Neutral Alignment

[brandes]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BE5DB7.90113E00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I would agree that Lawful Neutral is intrinsically =
ends-justify-the-means when the the questions are ethical and concern =
harming others, but it is also possible to consider who Chaotic Good is =
the exemplar of ends-justify-the-means thinking when the good of =
indivduals and the good of groups is considered. Robbing from the rich =
to give to the poor is a classic example of a Chaotic Good decision to =
do wrong against the law because it helps people. =20
=20
When we consider both the axis of good-evil and law-chaos, it is =
evident that a stripe from Lawful Neutral, through True Neutral, to =
Chaotic Good described the alignments most given to this balancing act =
between ends that the character values and ethical and legal means that =
society affirms.
=20
Indeed each of the alignments that will employ this thinking will =
arrange the values to be advanced and to be comprimised slightly =
differently.
=20
Nevertheless I don't see Lawful Good or any of the Evil alignlments =
using it.
=20
Actually, I'm going to disagree on one count: "Ends justify means" is =
perfectly valid for Evil characters. In fact, that can be what makes =
them Evil in the first place, if you include methods with motivations in =
defining character alignment. If you've read Terry Goodkind's Wizard's =
First Rule, you may know what I'm talking about. No one debates that =
Darken Rahl is evil; he does plenty of evil things in the book. Yet his =
goal is the same as the goal of Shakespeare's Hamlet: he wants to avenge =
his father's death. Hamlet is widely accepted as Good, yet he commits =
murder and regicide. If you therefore accept Darken Rahl as possessing =
a partially Good motivation, then this indisputably Evil character is =
clearly using the doctrine of "ends justify the means."
Brandes

- ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BE5DB7.90113E00
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable










I would agree that Lawful Neutral is =
intrinsically=20
ends-justify-the-means when the the questions are ethical and =
concern=20
harming others, but it is also possible to consider who Chaotic Good =
is the=20
exemplar of ends-justify-the-means thinking when the good of =
indivduals and=20
the good of groups is considered.  Robbing from the rich to =
give to the=20
poor is a classic example of a Chaotic Good decision to do wrong =
against the=20
law because it helps people. 
 
When we consider both the axis of good-evil and =
law-chaos,=20
it is evident that a stripe from Lawful Neutral, through True =
Neutral, to=20
Chaotic Good described the alignments most given to this balancing =
act=20
between ends that the character values and ethical and legal means =
that=20
society affirms.
 
Indeed each of the alignments that will employ =
this=20
thinking will arrange the values to be advanced and to be =
comprimised=20
slightly differently.
 
Nevertheless I don't see Lawful Good or any of =
the Evil=20
alignlments using it.
 
Actually, I'm going to disagree on =
one count:=20
"Ends justify means" is perfectly valid for Evil =
characters.  In=20
fact, that can be what makes them Evil in the first place, if you =
include=20
methods with motivations in defining character alignment.  If =
you've read=20
Terry Goodkind's Wizard's First Rule, you may know what I'm =
talking=20
about.  No one debates that Darken Rahl is evil; he does plenty of =
evil=20
things in the book.  Yet his goal is the same as the goal of =
Shakespeare's=20
Hamlet: he wants to avenge his father's death.  Hamlet is widely =
accepted=20
as Good, yet he commits murder and regicide.  If you therefore =
accept=20
Darken Rahl as possessing a partially Good motivation, then this =
indisputably=20
Evil character is clearly using the doctrine of "ends justify the=20
means."
Brandes

- ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01BE5DB7.90113E00--

[Craig Dalrymple]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE5DB4.9EA0FE40
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Actually, I'm going to disagree on one count: "Ends justify means" =
is perfectly valid for Evil characters. In fact, that can be what makes =
them Evil in the first place, if you include methods with motivations in =
defining character alignment. If you've read Terry Goodkind's Wizard's =
First Rule, you may know what I'm talking about. No one debates that =
Darken Rahl is evil; he does plenty of evil things in the book. Yet his =
goal is the same as the goal of Shakespeare's Hamlet: he wants to avenge =
his father's death. Hamlet is widely accepted as Good, yet he commits =
murder and regicide. If you therefore accept Darken Rahl as possessing =
a partially Good motivation, then this indisputably Evil character is =
clearly using the doctrine of "ends justify the means."
Brandes
=20
=20
Ok, what you have said is valid to a point, but you have shifted =
away from Neutral. You addressed Good and Evil, but not the middle =
ground. It is entirely plausible that evil beings can do things that =
actually create good results for the world at large (though they usually =
do it for other reasons).=20
=20
LN alignment in my eyes is different from LE in that overtly cruel, =
mean, or violent means are not instantly applied. Neither are the most =
humane. The LN persona would apply a direct and orderly approach to a =
problem. This approach would be within any laws or regulations of the =
given society inwhich the persona exists. Finally, a means that is =
horrendously violent or Evil would be avoided if the reprecussions would =
clearly increase chaos or create troubles for the persona in the future.
=20
Craig

- ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE5DB4.9EA0FE40
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable









 

Actually, I'm going to disagree =
on one=20
count: "Ends justify means" is perfectly valid for Evil=20
characters.  In fact, that can be what makes them Evil in the =
first=20
place, if you include methods with motivations in defining character =

alignment.  If you've read Terry Goodkind's Wizard's First=20
Rule, you may know what I'm talking about.  No one debates =
that=20
Darken Rahl is evil; he does plenty of evil things in the =
book.  Yet=20
his goal is the same as the goal of Shakespeare's Hamlet: he wants =
to avenge=20
his father's death.  Hamlet is widely accepted as Good, yet he =
commits=20
murder and regicide.  If you therefore accept Darken Rahl as =
possessing=20
a partially Good motivation, then this indisputably Evil character =
is=20
clearly using the doctrine of "ends justify the=20
means."
Brandes
 
 
Ok, what you have said =
is valid to a=20
point, but you have shifted away from Neutral. You addressed Good =
and Evil,=20
but not the middle ground. It is entirely plausible that evil beings =
can do=20
things that actually create good results for the world at large =
(though they=20
usually do it for other reasons).
 
