Alignment is for me mostly pointless. All it does is serve as a general barometer for the moral standing of the character in question. The only exception to this that actually made sense to me was paladins and even then it was usually stupidly obvious that a paladin was straying from the path of their god so once again alignment was extraneous.
Bah! What did you have to go and bring alignment back into the discussion for?
Back on sub-topic. Paladins are slaves to their belief in the Lawful Good alignment, so Good is Evil. Muahahahaha!
Bah! What did you have to go and bring alignment back into the discussion for? ;)Back on sub-topic. Paladins are slaves to their belief in the Lawful Good alignment, so Good is Evil. Muahahahaha!
Decivre what you are doing here is setting up false and sometimes partial analogies to support your argument. Restrictions on some freedoms, which may or may not be "basic" (you or I might consider the right to bear arms as "basic" but that is a highly controversial proposition to many people) is still not the same thing as turning a person into property. Nothing is the "same" as doing that - not even the caste system in India.
Slavery makes you, as a person, the property of another, and thus your daily existence and most of your basic freedoms are beholden to the whims of another. This is not like parenthood (except partially), this is not like having a pet frog (except partially), this is not like caste restrictions (except partially). The total removal of self-determination in its most traditional meaning cannot be be compared to the partial removals your are postulating above. Otherwise we would not call it slavery, we would call it something else.
If I'm understanding you right, you are saying since the partial removal of freedom and self-determination is ok in some cases, then the total removal of freedom and self-determination must be ok in some cases as well. Your rape analogy is therefore false. A more accurate one would be: "Since rape involves sex and some sex is good then some rapes must be good as well."
As for selling oneself into slavery selflessly, we seem to be once again confusing the personal with the institutional. I am certain that many people who sold themselves into slavery throughout history did so for very good and selfless reasons. I would never call such a person evil. It is, however, the insitution that was evil. If I hide a strange child from SS stormtroopers and call attention to myself so they can take me to the camps instead, it is a selfless act. That act, however, does not mean genocide is good.
Decivre what you are doing here is setting up false and sometimes partial analogies to support your argument. Restrictions on some freedoms, which may or may not be "basic" (you or I might consider the right to bear arms as "basic" but that is a hig
And don't you think that a modern perspective is problematic for defining good and evil when the D&D milieu often has good-aligned absolute monarchs?
I do. Which is why I think the alignment system should be removed from any connection to mechanics. However, as this conversation has demonstrated, even if a system is optional, severe disagreements are bound to arise between players over questions of ethics. This will not affect gameplay nearly as much with alignment being mechanically meaningless, but it might affect it some which is why both the DM and players should be up front about their ethical standpoints when such issues come up.
Unfortunately, no matter what, it seems impossible to avoid moral systems even in fictional worlds. Honestly, I would rather go with Tectorman's approach in most cases and just deal with things situationally but I wonder if it's possible?
I do. Which is why I think the alignment system should be removed from any connection to mechanics. However, as this conversation has demonstrated, even if a system is optional, severe disagreements are bound to arise between players over questions
Sorry for the reply a few days late, I was away from the computer for the weekend.
Decivre wrote:
So you're argument is that it's evil to use an undead army, but not in Lord of the Rings? Or is it solely based on how he produced his army of undead? Generally in D&D, the undead are always evil, and using or dealing with them is generally evil... in this case, he was bargaining with oathbreakers. I don't see why a game which is suppose to postulate objective morality suddenly has subjective factors which can change this otherwise objective morality.
Actually, I never said what you stated above. The only statement that I every made was that it was evil to Summon / Create undead. Aaragon did neither of those and in fact, took the situation and allowed them to fulfill their vow and to finally gain peace and pass onto death.
Yet the aura of the Nazgûl had nothing to do with their personality and actions, and everything to do with the nine rings of power they were wearing. Anyone who put on those nine rings would eventually become ringwraiths... personality and actions (other than the act of putting on the ring) don't matter. This isn't an alignment effect, it's a magic item effect.
The warping of their spirit is how it relates in DnD. What happens when someone is killed by a Ghoul, Ghast, Vampire, or Shadow? Their souls come back as tourtured undead and they are twisted into evil.
It's not a summary of primary aspects. It's a summary of a generalization. That said, you're right that no DM should need to spend much time to get a feel for character nuances. Why should he need to spend any time at all? Why not skip the alignment part entirely and get to the game, considering that alignment has very little merit that couldn't be applied otherwise, with less effort?
Whether it goes deeper or beyond that in the Expanded Universe, I can't say to a high degree (I didn't read much of the Star Wars novels at all). What I can say, however, is that all of the movies portray a high fantasy setting spread over the backdrop of a sci-fi world. The high fantasy component (forces of good battling forces of evil) is quite obviously portrayed by the Jedi and Sith in these movies.
That said, if the Expanded Universe delves into things less cut and dry, that shows the authors are not as entranced with the high fantasy concepts that George Lucas was when he made the movies. Apparently while concepts akin to alignment existed in the movies, they are all but absent in the Expanded Universe. More to the point, however, what does this have to do with validating the existence of alignment?
Ok, before you get too convinced of this... The movies were 90-120 minutes in length for each movie. How deep into moral discussion can you really get into a movie and actually get any major plot action done? Especially in a Sci-Fi movie.
In reality, the first Star Wars movie was a Sci-Fi spegetti western. But that discussion should be on a differnt thread.
So if you look to the base of literature out there for Star Wars, you will see that the movies just barely touch on the true conflict of the universe.
Sorry for the reply a few days late, I was away from the computer for the weekend.Actually, I never said what you stated above. The only statement that I every made was that it was evil to Summon / Create undead. Aaragon did neither of those and in
I knew, right after I hit the send button, that you would say exactly what you said...because it's always what you say when someone dares to disagree with you...and I did it anyway. My mistake. I promised myself I wouldn't let someone tick me off on the forums anymore, despite how ignorant and self-serving they might be, but I slipped.
You're right, everyone else is wrong. If a website contradicts you, it's wrong. If the dictionary contradicts you, then everyone else is just reading it wrong. If someone has a differing opinion than you, then they're not using their head, and, in the end, they're wrong.
Now I remember full well why I have not engaged in any kind of conversations with you lately. 1) it's not possible, 2) you're looking to argue, not discuss, and 3) you always have to be right, even when you're so very wrong. I can't talk to someone with that kind of mindset. All it does is anger and frustrate me to no end.
So take this rant as me bowing out of this conversation. You, sir, are not worth the headaches you cause.
That's true, but if those traditions are followed not because you believe that traditions(tm) should be followed more than new ideas, but because you have concluded that those specific traditions are more beneficial to you, the common man, or both, you are not lawful because of your dedication to your traditions.
In order to be Lawful you have to care about Lawfulness. You have to consider Order to be inherently superior to freedom, and structure more important than liberty, when the two conflict.
The traditions he has described seem to be intended specifically to promote liberty, and one would assume that if they found that one of their traditions stifled freedom or creativity, they would change it. That is clearly not lawful. since he actively seeks to bring down any system that is less free, he is clearly chaotic, since he obviously views liberty as more important than social structures and strict rules, doesn't believe people have the right to judge the worth of other people, and obviously doesn't think that laws should be followed as a default, but only if they are beneficial.
He is one small step away from perfect textbook chaotic.
You maybe correct I was just trying to bring clarity to the issue of why the term lawful "may"(:used to indicate possibility or probability.) adhere to Monks. Nothing more.
You maybe correct I was just trying to bring clarity to the issue of why the term lawful "may"(:used to indicate possibility or probability.) adhere to Monks. Nothing more.
As for selling oneself into slavery selflessly, we seem to be once again confusing the personal with the institutional. I am certain that many people who sold themselves into slavery throughout history did so for very good and selfless reasons. I would never call such a person evil. It is, however, the insitution that was evil. If I hide a strange child from SS stormtroopers and call attention to myself so they can take me to the camps instead, it is a selfless act. That act, however, does not mean genocide is good.
This isn't at all the same. You didn't vollunteer to go to the camps. The slave vollunteered to be a slave.
This isn't at all the same. You didn't vollunteer to go to the camps. The slave vollunteered to be a slave.
A sub is not a slave, even if they call themselves that as a part of fulfilling their fantasies. The other person or persons does not literally own them. They pretend to be owned, sometimes even going so far as to be in "slave" mode at all times, but this could change at a moments whim. If the sub gets bored of their dom, they can just say, "Ok, hey it's been really fun, but I think we need to move on. it's not you, really, your a great person, it's me. I hope we can still be friends." That person is not a slave, and attempting to equate them to actual slaves is facetious, at best.
Maybe maybe not I was just making a point.
I think it's a rather large stretch to call Torm evil, but ok. Having played Gurps, Star Wars, DnD and some of those old games we all love to be nostalgic about, there is no difference between how fleshed out a character in any of those games is capable of being, especially when using the houseruled version of alignment I've mentioned before.
Maybe however in my experience games with alignment lead to cookie cutter characters, especially for new players who then play their alignment rather than an actual character. This is what I want to prevent, oh and alignment does not model a real persons personality. You cannot catagorize a person using alignment. It is impossible to acuratley portray a fully fleshed out person using alignment. Gurps to me does not even seem like a an rp game as they have skills for everything seems too rules heavy to actualy be a decent rpg. Star Wars has no alignment, well light darkside but thats not alignment per se. I dont get nostalgic very often. There is nothing about the old games I played that I miss that the new do not have. But thats another story.
Why would having it mentioned in the core books as an optional rule affect you in any way if you don't want to use it? also, isn't part of the 4e design philosophy that all official books are core? How would a rule in one of them be different than an optional rule in one of the three "core" books? A DM's obligation to allow a player to use it or not would be exactly the same, unless no one in the group had the book or the character builder.
Actually Id have it in something like unearthed arcana completley optional rules. Not in the core books.
Maybe maybe not I was just making a point.Maybe however in my experience games with alignment lead to cookie cutter characters, especially for new players who then play their alignment rather than an actual character. This is what I want to prevent,
Decivre what you are doing here is setting up false and sometimes partial analogies to support your argument. Restrictions on some freedoms, which may or may not be "basic" (you or I might consider the right to bear arms as "basic" but that is a highly controversial proposition to many people) is still not the same thing as turning a person into property. Nothing is the "same" as doing that - not even the caste system in India.
Slavery makes you, as a person, the property of another, and thus your daily existence and most of your basic freedoms are beholden to the whims of another. This is not like parenthood (except partially), this is not like having a pet frog (except partially), this is not like caste restrictions (except partially). The total removal of self-determination in its most traditional meaning cannot be be compared to the partial removals your are postulating above. Otherwise we would not call it slavery, we would call it something else.
If I'm understanding you right, you are saying since the partial removal of freedom and self-determination is ok in some cases, then the total removal of freedom and self-determination must be ok in some cases as well. Your rape analogy is therefore false. A more accurate one would be: "Since rape involves sex and some sex is good then some rapes must be good as well."
As for selling oneself into slavery selflessly, we seem to be once again confusing the personal with the institutional. I am certain that many people who sold themselves into slavery throughout history did so for very good and selfless reasons. I would never call such a person evil. It is, however, the insitution that was evil. If I hide a strange child from SS stormtroopers and call attention to myself so they can take me to the camps instead, it is a selfless act. That act, however, does not mean genocide is good.
Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the removal of freedom, in every instance, is not evil under the presupposition that the person has no intention of making his "victim" suffer and the act isn't done directly for personal gain. In many cases, the removal of freedom (even total removal) is not necesarily done for the purpose of harming someone... why would that be considered evil?
Case in point: the Fallout post-apocalyptic series of games has based most of its setting around the vaults. Inside the vaults, no one has the right to leave (to keep them safe from the nuclear apocalypse), no one has the right to speak their mind (to prevent a drop in morale, and widespread panic in an otherwise cramped vault), no one has access to weaponry (to prevent anarchy), and everyone has to listen absolutely to the authority of the Vault Keeper (in order to maintain structure). The end result is a near complete loss of freedom in every way, but the original intention (saving the human race) was good. So why are the vaults, under your definition (as you believe that complete removal of freedom is evil), automatically evil?
Hamakto wrote:
Actually, I never said what you stated above. The only statement that I every made was that it was evil to Summon / Create undead. Aaragon did neither of those and in fact, took the situation and allowed them to fulfill their vow and to finally gain peace and pass onto death.
I don't see how creating something could be evil while actually using it somehow isn't. That doesn't make sense to me. If the tool is evil, and creating it is evil, then why is using it not evil?
Hamakto wrote:
The warping of their spirit is how it relates in DnD. What happens when someone is killed by a Ghoul, Ghast, Vampire, or Shadow? Their souls come back as tourtured undead and they are twisted into evil.
Actually no. When killed by a ghoul, ghast or shadow, you come back as a ghoul, ghast or shadow. It does not say that you are still you when you come back as an undead being. Far as I can tell, a new personality is born when the body rises again. The same is true with zombies and other such things... you aren't corrupted into a zombie, the zombie is an intelligence independent of yours (an animalistic one at that).
Hamakto wrote:
Ok, before you get too convinced of this... The movies were 90-120 minutes in length for each movie. How deep into moral discussion can you really get into a movie and actually get any major plot action done? Especially in a Sci-Fi movie.
In reality, the first Star Wars movie was a Sci-Fi spegetti western. But that discussion should be on a differnt thread.
So if you look to the base of literature out there for Star Wars, you will see that the movies just barely touch on the true conflict of the universe.
Actually, no they don't. George Lucas himself says that the greatest authority for the Star Wars universe is the six films. We can argue all day whether the others should be counted, but word of god says "no". That said, Star Wars has a very simple moral structure, and one very common amongst standard high fantasy... definitive good (Jedi) and definitive evil (Sith), with everyone else siding with either or. Considering that high fantasy is the very fiction concept that alignment was trying to mimic (since just like with Star Wars and all other high fantasy works, it tries to be as simple as Black & White with no deeper moral issues), the Star Wars films are quite valid.
Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the removal of freedom, in every instance, is not evil under the presupposition that the person has no intention of making his "victim" suffer and the act isn't done directly for personal g
Actually, no they don't. George Lucas himself says that the greatest authority for the Star Wars universe is the six films. We can argue all day whether the others should be counted, but word of god says "no". That said, Star Wars has a very simple moral structure, and one very common amongst standard high fantasy... definitive good (Jedi) and definitive evil (Sith), with everyone else siding with either or. Considering that high fantasy is the very fiction concept that alignment was trying to mimic (since just like with Star Wars and all other high fantasy works, it tries to be as simple as Black & White with no deeper moral issues), the Star Wars films are quite valid.
This may come out more snarky than I mean it to be, but I do not see anyother way to really say this.
So you are saying that the LOTR movies actively portray the full depth and bredth of the complete moral, political, social landscape of the Tolkein universe.
I will also note, that every Star Wars novel and plot line are approved by Lucas. So those other stories that you are dismissing as not relevant are actually relevant.
This may come out more snarky than I mean it to be, but I do not see anyother way to really say this.So you are saying that the LOTR movies actively portray the full depth and bredth of the complete moral, political, social landscape of the Tolkein u
This isn't at all the same. You didn't vollunteer to go to the camps. The slave vollunteered to be a slave.
I really fail to understand your disconnect here. According to your own definitions, I am "volunteering" to go in place of the child. I made the choice. I maybe could have remained hidden and escaped. But that might have exposed the child. I was selfless.
Or are you saying that if a prospective debt-slave had an option between selling himself into slavery to pay back his debts or using some other form of less onerous repayment method (like payment stretched over a longer period of time) it is likely that that person would still rather be a slave instead?
See even if we say “well the guy sold himself rather than selling his wife” that still does not give the institution a free pass. It is still the worst option available. I’m sure he would not want to sell anybody close to him or himself. But to save his wife from subjugation and bondage he chooses (volunteers) to enslave himself. How does that give slavery a free pass morally?
If we follow your objection to its obvious conclusion, there were people who historically sold themselves into slavery for no reason at all simply other than they wanted to volunteer to become property. If there is a reason (like debt) then that is still a negative incentive, i.e. a “compulsion.” In my genocide example, I would obviously rather both the child and I NOT go to the camps.
I must wonder why you fail to see this. Again, are you serious or just mocking me?
I really fail to understand your disconnect here. According to your own definitions, I am "volunteering" to go in place of the child. I made the choice. I maybe could have remained hidden and escaped. But that might have exposed the child. I was
This may come out more snarky than I mean it to be, but I do not see anyother way to really say this.
So you are saying that the LOTR movies actively portray the full depth and bredth of the complete moral, political, social landscape of the Tolkein universe.
I will also note, that every Star Wars novel and plot line are approved by Lucas. So those other stories that you are dismissing as not relevant are actually relevant.
No, because the movies are an adaptation of the books, and as such will never be able to perfectly convey the themes that the books did.
In that same vein, book adaptations of the Star Wars movies will also fail to convey everything the movies did, because some things are always lost in the transition to a new medium.
That said, while he approves of the expanded universe novels, that does not necessarily mean he openly accepts them as equals to his movies in terms of conveying his universe as he felt it should. He doesn't even read them. That's like saying that V for Vendetta's film is equally relevant to the comics, solely because Alan Moore initially okayed the project... completely discounting the fact that he demanded his name be completely removed from the film. When George Lucas says things like this: [INDENT]
Starlog Magazine Interview]STARLOG: "The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse. Do you ever find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the novels, comics, and other offshoots?"
LUCAS: "I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions."
[/INDENT] I find it hard to believe he considers EU material to be canon on the same level as his wrote:
STARLOG: "The Star Wars Universe is so large and diverse. Do you ever find yourself confused by the subsidiary material that's in the novels, comics, and other offshoots?"
LUCAS: "I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world. But I do try to keep it consistent. The way I do it now is they have a Star Wars Encyclopedia. So if I come up with a name or something else, I look it up and see if it has already been used. When I said [other people] could make their own Star Wars stories, we decided that, like Star Trek, we would have two universes: My universe and then this other one. They try to make their universe as consistent with mine as possible, but obviously they get enthusiastic and want to go off in other directions."[/quote] [/INDENT] I find it hard to believe he considers EU material to be canon on the same level as his films.
No, because the movies are an adaptation of the books, and as such will never be able to perfectly convey the themes that the books did.In that same vein, book adaptations of the Star Wars movies will also fail to convey everything the movies did, be
The end result is a near complete loss of freedom in every way, but the original intention (saving the human race) was good. So why are the vaults, under your definition (as you believe that complete removal of freedom is evil), automatically evil?.
Most "evil" in the history of the world has been perpetrated under the cover of "good" intentions. Crusades, inquisitions, jihads, yes even genocides. Now I don't know who these Fallout devs are but I would guess they've never had all their freedom removed or lived in a dictatorship where you had no freedom to do anything. Neither have I. But someone very close to me has and I can tell you what she describes as her life under such a regime is something I would not wish on my worst enemy.
The reason why George Orwell wrote that famous book of his was to describe the kind of damage (psychic damage, spiritual damage) that can result when a person's most basic freedoms are removed. Human beings are not idiotic fleshbags where your only worry as a slave master is to see that they are properly fed and groomed and then they'll just be a-ok. Not even dogs can suffer the absolute removal of freedom - I've seen dogs irreparably damaged by being confined to a small space without any other form of abuse but that.
In fact, if you study the abolition movements historically, most of them did not cite the reason for their wish to see slavery abolished because it was not applied humanely. They did not say "hey, if slaves were properly treated we would think slavery is right on!" They had a very real problem (as do I) with the basic concept of one human being becoming the property of another.
I can see that you don't. Again, fine. The only reason I interjected further was because you implied that somehow my viewpoint was not nuanced enough, i.e. I see things in "black and white." Alas, that is the problem when you accept that there are such concepts as "good" and "evil." Personally, I see the nuance in your argument perfectly. I just don't agree with it. That's not because I think you are thinking wrongly. It's because I think you're wrong.
And you think I am. Again, enough said.
Most "evil" in the history of the world has been perpetrated under the cover of "good" intentions. Crusades, inquisitions, jihads, yes even genocides. Now I don't know who these Fallout devs are but I would guess they've never had all their freedom
Most "evil" in the history of the world has been perpetrated under the cover of "good" intentions. Crusades, inquisitions, jihads, yes even genocides. Now I don't know who these Fallout devs are but I would guess they've never had all their freedom removed or lived in a dictatorship where you had no freedom to do anything. Neither have I. But someone very close to me has and I can tell you what she describes as her life under such a regime is something I would not wish on my worst enemy.
The reason why George Orwell wrote that famous book of his was to describe the kind of damage (psychic damage, spiritual damage) that can result when a person's most basic freedoms are removed. Human beings are not idiotic fleshbags where your only worry as a slave master is to see that they are properly fed and groomed and then they'll just be a-ok. Not even dogs can suffer the absolute removal of freedom - I've seen dogs irreparably damaged by being confined to a small space without any other form of abuse but that.
In fact, if you study the abolition movements historically, most of them did not cite the reason for their wish to see slavery abolished because it was not applied humanely. They did not say "hey, if slaves were properly treated we would think slavery is right on!" They had a very real problem (as do I) with the basic concept of one human being becoming the property of another.
I can see that you don't. Again, fine. The only reason I interjected further was because you implied that somehow my viewpoint was not nuanced enough, i.e. I see things in "black and white." Alas, that is the problem when you accept that there are such concepts as "good" and "evil." Personally, I see the nuance in your argument perfectly. I just don't agree with it. That's not because I think you are thinking wrongly. It's because I think you're wrong.
And you think I am. Again, enough said.
That's spot on non-hypocritical, logical thinking at it's best. Well said and well done.
That's spot on non-hypocritical, logical thinking at it's best. Well said and well done.:thumbsup:
Most "evil" in the history of the world has been perpetrated under the cover of "good" intentions.
I would argue that 99% of all 'evil' in the world is perpetrated by those who believe they are doing 'good' (or, at the very least, what's necessary for 'good').
The one exception would be psychopaths, but they're a rather special case anyway (and not really relevant to a discussion about alignment).
