No problem... Believe it or not I was Lawful Good..Originally posted by geh4th:
I took the alignment test. I am Neutral Good, which is what I expected, to be honest.
Thanks for the link.
------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
Can't Get Them EVIL Thieves!
------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
Bravo Phil. And what does *all* that add up to? Typical of a roller-coster ride, the wild mood swings seems to suggest Chaotic Neutral to me overall.
"Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his pants for his friends."
Enchantress is my Goddess.
Few survive in the Heart of Fury...
Gamebanshee: [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/"]Make your gaming scream![/url]
Enchantress is my Goddess.
Few survive in the Heart of Fury...
Gamebanshee: [url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/"]Make your gaming scream![/url]
Weasel, is that "Pre-fall" or "post-fall"?
Whew....I had my say earlier in the topic, but it seems to be TOO juicy for people to pass up....I'm just gonna sit back and watch the show now.
------------------
"If you prefer, you could say EXPERT treasure hunter!"
--Gandalf the Grey, the Hobbit
Whew....I had my say earlier in the topic, but it seems to be TOO juicy for people to pass up....I'm just gonna sit back and watch the show now.
------------------
"If you prefer, you could say EXPERT treasure hunter!"
--Gandalf the Grey, the Hobbit
"If you prefer, you could say EXPERT treasure hunter!"
--Gandalf the Grey, the Hobbit
--Gandalf the Grey, the Hobbit
Phil,
In response to your comments on murder:
It's not right to say that anyone who commits lawful murder is evil, which is the argument you're making for saying some of the acts of my character are evil.
Cases to muddle the waters:
A father enters his home to catch a man finishing the act of raping and killing his daughter. He lops the man's head off with the machette he was using in the sugar cane fields. Is this murder, or justice?
A little boy walks into a room and sticks a knife in the eyeball of the guy who just sold his big sister the drugs she OD'd on. Is the little boy committing murder?
A man waits for the doctor who aborted his daughters life to enter the abortion clinic then pushes the button which sets off the bomb in the building. Is the man committing murder?
A woman manages to stab the Nazi guard raping her and in subsequent efforts of her successful escape attempt she kills three more Nazi guards - two of them by sneaking up on them. (Betcha German law at the time would consider all that murder) The rest of her days she hunts down Nazi's in hiding and kills them. Does she commit murder, or enact justice?
These are the kind of questions and situations that juries divide over and societies debate during their entire existence. Please don't try and tell me that "lawful murder" is always evil. I bet that a lot of folks would agree with my own definition of murder.
And don't try to tell me that any of those fictional folks above were neutral.
All your posts prove to me are that my methods and actions are chaotic - and that my motives are good. Which in my mind means I'm chaotic good. I'm not neutral when it comes to morality, I believe in chasing after bad guys, even if it costs me my life or my fortune - that is not Neutral.
I think I've come up with an analogy for how I look at this issue.
Just drop the civilian mentality and shift gears into war mode and you understand my character. The setting of DnD is loose enough to simulate guerilla warfare. My character is a soldier on the side of good, striving to destroy evil - he does not kill evil just to take its gold but to save the lives of those who might fall prey to it. He is not a mercenary, he combats evil even if there is no promise of reward. Since he circumvents established law (the cursory law enforcement that exists would arrest him for killing bad guys without what they consider proof) and uses different methods to establish his goals he is chaotic. That's my reasoning. I believe the alignment term is broad enough to accept that.
------------------
And my time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on the splinters.
In response to your comments on murder:
It's not right to say that anyone who commits lawful murder is evil, which is the argument you're making for saying some of the acts of my character are evil.
Cases to muddle the waters:
A father enters his home to catch a man finishing the act of raping and killing his daughter. He lops the man's head off with the machette he was using in the sugar cane fields. Is this murder, or justice?
A little boy walks into a room and sticks a knife in the eyeball of the guy who just sold his big sister the drugs she OD'd on. Is the little boy committing murder?
A man waits for the doctor who aborted his daughters life to enter the abortion clinic then pushes the button which sets off the bomb in the building. Is the man committing murder?
A woman manages to stab the Nazi guard raping her and in subsequent efforts of her successful escape attempt she kills three more Nazi guards - two of them by sneaking up on them. (Betcha German law at the time would consider all that murder) The rest of her days she hunts down Nazi's in hiding and kills them. Does she commit murder, or enact justice?
