you know, I'm advocating right the opposite. if you can knock out a dragon and make it help people instead of battling them - I don't see why killing it wouldn't be an act of evil.
That's a HUGE "If", and an incredibly dangerous one, depending on how difficult it was to take the dragon down to begin with.
Doing the good thing does not necessarily mean doing the most practical thing. Evil is often the more practical option. Good means doing the ethically "right thing," which also means exhibiting a certain level of respect for life. All life. Sometimes doing the "good thing" means taking a chance that puts you in danger, because it is ethically better to put yourself in danger than it is to summarily execute a creature that might be capable of reformation...
But in this case, we're not discussing what's good, we're discussing what's evil (note the bolded/underlined section of Qube's quote), and as the world of DnD is not limited to a binary good/evil, IE, there is also a neutral/unaligned aspect. The "good thing to do in this case is increadably difficult, dangerous and impracticle, but that's the good thing. The evil thing to do would be to let the dragon continue destroying the countryside and killing the people, despite plea's for help. Killing an evil, merauding dragon, rather then spending the time, effort and money to reform a dragon that could turn on you and kill you at some inconvienient moment and return to it's evil merauding ways, isn't evil. It may not be the exaulted good thing to do, but, unless you live in a binary good/evil, yes/no, black/white world, where the only option is to do that exaulted good deed, or else be evil, I don't think it's fair to say that killing the dragon is evil.
I know I come off as Hostile and abrasive. It is not my intention to do so, I am just a very emotionally driven individual. I apologize if I come off as such to you and ask that you please don't take it personally, as I can assure you, it is not intended as such. --------------------------------------------------------- duel colourShow
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
This is wrong. Why? Because unlike America, a dragon is........EVIL. That goes without saying, which is why I didn't say it.
A dragon is not always evil. There are non-evil dragon variants. 4e has highlighted the fact that player characters will often come head to head even with non-evil variants (due to a difference in goals). Additionally, one can only claim a dragon is "EVIL" because of a stat block which says "evil." Not only are there exceptions to the rule, but this "essential quality" listed in the stat block can not be effectively compared to the real world because the real world does not have stat blocks that empirically name the "alignments" of entities. It is very possible to possess a paradigm that envisions America as "EVIL." Indeed, much of the world considers America to be exactly that. You might not agree, but by a similar vein a dragon might not consider itself to be "evil" either, stat block be damned. Stat blocks are not something that characters in the world have access to. PCs can not look at a dragon's stat block and say "this thing is empirically evil." A stat block is a tool to help DMs and PCs flesh out the actions of their characters. Ultimately, all an individual in the world can judge another individual on is their actions. And like in the real world, some characters might have different definitions of what exactly constitutes "good" or "evil," despite the out of character tool used to help define that individual's actions by the person role-playing that individual. A very good example of this explicitly happening in D&D is King Kaius ir'Wynarn III from Eberron. He is an "evil" vampire. He also doesn't think of himself as evil. He thinks of himself as doing what is necessary to take care of his kingdom, and the people that live in it. He has their best interests at heart, and has committed many questionable actions because of it. And like American's he would probably argue that calling him evil is unfair. After all, he has done many "good" things as well. He is one of the most vocal proponents for peace in Eberron...
Which applies to every country in the world, not just America.
It certainly does. And based on your criteria, it could probably be argued that every country is evil and should be destroyed. Which, it seems to me, was Qube's point. Your criteria are not very useful. Someone can fit all of those criteria and not be considered evil. Someone could fit all those criteria and still be worthy of a second chance.
Which you non-Americans bring upon yourselves. Every American traveler I know has bad experiences with the people of the foreign countries they travel to. The stereotype that is pinned on us causes people of other countries to treat us poorly. This makes us angry and because we have the audacity to be upset at this treatment, we only confirms the incorrect stereotype.
And here we have a "typical" American response. You non-American's bring it upon yourselves! We American's have no fault. Nope, you are not egotistical at all...
Not all Americans act poorly when they come visit other countries. I have met plenty of great American's whose company was a raw pleasure. But I have met many American's who fit the American stereotype to a T as well. Fools who walked into a room believing that because they were American they had some claim to the love, affection, and respect of everyone around them. They got quite upset when they were not given that love, affection, or respect, because they had not done anything to earn it. And no, nobody brought their ire or poor behavior on themselves.
I am sure that the situation you describe has happened as well. I have no pretense to a black in white world, a world in which American's always behave poorly and the rest of the world always acts without fault. But don't kid yourself by abstracting and then conflating all American interaction abroad into that situation either. It is not true that American's always act without fault, and the rest of the world always brings poor American behavior onto themselves. America has earned itself the "stereotype" of being egotistical, and there is quite a lot of good reasons to call America just that...
This applies to almost every country in the world.
