin of Sherwood is what makes him CG, particularly the Micheal Pread version. He knows those in power are a bunch of thieving, greedy, murderous scum and he consequently very seldom will negoitiates, makes deals, etc. He does measure the effect of his actions will have on the peasants he's helping. The LG response would be to go to King Richard for redress or to pay the taxes for the peasants out of his pockets and sit down with his kinsman (not friend) the Sheriff of Nottingham and see if something more permanent can be worked out. He'd tithe those monastaries that give genunine aid and comfort to the poor. A NG response would be the that of Liam Neeson's character in Rob Roy. He trys to better the lot of his people and is willing to to play by the rules when possible. But he is not above bending them and has no illusions about those who make them. When forced to, he goes outside those laws. One RL Paladin of Freedom (multi-class barbarian or ranger) was a 19th century Lakota man. He lived in a society with very few rules and he had some difficulty even with the few there were. However, when faced with the whites, a more advanced, numerarically superior group, he went on a vision quest for answers. With his encounter with the creator, he saw a vision of the future. There, he was told to defy his enemies, not because he could win, but because his example would be an example to future generations. His name, Crazy Horse. All the Best, Nani? |
| Nani?05-29-05, 03:10 PM | A good book as to whether LG can support slavery is Guns of The South by Harry Turtledove. In it the Confederates win the Civil War with the help of racist time travelers. They then end up in a position where they get to judge thier own history. The primary characters are LG and NG. The answer is, ultimately, not in the long term. All the Best, Nani? |
| Masterful_Norg05-29-05, 03:40 PM | Draco Strang, Not that I want to make this a discussion about ethics or morality either I would like to posit that a crime is only ever commited by someone who's already been punished by circumstances (at least in their eyes) so that they feel motivated to commit the act. Its my opinion that by using punishment in order to remedy crime we're using criminals as a scapegoat for what is clearly a matter of social dysfunction. Now I don't intend to suggest that we allow ostensibly repetative perpetrators to roam free, I only suggest that more should be done to treat such people as the victims they are as opposed to resorting to the unhealthy practice of exacting revenge upon them or sending them to crime school (aka prison). This applies particularly in the case of the united states which with 5 percent of the world's population has 25% of the world's prisoners (also 80% of the worlds lawyers). That amounts to 57 billion dollars annually to run the prison system as compared to the federal Department of Education budget of only 42 billion (don't get me wrong I have my criticisms about education as well). Anyway... A CG paladin would be a beacon, leaving people free to choose what they do but living as a shining light of liberty, drawing others to such if they are so inclined.I agree with this statement. Rather than using the word "dedicated" I should have used "inclined". |
| Leap05-30-05, 05:56 AM | Nani - The CN are the people don't give themeselves up for anything and sneak away at the fist sign of trouble. Not strictly true....CN cares about "me and mine" but does not see others as particularly for them to look after. The CG defy heavy authoritain power to protect the freedom of others. Some RL examples, people who hid Jews from the Nazi's (also NG, hardly lawful good), I think that is more an example of Good rather than specifically CG - Even LG's would have caught on that Nazi's cannot be reasoned with by the "Anne Frank" part of the War. many NA leaders who opposed the conquest of the Americas, particularly those had a problem with land ownership as even a concept. Certainly a Chaotic trait :) The LG response would be to go to King Richard for redress or to pay the taxes for the peasants out of his pockets and sit down with his kinsman (not friend) the Sheriff of Nottingham and see if something more permanent can be worked out. He'd tithe those monastaries that give genunine aid and comfort to the poor. Kind of like the Benjamin Martin character at the beginning of "The Patriot" (the Mel Gibson film, not the Steven Seagal one). A NG response would be the that of Liam Neeson's character in Rob Roy. He trys to better the lot of his people and is willing to to play by the rules when possible. But he is not above bending them and has no illusions about those who make them. When forced to, he goes outside those laws. Agreed. |
| Leap05-30-05, 09:19 AM | Norg - I only suggest that more should be done to treat such people as the victims Just because someone is a victim of something it does not follow that we should automatically be sympathetic towards them......NIMHO anyway....but hey, I'm CN :) Nature works by making something the victim of something else. Thats the "circle of life" [stomps off to shoot disney for b@stardising a druid term :) ] |
| Josuwar05-30-05, 10:24 AM | The CG defy heavy authoritain power to protect the freedom of others. Some RL examples, people who hid Jews from the Nazi's (also NG, hardly lawful good), I think that is more an example of Good rather than specifically CG - Even LG's would have caught on that Nazi's cannot be reasoned with by the "Anne Frank" part of the War. In fact, the two main groups that hid Jews (in the Netherlands, at least) were Communists and Reformed (Christians). The Reformed hid the Jews because they believed that if they did not oppose the (evil) Nazi's, their souls would not go to heaven... in other words, they were very religious, and did what they did because of what the Bible said (and their own conscience of course)... IMO that is Lawful (and Good) [Note: I'm not religious myself]. Now, Communists in a non-communist country were probably Chaotic, since they wished to overthrow the government of that country. I'm not sure why they hid the Jews, I haven't studied it... My guess is they felt they supported the Sovjets who were also fighting the Nazi's. |
| Masterful_Norg05-30-05, 12:04 PM | Leap, This is not an individual survival issue and my proposition of restorative justice is intended to produce a society with less violent crime that is more at peace with itself and capable of forgiveness. Let me say that punishment is not a sensible response to the harmful actions of those who have already been punished, cause that's the whole damn reason they do it. Its difficult to imagine someone in ideal circumstances who has never suffered harm from another to then go out and commit multiple crimes unless its out of ignorance. Seeing as you brought up the natural perspective lets talk about justice in nature. When an animal out in the wild makes a mistake its punished once by the nature of its mistake and then it moves on. So the natural example of Justice is one punishment to one mistake with no need to be enforced by anything else. When a person comes along and makes a mistake its usually after they've received punishement in some way or another by the circumstances surrounding their childhood and stages beyond because they believe it to be the one remaining course of action. So they've been punished twice so far because if what they've done is really bad it effects them at least indirectly, but the righteous authorities arrive on the scene and dish out punishments numbers 3-6. First they arbitrarily assign a period of months to years during which to detain the culprit, then they place them with a group of similarly mal adjusted individuals and hope they "play nice", and upon realease they attach the social stigma of having ever commited a crime. It seems there is an asymetry between between crime and punishment in our society. Under a system in which we try to adress the circumstances which caused the criminal to choose his/her specific actions we can accomplish a lot more in the direction of a healthy society. We don't need to dish out justice because its already built in to the nature of a truely criminal act. It would be in our best intrest in terms of survival to focus our efforts on adressing the source of violent crime. I'm not speaking out of pity, because I respect individuals enough to believe they can deal with their own circumstances which is what compassion is. Anywho... To tie this all in I'd say that the Paladin of Freedom is more inclined towards a system of Restorative justice as opposed to retributive justice. |
| weasel fierce05-30-05, 12:24 PM | I'd figure reading plenty of books about anarchism would be a prerequisite. The main thing that bothers me, is that this character type seems rather unnescesary, given that the archetype is already filled by the Ranger. Its more an attempt to wishywash the paladin, by removing one of his limitations. But eh, if it works for you |
| Leap05-30-05, 01:42 PM | Leap, This is not an individual survival issue and my proposition of restorative justice is intended to produce a society with less violent crime that is more at peace with itself and capable of forgiveness. Let me say that punishment is not a sensible response to the harmful actions of those who have already been punished, cause that's the whole damn reason they do it. Its difficult to imagine someone in ideal circumstances who has never suffered harm from another to then go out and commit multiple crimes unless its out of ignorance. Personally I prefere vengeance (inter-personal) to justice (society oriented); that a man may seek redress on those who wrong him as both a means of regaining what was taken and a means of warning other not to cross him again. Combined with intollerance of only severe infringements this makes for a far healthier situation than any laws could prescribe. It would be in our best intrest in terms of survival to focus our efforts on adressing the source of violent crime. That would be akin to suggesting lions become vegetarians. Violence is part of life. To tie this all in I'd say that the Paladin of Freedom is more inclined towards a system of Restorative justice as opposed to retributive justice. Whilst I would say CG is more inclined to defensive veangeance. |
| Leap05-30-05, 01:52 PM | The main thing that bothers me, is that this character type seems rather unnescesary, given that the archetype is already filled by the Ranger. Agreed. The nature of a CG champion is a champion of the wild, whilst the paladin is a civilised champion of Lawful culture. |
| Leap05-30-05, 03:02 PM | In fact, the two main groups that hid Jews (in the Netherlands, at least) were Communists and Reformed (Christians). The Reformed hid the Jews because they believed that if they did not oppose the (evil) Nazi's, their souls would not go to heaven... in other words, they were very religious, and did what they did because of what the Bible said (and their own conscience of course)... IMO that is Lawful (and Good) [Note: I'm not religious myself]. Yup that sounds lawful to me; do it becuase you THINK it is right, whereas chaos does what FEELS right. :) And yes that often makes CG less two-faced than LG :) Now, Communists in a non-communist country were probably Chaotic, since they wished to overthrow the government of that country. I'm not sure why they hid the Jews, I haven't studied it... My guess is they felt they supported the Sovjets who were also fighting the Nazi's. Nope, chaotics are not people who oppose one govt in order to establish another, chaotics find ALL govt unsuitable. |
| Josuwar05-30-05, 03:15 PM | Nope, chaotics are not people who oppose one govt in order to establish another, chaotics find ALL govt unsuitable. Well, the idea of communism was to have no government at all, just people living togheter in a communal way (which, of course could also be considered a form of society and thus Lawful)... Of course we all know how horribly wrong it went. Then I thought "people wanting to overthrow the government and create another one can still be chaotic, after all, chaos represents change..." but then I got confused... After all, a government is a lawful thing, but when Fidel Castro was a rebel, he was by definition Chaotic... Perhaps it really can't be applied to RL, or perhaps he had an alignment shift :P. |
| Leap05-30-05, 04:30 PM | Well, the idea of communism was to have no government at all, just people living togheter in a communal way (which, of course could also be considered a form of society and thus Lawful)... Of course we all know how horribly wrong it went. Commienissum ;) was definately not chaotic as it was still heavily involved in productivity (the means of production) whilst that isnt a chaotic trait. Then I thought "people wanting to overthrow the government and create another one can still be chaotic, after all, chaos represents change..." but then I got confused... After all, a government is a lawful thing, but when Fidel Castro was a rebel, he was by definition Chaotic... Perhaps it really can't be applied to RL, or perhaps he had an alignment shift :P. Nah, chaotic is uninterested in govt of any flavour. Lots of lawfuls fight with each other over who gets to be dominant...and castro was just another one of them.... |
| Thanatos0205-30-05, 05:20 PM | I'd figure reading plenty of books about anarchism would be a prerequisite. The main thing that bothers me, is that this character type seems rather unnescesary, given that the archetype is already filled by the Ranger. Its more an attempt to wishywash the paladin, by removing one of his limitations. But eh, if it works for you Unless you feel that your character shouldn't be casting Druid spells, should have a mount and not the Ranger's animal companion, feel that he should be a champion of Chaotic Good specifically instead of being allowed to have any alignment (3rd Ed.) or by championing the wild places instead of an ethos, and shouldn't be mucking about the woods possessing abilities he doesn't feel are in-line with his alignment-aspected champion. Indeed, the LG restriction is removed, replaced by a CG restriction. In all ways as limiting as LG, IMHO. |
| Masterful_Norg05-31-05, 12:00 AM | Personally I prefere vengeance (inter-personal) to justice (society oriented); that a man may seek redress on those who wrong him as both a means of regaining what was taken and a means of warning other not to cross him again. Combined with intollerance of only severe infringements this makes for a far healthier situation than any laws could prescribe."The problem with an eye for an eye is that the whole world would be blind"- Muhatama Ghandi. The problem with exacting vengence upon another is that others will feel inclined to exact vengence upon you, and as you've probably noticed the people involved become entrained in a predictable and almost law driven cycle of suffering. Thus I prefer to defend myself and forgive those who cause me to do so. Its a terrible waste of my energy trying to intimidate everyone into leaving me alone. "The only safe way to defeat an enemy is to make of that enemy a friend" and "It is my conviction that nothing enduring can be built on violence"- Muhatama Ghandi once again That would be akin to suggesting lions become vegetarians. Violence is part of life.Though I don't doubt your ability to make violence a part of your life there seems to be a distinction between violence and predation (the capturing of prey as a means of maintaining life). While predation (in the biological sense) seems to have some form of inherent benefit towards those who practice it violence does not. So predation very well may be a part of life, but such is not necessarily true for raw violence (that is violence without some form of net gain involved). Fighting as a means of protecting one's self and others is much closer in definition to predation than just plain violence in that it has some benefit to one's self. Really forgiveness is much more effective at preventing further violence being directed toward you than just taking revenge. It also prevents emotional suffering by making it such that you can in fact feel better without somebody else first having to feel worse. Whilst I would say CG is more inclined to defensive veangeance. Its not really vengence until its after the fact really. So self defence or the defence of others doesn't fall into that catagory. I'd say that the Paladin of Freedom is more inclined towards Common Law. Its not really a law; its the Paladin of Freedom's agreement to do anything he wants as long as it doesn't cause injury to another person or damage their property unless he acts to defend others including himself and their property from injury. This is far from the Paladin of Justice's policy of having all others act in a manner consistent with his or her beliefs and otherwise submit to his or her authority in all matters of consequence. |
| malrick05-31-05, 02:40 AM | in 1 ed the PoF was called the avenger, the PoF was most likely based on that. true in greyhawk the god vengence is LN, then why is vengence always illegal? vigilantes are considered criminal thus chaotic. "It would be in our best intrest in terms of survival to focus our efforts on adressing the source of violent crime." in every case, that would be violent criminals. |
| weasel fierce05-31-05, 02:49 AM | in 1 ed the PoF was called the avenger, the PoF was most likely based on that. true in greyhawk the god vengence is LN, then why is vengence always illegal? vigilantes are considered criminal thus chaotic. That would be the 2nd edition of "classic" Dungeons & Dragons (Mentzer's edition, the one that was divided into Basic, Expert, Companion, Master) Its not the 1st edition of anything. With the semantics out of the way, yeah, the Avenger was the chaotic counterpart to the paladin, though, while evil and chaos was often compared, they were not nescesarily the same. The only requirement of the avenger was to pledge allegiance (but not servitude) to a chaotic church. He did get the option to charm monsters of course :D He was implied to be a not-so-nice person though. It is possible to imagine an avenger who is generally righteous and for a decent cause, but uncaring of the methods or collateral damage he may inflict along the way. There is also an old Dragon article with an "anti-paladin" for AD&D1st edition, though it was purely an NPC class. |
| Leap05-31-05, 03:43 AM | "The problem with an eye for an eye is that the whole world would be blind" - Muhatama Ghandi. [/quote Someone will always feel "wronged" by whatever branch of vengeance or justice you choose. Just go with what you feel is right. [quote] The problem with exacting vengence upon another is that others will feel inclined to exact vengence upon you, and as you've probably noticed the people involved become entrained in a predictable and almost law driven cycle of suffering. Thus I prefer to defend myself and forgive those who cause me to do so. Its a terrible waste of my energy trying to intimidate everyone into leaving me alone. Only if its is an active effort. When self-respect comes as naturally as walking, it comes as easily as walking. "The only safe way to defeat an enemy is to make of that enemy a friend" and "It is my conviction that nothing enduring can be built on violence"- Muhatama Ghandi once again And he is entitled to his opinion, however several billion years of nature have been built partially on violence, and endurance is a strictly lawful quality - chaotics acknowledge fluidity. Though I don't doubt your ability to make violence a part of your life there seems to be a distinction between violence and predation (the capturing of prey as a means of maintaining life). While predation (in the biological sense) seems to have some form of inherent benefit towards those who practice it violence does not. So predation very well may be a part of life, but such is not necessarily true for raw violence (that is violence without some form of net gain involved). Fighting as a means of protecting one's self and others is much closer in definition to predation than just plain violence in that it has some benefit to one's self. And who engages in "without some form of net gain involved"? Really forgiveness is much more effective at preventing further violence being directed toward you than just taking revenge. It also prevents emotional suffering by making it such that you can in fact feel better without somebody else first having to feel worse. By embracing victimhood? Like I said, only exact vengeance on extreme situations, let the rest go with a shrug. :) Its not really vengence until its after the fact really. So self defence or the defence of others doesn't fall into that catagory. It is defence to put on armour before you are hit. I'd say that the Paladin of Freedom is more inclined towards Common Law. Its not really a law; its the Paladin of Freedom's agreement to do anything he wants as long as it doesn't cause injury to another person or damage their property unless he acts to defend others including himself and their property from injury. This is far from the Paladin of Justice's policy of having all others act in a manner consistent with his or her beliefs and otherwise submit to his or her authority in all matters of consequence. I'd say the PoF is more inclined to "do onto others" combined with my "only punish the extremes" approach I mentioned above :) |
| SilentOne05-31-05, 05:05 AM | I'm surprised no one considered the main problem with a chaotic paladin is the fact that the code of honor is lawful. What does this mean? Follow the code -> become lawful -> lose class abilities Don't follow the code -> break code -> lose class abilities Seems pretty impossible to meet the restrictions... |
| Leap05-31-05, 05:10 AM | I'm surprised no one considered the main problem with a chaotic paladin is the fact that the code of honor is lawful. What does this mean? Follow the code -> become lawful -> lose class abilities Don't follow the code -> break code -> lose class abilities Seems pretty impossible to meet the restrictions... Hiya Silent one The code is different for the Paladin of Freedom (unearthed arcarna)......although a code is itelf a lawful thing :) |
| Gilean05-31-05, 05:49 AM | First, on slavery: no one is forced to mistreat one's slaves, or take them without reasons to do it. Masterful_Norg, the percpective of yours is a good one, in D&D terms. It is pretty much what the Finnish do. Then we get news such as: 4 rapes, 1 year in prison. It does reduce crime rates somewhat, though. Repeating one's crimes just becomes too easy. Not to speak of the quality of life the prisoners enjoy. It is better than that of students, for example. My (lawful) view is that one who kills loses his right to not be killed. Those who steal lose their right to property. Of course, a working government has the right of not applying these sentences. But, IMHO, repeating crimes should result in maximum punishment. Is there anyone left who doesn't have faith on chaotic paladins? Or, to be more exact, equal faith in them and their lawful counterparts. Personally, every paladin by definition is nongood. That also applies to adventurers. By D&D standards. |
| Leap05-31-05, 06:27 AM | My (lawful) view is that one who kills loses his right to not be killed. Those who steal lose their right to property. Of course, a working government has the right of not applying these sentences. But, IMHO, repeating crimes should result in maximum punishment. Does that not require an extra-statutory body, existing outside of the "killers lose their right to life" law, to enact such executions - otherwise executioners and the state they serve lose their right to life? Which instantly makes everyone a slave; that is, an owned servant of the state who is given no choice about such ownership. Personally, every paladin by definition is nongood. That also applies to adventurers. By D&D standards. Why? Because they kill? |
| Josuwar05-31-05, 06:48 AM | Nah, chaotic is uninterested in govt of any flavour. Lots of lawfuls fight with each other over who gets to be dominant...and castro was just another one of them.... Not entirely true, to point to the FR again; Alustriel of Silverymoon is CG, she helped Silverymoon establish itself, and if I am not mistaken she also made the pact of city-states that created the Silver Marches. I'm pretty sure there are other Chaotic-Something rulers in the realms as well. What can be deduced from this is that a Chaotic government is simply going to allow a lot of personal freedom, after all Silverymoon is pretty liberal. |
| Leap05-31-05, 06:52 AM | Not entirely true, to point to the FR again; Alustriel of Silverymoon is CG, she helped Silverymoon establish itself, and if I am not mistaken she also made the pact of city-states that created the Silver Marches. I'm pretty sure there are other Chaotic-Something rulers in the realms as well. What can be deduced from this is that a Chaotic government is simply going to allow a lot of personal freedom, after all Silverymoon is pretty liberal. WHat can be deduced from this is that Alustriel aint CG despite what the sourcebook claims. Look at her behaviour and attach an alignment rather than accepting the label given her. Her behaviour is achetypal NG. |
| Josuwar05-31-05, 06:56 AM | WHat can be deduced from this is that Alustriel aint CG despite what the sourcebook claims. Look at her behaviour and attach an alignment rather than accepting the label given her. Her behaviour is achetypal NG. I'm sure a lot of realms fans would disagree with that, but like I said, there are perhaps other (better) examples of C-Something rulers. Her sister The Simbul is definately Chaotic, she's almost a rage-mage, and she is the Queen of Aglarond (though I do not know in what extent she actually rules the place, some realms junky :cough: should perhaps help me out here :P.) |
| Leap05-31-05, 07:05 AM | The simbul is indeed chaotic....in her personality....except for the "ruling Aglarond" bit....being a dominant force (if tested) is not the same thing as ruling. It would help if the writers understood what alignment means rather strapping a label on cos it sounds "cool".... :( |
| Masterful_Norg05-31-05, 03:23 PM | "It would be in our best intrest in terms of survival to focus our efforts on adressing the source of violent crime." in every case, that would be violent criminals.Well then I guess I mean the source of the source, "the reason criminals commit crime". If criminals were emotionally healthy individuals they wouldn't commit crime now would they? All I'm saying is that its a waste of energy to make emotionally unstable people feel worse so that they become more inclined to do exactly what we'd rather have them not do. Someone will always feel "wronged" by whatever branch of vengeance or justice you choose. Just go with what you feel is right. But what one feels is right is largely as a product of society's influence on their perspective. The goal of the individual is to learn how not to feel wronged and ultimately be at greater peace with him/herself. And he is entitled to his opinion, however several billion years of nature have been built partially on violence, and endurance is a strictly lawful quality - chaotics acknowledge fluidity. As you may have noticed, life has endured and that's because of its ability to change. In this way law and chaos actually work together. Living organisms have internal mechanisms as a baseline for life, but those mechanisms only came about as a result of an initiating and novel event and are sustained by their ability to change. The only point is that nothing enduring can be built ENTIRELY on violence as you have no doubt realized. In a way everything is more like a process than a static thing, so while we consider things as being inert and unchanging the opposite is true. At its extremes the over use of law and chaos lead to the eventual destruction of any system. A paladin of freedom can't go too far otherwise he'll see the symetry of his limbs as an abomination and the same is true for the paladin of justice who would attempt to freeze the weather itself. Within the spectrum of reason the Paladin of Freedom shouldn't be opposed to organizations in general, just organizations in which freedom has no place. And who engages in violence "without some form of net gain involved"?One does not ultimately gain from perpetuating an endless cycle of violence. It doesn't really help you to punch a guy who pisses you off though that may be your perception at the time. By embracing victimhood? Like I said, only exact vengeance on extreme situations, let the rest go with a shrug.Quite the opposite. You're only a victim if you feel badly as a result of the actions of others. If you instead forgive them and merrily go on your way then you are removing the power they have over you to influence the way you feel. I'd say forgiveness is especially important in extreme circumstances because the potential for injury grows. It is defence to put on armour before you are hit.This statement doesn't seem to contradict the point you referenced and I agree. Coming back to the point I made after the third quote I'd say that a leader can in fact be Chaotic (allowing all freedoms) as opposed to neutral (prohibiting of some freedoms, but allowing of others). The whole idea of a chaotic good society is that everyone who's in it is in by choice. Just like a large ocean wave appears as a choatic phenomenon it is actually the organized movement of many molecules to generate a significant effect. Even nature has organization and thus the Paladin of Freedom must be permissive of organization in which all parts concerned are inclined to participate in accordance with their own distinct desires. |
| Lothian Veluthra05-31-05, 11:43 PM | I'm very chaotic in nature. Ask any of my friends. I also have a code, a listing of what I consider to be the 'right' way of doing things. But I have adopted my code by my own personal choice, not because someone forced me to or because it's expected of me. Seems perfectly in line for an advocate of freedom to me... |
| Leap06-01-05, 04:54 AM | If criminals were emotionally healthy individuals they wouldn't commit crime now would they? Big assumption on the nature of crime there...... Theft and violence are part of nature.....it is extremes that 'should' be rare (and indeed they are except in our wonderful psycho-breeding 'civilisation')..... But what one feels is right is largely as a product of society's influence on their perspective. Do I sense a nature/nurture debate brewing? ;) It is both; we are influenced by our inherent nature and by our environment, blending together. The goal of the individual is to learn how not to feel wronged and ultimately be at greater peace with him/herself. Goal? Nah life is a dance lived according to our nature :) At its extremes the over use of law and chaos lead to the eventual destruction of any system. A paladin of freedom can't go too far otherwise he'll see the symetry of his limbs as an abomination and the same is true for the paladin of justice who would attempt to freeze the weather itself. I think you misunderstand what law and chaos are about....of course the PhB doesnt exactly help. They are not pure philisophical concepts but descriptions of how people live their lives. Within the spectrum of reason the Paladin of Freedom shouldn't be opposed to organizations in general, just organizations in which freedom has no place. The PoF would be pro-liberty not anti-restriction. This compares to the Core Paladin who is anti-chaos (laws are created to give order to chaos, but chaos is not invented to break down law.....) One does not ultimately gain from perpetuating an endless cycle of violence. It doesn't really help you to punch a guy who pisses you off though that may be your perception at the time. Ultimately? Again, life is a dance. It is not about a destination. You're only a victim if you feel badly as a result of the actions of others. If you instead forgive them and merrily go on your way then you are removing the power they have over you to influence the way you feel. I'd say forgiveness is especially important in extreme circumstances because the potential for injury grows. Like I said, punish the extremes and shrug at the minor stuff. :) Just like a large ocean wave appears as a choatic phenomenon it is actually the organized movement of many molecules to generate a significant effect. Dont confuse harmonious and organised. The fact that things are harmonious does not mean they are being organised :) |
| Masterful_Norg06-01-05, 07:15 PM | Big assumption on the nature of crime there...... Theft and violence are part of nature.....it is extremes that 'should' be rare (and indeed they are except in our wonderful psycho-breeding 'civilisation')..... But as I've said before this is only the case when there is a sum over benefit for the person involved. People resort to crime because they deem it as being the best way to resolve a situation or survive a set of circumstances when infact its not necessary. It also becomes unnecessary to worsen the circumstances of others just so that they don't feel like commiting a crime because in fact the opposite will occur. I am not suggesting that you stop killing and eating animals but if you kill and eat a human you'll suffer poisoning from heavy metals. Do I sense a nature/nurture debate brewing? It is both; we are influenced by our inherent nature and by our environment, blending together.Though one could plainly argue that seeing as all events arrise from nature then even the nurture and the person in question is as a product of nature. You could also say that it is the natural surroundings of a creature that determine its form and functionality and thus everything is nurture, but somewhere in the process enters choice. One can choose to surpass the norm such as that you describe concerning the nature of all things. Choice is a form of creative evolution. Goal? Nah life is a dance lived according to our nature. Once again nature is a very subjective thing though you talk about it as though it were written in stone. However, I do agree that life is a dance, but dances grow and change. I'm only suggesting that the next trick or step in this dance worth learning is forgiveness or otherwise granting yourself emotional detachment from the actions of others. I think you misunderstand what law and chaos are about....of course the PhB doesnt exactly help. They are not pure philisophical concepts but descriptions of how people live their lives.Exactly. No disagreement there. I was just pointing out that if we go to extremes things stop working just like in the plane of Limbo or Mechanus (though in truth Mechanus must have chaos in order to be what it is). Ultimately? Again, life is a dance. It is not about a destination.Then I'll say it another way. Never do you benefit from such behaviour as punching the guy who pisses you off unless it is also as an act of defence from some emediate form of danger. Otherwise there are non violent ways to deal with such circumstances that have better pay offs. Like I said, punish the extremes and shrug at the minor stuff. Executions breed executioners. Punishment is unecessary because it has already been meted out, evidenced by the fact that a crime was commited. Don't confuse harmonious and organised. The fact that things are harmonious does not mean they are being organised. Harmonious- 1. Exhibiting accord in feeling or action. 2. Having component elements pleasingly or appropriately combined. Accord- 1. To cause to conform or agree 2. A settlement or compromise of conflicting opinions 3. A settlement of points at issue between nations Harmony and organization seem pretty damn close to me. The real question is whether or not disharmony is disorganized. As each part of an ocean wave is dependant of the whole in order to be what it is (the part of an ocean wave) I would venture a guess that this is actually a form of organization though it is indeed harmonious. All I'm saying is that the Paladin of Freedom is perfectly fine with organizations that increase opportunity for those associated with them without compromise to basic freedoms such as the ability to opt out at any time. |