These are the kind of questions and situations that juries divide over and societies debate during their entire existence. Please don't try and tell me that "lawful murder" is always evil. I bet that a lot of folks would agree with my own definition of murder.
And don't try to tell me that any of those fictional folks above were neutral.
All your posts prove to me are that my methods and actions are chaotic - and that my motives are good. Which in my mind means I'm chaotic good. I'm not neutral when it comes to morality, I believe in chasing after bad guys, even if it costs me my life or my fortune - that is not Neutral.
I think I've come up with an analogy for how I look at this issue.
Just drop the civilian mentality and shift gears into war mode and you understand my character. The setting of DnD is loose enough to simulate guerilla warfare. My character is a soldier on the side of good, striving to destroy evil - he does not kill evil just to take its gold but to save the lives of those who might fall prey to it. He is not a mercenary, he combats evil even if there is no promise of reward. Since he circumvents established law (the cursory law enforcement that exists would arrest him for killing bad guys without what they consider proof) and uses different methods to establish his goals he is chaotic. That's my reasoning. I believe the alignment term is broad enough to accept that.
------------------
And my time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on the splinters.
And my time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on the splinters.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chenjzen:
Phil,
In response to your comments on murder:
It's not right to say that anyone who commits lawful murder is evil, which is the argument you're making for saying some of the acts of my character are evil.
Cases to muddle the waters:
A father enters his home to catch a man finishing the act of raping and killing his daughter. He lops the man's head off with the machette he was using in the sugar cane fields. Is this murder, or justice?
That would be consider selfdefence..the man was in his house and seen committing the act.
A little boy walks into a room and sticks a knife in the eyeball of the guy who just sold his big sister the drugs she OD'd on. Is the little boy committing murder?
Yes that would be attempted murder.
A man waits for the doctor who aborted his daughters life to enter the abortion clinic then pushes the button which sets off the bomb in the building. Is the man committing murder?
This would be murder and trying to put his beliefs on other people.
A woman manages to stab the Nazi guard raping her and in subsequent efforts of her successful escape attempt she kills three more Nazi guards - two of them by sneaking up on them. (Betcha German law at the time would consider all that murder) The rest of her days she hunts down Nazi's in hiding and kills them. Does she commit murder, or enact justice?
Selfdefence again....but can you judge the action of one and blame the whole.
These are the kind of questions and situations that juries divide over and societies debate during their entire existence. Please don't try and tell me that "lawful murder" is always evil.
I sorry to say but murder for the sake of wiping out a whole group that you believe to be evil....just makes you evil.
I bet that a lot of folks would agree with my own definition of murder.
More than one bad apple falls from an apple tree.
------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
[This message has been edited by Weasel (edited 02-03-2001).]
Phil,
In response to your comments on murder:
It's not right to say that anyone who commits lawful murder is evil, which is the argument you're making for saying some of the acts of my character are evil.
Cases to muddle the waters:
A father enters his home to catch a man finishing the act of raping and killing his daughter. He lops the man's head off with the machette he was using in the sugar cane fields. Is this murder, or justice?
That would be consider selfdefence..the man was in his house and seen committing the act.
A little boy walks into a room and sticks a knife in the eyeball of the guy who just sold his big sister the drugs she OD'd on. Is the little boy committing murder?
Yes that would be attempted murder.
A man waits for the doctor who aborted his daughters life to enter the abortion clinic then pushes the button which sets off the bomb in the building. Is the man committing murder?
This would be murder and trying to put his beliefs on other people.
A woman manages to stab the Nazi guard raping her and in subsequent efforts of her successful escape attempt she kills three more Nazi guards - two of them by sneaking up on them. (Betcha German law at the time would consider all that murder) The rest of her days she hunts down Nazi's in hiding and kills them. Does she commit murder, or enact justice?
Selfdefence again....but can you judge the action of one and blame the whole.
These are the kind of questions and situations that juries divide over and societies debate during their entire existence. Please don't try and tell me that "lawful murder" is always evil.
I sorry to say but murder for the sake of wiping out a whole group that you believe to be evil....just makes you evil.
I bet that a lot of folks would agree with my own definition of murder.
More than one bad apple falls from an apple tree.
------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
[This message has been edited by Weasel (edited 02-03-2001).]
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
"I sorry to say but murder for the sake of wiping out a whole group that you believe to be evil....just makes you evil."
