The instant you inflict the death penalty, you become a hypocrite.
Assuming you take the a-priori position that not taking human life (regardless of actions) is the absolute highest virtue. Which you've already admitted is unworkable.
No one is asking you (or anyone else) to personally accept a moral system that can condone killing another human in repayment certain egregious actions. However, considering that there are billions of people, including thousands of notable philosophers through the ages, that accept such a premise, and the game system doesn't set forth this in any absolute terms (except your admitted "most fundamentalist" extrapolation), and that it's a game about killing the bad guys and looting their stuff, that arguing that killing is inherently, necessarily, and inalienably anti-Good might be, just a little, burying-head-in-sand ridiculous?
Or, to put it politely, "You're a loony!".
If it's any consolation, 4E "good" still includes "belief in the value of life" (PH pg 20), so there's still room to drag 4E kicking and screaming into championing your particular worldview.
Assuming you take the a-priori position that not taking human life (regardless of actions) is the absolute highest virtue. Which you've already admitted is unworkable.
I thought you'd have figured it out that taking an innocent human life is what I'm championing as the highest virtue. And I include all definitions of the word "innocent" in that argument.
No one is asking you (or anyone else) to personally accept a moral system that can condone killing another human in repayment certain egregious actions. However, considering that there are billions of people, including thousands of notable philosophers through the ages, that accept such a premise, and the game system doesn't set forth this in any absolute terms (except your admitted "most fundamentalist" extrapolation),
I think you need to be more fundamentalist. Right or wrong, this is an argument about text interpretation. You don't have to agree with the text, but this here discussion is all about teh technicalities.
and that it's a game about killing the bad guys and looting their stuff, that arguing that killing is inherently, necessarily, and inalienably anti-Good might be, just a little, burying-head-in-sand ridiculous?
It's more like a game about defeating bad guys (could include killing, depending on how much of a threat they pose; necessary force and all that). I agree that gameplay itself is somewhat amoral (not necessarily immoral), but that's because a lot of the characters are Neutral in some way. And sometimes they're just barely Good (there's a number of things that could be lacking but not entirely nonexistent). And then there's the fact that people play it for fun, which acting morally isn't always. Believe it or not, I'm absolutely fine with that. I just keep gameplay and theory separate because it can cause confusion when the two mix, like I feel it's doing here.
I'm talking about exemplary Good-aligned individual. The kind that doesn't treat his morality as a commodity that can be traded away. And yes, the guy that doesn't inflict the death penalty.
Or, to put it politely, "You're a loony!".
I hope you realized that from the start. At least I'm a nonviolent loony, LOL.
If it's any consolation, 4E "good" still includes "belief in the value of life" (PH pg 20), so there's still room to drag 4E kicking and screaming into championing your particular worldview.
I made the Law-Chaos axis into allegiances in one game I ran. It worked pretty well, and there actually were no arguments about what's Lawful and what's Chaotic. I basically made three Codes (the Word of Zaphkiel, Primus's Command and the Pact Primeval), and specified what they meant. So basically, to be Lawful, you had to adhere fairly closely to one of those Codes.
One thing about house ruling back in 9 alignments that I haven't really seen anyone discuss, is the fact that 2nd and 3.X were built around a 9 alignment universe with game mechanics that reflected that universe. I can understand going back to that for familiarity sake, but is anyone one else excited about breaking out of the semi-confusing, frequently complicated, and rarely used alignment based planar system and trying something that is new, and looks 100x simpler?
My favorite campaign setting of all time is Planescape, so I do miss the Great Ring. I never felt it necessary to jam 17 planes into the Great Ring, as opposed to 9, but I do actually miss the variety of all those planes. At some point I'll probably make a project of creating a much more interesting () cosmology for 4e.
Nom]In general, I agree with squarecircle. AD is taking one statement and importing about six pages of personal interpretation on top of it and claiming the result as obvious and necessary.