I would argue that 99% of all 'evil' in the world is perpetrated by those who believe they are doing 'good' (or, at the very least, what's necessary for 'good').The one exception would be psychopaths, but they're a rather special case anyway (and not
Most "evil" in the history of the world has been perpetrated under the cover of "good" intentions. Crusades, inquisitions, jihads, yes even genocides. Now I don't know who these Fallout devs are but I would guess they've never had all their freedom removed or lived in a dictatorship where you had no freedom to do anything. Neither have I. But someone very close to me has and I can tell you what she describes as her life under such a regime is something I would not wish on my worst enemy.
The reason why George Orwell wrote that famous book of his was to describe the kind of damage (psychic damage, spiritual damage) that can result when a person's most basic freedoms are removed. Human beings are not idiotic fleshbags where your only worry as a slave master is to see that they are properly fed and groomed and then they'll just be a-ok. Not even dogs can suffer the absolute removal of freedom - I've seen dogs irreparably damaged by being confined to a small space without any other form of abuse but that.
In fact, if you study the abolition movements historically, most of them did not cite the reason for their wish to see slavery abolished because it was not applied humanely. They did not say "hey, if slaves were properly treated we would think slavery is right on!" They had a very real problem (as do I) with the basic concept of one human being becoming the property of another.
I can see that you don't. Again, fine. The only reason I interjected further was because you implied that somehow my viewpoint was not nuanced enough, i.e. I see things in "black and white." Alas, that is the problem when you accept that there are such concepts as "good" and "evil." Personally, I see the nuance in your argument perfectly. I just don't agree with it. That's not because I think you are thinking wrongly. It's because I think you're wrong.
And you think I am. Again, enough said.
I doubt it was solely the lack of freedoms which caused your friend to dislike the regime they lived under. It was probably the other issues that often occur in such scenarios (violence, cruel mistreatment of people, psychological torment) that caused your friend to be bothered by it. I definitely agree that oftentimes the removal of freedoms preclude horrific acts (the examples you gave quite perfect for such a scenario), but I disagree in that the removal of freedoms is not evil unless they are part and parcel to such horrific acts. The removal of freedom can preclude acts with both good and bad intentions (bad intentions: the holocaust; good intentions: the PATRIOT act). This does not make any removal of freedom condonable, as I have always stated that such acts are still unethical. I've only stated that I do not feel they are, in themselves, evil.
That said, I've never implied in any way that you only see things in a black/white perspective. I'm simply assumed that you see this as a clearly black act (as in it is always evil). This in no way leads me to believe that you necessarily feel the same way about other things, because there are always some things that people feel are always evil (I can't personally see any way that rape could be a good, or even morally gray, act). The only real disagreement we have is that I could theoretically see scenarios in which slavery could be used in a manner that is not necessarily evil. You do not, hence we have dissonance.
I doubt it was solely the lack of freedoms which caused your friend to dislike the regime they lived under. It was probably the other issues that often occur in such scenarios (violence, cruel mistreatment of people, psychological torment) that cause
That said, Star Wars has a very simple moral structure, and one very common amongst standard high fantasy... definitive good (Jedi) and definitive evil (Sith), with everyone else siding with either or. Considering that high fantasy is the very fiction concept that alignment was trying to mimic (since just like with Star Wars and all other high fantasy works, it tries to be as simple as Black & White with no deeper moral issues), the Star Wars films are quite valid.
Definitive neutral(Jedi) and definitive evil(Sith). That was the moral setting of Star Wars. The Jedi didn't allow themselves to explore good emotions. Love was discouraged among the Jedi. Logic, peace, BALANCE OF THE FORCE, calm. Those were what the Jedi practiced. Not "good". They supported the Republic, because the Republic was the best way to achieve the balance they sought.
Definitive neutral(Jedi) and definitive evil(Sith). That was the moral setting of Star Wars. The Jedi didn't allow themselves to explore good emotions. Love was discouraged among the Jedi. Logic, peace, BALANCE OF THE FORCE, calm. Those were what
I definitely agree that oftentimes the removal of freedoms preclude horrific acts (the examples you gave quite perfect for such a scenario), but I disagree in that the removal of freedoms is not evil unless they are part and parcel to such horrific acts. The removal of freedom can preclude acts with both good and bad intentions (bad intentions: the holocaust; good intentions: the PATRIOT act). This does not make any removal of freedom condonable, as I have always stated that such acts are still unethical. I've only stated that I do not feel they are, in themselves, evil.
You know, the Holocaust was just the end result of a whole series of attempts for the Nazi regime to improve the conditions in Germany. I would think that the Patriot Act and the initial imprisonment of german citizens are more analogous in the good department than you give credit.
It wasn't just the Jews that the Nazis rounded up but governmental dissidenters and individuals deemed a threat to German national unity. Sorta like the unwarranted arrests of individuals not associated with the terrorist attacks in America.
Edit: Not sure if you are the first to bring it up but... Godwin's Law.
You know, the Holocaust was just the end result of a whole series of attempts for the Nazi regime to improve the conditions in Germany. I would think that the Patriot Act and the initial imprisonment of german citizens are more analogous in the good
Definitive neutral(Jedi) and definitive evil(Sith). That was the moral setting of Star Wars. The Jedi didn't allow themselves to explore good emotions. Love was discouraged among the Jedi. Logic, peace, BALANCE OF THE FORCE, calm. Those were what the Jedi practiced. Not "good". They supported the Republic, because the Republic was the best way to achieve the balance they sought.
This was my position earlier in the thread, but somebody posted a link that clarified the writers' positions. Jedi = good, sith = evil, and "balance" = all evil destroyed.
Yeah, it's a stupid use of the word "balance."
This was my position earlier in the thread, but somebody posted a link that clarified the writers' positions. Jedi = good, sith = evil, and "balance" = all evil destroyed.Yeah, it's a stupid use of the word "balance."
This was my position earlier in the thread, but somebody posted a link that clarified the writers' positions. Jedi = good, sith = evil, and "balance" = all evil destroyed.
Yeah, it's a stupid use of the word "balance."
Yup. It's not so much that balance proves the Jedi are Neutral, but rather that George Lucas sucks at writing high fantasy.
Yup. It's not so much that balance proves the Jedi are Neutral, but rather that George Lucas sucks at writing high fantasy.
I really fail to understand your disconnect here. According to your own definitions, I am "volunteering" to go in place of the child. I made the choice. I maybe could have remained hidden and escaped. But that might have exposed the child. I was selfless.
You didn't. You NEVER vollunteered to go in place of the child. You tried to protect the child, got caught, and were sent against your will to the camps. Even if you knowing knew that going to the camps was possible if you helped the kid, you still didn't vollunteer to go there willlingly, so your example is nothing like the slave example.
Or are you saying that if a prospective debt-slave had an option between selling himself into slavery to pay back his debts or using some other form of less onerous repayment method (like payment stretched over a longer period of time) it is likely that that person would still rather be a slave instead?
I'm saying as an example, if you walk up and say "Hey, I really need the money for my family. My mother is dying and needs surgery, so if you give me $500,000.00, I'll be your slave.", that is someone who is a willing slave.
See even if we say “well the guy sold himself rather than selling his wife” that still does not give the institution a free pass.
There is no "institution" of slavery. There are many different institutions of slavery, and also individual slave owners whose actions modify whichever institution they are part of.
It is still the worst option available. I’m sure he would not want to sell anybody close to him or himself. But to save his wife from subjugation and bondage he chooses (volunteers) to enslave himself. How does that give slavery a free pass morally?
It doesn't. Immoral =/= evil.
If we follow your objection to its obvious conclusion, there were people who historically sold themselves into slavery for no reason at all simply other than they wanted to volunteer to become property. If there is a reason (like debt) then that is still a negative incentive, i.e. a “compulsion.” In my genocide example, I would obviously rather both the child and I NOT go to the camps.
There are people who go out and commit crimes for no other reason than to go to jail. They don't want the hastle of having to pay bills. They fear not knowing if they can pay their bills or afford the roof over their heads. They WANT and DESIRE the State to tell them what to do, provide them with 3 meals a day, and take away their freedom. They are willing slaves, just as some people long ago did the same thing for the same reasons.
You didn't. You NEVER vollunteered to go in place of the child. You tried to protect the child, got caught, and were sent against your will to the camps. Even if you knowing knew that going to the camps was possible if you helped the kid, you stil
This was my position earlier in the thread, but somebody posted a link that clarified the writers' positions. Jedi = good, sith = evil, and "balance" = all evil destroyed.
Yeah, it's a stupid use of the word "balance."
Yeah, it wasn't so much that the Jedi believed in 'neutrality' but more they believed that some typical 'good' things were actually a trap that lead to evil. So, love was forbidden because it inevitably led to the Dark Side.
(Which makes one wonder why there aren't more Sith Casanovas :confused
Yeah, it wasn't so much that the Jedi believed in 'neutrality' but more they believed that some typical 'good' things were actually a trap that lead to evil. So, love was forbidden because it inevitably led to the Dark Side. (Which makes one wonder w
This was my position earlier in the thread, but somebody posted a link that clarified the writers' positions. Jedi = good, sith = evil, and "balance" = all evil destroyed.
Yeah, it's a stupid use of the word "balance."
Yeah I always hated the jedi code because of that. Emotions make you stronger not weaker. In most respects in my opinion the sith are better than the jedi. But I also have problems with Vulcans from startrek. Making descisions based soley on logic is not how you solve moral problems or anything dealing with people. Because human beings are inherently illogical. Balance is mostly an illusion that cannot truly exist.
Also Decivre Id say that taking away rights is most of the time an evil act. And yes I include any form of censorship as evil. There should be no censorship of the media at all none. But thats just my opinion. As to right to bear arms as that can actually cause harm to people it should be severly restricted. Your rights end at the ability to harm the rights of others. But thats just me.
Which is why in my opinion Torm would be evil because if you disagree with him he and his people kill you. If you dont bow down to their view of good they will invade you. Sounds evil to me. Which again is why Im against alignment because everyone has their own interpitation of what is good and evil. And getting even two people to agree is difficult.
Yeah I always hated the jedi code because of that. Emotions make you stronger not weaker. In most respects in my opinion the sith are better than the jedi. But I also have problems with Vulcans from startrek. Making descisions based soley on logic
This was my position earlier in the thread, but somebody posted a link that clarified the writers' positions. Jedi = good, sith = evil, and "balance" = all evil destroyed.
Yeah, it's a stupid use of the word "balance."
I remember that, and then I think I responded with "Yeah, but the writer(Lucas) is stupid." He wrote the movies with the Jedi acting under a philosophy of NEUTRALALITY. They removed the Jedi children from their mothers at a very early age so that they could not form an attachment of love. They made sure that Jedi didn't have strong positive emotions OR negative emotions. In short, Lucas was a **** poor writer who did more harm than good to his Star Wars universe with the last 3 movies he made.
I remember that, and then I think I responded with "Yeah, but the writer(Lucas) is stupid." He wrote the movies with the Jedi acting under a philosophy of NEUTRALALITY. They removed the Jedi children from their mothers at a very early age so that t
Also Decivre Id say that taking away rights is most of the time an evil act. And yes I include any form of censorship as evil. There should be no censorship of the media at all none. But thats just my opinion. As to right to bear arms as that can actually cause harm to people it should be severly restricted. Your rights end at the ability to harm the rights of others. But thats just me.
Without sidetracking this post more than it already has been...
*** EDITED TO AVOID VIOLATION OF THE CoC ***
Without sidetracking this post more than it already has been...*** EDITED TO AVOID VIOLATION OF THE CoC ***
Without sidetracking this post more than it already has been...