| SilentOne06-02-05, 12:39 AM | I swear, you people just like to argue. I proved the whole thing moot a few posts back. (and yes, I have read the PoF code of honor. Still a code, still lawful.) |
| Masterful_Norg06-02-05, 01:54 AM | Well the PoF code is more like a list of the things PoF likes to do of his own accord. If he fails to do these things then he no longer gains powers either because he feels as though he gone and violated his own integrity and loses faith in himself or he changes his preferences. The use of the word code is unfortunate and a minor technicality, but the code is something the PoF chooses enforced by nothing but his own unchained will. If that will changes so do his abilities. I think that the flaw in any of the good alligned palladins is that while good they get a kick out of retribution, atonement and so forth. In fact the real problem is the polarization in the D&D allignment system between good and evil and the misconception that the forces of law and chaos are, at their best, in opposition (not to suggest that they never are). Oh, and I'd prefer to call it a debate, though that's just a formal way of saying arguement. |
| Leap06-02-05, 09:49 AM | People resort to crime because they deem it as being the best way to resolve a situation or survive a set of circumstances when infact its not necessary. [quote] Really? [quote] It also becomes unnecessary to worsen the circumstances of others just so that they don't feel like commiting a crime because in fact the opposite will occur. The point of vengeance is not to stop them "committing a crime" but to stop them "committing a crime" against you. I am not suggesting that you stop killing and eating animals but if you kill and eat a human you'll suffer poisoning from heavy metals. I'd take the peircings out first ;) One can choose to surpass the norm such as that you describe concerning the nature of all things. Choice is a form of creative evolution. Evolution though is a long term effect and you cannot choose your nature (we are still physically virtually identical to humans born 30,000 years ago). What we have today is a situation where psychopaths have risen to power and enslaved the planet to their will (by and large). Then I'll say it another way. Never do you benefit from such behaviour as punching the guy who pisses you off unless it is also as an act of defence from some emediate form of danger. Otherwise there are non violent ways to deal with such circumstances that have better pay offs. Usually, yes (which is why I say shrug for the minor things) but sometimes violence IS the best option. Executions breed executioners. Punishment is unecessary because it has already been meted out, evidenced by the fact that a crime was commited. Punishment must serve the victim directly otherwise it is not punishment. And yes I KNOW you say the victim is the perpitrator ;) Harmonious- 1. Exhibiting accord in feeling or action. 2. Having component elements pleasingly or appropriately combined. Accord- 1. To cause to conform or agree 2. A settlement or compromise of conflicting opinions 3. A settlement of points at issue between nations Harmony and organization seem pretty damn close to me. The real question is whether or not disharmony is disorganized. As each part of an ocean wave is dependant of the whole in order to be what it is (the part of an ocean wave) I would venture a guess that this is actually a form of organization though it is indeed harmonious. Sorry I meant Organise in the active sense (regulating, managing etc). Harmony does not require an organiser and infact most organisers cause more problems than they solve becuase they cannot cater to all the subtlties involved. |
| Gilean06-02-05, 10:58 AM | Does that not require an extra-statutory body, existing outside of the "killers lose their right to life" law, to enact such executions - otherwise executioners and the state they serve lose their right to life?No, because the murderer has no right to live anymore. Thus, killing him is doing nothing wrong.Which instantly makes everyone a slave; that is, an owned servant of the state who is given no choice about such ownership.One recieves benefits from society, one is in debt to the society. A mutual benefit, if you get the point. As I said, lawful part of my philosphy about societies.Why? Because they kill?Almost all of their abilities are designed to deal death to evil thingies, or to protect themselves. Remove disease is the notable exception. Crimes are done for three reasons: mental problems, necessity and selfishness. Necessity can, theoretically, be removed. Mental problems are questionable in the matter of being curable or not. It depends on the problem, I guess. Selfishness, however, is quite inherent to mankind. Too large (larger than, say, thirty) groups of people can't get along. One protects one's friends, and most importantly family, but people besides that are a stretch. |
| Leap06-02-05, 11:13 AM | Gilean - No, because the murderer has no right to live anymore. Thus, killing him is nothing wrong If killing someone forfeits your right to life, does not the killer of a killer also similarly forfeit? Hence the "need" for an "above the law" body who is not subject to this law....so they can execute without thereafter deserving execution.... Almost all of their abilities are designed to deal death to evil thingies, or to protect themselves And that makes them evil how? Note: I dont necessarily disagree with you, I personally have yet to see an example of Lawfulness that is not part of Evilness. Crimes are done for three reasons: mental problems, necessity and selfishness. Necessity can, theoretically, be removed. Mental problems are questionable in the matter of being curable or not. It depends on the problem, I guess. Selfishness, however, is quite inherent to mankind. Too large (larger than, say, thirty) groups of people can't get along. One protects one's friends, and most importantly family, but people besides that are a stretch. A crime is simply something a group has deemed wrong within their midst; usually in order to circumscribe the power to act in such a way for themselves and for their benefit. Calling it a crime is simply PR attempting to get other others to not act so through the application of psychology. eg1: A govt says "do not extract money with menaces" however said govt goes on to extract money (taxes) under threat of imprisonment (menaces) regardless of whether you agree. eg2: A govt says "do not own guns to defend yourself" however said govt owns guns itself to defend itself. Obediance to laws is for fools. Harmonious living according to your own judgement is a sensible thing to aim for but blind obediance to laws will almost always result in your being shafted. Oooops yes I am CN(G) :) |
| Bard of DorAr06-02-05, 11:38 AM | For what it's worth. An excellent example of PoF style viewpoints would be Richard Rahl of Sword of Truth. You know, the Lord Rahl of the D'Haran empire? Read Book Six "Faith of the Fallen" That's a perfect Chaotic Good personal freedom over anything without stopping being the perfect boyscout. And yet he still rules a domain, forged a country, etc, etc. ::shrug:: I love how people randomly find extra things that don't apply and then use them as an excuse to say something's silly or broken. |
| Thanatos0206-02-05, 11:49 AM | Here's the kicker, everyone. The D&D alignment system is wonky. It just is. Because even though most of us can usually look at something really, really bad and say "That's evil" there are a lot of gray areas. Some people think that killing any other living creature is wrong. Some think it's justified. Some think it should be a regular punishment, and most people are just squimish. Maybe they all think they're good. We don't have "Detect Good" so we can't tell. D&D may say one of the above is Neutral, or even Evil. But they continue to debate ethics, as if there was a correct answer. Maybe there is. I would suggest that some answers are more correct then others, but no answer will always be right. No matter how certain we are, someone will disagree. That said, without an objective universal consensus, it's impossible to really tell. This isn't the case in D&D. Good and Evil exist. At that point, it becomes a debate as to which answer is more "Correct". We say "good" is most correct, because Good is usually the easiest to live next to. A Paladin is probably a pretty good neighbor. Unlike in the real world, our Paladin can detect Evil. He knows when he's going to do something bad. He also knows when he's going to do something Chaotic. There's a list of Chaotic things in the D&D world. A L/G Paladin can systematically not do Chaotic things. We don't have that option. We're constantly debating the nature of Law and Chaos. Are laws Lawful? Does following the law make one Lawful? What if you're not following the law because its lawful, but simply not breaking the law because it's not something you would do if left to your own devices? What if you're explicitly Chaotic? Do you systematically break every law you can just because you're Chaotic? Is that a Lawful practice? What about government? Do you topple every government you see? What if they're Good, and you're dedicated to Good, too? What if you don't feel like exposing the kingdom to random, harmful anarchy? What if the ruler rules in order to enforce personal freedom and stops other kings from enforcing tyranny? Is that Lawful or Chaotic? I've got my opinions. Does that make me right? If you have a L/G Paladin, then logically you can have a C/G Paladin. If the L/G Paladin can strike the right balance between Lawfulness and Good, presuming he can detect it and is dedicated to the abstract principles they represent rather then simply just being both Lawful and Good, then a C/G can do the same. Retaining a general belief isn't inherantly Lawful anymore then having an ethical system is inherantly Good. By our logic, perfect Chaos mixed with an ethical/morality system that champions either what is called Good or what is referred to as Evil is impossible, but this isn't the case in the D&D universe. Where there is one, there can logically be an antithesis who holds a "code" that is antithetical to the 1st. Where you ban one, you should consider banning the other, if you ban due to logical inconsistancies. |
| Leap06-02-05, 12:04 PM | Unless of course paladiness is created in a lawful environment in a similar way that barbarians cannot be lawful and rangers rarely are...... :D in which case you can ban one without banning the other ;) The metal clad crusader is definatley a lawful thing (plate armour is a creation of "high" civilisation, and such is a lawful thing).... |
| Thanatos0206-02-05, 12:56 PM | Barbarians are Chaotic because they're raised in absence of lawfulness and embrace a chaotic mindset neutral of ethical ramifications. Rangers in 3.5 are not biased towards any alingment, so according to the PHB, they should be spread out amoung all valid alignments. Both are incorrect analogies, because only the Paladin is a class based on upholding both ethical and moral tenets balanced between themselves. If Law and Good can be upheld at the same time, then so can Chaos and Good. If a class can be devoted to Law and Good, then a class can be devoted to Chaos and Good. Consider - if a class can be forced to be lawful in order to retain abilities (Monk, Paladin), be forced to remain neutral in some capacity (Druid), be forced to abstain from a lawful trend (Bard), be forced to remain Chaotic (Barbarian) and an amalgamation of Law and Good can be present (Paladin) then why not an amalgamation of Chaos and Good? Why is wearing metal inherantly lawful? Are you saying that any civilization that can make armor must be lawful? How can you prove that? How do you explain elves? |
| Masterful_Norg06-02-05, 01:27 PM | The point of vengeance is not to stop them "committing a crime" but to stop them "committing a crime" against you. I only perscribe the act whereby you stop a crime in progress from being commited against you. Otherwise you're just basically commiting a crime against someone who's done so towards you. If that person is still around and believes in vengence they'll be coming back. I assume by your wink that you also realize the health risks of human canabalism without the threat of piercings involved. Evolution though is a long term effect and you cannot choose your nature (we are still physically virtually identical to humans born 30,000 years ago). Is that a law? Usually, yes (which is why I say shrug for the minor things) but sometimes violence IS the best option. Only for self defence, otherwise its just inviting further conflict instead of finding resolution (assuming of course that you don't kill the person and if so that the person wasn't a loner). If you're car has a steering problem and causes you to have a minor crash do you: A) Fix the problem, B) Make the problem worse, or C) Blow the thing up. Punishment must serve the victim directly otherwise it is not punishment. And yes I KNOW you say the victim is the perpitratorThen in this case the best 'punishment' for the victims would be restoration. Crimes are done for three reasons: mental problems, necessity and selfishness. Necessity can, theoretically, be removed. Mental problems are questionable in the matter of being curable or not. It depends on the problem, I guess. Selfishness, however, is quite inherent to mankind. There's a book by Ayn Rand called the virtue of Selfishness. She redefines selfishness as an interest in one's own well being, as opposed to "stinginess resulting from a concern for your own welfare and a disregard of others". We often think of selfish people as those who will trample over the bodies of anyone who stands in their way to reach a particular goal, but this form of behavior doesn't benefit the practitioner. One could say that its much more selfish to form long lasting mutual benefit relationships than just to mug people in the street. The kind of selfishness you are refering to is pathological selfishness which I believe can be labelled as a mental problem. It is the unfortunate belief that in order to really take care of ourselves we have to abuse others. This is the perception of scarcity that in order to win somebody else must lose (life as a zero-sum-game). However, when you do something that benefits the world in which you live you actually benefit indirectly, because now the world in which you live is a better place to do so. Some people would call this altruism, but altruism by definition is sacrifice. How can it be sacrifice if you actually benefit, and is there any reason to make a sacrifice if there is no benefit? In relation to Thanatos02's post, I think the central problem of D&D is that they look at evil as being a thing as opposed to a lack of something. Darkness is not a thing, its just the absense of light. Likewise darkness never dispells darkness only light does. Its funny how The designers thought that for ballance to occur there must be an equal and opposite motive force to every force that exists. I suppose they took the example of negative and possitive charges in matter and energy, but what they failed to realize is that the repulsion and attraction effects between negatively and possitively charged particles in modern particle physics are mediated by photons. Whenever an atom bumps into an atom nothing really touches its just photons. Because our senses can only pick up effects caused by photons and not heavier particles themselves (we only ever see light bouncing a neutron, not the neutron itself) one could rightly assume that the only things we actually ever directly experience are photons or light (chemical reactions in the brain are of course mediated by interactions of electrons between atoms which are mediated by photons). Thus everything is made of clusters of light that act like heavier particles. So negative and positive are dependant on the way in which the light chooses to interact, they are not eternally seperated polarities. Then I suppose the next step to search for evil would be to turn to the empty void, but even then there's something there. When you cool a vacuum to as close to 0 degrees Kelvin as possible and remove all atoms from within the vacuum there is still measurable non heat radiation even if you account for the decrease caused by reaching absolute zero. Theories predict and experiments verify that the so called empty vacuum is actually quite full of potential energy. So full that just one cubic centimeter would contain enough energy to vaporize the world's oceans. So far the devices we have built have piddly outputs, but such was the same for early attempts at fission. So even the void contains potential for light. Even darkness is just light which hides from itself, from its own realization. These assymetries (and others) lead to the conclusion that the belief in an acutual force of evil is folly even in fantasy realms. Besides, if good is supposed to cherish life (aka animated consciousness) then conscious animated evil beings should be mutually exclusive (aka oxy moronic). The only reason why a non polarized Allignment system might not be adopted is because it takes away the excuse of palladin to slaughter evil hordes (cause there aren't any). Smite Evil becomes Smite Misunderstood or at best Smite Attacker. Jade Empires has a very interesting allignment system. There are only two allignments: Closed Fist and Open Palm. Is that a law? Here comes the tricky part. Can we even prove that natural events are governed by laws? Science assumes that all natural laws apply the same way everwhere and for all time, but can this be experimentally proven? No. Science assumes all human beings perceive events the same way always, but is this true? Quantum physics says: On average, so no. Now here comes the real big one. Rationality is something we use to predict and describe how events transpire. If I don't feed my dog, it'll get hungry (provided somebody else doesn't feed my dog so that we have a closed system). So far so good. But can we use rationality or equations to prove the proposition of the validity of causality? No. We can observe an event and label it cause and observe another event and label it effect but we cannot observe the connection in between. We are also unable to use rationality which relies upon the ASSUMPTION of cause and effect in order to prove its own assumption. There is an experimentally observable phenomenon whereby when I seperate two particles which have undergone the process of quantum entanglement by an aribtrarily long distance and then change a quantum state of one (such as the spin) I also change the state of the other simultaneously though it may be lightyears away. This casts doubt on causality because its almost as if the effect was preparing to happen at the exact same time as the cause. We might also question whether it was I who caused the distant particle to change or the distant particle that caused me to change the near particle at a predetermined point in time. "If there is no causality, then there is no clear distinction anymore between the Natural and the Supernatural"- Sir Arthur Eddington But what then instead? Laws are a human construction that we've imposed upon nature, why not choose something that humans and the rest of nature have in common, such as habits? |
| Leap06-02-05, 02:47 PM | Barbarians are Chaotic because they're raised in absence of lawfulness and embrace a chaotic mindset neutral of ethical ramifications. Barbarians are chaotic because they are "wild at heart" and such wildness "could not live in a lawful soul" (or words to that effect in ye olde PhB) Rangers in 3.5 are not biased towards any alingment, so according to the PHB, they should be spread out amoung all valid alignments. Both are incorrect analogies, because only the Paladin is a class based on upholding both ethical and moral tenets balanced between themselves. Rangers can BE any alignment but they are biased to CG. Consider - if a class can be forced to be lawful in order to retain abilities (Monk, Paladin), be forced to remain neutral in some capacity (Druid), be forced to abstain from a lawful trend (Bard), be forced to remain Chaotic (Barbarian) and an amalgamation of Law and Good can be present (Paladin) then why not an amalgamation of Chaos and Good? Never said it cant :) Why is wearing metal inherantly lawful? Are you saying that any civilization that can make armor must be lawful? How can you prove that? How do you explain elves? PLATE metal armour is a contruct of Lawful culture - wild cultures simply do not have the culture needed to construct or use large and encumbering heavy plate metal armour. |
| Leap06-02-05, 02:57 PM | I only perscribe the act whereby you stop a crime in progress from being commited against you. Otherwise you're just basically commiting a crime against someone who's done so towards you. If that person is still around and believes in vengence they'll be coming back. Only if they think they are capable of such......some will slink off if they figure its not worth the risk. I assume by your wink that you also realize the health risks of human canabalism without the threat of piercings involved. Actually, no I dont. Is that a law? Its a fact. Only for self defence, otherwise its just inviting further conflict instead of finding resolution (assuming of course that you don't kill the person and if so that the person wasn't a loner). If you're car has a steering problem and causes you to have a minor crash do you: A) Fix the problem, B) Make the problem worse, or C) Blow the thing up. A car is a piece of my own property so I would fix it (unless it was unfixable). Then in this case the best 'punishment' for the victims would be restoration. The best punishment would undo harm done. If that is loss of dignity it may be regained by standing on those who took it from you. |
| Thanatos0206-02-05, 04:14 PM | Barbarians are chaotic because they are "wild at heart" and such wildness "could not live in a lawful soul" (or words to that effect in ye olde PhB) That's essentially the same as what I said. Rangers can BE any alignment but they are biased to CG. I'm sorry, but this is not true. Nothing says this is true. You're just making this up. I understand that in older editions, Rangers were Chaotic and Good. This is not true in the Edition that we're dealing with, and has no logical basis. Find me some numbers that back this up. Never said it cant :) And thus, a C/G Paladin is sensical. PLATE metal armour is a contruct of Lawful culture - wild cultures simply do not have the culture needed to construct or use large and encumbering heavy plate metal armour. By wild you mean Chaotic and you assume that a Chaotic civilization would never be able to develop the skill required to make armor made out of plates of metal? How do you explain elves? Do they lack skill? They prefer chain because their natural dexterity benifits from it, but there's nothing that says they lack the skill to hammer out a suit of articulated plate armor. Nothing anywhere. You are, in fact, making this up. |
| ChaosSaber06-02-05, 05:08 PM | Norg, I think you struck upon an excellent example. Muhatama Ghandi is a perfect example of a CG crusader. He faught for his people's freedom from British rule without resorting to a violent uprising as I think a 'typical' paladin would. I agree that a Paladin of Freedom would at lease appear to be calmer, more relaxed, and by extension less violent, than a Paladin of Justice, but that does not mean he is any less dedicated. I believe the difference is in outlook, not in dedication. |
| Thanatos0206-02-05, 05:19 PM | A wise perspective. The Ghandi concept is quite good. |
| Masterful_Norg06-02-05, 05:30 PM | Is that a law? Its a factYou're a fact! But seriously, I wasn't refering to whether or not humans have been unchanged for the past 30,000 years as being a law. I was simply asking if you thought it was a law that evolution must be slow (though the field of biology has no scientific laws). In the post I made before this one I believe I adressed a major issue concerning laws and facts. I edited for spelling errors and such but I don't believe I added or took anything away. To simply spout that something is a fact carries as much weight as saying something is a law because we arrive at both with the same techniques. Only if they think they are capable of such......some will slink off if they figure its not worth the risk.Shouldn't the risk be reason enough to forget revenge? A car is a piece of my own property so I would fix it (unless it was unfixable).I think the same should be applicable for individuals as well though its no one's responsibility to fix the problem. But if you're looking for a solution the best way is to adress the problem rather than eliminating the specimen that exhibits that problem. The best punishment would undo harm done. If that is loss of dignity it may be regained by standing on those who took it from you.Who in turn regain theirs by standing on you. And what is dignity anyway? Who provides someone with dignity. Do you buy it at the store or is it something you give to yourself? Dignity can't be taken away, it can only be given away. In as much that when you say someone's taken your dignity it is in fact you who has relinquished it. Now if your arm gets cut off what form of punishment will undo the harm? Cutting off the other guy's arm? If people deserve to get what they give then how can you except gifts without returning them? Props to the people in the Ghandi section! |
| Kintara06-02-05, 07:15 PM | I think it's worth noting that if you take the concepts of Chaos and Order to absolute extremes, they breakdown into meaninglessness. Absolute Order is static and dead. Absolute Chaos is incomprehensible potential without form. For either concept to make any practical sense to people, one needs to have the other. So aspects of Law will necessarily be needed to make a Chaotic character, and the same is true of a Lawful character. To affect change is active and entropic, and Chaotic. To stop something from change is Lawful. But nothing is ever as simplistic as that. You can affect change to bring about stasis, and you can defend something that acts as a force for change. Therefore, you can have a Code for Chaos in the same way that a Crusade for Law. Use Chaos (war) to create Law. Use Law (code) to promote Chaos. Yes, I know that was wonderfully abstract. ;) |
| Masterful_Norg06-02-05, 08:13 PM | That was a beautiful way of putting it. I agree completely. |
| Lord Schpungus06-03-05, 02:19 AM | Gandhi was a putz. If he were around today he'd be shilling for Pepsi or GE, and his people would be slaves to the corporate telecom, and he'd be unwilling to work for change. Fighting Order kinda cuts into the bling, honey. |
| Leap06-03-05, 05:04 AM | Eeep! Where to begin?!! Thanatos - You implied that, rather than Barbarians being "wild at heart", they are wild becuase their culture made them so. Or at least that is how it came across to me. Rangers are biased to CG in 3rd ed (dont have 3.5) - the words are "most are good" and "mostly chaotic".....in the alignment paragraph in the ranger description. As for Chaotic and Plate armour.....it takes an organised division of labour society to make and use plate metal armour, something a chaotic culture would lack. Part of the problem is the DnD writers repeatedly miss-use alignment for characters and races, attaching alignments that bare little or no resemblance to their actual behaviour. Norg - Not sure where u r going with your law/fact point :confused: Humans are to all intents an purposes unchanged for the last 30,000 years. Sure there will be tiny tiny differences but that would be semantics to argue about.... Shouldn't the risk be reason enough to forget revenge? Risk is communicated by action. if you're looking for a solution the best way is to adress the problem rather than eliminating the specimen that exhibits that problem That depends on your relationship with the "specimen" and the nature of the threat. Who in turn regain [their dignity] by standing on you. And what is dignity anyway? Who provides someone with dignity. Do you buy it at the store or is it something you give to yourself? Dignity can't be taken away, it can only be given away. In as much that when you say someone's taken your dignity it is in fact you who has relinquished it. Indeed. It can be given away by not responding to a severe threat. However it can also be taken from you by those who impose cattle-like existance on you. Now if your arm gets cut off what form of punishment will undo the harm? Cutting off the other guy's arm? That depends on whether you think the harm done is simply to your body.... If people deserve to get what they give then how can you except gifts without returning them? As I said, revenge is the rarity, shrugging is the norm. |
| Leap06-03-05, 05:09 AM | I think it's worth noting that if you take the concepts of Chaos and Order to absolute extremes, they breakdown into meaninglessness. Absolute Order is static and dead. Absolute Chaos is incomprehensible potential without form. For either concept to make any practical sense to people, one needs to have the other. So aspects of Law will necessarily be needed to make a Chaotic character, and the same is true of a Lawful character. To affect change is active and entropic, and Chaotic. To stop something from change is Lawful. But nothing is ever as simplistic as that. You can affect change to bring about stasis, and you can defend something that acts as a force for change. Therefore, you can have a Code for Chaos in the same way that a Crusade for Law. Use Chaos (war) to create Law. Use Law (code) to promote Chaos. Yes, I know that was wonderfully abstract. ;) Kintara - This is one of the things I dont like about alignment; the way it is somehow related to abstract concepts rather than taken as general descriptions of behaviour. In fact that very approach is itself highly lawful :D |
| Kintara06-03-05, 05:44 AM | Kintara - This is one of the things I dont like about alignment; the way it is somehow related to abstract concepts rather than taken as general descriptions of behaviour. In fact that very approach is itself highly lawful :D Actually, the only thing that makes Alignment interesting to me is the cosmic element of battling absolutes, and what they mean to the people in the setting. D&D has this Universe of Good and Evil and Chaos and Law. You can point to physical manifestations of it. I think it makes philosophical choices interesting in a unique way. |
| Leap06-03-05, 06:02 AM | Prefer the politics of law vrs chaos myself..... with law being societies dedicated to intense productivity and based on (physical and behavioural) enclosure, surveillance and division of labour neutral being dedicated to low yield productivity and based on less intense enclosure/control and valuing privacy and chaotic having little interest in productivity, little use for enclosure, and valueing space (rather than the privacy of neutral or the dearth of both privacy and space in surveillance intensive lawful). :D |
| Thanatos0206-03-05, 06:24 PM | Thanatos - You implied that, rather than Barbarians being "wild at heart", they are wild becuase their culture made them so. Or at least that is how it came across to me. Barbarians are chaotic because of their personal choices, and personal ethos, and personality. It takes, it seems, a chaotic person to fly into a barely controlled rage and be willing to fling themself heedlessly at the enemy as well. Does this mean that only lawful people can wear armor because Barbarians are chaotic and don't tend to wear heavy armor? No. That's not a logical argument. Rangers are biased to CG in 3rd ed (dont have 3.5) - the words are "most are good" and "mostly chaotic".....in the alignment paragraph in the ranger description. Perhaps 3.0 does say this. However, much like 2nd Ed., this doesn't much count for much. I will say, though, that this is an acceptible assumption on your part. As it stands though, I don't believe it has much to do with our discussion. As for Chaotic and Plate armour.....it takes an organised division of labour society to make and use plate metal armour, something a chaotic culture would lack. Part of the problem is the DnD writers repeatedly miss-use alignment for characters and races, attaching alignments that bare little or no resemblance to their actual behaviour. Hm. So, let me get this straight... Being of a Chaotic alignment means it's impossible to be able to make articulated plates of metal? Now they're too stupid or anti-social to be able to work together? Wow. I mean... it's amazing that every chaotic person in the world is able to get a job anywhere, and live in anything but squalor. Furthermore, I'm not sure what stops a Chaotic person from wearing said armor. Let's put it this way. Do you know how to make a computer from scratch? No? Well, you seem to be able to use one. I know a lot of people who don't know how to build TV's, but a lot of them use them. Know how to build a house? No? Well, you seem to do a good job mastering the niches of getting in and out of buildings... Are Paladin's required to build or wear full-plate armor? No? Well, even if a chaotic person is too anti-social to figure out how to work with someone long enough to make armor, and is too wild to ever learn how to put it on (or for that matter, to train to do anything) they arn't even required to do so. So, take away the proficiency, because they can't wear it, but they can't be a champion of Chaos and Good? That's another leap of logic. So D&D writers, the people that invented the loose strictures of alignment that are meant to act as general guidelines of behavior, don't know where those alignments go? Elves don't drool all over themselves and live like monkeys, so they're all Lawful? Or are you saying that elves can't figure out how to make things out of metal, because it seems that metal is different from leather and wood when it comes to crafting things. So, can a Chaotic character take Profession: Blacksmith? Or are they too Chaotic? Can they take a Profession or Craft in anything, or can they not sit still long enough? Your assertions are incorrect. |