Indeed, it does. And, as I noted, based on your criteria it could probably be possible to argue that every country is evil and should be destroyed. Which, it seems to me, was Qube's point. Your criteria are not very useful. Someone can fit all of those criteria and not be considered evil. Someone could fit all those criteria and still be worthy of a second chance.
This DEFINATELY applies to every country in the world.
I fully agree. Please see what I wrote above. This is why I don't consider your set of criteria useful. This is why Qube stated that based on your criteria one could argue that America should be destroyed. This is why Qube stated that he doesn't like your criteria, and finds them problematic.
Yep. Just like every other country in the world, America makes bad decisions, too.
So do dragons. So, why not give dragons a second chance, if it is possible to do so? And, if destroying countries because they make mistakes is an evil act (and I do believe that it is), then how is it not an evil act to destroy a dragon because it has made a mistake? You have a double standard.
So far you've done nothing but prove that America is like every other nation out there. The ONLY difference is that we're in the top spot, so we get to bear the brunt of everything, including the ridicule and bad feelings.
Not at all. I believed that America was like every other nation from the start. What I did was maneuver this conversation to prove a point. Your criteria fit America. Your criteria also fit every other country out there. If your criteria don't make America, and every country out there, worthy of summary destruction, they don't make a dragon worthy of summary destruction either.
So what. Russia is one of very many on that list, most of whom can't do squat to us.
And all of whom America has a reason not to attack, a reason no less potent then a group of PCs willing to hunt down and kill you if you fail to agree to their terms.
You mean this RECENT development? We had ample opportunity to do so before we became intertwined with China.
That is quite arguable.
Um, what does that have to do with wiping them out or not? We have ample nuclear, biological and chemical weapons to reduce North Korea to unhibitable wasteland.
America also has quite a few world powers who would unite against America, and fight a war that America could not "win" (please note that "winning" does not entail damaging the planet so badly that American's would not be able to survive the war either) if America went about doing so.
Thanks for the history lesson, but this also has nothing to do with whether or not we will wipe countries with WMD's off the face of the earth. So far, we have attacked exactly zero countries for possessing WMDs. Bush's lies don't count.
Ah. I see. So when you destroy a government because of the claim that it has WMD's it doesn't count? Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree on that. And it has everything to do with your overall argument, and Qube's overall argument. America committed horrible atrocities during the Vietnam war. Many of its soldiers raped and murdered civilians. This has been documented. America even made the mistake of doing this again. America's soldiers misbehaved, again, during the Iraq war. Stories about prisoners of war being tortured are not uncommon. Indeed, many forms of torture were official policy by the Bush administration. So, calling America a destructive force, as Qube has, is fully fair. So what if America didn't "destroy" entire countries by "wiping them off the map"? It has still committed many destructive actions. It still destroyed many villages. It still caused the unwarranted deaths of many individuals. It has still destroyed governments, arguably without just cause. Saying that America is not destructive because it has not used WMDs to wipe countries off the face of the earth is like saying that the dragon is not destructive because it usually only attacks single villages or cities at a time. And before you start trying to claim that the difference is that the dragon is limited by capability, many dragon's have comparable power to Gods in the D&D universe. So, yes, they fully have the capability to "salt the world," or at least countries, if they so choose.
Irrelevant. We can't be trusted, remember?
No, it is not irrelevant. It is the example of yet another check and balance on American aggression. You tried to abstract away every check and balance that exists on a dragon's aggression. I pointed out that one could abstract away checks and balances on American aggression in the same manner. I also pointed out that I don't think any of these checks and balances should be abstracted away like that, because doing so is not a useful analysis. You don't get to wave away this check and balance on American aggression, just like you don't get to wave away the potential checks and balances that can exist on a dragon's aggression. Likewise, the fact that those checks and balances might fail (and, historically speaking, have in the case of America) doesn't mean that your country, or the dragon, deserve summary execution (from an ethical perspective. It is quite possible to possess a pragmatic perspective that might lead one to the conclusion that either, or both, should be destroyed).
Um, there are no other super powers. China is close, but not there. And do you know what? The economical ties we have to the world would prevent them from doing a whole heck of a lot if we decided to melt Iran or North Korea. We certainly wouldn't get nuked or anything. We don't do these thinge because they would be wrong to do.
That really depends on how you define "super power." If you like the term "world power" better we can use that instead. And you know what, if America went in and melted Iran or North Korea with WMDs, you can bet your bottom that most of the world would unite its military strength against America. And you know what, the united strength of most of the rest of the world is greater than the military strength of America.
Let's get this straight right now. America didn't argue that. The Bush White House did. From the very get go, American's disliked what Bush was doing. The only reason he had the support he had when he started was due to his lies. It didn't take long for many the dupes to change their positions.
The American people elected Bush as their representative. That means that Bush's actions, while in power, are a representation of America. I am sorry if you elected poorly. I am sorry if you didn't vote for Bush yourself. I am sorry if you did vote for Bush, and then felt duped for doing so. It doesn't change a thing. So long as Bush was the American president, his actions were the actions of the American government, and the American government is America.