I would honestly say an un-restrained media (i.e. zero censorship) has actually hurt more people than any sort of responsible media. Period.
The logical fallacy that words cannot hurt people is a bunch of BS. But it is one weapon to fight the depotism that is slowing growing up around us in the guised of socialsm. The point of goverment telling us what we can and cannot do for our own safety.
The Right to Bear arms is probably the most important right AFTER free press in the Bill of Rights. This is the ultimate check by individuals on the government. For without weapons, a population can be far more easily controlled. The ultimate right of revolution is much harder and bloodier if the population at large is not armed.
I am not a fanatic out there, but I firmly believe in MY rights as granted by the Constitution. That takeing away my rights in the guise of knowing what is best for me is a direct road to oblivion.
Right to Arms = Good because guns can be used to hurt people. Free Speech = Bad because words can be used to hurt people.
Right to Arms = Good because guns can be used to hurt people.Free Speech = Bad because words can be used to hurt people. :confused:
As to the Jedi: The jedi order espouses a LN alignment in Lucas' movie (IMHO). They work to have a high self disipline, banish emotions over logic, and really do not care about right and wrong actions as a whole as long as it is good for the Republic.
And technically, this not caring about the right and wrong is one of the things that lead Anakin down the path to the dark side. His desire to do what is right and not what was allowed.
As to the Jedi: The jedi order espouses a LN alignment in Lucas' movie (IMHO). They work to have a high self disipline, banish emotions over logic, and really do not care about right and wrong actions as a whole as long as it is good for the Republ
The **** is probably the most important **** AFTER **** in the ****. This is the ultimate check by individuals on the government. For without weapons, a population can be far more easily controlled. The ultimate right of revolution is much harder and bloodier if the population at large is not armed.
This is an illusion. Pistols, rifles, and shotguns just won't cut it if a Revolution happens. Tanks, nukes, missles, fighters, bombers, smart bombs, chemical weapons, and vastly superior guns will give the Government's army an auto win. Revolution is not possible in modern America. The only way we can overthrow the Government in this day and age is if the army and/or government splits against itself, and that's Civil War, not Revolution.
This is an illusion. Pistols, rifles, and shotguns just won't cut it if a Revolution happens. Tanks, nukes, missles, fighters, bombers, smart bombs, chemical weapons, and vastly superior guns will give the Government's army an auto win. Revolution
Also Decivre Id say that taking away rights is most of the time an evil act. And yes I include any form of censorship as evil. There should be no censorship of the media at all none. But thats just my opinion. As to right to bear arms as that can actually cause harm to people it should be severly restricted. Your rights end at the ability to harm the rights of others. But thats just me.
Which is why in my opinion Torm would be evil because if you disagree with him he and his people kill you. If you dont bow down to their view of good they will invade you. Sounds evil to me. Which again is why Im against alignment because everyone has their own interpitation of what is good and evil. And getting even two people to agree is difficult.
To me, the difference between an unethical act and an evil act is in result. An unethical act is any act that I see as wrong... but could potentially be done for the right reasons. Breaking the speed limit in order to get someone to the emergency room is unethical (you are putting all other drivers on the road in danger by doing so), but you have the best intentions (saving a life). Unlawful search of someone's home is unethical (you are violating their rights), but can be done for good reasons (to catch a criminal). An unethical act, to me, is anything that is still condemnable but could be seen as morally justified (albeit I would never consider it justified enough to not consider condemnable).
So slavery? I would never condone it. It is the conversion of people into property, and is very much wrong. But, I could see good intentions as to why it might be used. This does not mean that any slave owners have ever had those intentions... in fact, none of them may have had those intentions historically. That does not mean those intentions are not a possibility, and therefore slavery could be used in an attempt to do good in the most wrong way.
As for the right to bear arms, it is intended to ensure that people can protect their rights should their government ever become tyrannical. The 2nd Amendment was literally an "if we screw up, this is how you will do the next revolution" clause. Removing a person's right to protect his rights is just as bad a violation as any other. I feel it unethical, but as with all other "removals of rights", I don't see it as blatantly evil in every instance (prohibiting weapons in schools and government buildings as a means of protecting children or officials, for example).
To me, the difference between an unethical act and an evil act is in result. An unethical act is any act that I see as wrong... but could potentially be done for the right reasons. Breaking the speed limit in order to get someone to the emergency roo
Read the part of the trhead where I hate Vulcans, well and star trek in general but yeah if I ever did any kind of startrek rp I would kill every vulcan. They make no sense as a race. No one can survive by ignoring their emotions. You cannot understand people from a purley logical standpoint. Life itself is not logical. The laws of nature, yes actual life no. Only by combining logic with emotion can you truly understand anything.
Read the part of the trhead where I hate Vulcans, well and star trek in general but yeah if I ever did any kind of startrek rp I would kill every vulcan. They make no sense as a race. No one can survive by ignoring their emotions. You cannot under
This is an illusion. Pistols, rifles, and shotguns just won't cut it if a Revolution happens. Tanks, nukes, missles, fighters, bombers, smart bombs, chemical weapons, and vastly superior guns will give the Government's army an auto win. Revolution is not possible in modern America. The only way we can overthrow the Government in this day and age is if the army and/or government splits against itself, and that's Civil War, not Revolution.
Historically, the definition of civil war and revolution have been identical with one specific difference: the victor. Revolutions have generally referenced internal conflicts where the government was overthrown, while civil wars have referenced those where the government held fast.
Historically, the definition of civil war and revolution have been identical with one specific difference: the victor. Revolutions have generally referenced internal conflicts where the government was overthrown, while civil wars have referenced thos
I remember that, and then I think I responded with "Yeah, but the writer(Lucas) is stupid." He wrote the movies with the Jedi acting under a philosophy of NEUTRALALITY. They removed the Jedi children from their mothers at a very early age so that they could not form an attachment of love. They made sure that Jedi didn't have strong positive emotions OR negative emotions. In short, Lucas was a **** poor writer who did more harm than good to his Star Wars universe with the last 3 movies he made.
I think this post sort of gets to the heart of one of alignment's problems.
According to Geroge Lucas, emotions are bad because they lead people to a dark place, and the Jedi are good for eschewing all emotion. I'm sure he sees their abandonment of love as a valiant sacrifice they make in order to avoid the pitfalls of desire, fear, jealousy, and betrayal so that they can better protect the world from the Sith. The Jedi are therefore good.
According to Maxperson and William, there are both good and bad emotions, and eschewing good emotions like love along with bad emotions makes a person neutral.
Another player might say that the Jedi's policy toward love is thoroughly immaterial. The Jedi seek to help, protect, and avoid harming others, so they are good regardless of how they see themselves.
If these four players – George Lucas, Maxperson, William, and Player A – sat down to play Darths and Droids, their first conversation would have to be about whether or not the Jedi are lawful neutral, lawful good, or even true neutral.
Since all four of them are Star Wars fans, expect the conversation to last most of the night, and expect frequent disagreements between players over what the "light side" and the "dark side" represent. George Lucas thinks "balance" means complete eradication of the the dark side, which means the white side represents balance and the dark side represents extremes on any axis. Maxperson thinks the light side represents good emotions, and balance is represented by a lack of all emotion – a person who is neither light nor dark.
The truth of the matter will have a major effect on how the universe reacts to those characters. Their competing visions of the the mystical force would be an awesome thing to play out – the rift forming in the Jedi council, the rebellious, emotional followers of Max trying to destroy the dark side in their own way, while also avoiding persecution from George's sect, which believes that Max and all his ilk are destined to become what they fight. Unfortunately, the alignment rules forbid such a storyline. Once we've finally determined that Jedi means lawful good, Max's character loses all of his Jedi powers when he confronts the Jedi council with his message of "love" and other "good emotions."
I think this post sort of gets to the heart of one of alignment's problems.According to Geroge Lucas, emotions are bad because they lead people to a dark place, and the Jedi are good for eschewing all emotion. I'm sure he sees their abandonment of l
Read the part of the trhead where I hate Vulcans, well and star trek in general but yeah if I ever did any kind of startrek rp I would kill every vulcan. They make no sense as a race. No one can survive by ignoring their emotions. You cannot understand people from a purley logical standpoint. Life itself is not logical. The laws of nature, yes actual life no. Only by combining logic with emotion can you truly understand anything.
Historically, the definition of civil war and revolution have been identical with one specific difference: the victor. Revolutions have generally referenced internal conflicts where the government was overthrown, while civil wars have referenced those where the government held fast.
I've always viewed Revolution as People vs. Goverment, and Civil War as Government vs. Government. The people of America revolted against England. The french people revolted against their nobility. Two portions of the American Government and the people under them, the Northern portion(23 States) and the Southern portion(11 States) engaged in Civil War.
I've always viewed Revolution as People vs. Goverment, and Civil War as Government vs. Government. The people of America revolted against England. The french people revolted against their nobility. Two portions of the American Government and the p
I've always viewed Revolution as People vs. Goverment, and Civil War as Government vs. Government. The people of America revolted against England. The french people revolted against their nobility. Two portions of the American Government and the people under them, the Northern portion(23 States) and the Southern portion(11 States) engaged in Civil War.
Perhaps that was the case, as now that I recall the Spanish Civil War was a governmental overthrow as well. Then again, no one within the revolting side of that civil war was part of the republic that actually ruled the country.
Maybe there really isn't a difference between the terms.
Perhaps that was the case, as now that I recall the Spanish Civil War was a governmental overthrow as well. Then again, no one within the revolting side of that civil war was part of the republic that actually ruled the country.Maybe there really isn
I think this post sort of gets to the heart of one of alignment's problems.
According to Geroge Lucas, emotions are bad because they lead people to a dark place, and the Jedi are good for eschewing all emotion. I'm sure he sees their abandonment of love as a valiant sacrifice they make in order to avoid the pitfalls of desire, fear, jealousy, and betrayal so that they can better protect the world from the Sith. The Jedi are therefore good.
According to Maxperson and William, there are both good and bad emotions, and eschewing good emotions like love along with bad emotions makes a person neutral.
Not quite even bad emotions can serve a good purpose, just as positive emotions can become bad. Its all in how you deal with them. Simply denying them is not good.
Even anger can be good. Ill paraphrase/quote the dresden files. "Anger sometimes leads to passion and passion has toppled tyrants and freed slaves, in fact those things do not happen without passion." The line between good and evil is mostly really blurry, and should be blurry. Life is messy. Look at the NWOD changling game. Each of the four courts is divided acording to a season with an emotion attached to it. Each one has positive and negative aspects. Spring is desire. Summer is wrath, Autumn is fear, and winter is Sorrow.
To my mind it is our emotions that truly make us human. The Jedi condone truly evil acts, mainly forcibly taking children from their homes in the name of balance. While at the same time denying training to anyone above a certain age. To my mind that makes them little better than the sith.
Not quite even bad emotions can serve a good purpose, just as positive emotions can become bad. Its all in how you deal with them. Simply denying them is not good.Even anger can be good. Ill paraphrase/quote the dresden files. "Anger sometimes le
Perhaps that was the case, as now that I recall the Spanish Civil War was a governmental overthrow as well. Then again, no one within the revolting side of that civil war was part of the republic that actually ruled the country.