| Callista06-03-05, 07:51 PM | My opinion about the Paladin of Freedom... He's a benevolent revolutionary. Generally, his greatest enemy is the LE tyrant who does evil by oppressing people, the LE system (like most sorts of slavery, incidentally) which takes away freedom. "Dedication" is a slightly lawful trait; but the Chaotic paladin can easily possess it. Everyone, even the most CE person, is dedicated to something, even if it's only his own pleasure. For the CG Paladin, that thing is individual rights--and the fact that he cares about the rights of the individuals, and the fact that that caring comes from the heart and not the mind, makes him chaotic, not lawful. In any event, I don't see a problem with a CG paladin. The evil ruler that a LG paladin might have to grudgingly follow can be undermined by a CG paladin's love for freedom and the fact that he sees an authority figure as no better than any other man. The Good-aligned revolutionary, guerrilla, etc. is a CG paladin. Chances are, he's a wanderer as well... as most Chaotics are. He won't want to rule anyone; but he's probably charismatic enough to lead by example. And, no, he's not an anarchist. His primary dedication is to Good and to the individual's freedoms; and anarchy often doesn't respect either individuals or lead to Good. He's more likely to attempt to set up a government which gives everyone a voice, which respects everyone's rights--a democracy, possibly; or a set of city-states with town-council government. He's likely to want to keep governments as small as possible, to want people to defend their own towns rather than to depend on a king for protection--even though such a world is more dangerous, he knows safety often comes at the expense of freedom. I don't think he'd want to set himself up as so much as a mayor; he's more likely to find a way to allow a town to govern itself after ousting their evil ruler, then go riding off into the sunset and find more injustice to right. All in all, I don't think a CG paladin is unrealistic. |
| Masterful_Norg06-03-05, 11:53 PM | Not sure where u r going with your law/fact point. Humans are to all intents an purposes unchanged for the last 30,000 years. Sure there will be tiny tiny differences but that would be semantics to argue about.... I wasn't disputing that matter whatsoever, though now that I think about it we have begun to evolve a lot faster but not necessarily in a physical sense. All I was really saying is that evolution does not have to be a slow process. The evolution of ideas and technology that act as an extention to our innate abilities is one example though I also believe biological evolution can occur in jumps seeing as the chances of evolving one evolutionary adaptation such as an eye as a result of multiple small mutations are mathematically equivalent to the chances of evolving the same adaptation in a single large mutation. The thrust of my earlier arguement was that things are not so objective as a person such as yourself would make them seem. Though I also found it strange to encounter such a strong sense of objectivity in someone who considers themself to be chaotic. Risk is communicated by action.One could very well argue that because the risk associated with taking mild revenge for small things is less than taking severe revenge for big things one should only take revenge for the smallest of incidents. That depends on your relationship with the "specimen" and the nature of the threat. If you take the standpoint of objectivity then people are equal in the sense that they are basically complex machines, thus they shouldn't be treated any different than cars, preferential treatment being dispensed only on the basis of which ones can and cannot be fixed with such a determination never being made prematurely. If you take the side of subjectivity like a choatic person is most likely to do then you believe in the infinite potential within people, not to be abandoned unless your own infinite potential in the living world is placed imediately at stake. Indeed. It can be given away by not responding to a severe threat. However it can also be taken from you by those who impose cattle-like existance on you. Read "Man's Search for Meaning" by Viktor E. Frankl. While in Auschwitz Viktor was able to maintain his dignity. I remain firm in my assersion that dignity is self maintained. As I said, revenge is the rarity, shrugging is the norm. Can you provide a suitable justification for exercising revenge? The influence of a negative emotional state is the underlying contributor toward the tendancy of individuals to perform injurious acts toward other individuals. As can be plainly seen, acting in such a way as to intensify the circumstances under which negative emotional afflictions occur does nothing to decrease the frequency of needlessly injurious acts being performed. It is not in one's best interest to act out of revenge. It is just another example of stabing one's self in one's own foot. I believe the reason why people resort to revenge is because of a percieved threat to themselves which is in fact not really there. The act itself is not so compellingly repulsive as the unwillingness to consider an alternative. |
| Thanatos0206-04-05, 01:53 AM | I believe Callistas concept to be well thought out and accurate. Thanks. ^_^ |
| Leap06-04-05, 04:44 AM | Does this mean that only lawful people can wear armor because Barbarians are chaotic and don't tend to wear heavy armor? No. That's not a logical argument. Chaotic people tend to like flexibility in behaviour - heavy armour is itself a limit on part of this. Chaotics travel light in many senses of the phrase... Being of a Chaotic alignment means it's impossible to be able to make articulated plates of metal? Now they're too stupid or anti-social to be able to work together? Wow. I mean... it's amazing that every chaotic person in the world is able to get a job anywhere, and live in anything but squalor. Plate metal working comes from stable, settled communities, not highly mobile ones, and chaotic is certainly the allignment of being highly mobile. Well, even if a chaotic person is too anti-social to figure out how to work with someone long enough to make armor, and is too wild to ever learn how to put it on (or for that matter, to train to do anything) they arn't even required to do so. So, take away the proficiency, because they can't wear it, but they can't be a champion of Chaos and Good? That's another leap of logic. Learning to make, and resourcing the making of, plate armour, requires a lot of training and a lot of logistics....both of which are counter to the free-spirited chaotic. So D&D writers, the people that invented the loose strictures of alignment that are meant to act as general guidelines of behavior, don't know where those alignments go? Elves don't drool all over themselves and live like monkeys, so they're all Lawful? Or are you saying that elves can't figure out how to make things out of metal, because it seems that metal is different from leather and wood when it comes to crafting things. Ever noticed how the less techy characters are the less lawfuls ones (generallY) - barbarian, druid, ranger...... And yes a lot of the writers do indeed not seem to understand alignments..... So, can a Chaotic character take Profession: Blacksmith? Or are they too Chaotic? Can they take a Profession or Craft in anything, or can they not sit still long enough? Your assertions are incorrect. They could take them, but it would be unreasonable to think they would assume the level of skill a lawful person could. |
| Leap06-04-05, 04:58 AM | The evolution of ideas and technology that act as an extention to our innate abilities is one example though I also believe biological evolution can occur in jumps seeing as the chances of evolving one evolutionary adaptation such as an eye as a result of multiple small mutations are mathematically equivalent to the chances of evolving the same adaptation in a single large mutation. Ideas and tech are an adjunct to our basic nature though...not a replacement (well, not unless you are LE and intent on dehumanising folks :) ). The thrust of my earlier arguement was that things are not so objective as a person such as yourself would make them seem. Though I also found it strange to encounter such a strong sense of objectivity in someone who considers themself to be chaotic. Ah, well I dont consider lawful or chaotic to be absolutes. Chaotic, to me, means being mostly subjective but not entirely so :) One could very well argue that because the risk associated with taking mild revenge for small things is less than taking severe revenge for big things one should only take revenge for the smallest of incidents. That is like suggesting constant small nagging is less harmful to a marriage than a big arguement, when it is usually the other way around :) If you take the standpoint of objectivity then people are equal in the sense that they are basically complex machines, thus they shouldn't be treated any different than cars, preferential treatment being dispensed only on the basis of which ones can and cannot be fixed with such a determination never being made prematurely. If you take the side of subjectivity like a choatic person is most likely to do then you believe in the infinite potential within people, not to be abandoned unless your own infinite potential in the living world is placed imediately at stake. That implies good has to be lawful because it has to be objective...interesting :) Can you provide a suitable justification for exercising revenge? Because I want to an because all the wordy argument in the world does not change my experience of "it works" :) The influence of a negative emotional state is the underlying contributor toward the tendancy of individuals to perform injurious acts toward other individuals. As can be plainly seen, acting in such a way as to intensify the circumstances under which negative emotional afflictions occur does nothing to decrease the frequency of needlessly injurious acts being performed. It is not in one's best interest to act out of revenge. It is just another example of stabing one's self in one's own foot. Sounds like a logical argument; catch is, it dont work that way in practice :) Everything injures something else in life (grass eats soil, sheep eat grass, wolves eat sheep, soil eats wolves....) I believe the reason why people resort to revenge is because of a percieved threat to themselves which is in fact not really there. The act itself is not so compellingly repulsive as the unwillingness to consider an alternative. Quite often the threat IS real and serious (and not simply created by a "dodgy dossier" ;) ), which is why I say shrug for the many petty things but act on the occasional serious issues :) |
| Thanatos0206-04-05, 12:57 PM | Leap, you're just making things up. You've got nothing to back your arguments up with. When every written thing put out by Wizards and TSR rebukes your arguments, you just say they're wrong. In fact, I challange you to back up any of your nonsense claims. Moreover, I challange you to demonstrate that your claims even have anything to do with being able to be a champion of Chaos. Moreover, I challange you to back up your assertions that the extremity of alignment is so monsterous that a chaotic person is incapable of doing much of anything. Your problem is that you're taking a generalized behavioral trait and taking it to an illogical extreame. If chaotic people couldn't focus at all, be unable to focus enough to make or wear armor, for example, there should be no Chaotic Wizards, Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, or Clerics. Magic is a highly disiplined study. Even if you're chaotic in the use of magic, it still takes a long time of dedicated effort to learn it. And yet... chaotic people can be Wizards! Amazing! Being a Fighter isn't just swinging a sword. All those Feats take special training. They can all wear heavy armor, they have all learned to be able to use every single simple and martial weapon, they're well-versed in specialize tactics. Seems too hard for chaotic people to grasp? Well, we can still have Chaotic Fighters. Unreal! Rangers? Well, they live in the woods, so they must be chaotic, right? Lawful people don't live in the woods, and chaotic people never live in cities. Wrong. They can use marital weapons, simple weapons, certain armors, and have a lot of skills. Seems like it would take too long to learn those skills though... the same with Rogues. Clerics? If you can't be a devoted champion like a Paladin, then don't expect any chaotic clerics. Sure, they can have a feebleminded worship of a gibbering god, but not the devotion to carry the gods will to the material plane. It seems that Chaotic people arn't capable of anything. I guess elves are lawful? They haven't de-evolved into brain-eating monkeys yet. They live in a society. They know how to make things. They have a lot of wizards. Obvious lawful traits. It seems that their dedication to personal freedom, loose social mores, and preferance to benign chaos doesn't have anything to do with it. Face it, man, you're wrong. Chaotic people are capable of making armor. They're capable of understanding the craftsmanship involved. Being chaotic doesn't turn you into a psycopath or a kid on ADHD. It just means that they're more likely to do as they please. All chaotic means is that they're less likely to be forced into smithing against their will. There may be fewer chaotic smiths, but the ones that exist can reach the peak of skill just as easily as a lawful person. It's what they do for fun, in many cases. They're capable of wearing armor. In fact, chaotic fighters do all the time. Why? Because not all chaotic people are terribly dexterous, and because armor stops you from being gutted by your enemies. Barbarians tend to wear mithril breastplate on these boards, even. Strike you as odd? It's because they can wear the armor, and the class feature of fast movement isn't decreased by its wear. It's not because they're chaotic or lawful. It's because its useful. Chaotic people don't stop understanding 'useful'. Chaotic people can learn skills as easily as lawful people. They can focus. They can learn wizardry. They can learn special combat maneuvers. They can understand wisdom. These traits are not inherant to any alignment. Paladins were L/G because back in the day of the creation of the Paladin, this was considered the most appropriate alignment for a holy warrior icon. The crusader, the cavalier, ect. It's left as a legacy. But logically, there isn't any reason that a warrior devoted to freedom and good can't exist. Your arguments don't carry any weight. From a logical perspective, it's sound. Now, that's different from saying "You have to allow CG holy warriors in your game." But from a logical perspective, your arguements are wrong, and you've nothing - nothing at all - to base them on. If you said, "In my opinion, the idea of a chaotic good champion in heavy armor seems funny to me, and it sets itself against the popular archtypes of the past with which I seek to fill my game." then I would say nothing against this. This is fine. But that's different. |
| Masterful_Norg06-04-05, 01:51 PM | Ah, well I dont consider lawful or chaotic to be absolutes. Chaotic, to me, means being mostly subjective but not entirely so.Basically the point that was made is everything is subjective as it cannot in principle be proven otherwise and there is already proof to show that it is so. Once again- "If there is no causality, then there is no clear distinction anymore between the Natural and the Supernatural"- Sir Arthur Eddington All appearances to the affirmative there is in fact no causality, only the tendancy of things to behave in a certain manner which can be subject to change. The interesting thing about Quantum Mechanics is that the observation of a quantized value actually alters the value itself simply by the act of observation. It is what we choose to see that generally appears. However, certain experiments and long standing observations imply that matter acts out of concious decision. It is much as if electrons exchange between atoms to create chemical bonds not at the wim of a force, (as no trace of any such force has ever been found) but that they actually know at what time and with which atoms they are able to exchange as based as the number of electrons in that atom. Therefore we must take the observations of the electrons into consideration as well. "We are not victims of the world we see but the way we see the world" - Dennis Kucinich. This quote from my signature becomes even more meaningful when you take the quantum mechanical perspective. Particle physics is in a way becoming a branch of psychology, a study of the inner reality. That is like suggesting constant small nagging is less harmful to a marriage than a big arguement, when it is usually the other way around.But the conclusion followed from your stream of logic. By no means do I suggest that's the way I feel. That implies good has to be lawful because it has to be objective...interesting Like I said "everything is subjective", though curiously enough that's an objective statement. Just another display that novelty has no form without habit and habit has no force without novelty. In Quantum Mechanics events usually cling toward averages, which I call habitual behaviour, but there is always the prospect for change to occur which I call novelty. My above statement is like saying, things are habitually subjective. Though they may remain within a particular approximation of one value or another there is always the window or oportunity for a spontaneous event to occur. We become objective about the conclusion that everything is subjective by which route we follow to reach this conclusion is of course also subjective. Because I want to an because all the wordy argument in the world does not change my experience of "it works". Well as always you are entitle to follow through on your choice. In this day and age I don't think we need leaders, people to influence our minds and decisions. Rather I prefer the role of facilitator. One who suggests a course of action which is either excepted or rejected by those whom it concerns on an individual basis. Everything injures something else in life (grass eats soil, sheep eat grass, wolves eat sheep, soil eats wolves....) But people don't have to eat people. Quite often the threat IS real and serious (and not simply created by a "dodgy dossier" ), which is why I say shrug for the many petty things but act on the occasional serious issues. If the threat is real then the action is taken in self defense (as is currently defined by western law), something I find perfectly acceptible. However, the threat to your emotional state is not real. If you choose to take the actions of others personally then that's your decision. Sounds like a logical argument; catch is, it dont work that way in practice. It works for me. |
| Leap06-04-05, 01:54 PM | Leap, you're just making things up. You've got nothing to back your arguments up with. When every written thing put out by Wizards and TSR rebukes your arguments, you just say they're wrong. Nope am interpreting DnD products to try and have them make sense and iron out the daft mistakes.... In fact, I challange you to back up any of your nonsense claims. Moreover, I challange you to demonstrate that your claims even have anything to do with being able to be a champion of Chaos. Moreover, I challange you to back up your assertions that the extremity of alignment is so monsterous that a chaotic person is incapable of doing much of anything. Well if I had said that you might have a point. Chaotics are not, by their very nature, as productive as lawfuls (this is why Ford's production line (a VERY lawful model) is so productive). They also lack the dedication (dedication being a lawful thing) to train to high levels. Your problem is that you're taking a generalized behavioral trait and taking it to an illogical extreame. If chaotic people couldn't focus at all, be unable to focus enough to make or wear armor, for example, there should be no Chaotic Wizards, Fighters, Rangers, Rogues, or Clerics. Never said they had no focus, just a marked degree less than lawfuls. Magic is a highly disiplined study. Even if you're chaotic in the use of magic, it still takes a long time of dedicated effort to learn it. And yet... chaotic people can be Wizards! Amazing! Being a Fighter isn't just swinging a sword. All those Feats take special training. They can all wear heavy armor, they have all learned to be able to use every single simple and martial weapon, they're well-versed in specialize tactics. Seems too hard for chaotic people to grasp? Well, we can still have Chaotic Fighters. Unreal! Nope; sorcerer magic and bard magic rely on spontaniety and innate ability NOT discipline. Face it, man, you're wrong. Stating that does not make it so. If you cannot see the connection between alignment and culture / tech / skill I am not going to labour the point further. |
| Gilean06-04-05, 02:49 PM | First, generic alignment stuff and rants All alignments in D&D have three or two levels. This is not official, but my view. Officially they are absolute. I don't use them, but I do find them interesting. My levels: Personal chaos is about doing whatever you want to do. It is not a cause. Personal evil is about harming others. It is a cause, and, somewhat, a method. Personal good is about helping others. It is a cause, not a method. Personal law is about doing things with planning and logic, and following some orders or a code. Or in the logical sense. Extraplanar alignments are both causes and methods. This is where mere mortals start having troubles. There are other interpretations. Extraplanar chaos is about as many possibilites as well... as there can be. And a few more to boot. Rules reduce possibilities and are thus wrong. The cause is infinite possibilities, and the method is spontaneity and illogicality, to do things opposite can't comprehend. Extraplanar evil is about harming others, either physically, mentally or spiritually, preferably in all categories. Method is sowing everything encouraging that harm, including distrust, oppression, suffering, diseases... Cause is, as said, harming everyone. Extraplanar good is about making everyone happy. Method is primarily removing evil and inspiring/encouraging/forcing (debatable) others to do good and live in harmony with each other. Extraplanar law is about predictability. Method varies, but includes extreme conformity (don't remember name of creatures, but there were some), all-encompassing society (formians), researching the cause and effect/natural laws of everything (possibly modrons). The goal is predictability. If nothing changes, everything is predictable. If everything changes through certain laws, everything is predictable. Extraplanar alignments include all 9, and all of them have their goals. Interesting is that archons, for example, don't see law and good as separate things, but as one. Extraplanar neutrality is balance. Good and evil don't have final goals. Final goals are things that can be done with no creature around. Final chaos is total, random thing. It defies any description. Everything changes, at all times, into anything and everything. Final law is a perfect stasis. Everything that is, is. No change. Final balance is debatable. It would be best for everyone if you recognise your alignments, in D&D sense, as much as possible. Leap is chaotic, Masterful_Norg has very good perspective. I (and Thanatos 02) are lawful. Leap, could you use word 'wrong' instead of 'evil', which has quite specific D&D meaning? The crime and punishment thing: My (lawful, and it will get repeated) perspective: everyone has the right to good life and the duty to give everyone else the right to good life. Break the duty, lose the right. Thus, if people attack your home, they have (probably) broken their duty. By breaking their duty, they have lost their right to good life. If they are hostile, they can be killed with no repercussions, as they have no right. By killing them, you don't break your duty, and don't lose your rights. Society is what controls how rights are lost and regained, in some cases. For example, if someone steals food because of near-starvation, society can grant back the right if the thief does something to repay the food. In similar manner, a killer can regain the right to live by saving others. Examples include testing medicines (I oppose animal tests. Don't get me started.), doing dangerous research that needs to be done, handling other killers, etc. So, the basic premise is harsh, and society is what keeps everything working. And that makes them evil how? Note: I dont necessarily disagree with you, I personally have yet to see an example of Lawfulness that is not part of Evilness.Please, do use the words 'right' and 'wrong' when talking about the subjective things. D&D concepts are objective. The paladin must never do an evil act. Evil acts in PHB include hurting and killing others. No mention of innocence or nonevilness or possibility of redemption.eg1: A govt says "do not extract money with menaces" however said govt goes on to extract money (taxes) under threat of imprisonment (menaces) regardless of whether you agree.Not entirely true. You can move away from said government. Also, said government, if nonevil, uses said money to improve the conditions of living of people who do live there, including you.eg2: A govt says "do not own guns to defend yourself" however said govt owns guns itself to defend itself.Depends on government... But it is more like "do not own guns because the capacity of harming otherswith them is greater than capacity of defending oneself with them". I do feel more safe when most people have no guns, as opposed to everyone carrying gun around. Unfortunately, there is nobody telling this to governments... (No, UN doesn't count. They are unable to do anything.)But they continue to debate ethics, as if there was a correct answer. Maybe there is. I would suggest that some answers are more correct then others, but no answer will always be right. No matter how certain we are, someone will disagree. That said, without an objective universal consensus, it's impossible to really tell.If there are better answers, we only need to find an answer that is never worse than any other answer. To do that, we must only catalogue every possible situation and every possible answer. Easy enough :D But really, just because we can't reach perfection is no excuse top stop trying.If you're car has a steering problem and causes you to have a minor crash do you: A) Fix the problem, B) Make the problem worse, or C) Blow the thing up.A or C. Of course, you forget to mention that C includes ... and make (acquire, buy) a better one.Then in this case the best 'punishment' for the victims would be restoration.Unless it has been proven not to work (someone who repeats crimes, which happens even in Finland and Canada, both of which try to restore).About selfishness and good and evil, snipped for spaceI can also say that there is no good with that logic. Selfishness is the grand motive of evil, and if everything we do comes from it (which is quite likely, but let us not venture into realms of altruism), everything we do comes from evil. Thus, everything is evil. And if everytihng is good or evil it really doesn't matter.On laws and stuff, snipped.Irrelevant in D&D. If you can point me to some other forum, I might actually drop by to argument these matters. For example, very much randomnity on microlevel results in laws at macrolevel (the gas constant at chemistry, for example). Also, string theory, quantum mechanics, gravitons, etc. Too much to get into that. There was other things to be said, but I'll go to sleep soon enough. Maybe this little post cleared something up. |
| Thanatos0206-04-05, 03:35 PM | For the record, I'm probably N/G. ^.~ There's no reason to stop trying to discover right and wrong, but a change in perspective is valueable. We may need to stop trying to discover "The One Correct Answer" is all I'm saying. Good is most likely to be a case-by-case basis. If we want to, say, do the most 'good', be the most virtuous, a universal standard may well do as much wrong as it does right. The Harmonium, for example, do a lot of good because they espouse one right way. However, they're reviled by as many as their supported by in Sigil. The Harmonium also posses non-good members by the score. Another element of moral shades of gray, no matter how you slice it. My point, though, Leap, is that you're applying archtypes without even thinking about it. Archtypes are a powerful literary tool, because they give us an idea pre-wrapped. You can put an archtype in a story and everyone know what it is. The old wise man, the blind seer, the wise fool, the Young Man on a Quest, the Hero, the Devil, ect. The Paladin. The Chaos-monger. Ect. D&D has alignments. They are spliced between tenents of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil but there are no other variables listed. However, it's 'understood', in general, that there is a secret or hidden rating of just how deep into your alignment you are. Mortals tend to be pretty shallow. The Lawful Good shopkeep is probably not devoted to either Law or Good as an abstract concept. He just happens to have a Good and Lawful moral and ethical compass. The Neutral Evil shopkeep will sell you shoddy goods and make price-gouge because he can get away with it, but there's a good chance he'd balk at ever killing someone. It's too evil for him. Likewise, a chaotic good person may not be terribly deep into his chaotic alignment. He's mildly chaotic, perhaps more devoted to good. He believes in personal freedom, and he's willing to stand up for your right to be free. He believes that nobody shold be forced into doing things they don't want. He may be imaginative and free-wheeling. However, this doesn't mean he can't be dedicated. Yes, we may assign alignment concepts to actions. Stealing is likely chaotic. You're ignoring personal space and the slightly rigid concept of personal property. Dedication is lawful, to an extent. For a period of time, a person remains fastened to a certain aspect of his character. That mild stasis is lawful. However, a chaotic person may posses certain lawful traits. A champion of freedom, who remains chaotic and good may be dedicated without breaking his claim on freedom. This is becuase nobody is forcing him to be a champion -he does it because he feels it's what he wants to do. This is tied to craftsmanship. A chaotic smith may love to smith. In this case, he finds it fun and rewarding. Nobody forces him, he is an artist who turns metal into armor and art. He is dedicated to it with a passion - and passion is a chaotic concept. It could be argued that by creating something, he's turning possibility (imagination - chaos) into an object (static - law) but this isn't impossible or unlikely. In fact, it's pretty common. A Paladin of Justice, who is lawful and good is likely to view himself as a Paladin until the day he dies. A Paladin of Freedom is more likely to, at some point, hang up his sword and sheild and go about doing something else, when his time is up. But while he persues his course, he is as passionate and as much a champion as the Paladin of Justice. A being of total chaos can't make anything at all. A being of total law can't imagine anything at all. A being of total evil has no shred of compassion in its soul. A being of total good has no ounce of hatred for anything. But mortals are not these beings - they are "imperfect" possessing elements of law, chaos, good, and evil. The extent they lean determines their alignment, but most mortals find it pretty hard to lean too far. A Paladin of Chaos and Good leans far (for a mortal) into both Chaos and Good, but it is impossible for him to lean too far into chaos lest he lose his 'good'. Instead, he only invests himself in the benevolent aspects of the ideal. Being inable to concentrate or devote oneself to the task is far outside of the freedom the champion espouses. Just like the aspects of stagnation and tyranny are outside of the traditional paladins relm of Law. Just because I say it's so doesn't mean it's so, but your arguments suffer from the same flaw. The difference is that rather then asserting my opinion without basis, I present analogies that demonstrate my point in a manner that you've not disputed save with personal opinion. Opinion that I personally don't think is deeply thought out. Your observations regarding archtypes have a grain of truth in them, but you should also seperate archtypes from reason - which, while lawful, is not opressive but freeing in that it gives us a path to fully-formed and cohesive thoughts. Combined with 'soul' and 'idea' it presents a more accurate view of the world. |
| allenchan06-04-05, 04:01 PM | It takes, it seems, a chaotic person to fly into a barely controlled rage and be willing to fling themself heedlessly at the enemy as well. You are incorrect sir. This -is- the UA forum, and there are things in UA that allow for non-chaotic raging without alignment shifts. |
| Masterful_Norg06-04-05, 05:09 PM | Everyone has the right to good life and the duty to give everyone else the right to good life. Break the duty, lose the right. Thus, if people attack your home, they have (probably) broken their duty. By breaking their duty, they have lost their right to good life. If they are hostile, they can be killed with no repercussions, as they have no right. By killing them, you don't break your duty, and don't lose your rights. My contention is that people who have not had a good life are most likely to breach in their "duty" as you called it to respect everyone elses right to a good life. Again self defence is a very good justification, but I feel that it is a better course to issue remedy as opposed to affliction. A or C. Of course, you forget to mention that C includes ... and make (acquire, buy) a better one. Well it is only a problem with the stearing and to complete the analogy between cars and humans, the vehicle is one of a kind. Unless it has been proven not to work (someone who repeats crimes, which happens even in Finland and Canada, both of which try to restore).What constitutes proof for some of the inability on the part of the criminal to rehabilitate may in fact be used to question our ability to assist them. You can observe an apparent unwillingness of the subject to change, but that too has underlying contributing factors which can be adressed. And besides, you can never prove an impossibility. I can also say that there is no good with that logic. Selfishness is the grand motive of evil, and if everything we do comes from it (which is quite likely, but let us not venture into realms of altruism), everything we do comes from evil. Thus, everything is evil. And if everytihng is good or evil it really doesn't matter. I did point out a distinction between selfishness (self interest) and pathological selfishness, the latter actually being less beneficial to the practitioner. I would say pathological selfishness is the grand misguided motive of "evil". However, I do agree that everything is good and I have reasons for how this is so. For example, very much randomnity on microlevel results in laws at macrolevel (the gas constant at chemistry, for example). Also, string theory, quantum mechanics, gravitons, etc. But this is still inductive reasoning. All deductive reasoning does in fact rely on an unprovable proposition so it can never be elevated to a higher status than pure speculation. Granted there is an appearance of consistancy which is why I suggest habits as opposed to laws. I am indeed allowing room for the possibility of macroscopic events to arrise entirely from the realm of choice (the breach of habit) because there is nothing to suggest it is otherwise dissallowed. In reference to gravitons and all other partices, the only ones that can exist are the particles essential to the process of thought. Everything being apprehended in the mind is thus constructed only of these particles. I suggested that it may be the photon because photons are the current mechanism that mediates the interactions between all other particles up to this point. Truly we can only observe the interactions between particles and not particles themselves therefore the mediator of these interactions is the only thing that can be thought to exist. A graviton has yet to be observed, and I personally ascribe to the Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole theory of gravity otherwise know as "gravity as a push". Irrelevant in D&D.D&D arrises from the real world and thus what is relevant to the parent is similarly so to the child. A Paladin of Freedom is more likely to, at some point, hang up his sword and sheild and go about doing something else, when his time is up. But while he persues his course, he is as passionate and as much a champion as the Paladin of Justice. "The mark of an immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." -Wilhelm Stekel |