Not a chance in hell. Tell me which countries would suicide against our nuclear arsenal? The only thing a world war against America could possibly accomplish is the end of mankind. The other coutries just aren't that stupid.
We will have to agree to disagree. If America started to use its arsenal, the rest of the world would unite and use their arsenal against America. Of course, that would mean the end of the world. However, if America was stupid enough to use its arsenal it wouldn't matter. It would leave the rest of the world little recourse but to react, because the rest of the world would come to believe that America could not be trusted to do the "smart" thing (and avoid using such destructive weapons).
Which pale in comparrison to Rowanda, Bosnia and other places.
Not all evil is equal to all other forms of evil. It doesn't make many of the actions that have been committed by the American government, or its armed forces, any less evil. It just means that there are even greater evils out there...
Bush, not America. Get it right.
Bush while he was an American president, and thus represented America. Get it right.
There is no check against a dragon other than the PCs.
There are the PCs. There is the united force of any heroic NPCs or militaries that might exist in the world, and might be willing to support/aid the PCs. There is the fact that a dragon can not use land it completely destroys, and like governments dragons seem to usually want to use/live on the land and not salt it/destroy it (ala some of the aberrations in the world). There are any number of potential plot factors, specific to a campaign, which might give the PCs the ability to employ a diplomatic solution. Of course, if the plot of the campaign gives no possible diplomatic solution, fair enough. But as Qube has noted, in that case there is nothing to discuss. That is not always the case however. Players often can try a diplomatic solution before jumping the headsman's axe straight into summary execution. Player's often don't try. They don't try because they don't consider it pragmatic. But pragmatic =/= ethical.
Once again, you're missing that dragons are...........evil. America is not.
Once again, you're missing that governments, based on your criteria, can also be considered evil. Once again, you're missing that dragons are not always necessarily evil. Once again, you are missing that even monsters with "evil" alignments can be productive members to society given the right forces of motivation.
But in this case, we're not discussing what's good, we're discussing what's evil (note the bolded/underlined section of Qube's quote), and as the world of DnD is not limited to a binary good/evil, IE, there is also a neutral/unaligned aspect. The "good thing to do in this case is increadably difficult, dangerous and impracticle, but that's the good thing. The evil thing to do would be to let the dragon continue destroying the countryside and killing the people, despite plea's for help. Killing an evil, merauding dragon, rather then spending the time, effort and money to reform a dragon that could turn on you and kill you at some inconvienient moment and return to it's evil merauding ways, isn't evil. It may not be the exaulted good thing to do, but, unless you live in a binary good/evil, yes/no, black/white world, where the only option is to do that exaulted good deed, or else be evil, I don't think it's fair to say that killing the dragon is evil.
Of course it is. It is absolutely fair to say that killing the dragon, without trying to first reform it (given the opportunity to do so), is an evil act. Evil acts are often pragmatic. Pragmatic acts can serve the "greater good." That doesn't make some of those pragmatic acts any less evil. That doesn't make killing the dragon, without giving it the chance to reform (if you have the opportunity to give it that chance) any less evil. As for a character's alignment, depending on how often they choose the ethically good act vs. the pragmatic act, it is quite possible to play an evil character with good goals. So, returning to the original point of this post, there is nothing impractical about playing an evil character. In fact, based on the sort of adventures D&D characters have, it is often more practical to play an evil character. It is just impractical to play a douchebag jerk, or a "chaotic evil" character. At least so long as you are playing in a campaign where the overall goals of the story arc are to do good...
to interject. Killing the dragon (assuming an evil dragon) is NOT evil. Despite the real world analogies being made - this is D&D - evil and good are cosmic forces to which one is aligned (or not) and that are at war. Killing those aligned with evil is the DUTY of those that align themselves good. The argument that they can be reformed doesn't wash. In such a case, they weren't truly aligned.
Through the ages, many would wonder "Does art imitate life or does life imitate art?" I wonder "Does the art of discourse on the internet imitate the art of discourse in life or does the art of discourse in life imitate the art of discourse on the internet?"
to interject. Killing the dragon (assuming an evil dragon) is NOT evil. Despite the real world analogies being made - this is D&D - evil and good are cosmic forces to which one is aligned (or not) and that are at war. Killing those aligned with evil is the DUTY of those that align themselves good. The argument that they can be reformed doesn't wash. In such a case, they weren't truly aligned.
Which is objectively false based on the alignments that the designers have chosen to give to certain NPCs. King Kaius ir'Wynarn III from Eberron is an "evil" vampire. He also doesn't think of himself as evil. He is not cosmically aligned to evil. He thinks of himself as doing what is necessary to take care of his kingdom, and the people that live in it. He has their best interests at heart, and has committed many questionable actions because of it. One of those actions involved getting himself turned into a vampire, and aligning himself with an evil power, in order to gain the power necessary to save his kingdom from destruction. He later cut ties with this evil power because he decided that they did not have the best interests of his nation at heart.
