WarriorCleric Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Here is another way to look at it. It seems it is alright, under the current system, for goods to fight goods. As a good, I can fight and mercy another good, and leave him there. If an evil comes in and kills him after I have left, I do not get in trouble for it. The Good trib is enforcing the law, but he is not doing it malicously, he is doing it blind. All memebers of tribunal are enforcing the law blind, they don't care who you are. But what makes them good, evil or neutral is their reasons for being justice. The evil justice is there to empower himself, the good is there to protect the people. We could argue a good in justice is more good than any other good, why? Because the good in justice is looking past the singular person, rising above the level that the evil person has put himself at. The good justice see's a drow thief, and knows he is evil, but believes that he, even though a drow, is entiled to the protection that justice offers all beings. The good justice is willing to offer that evil what the good justice expects all others to be offered, and that is a higher moral ground. But more so, he is willing to sacrifice himself in the eyes of the rest of the good community who will not give that drow a chance. Good justice base what is right and wrong(good and evil) on actions. Good Purity base it on something else. Who is right? WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Child Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 And people say video games do not encourage deep thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 You are making a circular logic. It only makes sense if you believe in the ethos over align for lawful goods. As a follower of purity I would not see a 'good' tribunal protecting ie a demon as beeing anything else than pure evil. I mean - cant he see what he is protecting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 I don't see anything circular about this argument. Good justice base what is right and wrong(good and evil) on actions. Good Purity base it on something else. Who is right? I've said nothing about ethos being placed over align or the other way. Being good is still at the very heart of a good justices actions. He is just seeing it a different way. It's alright for a purity good to see the good justice having to protect evil and damning him a heretic for it? Isn't placing chaotic ethos in the same place justice goods place lawfulness? WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 WC: you are still not giving the answer to ethos over align only for lawful goods. You don't like the answer anyone has given. You aren't willing to give any ground. That is noone elses fault. Behren's, they guy who runs this place, has said this is the way things are. This is the way things are, you can not like it and bitch about it, or you can just say '**** it.' Find a reason that fits best for you, and roll with it. Because things are not going to change, staff said so. I don't like it, but I am not going to sit around yelling at a wall. WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 You are making a circular logic. It only makes sense if you believe in the ethos over align for lawful goods. As a follower of purity I would not see a 'good' tribunal protecting ie a demon as beeing anything else than pure evil. I mean - cant he see what he is protecting? He's not protecting the demon. Outside the city, that same good Tribunal would likely kill that demon without a moment's hesitation. But this good Tribunal feels that to create real safety for all, to protect against the great slaughters evil has done in the past (The Bloodletting, for instance), the cities must be made into havens for all. Violence MUST be removed from the cities, so those less fortunate and in need of protection have it. You, as a chaotic good, feel that the demon must be destroyed wherever he is. You know the laws of the city. You know before you make a single move that if you attack the demon in the city, the Tribunals will come after you for disrupting the peace. Note: you ARE a good and you ARE disrupting PEACE. You are forcing them to move against you by deciding that killing the demon right now when it's not hurting anyone is more important than keeping the cities free of violence. To the good Tribunal, in an ideal world, he'd never have to catch anybody. They'd all obey the laws, and the cities would be havens of peace. He's not coming after you because he wants to, he's not capturing you out of selfish desire, he's capturing you because he believes that it is for the greater good and because the law has to be impartial. It'd be manifestly unfair for goods to get away with killing evils in town, but not the opposite. All must pay the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 But youre expecting chaotic goods to accept the laws of the tribunals. Who says they do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarriorCleric Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 No one has said they have to accept the laws, just the consquences for there actions. WC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpnow Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 WC. Everything you say, have said...and probably will say in this thread makes 100% sense...as the RP of a lawful good. However, as a game mechanic and OOC, we have to look at it objectively. Doesn't both path need to be balanced? Should one path have ALL these advantages? Do we want to people to even TRY to play Chaotic goods? To answer the original topic, a lightwalker to sacrifices another lightwalker by having him rescued with the intent of having that lightwalker die should be outcast. Make being wanted like a challenge for BOTH parties. If the criminal wins, the Trib is stunned, and make there be a large number of penalties for that stun IF the criminal chooses not to kill the Trib. Like...if you are a trib stunned by a criminal, -100 hp, +10 spell, -10hr/-10dr, hitgain -30 for 100 hours. And, BTW, why don't tribunals have to accept the consequence of blindly following a law? One could EVEN argue that it isn't the path of a lightwalker to blindly following ANYTHING but the light. What if this law, as you put it, "blindly" guides them to evil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Exactly. I think it has something to do with protecting lawful goods cause they have been having a rough time generally since I started in late 1.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 This matter has already been discussed to death. More importantly, it's settled. Thank you for explaining again, WC, although it didn't seem to help much. There's just a few that refuse to accept the answer. It's been given by more than one IMP. Finis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 This issue is deader than dead. Leave it be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.