| Thanatos0206-04-05, 05:51 PM | You are incorrect sir. This -is- the UA forum, and there are things in UA that allow for non-chaotic raging without alignment shifts. Topic: Alignment Referance Point: Barbarian Sub-Referance Point: Chaotic Alignment Prime Characteristic: Rage Rational: Wild at heart. UA Forum and House Rules: Optional Rage while non-Chaotic Query: Does Rage require a chaotic mindset? Cursory Answer: No. With optional rules. Query: Why is the Barbarian required to be chaotic? Cursory Answer: Legacy code. Distinction: Noted and recorded. Point conceeded. |
| Gilean06-05-05, 02:17 AM | Well it is only a problem with the stearing and to complete the analogy between cars and humans, the vehicle is one of a kind.If the unique vehicle is flawed, unable to do what it should, it should'nt be used. Similarly, if a person is unbale to live with others, the person should be confined. Or killed.What constitutes proof for some of the inability on the part of the criminal to rehabilitate may in fact be used to question our ability to assist them. You can observe an apparent unwillingness of the subject to change, but that too has underlying contributing factors which can be adressed. And besides, you can never prove an impossibility.Here's the catch: we can either spend a huge amount of resources, which are limited nowadays, trying to heal (from your perspective) the one who has killed multiple times, or we can use the money to help elderly people, mentally ill, physically ill, children, etc.I did point out a distinction between selfishness (self interest) and pathological selfishness, the latter actually being less beneficial to the practitioner. I would say pathological selfishness is the grand misguided motive of "evil". However, I do agree that everything is good and I have reasons for how this is so.My point is, if everything is good, what does it matter? It's like saying: everything exists. For example, my book of religion said: Love is created by God, and thus is good. Similarly, evil is created by God, and thus is good. It is quite meaningless to say: everything is good.But this is still inductive reasoning. All deductive reasoning does in fact rely on an unprovable proposition so it can never be elevated to a higher status than pure speculation. Granted there is an appearance of consistancy which is why I suggest habits as opposed to laws. I am indeed allowing room for the possibility of macroscopic events to arrise entirely from the realm of choice (the breach of habit) because there is nothing to suggest it is otherwise dissallowed.Unfotunately we must take that step. Let me point you at Kant, and his merging of reason and experiment.In reference to gravitons and all other partices, the only ones that can exist are the particles essential to the process of thought. Everything being apprehended in the mind is thus constructed only of these particles. I suggested that it may be the photon because photons are the current mechanism that mediates the interactions between all other particles up to this point. Truly we can only observe the interactions between particles and not particles themselves therefore the mediator of these interactions is the only thing that can be thought to exist. A graviton has yet to be observed, and I personally ascribe to the Oppositely Charged Twin Monopole theory of gravity otherwise know as "gravity as a push".I refer to agnostism. I don't know how it is, and can only try to find out. So no arguments here.D&D arrises from the real world and thus what is relevant to the parent is similarly so to the child.But, in D&D there clearly are objective alignments and they clearly are forces, each and every one of them. Also, D&D works with certain rules. I refer you to PHB. So, as I said, I might be willing to debate these points in an appropriate forum, but not here.D&D has alignments. They are spliced between tenents of Law/Chaos and Good/Evil but there are no other variables listed. However, it's 'understood', in general, that there is a secret or hidden rating of just how deep into your alignment you are. Mortals tend to be pretty shallow. Also (correct if I'm wrong, I have never read a single Planescape product) the outsiders with alignment subtypes are "shallow", in the sense that mortal belief shapes them. In fact, everything about good and evil is shallow, as they can't be without persons. Unlike law (grumble*order*grumble) and chaos. |
| Leap06-05-05, 05:02 AM | This is gonna be long me thinks! :( ;) Gilean - Please, do use the words 'right' and 'wrong' when talking about the subjective things. D&D concepts are objective. The reason I link lawful with evil is the use of oppressive in the evil descriptor; lawful IS oppressive therefore you could very easily see it joined with evil..... not entirely true. You can move away from said government. Also, said government, if nonevil, uses said money to improve the conditions of living of people who do live there, including you Govt, by its nature, seeks to expand power. Yes you can run to the "frontier" but govt will still "chase" you. All govt runs on these principles (even the US one, despite supposedly being constitutionally bound to no do so). Thanatos - A chaotic smith may love to smith. In this case, he finds it fun and rewarding. Nobody forces him, he is an artist who turns metal into armor and art. He is dedicated to it with a passion - and passion is a chaotic concept. It could be argued that by creating something, he's turning possibility (imagination - chaos) into an object (static - law) but this isn't impossible or unlikely. In fact, it's pretty common. Chaos is about freedom (read: having a great deal of space/leeway) and singleminded dedication is contrary to this (it is about being tunnel visioned). Being harnessed is a lawful thing, even if you agree with the harness (such as your passionate smith above). Just because I say it's so doesn't mean it's so, but your arguments suffer from the same flaw. The difference is that rather then asserting my opinion without basis, I present analogies that demonstrate my point in a manner that you've not disputed save with personal opinion. Opinion that I personally don't think is deeply thought out. Your observations regarding archtypes have a grain of truth in them, but you should also seperate archtypes from reason - which, while lawful, is not opressive but freeing in that it gives us a path to fully-formed and cohesive thoughts. Combined with 'soul' and 'idea' it presents a more accurate view of the world. Chaos = freedom = leeway = space = room to manouver Law = restricted = dearth of leeway = far less space = far less room for manouver Plate metal armor crafting cultures have always been lawful ones. They need a lawful environment to mine the metal, to build the forge, to train for years, decades even, to create a specialist warrior class who incase themselves in metal becuase they dont need flexibility - they fit a cog space in society. Chaotic cultures lack the division of labour needed to mine enough metal, the physical stability to construct a forge, the lack of blinkered vision to train for ages, the lack of a division of labour specialist warrior class, all because a society that values leeway and space creates generalists who have bursts of ability (barbarian is a very good example of this) but not specialists who have the constructig ability of the plodding settled farmer based plate metal creating society. For chaos think wild elf, barbarian, druid, ranger. The classic elf is far more NG than CG. Ok, it wasnt as long as I thought it might be :) |
| Josuwar06-05-05, 08:35 AM | I didn't really want to get into this mess, but I suppose I'm going to anyway. Leap, you are wrong. You see, you are presenting your viewpoint as fact. You are saying that WotC is wrong, but what WotC says is fact, since they own Dungeons and Dragons. Some examples of this; You say elves are NG, even though it is a fact that [the majority of] elves are CG. The Simbul is Chaotic, this is also a fact, but you say that the authors don't know what they are talking about. Now the authors do make mistakes, and present many different viewpoints since WotC doesn't just have one author... But you don't just disagree with one or two things, you are disagreeing with a lot of established things, and even with something as fundamental as the Chaotic alignment of elves. It just looks to me that whenever someone comes up with a very good argument "look at elves, they have a great civilization, yet are Chaotic", you go "Oh, darn, well let me just change that and make them Neutral, so my arguments aren't wiped away like a house of cards". Everything you have said is your opinion, it almost looks as if they are your houserules. You shouldn't use your houserules in a discussion since they do not apply to others. |
| Leap06-05-05, 09:55 AM | I didn't really want to get into this mess, but I suppose I'm going to anyway. Leap, you are wrong. You see, you are presenting your viewpoint as fact. You are saying that WotC is wrong, but what WotC says is fact, since they own Dungeons and Dragons. Some examples of this; You say elves are NG, even though it is a fact that [the majority of] elves are CG. The Simbul is Chaotic, this is also a fact, but you say that the authors don't know what they are talking about. Now the authors do make mistakes, and present many different viewpoints since WotC doesn't just have one author... But you don't just disagree with one or two things, you are disagreeing with a lot of established things, and even with something as fundamental as the Chaotic alignment of elves. Alignment is found in behaviour, not in a two word tag on a character sheet.... |
| Josuwar06-05-05, 09:58 AM | Alignment is found in behaviour, not in a two word tag on a character sheet.... Indeed, so it can be debated what exactly those two letters mean, but it can not be said that elves are NG, or that the Simbul is not really CN, and that is what you have been doing. |
| Leap06-05-05, 10:02 AM | My point, sigh, is that their character descriptions do NOT match their alignment tags. Wild elves are chaotic, yes, but regular elves dont fit the description of CG (Some of them have royal families for gods' sake!). |
| Josuwar06-05-05, 10:14 AM | My point, sigh, is that their character descriptions do NOT match their alignment tags. Wild elves are chaotic, yes, but regular elves dont fit the description of CG (Some of them have royal families for gods' sake!). It's your opinion though that royal families can not be Chaotic, and that regular elves are not Chaotic either. Apparently according to WotC they can be, if there are royal elven families with a Chaotic alignment. You see (and I hope my English is good enough for this), some people think that there can be Chaotic rulers. Some people think that plate armor can be crafted by, and worn by, Chaotic people, and some people believe that Chaotic societies can exist and flourish. To prove this, we point to facts that back up our claims, such as the elves. However, when you then say that elves are not really Chaotic, then we can't really prove our point (yet it is valid information), and then we shouldn't even have this argument. Why? Because you are not playing the same DnD as everybody else, you are playing a DnD with NG Elves and Lawful Neutral Simbuls. In order to have an argument that is endable (did I just make that word up?) it must be agreed that the fundamental things in DnD are correct, in order to use them as a reference point. |
| Leap06-05-05, 10:24 AM | Well, personally I think I would look daft with brick imprint in my forehead...so to avoid that possibility I hope my american is good enough for this Whatever |
| Josuwar06-05-05, 10:49 AM | I'm sorry if I sounded offensive, but I couldn't come up with a way of saying it nicely. I see now that I should never have worried about that though. With Leap's bubble burst, perhaps the thread does not have to be eight pages long before a conclusion is reached (if one is possible at all). |
| Masterful_Norg06-05-05, 01:00 PM | If the unique vehicle is flawed, unable to do what it should, it should'nt be used. Similarly, if a person is unbale to live with others, the person should be confined. Or killed.It costs more to buy a new car than to fix the stearing (unless I'm mistaken). But anyway, I think that analogy has had its day. The unfortunate thing about this is that the people the person is unable to live with nurtured his inability to do so. Here's the catch: we can either spend a huge amount of resources, which are limited nowadays, trying to heal (from your perspective) the one who has killed multiple times, or we can use the money to help elderly people, mentally ill, physically ill, children, etc.I would think that the one who has killed multiple times would fall under the mentally ill and children category. In a recent study reported by NewScientist magazine it was found that children who had been exposed to gun violence became more likely to engage in serious acts of violence themselves. Felton Earls, Harvard Medical School, US (Leader of Study) Based on this study’s results, showing the importance of personal contact with violence, the best model for violence may be that of a socially infectious disease. Preventing one violent crime may prevent a downstream cascade of "infections". From the same article Previous studies have shown a link between child abuse or violence in the home and violent behaviour outside the home. “But it’s not been so clear that community violence carries the same implications,” Felton told New Scientist. “Our study clarifies doubt that exposure to community violence is indeed part of the contagion process.” ... The five-year study, which started in the early 1990s spurred by an “epidemic” of violent crime in the US, tracked adolescents aged 12 or 15 from 78 Chicago neighbourhoods. To tease out the effects of witnessing violence on subsequent violent behaviour the team controlled for 153 potentially influential variables, such as family structure and neighbourhood. This allowed the sample to be split into two groups, Earls explains, with just one major difference between them - one group had witnessed gun violence but the other group had not. My point is, if everything is good, what does it matter? It's like saying: everything exists. For example, my book of religion said: Love is created by God, and thus is good. Similarly, evil is created by God, and thus is good. It is quite meaningless to say: everything is good.Except to highlight the fact in the real world that there's nothing on the outside that someone should have to fight against. Unfortunately we must take that step. Let me point you at Kant, and his merging of reason and experiment.I can't currently see why it would behoove us to take that step or rather leap of faith. Some Article Somwhere "Causality for Kant was in a priori category, something inescapably imposed on experience by our mental natures." "The sources of experience Kant called noumena, and these we cannot experience directly, or even be sure they really exist." "This good will must be noumenal, and so be free-will, i.e. not bound by cause and effect. God cannot be proved to exist, but he imposes himself as a consequence of Practical Reason."While I agree with some of his ideas, some of them are enforced by nothing more than personal opinion, and there's quite a bit of contradiction throughout. But, in D&D there clearly are objective alignments and they clearly are forces, each and every one of them. Also, D&D works with certain rules. I refer you to PHB. So, as I said, I might be willing to debate these points in an appropriate forum, but not here.I'd also be willing to have such a debate. In fact, several times I've almost started a thread about a change to the allignment system that reflects ideas such as the one's I've presented here. I don't think it would be received very well in either the BoED or BoVE boards, but it might have a chance if I label it as "house rules", because some mechanical changes to the rules would be implied by the switch. |
| Thanatos0206-05-05, 01:46 PM | Josuwar has demonstrated that I am not debating with a brick wall, and that I am not the only one who feels thusly. So, my thanks. Now I will watch Gilean and Masterful Norg discuss. I'm unsure of the point they're trying to prove, but they're talking a lot about it, so it must be interesting. ^_^ |
| Thanatos0206-05-05, 01:50 PM | I would be interested in a new alignment system. I feel strongly that the BoED and BoVD are some of the worst books I've seen to date in the description of alignments and ethics. (And the crunch isn't that great either. IMO.) So post on. Furthermore, if you move the thread, please provide a link. |
| Josuwar06-05-05, 02:05 PM | My pleasure, Thanatos02 :D. Masterful_Norg and Gilean, I'd love to see such a thread. |
| Masterful_Norg06-05-05, 11:55 PM | I feel strongly that the BoED and BoVD are some of the worst books I've seen to date in the description of alignments and ethics. (And the crunch isn't that great either. IMO.) Its true! Furthermore, if you move the thread, please provide a link. Masterful_Norg and Gilean, I'd love to see such a thread. I may just start it sometime tommorow (tomorrow for me at least), though I don't know how Gilean feels about it and I'm not yet quite sure what the specific topic will be. |
| Gilean06-06-05, 02:07 PM | The reason I link lawful with evil is the use of oppressive in the evil descriptor; lawful IS oppressive therefore you could very easily see it joined with evil.....The key words lacking are "I think". You may, I don't, designers don't. I hope you do see my point? -no politics, not the you aren't correct- I would think that the one who has killed multiple times would fall under the mentally ill and children category. In a recent study reported by NewScientist magazine it was found that children who had been exposed to gun violence became more likely to engage in serious acts of violence themselves.Possible. It has been "proven" both ways (so has the tobacco is healthy-thing...), but anyways. The priorization of resources. You can see the point, can't you?Except to highlight the fact in the real world that there's nothing on the outside that someone should have to fight against.I still see violence around me. Humans are neither too smart nor too altruistic. Especially masses of humans tend to act in not-so-smart ways. And altruism, if even possible, is quite rare. As I said, you may be right, or may not be, but what the world around us is, must still be considered. The Golden rule (whatever it is called in English) in Christianity, among others, works if everyone abided it. But, because that doesn't happen, my "variant". You can do to others what they have done to you, or others.Some Article SomwhereWell, that certainly gives weight to your arguments, does it not? :D While I agree with some of his ideas, some of them are enforced by nothing more than personal opinion, and there's quite a bit of contradiction throughout.The point about causality sounds pretty correct. We must assume causality to be able to do anything. About the new thread forming: I'll jump in. There was a thread called something like alignment removal project, started by Vaalingrade Ashland, but I have quite lost it. It dealt with mechanics. There is at least one thread well and alive in Regdar's called Heartfelt descriptions that did something like what we are discussing. But it shouldn't be derailed. So do make a new thread and link us. Now I will watch Gilean and Masterful Norg discuss. I'm unsure of the point they're trying to prove, but they're talking a lot about it, so it must be interesting. ^_^ :rofl: Thanks for the laugh. Interesting conversations always digress. Always. But it really doesn't matter if they stay interesting. This good will must be noumenal, and so be free-willCould you clarify this a bit? I figured out noumenal (thanks dictionary.com), but does this mean that "good will" must be "free-will" or that both of them must be "noumenal"? I have only had single course of philosphy 2 years ago. And two more after about half a year, or bit less. |
| Masterful_Norg06-06-05, 10:15 PM | Possible. It has been "proven" both ways (so has the tobacco is healthy-thing...), but anyways. The priorization of resources. You can see the point, can't you?Though I see what you're trying to get at the frequency of crime acts as a barometer for society's shortcomings. Crime should be just as worthy of resource allocation as any other social issue. Whether we choose to deal with crime effectively or just use criminals as scapegoats for society's problems is a matter of choice. It should be of interest to note that 10 of the 12 states that do not practice capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, while half of the states that do practice capital punishment are above the average. If nothing else this should imply that punishment ultimately fails as a motivator and is just another waste of these valuable resources of which you speak. Another such waste is the use of resources to attempt to punish consensual crimes. I still see violence around me. Though this does not necessarily imply that there is such a thing as evil (not to suggest you implied as much). While it is reasonable to say that there are agents who act in order to further their ambitions toward an outcome which they believe is for the greater good (for themselves or others) it is not equally reasonable to suggest that there are those who knowingly act in order to bring about circumstances which they believe would not be in their favor in some way. It is because of the misunderstandings between all of the "do-gooders" out there which inspires conflicts which have no reason to exist. We should seek first to understand and then to be understood. The Golden rule (whatever it is called in English) in Christianity, among others, works if everyone abided it. But, because that doesn't happen, my "variant". You can do to others what they have done to you, or others. Once again, that's just revenge and it doesn't really compensate for the failure of others to follow the golden rule or some form of common law. The point about causality sounds pretty correct. We must assume causality to be able to do anything. But if we assume cause and effect then we must also accept the assertion that free will does not exist. This and experimental evidense against the proposition of causality's validity is why I propose a system of habits as opposed to laws. Could you clarify this a bit? I figured out noumenal (thanks dictionary.com), but does this mean that "good will" must be "free-will" or that both of them must be "noumenal"? I have only had single course of philosphy 2 years ago. And two more after about half a year, or bit less. Aparently it does in fact mean that good will must be free according to Kant's personal opinion. I'll probably make a thread in the Unearthed Arcana forums along the lines of changing the allignment system sometime soon and post the link here if the title isn't obvious enough. |
| Gilean06-07-05, 06:48 AM | It should be of interest to note that 10 of the 12 states that do not practice capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, while half of the states that do practice capital punishment are above the average. If nothing else this should imply that punishment ultimately fails as a motivator and is just another waste of these valuable resources of which you speak. Another such waste is the use of resources to attempt to punish consensual crimes.Capital punishment doesn't help in most cases, but when talking about psychopaths, the murderous ones to be precise, they can either be imprisoned for life or killed. I prefer latter, if nothing useful can be done with them.It is because of the misunderstandings between all of the "do-gooders" out there which inspires conflicts which have no reason to exist. We should seek first to understand and then to be understood.It is much more easier to simply point and say "that is evil". In gaming, I prefer not to use alignments and to have actual motives for actions done by the bad guys.Once again, that's just revenge and it doesn't really compensate for the failure of others to follow the golden rule or some form of common law.It does encourage it a bit. Death penalty not working doesn't mean that removing all punishments would be a good idea.But if we assume cause and effect then we must also accept the assertion that free will does not exist. This and experimental evidense against the proposition of causality's validity is why I propose a system of habits as opposed to laws.Causality, as I see it, is that when A happens, B does too. What can be done is add a chance of B happening, which you are suggesting, right? And I fail to see why there should, or could, be free will. Even if everything is random at fundamental levels, things can't actually decide where some electrons are located at the moment. I'll probably make a thread in the Unearthed Arcana forums along the lines of changing the allignment system sometime soon and post the link here if the title isn't obvious enough.I'll keep watching. |
| Leap06-07-05, 08:41 AM | The key words lacking are "I think". You may, I don't, designers don't. I hope you do see my point? -no politics, not the you aren't correct- Erm.... "Evil implies...oppressing...others" (PHB p. 88 3rd edition) "Lawful characters ... judge those who fall short of their duties. Law implies....obediance to authority" (PHB p. 88 3rd Edition) I would suggest it goes a lot further than "I think" ;) Also, as good is about applying a unified principle to all, isnt good inherently lawful to? |
| Kintara06-07-05, 12:57 PM | Also, as good is about applying a unified principle to all, isnt good inherently lawful to?Well, you could just as easily say that Good is about transformation, and Law is staid and inflexible. |
| Gilean06-07-05, 01:59 PM | Well, you could just as easily say that Good is about transformation, and Law is staid and inflexible.That would be chaos versus law.Also, as good is about applying a unified principle to all, isnt good inherently lawful to?Good protects/empowers the weak. Law is what works for everyone. Chaotic good focuses on few weak, or oppressed individuals. And, by the way, oppression in dictionary.com (the relevant part):arbitrary and cruel exercise of power |
| Masterful_Norg06-07-05, 03:38 PM | Capital punishment doesn't help in most cases, but when talking about psychopaths, the murderous ones to be precise, they can either be imprisoned for life or killed. I prefer latter, if nothing useful can be done with them.Cases of epilepsy were once treated as cases of demonic possesion, and those who suffered the symptoms recieved negative responces from those around them. Nowadays we view it as a disorder which can be treated which is no more cause for scorn than the common cold. The parallel is that in both the case of the murderer and the epileptic we perceived some form of danger to our selves and we either chose to confront the disease or abuse the carrier. It is much more easier to simply point and say "that is evil". In gaming, I prefer not to use alignments and to have actual motives for actions done by the bad guys. Its easier, but it doesn't help to adopt such a perspective. I agree that using motives is a much better idea. It does encourage it a bit. Death penalty not working doesn't mean that removing all punishments would be a good idea. "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction.... The chain reaction of evil -- hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars -- must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation." -Martin Luther King, Jr. I hope I'm driving home the concept that you just can't progress toward peace through violence. That's equivalent to saying the ends justify the means. "There is no path to Peace. Peace is the path." -Ghandi Causality, as I see it, is that when A happens, B does too. What can be done is add a chance of B happening, which you are suggesting, right? And I fail to see why there should, or could, be free will. Even if everything is random at fundamental levels, things can't actually decide where some electrons are located at the moment. Actually what I am suggesting is that the electrons or what have you generally CHOOSE to perform B when A occurs. Besides, if we continually search for the cause of all things we realise that existance itself is hard to explain. We cannot in principle identify the cause of existance or the beginning of existance. Thus it is reasonable to assume that choice exists in order to give rise to the spontaneous events that proliferate throughout the width and breadth of the universe, which is pretty large territory. I'll keep watching.I'll be holding out until after my exam tommorow. |
| Leap06-07-05, 03:51 PM | Well, you could just as easily say that Good is about transformation, and Law is staid and inflexible. Chaos isnt about transformation its about spontaneity. Not the same thing :) |
| Leap06-07-05, 03:55 PM | Good protects/empowers the weak. Yeah, but "good" believes in applying a common minimum level to all, and that strikes me as highly lawful. Law is what works for everyone. Not really. Law is making everyone sing according to the same hymm sheet but that doesn't mean it "works" for everyone :) by the way, oppression in dictionary.com (the relevant part): An Oppresser is someone who heavily restricts another. Lawfulness heavily restricts the behaviour of others (or at least seeks to - most chaotics simply laugh in its face :) )...making it oppressive an evil. Thus. Good is lawful and law is evil. Leaving only CN as the sensible option ;) hehehe |
| Kintara06-07-05, 04:27 PM | Chaos isnt about transformation its about spontaneity. Not the same thing :)Not true. Spontaneity is different, but to say that Chaos isn't about transformation is like saying that Law isn't about stability. And Gilean, that was partially my point. Both the concepts of Law and Chaos can be applied to discussions about the nature of Good and Evil. |
| Gilean06-08-05, 02:18 AM | I hope I'm driving home the concept that you just can't progress toward peace through violence. That's equivalent to saying the ends justify the means.I am not doubting that. The point is, if all restraints, such as laws, are removed, or no punishments are used, chaos ensues. And, despite what Leap may say, chaos of that magnitude most certainly isn't good unless each and every one human being, and other beings, are good.Actually what I am suggesting is that the electrons or what have you generally CHOOSE to perform B when A occurs. Besides, if we continually search for the cause of all things we realise that existance itself is hard to explain. We cannot in principle identify the cause of existance or the beginning of existance. Thus it is reasonable to assume that choice exists in order to give rise to the spontaneous events that proliferate throughout the width and breadth of the universe, which is pretty large territory.How and why do the electrons make their choices? Really, it takes a "leap of faith" to subscribe to that theory. Though I can be convinced. Chaos isnt about transformation its about spontaneity. Not the same thing Chaos is also about change.Yeah, but "good" believes in applying a common minimum level to all, and that strikes me as highly lawful.Not really. Chaotic good only helps weak. It will eventually result in common minimum, but that is neither the method nor the goal.Not really. Law is making everyone sing according to the same hymm sheet but that doesn't mean it "works" for everyone A misunderstanding. Replace 'works for' with 'promotes the well-being of'. Does this clear the matter?Thus. Good is lawful and law is evil. Leaving only CN as the sensible option ;) Good is lawful, law is evil, thus good is evil, thus good is the opposite of good, thus you aren't correct (contradiction). Luckily CN isn't the only option. Even CN might want more options than that. And CG, as good is lawful, is chaotic lawful. Congratulations. A new alignment is born.And Gilean, that was partially my point. Both the concepts of Law and Chaos can be applied to discussions about the nature of Good and Evil.Yes, you can, but good isn't about transformation. Good thinks transformation irrelevent as anything but a tool, much liek evil does. |
| Kintara06-08-05, 03:07 AM | Yes, you can, but good isn't about transformation. Good thinks transformation irrelevent as anything but a tool, much liek evil does.I agree. |
| Leap06-08-05, 09:27 AM | Not true. Spontaneity is different, but to say that Chaos isn't about transformation is like saying that Law isn't about stability Law isn't about stability, its about power. Or, more accurately, control. This control is desired in order to bring order to the (percieved) chaos of the world. Law is an active power, seeking to impose itself upon the world. Chaos meanwhile just IS, from within (spontaniety). Chaos is also about change. It is more that Chaos is about lack of control, and that results in change, in flow, rather than embracing change for its own sake..... Not really. Chaotic good only helps weak. It will eventually result in common minimum, but that is neither the method nor the goal. All good desires "good" for "all"; CG just follows a less methodical path to this.... Replace 'works for' with 'promotes the well-being of'. LG allegedly does this, but it is not a trait of all Lawfulness. If anything, lawfulness is about the benefit of a higher something which they are trying to re-order the world in the image of; whether this be a deity, a govt or a philosophy. Good is lawful, law is evil, thus good is evil, thus good is the opposite of good, thus you aren't correct (contradiction). You've never heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions? |
| Thanatos0206-08-05, 12:40 PM | My answer is to, honestly, get rid of alignments. They're horrid. They don't portray ethics or morals. They don't make sense. In no way! They're nothing but smoke and mirrors! Sound and fury, signifiying nothing! An excuse to kill Orc-babies! (Death to the Orc-babies - they're CE!) Why is it wrong to kill babies? They're EVVVIL! (So are their mommies and daddies. But we can kill them. It's the rules! Yes! Our Paladin has no compunctions about it!) Why is poisoning someone in their sleep evil when Fireball is ok? Is it ok to spit a theif on your sword? (Why were they raiding your caravans? Were they starving?) Is it evil to kill a baby to save a kingdom? Can you Paladin do it? Why? Why not? Is it evil to kill an evil orc who's about to kill you? Is it evil to kill a baby who you know will grow up to kill you? We have magic, we know these things. How does being a Blackgaurd even work? It's stupid. Why? It's the nature of evil to be misguided. Why is killing someone ok? Why is it wrong? When is right to be evil? When is it wrong to be good? Do we need evil? Is it evil then? Good and evil are stupid. Law and Chaos are stupid. There's no such thing! I'm telling you! Believe me! It's true because I said it! (Thanatos02 went crazy. Theformatchanged. That's proof.) The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The road to heaven is paved with horrors and pain. |