No, Weasel, whole groups fight each other all the time, often because they think one or the other is evil. They call it WAR.
------------------
And my time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on the splinters.
No, Weasel, whole groups fight each other all the time, often because they think one or the other is evil. They call it WAR.
------------------
And my time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on the splinters.
And my time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on the splinters.
So it is ok to kill other people and call it WAR...Originally posted by Chenjzen:
"I sorry to say but murder for the sake of wiping out a whole group that you believe to be evil....just makes you evil."
No, Weasel, whole groups fight each other all the time, often because they think one or the other is evil. They call it WAR.
Well using your example I could go in to a store and kill everyone and when I go to court use as my defence that I was at WAR with them...
------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
@Chenjzen, I can respect your opinion. You have given some viable reasons for it, though I do not agree with it.
You walk a very fine line. While your char. seems to be true to it's alignment (C.G.) (Per the manual "Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society.")
You can't take this situation and integrate it into this society, it doesn't fit. There are too many laws which strive to eliminate the "chaotic" element of an alignment and just have the "good" and "evil" elements.
In terms of the game, while your char. plays true (or close enough to it) to his/her alignment, society and the law may not see it that way. If you killed 3-4 thieves, for example, and left their bodies on the street to set an example for others, the people would get scared. They don't know that those that were killed were thieves. The guard would be called in to investigate, and if you're caught, you would have to prove that the dead ones were "evil" thieves (based on Nalia's quest). Since, odds are you can't, you would be arrested. If you fight the guards, you lose rep. points, lose too many and your alignment changes. While you may see it as "doing good" the people don't. An since the gov't exists for the people (not for the person), you pay for it. If you look at another part of the game, you are almost arrested for the guards thinking that you are playing a part in the "guild war". Hey, if both sides are evil, let them kill each other. Unfortunately, the law doesn't see it that way.
------------------
Beware of that which sees without eyes, most fear what you most despise.
You walk a very fine line. While your char. seems to be true to it's alignment (C.G.) (Per the manual "Their actions are guided by their own moral compass which, although good, may not always be in perfect agreement with the rest of society.")
You can't take this situation and integrate it into this society, it doesn't fit. There are too many laws which strive to eliminate the "chaotic" element of an alignment and just have the "good" and "evil" elements.
In terms of the game, while your char. plays true (or close enough to it) to his/her alignment, society and the law may not see it that way. If you killed 3-4 thieves, for example, and left their bodies on the street to set an example for others, the people would get scared. They don't know that those that were killed were thieves. The guard would be called in to investigate, and if you're caught, you would have to prove that the dead ones were "evil" thieves (based on Nalia's quest). Since, odds are you can't, you would be arrested. If you fight the guards, you lose rep. points, lose too many and your alignment changes. While you may see it as "doing good" the people don't. An since the gov't exists for the people (not for the person), you pay for it. If you look at another part of the game, you are almost arrested for the guards thinking that you are playing a part in the "guild war". Hey, if both sides are evil, let them kill each other. Unfortunately, the law doesn't see it that way.
------------------
Beware of that which sees without eyes, most fear what you most despise.
"God does not play dice."
-Albert Einstein.
-Albert Einstein.
Well, Weasel, I'm sure I've made it clear things also depend on circumstance. If, for example, the store you went and killed everyone in had a torture chamber in the back room and everyone in the store worked together to keep it active then I'd say yeah it's okay to declare war on them and kill them - in the DnD universe. Not real life.
And my time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on the splinters.
Yes in this example wipe them out or got to war on them...my point was not to judge one person or group just because you consider them evil only.Originally posted by Chenjzen:
Well, Weasel, I'm sure I've made it clear things also depend on circumstance. If, for example, the store you went and killed everyone in had a torture chamber in the back room and everyone in the store worked together to keep it active then I'd say yeah it's okay to declare war on them and kill them - in the DnD universe. Not real life.
IMHO..there is no proof that all of the thiefs are active in keeping the torture chamber going in Athkatla. And the way the game is set up to attack one in the guild all become hostile which ends up getting the one's who might not been involved killed.
------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
As a DM, I always try to make my "DnD universe" as real as possible. While I allow a wide range of alignments (some noteable exceptions for party stability of course), there are always going to be benefits and consequences to a player's actions. In the shadow thief example, maybe you judge the shadow thieves to be evil, but have they done anything to truely justify murdering them (and yes it would be considered murder).Originally posted by Chenjzen:
Well, Weasel, I'm sure I've made it clear things also depend on circumstance. If, for example, the store you went and killed everyone in had a torture chamber in the back room and everyone in the store worked together to keep it active then I'd say yeah it's okay to declare war on them and kill them - in the DnD universe. Not real life.