Certainly one might say that his actions are largely those of a tyrant consumed by hatred. He killed his wife in a fit of vampiric rage. He dominates those who question his will. He demands solidarity from his people. Many of his actions can be construed as evil. But like American's he would probably argue that calling his actions evil is unfair. After all, he has done many "good" things as well. He is one of the most vocal proponents for peace in Eberron, and was a key player in the signing of the treaty that stopped the war in Eberron. The setting describes Kaius as a ruler who is, ultimately, a force of stability for his people. Despite a couple of instances in which he gave in to his more basic bloodlust (and it should be noted that the most notable instance, the killing of his wife, was an instance brought on by a plot perpetrated by the evil power he aligned himself with in which he was magically caused to go into a bloodlust he could not control), he is largely a tough but fair ruler. Indeed, he keeps a harem of willing people to act as his food bank. He keeps himself regularly fed so that he never kills who he feeds on, and will never succumb to his bloodlust and kill unintentionally again. He only dominates those who he has to in order to create stability for the nation. He does what he must to keep his nation from crumbling, which would cause the death and starvation of untold numbers. Still, his stat block says evil.
Is it the "DUTY" of good players to kill him? That is a very questionable assertion. I am sure some members of the Church of the Silver Flame would probably say yes. I am sure many of the people who depend on him for food and sustenance would probably say no.
D&D is not as black and white and some people would like to claim.
This is wrong. Why? Because unlike America, a dragon is........EVIL. That goes without saying, which is why I didn't say it.
A dragon is not always evil. There are non-evil dragon variants.
Then the dragon isn't a problem to be fought.
4e has highlighted the fact that player characters will often come head to head even with non-evil variants (due to a difference in goals).
That =/= fight.
Additionally, one can only claim a dragon is "EVIL" because of a stat block which says "evil."
Yes. One can claim the rules are the rules. If you want to house rule, take it to the house rule forum.
the real world does not have stat blocks that empirically name the "alignments" of entities. It is very possible to possess a paradigm that envisions America as "EVIL."
Not according to the D&D alignments, which is what we are using. If you want to go outside of D&D, take it to the appropriate forum.
but by a similar vein a dragon might not consider itself to be "evil" either, stat block be damned.
This is irrelevant. The RULES say it's evil.
PCs can not look at a dragon's stat block and say "this thing is empirically evil."
No. The actions of the EVIL dragon enable the PCs to look at a dragon and say it's evil.
Ultimately, all an individual in the world can judge another individual on is their actions. And like in the real world, some characters might have different definitions of what exactly constitutes "good" or "evil," despite the out of character tool used to help define that individual's actions by the person role-playing that individual.
In D&D, creatures are good and evil because that's what the rules say. If a PC wants to believe that a LG paladin is evil based on some crazy moral compass, that's fine. His belief won't actually change an alignment. This is one of the reasons that alignment should be done away with.
A very good example of this explicitly happening in D&D is King Kaius ir'Wynarn III from Eberron. He is an "evil" vampire. He also doesn't think of himself as evil. He thinks of himself as doing what is necessary to take care of his kingdom, and the people that live in it.
So what. Evil is evil, even if it doesn't think it is.
Which applies to every country in the world, not just America.
It certainly does. And based on your criteria, it could probably be argued that every country is evil and should be destroyed.
Um, my criteria is D&D assigned alignments. As soon as you direct me to which page in any 4ed book has America's or any other country's alignment, you be sure to let me know.
And here we have a "typical" American response. You non-American's bring it upon yourselves! We American's have no fault. Nope, you are not egotistical at all...
Don't treat us like crap and we won't get upset at it. I'm not claiming that 100% of American's are nice, but you assign this "arrogant" label to all of us and treat our travelers like crap. You DO bring it on yourselves, because you're too shortsighted to realize that the President isn't America.
During Bush's presidency, the whole world looked down at us. Now that Obama is president, that's changing. I have news for you. No one in America has changed. The people are who they were through both presidencies.
Not all Americans act poorly when they come visit other countries. I have met plenty of great American's whose company was a raw pleasure. But I have met many American's who fit the American stereotype to a T as well. Fools who walked into a room believing that because they were American they had some claim to the love, affection, and respect of everyone around them. They got quite upset when they were not given that love, affection, or respect, because they had not done anything to earn it. And no, nobody brought their ire or poor behavior on themselves.
Right. Yet many people from your country and others don't keep an open mind. It doesn't take many of you to set someone off.
America has earned itself the "stereotype" of being egotistical, and there is quite a lot of good reasons to call America just that...
No, we haven't. That's a label you assign to us over politics.
So do dragons. So, why not give dragons a second chance, if it is possible to do so?
Because that isn't true in D&D. The dragons we are discussing aren't making bad decisions..........THEY ARE EVIL. That's the rules.