| Kintara06-08-05, 01:10 PM | Law isn't about stability, its about power. Or, more accurately, control. This control is desired in order to bring order to the (percieved) chaos of the world. Law is an active power, seeking to impose itself upon the world. Chaos meanwhile just IS, from within (spontaniety).So then why are Monks Lawful? Wouldn't they be better described as Neutral? Besides, you're talking about these concepts as if they were means to an end, but Law just is, and so is Chaos. People are the ones who make it a means to an end. Law isn't about power. Lawful people might be. |
| Leap06-08-05, 01:12 PM | Hmmm good question..... They are possibly better suited to lawful because they seek to embody and project a highly disciplined / regulated way of being |
| Cymraegmorgan06-08-05, 04:28 PM | Of the three variant Paladins in UA, only the LE variant survived our Altvogge playtesting. The CG and CE versions are RP nightmares, and all players agreed they needed to go. |
| Masterful_Norg06-09-05, 12:32 AM | Now that I finally have time to reply... I am not doubting that. The point is, if all restraints, such as laws, are removed, or no punishments are used, chaos ensues. And, despite what Leap may say, chaos of that magnitude most certainly isn't good unless each and every one human being, and other beings, are good. I did not intend to suggest any doubt on your part in the matter about which you replied. Luckily common law basically asserts what is common sense and therefore needs no higher system to embody it because common sense, among emotionally healthy individuals, is common, though I'd say that the vast majority of humanity is emotionally unhealthy. As for punishment It could be argued that doing nothing about the harmful actions of others is also a form of punishment. Broadcasting punishment to those who act out of order due to their emotional circumstances is much like shooting the sky in return for the bad weather. Depending on people's perspective it might be benificial to do so though in reality it doesn't serve a purpose. How and why do the electrons make their choices? Really, it takes a "leap of faith" to subscribe to that theory. Though I can be convinced.Asking that question is much like asking how spontaneous events arise. If the event in question is truly spontaneous then there is no answer. How ever it is equally difficult to answer the question, "what causes cause and effect to work and what in turn is the cause of the cause" because in this case as soon as we supply an answer (which by deffinition is impossible to do) we create a new question. The only reasons why I choose the theory that favors choice as a possibility are that laws are a man made construction, whereas habits are something that all organisms exhibit, that there is evidense in the area of quantum physics that conspires against the rule of causality, and that seeing as my belief system was constructed to serve my best interests it is better for my emotional well being to believe that choice exists rather than to believe that all events are predetermined. Given that causality has a weaker basis for acceptance than choice it would seem appropriate to choose the concept of habits over that of laws. There is also nothing to suggest a reason why deviations from the norm should not be as the direct result of choice. Besides, anything that's random also has to be chosen in as much as something must happen in order to determine which result does in fact occur. In order for choice to truly exist it must be without cause such to the effect that it is irrelevant to ask how choice occurs. To answer the question of why things choose is relatively simple. A world without choice seems unworthy of habitation, this is of course from a purely human perspective, but as the creations of the universe our perspectives might actually count for something. Another interesting question to ask is why are we conscious? If we were just machines carrying on the task of living as prescribed by the model of cause and effect then why would we need to have this internal spectator inside of us that is aware of life and itself? What is the cause of consciousness and furthermore the implied purpose? I remain confident that we don't have to assume iron clad rules that govern the way the world functions in order to make progress in science or life. In fact the assumption of such rules could serve as an impediment to development and indeed it sometimes does. |
| Gilean06-09-05, 04:48 AM | Luckily common law basically asserts what is common sense and therefore needs no higher system to embody it because common sense, among emotionally healthy individuals, is common, though I'd say that the vast majority of humanity is emotionally unhealthy.So, if I'm reading this right, common sense isn't so common after all? It is implied in your writings, or at least the possibility of it. If most of the world is unhealthy, how do you know that it is them who are unhealthy, not the minority?As for punishment It could be argued that doing nothing about the harmful actions of others is also a form of punishment. Broadcasting punishment to those who act out of order due to their emotional circumstances is much like shooting the sky in return for the bad weather. Depending on people's perspective it might be benificial to do so though in reality it doesn't serve a purpose.I just don't believe in humanity. Humans aren't perfect, and probably will never be. I suggest we agree to disagree.Another interesting question to ask is why are we conscious? If we were just machines carrying on the task of living as prescribed by the model of cause and effect then why would we need to have this internal spectator inside of us that is aware of life and itself? What is the cause of consciousness and furthermore the implied purpose?Why are we conscious? It just went that way. According to the theory I am arguing for (I do believe in random things, personally) our consciousness just came about. Why should things have a purpose? Have you got any ideas for the alignment thread? I have one, currently. Basically, three forces, creation, preservation and destruction. It is more that Chaos is about lack of control, and that results in change, in flow, rather than embracing change for its own sake.....Your views of chaos and law are quite limited, it seems. You think that chaos is fundamental and natural, while law is not. Widen your perspectives a bit. If you have read the conversation of me and Masterful_Norg, nature has habits or laws. They are natural. They don't control or wish for power. They just are. Chaos wants to reduce their impact. This is antoher point of view.All good desires "good" for "all"; CG just follows a less methodical path to this....Chaotic good wants the best for weak. The strong can, and will take care of themselves. There is no need to help them. Lawful evil, on the other hand, wants the well-being of strong majority, weak and minorities be damned, and organization is the best way to come up with this.You've never heard that the road to hell is paved with good intentions?I have. Did you understand my point? |
| Masterful_Norg06-09-05, 06:11 PM | So, if I'm reading this right, common sense isn't so common after all? Right! Or rather we all have it but we don't often listen to it. If most of the world is unhealthy, how do you know that it is them who are unhealthy, not the minority? If 90 percent of the world's population had leprecy then the other 10 percent would be considered healthy beyond the average. It may be of interest to note that the average american is physically unfit. Now if the whole world were to suddenly become physically unfit we would probably recognize it as a problem because we have a reference point. Similarly people have a reference point by virtue of the fact that they generally don't like to feel terrible. When feeling terrible becomes the average condition it still won't feel right because our bodies have biologically in built standards. I just don't believe in humanity. Humans aren't perfect, and probably will never be. Aren't humans just perfectly what they are? Do they have to do anything special or challenging to be more human? I think the tragedy is that by telling our children what they must do to be successful in life we are implying that they aren't already succeeding in it. When we're very young we make agreements about what is true and false in the world. Unfortunately by the time we're adults about 95 perceint of what we believe is in fact false because it enforces the idea that things outside of us must change to better fit this false image of perfection foisted upon us by society. When you say that humans aren't perfect it implies that reality itself isn't perfect because it creates imperfect things, but how can we say that reality is flawed, imperfect or some how fake if its the only reality we know. Reality is really an issue of individual perception so it is by changing our perception that we can begin to change our reality. The only reason to adopt a belief system is to help ourselves, but how does it help if our belief system makes us feel bad. Often its hard to change one's beliefs because they are the central foundation in our lives even if that foundation is built on a rocky premise. We would much rather feel support where we stand rather than try new concepts and ideas that threaten that validity of that support. I am suggesting that humans are in fact perfect, but are unaware because they have been taught that perfection lies elsewhere. In fact it is the belief that we are imperfect that enforces itself because when we set out to try and reach the image of perfection as something other than what we are we ultimately fail and create a stronger image of imperfection. We begin with the assumption that we are imperfect and then we set out to prove that it is so such to the effect that we are living in an empty tautology. Why are we conscious? It just went that way. According to the theory I am arguing for (I do believe in random things, personally) our consciousness just came about. Why should things have a purpose? Here's the kicker though. Can a world that isn't perceived by a conciousness be said to exist? It is an interesting fact to note that scientists once believed that if the "constants" of nature such as the gravitational constant and the charge of a proton were to change slightly life would go on as it does but in a mildly different universe, but it has recently been realised that this assumption is not true. Change any of the constants in the universe and the conditions that create life as we know it never arise. This is including the phenomenon of solar fusion to create the seperate elements and supernovae to disperse them. This lead scientists to adopt one of two principles on an individual basis, the weak anthropic principle and the strong anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle relies on the existance of multiple parallel universes (which have never been observed directly or indirectly) which are slightly different in every possible way so that life in this universe appears out of extraordinary but inevitable chance. The strong anthropic principle asserts that without an observer to collapse quantum wave functions the unobserved state cannot exist, therefore the only universes that can exist are those which can be observed. Another good question to ask is, how would something as enigmatic as conciousness randomly come about? What random coincidence causes something to become aware of itself? Among other mysterious questions is the question of what exactly is energy (aka mass-energy)? In other words what does energy move against in order to propel itself; what did it initially shove off from? Have you got any ideas for the alignment thread? I have an idea for a non-polar allignment system otherwise known as the good/misunderstood allignment system which basically removes the paladin's license to slaughter like mad. The open palm/clenched fist system from Jade empires is another idea that could be expanded upon. I have one, currently. Basically, three forces, creation, preservation and destruction.If you're personal allignment is about destruction then does leaving things intact, including oneself, count as a violation? Does the plane strongly alligned with destruction still exist? |
| Thanatos0206-10-05, 12:47 AM | Sounds like a play on the Wyld, Weaver, and Wyrm triat. Ignoring the funny names and tendancy to alliterate, it's actually pretty darn good. The Wyld is a force of creation, the Weaver a force of permanancy, and the Wyrm is a force of destruction. The function was that the Wyld would make, the Weaver would fasten the idea into creation, and when it had become broken, corrupt, or unusable, the Wyrm would break it down so the world would not become over burdened. Of course, White Wolf mythos being what it is, the Weaver decided to 'win' by stopping the Wyrm from every destroying her precious masterpeices. She trapped it, the force of destruction went nuts and tried to destroy everything in response. Well, there goes balance. Rightfully, they exist in harmonious opposition, with too much or not enough of any of them throwing creation for a loop. It's not ethical, in our sense though. |
| Masterful_Norg06-10-05, 11:51 AM | Oh! Your description reminds me of another system I was considering called Novelty/Habit. |
| Gilean06-11-05, 05:54 AM | If 90 percent of the world's population had leprecy then the other 10 percent would be considered healthy beyond the average. It may be of interest to note that the average american is physically unfit. Now if the whole world were to suddenly become physically unfit we would probably recognize it as a problem because we have a reference point. Similarly people have a reference point by virtue of the fact that they generally don't like to feel terrible. When feeling terrible becomes the average condition it still won't feel right because our bodies have biologically in built standards.So does healthy mean a paragon of health? I think things can be healthy and still have some diseases.Aren't humans just perfectly what they are? Do they have to do anything special or challenging to be more human? I think the tragedy is that by telling our children what they must do to be successful in life we are implying that they aren't already succeeding in it.Indeed, humans are perfect humans. That is the problem. Current mankind destroys the world it is living on. Destroys itself. Wars with itself. But one must realise that the perfectness is subjective. What I think perfect wouldn't be near Leap's idea about perfectness.I am suggesting that humans are in fact perfect, but are unaware because they have been taught that perfection lies elsewhere. In fact it is the belief that we are imperfect that enforces itself because when we set out to try and reach the image of perfection as something other than what we are we ultimately fail and create a stronger image of imperfection. We begin with the assumption that we are imperfect and then we set out to prove that it is so such to the effect that we are living in an empty tautology.So, it is the perfect state that humans are unaware of them being perfect? If you could do anything, nothing would change as everything is currently perfect? Is the state of perfection different for all humans?Here's the kicker though. Can a world that isn't perceived by a conciousness be said to exist?Yes. A world not perceived by consciousness exists. There you are. I said it, and, thus, it can be said. To be more serious, it really doesn't matter. If we can't detect it, it just simply doesn't matter.It is an interesting fact to note that scientists once believed that if the "constants" of nature such as the gravitational constant and the charge of a proton were to change slightly life would go on as it does but in a mildly different universe, but it has recently been realised that this assumption is not true. Change any of the constants in the universe and the conditions that create life as we know it never arise. This is including the phenomenon of solar fusion to create the seperate elements and supernovae to disperse them. This lead scientists to adopt one of two principles on an individual basis, the weak anthropic principle and the strong anthropic principle. The weak anthropic principle relies on the existance of multiple parallel universes (which have never been observed directly or indirectly) which are slightly different in every possible way so that life in this universe appears out of extraordinary but inevitable chance. The strong anthropic principle asserts that without an observer to collapse quantum wave functions the unobserved state cannot exist, therefore the only universes that can exist are those which can be observed.Maybe, maybe not. The key phrase is probably "as we know it".Another good question to ask is, how would something as enigmatic as conciousness randomly come about? What random coincidence causes something to become aware of itself?Kind of like evlution. How can it create things we see around us? The answer is huge amount of chances for something to happen. Existence plays dice.I have an idea for a non-polar allignment system otherwise known as the good/misunderstood allignment system which basically removes the paladin's license to slaughter like mad. The open palm/clenched fist system from Jade empires is another idea that could be expanded upon.Never heard of either. Perhaps we should just make a compilement thread for things conserning alignment and variations thereof.If you're personal allignment is about destruction then does leaving things intact, including oneself, count as a violation? Does the plane strongly alligned with destruction still exist?It is a bit more complicated. They all work through next to oppose/counteract the third. Thanatos02, I didn't even know WoD uses these. I took the idea from hinduism. |
| Leap06-11-05, 07:13 AM | Your views of chaos and law are quite limited, it seems. You think that chaos is fundamental and natural, while law is not. Widen your perspectives a bit. If you have read the conversation of me and Masterful_Norg, nature has habits or laws. They are natural. They don't control or wish for power. They just are. Chaos wants to reduce their impact. This is antoher point of view. [sound of head hitting desk] :D Chaos is not anti-laws. Chaos is wild, it's about space, spontaneity and being mostly relativist. Law is however anti-chaos. Law is domesticating, it's about constaint, surveillance, clockworkness, productivity and is mostly absolutist. Chaos is how the world started, and how it was for millenia. Law came along and feared the chaotic wild world (think of the Marduk myth defeating the chaos dragon taimat) and needed to impose a new order upon it. Lawfulness is essentially cultural aspergers (fear of chaos, need to impose order, seeing people as tools/resources). Law isnt unnatural, it sprang from nature, but it is opposed to chaotic wild nature. Chaos isnt opposed to law though, it simply leaves it be unless the law starts to interfere with the chaotics freedom in an extreme way. |
| Leap06-11-05, 07:17 AM | What I think perfect wouldn't be near Leap's idea about perfectness. Perfection is a lawful concept based on seeing the world as faulty. However things just ARE (which is a chaotic perception). To chaos perfection is largley a nonsense concept. |
| Masterful_Norg06-11-05, 01:25 PM | think of the Marduk myth defeating the chaos dragon taimat Are you currently reading or have you ever read anything by Zecharia Sitchin or Lawrence Gardner by any chance? Cause if so... hells ya! Though you might just be be well aquainted with sumerian mythology. To chaos perfection is largley a nonsense concept.Cause everything is perfect by virtue of the fact that it exists, so the statement creates no distinction. So does healthy mean a paragon of health? I think things can be healthy and still have some diseases.Which is fine by me. We also agree that the diseases are still diseases regardless of their prevalence. Indeed, humans are perfect humans. That is the problem. Current mankind destroys the world it is living on. Destroys itself. Wars with itself.I'd say that it is the emotional diseases that are the cause of these phenomenon, but I wouldn't call them imperfect phenomenon. If you ascribe to novelty theory as I do then these wars are just another stepping stone. The wars are perfect wars and the products of war conspire to eventually undermine the wars themselves. But one must realise that the perfectness is subjective. What I think perfect wouldn't be near Leap's idea about perfectness. The ability to see perfection relies on the standards and expectations one imposes on the world around one's self. If you have none then the world is perfectly fine in its existing state. When we think that things should be unlike the way they are we begin to deny the perfect state of affairs. So, it is the perfect state that humans are unaware of them being perfect? If you could do anything, nothing would change as everything is currently perfect? Is the state of perfection different for all humans?The answer is that all states are perfect. If we can't detect it, it just simply doesn't matter. By which I assume you agree that conciousness is important to existance. For if something doesn't and will never figure in the realm of perception then it clearly cannot be perceived to exist and the only things that exist are those things that we perceive whether we are aware of the fact we perceive them or not. The key phrase is probably "as we know it". When we change those constants the specific differences are that either nothing fuses and it all remains hydrogen, everything fuses and becomes highly radioactive elements, everything turns into a black hole, or everything explodes out of control. So yes, life as we know it would be quite unacheivable. Kind of like evlution. How can it create things we see around us? The answer is huge amount of chances for something to happen. Existence plays dice. Unfortunately the idea of evolution through the adoption of multiple beneficial mutations through natural selection is still widely clung to by the scientific community when there are some major problems with it. It may be of interest to note that the chances of developing a sensory organ such as the eye through the selection of numerous small mutations are mathematically equivalent to the chances of developing an eye in one single mutation. It is supposed that because natural selection is involved that the chances of developing an eye increase but this is not necessarily so. In natural selection survival is measured by the number of viable offspring one leaves behind while fittest is determined by the same criteria because the post hoc rationalization is that the fittest must be those who survived. In effect the concept of Darwinian evolution states that the fittest individuals in a population (defined as those who leave the most offspring) will leave the most offspring. Richard Milton George Simpson, professor of paleontology at Harvard, sought to restore content to the idea of natural selection by saying; "If genetically red-haired parents have, on average, a larger proportion of children than blondes or brunettes, then evolution will be in the direction of red hair. If genetically left-handed people have more children, evolution will be towards left-handedness. The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all. All that matters is who leaves more descendants over the generations. Natural selection favours fitness only if you define fitness as leaving more descendants. In fact geneticists do define it that way, which maybe confusing to others. To a geneticist, fitness has nothing to do with health, strength, good looks, or anything but effectiveness in breeding." Notice the words; "The characteristics themselves do not directly matter at all." This innocent phrase fatally undermines Darwin's original key conception: that each animal's special physical characteristics are what makes it fit to survive: the giraffe's long neck, the eagle's keen eye, or the cheetah's 60 mile-an-hour sprint. Simpson's reformulation means all this must be dropped: it is not the characteristics that directly matter -- it is the animals' capacity to reproduce themselves. The race is not to the swift, after all, but merely to the prolific. So how can neo-Darwinism explain the enormous diversity of characteristics? The second problem is -- if possible -- even more fundamental. The word selection means to choose one or a few from a greater number, as in selecting a dish from a menu. Selection is thus inescapably a process that reduces biological diversity. But evolution, as envisaged by Darwinists is inescapably a process that increases biological diversity (Darwin called his book "The origin of species", not "The reduction of species"). It is obvious therefore that no form of selection can be the central engine that drives evolution. Selection may or may not exercise some peripheral effect (as a matter of fact there isn't any evidence that it exercises an effect of any kind) but selection cannot ever be pressed into service as the central mechanism of evolution. What this means is that although Darwinists speak of selection coupled with mutation as the engine of evolution, in reality it is mutation alone that can account for the origin of species. As Harvard's Ernst Mayr said, "It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection to work on." The third problem, perhaps the most damaging of all to the concept of natural selection, is that -- limited though its content may be -- it is so nebulous that it can be made to fit a whole range of mutually contradictory outcomes of the evolutionary process. Natural selection is entirely compatible with the notion that all organisms in stable environments have reached a fitness peak on which they will remain forever. At the same time natural selection is entirely compatible with the idea that all organisms should regress to the safest common denominator, a single-celled organism, and thus become optimally adapted to every habitat. In precisely the same way, because of its infinitely elastic definition, natural selection can be made to explain opposed and even mutually contradictory individual adaptations. For example, Darwinists claim that camouflage coloring and mimicry (as in leaf insects) is adaptive and will be selected for, yet they also claim that warning coloration (the wasp's stripes) is adaptive and will be selected for. Yet if both propositions are true, any kind of coloration will have some adaptive value, whether it is partly camouflage or partly warning, and will be selected for. As a theory, natural selection makes no unique predictions but instead is used retrospectively to explain every outcome: and a theory that explains everything in this way, explains nothing. Natural selection is not a mechanism: it is a rationalisation after the fact. The reason why I think that conciousness is more likely to arrise out of necessity than chance originates from the experimental data of quantum physics. It does indeed appear that matter in the form of an electron exercises a conciousness of some sort. The statement that nothing can exist unless it can be known is self evident and therefore conciousness is just as essential to existance as space or time. I am indeed suggesting that conciousness is not just a series of chemical reactions and electrical impulses because if it was we still wouldn't need to be aware of ourselves for things to work just the same minus our awareness of the fact. However if we say that conciousness associates itself to a physical form through chemical reactions and electrical impulses then we must conclude that all matter has an associated conciousness as well. But we must keep in mind that this is different from saying that the chemical reactions and electrical impulses are conciousness. It may be of interest to note (that I say this phase a lot) that IBM has developed a computer called Blue Brain which is theoreticallly as powerful (computation wise) as a human brain and which will be used to run simulations of the human brain to learn more about it. Perhaps this will provide some illumination to the origin of consciousness later down the road when results are published. Perhaps we should just make a compilement thread for things conserning alignment and variations thereof.Sounds good to me. |
| Leap06-11-05, 05:22 PM | Are you currently reading or have you ever read anything by Zecharia Sitchin or Lawrence Gardner by any chance? Cause if so... hells ya! Have read both yes. Though you might just be be well aquainted with sumerian mythology. But yes this is more accurate. :) Cause everything is perfect by virtue of the fact that it exists, so the statement creates no distinction. Indeed, although the use of the term continues the confusion of lesser and greater creations existing (in the sense of more or less perfect creatures). :D |
| Masterful_Norg06-11-05, 05:43 PM | Have read both yes.Hells ya! That is of course assuming that you liked the stuff in the books. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the alternate ideas presented in Genesis Revisited (I'm also an Imanuel Velikovsky fan myself) and I've heard that Lawrence Gardner has a bit to say on the subject of white powder gold though I've never actually gotten my hands on one of his books. Indeed, although the use of the term continues the confusion of lesser and greater creations existing (in the sense of more or less perfect creatures). As in some people are more equal than others? :D |
| Leap06-11-05, 05:49 PM | White powder gold is apparently an inferior form of starfire (ingested menstral blood) - allegedly. And Genesis Revisited was a christmas present from my (now ex) missus a couple of years ago. [leap makes tinfoil hats for him and norg] ;) Not a big fan of the Annunaki space alien theory myself; I am more inclinded to the "noble families are a strain of particularly autistic humans" but the increasingly prevalence of such imagery in society is interesting to say the least ;) :offtopic: :D Oh and get yourself "realm of the ring lords"...then watch Highlander and consider the scotish templar families vrs the scythian kurgan for the prize of being "the one"...... Intriguing if nothing else. |
| Masterful_Norg06-11-05, 06:55 PM | [leap makes tinfoil hats for him and norg]I wonder if the hats work well against the Illuminati's HAARP mind control as well? We'll just have to see. ;) But on a slightly more serious note looks like we've got 6 years, 6 months, 9 days, 8 hours and 4 minutes left. Before the end of time that is. ;) |
| Leap06-12-05, 03:56 AM | I wonder if the hats work well against the Illuminati's HAARP mind control as well? We'll just have to see. ;) [quote] Lol. The shielding is better in the underground bases ;) [quote] But on a slightly more serious note looks like we've got 6 years, 6 months, 9 days, 8 hours and 4 minutes left. Before the end of time that is. ;) Well, either that or before the Mana increases and Lofwyr wakes up ;) |
| Gilean06-12-05, 04:16 AM | Chaos is not anti-laws. Chaos is wild, it's about space, spontaneity and being mostly relativist. Law is however anti-chaos. Law is domesticating, it's about constaint, surveillance, clockworkness, productivity and is mostly absolutist.Chaos is also about change. Law about stasis. You see law as something human has done. It may be so in real world. Still remember the context of this conversation? It is D&D. Ultimate chaos, with no order (or law, order is better word), changes constantly. It is completely unfit for living. Similarly, ultimate law is in the perfect state, and remains in it. No change. There is fundamantal disagreement between the two. Both, by their nature, oppose each other.I'd say that it is the emotional diseases that are the cause of these phenomenon, but I wouldn't call them imperfect phenomenon. If you ascribe to novelty theory as I do then these wars are just another stepping stone. The wars are perfect wars and the products of war conspire to eventually undermine the wars themselves.But, I repeat, if you could change anything and everything, would you live everything as is. And stepping stones imply that something is sought after, meaning that everything isn't perfect. You are doing it again: saying everything is perfect, and making the word entirely meaningless. How about both giving a definition of perfectness: I would say that something is perfect when there is no need to change anything. By that definition I can find multiple reasons why current world isn't perfect.By which I assume you agree that conciousness is important to existance. For if something doesn't and will never figure in the realm of perception then it clearly cannot be perceived to exist and the only things that exist are those things that we perceive whether we are aware of the fact we perceive them or not.No. By no standards can one say that perception is needed for existence. But, what we can't perceive is irrelevant to us, by the virtue of being totally undetectable. Even if it alters our lives a great deal, if can't know anything about it, it is meaningless to us. Things can be without perception, if things can be with perception.Evolution, etc.; snippedIndeed, there are two forces: pure chance, and fitness, as you call it. The chance changes things (and thus can be called an agent of chaos) into random directions. The fitness can, sometimes, be meaningless, as you showed in the examples of hair color and handedness. But, if we assume there are two species of tortoises. One has a hard shell, and other has a soft shell. Both are attacked by a predator. The predator easily rips open and eats the soft-shelled one, but the hard shell of other one is just too hard and predator leaves. No, if there are, say, thousand of both, and one out of 5 soft-shelled ones survive, and 1 out of 5 hard-shelled ones die, which will dominate? Of course, we assume that there are no great differences in their habits except others being easier to eat. The ability to have a huge amount of offspring is indeed useful, but the ability of those offspring to survive is even more useful. So the fittest are those who have largest amount of fittest offspring. OK, let me rephrase that. Those who leave greatest amount of offspring who can survive and leave greatest amount of offspring themselves. It consists of two points: the quantity and quality. The characteristics do matter after all, unless we are talking about the "perfect" race of men (can I say Yahoos?) who attempt to make every single member of their race to survive and make more, no matter how puny or deformed the critter is.The statement that nothing can exist unless it can be known is self evident and therefore conciousness is just as essential to existance as space or time.How is it self evident? Why can't things be if they aren't perceived? Consciousness might be biochemical in nature, or it mightn't be. I claim no knowledge of that. What seems clear is that the consciousness has some connection to biochemical processes, as both seem to happen simultaneously. There is quite a strong correlation. What we can't know is which causes the second one, or if they both are caused by a third factor. |
