Alignments, what do they truly stand for?

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Yorick: Aha but this is my point. A properly roleplayed Palladin would not attack a thief, and if they had to they would use restraing violence and capture the thief because taking life is evil and usually unecessary. The truly good mage of the earlier hypothesis would not kill the Druid but find a way to incapacitate the Druid or not commit any evil. The mage that kills the druid is acting OUT OF ALIGNMENT and with "good intentions" but it remains an evil act, a necessary evil? Still evil. Thanks Accord What is required to understand the defenition is a subtle change in perception of what evil is. It is not this terribly destructive force that demolishes everything - that is EVIL TAKE TO THE EXTREME. Mother Theresa is GOOD TAKEN TO THE EXTREME. At it's dividing line you have my definition. Evil is following your own agenda at expense of the benefit of others Good is benefiting others at the expense of your own agenda. Some actions could be in theory neutral, if your own agenda has no consequence on anothers benefit.

Very good reasoning, Yorick.

But sometimes the only choice you have is between one 'evil' and another ... Take mercykilling, for example. What if the person has asked you to kill him/her if he/she was to live as a vegetable ? If I asked that of you, would you do it ? I already asked that to my husband, if I happen to lose my mind from Parkinson or Alzheimer disease, I don't want to make the life of the people I love miserable, I don't want to be remembered as someone who peas under herself, I don't want to have people I love cry because I don't recognize them, I want to be killed if that happens ! Would it be 'evil' to kill me then ?

------------------

The world is my oyster !

[This message has been edited by Moiraine (edited 04-03-2001).]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Hesperex: Personaly I think that good/evil is determined by the intentions of the one who is performing the act not by the act it's self.

You can commit evil/destruction of anothers benefit with 'good intentions' though.



------------------
O.K..... what do I do now?


A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Very good reasoning, Yorick. But sometimes the only choice you have is between one 'evil' and another ... Take mercykilling, for example. What if the person has asked you to kill him/her if he/she was to live as a vegetable ? If I asked that of you, would you do it ? I already asked that to my husband, if I happen to lose my mind from Parkinson or Alzheimer disease, I don't want to make the life of the people I love miserable, I don't want to be remembered as someone who peas under herself, I don't want to have people I love cry because I don't recognize them, I want to be killed if that happens ! Would it be 'evil' to kill me then ?

Then the dilemma of that situation lies in determining what is anothers benefit. In cases of intense pain, all that I have felt when under such excruciation is it to stop under any circumstances. When I had pluracy and breathing was agony, all that mattered was the agonies cessation. At another time when I lost half my blood supply and had to get transfusions and multiple tests I had feelings of desolation and confusion and a desire for everything to stop.

My point being that psychologists will tell you to avoid making a life decision during times of crisis. Deciding to end your life during a period of intense illness would constitute such a scenario.

Also menatlity plays a large role in healing. The sick need their loved ones urging them to fight, to stay, that they are loved, needed. Not that the option of ending it exists for no-one wants to be a burden. My wife was under extraodinary duress when I was ill, and my Mother when my father was recently ill. The last thing I wanted to be was a burden to my wife and family, but their love was communicated incredibly. I made sure I then communicated such love to my father upon his illness.

My grandfather has parkinsons, and I cherish every moment I get with him, and curse that there aren't more. He still has a role in my life and I identify with him very strongly as we share many interests.

My great grandfather lived till he was 99 and at the end had Alzheimers so badly he couldn't recognise his wife or daughter. He could still pray though, and when he did he'd recount bible verses and display such love for his creator, that it left a marked impression on me to this day.

Everything in nature clings to life. If a human at any stage desires the cessation of such life, surely the greater benefit for them is to rectify their situation or make the last steps more bareable rather than assisting their surrender to the inevitable.





------------------
O.K..... what do I do now?


A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[Moiraine]

Yorick, I replied by mail - this is going far far away from a BG II topic ...

------------------

The world is my oyster !

[Yorick]

True, but it lauched itself from a BG topic.

------------------
O.K..... what do I do now?