Since you're creating examples, try this one: Assume this den of thieves has an Oliver Twist situation. You have Aran's lieutenant Bloodscalp pressuring these orphans to go out and pickpocket people in order to eat. In your justification, you are assuming it would be justified to murder these children, because they are pickpockets.
Example 2: Suppose a man steals food in order to feed his family. Does it justify murdering him? He's a thief. He might even be Neutral Evil (gotta feed that whiney little brat so he can get some sleep).
Example 3: Does it stop at thieves? Are you now justified in running around the city murdering people that you consider "evil". Do you go and kill a haughty, self-absorbed little rich kid, because he's arrogant and spoiled?
In my gaming world I believe all actions have consequences (good and bad). I once had a player who was trying to buy a horse (he was playing a CG fighter). The merchant who was selling the horse was a price gauger (without getting into too much detail, there was a recent war, so he was mooching as much money as possible from the characters). Somebody in the group (don't remember who) had Detect Evil going, so they knew he was of evil alignment. This character was mad that the merchant would not meet his price, so he killed him. Then, when the merchant's son caming running out to help his father, he killed him too.
One fundamental rule I have in my group is PC's do not attack other PC's unless under the most dire consequences (i.e. with my approval). I asked this player 3 times if this is indeed what he does, or if he is just messing around OOC. He indeed killed these NPC's, so I opened up the floor for consequences. Unfortunately this character was travelling with a LG monk and a paladin. I give kudos to the monk and paladin, because they didn't immediately try to attack him. They wanted to take him to the guards and have a formal trial. Well, the fighter attacked these 2 and they were forced to kill him (wasn't a big loss, because this player was later thrown out of the group for cheating).
Point is, no matter how you try to justify it, murder is murder. There are plenty of other ways to play a chaotic good character.
Weasel said, "IMHO..there is no proof that all of the thiefs are active in keeping the torture chamber going in Athkatla. And the way the game is set up to attack one in the guild all become hostile which ends up getting the one's who might not been involved killed."
I can definitely say that the burden of proof for my guy is not what you might consider proof. After talking with everyone in the building, I'm sure they ALL knew what Aran was doing.
Krom: I don't think I said I went around killing everyone who showed up as "evil". Remember I let the Drow into my party, definitely an evil character. Look over the whole conversation carefully before throwing out these questions I've already answered.
Please stop making statements about how murder is murder - reason your way into it - take time to knock down the arguments I've made that what I'm doing is not murder. Don't just say you disagree - tell me why. Otherwise this turns into a "is too - is not - is too - is not" third grade conversation.
I don't think anything I've said I would do is equivalent to killing someone because I didn't like their prices. Not a very good example.
Then we come to consequences. I Definitely believe in consequences and that's what upset Drakron. You see, I believe in having characters make decisions that can effect the makeup of a world. My actions are about real change - not leaving things the status quo. Drakron spent some time telling me about how eliminating the Shadow thieves would leave a hole others would like to fill. Well, that's change, isn't it. That's impact.
I play with a DM who will let me make decisions that could possible upset the architecture of his world. And he agrees with how I play Chaotic Good. Of course, he doesn't guarantee I'll survive the results of all my decisions, but that, like you said, is sorta realistic.
So enough conversation about judging people as a group! Let it herein be known that I sized the Shadow Thieves up and was willing to kill their leader and any one of them trying to defend the leader - not a one of them I talked to would I rate above SCUM. Sorry if you don't like it. Sorry if you think I'm a murderer. But in my mind I would have clearly prevented those yah-hoos from tainting that fair city any longer. I did it for the reason's the original Batman went after criminals in Gotham (original Batman killed people - even used guns).
My actions are perfectly in-line with a person who is confident they know what is right, and will bend or break the law to do what is right. And thus you have Chaotic Good. My character is a person who walks around with 50 pounds of armor and a lot more steel shaped like swords and axes, making him a warrior in the cause for good. Picture it folks. I ain't the local neighborhood boy beating up bullies picking on little kids. This is the big time and the bad guys play for real.
