Just a thought

That does sound like the way someone would actually do it, Acer.

As for beating the rotting corpse of Justice, I'd like to remind everyone that it is the criminal, not the judge who is responsible for the consequences of his actions.

That does sound like the way someone would actually do it, Acer.

As for beating the rotting corpse of Justice, I'd like to remind everyone that it is the criminal, not the judge who is responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Well. That is one way of looking at it. But all in all, it is a good killing a good still, regardless of who brought it on. Because in this case, the executioner is still good aswell. I don't know. I guess this is just one of those things we'll have to chaulk up as an "Aabarhan Paradox" that happens along with Balinor PKing somebody, Elites RPing, Dale bragging, and Healers having tea with Martinus (did I spell that name right?).

a-g

If they had executed robin hood, would it have been his fault? It doesn't matter...it isn't who BROUGHT IT ON that matters, in fact...that is entirely irrelevent to the point of the argument.

If we have before us two GOOD men, of the same path, as well cannot assume they are diffferent paths, because then they would not both be members of the path of goodness, and would not be bound by the same rules of conduct such as not harming each other.

If we have these two men, even if they don't see eye to eye on something, wouldn't they be able to work it out?

Wouldn't two men who were both GOOD MEN of the SAME PATH be able to come to an agreement? And even if they couldn't, would two GOOD MEN of the SAME PATH attack and cause the death of the other one?

No, becaue they aren't a part of the SAME PATH. By allowing goodies in Justice, you split the path of GOODNESS into two parts which were at war with each other, and in my opinnion, should never have been split. If they are split and seperate paths, they should be allowed to kill each other.

If I am attacked and a lawful is attempting to take me in for punishment for an act I don't see as wrong...if they are participating in a system which I believe is corrupt, I don't see them as a good man. They are not the same path as me, and I have no trouble cutting their worthless head from their body. I am not going to dance and pretend I think this person agrees with me, or that I believe he is a good man. He is forfeit in my eyes to the path of good. A blasphemer, a traitor and a spy, and he should die.

For those of you who knew my RoyaL healer Elvondril...you know I carried this view alot, by aiding and abetting known criminals and outlaws who were lightwalkers. By hiding them and misleading the Justices, sendin the far from where their target was. And, at time, calling the Justices liars until wanted tags were removed...It was the best RP I have ever had...

Good Chaotic and Good Lawful, they both follow the path of goodness, so what is the difference? A Chaotic will do anything he can whenever and wherever he can do follow his path, a Lawful will do anything he can to follow his path AND he is also bound by his lawful nature to not fight in the cities.

So as much as a good lawful would want to talk a good chaotic down and be friends, as long as said chaotic does not respect the law he will put him in jail. That is not at all the same as attacking and killing him. Even if the chaotic good gets sentenced to execution, it is still not the same as one good killing another. Why? Because the chaotic knows the laws and did what he did anyway, it was more like a calculated risk suicide. As long as one good does not hunt down and ruthlessly kill another good they can maintain proper rp by capturing and sentencing.

This was LONG ago decided: good Tribunals are perfectly able to and should hunt down good criminals. Good criminals should NOT kill good Tribunals. This is why I wish all good characters had the mercy command.

All aligns have 3 paths. They are not the same path.

To say Lawful Good and Chaotic Good are the same thing is just ridiculous.

Both do what they believe to be in the best interest of society, but they do it completely different ways. The LG uses the law and order and government. The CG uses mayhem, disruption of order. They both believe they are improving society. An LG Tribunal can easily, readily, and willingly participate in the capture and execution of a Good criminal as it is in the best interests of society to remove the criminal's influence and the pain he causes.

All aligns have 3 paths. They are not the same path.

To say Lawful Good and Chaotic Good are the same thing is just ridiculous.

Both do what they believe to be in the best interest of society, but they do it completely different ways. The LG uses the law and order and government. The CG uses mayhem, disruption of order. They both believe they are improving society. An LG Tribunal can easily, readily, and willingly participate in the capture and execution of a Good criminal as it is in the best interests of society to remove the criminal's influence and the pain he causes.

Agreed. But the problem is that a CG good causing the death of a LG gives the CG damnation and possible outcasting. A LG Tribunal capping for execution doesn't get damnation or outcast.

Would Robin Hood have had it coming if he were caught and executed? YES! That's the thing about responsibility, it cuts both ways. He would have had it coming because he saw what was going on and he did something about it, albeit outside the bounds of the law. That made him responsible for whatever came of it.

If Elvondril felt and acted that way, that's fine, perfectly legitimate, in fact. For the record, my character, Arand, wasn't fond of the idea of justice either. He was however, willing to play ball with them because of the stuff in the last paragraph. Of course, he was also willing to try negociating with Watcher, so he might have been just a tad idealistic.

If I am attacked and a lawful is attempting to take me in for punishment for an act I don't see as wrong...if they are participating in a system which I believe is corrupt' date=' I don't see them as a good man. They are not the same path as me, and I have no trouble cutting their worthless head from their body. I am not going to dance and pretend I think this person agrees with me, or that I believe he is a good man. He is forfeit in my eyes to the path of good. A blasphemer, a traitor and a spy, and he should die.[/quote']

Then why is it so difficult to realize that the LG Justice would see it the exact same way? You know why fighting in town is illegal, right? Did you ever see Superman, the animated series? On every episode with a villian that could fight, the property damage must have been enormous, potential civilian casualties were huge. Do you really thing that the Metropolis police department would have allowed Superman and Metallo fight in the middle of the city if they could have stopped them? In this situation the CG/NG is Superman, their victim is Metallo, and the Justice is the fellow demigod whose job it is to protect the city and its residents.

here's my problem with good Justices:

A Neutral Good is Good first.

