General Discussion Thread IX

[Rystil Arden]

Not all crimes need be punished with death, though. A character (and I'm not saying Anton needs to be one such) concerned with avoiding an evil act might choose to punish the afront by challenging the offender to a duel, then anounce he'd be satisfied with first blood rather than to the death.

Agreed. I think everyone would agree that a society that punished every misdemeanour on the list, from littering to jaywalking, with death was evil.

 

[Jdvn1]

It was actually the not apologizing part that I found unrealistic.

Yep.

Like I said, just some constructive feedback. I don't think it was out of line or something that could never happen in real life. It just struck me as unlikely given the way I was reading the situation. Since I hadn't been reading the entire thread, it is likely that everyone in the intended audience felt it was fine.

At least one person in the intended audience (me) also felt it was unlikely. Bad day or not, I think he would've apologized, though I can maybe understand why he was being nasty in the first place.

 

[SlagMortar]

I don't want to get too hung up about this, but I try to stick to the definitions of "Good" and "Evil" given

Yeah, I don't intend for this to turn into a big discussion of Good Vs Evil because I've seen those threads and I don't like reading them.
I'll just add that the definitions given are for good vs evil as regards a person's entire personality. Clearly this action does not make Anton evil.

I've always thought it would be cool to play a paladin in a campaign that I disagreed with the DM on the definition of evil act and then when I fell have my character be all disillusioned like "Man, I was doing everything right. What did I do wrong?" and then eventually become a blackguard because <insert god> rejected me when all I was doing was trying to be the best paladin ever.

By the way, SM--I realise I hadn't said this yet: I definitely do appreciate the constructive criticism here. Thanks!

Good to know! Thanks.

 

[Jdvn1]

Not all crimes need be punished with death, though. A character (and I'm not saying Anton needs to be one such) concerned with avoiding an evil act might choose to punish the afront by challenging the offender to a duel, then anounce he'd be satisfied with first blood rather than to the death.

Have you read any Dumas? Seen a Three Musketeers movie? Insulting someone is punishable by death whenever possible. At least, in those societies, and that happens to be the society Anton comes from. The nobility will have such people tried in a court (it's illegal to insult most nobility) and hung, the rich will pay for sellswords and snipers, the middle and military classes tends to have duels, the poor will stab you outright, and the beggars don't care one way or another.

That's the Fantasy stereotype, and Anton's society, and acting according to the dictates of his society isn't an Evil act, and Anton will try not to avoid it. A LG character or priest might have dueled to first blood if he considered himself a pacifist, but that's kind of stretching it.

 

[Jdvn1]

Agreed. I think everyone would agree that a society that punished every misdemeanour on the list, from littering to jaywalking, with death was evil.

Certainly, those lesser crimes wouldn't be punished by death. An insult is a much greater crime in a swashbuckling Dumas story.

 

[SlagMortar]

What would happen if the person committing the insult refused to duel? I genuinely don't know because I'm only passingly familiar with Dumas.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Have you read any Dumas? Seen a Three Musketeers movie? Insulting someone is punishable by death whenever possible. At least, in those societies, and that happens to be the society Anton comes from. The nobility will have such people tried in a court (it's illegal to insult most nobility) and hung, the rich will pay for sellswords and snipers, the middle and military classes tends to have duels, the poor will stab you outright, and the beggars don't care one way or another.

That's the Fantasy stereotype, and Anton's society, and acting according to the dictates of his society isn't an Evil act, and Anton will try not to avoid it. A LG character or priest might have dueled to first blood if he considered himself a pacifist, but that's kind of stretching it.

I would say that whenever following a society or set of societal codes that necessitates killing someone for a slight or such is involved, it becomes an evil act to force the killing on someone who doesn't also follow the code, even if it wasn't evil against someone who also does.

 

[Living Enworld Judge]

I was considering creating a General Discussion Thread X, as this thread is getting extremely long. However, the Judge Account doesn't seem to have the power to close threads, and I don't want there to be any confusion as to where to post.

Knight Otu, would you be willing to do the honors?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Technically, this thread should be okay for a good nother half of its life (1200 is the usual cutoff), but either way is cool as long as there is a link to the new thread for everyone.

 

[Knight Otu]

I was considering creating a General Discussion Thread X, as this thread is getting extremely long. However, the Judge Account doesn't seem to have the power to close threads, and I don't want there to be any confusion as to where to post.

Knight Otu, would you be willing to do the honors?

It isn't quite there yet, I think. My rule of thumb so far has been 1200 posts.