America also has quite a few world powers who would unite against America, and fight a war that America could not "win" (please note that "winning" does not entail damaging the planet so badly that American's would not be able to survive the war either) if America went about doing so.
You don't get it, do you? Since America WILL do that rather than lose, those "world powers" will not unite against an America that gets rid of say Iran or North Korea. They would only do so if we did such things on a regular or semi-regular basis.
Ah. I see. So when you destroy a government because of the claim that it has WMD's it doesn't count?
That isn't why we went there. I'm sorry, but lies just do not count. Only actual reasons do. The WMD thing was made up as an excuse to go in.
Many of its soldiers raped and murdered civilians.
Not under orders from the Country.
This has been documented. America even made the mistake of doing this again. America's soldiers misbehaved, again, during the Iraq war.
Um, those were individual mistakes, not mistakes of "America". The only "American" mistake(other than going there in the first place) was the torture issue, and even that wasn't an "American" mistake. It was a "Bush" mistake. America had no say in the matter.
And before you start trying to claim that the difference is that the dragon is limited by capability, many dragon's have comparable power to Gods in the D&D universe. So, yes, they fully have the capability to "salt the world," or at least countries, if they so choose.
Which is why, due to their D&D ALIGNMENT in combination WITH that capablility, they have to be destroyed and it is a good act to do so.
That really depends on how you define "super power." If you like the term "world power" better we can use that instead. And you know what, if America went in and melted Iran or North Korea with WMDs, you can bet your bottom that most of the world would unite its military strength against America.
Only if they were suicidal.
And you know what, the united strength of most of the rest of the world is greater than the military strength of America.
Even combined, they couldn't assault U.S.A proper and win. It's just not feasible to go across oceans and expect to survive to assault America. We could not assault the world, but they cannot attack us and win. The ONLY way to defeat America is through WMDs and that would only assure the destruction of everyone. You're a fool if you believe they would come at us with armies if we melted Iran or North Korea. At worst, there would be economic attacks that would hurt for only as long as it took to get our factories up and running again.
The American people elected Bush as their representative. That means that Bush's actions, while in power, are a representation of America.
That's arguable. A minority followed by an extremely thin majority doesn't constitute "America", nor do actions taken by an elected president that people would not have wanted and didn't know about in advance.
So long as Bush was the American president, his actions were the actions of the American government, and the American government is America.
You were doing okay until the end. The PEOPLE are America, not the President.
We will have to agree to disagree. If America started to use its arsenal, the rest of the world would unite and use their arsenal against America. Of course, that would mean the end of the world. However, if America was stupid enough to use its arsenal it wouldn't matter. It would leave the rest of the world little recourse but to react, because the rest of the world would come to believe that America could not be trusted to do the "smart" thing (and avoid using such destructive weapons).
If we used it against Iran or North Korea and no one else, there would be no all out war. Everyone knows that both countries are lead by EXTREMELY unstable governments and insane leaders. They would condemn us. They would sanction us. But they wouldn't be stupid enough to suicide over an unstable and crazy country with WMDs.
D&D is not as black and white and some people would like to claim.
Funny, given how your view of killing an evil, marauding dragon who is laying waste of nearby villages, killing innocent people, is evil because it isn't the good action of trying to reform it (regardless of how impractical (even impossible) the task may actually be), and isn't actually a neutral act.
According to your arguement, if I am playing a good character, perhaps a paladin of Bahamut (Justice, honour and protection), and I come across a village being terrorized by an evil dragon, but I have an existing task that requires my attention (and as such, I don't have the time to reform an evil dragon), and/or the dragon is powerful enough to be a very difficult battle that I may not survive (and certainly wouldn't if I didn't have the advantage of preparation and surprise), the good action is to actually leave the village to solve the issue themselves (the valid alternative to killing the dragon) rather then going and killing the dragon.
I know I come off as Hostile and abrasive. It is not my intention to do so, I am just a very emotionally driven individual. I apologize if I come off as such to you and ask that you please don't take it personally, as I can assure you, it is not intended as such. --------------------------------------------------------- duel colourShow
You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what I create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.
Let's get this straight right now. America didn't argue that. The Bush White House did. From the very get go, American's disliked what Bush was doing. The only reason he had the support he had when he started was due to his lies. It didn't take long for many the dupes to change their positions.
Speak for yourself. Bush did not lie. He believed intelligence that was exaggerated; intelligence that was shared, contributed to and believed by many other countries as well, including several of Iraq's neighbors. In fact, altho one would have a hard time in fishing this out of what the media tells people, the only WMD intelligence which hasn't been confirmed was the existance of stockpiles of assembled, ready to fire weapons. We found proof that Saddam had WMD programs, proof of further programs to hide the WMD programs. We found components for chemical weapons and their delivery systems. In at least two instances we found assembled sarin delivery artillery shells. We found left over waste from bio weapons disposal (ash from burnt anthrax that was still warm when our troops entered the incinerator). And there is substantial evidence that whatever other WMD materials Saddam had were either disposed of or sent out of the country during the many weeks that Bush wasted building a coalition before the invasion began.