There are always people who just can't see the line between "interpretation" and "fact." Usually those people are religious fanatics, but they do come in many other flavors. Eventually AD will give up on his hopeless argument that he has the only correct interpretation, and go on with his life with the consolation that we all are just misguided fools too stupid to accurately legalistically analyze a few paragraphs of text from an imagination-based game. < wrote:
In general, I agree with squarecircle. AD is taking one statement and importing about six pages of personal interpretation on top of it and claiming the result as obvious and necessary.[/quote] There are always people who just can't see the line between "interpretation" and "fact." Usually those people are religious fanatics, but they do come in many other flavors. Eventually AD will give up on his hopeless argument that he has the only correct interpretation, and go on with his life with the consolation that we all are just misguided fools too stupid to accurately legalistically analyze a few paragraphs of text from an imagination-based game.
There are always people who just can't see the line between "interpretation" and "fact." Usually those people are religious fanatics, but they do come in many other flavors. Eventually AD will give up on his hopeless argument that he has the only correct interpretation, and go on with his life with the consolation that we all are just misguided fools too stupid to accurately legalistically analyze a few paragraphs of text from an imagination-based game.
See, this is why I said a few posts ago that there really wasn't a point in me trying to discuss this. But as I'm bored and at work, here goes.
Awesome_Dude wrote:
It's described as behavior that Evil creatures typicially engage in. You know, Evil-like behavior.
I also noticed something. Evil creatures kill for convenience. What is more convenient to solve a problem than to kill it?
The behaviors are described as behaviors that evil engages in, but does not define such behavior as evil.
Second, there's a difference between executing someone because it's convenient, and executing them after due process. For one thing due process isn't convenient, it's often slow and tedious.
This isn't passing judgement on a person. This is placing a value on a person's life (and not a high value at that, a couple of gold pieces at most).
If every execution ever was motivated because the judicial system in place didn't want to pay the expense of life-time prison, then you would be right.
But that's not the only reason for the death penalty. In most cases the system has decided that someone is irredeemable, that there crimes are unforgivable, and that the society can not suffer to let them live. That's passing judgment, not placing a value.
I don't, but you sure can.
If you that as being personally slated towards you in particular, then you misread. I was using 'you' in the more general form, to indicate people in general are capable of such things.
Either way, by admitting that I can, you're admitting it's possible for people to respect life as a whole without valuing one person's life.
It's also a false analogy (the limb is not a person, etc.). But to answer your question, if the patient doesn't want to, then the doctor is not within his rights to amputate the limb.
Funny how I wasn't using that as proof of any sort, but a metaphor to illustrate my point. As such, it was *not* a logical fallacy as it wasn't a logical argument.
Further, it doesn't matter if the doctor is within his rights to hack off a limb, thats more legalistic nonsense. If you are concerned first and foremost with the preservation of life, then you don't care if the person is crazy, you're taking that diseased limb off. If you refuse simply because the pain-crazed patient says no, then you're placing their right to refuse treatment above your respect for life.
And I'm saying that it is necessarily Evil. I hope you understand that Evil behavior is not exclusive to Evil people.
I never argued that only evil people commit evil. Just as evil people don't only commit evil. And as they don't only commit evil, the fact that some evil people do one thing (such as killing) doesn't necessarily mean that killing is evil. It has to be evaluated on its own merits, not purely in the context that some evil people do it.
I'm honestly growing tired of this discussion too. Let me just respond to a few points which I think you got wrong.
EscherEnigma wrote:
The behaviors are described as behaviors that evil engages in, but does not define such behavior as evil.
I can't honestly see a single example where killing for convenience or profit isn't Evil.
Second, there's a difference between executing someone because it's convenient, and executing them after due process. For one thing due process isn't convenient, it's often slow and tedious.
Due process itself is slow and tedious, the execution is convenient. I'm not talking about the arrest or the trial, I'm talking about the execution itself.
If every execution ever was motivated because the judicial system in place didn't want to pay the expense of life-time prison, then you would be right.
But that's not the only reason for the death penalty. In most cases the system has decided that someone is irredeemable, that there crimes are unforgivable, and that the society can not suffer to let them live.
In both examples you mentioned, the reason is still convenience.
That's passing judgment, not placing a value.
It is, in fact, both.
Either way, by admitting that I can, you're admitting it's possible for people to respect life as a whole without valuing one person's life.
So? Everyone has their limit. It still has no bearing on the alignment of the death penalty.
Further, it doesn't matter if the doctor is within his rights to hack off a limb, thats more legalistic nonsense. If you are concerned first and foremost with the preservation of life, then you don't care if the person is crazy, you're taking that diseased limb off. If you refuse simply because the pain-crazed patient says no, then you're placing their right to refuse treatment above your respect for life.
