Shattered Kingdoms

u don't know jack

I hate you.

It's quite common for people to pick out the bits and pieces that they wish to present, while at the same time ignoring other things which put a situation in a completely different context.

reads:

I quit, people pout bitterly.

Sorry to hear that you quit, Gremlin.

Is it not? I suppose it depends on context. I'm inclined to believe that the willful taking of life is an awful thing to do, though sometimes a necessary act for manifold reasons. Those reasons are not all by definition evil, which once more lends to the argument that the end can justify the means and still remain within the context of what we thing of as "white aura".

To kill to defend your country, your family, or an innocent, for example. Some would argue that even this is evil, that the end never justifies the means. From a scrupulous mindset, I'd argue that they're irresponsibly wrong, but it must be nice to be so idealistic. Or naive.

But we stray from the point. We're arguing for or against allowing the Scrupulous alignment to retain some provision for an element of rutheless action.



No. The argument is not that ruthelessness is OK in a scrupulous character to a ridiculous extreme. It's that an element of ruthelessness is not innately opposed to the concept of a white aura alignment and that as it is within the scrupulous helpfile at present perfectly describes the mavric element that attaches to a scrupulous alignment and thus not only doesn't need to be changed, it shouldn't be changed.

If the player of a scrupulous character routinely behaves in a fashion that's patently evil and then tries to argue the letter of the alignment's helpfile as justification for their character's "ruthelessness" then they've blatantly misunderstood the spirit of that definition and should be slapped for being a muppet and a rules-lawyer.



I like that

Raise your hand if your direct actions resulted in the non-accidental death of a human being.

Anyone ever killed anyone? Legally or not?

Would we all be principled then?

edit: Me personally there was this one guy I met that committed suicide later that night. Likely not from anything I did or said because all I said was Hello and shook his hand. Later I heard he offed himself. Other than that, I've never known someone that died. All grand parents are still alive. So I really have no concept of death. Hell even my first pet (a horse) is still alive.

Yah Joseph, and brevity goes out of the window when the matter is a really complex one. If you don't want to read my post, of course you are free to do so, but you don't have to inform everyone about it. It's rather self-defeating.

Gilgon: There are many "greater goods". Those are subjective. I use the term "Good" to refer to the Ultimate Codex of Lightie Behavior. So yes, Jack follows what he believes to be the greater good. The safety of his beloved nation and those within in (and if he must sacrifice one of his own, no biggie).

"Saying that he is devoted to his country and 'not to human life' is a joke. Of course, a man is more devoted to saving the life of his family member, for example, than for the rest of men. That doesn't mean that he is not devoted to human life. "

-American- life. Life of USA citizens. And EVEN within this, he kills a witness. It means he's not devoted to human life itself, but particular lives. He's picky. He's a hero, yes, but who said grey auras can't be heroes for SOME people?

Tat, ruthlessness might be an element in Lighties, but not "sometimes" or "often" or "all the time". Rarely, if ever and not to the point where it should be called that. Stern, harsh, devoted, unyielding, so many other beautiful terms that describe exactly this strength of character, will and devotion without implying one's ready to harm others for it.

Ruthlessness can also mean cruelty. It is a negative concept no matter which usage we examine and, as such, directly opposed to the concepts of Positive/Good. So is murder. Yet Lighties kill, sometimes. They are forced to do so. Do they kill lighties? No, never. They'd better find SOME way to NOT have to kill lighties, if they want to not be hypocritic bastards, and ultimately, Grey. Do they kill others, generally? Yes, if they must. They -try- to do it rarely, because it -is- innately a "Bad" thing to take away life.

Causing harm, and especially taking away life causes what scientists call "psychological trauma" on every man, and you can also look that up. In the medieval fantasy setting of SKs, the trauma would be severely lessened under particular circumstances (such as a Lightie defending Lighties against Darkies or doing it for the sake of his 'good' God). It is also lessened because death is not permanent in SKs.

Thus the respect for life part. You respect life, but sometimes have to take it. Make sure you limit this "sometime" to as little as possible if you want to still have a heart after half a lifetime. The less harm one causes, the less guilt he has to justify to his conscience and the world.

I really don't see a game's alignment as "complicated". The game even says "You are a 'good guy' and that darkie over there is the 'bad guy'".

Keep calling Jack Bauer a grey aura and he's going to 'request' a gun to kill your [REDACTED].