No, WMDs were not the only reason for going into Iraq, maybe not even the main reason; it was just the one that got all the attention. There was also the fact that Saddam supported terrorism by knowingly allowing Hezbollah and other terrorist groups to operate training camps within his borders, making him a legitimate target in the fight against terrorism. This also played well into the long-term strategy of planting a democratically elected govt in the middle east to eventually serve as a countering influence to all the ignorance and oppression that breeds terrorists in the first place. And then there the fact that Saddam was an insane mass-murdering dictator sitting on a big chunk of Europe's oil supply. He needed to be removed as a threat to world stability.
As to the other poster's claim that we removed Saddam and just left the Iraqi people hanging... yeah right. That's why we've spent so much effort, money and American lives rebuilding their infrastructure, hospitals and schools. That's why we fought the Saddam loyalist/Al Quaida/Iran sponsored insurrection while training their security forces... and why our troops are still there.
I will agree with you tho, that the ONLY thing that actually stops the US from conquering and dominating the entire world is that we're the good guys. And for that we are continually met with the world's jealosy and scorn, except when they come to us with their hand out demanding our help.
Speak for yourself. Bush did not lie. He believed intelligence that was exaggerated; intelligence that was shared, contributed to and believed by many other countries as well, including several of Iraq's neighbors.
When Powell went before the U.N. and presented our evidence, I watched it with an open mind. When I saw just how flimsy and essentially worthless our "proof" was, I was embarassed that he had to go before the world with what he had. It later came out that the evidence was in fact as flimsy as presented. I mean going on only the word of a man who hated Iraq's leader as one piece of evidence? That's barely enough proof for a traffic ticket. The world went along with England and the U.S. because we SAID the evidence was good enough. Congress went along with it for the same reason.
We found proof that Saddam had WMD programs, proof of further programs to hide the WMD programs.
We found evidence that Saddam was being lied to by his scientists who were telling him that they were making progress. I remember being highly amused at that.
We found components for chemical weapons and their delivery systems.
We found old systems dating back to the first gulf war and further to the Iran/Iraq war.
In at least two instances we found assembled sarin delivery artillery shells.
Which were again from before the original gulf war.
We found left over waste from bio weapons disposal (ash from burnt anthrax that was still warm when our troops entered the incinerator).
I couldn't find anything on this, not even from non-credible news groups.
And there is substantial evidence that whatever other WMD materials Saddam had were either disposed of or sent out of the country during the many weeks that Bush wasted building a coalition before the invasion began.
There is a lot of speculation on this, but no actual proof that it happened.
There was also the fact that Saddam supported terrorism by knowingly allowing Hezbollah and other terrorist groups to operate training camps within his borders, making him a legitimate target in the fight against terrorism.
There are dozens of countries that support terrorism, yet we don't go into them and take over. Not only that, but Hezbollah hadn't attacked us in 20 YEARS. You'd think Bush would have at least gone after an orginization that was a threat to us if terrorism was his reason for attacking a country.
This also played well into the long-term strategy of planting a democratically elected govt in the middle east to eventually serve as a countering influence to all the ignorance and oppression that breeds terrorists in the first place. And then there the fact that Saddam was an insane mass-murdering dictator sitting on a big chunk of Europe's oil supply. He needed to be removed as a threat to world stability.
We had no right to do this. It isn't our job to decide who gets to run what country and how they run it. It's our job to spank them if they try it on us. We should have bombed Iraq into the stone age each time they shot at us in the no fly zone, but we should never have invaded and occupied.
I will agree with you tho, that the ONLY thing that actually stops the US from conquering and dominating the entire world is that we're the good guys. And for that we are continually met with the world's jealosy and scorn, except when they come to us with their hand out demanding our help.
On this it works both ways. If we tried to take over the world, we'd be initiating the mutual nuclear destruction.
The 4e books say otherwise. They give full combat statistics for non-evil dragons (at least, the Draconomicon books do), and ideas on how to bring about a combat scenario via good PCs and non-evil (even good) dragons.
That =/= fight.
Yes, it does. The definition of a fight, according to the OED, is:
A combat, battle.a. A hostile encounter or engagement between opposing forces;
When a non-evil dragon and a group of PCs roll initiative, attacks, and damage against each other, with the express intent of taking each other out via combat, it is a fight. It is a hostile encounter between two opposing forces. It is a combat, a battle. It is a combat encounter. There are 4e books that discus exactly how to include such encounters between good PCs and non-evil dragons.
Yes. One can claim the rules are the rules. If you want to house rule, take it to the house rule forum.