Maybe there really isn't a difference between the terms.
But it was between the Army and the Government. It wasn't the Spanish people rising up to overthrow the system.
But it was between the Army and the Government. It wasn't the Spanish people rising up to overthrow the system.
Not quite even bad emotions can serve a good purpose, just as positive emotions can become bad. Its all in how you deal with them. Simply denying them is not good.
Even anger can be good. Ill paraphrase/quote the dresden files. "Anger sometimes leads to passion and passion has toppled tyrants and freed slaves, in fact those things do not happen without passion." The line between good and evil is mostly really blurry, and should be blurry. Life is messy. Look at the NWOD changling game. Each of the four courts is divided acording to a season with an emotion attached to it. Each one has positive and negative aspects. Spring is desire. Summer is wrath, Autumn is fear, and winter is Sorrow.
To my mind it is our emotions that truly make us human. The Jedi condone truly evil acts, mainly forcibly taking children from their homes in the name of balance. While at the same time denying training to anyone above a certain age. To my mind that makes them little better than the sith.
Actually, taking children to train them in the ways of the Jedi has parables to many religions which often took children to be trained and educated. That said, I've never seen any info that states they took children by force.
Actually, taking children to train them in the ways of the Jedi has parables to many religions which often took children to be trained and educated. That said, I've never seen any info that states they took children by force.
Not quite even bad emotions can serve a good purpose, just as positive emotions can become bad. Its all in how you deal with them. Simply denying them is not good.
Yep. According to Lucas, if Luke hadn't used his anger and the dark side of the force, he wouldn't have beaten Vader, and set Vader up to have to save him from the Emperor. Luke could have stayed calm and passive, and The Empire Strikes back would have ended quite differently.
To my mind it is our emotions that truly make us human. The Jedi condone truly evil acts, mainly forcibly taking children from their homes in the name of balance. While at the same time denying training to anyone above a certain age. To my mind that makes them little better than the sith.
The Jedi also work as assassins and other "dark" jobs if they feel there is a need for it.
Yep. According to Lucas, if Luke hadn't used his anger and the dark side of the force, he wouldn't have beaten Vader, and set Vader up to have to save him from the Emperor. Luke could have stayed calm and passive, and The Empire Strikes back would
Not quite even bad emotions can serve a good purpose, just as positive emotions can become bad. Its all in how you deal with them. Simply denying them is not good.
Even anger can be good. Ill paraphrase/quote the dresden files. "Anger sometimes leads to passion and passion has toppled tyrants and freed slaves, in fact those things do not happen without passion." The line between good and evil is mostly really blurry, and should be blurry. Life is messy. Look at the NWOD changling game. Each of the four courts is divided acording to a season with an emotion attached to it. Each one has positive and negative aspects. Spring is desire. Summer is wrath, Autumn is fear, and winter is Sorrow.
To my mind it is our emotions that truly make us human. The Jedi condone truly evil acts, mainly forcibly taking children from their homes in the name of balance. While at the same time denying training to anyone above a certain age. To my mind that makes them little better than the sith.
Then we have yet another interpretation: the ends justify the means of emotion, so therefore the Jedi are actually evil for forcibly removing useful tools from their students' arsenals. This would be a long conversation indeed, and in the end would only serve to make the actual game less interesting, because all views of the world would have been homogenized before gameplay even began.
Then we have yet another interpretation: the ends justify the means of emotion, so therefore the Jedi are actually evil for forcibly removing useful tools from their students' arsenals. This would be a long conversation indeed, and in the end would
Actually, taking children to train them in the ways of the Jedi has parables to many religions which often took children to be trained and educated. That said, I've never seen any info that states they took children by force.
Shrugs I dont know. I just dont like the jedi as written. Taking children from their famlies seems unneccasrly cruel in my opinion. And yes a lot of religions were in my opinion also evil. But lets not go there. Talking about alignment gets dicey enough bringing religion into it would be even worse.
Shrugs I dont know. I just dont like the jedi as written. Taking children from their famlies seems unneccasrly cruel in my opinion. And yes a lot of religions were in my opinion also evil. But lets not go there. Talking about alignment gets dice
But it was between the Army and the Government. It wasn't the Spanish people rising up to overthrow the system.
That would have been equally valid in the case of the French Revolution, as a large portion of their military sided with the revolutionaries. Moreover, many of America's founding fathers (including George Washington himself) were soldiers in the British army.
That said, I did find a slight difference between the two terms doing some research. A civil war is any internal conflict over control of a nation/region, or government policies. A revolution is any dramatic change of governmental structure. So revolutions are always dramatic changes of government, but are not always wars; while civil wars are always wars, but not always dramatic changes in government.
That would have been equally valid in the case of the French Revolution, as a large portion of their military sided with the revolutionaries. Moreover, many of America's founding fathers (including George Washington himself) were soldiers in the Brit
Shrugs I dont know. I just dont like the jedi as written. Taking children from their famlies seems unneccasrly cruel in my opinion. And yes a lot of religions were in my opinion also evil. But lets not go there. Talking about alignment gets dicey enough bringing religion into it would be even worse.
And back on topic. Good is evil and evil is good, because paladins are enslaved to LG, and slavery is evil.
And back on topic. Good is evil and evil is good, because paladins are enslaved to LG, and slavery is evil.
Shrugs I dont know. I just dont like the jedi as written. Taking children from their famlies seems unneccasrly cruel in my opinion. And yes a lot of religions were in my opinion also evil. But lets not go there. Talking about alignment gets dicey enough bringing religion into it would be even worse.
Except not all instances of children being taken from their families is necessarily evil. Ancient Greece allowed citizens to volunteer their children to academies to learn... you gave up your children for the sake of their education. If the Jedi are given children by their parents (such as in the case of Anakin) so they could live better lives as trained Jedi, how is that evil?
Except not all instances of children being taken from their families is necessarily evil. Ancient Greece allowed citizens to volunteer their children to academies to learn... you gave up your children for the sake of their education. If the Jedi are
That would have been equally valid in the case of the French Revolution, as a large portion of their military sided with the revolutionaries. Moreover, many of America's founding fathers (including George Washington himself) were soldiers in the British army.
I'm not sure how many French military sided with the nobles, but a few individuals like Washington don't count. It has to be an organized and very substantial amount of the army for it to be army vs. government. Also, with the French, it would have been part of the army joining the revolotion, not part of the army initiating a Civil War.
That said, I did find a slight difference between the two terms doing some research. A civil war is any internal conflict over control of a nation/region, or government policies. A revolution is any dramatic change of governmental structure. So revolutions are always dramatic changes of government, but are not always wars; while civil wars are always wars, but not always dramatic changes in government.
Interesting.
I'm not sure how many French military sided with the nobles, but a few individuals like Washington don't count. It has to be an organized and very substantial amount of the army for it to be army vs. government. Also, with the French, it would have
You didn't. You NEVER vollunteered to go in place of the child.
What if I did? What if I did volunteer to go instead of the child? I happen to be writing my dissertation on WWII and I know that the Nazis would often force people into such stark moral choices just to amuse themselves (cf. somewhat like Sophie's Choice). What then? It's a selfless act right? Does that make it allright to do that to people (offer them such inhumane choices) in the first place? What exactly are you supporting here?
Maxperson wrote:
I'm saying as an example, if you walk up and say "Hey, I really need the money for my family. My mother is dying and needs surgery, so if you give me $500,000.00, I'll be your slave.", that is someone who is a willing slave.
Yes. I understand your point. It's actually not a very subtle point. It's very easy to understand. So there is not reason to repeat it ad nauseaum. But since you like repeating things so much I'll repeat as well: any society that condones a scenario like the one you described above is willfully condoning cruelty and is therefore, in my opinion, evil, just like a society that would condone genocide. (Actually, come to think of it, who needs a stimulus package and bailouts? If you can't pay back your mortgage maybe you should just sell yourself into slavery. I'm sure the US president will for sure get re-elected running on that platform).
No one is willing to do something against their own self-interest unless the choice they are faced with is even worse, either morally or materially. Obviously, imprisonment is preferable to starvation. Giving myself up to the Gestapo is preferable (for me) to living with the knowledge that I let that boy die in my place. It is the choice itself that is immoral.
Anyway, I understand your objections and I understand that you think slavery is amoral not immoral. We are simply in disagreement. I doubt, given what we've discussed so far we are going to change each other's minds so I'll leave it at that.
What if I did? What if I did volunteer to go instead of the child? I happen to be writing my dissertation on WWII and I know that the Nazis would often force people into such stark moral choices just to amuse themselves (cf. somewhat like Sophie's
Except not all instances of children being taken from their families is necessarily evil. Ancient Greece allowed citizens to volunteer their children to academies to learn... you gave up your children for the sake of their education. If the Jedi are given children by their parents (such as in the case of Anakin) so they could live better lives as trained Jedi, how is that evil?
That is still not slavery. They are not selling there children as property. There is not only a philosophical difference there is a legal difference between military schools, Greek academies, and outright slavery. In ancient Athens, slaves could not vote. Yet those who attended Plato's Academy could. Clearly, the Greeks themselves did not see the two as equivalent so why are you?
That is still not slavery. They are not selling there children as property. There is not only a philosophical difference there is a legal difference between military schools, Greek academies, and outright slavery. In ancient Athens, slaves could n
That is still not slavery. They are not selling there children as property. There is not only a philosophical difference there is a legal difference between military schools, Greek academies, and outright slavery. In ancient Athens, slaves could not vote. Yet those who attended Plato's Academy could. Clearly, the Greeks themselves did not see the two as equivalent so why are you?
Me and williamhm75 are not talking about slavery right now, but rather about factions in Star Wars. I don't see what your point is.
Me and williamhm75 are not talking about slavery right now, but rather about factions in Star Wars. I don't see what your point is.
That is still not slavery. They are not selling there children as property. There is not only a philosophical difference there is a legal difference between military schools, Greek academies, and outright slavery. In ancient Athens, slaves could not vote. Yet those who attended Plato's Academy could. Clearly, the Greeks themselves did not see the two as equivalent so why are you?
You hit the nail on the head again, which is why I am not surprised at the response to your accurate assesment.
You hit the nail on the head again, which is why I am not surprised at the response to your accurate assesment.
Commitment to principles, no mater how heartfelt, cannot be compared to being someone's property.
Slavery is slavery, no matter what the face, right? A paladin CANNOT go against Good or his Code. Those very few paladins who make the decision to break that(like a slave running away), get slammed down hard(like a slave running away). Paladins have no choice. It's just that their slave master is some nebulous universal force and not another human.
Slavery is slavery, no matter what the face, right? A paladin CANNOT go against Good or his Code. Those very few paladins who make the decision to break that(like a slave running away), get slammed down hard(like a slave running away). Paladins ha
Hm, the 'Paladins are slaves' is an interesting perspective. Paladins aren't even upholding an ideal, they have to obey their god (an individual).
With the installment of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons, paladins have seen nearly complete restructuring. Paladins are now champions of a chosen deity rather than just being a righteous warrior. As such, paladins may also have a different alignment from the traditional lawful good, however the paladin's alignment must correspond with his/her chosen god. Another new feature is the permanence of paladinhood. Once a player is ordained as a paladin, he/she cannot fall or have their powers stripped from them in any way. This can allow players to avoid having to 'police' their fellow party members, but depending on one's god, it may be a requirement to try and curb any excessively evil behavior. It is stated that failing to live up to one's deity's tenets will result in that paladin's compatriots hunting down and judging their wayward members.