Weasel, while I appreciate you taking the time to give your opinions about the fictional situi I posted, I and a lot of people I know who are NOT bad would disagree with your assessment of some of them. Frankly (no I'm not calling you Frank) I believe you answers to be a little to pat. In fact I wasn't posing them so that I could get opinions about what they were, but rather using them as DILEMMAS - things that should be recognized as the stuff good people - intelligent people - disagree over. If you consider anyone who disagrees with you a "bad apple" - you are guilty of making the same type of judgement you condemned in the case of the abortion clinic guy. It also is a sign of intellectual laziness, resorting to name-calling instead of thinking about what I said and talking about it.
Not to mention I don't like being called a "bad apple". Let's keep it civil.
ltldrgn1: your absolutely right in your commets about how society would view my character! Exactly my point when I earlier mentioned "vigilante". A chaotic good person, operating outside the law is going to be viewed either with fear and distaste by the public, or as a folk hero like Jesse James or, dare I say, Robin Hood. Probably both at the same time, depending on who of the ordinary folk you talk to.
------------------
And my time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on the splinters.
I can definitely say that the burden of proof for my guy is not what you might consider proof. After talking with everyone in the building, I'm sure they ALL knew what Aran was doing.
Krom: I don't think I said I went around killing everyone who showed up as "evil". Remember I let the Drow into my party, definitely an evil character. Look over the whole conversation carefully before throwing out these questions I've already answered.
Please stop making statements about how murder is murder - reason your way into it - take time to knock down the arguments I've made that what I'm doing is not murder. Don't just say you disagree - tell me why. Otherwise this turns into a "is too - is not - is too - is not" third grade conversation.
I don't think anything I've said I would do is equivalent to killing someone because I didn't like their prices. Not a very good example.
Then we come to consequences. I Definitely believe in consequences and that's what upset Drakron. You see, I believe in having characters make decisions that can effect the makeup of a world. My actions are about real change - not leaving things the status quo. Drakron spent some time telling me about how eliminating the Shadow thieves would leave a hole others would like to fill. Well, that's change, isn't it. That's impact.
I play with a DM who will let me make decisions that could possible upset the architecture of his world. And he agrees with how I play Chaotic Good. Of course, he doesn't guarantee I'll survive the results of all my decisions, but that, like you said, is sorta realistic.
So enough conversation about judging people as a group! Let it herein be known that I sized the Shadow Thieves up and was willing to kill their leader and any one of them trying to defend the leader - not a one of them I talked to would I rate above SCUM. Sorry if you don't like it. Sorry if you think I'm a murderer. But in my mind I would have clearly prevented those yah-hoos from tainting that fair city any longer. I did it for the reason's the original Batman went after criminals in Gotham (original Batman killed people - even used guns).
My actions are perfectly in-line with a person who is confident they know what is right, and will bend or break the law to do what is right. And thus you have Chaotic Good. My character is a person who walks around with 50 pounds of armor and a lot more steel shaped like swords and axes, making him a warrior in the cause for good. Picture it folks. I ain't the local neighborhood boy beating up bullies picking on little kids. This is the big time and the bad guys play for real.
Weasel, while I appreciate you taking the time to give your opinions about the fictional situi I posted, I and a lot of people I know who are NOT bad would disagree with your assessment of some of them. Frankly (no I'm not calling you Frank) I believe you answers to be a little to pat. In fact I wasn't posing them so that I could get opinions about what they were, but rather using them as DILEMMAS - things that should be recognized as the stuff good people - intelligent people - disagree over. If you consider anyone who disagrees with you a "bad apple" - you are guilty of making the same type of judgement you condemned in the case of the abortion clinic guy. It also is a sign of intellectual laziness, resorting to name-calling instead of thinking about what I said and talking about it.
Not to mention I don't like being called a "bad apple". Let's keep it civil.
ltldrgn1: your absolutely right in your commets about how society would view my character! Exactly my point when I earlier mentioned "vigilante". A chaotic good person, operating outside the law is going to be viewed either with fear and distaste by the public, or as a folk hero like Jesse James or, dare I say, Robin Hood. Probably both at the same time, depending on who of the ordinary folk you talk to.
------------------
And my time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on the splinters.
And my time is a piece of wax, falling on a termite, that's choking on the splinters.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chenjzen:
Weasel said, "IMHO..there is no proof that all of the thiefs are active in keeping the torture chamber going in Athkatla. And the way the game is set up to attack one in the guild all become hostile which ends up getting the one's who might not been involved killed."
