Hijacked Thread in need of closure.

[Vaxalon]

there's good arguement either way.... willing sacrificing the life of an innocent due the chance that, in rescueing them, you may cause harm to loved ones is.... well a difficult choice no?

I think this goes to show the unusual leaps that selfishness can take and still appear to not be selfish..

In the end, I think going in after the child is the more moral action, and I'll tell you why...

A life is valued VERY highly, an innocent life even moreso.

The only way holding back would be selfless is if the woman REALLY had that on her mind; if she was the only person who could save her child (an unlikely event most of the time) then if there were ANY thoughts on her mind that she should stay out for her OWN safety, then indeed, that would be an act of cowardice, an act of selfishness.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

Well thats a whole big bag 'o worms. I'd suggest before you start trying to tell people that morality give ONE right answer you investigate into philosopies/religions that say there is more than ONE answer. Try buddhism, taoism, hinduism, anamisim and almost every religion/philosophy outside of Judeao -christianity/Islam. I here too am talking morality and philosophy, not game mechanics

A given set of moral guidelines yields ONE possible answer. The fact that these answers are open to interpretation is something yet again. Buddhism, Taoism, etc. simply allow for the use of more than one set of guidelines provided they fit within the broad framework of the religion. The difference is simply broader guidelines for morality as opposed to Occidental religions.

I know it's fashionable to make Western thinkers out to be demagogues, but I don't appreciate words being put in my mouth. I know quite a bit about 3 different "flavors' of Buddhism, and I could give you the speech about Christian parallels to Buddhism that nearly got me ex-communicated by an arrogant priest, if you want. The fact remains that even in religions with a broader framework, it's asinine to mix and match bits and pieces of mutually exclusive philosophy, which, for some reason, you're insisting that paladins MUST do.

And you've probably lost a lot of your credibility by calling me "one of those whiny DMs" who happen to disagree with you and say so on a public board. Im sorry if my opinions make me lose credibity with you, but you should, if you wish to maintain your own credibilty, phrase your thought in perhaps more civil ways.

and, i do understand. just because i dont agree, does not mean im ignorant. That dicotimy, I believe, goes back to your original concept of there being only ONE morality... ie. one right way of thinking (if i really understood what it is to be a paladin i'd have to agree with you, no?)

Not at all. but you wouldn't insist on anything as ridiculous as "one session with any paladin (as a DM) an i'll make him fall." That's the purview of DMs who lick their lips at every oportunity to make sure their players aren't having any fun (a subset of the population that I have TOO MUCH experience with).

Perhaps I was a little less than civil, but you keep putting words in my mouth, painting me as a demagogue, and willfully ignoring parts of my argument that you don't have a ready answer for. So forgive me if I'm getting a little irritated.

And one more time for emphasis...

"A given moral construct yields only one way to live" DOES NOT EQUAL "I believe there is only one true morality"

If I had said there is only one way of arriving at a moral construct (which I clearly haven't since I've been throwing around Aristotle, Socrates, Nietzsche, Christianity, and Druidism at different points) then I could underestand you getting all worked up.

 

[jgbrowning]

In the end, I think going in after the child is the more moral action, and I'll tell you why...

A life is valued VERY highly, an innocent life even moreso.

The only way holding back would be selfless is if the woman REALLY had that on her mind; if she was the only person who could save her child (an unlikely event most of the time) then if there were ANY thoughts on her mind that she should stay out for her OWN safety, then indeed, that would be an act of cowardice, an act of selfishness.

Yeah, i tend to agree with you. But i know that people have a hard time willingly risking themselves when the consequences of failure are sooooo great.

I would never, under any circumstances, think less of a mother who made the choice to sacrifice one for the others. It would be horrible to everyone around that i wouldn't need to add to the horror with my accusations.

neglagence, stupidity... all that i may have private thoughts, even publich ones (for negligence) but.... the situation as i discribed it no.

joe b.

 

[Vaxalon]

but you have to ask yourself. is allowing an evil act to occur because you know your too low level to fight it consistant with the concept of the Paladin being willing to sacrafice themselves in the fight against evil?

Sacrificing oneself in order to accomplish something is an act of selflessness.

Throwing oneself on the enemy's sword is an act of stupidity.

Yes, allowing an evil act to occur because you know your too low level to fight it is consistant with the concept of the Paladin being willing to sacrifice himself in the fight against evil. If I was playing a paladin in a game where a world-spanning empire was controlled by an evil demigod, my first target would NOT be the evil demigod, and I don't believe any rational DM out there would blame me for it.

i think your much wiser version of fighting evil is quite appropriate for most LG, but only because they can perform the ocassionally evil act because they are weighed upon the totality of their actions, not upon a single action.

What evil act are you talking about? I haven't posited an evil act yet.

As I have said before, choosing which evil to fight is not a sin, because the Paladin will ALWAYS have to make a choice.

 

[jgbrowning]

Easy. I take the relic from the druid apologists/collaborators. Only a psychopath would base a morality on the tenets of "Neutrality" that you've described, so at best, the druids are apologists/collaborators of the Undead King, and at worst they're a collection of psychopaths with great magic powers.

You're relying upon that old non-sensical meta-game B.S. in regards to druids and their vaunted "Neutrality" But again, this isn't a druid thread. And it's looking decreasingly like a paladin thread for that matter.

i was going to respond to this but ill let vaxalon explain how this doesnt work.

thanks Vax. if you dont wanna let me know.. ill do it then.

joe b.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

So a LG or LN person CAN'T fight a LE regime? Or a CE despot? ANYONE can fight for their freedom.