One, alignment is dependent on action, not omission. Two, morality isn't a commodity to be traded. It is the patient's right to not be treated, both morally and legally. Going against his will means lacking concern for his dignity. It's also hurtful and oppressive.
I never argued that only evil people commit evil. Just as evil people don't only commit evil. And as they don't only commit evil, the fact that some evil people do one thing (such as killing) doesn't necessarily mean that killing is evil. It has to be evaluated on its own merits, not purely in the context that some evil people do it.
Remember all those times I said that killing wasn't Evil by itself? The PHB does give reasons for an Evil person to kill.
I can't honestly see a single example where killing for convenience or profit isn't Evil.
Even in your self defense examples, it still boils down to 'convenience' and 'profit', in the sense that it is more convenient to kill the person instead of restraining them, and more profitable in terms of your own expenses to kill the person, instead of restraining and bringing them in to justice.
So unless you're saying that someone is only allowed to kill in self-defense is if they are broke and have absolutely no way to restrain without killing, even your own examples of 'ok' killing are, as they're done out of convenince, evil.
Due process itself is slow and tedious, the execution is convenient. I'm not talking about the arrest or the trial, I'm talking about the execution itself.
In both examples you mentioned, the reason is still convenience.
If you ignore all the trouble, work, and effort that goes into securing a death penalty in order to call it convenient, then you're ignoring everything but the final chop of the axe. I'm not sure how best to explain this, but you are ignoring the entire process that leads to the final act and then saying 'oh yeah, that was quick and easy' as if it didn't take a lot of work to get there.
It is, in fact, both.
You say that, but I'm guessing you're still insisting that it's a monetary value when, in a just process, that wouldn't be considered.
So? Everyone has their limit. It still has no bearing on the alignment of the death penalty.
Part of your argument was that the death penalty was a debasement of life that flew in the face of having any respect for life. If you accept that other people can respect life and still be willing to remove unhealthy parts, then you accept that it is possible to have a respect for life and carry out the death penalty.
One, alignment is dependent on action, not omission. Two, morality isn't a commodity to be traded. It is the patient's right to not be treated, both morally and legally. Going against his will means lacking concern for his dignity. It's also hurtful and oppressive.
Side-argument around an example to illustrate an idea. But I think you're wrong, so I'll say why.
So one, alignment is dependent on many things, including what a person does do, what a person does not do, the reasons why, and quite possibly other things I can't think of. To say that alignment is only actions is limiting.
Second, we don't care about legality at the moment.
Third, you can respect someone, care for them, have a concern for their dignity, and still act in direct opposition to them. Just because you're willing to do something they disagree with doesn't mean you don't care, just that you think somethings are more important. In this case, the doctor thinks the person's life is more important then their pride, and questions their ability to make sound judgement calls. That doesn't mean they don't care. Hurtful and oppressive? Maybe. Doesn't mean that they don't care though.
Remember all those times I said that killing wasn't Evil by itself? The PHB does give reasons for an Evil person to kill.
And again, just because it is a reason for an evil person to kill does not mean the reason itself is evil.
All those points aside, what it boils down to is that you haven't suffientily explained why A) killing (aside from self-preservation or in defense of others) is necessarily evil and B) deciding that someone deserves to die means that you have no respect for life
Back on the original topic, I've done a bit of thinking, and I think I've finally grasped the point of the whole LG-CE extra bits...
It harkens back to the Antiquitarian concept of Cosmos vs Chaos, whereas Cosmos represents the orderly arrangement of the Universe, and Chaos represents the disorderly, primal emptiness that is it's antithesis.
In short, Lawful Good represents the Will to keep the Universe in order and balance, while Chaotic Evil represents the primordial Drive to destroy everything and return it to it's proper, formless original state.
In fact, now I'm thinking that to properly exploit this new dynamic, Tiamat needs to be made back into her original Babylonian form, and made into a Chaotic Evil Goddess of Destruction, rather then just the goddess of evil dragons. Maybe add a bit of Greek Echidna to her and make her the Mother of All Monsters, or just the Mother of Evil Dragons...
) cosmology for 4e.