I can definitely say that the burden of proof for my guy is not what you might consider proof. After talking with everyone in the building, I'm sure they ALL knew what Aran was doing.
Knowing about and doing are two different things. So they knew what was going on..guilty be association kill them..what does it matter that they might have been to scared to try and stop Aran..
Weasel, while I appreciate you taking the time to give your opinions about the fictional situi I posted, I and a lot of people I know who are NOT bad would disagree with your assessment of some of them.
And as you said my opinion.As for 'I and a lot' I believe if I murdered or kill someone a lot of people would say I'm NOT bad. I believe that would be their opinion and I don't believe it's my place to state their opinion.
Frankly (no I'm not calling you Frank) I believe you answers to be a little to pat.
Your opinion that is unless you want to state 'a lot' opinion too..
In fact I wasn't posing them so that I could get opinions about what they were, but rather using them as DILEMMAS - things that should be recognized as the stuff good people -intelligent people - disagree over.
So for stating my opinion which you didn't ask for and which you didn't have to read and which I believe I have a right to do...I'm a dumba$$..
Well Mr.intelligent .. So you keep it civil...yea right.. (possible hit to the nerves)
If you consider anyone who disagrees with you a "bad apple" - you are guilty of making the same type of judgement you condemned in the case of the abortion clinic guy.
Well this doesn't pertain to me..because I don't consider anyone who disagrees with me an "bad apple"...Did I strike a nerve by making a joke???
Continue....
It also is a sign of resorting to name-calling instead of thinking about what I said and talking about it.
Not to mention I don't like being called a "bad apple".
Yep I hit a nerve....Now if you cannot open your eyes and see the big grin behind that statement....I guess you have fallen from the intelligent people group. Welcome to my group...the group who know they don't know it all..yes it's a sad group..we have to ask about stuff and get the intelligent people to think for us...I have hopes you will reclaim your status in the intelligent people group and teach me somemore...three cheers.."hip hip hora, hip hip hora, hip hip hora."
Let's keep it civil
IMHO from the statements above you need to take your own advise....if you think by stating remarks like 'intellectual laziness' and 'intelligent people' makes you smarter than me. You have proven my point...'Know it all'.Yes I've meet your kind before...sad sad indeed...I believe there is hope for you..but I am a optimist...
"Please go away Weasel I want to have an intelligent people conversation."
"I Weasel will bow and kiss your a$$ Chenjzen .....yea right."
PS If I was going to "resorting to name-calling" I would have come up with something a lot better than "bad apple"
------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
[This message has been edited by Weasel (edited 02-06-2001).]
Weasel said, "IMHO..there is no proof that all of the thiefs are active in keeping the torture chamber going in Athkatla. And the way the game is set up to attack one in the guild all become hostile which ends up getting the one's who might not been involved killed."
I can definitely say that the burden of proof for my guy is not what you might consider proof. After talking with everyone in the building, I'm sure they ALL knew what Aran was doing.
Knowing about and doing are two different things. So they knew what was going on..guilty be association kill them..what does it matter that they might have been to scared to try and stop Aran..
Weasel, while I appreciate you taking the time to give your opinions about the fictional situi I posted, I and a lot of people I know who are NOT bad would disagree with your assessment of some of them.
And as you said my opinion.As for 'I and a lot' I believe if I murdered or kill someone a lot of people would say I'm NOT bad. I believe that would be their opinion and I don't believe it's my place to state their opinion.
Frankly (no I'm not calling you Frank) I believe you answers to be a little to pat.
Your opinion that is unless you want to state 'a lot' opinion too..
In fact I wasn't posing them so that I could get opinions about what they were, but rather using them as DILEMMAS - things that should be recognized as the stuff good people -intelligent people - disagree over.
So for stating my opinion which you didn't ask for and which you didn't have to read and which I believe I have a right to do...I'm a dumba$$..
Well Mr.intelligent .. So you keep it civil...yea right.. (possible hit to the nerves)
If you consider anyone who disagrees with you a "bad apple" - you are guilty of making the same type of judgement you condemned in the case of the abortion clinic guy.
Well this doesn't pertain to me..because I don't consider anyone who disagrees with me an "bad apple"...Did I strike a nerve by making a joke???
Continue....