| Leap06-12-05, 04:54 AM | Chaos is also about change. Law about stasis. You see law as something human has done. It may be so in real world. Still remember the context of this conversation? It is D&D. Ultimate chaos, with no order (or law, order is better word), changes constantly. It is completely unfit for living. Similarly, ultimate law is in the perfect state, and remains in it. No change. There is fundamantal disagreement between the two. Both, by their nature, oppose each other. [ /quote] Beginning your pardon Gilean but when discussing alignment as a guide to behaviour, thinking in philosophical absolutes really tells you nothing of any use; it doesnt even relate to any form of reality. This is why I relate law and chaos to actual behaviours (the ammount of leeway of behaviour you require for yourself and give to others). Being lawful is about being a productive member of society; with big emphasis on productive . Lawful society reduces personal leeway in favour of making you a hyper-efficient cog in an anti-chaos machine. That is its role; it is reactive in nature, reacting to pre-existing chaos that it fears. Neutral is Law(lite) where productivity levels are less demanding and you have a bit more free expression space. It still needs to be productive (I liken it to free-range as compared to lawful's factory farming) but it gives you more space to vary. Chaos has only a slight interest in being productive (to meet basic needs) beyond that chaos has no drive to replace something in the way order seeks to replace chaos. Chaos just IS; making it far more laid back (it is a lot easier to offend a lawful than a chaotic). Think of it historically. Chaos is when we were hunter-gatherers and space was the key element (with people roaming largely freely both in physicality and in behaviour). There were still some limits but they were fewer than in a more modern society with its fences etc. As farms grew, space was lost (as people settled and put up enclosures (both physical ones and behavioural ones)) but space was replaced by privacy - if you could not have space you would at least have privacy (solid walls cutting you off from others as too much of other people will drive you potty; everyone needs to escape some of the time). This was a time of high domestication but it was pretty much free range domestication, and this is an good example/analogy for neutral. Privacy is important, within a society now focused on productivity (rather than the opportunist harvest of the chaotic), but still giving a fair ammount of latitude. City life though became a situation where even privacy (the recompense for losing space) is now lost, with people crammed in together and subject to intensive surveillance to keep order in such a complex environment. Jobs are highly specialised in division of labour and productivity made a god. This is the society of law. |
| Masterful_Norg06-12-05, 01:34 PM | But, I repeat, if you could change anything and everything, would you live everything as is. And stepping stones imply that something is sought after, meaning that everything isn't perfect. You are doing it again: saying everything is perfect, and making the word entirely meaningless. How about both giving a definition of perfectness: I would say that something is perfect when there is no need to change anything. By that definition I can find multiple reasons why current world isn't perfect. But matter only exists as a process (electrons scattering photons, subatomic particles winking in and out of existence etc.) and therefore in any given moment absolutely everything is changing, which is a perfect condition for the world because that's how the world is. Just for things to exist there will be a need for change, but that isn't a problem because change is always in infinite supply. Progess is a part of each perfect moment. No. By no standards can one say that perception is needed for existence. But, what we can't perceive is irrelevant to us, by the virtue of being totally undetectable. Even if it alters our lives a great deal, if can't know anything about it, it is meaningless to us. Things can be without perception, if things can be with perception. If it alters our lives in any way then we perceive it. The only problem with your proposition is it cannot be proven with observations of any kind. You can't go out and bring back the unperceivable or show us photographs of what it looks like. For all intents and purposes anything that can't have its properties measured or be interacted with in any way that fails to provide any evidense that it exists or should be said to exist what so ever by extension does not exist. Indeed, there are two forces: pure chance, and fitness, as you call it. The chance changes things (and thus can be called an agent of chaos) into random directions. The fitness can, sometimes, be meaningless, as you showed in the examples of hair color and handedness. But, if we assume there are two species of tortoises. One has a hard shell, and other has a soft shell. Both are attacked by a predator. The predator easily rips open and eats the soft-shelled one, but the hard shell of other one is just too hard and predator leaves. No, if there are, say, thousand of both, and one out of 5 soft-shelled ones survive, and 1 out of 5 hard-shelled ones die, which will dominate? Of course, we assume that there are no great differences in their habits except others being easier to eat. The ability to have a huge amount of offspring is indeed useful, but the ability of those offspring to survive is even more useful. So the fittest are those who have largest amount of fittest offspring. OK, let me rephrase that. Those who leave greatest amount of offspring who can survive and leave greatest amount of offspring themselves. It consists of two points: the quantity and quality. The characteristics do matter after all, unless we are talking about the "perfect" race of men (can I say Yahoos?) who attempt to make every single member of their race to survive and make more, no matter how puny or deformed the critter is. But this still would not explain how the tortoise even emerged in the first place. As the article said:natural selection is entirely compatible with the idea that all organisms should regress to the safest common denominator, a single-celled organism, and thus become optimally adapted to every habitat. If this is true then why do we have such things as tortoises emerge when clearly all organisms should remain as single celled. If we leave it up to chance we're looking at odds on the scale of going outside, finding a lottery ticket on the street learning that it is the winning lottery ticket for millions of dollars and proceeding to do the same each week thereafter for a thousand years and this is for each complex individual biological trait demonstrated on earth because selection given its way single celled is the destination. The following will mention just a few other problems with the idea of evolution without some form of guidance. from MORPHIC FIELDS AND MORPHIC RESONANCE An Introduction by Rupert Shelldrake In the hypothesis of formative causation, discussed in detail in my books A NEW SCIENCE OF LIFE and THE PRESENCE OF THE PAST, I propose that memory is inherent in nature. Most of the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. My interest in evolutionary habits arose when I was engaged in research in developmental biology, and was reinforced by reading Charles Darwin, for whom the habits of organisms were of central importance. As Francis Huxley has pointed out, Darwin’s most famous book could more appropriately have been entitled The Origin of Habits. Morphic fields in biology Over the course of fifteen years of research on plant development, I came to the conclusion that for understanding the development of plants, their morphogenesis, genes and gene products are not enough. Morphogenesis also depends on organizing fields. The same arguments apply to the development of animals. Since the 1920s many developmental biologists have proposed that biological organization depends on fields, variously called biological fields, or developmental fields, or positional fields, or morphogenetic fields. All cells come from other cells, and all cells inherit fields of organization. Genes are part of this organization. They play an essential role. But they do not explain the organization itself. Why not? Thanks to molecular biology, we know what genes do. They enable organisms to make particular proteins. Other genes are involved in the control of protein synthesis. Identifiable genes are switched on and particular proteins made at the beginning of new developmental processes. Some of these developmental switch genes, like the Hox genes in fruit flies, worms, fish and mammals, are very similar. In evolutionary terms, they are highly conserved. But switching on genes such as these cannot in itself determine form, otherwise fruit flies would not look different from us. Many organisms live as free cells, including many yeasts, bacteria and amoebas. Some form complex mineral skeletons, as in diatoms and radiolarians, spectacularly pictured in the nineteenth century by Ernst Haeckel. Just making the right proteins at the right times cannot explain the complex skeletons of such structures without many other forces coming into play, including the organizing activity of cell membranes and microtubules... For the rest of the article go here (http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Morphic/morphic_intro.html). How is it self evident? Why can't things be if they aren't perceived?Because they can't be proven to satisfy the deffinition of existance. Its not just like they don't matter. Its exactly as if they don't exist. Its meaningless to postulate their existance because they don't even effect us in any way because otherwise we would be able to perceive them whether we were aware that they influenced our experiences or not. |
| Thanatos0206-12-05, 02:50 PM | It's a valueable discussion, which is to say that it's interesting. There is also a degree of insight to be gained, which is good, but increasingly it seems to me that we are discussing absolutes in reality and their meaning to which we will have difficulty coming to terms. In D&D we have the alignments of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, and Neutral. Two of five of these are always mutually exclusive (Good/Evil - Law/Chaos) in their 'absolute' form. You can have Neutral where Good and Evil mix to a degree that is, (absurdly) more equal then not but you cannot be Good/Evil. You must mix this moral alignment with an ethical alignment of Law/Chaos. Here we run into several very important problems, with which we derive the original question (about CG Paladins) and the validity of the system that forces the question. 1: What is our ethical system for determining Good and Evil? 2: What is Law and Chaos? 3: What is Neutrality, and why is it an issue? 4: How do we apply these abtracts to a character or debate? This is probably a pretty Lawful approach, I understand, and I find it a little tedious to map it out, but I'm writing and not speaking, so please forgive the nature of the post. x.X I don't know that I'll go about trying to answer those questions, and more importantly, I don't think those are the only questions there are to answer, but I think they're important to the nature of the discussion. The first question brings up the question of Good and Evil. It's D&D, so I'm looking at it from the polarized view of the D&D world and not the world of which we are apart, because the differences will naturally cause a disconnection which cannot be repaired. D&D alignment does not exist in our world, where alignment does not exist at all. (IMHO - and this can be debated, but, as I said, is not the point. PM me if you really must.) In D&D, there is Good and Evil. There is also Neutrality (more on this later). They exist, so there is, somewhere, a reckoning of what is and is not Good or Evil. Moreover, Evil is not the absence of Good, but rather a tangable force that activly promotes itself in the same way that Good does. There are actions that are Evil, there are actions that are Good, and if an action is neither, it is Neutral (there are, however, certain aspects that are activly Neutral - again, more on the nature of Neutrality.) That means, that, if we know the conditions and the actions, we can formulate is an action is Good or Evil. This seems Lawful - something that Leap would almost certainly agree with. (I believe that he has said as much.) However, just because a certain action will crop up as Good or Evil everytime those situations occur, does not give the Moral compass an inherant Lawful or Chaotic bent. (Lawful in this case.) This is because of a few reasons. First, Morals preclude Ethics in D&D. Second, there are certain situations with no "correct" action, and no "correct" passive decision, but will be 'more right' by virtue of attempting to do the right thing or there will be multiple Good or Evil actions that revolve around different areas of the Ethical compass. (The ethical and moral compass is based on more or less traditional western values, which can be seen in the treatment of civilizations or cultures where accepted and traditional acts seen as 'right' or 'good' are, in fact, labeled as Evil by the universal ethics system. If this seems horribly eurocentric, well, it is, but I doubt they were thinking this hard about Good and Evil when they constructed it, so I forgive the creators their foibles.) With that consideration out there, I'd like to move on to Law and Chaos. This is, if possible, even worse of a predicament then Good and Evil, becuase while Good and Evil have a basis, Law and Chaos have several overlapping concepts which all fight each other for equal time. Also, added to that is that neither Law or Chaos is a lack of the other (Law is not the absence of Chaos, Chaos is not the absence of Law) and even though certain aspects cancel each other out, (Law of the land versus anarchy - ordered mind vs. disordered) someone who obeys the law of the land may have a horrible disordered thought pattern. Someone who obeys a code of personal conduct may have a greater, strict code or a loose code and may or may not be at all interested in lawful governmental strictures. The ordered mind of Monk may ignore laws. A Paladin's code may force him to respect lawful authority, a lawful group may tend to default to lawful patterns. However, technically, one does not default to the other. We ask ourselves if the archtypes of D&D can survive a discussion of Law and Chaos and their precepts. The designers have told us that one aspect can survive without the other. And we haven't even gotten into the concept of magnitude. In D&D Law is often equated with Good, because what western culture has considered a Good thing is the correct application of Law. There is a normal fear of anarchy because nobody is telling other people what to do. There is , however, a call for less (or stricter) government (or laws) which is mutually conflicting, which tells me that we are most interested as a people in the most Good treatment of us (personally and as a people). For the most part. I feel that, say, a Chaotic Good Paladin could exist, despite running roughshod over the Archtype of Paladin. This is because a Paladin in this case, is the Paragon of Good That Is Non-sponsored and Based on a Freedom From Tyrannical Laws. The concept of Chaos is upheld in a firm basis on Freedom from the Tyranny of the Majority, a defender of those the Law of the Land (one aspect of Law) and the Law of the Ordered Majority does not protect. A champion of Good against Law that does not support Good. As opposed to a Champion of Chaos and Good against Law and Whatever. The Chaotic aspect is put into place against Law, but not against Good, which would be mutually exclusive on his 'code' which can exist, because it is largely cercumstantial. (I want Good to Exist. X stops Good, but I can stop X, so stopping X is good in this case.) Does this apply? It's hard to say. The argument has many holes, but the problem with D&D morality is that it doesn't really make any sense when you start to deconstruct it. You just kind of eyeball it and say "Well, he's kind of chaotic and good, so he's chaotic good. And he wears armor and crusades against tyranny and evil, so I'm a CG Pally." And it works. Same for LG. And, as it seems to happen, doing one good/evil chaotic/lawful act doesn't cause utter destruction of general alignment, and neither do minor tendancies which exist in everyone. Because of the strict upholding of both (ironically) chaotic and lawful along with good tenants, there exists a way to absolve yourself against crimes against ones ethics (but morals are harder). Otherwise being a paladin of any kind would be impossible, even by D&Ds standards. I've been told that this is to mimic the limited understanding and limited ability of mortals to understand these great universal forces which Exist but I doubt it. I just think it's screwed up. I wanna toss it, but if one doesn't the fallabilities of the system must be borne out - it's not a good one, so discussing it won't reveal the universal truth as it is found in D&D. Even though I tried for a while. ^.~ |
| Gilean06-13-05, 03:42 AM | Beginning your pardon Gilean but when discussing alignment as a guide to behaviour, thinking in philosophical absolutes really tells you nothing of any use; it doesnt even relate to any form of reality.In D&D, it relates very heavily to reality. And the philosophical absolutes are shaped by mortals, according to my understanding.This is why I relate law and chaos to actual behaviours (the ammount of leeway of behaviour you require for yourself and give to others). Being lawful is about being a productive member of society; with big emphasis on productive . Lawful society reduces personal leeway in favour of making you a hyper-efficient cog in an anti-chaos machine. That is its role; it is reactive in nature, reacting to pre-existing chaos that it fears.Not really. I am extremely lawful in behaviour. I do think that individuals should sacrifice themselves for society, as it helps many more individuals. Still, I respect and enjoy from nature. I very much despise what mankind has done, and is doing, to nature. Know this; both law and chaos are equally present in nature. Nature is neutral. Modern societies are more or less lawful. By nature, society of any kind is slightly lawful. Systems such as communism and nazism were (and are) very lawful. Both me and communism being lawful doesn't mean that I appreciate it. Despite me being lawful, I understand the need of chaos in a society, so that creative and talented are given chance to do what helps everyone, and the society. Lawful society reduces personal freedom to better help everyone. A productive society generally can offer better state of life than anarchy can. And anarchy, the most chaotic form of "society", smothers many talented and innovative individuals. Law and chaos are equally anti-opposite. For example, in D&D, we have formians and modrons. This is pure speculation, but bear with me. Formians try to make everything one efficient and happy community. They are obviously anti-chaos, as their mere presence smothers it. Modrons, on the other hand, don't actively oppose chaos. They research. They try to find out how chaos works. By their very nature, they oppose chaos without even trying to. For if they can show the laws chaos obeys, there is no chaos. It is the nature of both law and chaos to oppose each other.Neutral is Law(lite) where productivity levels are less demanding and you have a bit more free expression space. It still needs to be productive (I liken it to free-range as compared to lawful's factory farming) but it gives you more space to vary.Of course, one can say that neutral is chaos-lite, just as well.Chaos has only a slight interest in being productive (to meet basic needs) beyond that chaos has no drive to replace something in the way order seeks to replace chaos. Chaos just IS; making it far more laid back (it is a lot easier to offend a lawful than a chaotic).Different chaotic individuals (see, chaos is also about individuality) act differently towards law. CG individuals attempt to debase "evil" systems, but may tolerate good ones. They won't like living under one, but they may tolerate it. CN probably doesn't care, your attitude, unless their very freedom is in danger. At that point they act against the government. CE will actively destroy governments just because it makes CE's goals easier to achieve, or, in case or archetypic D&D evil, just for the misery it causes.Chaos is when we were hunter-gatherers and space was the key element (with people roaming largely freely both in physicality and in behaviour). There were still some limits but they were fewer than in a more modern society with its fences etc.Chaos is also modern US. People are pretty free to do whatever they want (unless it harms US or other citizens too much). If they prevail, they have earned the respect they gain. But many potential individuals are lost to poorness, as there is very little security for the poor ones, whatever the reason of their poverty. Also, in many states, guns can be carried by law. US is quite a chaotic society. In contrast, think of the elaborate rites of ancient tribal cultures, or the few remaining modern ones. They have, or had very intricate rites of adulthood, of dying, of burial, of birth, etc. Ancient Finnish people, after killing a bear, had rituals of several days to appease to dead bear. Extremely chaotic, as you can see.City life though became a situation where even privacy (the recompense for losing space) is now lost, with people crammed in together and subject to intensive surveillance to keep order in such a complex environment. Jobs are highly specialised in division of labour and productivity made a god. This is the society of law. And, surprise, me, aa lawful person, doesn't like cities. At all. Strange, eh. Many large cities can be called modern jungles, and for a reason. Go out at night, and the safety (a lawful thing, BTW) disappears. It is a complex environment, full of chances at doing many things, full of opportunities, for both good and ill.But matter only exists as a process (electrons scattering photons, subatomic particles winking in and out of existence etc.) and therefore in any given moment absolutely everything is changing, which is a perfect condition for the world because that's how the world is. Just for things to exist there will be a need for change, but that isn't a problem because change is always in infinite supply. Progess is a part of each perfect moment.Define perfect, or perfection. As I asked, if you could change anything, would you change a thing?If it alters our lives in any way then we perceive it. The only problem with your proposition is it cannot be proven with observations of any kind. You can't go out and bring back the unperceivable or show us photographs of what it looks like. For all intents and purposes anything that can't have its properties measured or be interacted with in any way that fails to provide any evidense that it exists or should be said to exist what so ever by extension does not exist.My view of world isn't quite that scientific. I have no problem with not knowing something. Thus, I can very easily accept something existing without a proof. But I don't start claiming it either does or doesn't exist. For example, you can be pretty sure there is a butterfly in Africa (I assume you don't live in africe, but if you do, change the location to South America) without ever seeing one, or without one ever altering your life. With similar ease, I can assume there are paraller universes, without ever seeing them and they never affecting my life. That doesn't mean I walk around claiming that there are paraller universes. I simply don't know.If this is true then why do we have such things as tortoises emerge when clearly all organisms should remain as single celled. If we leave it up to chance we're looking at odds on the scale of going outside, finding a lottery ticket on the street learning that it is the winning lottery ticket for millions of dollars and proceeding to do the same each week thereafter for a thousand years and this is for each complex individual biological trait demonstrated on earth because selection given its way single celled is the destination.In some cases, multiple cells working together are preferable to single cells, or at least not inferior enough to destroy the few cells working together by chance. Remember the inherent chaos of the system. I am still reading the article, so no comments yet.It's a valueable discussion, which is to say that it's interesting. There is also a degree of insight to be gained, which is good, but increasingly it seems to me that we are discussing absolutes in reality and their meaning to which we will have difficulty coming to terms. In D&D we have the alignments of Good, Evil, Law, Chaos, and Neutral. Two of five of these are always mutually exclusive (Good/Evil - Law/Chaos) in their 'absolute' form. You can have Neutral where Good and Evil mix to a degree that is, (absurdly) more equal then not but you cannot be Good/Evil. You must mix this moral alignment with an ethical alignment of Law/Chaos.Valuable discussion are always worth continueing, they are rare enough. And this conversation has granted me insight about D&D good. One very good perspective for D&D good is Masterful_Norg's theory of human nature. Also, D&D chaos and law could have a conversation similar to ours, about the very nature of everything. Let the derailment reign supreme, I say. With that counting of alignments, there should be six. Neutrality between good and evil, and neutrality between law and chaos. Another good way of counting adds balance, or active neutrality. As for the questions 1) A good person does many good acts, and very few evil ones. A good act helps others more than it helps oneself. Giving coin to a beggar is good act. Neutral (good vs. evil) person isn't heavily leaning to either good or evil, and doesn't do more good acts than evil ones, or the other way. A neutral act helps oneself more than it helps or harms others. A beggar taking (begging or thieveing) coin from a nobleman is a neutral act. An evil person does many evil acts, and very few good ones. An evil act harms others more than it helps oneself. A nobleman taking coin from a beggar is an evil act. 2)Law and chaos are A)Cosmic forces beyond mortal reason, another seeking perfection and stability, another change and possibilities. B)Cosmic forces, another promoting predictability and another choices. C)Types of personality, another caring about structure and rules, another about freedom. 3)Neutrality is A)A lack of interest but intuitive tendency to stay in the middle. B)Actively keeping all forces in check to maintain balance, for the triumph of any one force would destroy everything. Neutrality is issue because those who are good see it is a stepping stone to evil (can be applied to all alignments, a stepping stone to the opposing one). No other alignment can accept the need for balance. 4)What have I been doing?This is probably a pretty Lawful approach, I understand, and I find it a little tedious to map it out, but I'm writing and not speaking, so please forgive the nature of the post. x.XA lawful approach is fine. That way, we might actually get something done.(The ethical and moral compass is based on more or less traditional western values, which can be seen in the treatment of civilizations or cultures where accepted and traditional acts seen as 'right' or 'good' are, in fact, labeled as Evil by the universal ethics system. If this seems horribly eurocentric, well, it is, but I doubt they were thinking this hard about Good and Evil when they constructed it, so I forgive the creators their foibles.)Spiked chain thread. Get over it. Of course this game has European viewpoint. It is merely a fact to be accepted. |
| Thanatos0206-13-05, 10:26 AM | If I listed the question, it's not that I didn't think people were trying to answer it, but that I thought it was a question worth considering. If you were attempting to discern the answer, then I guess you're just ahead of the game. ^.~ As far as getting over the European viewpoint, I have long since come to that conclusion and I don't think it's ever bothered me. The part about foibles wasa half attempt at humor - I honestly think that when you come up with an ethical and moral system, it must be based on a culture, because it becomes nearly impossible to derive a universal perspective on good. All my point was, is that other cultures that survive but have different values may not be "Good" based on the compass of the game, when previous arguments I've seen have stated that the cultural norm would have those alignments gravitate to "Good" based on how in-line they are with their societies concept of good. Which isn't accurate for D&D, because there is a univeral measuring stick - it just happens to be based on the western tradition. Which isn't a good or bad thing, really - it just is. (Oh, and as for the Spiked Chain thread - if you really want to know my own caustic opinion on the My Preferred Culture vs. Your Preferred Culture neverending debate, go and see. Every culture without Air Conditioning and Microwave Burritos 'lost', in my book. ^^) |
| Leap06-13-05, 10:45 AM | In D&D, it relates very heavily to reality. Sorry, I meant reality in the sense of what is experieced by people. Your alignment absolutes will never be experience by people (fictional or otherwise) and so are no use as guidelines for alignment behaviour. Not really. I am extremely lawful in behaviour. I do think that individuals should sacrifice themselves for society, as it helps many more individuals. Still, I respect and enjoy from nature. I very much despise what mankind has done, and is doing, to nature. Know this; both law and chaos are equally present in nature. Nature is neutral. Nature is neutral because the wild is chaotic and civilisation is lawful and both are a valid part of the world. Modern societies are more or less lawful. By nature, society of any kind is slightly lawful. Systems such as communism and nazism were (and are) very lawful. Both me and communism being lawful doesn't mean that I appreciate it. Despite me being lawful, I understand the need of chaos in a society, so that creative and talented are given chance to do what helps everyone, and the society. Chaos is not creative. Chaos values the space needed variety which in turn allows space for creativity. Lawful society reduces personal freedom to better help everyone. A productive society generally can offer better state of life than anarchy can. That depends greatly on your definition of "Better" :) And anarchy, the most chaotic form of "society", smothers many talented and innovative individuals. True anarchy smothers no one..... Law and chaos are equally anti-opposite. For example, in D&D, we have formians and modrons. This is pure speculation, but bear with me. Formians try to make everything one efficient and happy community. They are obviously anti-chaos, as their mere presence smothers it. Modrons, on the other hand, don't actively oppose chaos. They research. They try to find out how chaos works. By their very nature, they oppose chaos without even trying to. For if they can show the laws chaos obeys, there is no chaos. It is the nature of both law and chaos to oppose each other. Now this is stemming back into extremes again......when it is far simpler than that. Law: Industriously productive with loss of latitude and privacy in the cause of such. Factory Farm (surveillance and control heavy, depersonalising in the name of productivity). Neutral: Production based still but with greater space to move and a valuing of privacy. Freerange Chaotic: Opportunistic harvester with lots of latitude. Feral. |
| Leap06-13-05, 10:50 AM | The very weak are sacred to "Good", the very strong are sacred to "Evil". |
| Gilean06-13-05, 11:31 AM | Nature is neutral because the wild is chaotic and civilisation is lawful and both are a valid part of the world.The thing you call the wild, is also neutral. With chaotic tendencies, but still neutral. Civilization has lawful tendencies but is still neutral.Chaos is not creative. Chaos values the space needed variety which in turn allows space for creativity.And, such, chaos promoted creativity. I can quite freely say that chaos includes creativity.That depends greatly on your definition of "Better" :)Which might have been my point.True anarchy smothers no one.....True anarchy smothers those who can't help themselves or get others to help themselves. The mad scientist archetype commonly fits both of the qualifiers.Now this is stemming back into extremes again......when it is far simpler than that.Well and good if it were as simple as that. It is not. The point I make using examples are that these kinds of behaviours, and everything between them, are part of that alignment. You views are valid, but they don't cover the entire spectrum of possibilities under said alignments. Thanatos02, I think my definition of good and evil is quite good. It, for example, has cannibalism as a neutral act if the one eating is starving. nd it is a good act to kill yourself and be eaten by the starving ones. Not very Western morale, I'd say. |
| Masterful_Norg06-13-05, 08:57 PM | Define perfect, or perfection. Perfect Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type. Accurately reproducing an original. Complete; thorough; utter. Pure; undiluted; unmixed. Excellent and delightful in all respects. The universe lacks nothing essential in order to be what it is and as such it is entirely without defects. Additionally the universe is complete and pure in the sense that it is only made of what it is as opposed to what it is not. Finally the universe is excellent and delightful in all respects provided one knows the right way to look at it and has a good set of emotional habits. As I asked, if you could change anything, would you change a thing?No. I wouldn't change anything that isn't in my power to change. My view of world isn't quite that scientific. I have no problem with not knowing something. Thus, I can very easily accept something existing without a proof. But I don't start claiming it either does or doesn't exist. For example, you can be pretty sure there is a butterfly in Africa (I assume you don't live in africe, but if you do, change the location to South America) without ever seeing one, or without one ever altering your life. With similar ease, I can assume there are paraller universes, without ever seeing them and they never affecting my life. That doesn't mean I walk around claiming that there are paraller universes. I simply don't know.Actually my life is affected by the butterfly in Africa or South America. The butterfly effect as it is called by the scientific community (not just the name of a movie you know) provides that infinitesimal changes to complexity related systems result in massive changes such that a butterfly on the opposite side of the world could cause a tornado in texas. It should also be interesting to note that Mach's principle states that all matter (which automatically includes energy) must constantly be exchanging information and thus be connected in order to explain the force of inertia. In some cases, multiple cells working together are preferable to single cells, or at least not inferior enough to destroy the few cells working together by chance. Actually multiple celled creatures are higher maintenance, more difficult to reproduce, more susceptible to environmental instability and macroscopic effects, they cannot adapt to extreme temperatures and acidic conditions like thermoacidophiles or salty conditions like halophiles, and they must maintain homeostasis. |
