Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 435648" data-attributes="member: 4937">SHARK: I have always thought it would be an interesting excercise to write an alignment sourcebook for each of the nine D&D alignments.  I'd nominate you to write the Lawful Evil one.  Seriously though, I think there is a vast continuity between utter ruthlessness and being a fastidious wimp, so that people could perhaps choose to face reality AND maintain thier moral stance.   It isn't a all or nothing affair, and I can be tactically ruthless and devious without breaking any moral code.  While we both agree that idealistic chivalrous combat is silly in the face of real war, I think you can separate needful violence from unnessary cruelty.  The necessities of war simply can't excuse every action, and history is filled with losers who failed to consider that the moral component of war was as important (or more so) than material considerations.You seem to come off with the opinion that not only do you need to 'break a few eggs' to save the people, but that anyone who doesn't will be overrun by those that do.   That was Machiavelli's opinion, and I believe he was wrong.I think if you will consider what you are saying that you will realize that there are resources at the disposal of the soldier which are counterproductive in the long run, however, expedient they may seem in the short term.  And I think a close examination of US doctrine indicates an awareness of that.  I am in a since thankful when my opponent does stupid things like Kamikazi attacks, terrorize civilians, bully and swagger, and act with total ruthlessness towards those he has defeated.  He is assisting me in his fight against him.Chrisling: Well answered and well spoken, though I don't think you have entirely avoided all the traps I laid for you.First, the point of the first question was not in the punishment of the crime, which you focused on.  I too find little point in mere incarceration, though I'm hardly a pacifist (in fact I support the death penalty).  Incarceration helps noone and seemingly provides little protection for society as a whole.   A sentence of 'life in prison' if carried out, seems little different to me than a death sentence, save that it takes longer and costs more.  But, I'm getting distracted.The point is, if violence has occured, then it is at least possible if not probable that the perpetrator will resist being 'helped' violently.  In this case, what do you do?  I think highly of your decision to be strong in the face of violence, but do you have the right to make that decision for everyone?  And while the decision you make may be fine for the strong to make, because they are strong indeed and cannot be so easily harmed, what about the weak?  Is everyone so strong?  What of those that are not and are truly harmed?Which leads to the second question, what if you aren't the victem, and one of 'the weak' is?  In this one, I don't think you answered as satisfactorily, or rather, though I found your answer satisfactory, it contridicted your previous statements.The answer you gave was basically, 'Yes, I believe the weak should be protected.'  By that I assume you mean, even if violence is necessary to stop the abuse(?).  By that I assume you mean, even if trespass into the private property of the home is necessary and violation of the normal rights of the inhabitants(?).But, how can you hold that opinion and hold that war is always wrong, and that no nation should ever invade the other?  Aren't these equivalent cases?Sure, we have moved from 'the few', to 'the many', but are the laws governing the few not governed by the same laws that govern the many?  Is not a abuse abuse whether it occurs to one or to many, and is not violence violence whether it occurs to one or to many?  If I see my neighbor in danger and distress and a crime be prepuatrated, am I excused from acting because my neighbors are numerous?  Can I say to the judge, if it had only been one suffering and not thousands, then I would have been brave and merciful, but because the suffering was great I thought it wrong for me to intervene?I think it is reasonable to draw a parallel between nation states, and families, and between families and individuals.  It is right for a nation state to intervene to protect the weak, just as it is right for an individual to protect the weak with the strength that the individual has.</blockquote>

Verification