A Chaotic Good is Good first.

A Good Justice is Lawful first.

here's my problem with good Justices:

A Neutral Good is Good first.

A Chaotic Good is Good first.

A Good Justice is Lawful first.

Well put.

I'd like to remind everyone that it is the criminal' date=' not the judge who is responsible for the consequences of his actions.[/quote']

I'd like to remind everyone that it is also a choice to follow the law... or is it that I wanted to remind them that it is the choice of the evil character to be evil that causes it all... or is it that it is all Virigoth's fault for making the game?

Justice, and anything that acts just like it, is overpowered... always has been and, if nothing gets changed, always will be.

I'd prefer to be sentenced to death by a goodie as a goodie rather than him sentencing me to life. Because I don't want to sit here for the life of my character.

Problem is, in the real world here isn't a simple good and evil, there many paths of good and evil which follow different dogmas, an are often at war with each other.

If it not blasphemous for an LG to hunt down, knowing that in the end he will cause the death of a CG, then why is it blasphemous for a CG to defend himself and end up killing that LG.

Myrek, that was beautifully put.

And Wolfeman, I CAN see it that way, but I just find it very very strange that chaotic good can't defend himself and killl a lawful good who is ATTACKING him because he...supposedly... is of the same path as him.

I think it should be coded that if one lightwalker attacks another, and the attacker died, there is no damnation or outcast.

And I clearly said it didn't matter if Robin Hood was responsible, he would have killed many, many a lawful man whom may have believed what they were doing was right in the process of escaping or doin what he thought was right.

This is a game mechanics issue more than an RP alignment issue.

Many times, I have snooped Tribunals attempting to be lenient to criminals. Problem is that the code requires something different. In some cases, Tribunals have no choice in the punishment doled out, like the infamous Seagull Execution in Miruvhor.

And I would disagree with you Myrek. Lawful goods are being good first. Their avenue for accomplishing "good" deeds is the law. By delivering criminals of any align for judgment, they are indeed throwing them on the "mercy" of the law because they believe the law to be good. If the law says they must die, it is for the benefit of all.

Now, I'm of similar opinion to several of you regarding aggressors dying and the person defending themselves getting the damnation when they never intended to kill anyone until attacked. That said, however, you can't claim "self defense" against a police officer who uses justified force to arrest you with probable cause to do so and neither can you claim self defense against a Tribunal when you are wanted or an outlaw.

And I would disagree with you Myrek. Lawful goods are being good first. Their avenue for accomplishing "good" deeds is the law. By delivering criminals of any align for judgment, they are indeed throwing them on the "mercy" of the law because they believe the law to be good. **If the law says they must die, it is for the benefit of all. **

That is putting the law over align...which is exactly what he said.

That said, however, you can't claim "self defense" against a police officer who uses justified force to arrest you with probable cause to do so and neither can you claim self defense against a Tribunal when you are wanted or an outlaw.

Course you can't....to the police officers, but you could in the eyes of a deity or supreme being. Course the tribunal would keep hunting you...but it doesn't mean you should be "damned" by the gods.

Well put chayesh. I think it makes perfect sense that if a criminal is running and the police chases if the criminal ends up killing the cop and getting away it is only temporary because he will be in even more trouble than before. This ties in to what all goods have in common, the fact that they want betterment of society, so they go about it their own wasy, but a good knight who wants to slay evil should respect a good tribunal who wants to keep the fighting out of town, it is the goods own rp that will get him wanted and he/she should be fully prepared for the consequences.

I also think if you are a GC and your rp involves disregarding the laws then fine, you should be entitled to it, and I think that any good who is an outlaw should not have a penalty for killing a good tribunal simply because their rp decisions have led them down that path and they will probably have a hard enough time as it is without getting damned each time.

RE: Warpnow

It is NOT putting law over align. It is roleplaying PROPERLY a lawful good.

I wish you'd make up your mind whether there is one path or three, Warp, because you've said both in your posts.

I'd just like to remind everyone that there are THREE paths to each align. The RP is NOT the same.

Heh...I guess the affect of my earlier post was lost, I seperated them and made an illogical argument to make the point that there were THREE seperate paths which weren't the same.

The Point I was trying to make is that these three seperate paths shouldn't necessarily be bound together by a limitation, when they are so obviously at war with each other.

It is NOT putting law over align. It is roleplaying PROPERLY a lawful good.

Whether or not it is putting law over align is something only logic decides.

Whether it is roleplaying properly a lawful good is something you, and the rest of immortals decide.

I am only providing arguments against the first one, and whether or not the second one should be the way it is.

I am pretty sure in real life most police officers place the law over their own personal feelings.

But then again, in real life, revolutionaries who think they are doing good also do not hesitate about setting themselves against those officers.

I originally said I didn't think goods should be in Justice, I will rephrase that to say.

A system of the game should never prevent someone from defending themselves, so a good should only be allowed inside of Justice if it is realized that there are three SEPERATE paths and that a chaotic will want to, and suceed, at killing a lawful, even if they are both good.

I would also consider it nice to have an "autosurrender" where when off, you can't be put in jail, only killed...because you fight until you're very last breath.

Edit: It would balane the level of Gimpnss that has existed on Chaotic Goods since forever.

Or not even allow goods to be lawful.

You could definitely say a good man would have a limit at which he would no longer follow corrupt rules, an absolute lawful does not.

What if he doesn't think the rules are corrupt?