| TLomon06-13-05, 10:54 PM | I guess I just went temporarily insane because I am responding to this thread. Here is my take. First, read over all of the alignment descriptions in the SRD. The are quite detailed. “Chaos” implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the potential that its individuals have within them. Examples: Rebels from Star Wars Robin Hood's merry band Society in Zardoz Both of these groups held resentment toward legitimate authority. Remember, the emperer in Star Wars was voted into office by a democratic system. By that logic, couldn't Luke Skywalker be considered a Paladin of Freedom? “Law” implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should. Examples: Monk Orders Corporate World Mafia Military Mmm. Nothing about laws there. Honor, authority... that's all there. Nothing about laws. In summary, I've read over this entire thread. Several errors in logic I see repeated over and over. 1) You can't use RL world morality to support arguments. We are discussing an existing system in publication. 2) Just because things are different in your campaign doesn't make that the correct interpretation of RAW. 3) An opinion can't be wrong. However, stating something as fact when it isn't can be. 4) Stating a chaotic society can't do advanced crafting is just plain whacked. Personally, I am against allowing a Paladin of Justice or a Paladin of Freedom in my campaign at all. I think there should be a Paladin of Odin, Paladin of Zeus, etc. Holy warrior of a specific god. And yes, I am working on that many variants. |
| Thanatos0206-14-05, 02:20 AM | Seems like a high-quality idea. Have you considered modular abilities to replace standard Paladin ones? That way, you don't have to redesign the Paladin each time, just swap abilities. |
| Gilean06-14-05, 03:58 AM | Perfect Lacking nothing essential to the whole; complete of its nature or kind. Being without defect or blemish: a perfect specimen. Thoroughly skilled or talented in a certain field or area; proficient. Completely suited for a particular purpose or situation. Completely corresponding to a description, standard, or type. Accurately reproducing an original. Complete; thorough; utter. Pure; undiluted; unmixed. Excellent and delightful in all respects. The universe lacks nothing essential in order to be what it is and as such it is entirely without defects. Additionally the universe is complete and pure in the sense that it is only made of what it is as opposed to what it is not. Finally the universe is excellent and delightful in all respects provided one knows the right way to look at it and has a good set of emotional habits.Tautologies much? Anyway, the forth oneCompletely suited for a particular purpose or situation.To humans, a perfect universe (or whatever) would be perfect for humans to live in. This it is not.No. I wouldn't change anything that isn't in my power to change.That is somewhat obvious. But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that you ahve the power to change anything and everything, and the wisdom to know what effects it would have, and that you are doing it for the sake of mankind. Would you in that case change anything? Actually my life is affected by the butterfly in Africa or South America. The butterfly effect as it is called by the scientific community (not just the name of a movie you know) provides that infinitesimal changes to complexity related systems result in massive changes such that a butterfly on the opposite side of the world could cause a tornado in texas.It can also be noted that single microscopical effects have very little effect on macroscopical level. If it makes you feel better, use a random piece of stone flying away from us near the limit of universe. And I have heard of the scientific part, but never of the movie. So there.Actually multiple celled creatures are higher maintenance, more difficult to reproduce, more susceptible to environmental instability and macroscopic effects, they cannot adapt to extreme temperatures and acidic conditions like thermoacidophiles or salty conditions like halophiles, and they must maintain homeostasis.Yup. That, however, doesn't mean that they are incapable of living in good conditions. And the key is specialization. For example, some medusae. One of them, I don't know the English name, but translated it would be something like "Portuguese man of war or warship". The large medusa that has a "sail" above sea level and tentacles below. It consists of multiple cells (you didn't guess that, now did you), some of which hunt the food, others transport it, some form the "sail"-thingy, etc. Kind of like tribes of humans as compared to single ones.I guess I just went temporarily insane because I am responding to this thread.This isn't a flame war or anything.Mmm. Nothing about laws there. Honor, authority... that's all there. Nothing about laws.How about "obedience to authority" and "adherence to tradition". I'd say those imply laws. Especially if there are more than, say, 20 people around.1) You can't use RL world morality to support arguments. We are discussing an existing system in publication.And the D&D alignments come from RL. Researching other can give insights in the other.Personally, I am against allowing a Paladin of Justice or a Paladin of Freedom in my campaign at all. I think there should be a Paladin of Odin, Paladin of Zeus, etc. Holy warrior of a specific god. And yes, I am working on that many variants.See Szatnay's Ultiamte paladin for inspiration. I suggest making some generic abilities and putting few god-granted ones which depend on the deity. Probably do it by modifying the prestige paladin. That way, paladins of odin can be required to hang in a tree with a spear thrown through them for 3 days, was it? It should be a PrC, anyways. |
| TLomon06-14-05, 04:17 AM | In regards to my unique paladin setup, it will be configured from a base chart, with inserted abilities similiar to the bloodlines to ensure mutual balance and variety. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, we kind of live in a chaotic society as it is right now. |
| Thanatos0206-14-05, 12:39 PM | I would disagree. Though differences crop up in different parts of the US and different parts of the world (and the territories of other countries, so be through...) most 1st World nations are highly Lawful in how the go about their governing. Our society is likewise very lawful, at least in the states. The value placed on cultural mores and taboos is extensive, the value placed on religion is such that admitting to atheism is a political death sentence. Our reliance on tradition is a self-fulfilling media prophesy - but it does exist for the most part. The odd thing is, is that the initial (Franklin/Jeffersonian) concept of the US is of a C/G society, loosly bound by national laws. (There were highly lawful elements even then - Mr. Adams, for one.) Even our national laws are set up to be loose - we can't make national laws except where they deal with inter-state commerce. (We've just gotten very, very, good at figuring ways to tie laws to inter-state commerce.) The desire to impose strict laws despite an initially chaotic set-up except where commerce applies demonstrates a lawful climate in the highest seats of political power. I'd be the first to admit that our society is quite chaotic on a minute level - most people don't actually know many laws, there's too many so most just kind of wing it. That's pretty chaotic in itself. However, on this level, law and chaos are most balanced due to most peoples dependence of traditions and mores that dictate what they should and shouldn't do. If this is good or bad, I leave you to decide, but this is how I suppose it is. (From where I'm at, with my view.) Also. Yes, we might study RL philosophy, culture, morals, and ethics in order to gain insight into the (rather arbitrary) alignment system, but I would suggest that the alignment system is sub-par to handle the nuances of actual ethics and morals. It is best when held in the very abstract. |
| Masterful_Norg06-14-05, 10:51 PM | Tautologies much?Precicely! But we can't narrow our definition any more than that because then we would have to rely on something within the universe in order to qualify the universe, which is much like describing a chair in terms relevant only to the leg of the chair. To humans, a perfect universe (or whatever) would be perfect for humans to live in. This it is not. But we do live in this universe so obviously its correctly suited to the purpose of providing a place and means for us to live. If we were to change it so that it was perfect in your eyes it would just be imperfect in someone elses perspective, so the solution is obvious. Get new eyes. When you change your perspective you actually change things in the world because the only way we know them is as we perceive them. That is somewhat obvious. But, for the sake of argument, let us assume that you ahve the power to change anything and everything, and the wisdom to know what effects it would have, and that you are doing it for the sake of mankind. Would you in that case change anything?No. Mankind has everything it needs as does everything else. It can also be noted that single microscopical effects have very little effect on macroscopical level. If it makes you feel better, use a random piece of stone flying away from us near the limit of universe. And I have heard of the scientific part, but never of the movie. So there. The debate is not about the size of the effect, but about the existance thereof. One can argue that it is only because of microscopic events that macroscopic effects can manifest and therefore the origin of all events up to the largest scales is found in the tiniest of scales. Unfortunately the rock idea you proposed is flawed because as demonstrated by the fact that it is moving away from us it must have once been closer to us, close enough to be ejected. Thus it had some effect at one point. Furthermore there's also the matter of its weak gravitational effect on us and according to Mach its effect the force of inertia. According to Bell's theorem we are also constantly exchanging charges with the rock of which you speak. Yup. That, however, doesn't mean that they are incapable of living in good conditions. And the key is specialization. For example, some medusae. One of them, I don't know the English name, but translated it would be something like "Portuguese man of war or warship". The large medusa that has a "sail" above sea level and tentacles below. It consists of multiple cells (you didn't guess that, now did you), some of which hunt the food, others transport it, some form the "sail"-thingy, etc. Kind of like tribes of humans as compared to single ones. If the object is survival there is no reason to become collonial or multicellular. Evolution towards cell specialization is completely extraneous to the concept of survival. |
| Gilean06-15-05, 01:46 AM | Precicely! But we can't narrow our definition any more than that because then we would have to rely on something within the universe in order to qualify the universe, which is much like describing a chair in terms relevant only to the leg of the chair.So we can't define universe at all, as everything we know are parts of it. Which kind of like defines it, already.But we do live in this universe so obviously its correctly suited to the purpose of providing a place and means for us to live. If we were to change it so that it was perfect in your eyes it would just be imperfect in someone elses perspective, so the solution is obvious. Get new eyes. When you change your perspective you actually change things in the world because the only way we know them is as we perceive them.Of course everything is relative. But we can't know if something is perfect without seeing the alternatives. In case of universe, we can't see alternatives. So, we can't say universe is perfect.No. Mankind has everything it needs as does everything else.Let me point you at dinosaurs. They are kind of dead right now. Obviously they didn't have everything they needed back then. Also, take a look at all the endangored species. They are severely lacking something, often space to use for living. So no. Everything doesn't have everything they need.The debate is not about the size of the effect, but about the existance thereof. One can argue that it is only because of microscopic events that macroscopic effects can manifest and therefore the origin of all events up to the largest scales is found in the tiniest of scales.Fine. Have it this way. You can't, in any way even nearly scientific, prove that it has influenced you. But it has. That isn't the point. Can you recognise it still existing, even when if there is no way of proving that it has ever influenced anything? You have missed the point.If the object is survival there is no reason to become collonial or multicellular. Evolution towards cell specialization is completely extraneous to the concept of survival.As said, no. Let us agree to disagree to keep this somewhat civil. Thanatos02, US society is chaotic compared to Finnish one, for example. Finland is a so-called welfare-country, in that the taxing is high and many services are (should be, at least) quite cheap. Everyone has insurance, even if there is no money to pay for it, government does. Everyone has large amounts of free education. The taxing is highly progressive, meaning that rich people have percentially larger taxes, up to a point. I'll be offline for nearly a week, so fare well. |
| Leap06-15-05, 05:46 AM | US society is chaotic compared to Finnish one, for example. Finland is a so-called welfare-country, in that the taxing is high and many services are (should be, at least) quite cheap. Everyone has insurance, even if there is no money to pay for it, government does. Everyone has large amounts of free education. The taxing is highly progressive, meaning that rich people have percentially larger taxes, up to a point. The US does not have an alignment; people have alignments. Some areas of the US are more Lawful dominant (Cities, Anywhere controlled by Mormons ;) ), some are more Neutral dominant (Mid west, Deep South), whilst there is a chaotic undercurrent (backwoods, bikers, travellers/hippies - note: not all bikers and hippies are chaotic, many are highly lawful masquerading as chaotic).... By and large though most modern places are Lawful. Sure some are more lawful than others (that is, offer less leeway than others) but most fit into the whole "be a productive member of the economy/society" mantra.... But we digress ;) |
| Thanatos0206-15-05, 12:22 PM | Thanatos02, US society is chaotic compared to Finnish one, for example. Finland is a so-called welfare-country, in that the taxing is high and many services are (should be, at least) quite cheap. Everyone has insurance, even if there is no money to pay for it, government does. Everyone has large amounts of free education. The taxing is highly progressive, meaning that rich people have percentially larger taxes, up to a point. Quite right. |
| Masterful_Norg06-15-05, 12:42 PM | So we can't define universe at all, as everything we know are parts of it. Which kind of like defines it, already. I'm saying we can't narrow the definition of the universe further than saying the universe is everything. Of course everything is relative. But we can't know if something is perfect without seeing the alternatives. In case of universe, we can't see alternatives. So, we can't say universe is perfect. I'd say that because we can never see alternatives (as they would have to be a part of this universe anyway) this universe sets the standard of what a universe should be and conforms to that standard perfectly. Let me point you at dinosaurs. They are kind of dead right now. Obviously they didn't have everything they needed back then. Also, take a look at all the endangored species. They are severely lacking something, often space to use for living. So no. Everything doesn't have everything they need. Endangered species have everything they need to be Endagered species and so similarly do dead dinosaurs. Who's says death is a bad thing anyway? Fine. Have it this way. You can't, in any way even nearly scientific, prove that it has influenced you. But it has. That isn't the point. Can you recognise it still existing, even when if there is no way of proving that it has ever influenced anything? You have missed the point.I don't believe I've missed the point at all. The original thrust of my arguement was to simply demonstrate that it does not enhance one's position to attempt to prove something on the basis of something else which can never be proven to exist. I have no problem with such an object or rock or whatever existin, but it is slighty more problematic for one to use the rock in order to explain something else. However, even in your most recently revised scenario it is pretty much impossible to think of something that effects us and then leaves no proof of having done so, because the effect is the proof. Even then, because we cannot say that cause and effect do infact exist the only proof that we have is that an event according to our provided description did in fact occur from our perspective and that there is a possibility (high or low) that such an event may occur again. As said, no. Let us agree to disagree to keep this somewhat civil. You were saying that in stable environments it pays to specialize and form multicellular or colonial creatures but I contend that doing so slows the rate of reproduction, creates the need for environmental stability and makes each cell's survival dependant on the survival of another with the exception being the colonial life form in the last case. After this point I think no further debate on the subject of evolution will open any more windows, though if you've read the article by Rupert Sheldrake you're welcome to provide your thoughts on the subject. Who says death is a bad thing anyway? "He who bets against the gods and learns they exist loses everything while He bets on the gods and learns they don't loses nothing." Which basically means living life afraid of death to learn that it was unnecessary is... unnecessary, while living life unafraid of death is more beneficial to life even if there is no happy hunting ground. However, when we look on the more scientific side there are some well controlled studies performed by Dr. Helen Wambach which reinforce the idea of reincarnation. By analysing the past lives of approximately 10,000 volunteers subjected to hynotic past life regression she discovered that regardless of the gender groups 50.6% of the past lives reported were male while 49.4% were female which is in accordance with the normal distrubution. The other interesting correlation was that between demographics and relevant time period. |
| the_one_true_shea06-17-05, 02:04 PM | OH my goodness, evil, and chaos too! This is absolutly astounding and I have only read this last page. Everyone that thinks they have something to say on this subject ( in particularly TLomon ) is hereby Knighted into the Obvious Brigade. In this army you make your own badges.. or say "badges, we don't need no stinking badges" in a mock mexican accent when interrogated for credentials. What!?! Order is chaos and so are you! You see D&D morality is .. not enough to hinge a doctoral dissertation on guys, maybe the ramifications it has on your mentality but not the system itself. Good = good for everybody (Locke ) Bad = Good for me (Nietche ) Nuetrality is whatever dosent qualify elsewhere Law = an organized mentality (Obbsesive compulsive ) Chaos = an opportunistic mentality (Manic Depressive ) Me? Im a Lawful Chaotic Paladin, yep very organized, but prone to full set paradign switching.. heres the other bit - How much do you change your character's alignment... IT HAPPENS! or its supposed to. Never should you say "Well my character would want to do that but Im lawfull" STOP you can do it! Your just slipping. Extreemly lawful people have "breakdowns" and "Binges" and all sorts of real non-mechanical mental state changes. You as a person are not lawful or chaotic, you are a pattern in process that has funny sections on some sides, nice pressed lines on others.. but you wanna talk about paladins on a thread that mentions the paladin? The paladin is not the paragon of "good" he is really .. a Zealot. Thats the deal: the paladin derives his powers from his unswerving alignment, doesnt matter what that alignment is. Hence the alternate paladin options in UA. Chaotic evil, Lawful nuetral, any alignment that can be considered extreem (I would say that Nuetral XXX is unavailable, but Lawful Nuetral and Chaotic Nuetral contain the potenttial for zealotry) The kicker is that your powers die off if your alignment CHANGES!!! thats the point. If your alignment - a trait that most D&D character should change at least once or twice in their career - changes you have lost your powers. The point is not to say that following the laws of the land and being "good" will get you magic favor of a god. The idea is that your (un)holy dedication to your personal code, your unalterable mindset, gives you the power to resist attack, persist in assualt, and make miracles happen when you need to. And remember, the power is yours! Not some god that gives them to you. Oh, and stop spamming this guys paladin thread with high falutin philosophy. Leap and Norg are not participating lawfully anyway Gilean. |
| the_one_true_shea06-17-05, 02:07 PM | Oh, and stop spamming this guys paladin thread with high falutin philosophy. Leap and Norg are not participating lawfully anyway Gilean. Just read the OP and this really is related.. CONTINUE! edit, I should really look at the date before posting, eh, Im persistantly distracted when writing up my posts :beep: :fight!: Thank you for calling Gotta say though (read more of the thread) alignment is a Game Mechanic, and as a GM (if you will ;) MUST have at least a guidline to make judgement calls. Really, and I say this with every ounce of metagame knowledge I have - the best way to play with a paladin is to force his behavior to have a real and understandable code of conduct .. no matter what his alignment is. You may want to splatrip something I use - The Zealot (notice how I was able to double entendre earlier ) :smirk: Allow any alignment (as I said nuetral xxx is not dedicated enough allowed ) to take Paladin (and I have adjusted the powers anew each time (but not feat style - skills and powers prepackage ) to match the Oath. Your first level gives you the lay on hands and the Oathbound feat (read my diplomacy or divine magic article ). Maintianing the oath AND alignment retains paladin -esqu powers. The oath has to be more .. general as well. Oath bound lets you get away with gease like "no meat" Zealot Oath Examples - (this is a table that will go in the class write up. first time in type! :eek: Oath of War - You have declared unending war on a race, culture, or other organization. You will under no circumstances aid your enemy. Oath of Peace (yeah yeah that one will work too! ) - You have chosen to follow the path of peace and nonaggression. You will under no circumstances intentionally kill or maim another intelligent creature. Oath of Greed - You want money, and will always want more. You will under no circumstance leave any valuables unaccounted for. Oath of Nature - You are just a part of the natural cycle. You will under no circumstances allow the laws of man prevent you from acting as you believe you should. OP Cleric of the Cat, .. does this sound interseting? |
| Gilean06-19-05, 11:24 AM | I'd say that because we can never see alternatives (as they would have to be a part of this universe anyway) this universe sets the standard of what a universe should be and conforms to that standard perfectly.A thing defines what a thing should be, and is a perfect thing. Tautology. And not very enlightening one, at that.Endangered species have everything they need to be Endagered species and so similarly do dead dinosaurs. Who's says death is a bad thing anyway?Raped people have everything they need to have been raped. Who says rape is a bad thing anyway? The point being, it is subjective. But, currently, most things want not to be dead. Maybe that hints at something? Are you fatalistic? I certainly understand it, but not embrace.The original thrust of my arguement was to simply demonstrate that it does not enhance one's position to attempt to prove something on the basis of something else which can never be proven to exist. I have no problem with such an object or rock or whatever existin, but it is slighty more problematic for one to use the rock in order to explain something else.I think (and am too lazy to check out) that you said things not percieved do not exist, or something like that. My point was that such things can exist. Certainly I wasn't arguing (at least that wasn't the intention) that one should use the unknown the explain something.However, when we look on the more scientific side there are some well controlled studies performed by Dr. Helen Wambach which reinforce the idea of reincarnation. By analysing the past lives of approximately 10,000 volunteers subjected to hynotic past life regression she discovered that regardless of the gender groups 50.6% of the past lives reported were male while 49.4% were female which is in accordance with the normal distrubution. The other interesting correlation was that between demographics and relevant time period.Can you offer a link? What you say doesn't suggest reincarnation, to me that is. It sounds like hypnotized people have a slight tendency to think of lives like those they have experienced. the_one_true_shea, first off, balance. The part of neutrality that is active (for example, Rilmani, or something like that). The zealot idea is not anything completely unknown to me. But I do prefer the zealot of god approach. It seems I got back home a bit earlier than assumed. Oh well. |
| Masterful_Norg06-19-05, 02:08 PM | A thing defines what a thing should be, and is a perfect thing. Tautology. And not very enlightening one, at that. Quite, but there is still no grounds upon which to say anything is imperfect unless you define imperfection as exhibiting something that you personally find undesirable which then enters unto the subjective realm and is really only a matter of your perception not the actual world. Raped people have everything they need to have been raped Who says rape is a bad thing anyway? The point being, it is subjective. But, currently, most things want not to be dead. Maybe that hints at something? Are you fatalistic? I certainly understand it, but not embrace.I am most definitely not a fatalist, someone who believes that events are preordained. I believe we have a choice in every circumstance, but the power that comes with that choice is rarely used. In this world people like to blame other things inside it for the way they feel when in reality they are the ones who allow the world to effect their emotions. People like to find scapegoats for the pain they feel when they are in fact the masters of their own pain. Why do they do it? Its because they've chosen to believe its all they can do. Am I suggesting that we should continue to force species into extinction or violate each other? If its what we need to do in order to grow then I guess I am. The feeling of victimization and surrender of one's emotions is not just characteristic of a rape victim, it is infact more typical of the rapist because he/she has already decided to act out of victimhood. The idea that we are victims of anything other than ourselves is what causes us to seek the axis of evil in our lives. But in truth the axis of evil is nowhere to be found except inside one's own heart. "If only it were so simple. If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were simply necessary to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being, and who among us are willing to destroy a piece of their own heart?"- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Russian Nobel laureate. In a conversation between a native american grandfather and his grandson about a recent tragedy this was said, "I feel as if I have two wolves fighting in my heart. One wolf is vengeful, angry, violent. The other wolf is loving, forgiving, compassionate." The grandson asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win the fight in your heart?" The grandfather answered, "The one I feed." I think (and am too lazy to check out) that you said things not percieved do not exist, or something like that. My point was that such things can exist. Certainly I wasn't arguing (at least that wasn't the intention) that one should use the unknown the explain something.My comment that things which cannot be perceived do not exist was related to those alternate universes which the weak anthropic principle uses to explain why the constants of this universe are uniquely suited for life. Still I maintain that is impossible for something to not effect us if indeed it does exist because the definition of existance demands it. What you say doesn't suggest reincarnation, to me that is. It sounds like hypnotized people have a slight tendency to think of lives like those they have experienced.The findings were such that on average 50.6 percent of male reported incarnations were male while the remaining percent were reported as female, while for women the same was true. The second finding was that past lives were more commonly found to have occured during times coincident with higher populations. Finally, it was found that the descriptions provided by past life regressors described past eras in greater detail than present historians provide with no outstanding contradictions. Can you offer a link?Dr. Wambach has published her findings in her books "Reliving Past Lives" and "Life Before Life". If you're interested in other things of this nature I can point you to an online book detailing other interesting findings like this one. Reincarnation is Making a Comeback: Chapter 7 (Beyond Death) (aka "That online book") But the pervasiveness of the phenomena has not always been convincing in itself. When one of the first widely-disseminated books on the subject, Dr. Raymond Moody’s Life After Life, was first published, Dr. Moody’s descriptions and conclusions were often viewed with considerable skepticism or simply dismissed out of hand by members of the medical and scientific community. Dr. Harold Widdison, a sociologist, for example, has noted a significant emotional reaction by scientists to Moody’s book. Dr. Widdison compared it to the classic struggles of a fledgling science against a dominating religion, particularly such individuals as Gallileo and Michaelangelo. Dr. Widdison believed the labeling of near-death experiences as “religious” is erroneous and is often used as an excuse to avoid scientific research into the subject, much to the detriment of science. Dr. Michael Sabom, a cardiologist, reports he was initially highly skeptical of Moody’s work, but after conducting a survey of hospitalized patients, he along with a colleague, Sarah Kreutziger, concluded that near-death experiences were a real and consistent event for many patients unconscious and near death. Dr. Sabom also noted most patients were reluctant to discuss their experience for fear of ridicule. These two medical researchers found the elements of the experiences of their patients were identical to those reported by Moody. They further noted sociologic and demographic factors did not account for the occurrence of the near-death experiences. Dr. Lewis Thomas, President of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute, writing in the New England Journal of Medicine (June 1977) found that research into human dying was not correlating with the idea of agony at the end, and that instead people experiencing near-death invariably describe the moment in terms of tranquility and peace. These same people didn’t mention pain or anguish. Dr. Thomas has come to the conclusion there is something going on that we don’t really know about, something quite different from what we might expect, and something we might want to look into! There is nothing like the New England Journal of Medicine for massive understatement. |
| Gilean06-20-05, 11:14 AM | Quite, but there is still no grounds upon which to say anything is imperfect unless you define imperfection as exhibiting something that you personally find undesirable which then enters unto the subjective realm and is really only a matter of your perception not the actual world.Imperfection is always subjective. Even if you make the subject be universe, it remains subjective.In this world people like to blame other things inside it for the way they feel when in reality they are the ones who allow the world to effect their emotions. People like to find scapegoats for the pain they feel when they are in fact the masters of their own pain. Why do they do it? Its because they've chosen to believe its all they can do.There are things a person can't control that can cause misfortune. And people can't consciously control their emotions perfectly. But you are correct in people not taking responsibility of things they should take.Am I suggesting that we should continue to force species into extinction or violate each other? If its what we need to do in order to grow then I guess I am. The feeling of victimization and surrender of one's emotions is not just characteristic of a rape victim, it is infact more typical of the rapist because he/she has already decided to act out of victimhood. The idea that we are victims of anything other than ourselves is what causes us to seek the axis of evil in our lives. But in truth the axis of evil is nowhere to be found except inside one's own heart.But is growth a goal to reach? It is said that knowledge brings pain. Is it better to be a happy pig or a suffering Socrates? As for the evilness, it has been went through. Sometimes harming others for your benefit is simply the best thing for you. According to D&D alignments, this is evil.My comment that things which cannot be perceived do not exist was related to those alternate universes which the weak anthropic principle uses to explain why the constants of this universe are uniquely suited for life. Still I maintain that is impossible for something to not effect us if indeed it does exist because the definition of existance demands it.If "effect" is defined as applying a force of some sort, then, by physics, it can be said that everything at least has affected everything else (assuming Big Bang or some such). If "effect" is defined as an event that results in different results than the lack of said event, we can't really say.The findings were such that on average 50.6 percent of male reported incarnations were male while the remaining percent were reported as female, while for women the same was true.And this proves nothing.The second finding was that past lives were more commonly found to have occured during times coincident with higher populations.As population increases, so does the knowledge we have of said period of time, generally. So nothing unexpected.Finally, it was found that the descriptions provided by past life regressors described past eras in greater detail than present historians provide with no outstanding contradictions.This is somewhat noteworthy, if the people said things not commonly known by majority, and that could easily be proved false.Dr. Wambach has published her findings in her books "Reliving Past Lives" and "Life Before Life". If you're interested in other things of this nature I can point you to an online book detailing other interesting findings like this one.I'm not very confident about these books being found in the local libraries, and I won't buy them. But maybe I'll check them out after reading the current queue of about 8 books and multiple comics (Sandman). As to the quotation, of course people first think ill of "new" things. That doesn't imply that they new things are to be embraced. I think it to be healthy to be suspicious of novelties such as these and some religious cults. |