Slavery: submission to a dominating influence Chosen:picked out by preference; selected
With the installment of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons, paladins have seen nearly complete restructuring. Paladins are now champions of a chosen deity rather than just being a righteous warrior. As such, paladins may also have a different alignment
Except not all instances of children being taken from their families is necessarily evil. Ancient Greece allowed citizens to volunteer their children to academies to learn... you gave up your children for the sake of their education. If the Jedi are given children by their parents (such as in the case of Anakin) so they could live better lives as trained Jedi, how is that evil?
True, but why cant they just wait till the child is old enough to make its own choices? In that case it is bad because the parent is deciding on what the child will do for the rest of its life. Dont you think someone needs to make that sort of life altering descision for themselves? After all Jedi are dedicated to upholding the Council and the republic. No child is going to be able to understand the significance of that. To my mind the old Jedi are more like a cult that brain washes children into their beliefs. After Luke takes over the new order is quite different. In fact Luke even gets married. But the original Jedi were incredibly exclusive, and cold yet totally dedicated to their view of the universe to the point where they cannot accept any view other than their own.
To my mind that makes them a cult.
True, but why cant they just wait till the child is old enough to make its own choices? In that case it is bad because the parent is deciding on what the child will do for the rest of its life. Dont you think someone needs to make that sort of life
Talking about D&D Paladin codes for a Paladin who chooses Good ...
Absolute good is an ideal to strive for, that requires freewill, effort, and time (and evolution). The messiness of current reallife is less than ideal.
A Paladin code doesnt need to avoid evil entirely. The Paladin just needs to optimize as much good as possible, given whatever context.
The most important point: If you force someone else to be 'good', they arent being good - theyr just being selfish and self-preserving. Good requires freewill and noncoercion. (Which is why slavery or any form coercion is so problematic.)
Talking about D&D Paladin codes for a Paladin who chooses Good ...Absolute good is an ideal to strive for, that requires freewill, effort, and time (and evolution). The messiness of current reallife is less than ideal.A Paladin code doesnt need to av
Unfortunately, no matter what, it seems impossible to avoid moral systems even in fictional worlds. Honestly, I would rather go with Tectorman's approach in most cases and just deal with things situationally but I wonder if it's possible?
If you're referring to my idea of the "gentleman's agreement" to avoid the topic in conversation, just like avoiding politics or abortion or whatever else is touchy, then I have another personal anecdote.
We were playing a session in the Star Trek RPG by Decipher and I was a Regulan Helmsman/Second Officer on an away mission to pick up a stranded Starfleet officer who had crashlanded on a pre-warp civilization planet, and had ended up giving Federation technology to the village he had taken up residence in (according to the Prime Directive, this is a no-no).
Leading the group was the Mission Commander, a Human Security Officer who had served in the Federation Marines during the Dominion War (this was set after the end of DS9 but before Voyager ended). As a result, she was a bit war-traumatized.
When we confronted the errant officer, we received word that a rival village had sent out its warriors to exterminate this village out of fear of the "magic weapons" the village had suddenly acquired.
Two choices: take the advanced technology back, leave, and let the two villages duke it out (a lost cause for the defending village), or let the defending village keep the technology long enough to assuredly wipe out the invading force.
(Additional choices that were ultimately deemed bad ideas: set the two tribes down and impose a talk between the two to come to a nonviolent solution (shot down because the capacity to negotiate in such a fashion was in and of itself a technology that would've been introduced prematurely); give the invading force the same weapons as the defenders (shot down because we're trying to limit the contamination of advanced technology).)
We decided to retrieve the technology and the errant officer and beam back up. The Mission Commander wanted to stay behind, with only a knife, to try and offer a balancing factor that wouldn't introduce further contamination but would still give the defenders a fighting chance. Everyone else decided to disallow this (by stunning her) because even her Fed Marine training, the end result of the combined military knowledge of hundreds of worlds, would've significantly altered the outcome and spread advanced knowledge before its time.
At no point in all of this was did anyone question the outlooks and motives of anyone else there. Maybe other people thought my character's outlook mirrored my own (in which case, they would've been right), but whether they thought so or not, the surface is that the Regulan Helmsman's opinions are her own and may or may not be indicative of the player playing her (me). Even if I had taken the time to try and figure out whether the guy playing the Mission Commander agreed with his character or not, I never asked; I simply accepted the Mission Commander's motives as being the Mission Commander's motives, which may or may not have been the player's.
Furthermore, if I had somehow been playing my rendition of Blossom Utonium from our Mutants and Masterminds game in this scenario, I would've had her do the opposite (help the defenders, actively aid them, possibly contaminate their culture more), actions which I personally would've disagreed with, and that no one at the table would ask me, the player, about.
So, possible? Yes, it is, though I will add in the caveat that this is a personal anecdote and may not carry over to other groups. However, a line or two in the PHB or DMG (of any edition) to say something to the effect of making sure everyone realizes that in-game actions and outlooks should not be taken as indicative of the player's outlooks would not go amiss.
Just out of curiosity, Boulis, what are all of the RPGs that you play (and if they're not any that I've heard of, do they have similar systems to alignments)?
--------
Concerning the Jedi-vs-Sith conversation and the Jedi Order's take on any kind of emotion, what they're doing is basically a variation of the Pre-Trans Fallacy, I would say.
If you have emotions (positive and negative) and they can lead to undesirable results, then what do you do? The Pre- answer (what the Jedi Order does) is to downplay all emotions and avoid the problem in the first place. The Trans- answer would rather be to have the emotions, face the problem with the potential undesirable outcome, and work to achieve another outcome. The Pre- avoids growth (societal growth, personal growth, etc.) and in fact regresses, while the Trans- is growth.
If you're referring to my idea of the "gentleman's agreement" to avoid the topic in conversation, just like avoiding politics or abortion or whatever else is touchy, then I have another personal anecdote.We were playing a session in the Star Trek RPG
You hit the nail on the head again, which is why I am not surprised at the response to your accurate assesment.
So, let me get this straight. Jedi aren't evil because of academies, and the ancient Greeks are force users?
See, I can understand Boulis's response because this discussion is going all over the place. Thing is, you fully acknowledge and know how confusing the conversation is, have apparently known the context to which he was responding, and have apparently agreed to the confusion. What purpose does that serve?
So, let me get this straight. Jedi aren't evil because of academies, and the ancient Greeks are force users?See, I can understand Boulis's response because this discussion is going all over the place. Thing is, you fully acknowledge and know how conf
Talking about D&D Paladin codes for a Paladin who chooses Good ...
Any other class chooses good. A paladin becomes a slave once he hits first level paladin. At that point, he's held hostage to his alignment and code or he loses everything and becomes weaker than a monk.
A Paladin code doesnt need to avoid evil entirely. The Paladin just needs to optimize as much good as possible, given whatever context.
Not entirely, but just one willing evil act, no matter minor causes him to become a ex-paladin and weaker than a monk.
Any other class chooses good. A paladin becomes a slave once he hits first level paladin. At that point, he's held hostage to his alignment and code or he loses everything and becomes weaker than a monk.Not entirely, but just one willing evil act,
Talking about D&D Paladin codes for a Paladin who chooses Good ...
Absolute good is an ideal to strive for, that requires freewill, effort, and time (and evolution). The messiness of current reallife is less than ideal.
A Paladin code doesnt need to avoid evil entirely. The Paladin just needs to optimize as much good as possible, given whatever context.
The most important point: If you force someone else to be 'good', they arent being good - theyr just being selfish and self-preserving. Good requires freewill and noncoercion. (Which is why slavery or any form coercion is so problematic.)
That and whats good in one situation might not be good in another. There really arent any moral absolutes. Other than rape, and torture. Those are the only two things which I cant even think of a justification for.
That and whats good in one situation might not be good in another. There really arent any moral absolutes. Other than rape, and torture. Those are the only two things which I cant even think of a justification for.
That and whats good in one situation might not be good in another. There really arent any moral absolutes. Other than rape, and torture. Those are the only two things which I cant even think of a justification for.
Like killing, rape and torture can be justified in extreme circumstances. Consider this. A group of gunmen have holed up in a store and taken a group of people hostage. They shoot one man in the head, and then turn to another one and tell him that they're going to shoot both him and the woman in the corner if he doesn't rape her for their entertainment.
Torture is even easier to justify.
Like killing, rape and torture can be justified in extreme circumstances. Consider this. A group of gunmen have holed up in a store and taken a group of people hostage. They shoot one man in the head, and then turn to another one and tell him that
Like killing, rape and torture can be justified in extreme circumstances. Consider this. A group of gunmen have holed up in a store and taken a group of people hostage. They shoot one man in the head, and then turn to another one and tell him that they're going to shoot both him and the woman in the corner if he doesn't rape her for their entertainment.
Torture is even easier to justify.
Um thats really extreme. And no torture is not justifiable. It never works as purpose of getting information. It is completley useless. All it does is cause unnesseary suffering. Same with rape. But you do help my case that there are no moral absolutes. Which means that the entire idea of alignment is completley and utterly worthless.
Um thats really extreme. And no torture is not justifiable. It never works as purpose of getting information. It is completley useless. All it does is cause unnesseary suffering. Same with rape. But you do help my case that there are no moral a
True, but why cant they just wait till the child is old enough to make its own choices? In that case it is bad because the parent is deciding on what the child will do for the rest of its life. Dont you think someone needs to make that sort of life altering descision for themselves? After all Jedi are dedicated to upholding the Council and the republic. No child is going to be able to understand the significance of that. To my mind the old Jedi are more like a cult that brain washes children into their beliefs. After Luke takes over the new order is quite different. In fact Luke even gets married. But the original Jedi were incredibly exclusive, and cold yet totally dedicated to their view of the universe to the point where they cannot accept any view other than their own.
To my mind that makes them a cult.
My guess? They take children so as to foster maximum possible growth in force use. A 20 year old who has been trained in force use for two years is far less capable than a 20 year old who has been trained in force use since he was two... and they are the same age. In my previous example, the Greeks acknowledged that people had lifespans of about 40 years, and that starting young was the best way to ensure long-lasting scholars. In the case of the force, I assume that mastery of the force takes an extremely long time, so it seems more logical to start them very young and hopefully get them to full mastery by adulthood rather than waiting until adolescence and working them into late adulthood.
That said, "cult" is generally a catchall term for "any small religion I don't like" when used by modern media. It carries a very vague definition, unlike its counterpart "destructive cult", which the Jedi isn't.
My guess? They take children so as to foster maximum possible growth in force use. A 20 year old who has been trained in force use for two years is far less capable than a 20 year old who has been trained in force use since he was two... and they are
My guess? They take children so as to foster maximum possible growth in force use. A 20 year old who has been trained in force use for two years is far less capable than a 20 year old who has been trained in force use since he was two... and they are the same age. In my previous example, the Greeks acknowledged that people had lifespans of about 40 years, and that starting young was the best way to ensure long-lasting scholars. In the case of the force, I assume that mastery of the force takes an extremely long time, so it seems more logical to start them very young and hopefully get them to full mastery by adulthood rather than waiting until adolescence and working them into late adulthood.
