|
Post by Draxy on Oct 21, 2003 0:47:51 GMT -5
Wahoo! Straight from the horse's mouth at WOTC. The Book of Exalted deeds states, and I quote: Now there you go. First. Sorry man, but the above is from 3rd edition, where the paladin no longer has to even be lawful, as they've made the definition of lawful so vague and useless that anyone can easily fit it by claiming that their actions are all part of a "personal code". 3E stuff in 2E is an ill fit. By your logic I should have just pulled out the 1E statement of bold fact that the assassin has to be evil. We've, of course, been discussing ALL of these various permutations in the context of the game; since this is a game forum. Out of it such things as Class and alignment are worhtless concepts and so too are all of the other reasons for ANY and all of the game artificialities. Sophont was a term I tripped across many years before I ever played Traveller in the Journal of the American Medical Association, but I too did a search and can't find it on the net off of a Traveller site. I don't know what to say except that I'll try to track down it's origin and get back to you. Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 21, 2003 1:45:13 GMT -5
Be careful what you read ;D
I'm completely don't know where you got the idea that lawful in 3e is a personalized code. I reread my PHB the other day when you mentioned it and there is nothing in there that says that. Since I'm at work right now, I can't look up the quote for you, but, when I get home tonight, I'll do it. However, I do know that you are incorrect in that assertion.
Now, where did I bring up class or alignment? I said that if you want to use the very limited definition of ASSASSINATION given in the PHB, then you may very well be correct. I didn't bring up any of the other things. Now, as I said, if you are going to limit the definition of the word assassin and assassination to what is written in the 2e PHB, then, hey, more power to you. I was arguing from a slightly broader context.
I believe I agreed with you on the idea of pouring poison into someone's ear kind of assassination. No, of course a paladin can't do that. That's the kind of assassination they are refering to in the core books. Of course, if that is the only definition you will allow, a paladin cannot assassinate. However, assassination and murder is a much, much broader concept than that, but, since I cannot take into account the broader context of the words, this conversation is meaningless.
By definition, if a paladin plans to kill someone or something then carries out that plan, he has commited murder. Period, full stop. Neither a police officer nor a soldier can do that. A police officer cannot enter a house and think "I am going to kill that bad man because he sells crack to kids"; if he does, then he is guilty of murder. If he shoots the crack dealer while the crack dealer is shooting at him, that is a different story, but the police officer cannot deliberately plan the killing of a suspect.
A soldier also never deliberately plans the killing of an individual. That a soldier kills is expected, but, only in certain limited circumstances. A soldier is given an objective, ie defend this place, take that hill, and is then expected to do it. If the enemy all run away, the soldier doesn't care, since he has taken his objective. His objective is rarely to simply kill the enemy.
A paladin, on the other hand, may be expected to plan out and execute the death of an individual. Whether that individual is a rampaging dragon or an evil cultist bent on opening a gate to the Dungeon Dimensions. The paladin is expected to search out those individuals and do everything in his power to stop them. Not take their land. Not push them back. Not incarcerate them or bring them to the magistrate, but, realistically, to kill them. And, in both the cases above, he would be hailed as a hero for doing so. However, in both cases above, he has committed assassination. He has planned and executed the deaths of specific individuals. That he is justified by his church or his lord is irrelavent. Sure, it makes him feel better, but it is still an assassination.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 21, 2003 6:37:03 GMT -5
Hi Hussar,
I'm short on time again, but I'll hit a few ideas.
Obviously you missed reading the section on Lawful Neutral alignment. The alignment that they also refer to as "True Lawful".
"A lawful neutral character acts as law, tradition, or a personal code directs her. She may believe in personal order OR she may belive in order for all..."
*Both the bold type and the Capitalization of OR are my additions, otherwise it is a direct quote.*
A lawful character that may believe in a "personal order" OR in order for all? That isn't so vague as to make the alignment useless? What the Hell is chaotic alignment if not a person who believes in a "personal" code?
This is one of the many reasons why I think that 3E is a giant step backward in RP. It is so broad as to have NO meaning.
By extension you did it every time you wrote the word Paladin, as the essence of the Paladin is the ultra strict adherence to his class and alignment that is neccesary to retain the class. No other class is even marginally as restrictive and focused. To discuss the Paladin IS to discuss alignment and the Paladin class.
But Hussar; we can ONLY be discussing this in the context of the game and those rules. Otherwise the discussion needs to be in the Wyrms Den Forum and in there I would be far more likely to be in agreement with you on certain points. I still think that you have FAR to broad a definition of what is murder to be useful in a technical sense, but I agree with many of your ancillary points and wouldn't argue it from that basis.
It is ONLY in the contect of the game, which this 1st and 2nd edition Forum is dedicated to that I am arguing the point at all.
If I didn't make that clear before, please, let me reiterate it now.
Draxy
PS: One point on murder:
Neither could the Paladin. Selling something, even something so illegal and foul, is NOT justification for murder by the Paladial code.
Both the Paladin and the Police Sniper who has gotten the order to fire though can think, "as soon as that murderer is in my sights, he's history".
THAT happened in LA (in Watts) in the late eighties. A triple murderer, hold up in his house, armed and dangerous, who had, the day before, shot one Police Officer who he thought was there to arrest him, even though the Officer in question was in the area on a different matter; was shot and killed by a Police sniper because it was considered obviously suicidal to try to effect an arrest otherwise.
THAT was carefully, meticulously planned and the Sniper in question recieved a commendation for it, not a charge of murder. Of course.
Except, again, for the Sniper. It's not just the US who uses them either. The Canadian military employs them too.
This is the way it is in your game. This is NOT according to the official rules, which, again I quoted from the book, that states that he must refrain from killing whenever possible. THAT is crystal clear. If he does not refrain from killing except when given no choice, he is abrogating his Paladial code.
Draxy
|
|
|
Post by Hussar on Oct 21, 2003 6:56:46 GMT -5
Yeah, let's see you arrest a dragon . What do you think this is? Discworld? Nice selective quoting there btw. How about the whole section on Lawful Neutral: While, yes, there is a section about a personal code in there, enough extra information is given that it certainly doesn't look like a chaotic alignment. The whole "order and organization" kinda makes it non-chaotic. You can't even pick a good slam for a game. Sheesh. A military sniper is a sanctioned murderer. There is no dancing around that one. This is a person who has planned and carried out the plan to kill someone. The only reason he is not considered a murderer, is because he has been sanctioned by his government. If he was caught by the other side, he would certainly be tried as a murderer. I think I've had enough of this little topic. Any further points that I may make will just further a pointless topic. You are arguing for a strict definition where none exists in a game which is so vague that any interpretation can be made. You couldn't win the arguement over at Planet, so you figured you could take it here where people haven't had two years to sharpen their arguements. Have fun.
|
|
|
Post by Draxy on Oct 21, 2003 16:41:56 GMT -5
Hi Hussar,
Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinions. I disagree with you, strongly about some things, less so about others, but I agree that this dead horse is now fleshless. I think anyone reading this has more than enough information to make up their mind about the relative merits of it many times over by now.
Draxy
|
|