| Masterful_Norg06-21-05, 12:48 PM | Imperfection is always subjective. Even if you make the subject be universe, it remains subjective.And because imperfection is subjective it is not concrete. The world is whatever one thinks it is. I think its perfect. There are things a person can't control that can cause misfortune.But whether or not one sees an event as being misfortunate is within one's control. And people can't consciously control their emotions perfectly.Over the course of brain scan studies performed in sequence on buddhists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison it was discovered that certain areas of the brain light up constantly in Buddhists which indicate positive emotions and good mood. Other research by Paul Ekman, of the University of California San Francisco Medical Centre, suggests that meditation and mindfulness can tame the amygdala, the hub of fear memory, in as much as the buddhists involved responded to fearful stimulus with either a greatly reduced fear reaction or none at all. It is said that knowledge brings pain. Is it better to be a happy pig or a suffering Socrates? Unfortunately saying that knowledge brings pain is an appeal to a non-existant authority and provides no reasoning upon which the conclusion was initially drawn. If we define knowledge as information and as seperate from the methods we practice to use information then we must admit that raw knowledge or information does nothing by itself. It is completely dependant on how we use knowledge whether for our own benefit or detriment. Sometimes harming others for your benefit is simply the best thing for you. I like to define the word "sin" as something we do that results in no benefit to ourselves. Because it is less than beneficial to harm others when harm is not absolutely necessary (in which case if it were it wouldn't be defined as evil) that too falls under the category. And this proves nothing. All that it proves is that there is no relationship between one's own gender and the distribution of gender throughout those past lives one alleges to have experienced during past life regressions. The relationship seems to be more a matter of biological consequence. As population increases, so does the knowledge we have of said period of time, generally. So nothing unexpected. The past life demographics and historical demographics also agreed whereas class distribution ("upper & lower" or "upper,middle & lower") of the time was concerned. I think it to be healthy to be suspicious of novelties such as these But only should suspicion arrise on the grounds of emergent contradictory evidence as opposed to dogma or psuedoskepticism. Besides, it doesn't really do one any harm to believe in reincarnation. of course people first think ill of "new" things It should be of interest to note that the only three religeons that no longer officially support the idea of reincarnation are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism though such was not always the case. Islam’s Koran: “And Allah hath caused you to spring forth from the Earth like a plant; Hereafter will He turn you back into it again, and will bring you forth anew” ‑ (Sura 71:17‑18) Judaism’s The Zohar: “The souls must re‑enter the absolute, whence they have emerged. But to accomplish this end they must develop all the perfections, the germ of which is planted in them; and if they have not fulfilled this condition during one life, they must commence another, a third and so forth; until they have acquired the condition which fits them for reunion with God.” Christianity’s Bible: “Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out.” (Revelation 3:12) Of course there are other possible interpretations, there always are. However, it seems likely from the records available conscerning St. Origen and St. Augustine that the two ascribed to the notion of reincarnation. It was during the Second Council of Constantinople (the Fifth Ecumenical Council of the Church) in 553 CE, during the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I that the council proclaimed reincarnation to be one of the 14 anathemas, or denunciations, which stated, that if anyone asserted the fabulous pre‑existence of souls, and asserted the monstrous restoration which followed it, that person would be anathema. Those involved, which excluded the then pope (who at the time was imprisoned) and any eastern bishops, would undoubtedly gain from the fear induced loyalty of the flock if the assumption that one had to get it right in one lifetime remained. |
| Gilean06-21-05, 02:09 PM | But whether or not one sees an event as being misfortunate is within one's control.Yes. What one should see as a misfortune is an entirely different question.Over the course of brain scan studies performed in sequence on buddhists at the University of Wisconsin at Madison it was discovered that certain areas of the brain light up constantly in Buddhists which indicate positive emotions and good mood. Other research by Paul Ekman, of the University of California San Francisco Medical Centre, suggests that meditation and mindfulness can tame the amygdala, the hub of fear memory, in as much as the buddhists involved responded to fearful stimulus with either a greatly reduced fear reaction or none at all.As I said, perfectly. In complete control of might be more appropriate. Yes, meditation has been researched scientifically. That doesn't mean that every person meditates, or could achieve the results if did.Unfortunately saying that knowledge brings pain is an appeal to a non-existant authority and provides no reasoning upon which the conclusion was initially drawn. If we define knowledge as information and as seperate from the methods we practice to use information then we must admit that raw knowledge or information does nothing by itself. It is completely dependant on how we use knowledge whether for our own benefit or detriment.Certainly childs are often happy, unbrindled by information (might be a better word, no sure) and responsibilites. Resposibilities might be the key. But I won't start arguing that.I like to define the word "sin" as something we do that results in no benefit to ourselves. Because it is less than beneficial to harm others when harm is not absolutely necessary (in which case if it were it wouldn't be defined as evil) that too falls under the category.You do recognize the possibility of it? Good. Saves some time. In that case, it may well be considered evil by the one who is at receiving end. Of course, in D&D, there is absolute evil blah blah... (just to stay in context :D ). All that it proves is that there is no relationship between one's own gender and the distribution of gender throughout those past lives one alleges to have experienced during past life regressions. The relationship seems to be more a matter of biological consequence.A curiosity.The past life demographics and historical demographics also agreed whereas class distribution ("upper & lower" or "upper,middle & lower") of the time was concerned.This is something siding with the theory of reincarnation. Can you give basic statistical facts such as number of people who were being interviewed, average numbers, correalation, variance (or the thing comonly symbolised by my or myy or mi mii, the greek alphabet, or both).But only should suspicion arrise on the grounds of emergent contradictory evidence as opposed to dogma or psuedoskepticism. Besides, it doesn't really do one any harm to believe in reincarnation.The gambler's proof (which you quoted earlier) doesn't really apply, as it doesn't do any harm not to believe in it, either. Also, there are some interesting matters such as how can populations increase, etc.It should be of interest to note that the only three religeons that no longer officially support the idea of reincarnation are Christianity, Islam, and Judaism though such was not always the case.How about the tribal and "primitive" ones? As for the holy books, that's why I said "new" instead of new. What book is the Zorah? Or is it a typo of some kind from Torah, or simply very different translation? |
| Masterful_Norg06-21-05, 03:55 PM | That doesn't mean that every person meditates, or could achieve the results if did. But it doesn't mean they couldn't. We can't really prove that meditation doesn't work for someone because they could just need to improve their ability to meditate properly in order to show results. All we have proven is that all the monks exhibit an effect. Even students who have only meditated for a week show significant results. Saves some time.Don't get me wrong. I think sin is perfect as well and I don't think it necessitates the existance of evil. Can you give basic statistical facts such as number of people who were being interviewed, average numbers, correalation, variance (or the thing comonly symbolised by my or myy or mi mii, the greek alphabet, or both).I believe she extracted the statistical values from analysing the reports of 10,000 volunteers but I am not aware of the exact values. They are in all likelihood reported in her published material. The gambler's proof (which you quoted earlier) doesn't really apply, as it doesn't do any harm not to believe in it, either.Unless disbelief results in living one's own life in fear of death. Fear and anxiety are bad for your health. How about the tribal and "primitive" ones.They are included. that's why I said "new" instead of newFair enough. What book is the Zorah The Zohar is a Kabalistic classic believed to date from the first century AD. It is foundational to the faith of Judaism. |
| the_one_true_shea06-21-05, 06:33 PM | A we (as a entire species) taller on average, and the teeth have changed signifigantly, and our skin has undergone some adjustments, mostly cosmetic .. but cosmetic evolution is nonetheless evolution .. ya red nosed monkey! Me, I'd rather have a blue butt <shrug> The Zohar is a Kabalistic classic believed to date from the first century AD. It is thus foundational to the faith of Judaism. not nearly as good as the yetzirah .. but easier to read. Here is a D&D anology - Some here may have heard of the code "all is permitted, nothing is forbidden" - this "code" seems very chaotic, but anyone who knows the source .. might think otherwise. Responces from the paladins: Freedom: oh, so anything I do is ok as long as I support goodness and "respect life". Justice: Yeah yeah, but have you filed your permit with city council. As far as other alignments - I really think the key is recognizing that the system is designed for the characters to shift alignment - even to the point of having to work to avoid becoming evil. - Nature? The more evil act you take in the pursuit of good the more likely you are to accept those means as acceptable. LE - "Dominator" - normal - generally ordered and selfish, possive even, but a LE Paladin - Must be obeyed, Must be in charge, Must be the Law. NE - "Malefactor" - normal - usually manipulating others for their own gain, but a NE Paladin - I dont think you can be a "dedicated" busybody. CE - "Destroyer" - normal - spontaniously violent both socially and physically, but a CE Paladin - well, shouldnt spend much time talking. Basically - normal characters alignments are shallow.. should be shallow, a puddle slippery enough to slip in. The paladin represents the dedication to an alignement. Strict adherence to PoV.. and I have always considered the "dedication to balance" idea to be a little too lawfully minded. If I can be accused of changing RAW - its there Undecided is more descriptive than dedicated to balance. When trying to judge a player's paladin code adherence you should check A: good or evil - a good paladins actions should be motivated for the good of others, whereas an evil paladin should be motivated for their own power. A normal evil character can take altruistic actions, without defending their motives. An evil paladin can't, to retain their POWERS they must defend all of their action via their alignment. B: law or chaos - a lawful paladin's actions will adhere to a code of conduct that can be detailed easily, whereas a chaotic paladin's actions will adhere to a code of conduct that can be understood readily. |
| Gilean06-22-05, 05:21 AM | But it doesn't mean they couldn't. We can't really prove that meditation doesn't work for someone because they could just need to improve their ability to meditate properly in order to show results. All we have proven is that all the monks exhibit an effect. Even students who have only meditated for a week show significant results.Agreed.Don't get me wrong. I think sin is perfect as well and I don't think it necessitates the existance of evil.I understand your position.I believe she extracted the statistical values from analysing the reports of 10,000 volunteers but I am not aware of the exact values. They are in all likelihood reported in her published material.Okay. It is just that saying "something conforms to the normal distribution" is not very enlightening. What parametres? Where do they come from? Etc. (You can think of these as rhetorical questions.)Unless disbelief results in living one's own life in fear of death. Fear and anxiety are bad for your health.But, if reincarnation is true, death isn't a bad thing, right?They are included.Brave viking warriors feasting and so on in Valhalla till Ragnarok? Unless that one time counts as reincarnation, of course. But I'd rather classify it with Christian reincarnation at the end times, not true one.The Zohar is a Kabalistic classic believed to date from the first century AD. It is foundational to the faith of Judaism.Kabalism (Kabbalism?) is a cult of Judaism, right? They have some sort of pillar-structure thing. Maybe I'll check out. Is the book "canonised" by Orthodox judes? NE - "Malefactor" - normal - usually manipulating others for their own gain, but a NE Paladin - I dont think you can be a "dedicated" busybody.Evil with no care for (L/C) methods? Pure evil, as they say. Also, evil paladins try to enforce evil. Some with no care for themselves. Suicide-unhallowers, anyone?Strict adherence to PoV.. and I have always considered the "dedication to balance" idea to be a little too lawfully minded.I'm LN by D&D standards, and reach for balance, by D&D standards (as well as others). Anyway, Rilmani. The True neutral outsiders who enforce balance. If outsiders can do it, surely mere mortals can attempt, much as other paladins are attempts at emulating paragons of other alignments. |
| Masterful_Norg06-22-05, 11:57 AM | But, if reincarnation is true, death isn't a bad thing, right?Even if reincarnation isn't true, death is still not a bad thing. Given that it is true the periods between lives are just like recess breaks. Brave viking warriors feasting and so on in Valhalla till Ragnarok?By night those in Valhalla (the hall of the slain) in Asgard feast on never ending pork and drink mead from the udder of the goat Heidrun. Odin's guests would spend the day at battle and those who fell would rise once again in the evening. This is all according to "Gods and Myths of Northern Europe" by H. R. Ellis Davidson which I am currently holding in my lap. I won't debate as to whether or not a culture's mythology constitutes its religeon because in Gnosticism this is especially the case. Is the book "canonised" by Orthodox judes?That would be something I could look into, but I'm not concerned as to whether Judaism supports reincarnation presently, only as to whether Judaism once taught reincarnation. |
| Gilean06-23-05, 04:50 AM | By night those in Valhalla (the hall of the slain) in Asgard feast on never ending pork and drink mead from the udder of the goat Heidrun. Odin's guests would spend the day at battle and those who fell would rise once again in the evening. This is all according to "Gods and Myths of Northern Europe" by H. R. Ellis Davidson which I am currently holding in my lap.I think of that as their afterlife, not reincarnation. Of course there is the sort of reincarnation in afterlife, but still.I won't debate as to whether or not a culture's mythology constitutes its religeon because in Gnosticism this is especially the case.My point was that I don't consider the viking thing to be true reincarnation in the sense of word used in this thread, and that it is more like the thing Bible teaches. Reincarnation would be the rebirth into this world. |
| Masterful_Norg06-23-05, 11:59 AM | Reincarnation would be the rebirth into this world.I hadn't defined it as such, but there are other religeons who's beliefs meet that standard. I think the most convincing evidence for after lives (which precludes reincarnation) comes from the accounts of cardiologists who interview patients right after resusitation. In raymond Moody's Life After Life he identifies what he calls the "core" experience of a near death episode. While no two accounts are exactly the same they are usually strikingly similar. No single subject has ever reported experiencing every aspect of the core experience. There is also no single component of the core experience that all subjects experience though some are close to being universal. Finally, those subjects who were "dead" report a longer and more complete experience than those who only come close to death and there is no subsequent brain dammage after a near death experience. On to the core experience itself; patients usually here the pronunciation of their death made by the attendant physician followed by a sound which can range anywhere from pleasant music to annoying sensations of hearing buzzing, loud clicks, ringing, roaring, or banging similar to the sounds heard at the beginning of an out of body experience. Subjects often report being pulled rapidly through a dark space described as a tunnel, funnel, cylinder, sewer, trough, cave, well, enclosure, vacuum, void or valley. The last descriptive term bringing to mind: “Yea tho I walk through the valley of the shadow of death....” Many subjects report viewing their body from an external vantage point and are able to describe certain details that they otherwise couldn't have known. While out of the body, subjects tend to feel weightless and insubstantial, find that they may traverse through solid objects, and experience something comonly described as "timelessness" (which is a near-universal core component). Some subjects report that they are able to think more lucidly and rapidly while outside of their bodies and that their senses of hearing and sight become greatly enhanced. At one point or another subjects report being surrounded by a brilliant bright light which creates no discomfort to look at. Once inside the light the subject feels uplifted and senses a familiar presense such as that of a relative. Subjects claim that those in the light communicate without the use of language but instead some form of direct transfer of thoughts with no potential for misunderstanding. Most subjects who have made it this far describe experiencing a sort of selective cinematic life review initiated by a request issuing from one of the attendant members of the host. During a life review subjects have no sense of judgment, condemnation, or reward. Instead there is reportedly a feeling of unconditional love regardless of actions made in the past, which inevitably leads to the subject's renunciation of the punishment and reward view of the afterlife. After this point subjects report the arrival at a barrier which represents the boundry between their current condition and a more permanent death. Most of those who return report having done so not out of a fear for what lies beyond, but out of a feeling that their life is not yet complete. Another avenue to follow while looking into stuff of this nature is the one travelled by the Monroe Institute, who's primary focus is to aid people in their attempts to acheive out of body experiences which can be induced consciously. There is a general acceptance that the phenomena is real though some ask whether subjects are actually out of their bodies or just out of their trees. I am inclined to think the former simply because out of body experiences allow people to describe things that they otherwise could not. However, now we're getting into the realm of anecdotal evidense, statistically significant though it may be. It is generally thought that anecdotal evidense is not as good as empiracle evidense though anecdotal evidense is just a summary of experiential observations which are the basis of empiracle evidense. The reason is due to a lack of controls or means of establishing controls because the event has already occured or because of numerous interfering variables. However, in the case of near death experiences no differences between accounts could be attributed to variations in religeous beliefs, cultural background, or other social phenomena, though death induced by serious disease related illnesses tended to yeild more complete experiences. A we (as a entire species) taller on average, and the teeth have changed signifigantly, and our skin has undergone some adjustments, mostly cosmetic. Should also be interesting to note that newscientist magazine recently ran an article which published findings that indicated evolution occured in relatively fast bursts. You can still find the article here (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn7539). |
| Gilean06-26-05, 02:57 PM | On near death experiences, they also vary among different cultures. An american was picked up by a taxi, an indian (native american, whatever) moved to plains with lots of bisons, etc. The thread is dying. We need another thing to argue. How about is burning kobold babies fine for CG paladins? |
| Masterful_Norg06-26-05, 04:02 PM | An american was picked up by a taxi, an indian (native american, whatever) moved to plains with lots of bisons, etc.I wasn't aware of these two specific experiences and they probably weren't a part of Raymond Moody's subject group. I'd be interested in learning more about the experiences they had. In a world without the force of evil conflict could arrise between the Paladins of Justice and Freedom as a result of the arguement concerning reincarnation. The paladins of freedom would take the side of reincarnation on the basis that it offers substantially more freedom and makes more sense than the whole punishment reward scheme. These paladins would be labelled as anathema by the established church authorities and conflict would inevitably break out. |
| Thanatos0206-26-05, 04:05 PM | On near death experiences, they also vary among different cultures. An american was picked up by a taxi, an indian (native american, whatever) moved to plains with lots of bisons, etc. The thread is dying. We need another thing to argue. How about is burning kobold babies fine for CG paladins? When the LG paladins have already killed them, and the CG paladins are disposing of corpses, naturally. |
| Gilean06-27-05, 01:25 AM | I wasn't aware of these two specific experiences and they probably weren't a part of Raymond Moody's subject group. I'd be interested in learning more about the experiences they had.Unfortunately I didn't find a web article. At least in English. In Finnish, go to http://www.tieteenkuvalehti.com snd search for something like death. There should be mirror pages somewhere in Swedish or other scandinavic languages, but I don't know.In a world without the force of evil conflict could arrise between the Paladins of Justice and Freedom as a result of the arguement concerning reincarnation. The paladins of freedom would take the side of reincarnation on the basis that it offers substantially more freedom and makes more sense than the whole punishment reward scheme. These paladins would be labelled as anathema by the established church authorities and conflict would inevitably break out.In world without cosmic evil there would be no cosmic good. But all too often conflict do come from the good versus evil part of alignments. There was one adventure from WotC, at least, that didn't have clear "bad guys". I don't remember the name anymore, though.When the LG paladins have already killed them, and the CG paladins are disposing of corpses, naturally.Wee Jas is LN. Nerull is NE. Why CG paladins would want anything to do with corpses? |
| Masterful_Norg06-27-05, 12:34 PM | In Finnish I see. Well I'm having a bit of trouble finding it, but I'm not too concerned. I would just be interested to read the article. In world without cosmic evil there would be no cosmic good. Unless you define good as what arrises from fighting against evil, or as the subjective descrimination between circumstance based on material values by each individual then that statement may not necessarily be true. There is a belief in duality and polarities which asserts that in order for one thing to exist it must possess an equal opposite, but for every dog I come across on the street I've never seen even one anti dog. There's a problem with this of course, the polarities are likely to be on the smallest possible scales and dilluted with each other, rather than macroscopically segregated. One could say that the anti dog is living in another world, but unless that anti dog makes forays into this one in order to be in conflict with its possitive counterpart then we have no foundation for saying that the two some how make each other exist. If we go down to the smallest scales in our continued search for polarity we must eventually arrive at a single particle. As I've said before that particle is most probably the photon, but in photons there is no polarity (unless you're talking about polarizers in sun glasses, which exclude certain lightwaves based on which way the wave is angled toward it). In fact, when we take a peice of matter and anti-matter such as electrons and positrons respectively, as soon as they touch they vanish in a flash of light. While it seems that there may be polarization between antimatter and matter it should be noted that antimatter is highly unstable and in much less abundance in the universe, but most importantly anti-matter is still matter in that it interacts with the forces of gravity and has mass as opposed to anti-mass. As I've made clear before empty space cannot be identified as the polar opposite of light either because it is, in reality, very full of energy as demonstrated theoretically and experimentally. If we continue to search we may arrive on something called negative energy. Negative energy is a phenomenon characterised by the local energy density being less than 0, but this is not as a result of some form of anti energy, but a property of space called tension who's alteration produces the phenomenon. Having exhausted all avenues in the search for the absolute opposite perhaps we must abondon the notion that all things are like coins in a figurative sense, in the respect that they all must possess two opposite faces. But we could also go further and construct in our minds what exactly a universe with complete polarity would look like thus illustrating that the belief in polarity is simply as a matter of personal faith founded on the basis of deep seated pessimism. In this universe most of what we thought was matter turned out to actually be space, but if matter were the opposite of space then both would have to be in equal preportions which they are not. Besides, space does not have some form of antimass so it cannot be the opposite of matter. However, this raises the question of where all the anti-space went. If the antimatter and matter were in equal preportions then what kind of D&D universe would we have? The answer seems to be "one composed entirely of photons". Though I know I've said before the only particle we can say exists is the photon, this hypothetical world would exclude those photons which behave in clusters that we typically think of as protons and electrons. Now if we assume that a world with cosmic evil and cosmic good were to act the same way as a world with equal preportions of antimatter and normal matter, then we arrive at a world with neither cosmic good or evil, which strengthens the appeal that the two don't rely on one another to exist, but in fact cannot both exist. If cosmic evil is all that exists then the world would not exist because evil's ultimate intention is destruction. There can be no embodiments of evil because then such an embodiment would have to exist. This means that the only cosmic allignment that could exist is good which ultimately intends to create. |
| Thanatos0206-27-05, 01:37 PM | Wee Jas is LN. Nerull is NE. Why CG paladins would want anything to do with corpses? It's not god-affiliated. |
| Gilean06-28-05, 04:19 AM | It's not god-affiliated.Not in GH, probably not in Faerun. Specific to setting, really. One can take the stance of gods emulating things beyond and above them, or have the gods actually be the things they embody. The god of death actually being death. In a compilation about creating religions to (rpg) worlds, it was strongly advised against having gods of something. The better way is to have gods who do something. The point is not to have a god of war with favored weapon of greatsword. The point is to have a god who fought and has slain thousands of enemies with the magnificent greatsword [enter sword name here] without breaking a sweat. Masterful_Norg The point of fantasy is that everything doesn't function as it does in our world. In my homebrew (world and rpg) the forces of creation and life are totally different. There is a force of creation. There is a force of destruction. There is a force of preservation. There is a force of not being (this is kind of hard to understand, even for me. But there is.). There also is a state of being and a state of void. It is questionable is existing and not existing, as opposed to anti-existing, can be called polar opposites. I'd say they can. In D&D, neither good nor evil can meaningfully exist without life. Law and chaos can. Evil needs a viable theory. There is a thread in Regdar's called nature of evil, or something like that. Join it to debate what the philosophy can be. To sum it up, evil supports the strong and good the weak. Having only Good would result in some sort of equalness, and, ultimately, boring world. Having only Evil would result in interesting world, but kind of grim. Kill or be killed. If you ever encounter anyone stronger than yourself, you are as good as dead. So both or neither. As to the structure of everything: this heavily depends on world. Most don't bother to explain it. My worlds certainly don't function by the rules/habits science has observed, at least more than roughly. The causes are exceedingly different. Modern science can't really be used as premise when not talking of modern world, right? |
| Thanatos0206-28-05, 09:56 AM | Not in GH, probably not in Faerun. Specific to setting, really. One can take the stance of gods emulating things beyond and above them, or have the gods actually be the things they embody. The god of death actually being death. In a compilation about creating religions to (rpg) worlds, it was strongly advised against having gods of something. The better way is to have gods who do something. The point is not to have a god of war with favored weapon of greatsword. The point is to have a god who fought and has slain thousands of enemies with the magnificent greatsword [enter sword name here] without breaking a sweat. Hm. It was a joke. |
| Gilean06-28-05, 10:38 AM | Hm. It was a joke.And a good place to enter a random deity-related rant. |
| Thanatos0206-28-05, 01:14 PM | We might want to start a whole new thread about that... |
| Masterful_Norg06-28-05, 02:39 PM | In my homebrew Everything that follows this statements enters the realm of absolute subjectivity and thus goes beyond the boundaries of this or any other debate. I'll revisit that thread you talked about. |
| the_one_true_shea06-30-05, 06:55 PM | Me, I'd rather have a blue butt <shrug> NE - "Malefactor" - normal - usually manipulating others for their own gain, but a NE Paladin - I dont think you can be a "dedicated" busybody. Well its a matter of wanting things, and having some odd semi-stable scruples. Hardly anything to Paladin about. Nuetral Evil doesnt strike me as the one to strive for balance so much as to try to not overdo things 'cause they are prone to destabalize situations. They are the most greedy alignment combo I can think of. CE is more Sadistic, LE more demanding of a balance; An LE exacts calculated vengance from the dark and the light. NN - :rolleyes: excuse me :rolleyes: TN - Almost more like a tree than a person. Action through inaction springs to mind, but I would call that .. monk not paladin.. I guess .. maybe not. I think of a TN as a character that is reactive, not proactive. I can consider a race having the "alignment" of True Nuetral - But I would still consider the "dedication to balance" a property of those within the culture that are lawful. The fact that the tendancy of the race is TN means that the "mild" lawful opinions would tend toward the justification of action (rebalancing) and the "rare" CG paladin would consider himself "beyond balance" he does what is right irregardless. Irregardless - "with dire regard" (at least how Ive been using it, but I may be wrong. Irregardless) because in this case the chaotic paladin of a TN trending society would be idealist of some sort dedicated to .. multiple .. positions, possible switching them often in opposition to the lawful (true nuetral) that is studiously unwilling to declare one opinion superior to another. Hmmmm.... READ THIS! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=425097) and ponder the Paladins of Greed, The Paladins of Light, Dark, Giving, and ... question the existance of a Paladin in the shade. I know Gilean read it.. he even commented and PMed. Good man, giving .. in finland :D wait what was I gonna talk about? Oh yeah, red nosed monkeys! Let me tell ya something - I can tell ya more functional nonesense about evolution than you just rambled off about reincarnation. I didnt bother to go by the link - I''ve read enough on the subject to be familiar with the two primary phases of evolution - dispersion and selection. Evolution not only "can" move in spurts.. it "always" moves in spurts. You have a period of diversification of the genepool, then (after the environmental factors CHANGE) there is a selection period (a short selection period) where the varients of the primary bloodline (not a technical term) that are more viable in the new environment remain and prosper while the varients that are not suited to the new environment reprioduce at a lessened overall rate. Genetic Evolution "The rate of change of genes in a gene-pool" NOT "Survival of the fittest" more like "Death of the unfit" or "The measurable increase of a gene controlled trait and the correlations with environmental and social (aka breeding) variables" |