That said, "cult" is generally a catchall term for "any small religion I don't like" when used by modern media. It carries a very vague definition, unlike its counterpart "destructive cult", which the Jedi isn't.
You assume that, I asume its because children are less likely to argue with what they are taught. Thus they are easier to brainwash. The Jedi are a cult. They brook no argument. If your a force user and you disagree with the jedi council they will label you as a darkside user and hunt you down. From what Ive read and seen they are as bad as the spanish inqisition. To me they are like a cult in that they take children and effectivley brainwash them. The children have no choice. Lack of choice and freedom=evil at least in my mind.
You assume that, I asume its because children are less likely to argue with what they are taught. Thus they are easier to brainwash. The Jedi are a cult. They brook no argument. If your a force user and you disagree with the jedi council they wil
Like killing, rape and torture can be justified in extreme circumstances. Consider this. A group of gunmen have holed up in a store and taken a group of people hostage. They shoot one man in the head, and then turn to another one and tell him that they're going to shoot both him and the woman in the corner if he doesn't rape her for their entertainment.
Torture is even easier to justify.
Actually, that doesn't justify the act of rape at all. This actually makes both the man and woman victims of rape, as he is having sex with her against his will just as she is. The one committing the act? The guy holding the gun, and he's accountable for all of it (and is one sick ****ing bastard).
Actually, that doesn't justify the act of rape at all. This actually makes both the man and woman victims of rape, as he is having sex with her against his will just as she is. The one committing the act? The guy holding the gun, and he's accountable
Um thats really extreme. And no torture is not justifiable. It never works as purpose of getting information.
This is just wrong. It OFTEN works as a purpose of information. It depends on how you do it and if you have at least some idea of what information the person has. You don't want to set up a situation where the person is going to tell you lies.
It is completley useless. All it does is cause unnesseary suffering.
Wrong. The idea that torture somehow never results in withheld true information being revealed is just 100% untrue.
Don't mistake this as me approving of torture under most circumstances, or being anywhere NEAR being able to do something like this myself. I'm just enough of a realist to understand that there will be circumstances under which torture SHOULD be used and that it can be an effective means of getting information if done properly.
Same with rape. But you do help my case that there are no moral absolutes. Which means that the entire idea of alignment is completley and utterly worthless.
We agree on alignment.
This is just wrong. It OFTEN works as a purpose of information. It depends on how you do it and if you have at least some idea of what information the person has. You don't want to set up a situation where the person is going to tell you lies.Wron
Like killing, rape and torture can be justified in extreme circumstances. Consider this. A group of gunmen have holed up in a store and taken a group of people hostage. They shoot one man in the head, and then turn to another one and tell him that they're going to shoot both him and the woman in the corner if he doesn't rape her for their entertainment.
Torture is even easier to justify.
There's also extremes out there of people who enjoy both acts.
As givers and receivers.
The acts themselves cannot be immoral. It's impossible for something like a tool or a technology, itself, to be evil. Any implementation of said tool or technology, though, may be evil. The atomic bomb, for instance, is not an evil device. It is not an immoral device. It is just a device, and it's good at doing exactly what it was intended to do. In that sense, it's a very well designed device.
However, any use of the atomic bomb is an immoral act. The bomb, the technology itself, is amoral. Rape and torture, as concepts, are amoral. Their practice is strictly immoral.
There's also extremes out there of people who enjoy both acts.As givers and receivers.The acts themselves cannot be immoral. It's impossible for something like a tool or a technology, itself, to be evil. Any implementation of said tool or technology,
You assume that, I asume its because children are less likely to argue with what they are taught. Thus they are easier to brainwash. The Jedi are a cult. They brook no argument. If your a force user and you disagree with the jedi council they will label you as a darkside user and hunt you down.
Oh, come on. From the movies, the only people accused of being dark side users that were hunted down were ACTUALY DARK SIDE USERS. You have no factual basis for this claim. The closest they come is not allowing a renegade Jedi Master(Qui Gon) on the Council.
Oh, come on. From the movies, the only people accused of being dark side users that were hunted down were ACTUALY DARK SIDE USERS. You have no factual basis for this claim. The closest they come is not allowing a renegade Jedi Master(Qui Gon) on t
This is just wrong. It OFTEN works as a purpose of information. It depends on how you do it and if you have at least some idea of what information the person has. You don't want to set up a situation where the person is going to tell you lies.
Wrong. The idea that torture somehow never results in withheld true information being revealed is just 100% untrue.
Don't mistake this as me approving of torture under most circumstances, or being anywhere NEAR being able to do something like this myself. I'm just enough of a realist to understand that there will be circumstances under which torture SHOULD be used and that it can be an effective means of getting information if done properly.
We agree on alignment.
No it cannot. People say anything under torture. Even if useful information is produced through torture it cannot be believed because it should automatically be suspect. Only a psycopath or an idiot would advocate torture as a method of interigation. Much better to take the slow route of trying to befriend the person.
No it cannot. People say anything under torture. Even if useful information is produced through torture it cannot be believed because it should automatically be suspect. Only a psycopath or an idiot would advocate torture as a method of interigatio
This is just wrong. It OFTEN works as a purpose of information. It depends on how you do it and if you have at least some idea of what information the person has. You don't want to set up a situation where the person is going to tell you lies.
Um, no. Torture has been used to extract information before, but it's very, very probable that any information from torture is imperfect, and probably just lies to stop the pain.
This has been shown again and again with a variety of inquiries into torture, pain, interrogation, and effective technique. Even simple starvation or endurance practices that some police stations may secretly employ just get someone to confess to something, anything, to end the experience. The best way of getting information is to befriend a mark, not torture them.
Um, no. Torture has been used to extract information before, but it's very, very probable that any information from torture is imperfect, and probably just lies to stop the pain.This has been shown again and again with a variety of inquiries into tor
Oh, come on. From the movies, the only people accused of being dark side users that were hunted down were ACTUALY DARK SIDE USERS. You have no factual basis for this claim. The closest they come is not allowing a renegade Jedi Master(Qui Gon) on the Council.
Thats the movies. In my opinion the jedi desreved what happened to them. They were a cult and were blinded by their own hubris. The empire wasnt good either but sometimes the old has to be destroyed so that something new and better can be built. From the books and such the new republic is better than the old.
Thats the movies. In my opinion the jedi desreved what happened to them. They were a cult and were blinded by their own hubris. The empire wasnt good either but sometimes the old has to be destroyed so that something new and better can be built. F
Actually, that doesn't justify the act of rape at all. This actually makes both the man and woman victims of rape, as he is having sex with her against his will just as she is. The one committing the act? The guy holding the gun, and he's accountable for all of it (and is one sick ****ing bastard).
That's definately a valid perspective. I hadn't considered that. However, the definition of rape doesn't include being forced, so it's iffy. I can tell you this, though.
If I were ever put in that position and the woman told me that she would rather die, I'd do it anyway. Not out of malice, but because time would almost certainly heal whatever trauma I did, while it could not heal a hole in her head. So in that circumstance, I would be CHOOSING to do it with justification.
Such extreme circumstances would be very rare, but there isn't much that can't be justified under some circumstance.
That's definately a valid perspective. I hadn't considered that. However, the definition of rape doesn't include being forced, so it's iffy. I can tell you this, though. If I were ever put in that position and the woman told me that she would rat
Thats the movies. In my opinion the jedi desreved what happened to them. They were a cult and were blinded by their own hubris. The empire wasnt good either but sometimes the old has to be destroyed so that something new and better can be built. From the books and such the new republic is better than the old.
Can't we all just agree that Lucas is a terrible writer?
Can't we all just agree that Lucas is a terrible writer?
Including, very often, the TRUTH. Especially if the torturers know many truths already and ask questions designed to catch the victim lying and make sure he KNOWS that he will be hurt far, far worse if he lies. Once you've established that pattern and the victim doesn't know what you know, he'll tell the truth rather than lie.
Even if useful information is produced through torture it cannot be believed because it should automatically be suspect.
It can be verified.
Only a psycopath or an idiot would advocate torture as a method of interigation. Much better to take the slow route of trying to befriend the person.
When you only have hours or even days, there just isn't time to go that route.
Including, very often, the TRUTH. Especially if the torturers know many truths already and ask questions designed to catch the victim lying and make sure he KNOWS that he will be hurt far, far worse if he lies. Once you've established that pattern
Um, no. Torture has been used to extract information before, but it's very, very probable that any information from torture is imperfect, and probably just lies to stop the pain.
There are methods to minimize that.
This has been shown again and again with a variety of inquiries into torture, pain, interrogation, and effective technique. Even simple starvation or endurance practices that some police stations may secretly employ just get someone to confess to something, anything, to end the experience.
Right. If the goal is to get them to say a lie or admit to something, you can get them to do that via torture. However, there are ways to minimize the lies.
The best way of getting information is to befriend a mark, not torture them.
I agree. But time isn't always there. I never said that torture is something we should just do to get information.
There are methods to minimize that.Right. If the goal is to get them to say a lie or admit to something, you can get them to do that via torture. However, there are ways to minimize the lies.I agree. But time isn't always there. I never said that
Thats the movies. In my opinion the jedi desreved what happened to them. They were a cult and were blinded by their own hubris. The empire wasnt good either but sometimes the old has to be destroyed so that something new and better can be built. From the books and such the new republic is better than the old.
If it's outside the movies, it isn't Star Wars. The books are fun, but they have gone WAY outside what Star Wars was intended to be, and are now just books about a galaxy that is very similar to Star Wars.
If it's outside the movies, it isn't Star Wars. The books are fun, but they have gone WAY outside what Star Wars was intended to be, and are now just books about a galaxy that is very similar to Star Wars.
There are no effective ways to minimize lying while under torture. A person's mind doesn't register the difference between lies and truth, only the difference between more pain and less pain.
Quite simply, you're wrong about torture and the efficacy of information. The most effective means of getting information is befriending the mark, not torture. Any kind of information control you can put on torture would take more time and resources, and still have less success rate, than just befriending them in the first place.
There are no effective ways to minimize lying while under torture. A person's mind doesn't register the difference between lies and truth, only the difference between more pain and less pain.Quite simply, you're wrong about torture and the efficacy o
There are no effective ways to minimize lying while under torture. A person's mind doesn't register the difference between lies and truth, only the difference between more pain and less pain.
Er, that's why you TELL them that you KNOW they are lying and that the lie is responsible for the increased pain. You don't just hope that they get that they are suffering more during times that they lie. You also give them respite and rest time when they tell the truth.
Quite simply, you're wrong about torture and the efficacy of information. The most effective means of getting information is befriending the mark, not torture.
So you guarantee that you can befriend a terrorist into giving you the information in a few days?
Er, that's why you TELL them that you KNOW they are lying and that the lie is responsible for the increased pain. You don't just hope that they get that they are suffering more during times that they lie. You also give them respite and rest time wh
So, let me get this straight. Jedi aren't evil because of academies, and the ancient Greeks are force users?
See, I can understand Boulis's response because this discussion is going all over the place. Thing is, you fully acknowledge and know how confusing the conversation is, have apparently known the context to which he was responding, and have apparently agreed to the confusion. What purpose does that serve?