This is a strawman argument. It is not a house rule to note that some creatures, which by the rules are listed as evil, do not consider themselves to be "EVIL" in character. It is not a house rule to point out that characters do not have access to their own stat blocks, and often might not even know that they, themselves, are evil. I pointed out an official character, from an official product, who can be described exactly as such.
Not according to the D&D alignments, which is what we are using. If you want to go outside of D&D, take it to the appropriate forum.
According to the D&D alignments, it is very easy to come from a paradigm that considers America to be evil. It is very easy to consider America to be a tyrannical country, in the sense that the country acts in a tyrannical/empirical manner towards the rest of the world, that is heavily invested in hate. That matches what is described in the 4e PHB. You might not agree, but as I pointed out, an evil creature in D&D might not agree that it is, itself, evil. It might hold to an ethical principle that does not actually match its actions. It might justify its own actions in the name of the "greater good." It might talk about pragmatism and practicality, and commit evil acts as a result. Not considering yourself evil does not ensure that you are not evil (by somebodies standards, somebody's interpretation of the D&D alignments).
This is irrelevant. The RULES say it's evil.
It is not irrelevant. The "RULES" can say it is evil. That doesn't mean that it is not an evil act to summarily kill the creature without giving it a chance to act in a manner that is beneficial to society at large. There are evil creatures in D&D that do just that. Killing those creatures is not a good act. It is an evil act.
No. The actions of the EVIL dragon enable the PCs to look at a dragon and say it's evil.
But that is not true. The actions of an evil NPC might exist in a gray space, the sort of gray space that is created when one talks about committing evil acts in the name of a greater good. I have already given an example of an evil NPC who's actions exist in exactly just a gray space: King Kaius.
In D&D, creatures are good and evil because that's what the rules say. If a PC wants to believe that a LG paladin is evil based on some crazy moral compass, that's fine. His belief won't actually change an alignment. This is one of the reasons that alignment should be done away with.
Killing a creature just because the rules say it is evil is not a good act. One must look at a larger picture. Someone who goes around committing murder against every evil NPC they run across would be an evil character themselves. They would simply be an evil character with a "crazy moral compass." But I agree with you, the alignment system should be done away with completely. I will go into that more in my response to Kratch.
Um, my criteria is D&D assigned alignments. As soon as you direct me to which page in any 4ed book has America's or any other country's alignment, you be sure to let me know.
They don't have countries alignments listed because a) countries are not characters and b) the game does not stat out real world people or institutions. Both facts are irrelevant. If you personify a country, and then stat that country out, it is possible to interpret America to be evil (based on the 4e alignments). Moreover, you gave three very specific qualities (which are not from the 4e alignment system, but rather were chosen by you) and stated that based on those three qualities a dragon deserves death, and killing that creature is a good act. Qube pointed out that America fits into all three of those qualities. You can't abstract that away with hand waves no matter how hard you try.
Don't treat us like crap and we won't get upset at it. I'm not claiming that 100% of American's are nice, but you assign this "arrogant" label to all of us and treat our travelers like crap. You DO bring it on yourselves, because you're too shortsighted to realize that the President isn't America.
You elect your president. His actions thus represent you. I am aware that this is often a poor representation. However, it is a representation none the less. And the rest of your statement is fallacious. It is not true that we treat all your travelers like crap. Claiming as much is as fallacious as claiming that all Americans are, bar none, arrogant. It is true, however, to say that the actions of some of those that represent your country often make your country seem arrogant, and that the actions of many of your tourists reify this impression (for the record it is also true to say that the actions of many your tourists do not, in any shape or form, conform to this impression). Thus it is fair to walk away with the impression that America, as a country personified, can often be an arrogant entity. Of course this is an abstraction. And like all abstractions, it obfuscates some details. In this case it obfuscates the fact that the term "arrogant" does not apply to many Americans. But any personification of a country will always be an abstraction. It can not be avoided. And for the purposes of Qube's statement, it is still fair to say that the personified entity of America can be interpreted, based on your three criteria, to deserve death. For the purposes of Qube's statement, it is still fair to say that based on your three criteria, one can interpret the destruction of America as a good act.
During Bush's presidency, the whole world looked down at us. Now that Obama is president, that's changing. I have news for you. No one in America has changed. The people are who they were through both presidencies.
Again, when you elect a representative you must accept that he represents (the proverbial, and multiple) you. He represents America. Of course, I am fully aware that the conflation between an individual American and America is a fraudulent conflation. I am not saying that the president is all the people he represents. But he does represent them. For his term of office, he is the voice and hand of the country. It is he who chooses how America, as an institutional body, acts. The only way to judge the country, as a whole (and not its individual constituents), is by its actions. You can not simply say "those actions, on the part of our government, were not the actions of our country but only of our president." For better or worse that president represents the government, and chooses the actions of the government. However, it is not Bush alone that perpetrated those actions, but a host of individuals who went along with Bush. Bush is not the troops he sent over seas. Bush is not the public he convinced to accept his actions. Bush is not the institution which oked all of his decisions. America went to war with Iraq, not president Bush. If America chose not to go to war then a war would not have happened, no matter what one man wanted, even if it took a revolution.