It also is a sign of resorting to name-calling instead of thinking about what I said and talking about it.
Not to mention I don't like being called a "bad apple".
Yep I hit a nerve....Now if you cannot open your eyes and see the big grin behind that statement....I guess you have fallen from the intelligent people group. Welcome to my group...the group who know they don't know it all..yes it's a sad group..we have to ask about stuff and get the intelligent people to think for us...I have hopes you will reclaim your status in the intelligent people group and teach me somemore...three cheers.."hip hip hora, hip hip hora, hip hip hora."
Let's keep it civil
IMHO from the statements above you need to take your own advise....if you think by stating remarks like 'intellectual laziness' and 'intelligent people' makes you smarter than me. You have proven my point...'Know it all'.Yes I've meet your kind before...sad sad indeed...I believe there is hope for you..but I am a optimist...
"Please go away Weasel I want to have an intelligent people conversation."
"I Weasel will bow and kiss your a$$ Chenjzen .....yea right."
PS If I was going to "resorting to name-calling" I would have come up with something a lot better than "bad apple"
------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
[This message has been edited by Weasel (edited 02-06-2001).]
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
It's obvious that you are making prejudgements without reading all of my post, but that's ok. I'll clarify.Originally posted by Chenjzen:
Krom: I don't think I said I went around killing everyone who showed up as "evil". Remember I let the Drow into my party, definitely an evil character. Look over the whole conversation carefully before throwing out these questions I've already answered.
Please stop making statements about how murder is murder - reason your way into it - take time to knock down the arguments I've made that what I'm doing is not murder. Don't just say you disagree - tell me why. Otherwise this turns into a "is too - is not - is too - is not" third grade conversation.
I don't think anything I've said I would do is equivalent to killing someone because I didn't like their prices. Not a very good example.
Didn't you post this to Rail earlier?
"Rail: nope - I do not kill anyone who does not agree with my views. I kill, or use, or convert, anyone who is EVIL."
Does this mean as soon as you are finished adventuring in BG2, your character then turns around and slaughters Viconia because she is evil? No, because you mentioned you think it's wrong to slaughter someone due to their race. What about their profession?
When leaving the drow city, did you make sure everyone was killed before you left?
Did you eliminate everyone in the temple of Talos?
When I said murder is murder, it's a perfectly reasonable explanation. Killing someone in self defense, while not exactly a "good" action could be considered justified. I can see a character slaughtering Aran if you had told off Aran for hiring that crook Saemon to take you to Spellhold and he attacked you. However just walking up to him and attacking him is not a good act by any means.
The killing someone because you don't like their prices is a good example, because it illustrates the absuridity of the way some justify the actions of the Chaotic Good alignment. Your DM may allow a wide range of behavior for your character's alignment, but that is strictly your DM's choice. Any decisions he makes for his own world are strictly his own. That doesn't necessarily mean any other DM's are going to have the same philosophy.
[This message has been edited by Krom (edited 02-06-2001).]
@Chenjzen.. Here is the chart for us dumba$$es..
smile
frown
embarrassment
big grin
wink
razz (stick out tongue)
cool
------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
[This message has been edited by Weasel (edited 02-06-2001).]
smile frown embarrassment big grin wink razz (stick out tongue) cool ------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
[This message has been edited by Weasel (edited 02-06-2001).]
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
@Chenjzen.. Here is the rest..
roll eyes (sarcastic)
mad
eek!
confused
And some more
ROFL = Rolling on the floor, laughing
LMAO = Laughing my a$$ off
ROFLMAO = figure that one out from the above two
NT = No Text (although some claim it's No Ti** )
IIRC = If I recall correctly
AFAIK = As far as I know
FYI = For your information
IMO = In my opinion
IMHO = In my humble/honest opinion
RTFM= Read the f###### manual
------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
[This message has been edited by Weasel (edited 02-06-2001).]
roll eyes (sarcastic) mad eek! confused And some more
ROFL = Rolling on the floor, laughing
LMAO = Laughing my a$$ off
ROFLMAO = figure that one out from the above two
NT = No Text (although some claim it's No Ti**
)IIRC = If I recall correctly
AFAIK = As far as I know
FYI = For your information
IMO = In my opinion
IMHO = In my humble/honest opinion
RTFM= Read the f###### manual
------------------
"Boo says Weasel is the best"
[This message has been edited by Weasel (edited 02-06-2001).]
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
-
Veldrik