Yes this is true -- please accept my apologies Decivre. The conversation was going all over the place and I was still in full "berserker/battlerager" mode so I fired off a response without actually paying attention to what I was responding to. Since the conversation was not about slavery I withdraw my observation which is in any case irrelevant to that specific discussion.
Be that as it may, I appreciate the vote of confidence sirpatric.
Yes this is true -- please accept my apologies Decivre. The conversation was going all over the place and I was still in full "berserker/battlerager" mode so I fired off a response without actually paying attention to what I was responding to. Sinc
Er, that's why you TELL them that you KNOW they are lying and that the lie is responsible for the increased pain. You don't just hope that they get that they are suffering more during times that they lie. You also give them respite and rest time when they tell the truth.
That doesn't work.
They'll continue to just tell you what you want to hear, and in this case, the torturer is the delusional one. At that point you've already passed judgement and are just carrying out the confession.
What if he's innocent and keeps insisting on it, even though you keep telling him you know he's lying?
Maxperson wrote:
So you guarantee that you can befriend a terrorist into giving you the information in a few days?
No, I'm saying that it's impossible to get reliable information by torture, but is possible to get it by befriending someone, ergo the most effective and efficient means is befriending them.
The information gained by torture is never reliable. Never.
That doesn't work.They'll continue to just tell you what you want to hear, and in this case, the torturer is the delusional one. At that point you've already passed judgement and are just carrying out the confession.What if he's innocent and keeps in
They'll continue to just tell you what you want to hear, and in this case, the torturer is the delusional one. At that point you've already passed judgement and are just carrying out the confession.
Are you even listening to yourself? How can you even say that based on what I've just said. There's nothing delusional with using a tactic to teach the victim not to lie because he can't be sure what you know and what you don't, but IS sure that if he's caught it will be bad AND using the same tactic to reward the victim with time away from the pain if he tells the truth. This is a sound method.
What if he's innocent and keeps insisting on it, even though you keep telling him you know he's lying?
Um, if you've even been paying half attention to my posts, you know that he is NOT innocent of the initial things that are being asked. The truth on those is known. That's why much of the initial time is spent on things already known., so that we can teach him that truth is better than a lie. You don't just tell someone they're lying if you don't know it's a lie. That just destroys what you're trying to accomplish.
No, I'm saying that it's impossible to get reliable information by torture, but is possible to get it by befriending someone, ergo the most effective and efficient means is befriending them.
Again, you prove that you're paying at best, half attention to what I'm saying before you respond. I'll try again. THERE IS NO TIME TO BEFRIEND HIM. That and you've absolutely no proof of your claim that it is impossible to get reliable information through torture.
Are you even listening to yourself? How can you even say that based on what I've just said. There's nothing delusional with using a tactic to teach the victim not to lie because he can't be sure what you know and what you don't, but IS sure that if
If you have enough information to make torture seem like a reliable method for extracting information, then you have enough information to not have any reason to rely on torture. If you have anything less than corroborating data, information gained from torture is unreliable. If you have corroborating data, torture is unconscionable.
If you have enough information to make torture seem like a reliable method for extracting information, then you have enough information to not have any reason to rely on torture. If you have anything less than corroborating data, information gained
Again, you prove that you're paying at best, half attention to what I'm saying before you respond. I'll try again. THERE IS NO TIME TO BEFRIEND HIM. That and you've absolutely no proof of your claim that it is impossible to get reliable information through torture.
If you have no time to befriend the interogatee, then you also haven't time to establish the kind of inverse Pavlovian dominance/submission you've described. Both require extended, intensive interaction with the subject.
If you have no time to befriend the interogatee, then you also haven't time to establish the kind of inverse Pavlovian dominance/submission you've described. Both require extended, intensive interaction with the subject.
Including, very often, the TRUTH. Especially if the torturers know many truths already and ask questions designed to catch the victim lying and make sure he KNOWS that he will be hurt far, far worse if he lies. Once you've established that pattern and the victim doesn't know what you know, he'll tell the truth rather than lie.
Yeah right. Believe me people can survive a lot. And can withstand a lot. Especially trained mitary personnel. Torture is always a waste of time.
It can be verified.
Then you dont need to torture them in the first place, if you have other sources of information why are you wasting time torturing people?
When you only have hours or even days, there just isn't time to go that route.
That only happens in movies and tv real intel work takes place over months and years, not hours and minutes. If you are just finding out about a plot hours in advance then you cant stop it.
Yeah right. Believe me people can survive a lot. And can withstand a lot. Especially trained mitary personnel. Torture is always a waste of time.Then you dont need to torture them in the first place, if you have other sources of information why a
If you have enough information to make torture seem like a reliable method for extracting information, then you have enough information to not have any reason to rely on torture. If you have anything less than corroborating data, information gained from torture is unreliable. If you have corroborating data, torture is unconscionable.
No. If you have bits and pieces that you cannot connect, but can be used along with the information recieved via torture to create a clear or semi-clear picture that will save lives, AND you don't have time to get the infomation another way, torture is the way to go.
Things aren't always going to be you pretty little picture that you've set up in your post.
No. If you have bits and pieces that you cannot connect, but can be used along with the information recieved via torture to create a clear or semi-clear picture that will save lives, AND you don't have time to get the infomation another way, torture
Are you even listening to yourself? How can you even say that based on what I've just said. There's nothing delusional with using a tactic to teach the victim not to lie because he can't be sure what you know and what you don't, but IS sure that if he's caught it will be bad AND using the same tactic to reward the victim with time away from the pain if he tells the truth. This is a sound method.
Um, if you've even been paying half attention to my posts, you know that he is NOT innocent of the initial things that are being asked. The truth on those is known. That's why much of the initial time is spent on things already known., so that we can teach him that truth is better than a lie. You don't just tell someone they're lying if you don't know it's a lie. That just destroys what you're trying to accomplish.
Again, you prove that you're paying at best, half attention to what I'm saying before you respond. I'll try again. THERE IS NO TIME TO BEFRIEND HIM. That and you've absolutely no proof of your claim that it is impossible to get reliable information through torture.
Ill say this again. In intel work you are never under that kind of time pressure. Torture is a waste of time and effort if you have the sources to verify it then you do not need it. The people most likely to have sensitive data will be trained in resisting torture. To get useful info from such an individual even using harsh interagation methods would take days.
Ill say this again. In intel work you are never under that kind of time pressure. Torture is a waste of time and effort if you have the sources to verify it then you do not need it. The people most likely to have sensitive data will be trained in
Ill say this again. In intel work you are never under that kind of time pressure.
Bull. It may not happen often, but sometimes information comes to the table that is very time sensitive.
Torture is a waste of time and effort if you have the sources to verify it then you do not need it.
Re-read my last post.
The people most likely to have sensitive data will be trained in resisting torture. To get useful info from such an individual even using harsh interagation methods would take days.
Perhaps, perhaps not. If the situation is time sensitive, you cannot take the chance that he might be trained to resist. You do what you have to do to maximize your chances of saving lives.
Bull. It may not happen often, but sometimes information comes to the table that is very time sensitive. Re-read my last post.Perhaps, perhaps not. If the situation is time sensitive, you cannot take the chance that he might be trained to resist.
No. If you have bits and pieces that you cannot connect, but can be used along with the information recieved via torture to create a clear or semi-clear picture that will save lives, AND you don't have time to get the infomation another way, torture is the way to go.
Ah yes, the old ticking time bomb scenario. You'd think these kinds of things happen everyday given how often torture apologists trot out the possibility.
Things aren't always going to be you pretty little picture that you've set up in your post.
Things are very rarely going to resemble an episode of 24.
Ah yes, the old ticking time bomb scenario. You'd think these kinds of things happen everyday given how often torture apologists trot out the possibility.Things are very rarely going to resemble an episode of 24.
Bull. It may not happen often, but sometimes information comes to the table that is very time sensitive.
Re-read my last post.
Perhaps, perhaps not. If the situation is time sensitive, you cannot take the chance that he might be trained to resist. You do what you have to do to maximize your chances of saving lives.
And torture does not do that. Look if you are known to use torture people are less likely to trust you. You get more information from people willingly turning over information then from torture. Using torture reduces the chances that people will willingly come forward, thus in the long term torture hurts your chances. And time sensitive information does not happen all that often. When a big bust comes, or terrorist cell is destroyed its the work of patient data collection which usually does not include torture. Ive worked intelligence I was stationed at NSA for 2 years. I know what Im talking about.
And torture does not do that. Look if you are known to use torture people are less likely to trust you. You get more information from people willingly turning over information then from torture. Using torture reduces the chances that people will w
Look if you are known to use torture people are less likely to trust you.
Which is why it's so rare that it happens. I'm not advocating torture as common thing.
You get more information from people willingly turning over information then from torture.
I never claimed otherwise.
Using torture reduces the chances that people will willingly come forward, thus in the long term torture hurts your chances.
Not if it happens as rarely is I'm saying.
And time sensitive information does not happen all that often.
That's what I said.
When a big bust comes, or terrorist cell is destroyed its the work of patient data collection which usually does not include torture.
Almost always, yes. I never claimed otherwise.
Which is why it's so rare that it happens. I'm not advocating torture as common thing.I never claimed otherwise.Not if it happens as rarely is I'm saying.That's what I said.Almost always, yes. I never claimed otherwise.
If you have enough information to make torture seem like a reliable method for extracting information, then you have enough information to not have any reason to rely on torture. If you have anything less than corroborating data, information gained from torture is unreliable. If you have corroborating data, torture is unconscionable.
I have to agree with this.
Torture is the fastest way to get someone to agree with you. But as a reliable method of abstracting useful information, it registers on the low end of usefulness. You can't be certain that the tortured is telling the truth, telling you want you want to hear or just plain telling all that they know (which, more often than not, is useless).
I suppose it's a good way to pass the time.
I have to agree with this. Torture is the fastest way to get someone to agree with you. But as a reliable method of abstracting useful information, it registers on the low end of usefulness. You can't be certain that the tortured is telling the truth
I've removed content from this thread because trolling is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
I've removed content from this thread because trolling is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php
Torture is the fastest way to get someone to agree with you. But as a reliable method of abstracting useful information, it registers on the low end of usefulness. You can't be certain that the tortured is telling the truth, telling you want you want to hear or just plain telling all that they know (which, more often than not, is useless).
I suppose it's a good way to pass the time.
I definately agree with you that it registers on the low end of usefulness.
I definately agree with you that it registers on the low end of usefulness.
It is a very well known fact that torture is NOT an effective means of information-gathering. If you torture someone long enough, they'll tell you anything to make you stop. If they don't actually know the answer to your question, they'll make something up.
I think it was in the movie Reservoir Dogs, when Mr. Whoever was torturing the cop he had brought to the warehouse in his trunk. The boss's son show's up and is furious at Mr. Whoever, and tells him something along the lines of: "You torture him long enough and he'll tell you he started the F-in Chicago fire, but that don't make it neccessarily F-in so".
Will you get answers? Yep. Will you get info? Yep. Will it be true answers or info? Not neccessarily. Will they say whatever they think you want to hear to make you stop? You bet they will.
It is a very well known fact that torture is NOT an effective means of information-gathering. If you torture someone long enough, they'll tell you anything to make you stop. If they don't actually know the answer to your question, they'll make someth