Right. Yet many people from your country and others don't keep an open mind. It doesn't take many of you to set someone off.
And many people from your country do not keep an open mind, and walk into every situation expecting love, worship, and respect that they do not deserve. It can be argued that those people have created the attitude that sometimes causes some people to start treating all Americans poorly. Personally, I think its a bit of a situation of the chicken and the egg. Pointing fingers is pointless. There are both people who treat all Americans poorly, and Americans who are so annoying and infuriating that they manage to give a terrible impression of your culture (and often cause people from other countries to start treating all Americans worse). It is impossible to claim that the problem stems with either of these two groups. But, so long as you keep trying to claim that it is all the doing of others you continue to make yourself look egotistical. You continue to reify the impression that America is egotistical.
No, we haven't. That's a label you assign to us over politics.
America is not an American. America is a political entity. It is a government. The actions of that government often seem egotistical to the rest of the world.
Because that isn't true in D&D. The dragons we are discussing aren't making bad decisions..........THEY ARE EVIL. That's the rules.
No, it is not. According to the rules of D&D, a "evil" creature is not necessarily capital E, irredeemable, evil. See King Kaius.
You don't get it, do you? Since America WILL do that rather than lose, those "world powers" will not unite against an America that gets rid of say Iran or North Korea. They would only do so if we did such things on a regular or semi-regular basis.
Of course the actions of the rest of the world depend on the situation. But given the right situation, the rest of the world will align against America.
That isn't why we went there. I'm sorry, but lies just do not count. Only actual reasons do. The WMD thing was made up as an excuse to go in.
But it was the publicly mediated reason, and therefore it is fair game. Indeed, to this day members of that administration continue to claim that that was the original reason to invade.
Not under orders from the Country.
The invasion was under orders from the country. The rapes and murders happened to frequently to simply be waved away. The country did not do nearly enough in order to remove its own culpability from its soldier['s actions.
Um, those were individual mistakes, not mistakes of "America". The only "American" mistake(other than going there in the first place) was the torture issue, and even that wasn't an "American" mistake. It was a "Bush" mistake. America had no say in the matter.
Again, a "Bush" mistake is an "American" mistake. Bush did not commit those actions personally. Soldiers, in the name of America, did what their president told them to do. The institution acted as a congruent entity. Thus, to take all of the actions of the military body and to place those actions on the shoulders of Bush is simply ridiculous. The institution bears culpability.
Which is why, due to their D&D ALIGNMENT in combination WITH that capablility, they have to be destroyed and it is a good act to do so.
You lack a tenable position with which to support that claim. Killing an evil dragon that acts like King Kaius is not necessarily a good act. It might very well be an evil act.
Only if they were suicidal.
If America went off and melted down Iran and North Korea with nukes it would not be suicidal to destroy America. It would be good sense. At that point in time America would have proven itself to dangerous a political body to exist.
Even combined, they couldn't assault U.S.A proper and win. It's just not feasible to go across oceans and expect to survive to assault America. We could not assault the world, but they cannot attack us and win. The ONLY way to defeat America is through WMDs and that would only assure the destruction of everyone. You're a fool if you believe they would come at us with armies if we melted Iran or North Korea. At worst, there would be economic attacks that would hurt for only as long as it took to get our factories up and running again.
1) We will have to agree to disagree. I think you overvalue your own forces. 2) I do not doubt for a second that if America did something so stupid as to melt down two countries with WMDs that the rest of the world would not start using WMDs against America.
That's arguable. A minority followed by an extremely thin majority doesn't constitute "America", nor do actions taken by an elected president that people would not have wanted and didn't know about in advance.
There is nothing arguable about it. The president acts to represent the country. His actions become the actions of the country. Point in case, Bush said Iraq should be invaded, and America, as a country, invaded Iraq. It wasn't just Bush running around with an M16. It was the entire American military institution.
You were doing okay until the end. The PEOPLE are America, not the President.
The people don't get to choose what America does. All they get to do is vote for the person who will. As I believe that the actions of a thing are what defines a thing, I believe it is the president that is the country at any given moment in time. At best, the people are just an influence.
If we used it against Iran or North Korea and no one else, there would be no all out war. Everyone knows that both countries are lead by EXTREMELY unstable governments and insane leaders. They would condemn us. They would sanction us. But they wouldn't be stupid enough to suicide over an unstable and crazy country with WMDs.
Yea, I really don't agree. If America went off and melted down those two countries with nukes the economic sanctions would cripple America's economy, and I do not doubt for a second that some very serious military actions would begin against America. It is one thing to wage a war against a country. It is another thing to melt a country down with nukes. The world stage would probably stand for the first. I doubt they would ever be willing to stand for the second.