Sure they can. But so can a CG person, and in fact a CG person is more likely to do so.

Until recently, when the general public decided to start doing their best sheep imitation, fighting for freedom was the natural state of mankind, regardless of their alignment.

Er...I don't know what that's supposed to mean, but I rather prefer not having to fight for my freedom, thank you very much.

Good Example: Samurai Jack. Aku is the legitimate authority of the world, but does that make Jack CG? Heck, no. Jack is extremely Lawful.

The only episode I've ever seen of that show involved a chicken fighting for his life in arena battles. I have no clue what that has to do with the discussion.

Not if their heart is Lawful. You're presupposing that people can't either a) naturally work that way OR b) become that way through discipline and training. Both are possible.

I'm presupposing that someone who swears himself to a lawful cause isn't free to follow his emotions, yes. Sure, he could have a lawful heart, but then he wouldn't be free to follow his passions. If there's one thing Sune stands for, it's passions.

And I repeat, give it a name appropriate to the ideology and I'll shut up. Yet another aspect of our increasingly Chaotic Inane culture is that no one wants to fess up to the idea that the labels we attach to things have significance (at least when the subjects themselves have significance).

I never advocated doing anything else! You'll notice I used "paladin" in quotes. You'll notice from my very first post that I wanted a holy warrior class.

And judging by the increasing numbers of lawyers running around, I'd say our society is far from Chaotic Inane.

Nietzsche would have a field day with this

All heil the paladin, noble defender of the ubermenschen!

 

[jgbrowning]

"A given moral construct yields only one way to live" DOES NOT EQUAL "I believe there is only one true morality"

A given moral construct does not yield only one way to live. There are moral constructs that provide multiple ways of living and provide and accept multiple ways, even diametracally opposing, methods of living.

"The fact remains that even in religions with a broader framework, it's asinine to mix and match bits and pieces of mutually exclusive philosophy" how very western of you. i personally believe in mutually exclusive philosophies.


i also wasn't talking about paladins you said "I'm not talking about game mechanics here, I'm talking about morality and philosophy. If a moral code could give you two separate and distinct "answers" but not provide you with the means to intertwine them and build the strengths of one into the other, than it's not a moral code... it's a game mechanic." i was talking philosopy.

and for all your ranting about me misquoting you, you say that im "insisting that paladins must mix and match bits and pieces of mutually exclusive philosophy".. ?

joe b.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

A given moral construct does not yield only one way to live. There are moral constructs that provide multiple ways of living and provide and accept multiple ways, even diametracally opposing, methods of living.

Yes, but they tend to be labeled

"This one is good for everybody."

"This one is good for your immediate relations."

"This one is ONLY good for you."

etc.

Forgive me for believing that the one that's "good for everybody" is the only one a virtuous person would choose. What a monster I am to make the same assumption Christ, Aristotle, and Buddha did, that we should be living towards compassion.

you say that im "insisting that paladins must mix and match bits and pieces of mutually exclusive philosophy"

yes, rather than accept that they can pursue Law and Good as a combined construct, you're insisting that they always do the 100% Lawful thing AND the 100% Good thing. For one thing, that's not possible, and for another, no one would base a philosophy on it. They would base it on the union of Law and Good to ONE UNIFIED WHOLE with the best aspects of both, for their purposes.

 

[jgbrowning]

Sacrificing oneself in order to accomplish something is an act of selflessness.

Throwing oneself on the enemy's sword is an act of stupidity.

Yes, allowing an evil act to occur because you know your too low level to fight it is consistant with the concept of the Paladin being willing to sacrifice himself in the fight against evil. If I was playing a paladin in a game where a world-spanning empire was controlled by an evil demigod, my first target would NOT be the evil demigod, and I don't believe any rational DM out there would blame me for it.

What evil act are you talking about? I haven't posited an evil act yet.

As I have said before, choosing which evil to fight is not a sin, because the Paladin will ALWAYS have to make a choice.

OK, im going to say it one more time.

If you let evil happen infront of your eyes and you dont try to stop it, regardless of the personal consequences, regardless of whether or not you can prevent it, you are PARTICIPATING in an evil act.

to phrase it another way....

Paladins dont have the luxury of picking and chosing their battles, because if evil comes there way they cannot just turn and run. they must fight evil that is greater than themselves if need be, and sacrifice themselves in trying to stop evil.

and a third way...

the only reason why your 1st level paladin stays alive or remains LG is because your DM creates simple moral questions and presents you with Evil that has CR's appropriate to your level.
The DM creates an environment where your paladin can exist, because if he created an environment that is as multiplicitious as a real world, you couldn't.


and Paladins are pretty much the only class that FORCES a DM to do those things.

There was a REASON why even in literature there was only one or two paladins.




joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Yes, but they tend to be labeled

"This one is good for everybody."

"This one is good for your immediate relations."

"This one is ONLY good for you."

etc.

Forgive me for believing that the one that's "good for everybody" is the only one a virtuous person would choose. What a monster I am to make the same assumption Christ, Aristotle, and Buddha did, that we should be living towards compassion.

I guess you christ, aristotle and buddha are the ones determining whats "good for everybody?" I'd think "everybody" might like a say about that.

anyway this is off topic... weez supposed to be talking Paladins.


joe b.