A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

Destruction by good intentions. If they knew the consequences, they were either mad or evil (and mad is too easy an excuse) but keep trying to convince themselves it's for the good. Paladins are there to protect innocents fro marauders, monsters and demons of the night, not thwocking an elf because it's skin is black! Keldorn is a reprehensible little t**d and if a PC in one of my games attacked every 'evil'-aligned person they saw, the character would be arrested and the PC would lose paladinhood as his alignment would have drifted towards Chaotic

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Lord Shield: Destruction by good intentions. If they knew the consequences, they were either mad or evil (and mad is too easy an excuse) but keep trying to convince themselves it's for the good. Paladins are there to protect innocents fro marauders, monsters and demons of the night, not thwocking an elf because it's skin is black! Keldorn is a reprehensible little t**d and if a PC in one of my games attacked every 'evil'-aligned person they saw, the character would be arrested and the PC would lose paladinhood as his alignment would have drifted towards Chaotic

Precisely, a lawful character would find a way to legally topple or thwart an evil character, for attacking and killing them is both unlawful and evil. A truly good character would most probably 'love their enemy' and seek to 'correct' or 'heal' them of the error in their ways.


------------------
O.K..... what do I do now?


A fair dinkum laughing Hyena!

[250]

Originally posted by Yorick: Precisely, a lawful character would find a way to legally topple or thwart an evil character, for attacking and killing them is both unlawful and evil. A truly good character would most probably 'love their enemy' and seek to 'correct' or 'heal' them of the error in their ways.

hey, this post is only directed to "a truely good character would try to heal ..." not to other of your posts, alright?

say, sure, a truely good person loves and heals, and enlightens other people, but it really depends on situtaion. a good person wont say, love his enemy just because he is good, because in doing so would result needless bloodshed of many other victims, or maybe his own his love (a good act) can lead to evil fruit.

now this is just other talk related to Hesperex's opinion:

one said evil never come out of good intentions, I think that is not true. some times, people are blinded by their own goodness, falsefully believe their actions are justed and holy (a small example: the Crusade) the Roman soldiers thought they were doing God's duty, to rescue the land which was under rule of Islam. did they believe they acted out of justice? I think yes. was the act truely justiced? that leaves history to answer

anyway, I gtg, THREE TESTS in 48 hours!!


[This message has been edited by 250 (edited 04-04-2001).]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by 250: hey, this post is only directed to "a truely good character would try to heal ..." not to other of your posts, alright? say, sure, a truely good person loves and heals, and enlightens other people, but it really depends on situtaion. a good person wont say, love his enemy just because he is good, because in doing so would result needless bloodshed of many other victims, or maybe his own his love (a good act) can lead to evil fruit. now this is just other talk related to Hesperex's opinion: one said evil never come out of good intentions, I think that is not true. some times, people are blinded by their own goodness, falsefully believe their actions are justed and holy (a small example: the Crusade) the Roman soldiers thought they were doing God's duty, to rescue the land which was under rule of Islam. did they believe they acted out of justice? I think yes. was the act truely justiced? that leaves history to answer anyway, I gtg, THREE TESTS in 48 hours!! [This message has been edited by 250 (edited 04-04-2001).]

Yes, I agree, Deux-cent-cinquante , modesty should always be part of the "Good" package, a Good person should always question his/her own conception of Good.

I think that Good people have a big disadvantage and a big advantage towards Evil people :

The disadvantage is that they cannot get rid of their responsibility towards others - whatever they do, they must always take into account the consequences of their actions on other's lifes

The advantage is that they can count on help and support from others, while Evil persons cannot, because betrayal and egoism are Evil core components, so that implies that Evil people are always alone, and fear is their only way to interact with others

Whaddayathink ?



------------------

The world is my oyster !

[250]

Originally posted by Moiraine: Yes, I agree, Deux-cent-cinquante , modesty should always be part of the "Good" package, a Good person should always question his/her own conception of Good. I think that Good people have a big disadvantage and a big advantage towards Evil people : The disadvantage is that they cannot get rid of their responsibility towards others - whatever they do, they must always take into account the consequences of their actions on other's lifes The advantage is that they can count on help and support from others, while Evil persons cannot, because betrayal and egoism are Evil core components, so that implies that Evil people are always alone, and fear is their only way to interact with others Whaddayathink ?

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!! me can hear the ringz iz ringing truth!!!! wizdom!! your opinion on the "advantage" and "disadvantage" part is cleative!!

P.S. serious, it was no joke, very creative! i never thought of it that way. oh, and Deux-cent-Ciquante sounds good!