LN alignment in my =
eyes is different=20
from LE in that overtly cruel, mean, or violent means are not =
instantly=20
applied. Neither are the most humane. The LN persona would apply a =
direct=20
and orderly approach to a problem. This approach would be within any =
laws or=20
regulations of the given society inwhich the persona exists. =
Finally, a=20
means that is horrendously violent or Evil would be avoided if the=20
reprecussions would clearly increase chaos or create troubles for =
the=20
persona in the future.
 
Craig

- ------=_NextPart_000_001F_01BE5DB4.9EA0FE40--

[Samuel Weiss]

If you examine it closely, you will discover that "The Ends Justify the
Means" is a null value statement, except when used accusatoriluy against
someone who you disagree with.
Everyone and every group believes that the ends they seek justify the means
they use. They just have both different ends and different means.
Lawful Good people feel that the end of having a safe, comfortable society
for everyone justifies passing laws to restrict individuals freedoms and to
protect those unable to protect themselves.
Lawful Evil people feel the end of a society where everyone knows their
place (and they are on top of course) justifies laws that repress people and
deny individual rights, even that of life.
And so on through the alignmnets.
"The Ends Jusitfy the Means" means nothing more than "I am right and you are
wrong".

Samwise

[Kenneth Gauck]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01BE5DDF.CE09EE00
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Brandes, the reason I would consider that evil characters do not employ =
an end-justifies-the-means thinking is that they don't need to justify =
their behavior. Such mode of thinking rationalizes bad behavior for =
people who still worry about such things. The Neutral character might =
say, "Yes I killed him, but reason X is more important." And reason X =
would be something beyond personal convience or advantage. =20

An evil character says, "I wiped out the village, yeah, so what." There =
is no acknowledgment or understanding that it was wrong. Put most =
susinctly, an evil character does not see anything wrong with an evil =
act, hence there is nothing to justify.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

-----Original Message-----
From: brandes
Date: Sunday, February 21, 1999 3:41 PM
=20
Actually, I'm going to disagree on one count: "Ends justify means" is =
perfectly valid for Evil characters. In fact, that can be what makes =
them Evil in the first place, if you include methods with motivations in =
defining character alignment. If you've read Terry Goodkind's Wizard's =
First Rule, you may know what I'm talking about. No one debates that =
Darken Rahl is evil; he does plenty of evil things in the book. Yet his =
goal is the same as the goal of Shakespeare's Hamlet: he wants to avenge =
his father's death. Hamlet is widely accepted as Good, yet he commits =
murder and regicide. If you therefore accept Darken Rahl as possessing =
a partially Good motivation, then this indisputably Evil character is =
clearly using the doctrine of "ends justify the means."
Brandes

- ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01BE5DDF.CE09EE00
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable






Brandes, the reason I would consider that evil =
characters do=20
not employ an end-justifies-the-means thinking is that they don't need =
to=20
justify their behavior.  Such mode of thinking rationalizes bad =
behavior=20
for people who still worry about such things.  The Neutral =
character might=20
say, "Yes I killed him, but reason X is more important." And =
reason X=20
would be something beyond personal convience or advantage.  =

 
An evil character says, "I wiped out the =
village, yeah,=20
so what."  There is no acknowledgment or understanding that it =
was=20
wrong.  Put most susinctly, an evil character does not see anything =
wrong=20
with an evil act, hence there is nothing to justify.
 
Kenneth =
Gauckc558382@earthlink.net

-----Original =
Message-----From:=20
brandes <brandes@gateway.net>Dat=
e:=20
Sunday, February 21, 1999 3:41 PM
 
Actually, I'm going to disagree on =
one count:=20
"Ends justify means" is perfectly valid for Evil =
characters. =20
In fact, that can be what makes them Evil in the first place, if you =
include=20
methods with motivations in defining character alignment.  If =
you've read=20
Terry Goodkind's Wizard's First Rule, you may know what I'm =
talking=20
about.  No one debates that Darken Rahl is evil; he does plenty =
of evil=20
things in the book.  Yet his goal is the same as the goal of=20
Shakespeare's Hamlet: he wants to avenge his father's death.  =
Hamlet is=20
widely accepted as Good, yet he commits murder and regicide.  If =
you=20
therefore accept Darken Rahl as possessing a partially Good =
motivation, then=20
this indisputably Evil character is clearly using the doctrine of =
"ends=20
justify the means."
Brandes

- ------=_NextPart_000_0097_01BE5DDF.CE09EE00--

[brandes]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BE5DF0.13826740
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


-----Original Message-----
From: Kenneth Gauck
To: birthright@MPGN.COM
Date: Sunday, February 21, 1999 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Neutral Alignment
=20
=20
Brandes, the reason I would consider that evil characters do not =
employ an end-justifies-the-means thinking is that they don't need to =
justify their behavior. Such mode of thinking rationalizes bad behavior =
for people who still worry about such things. The Neutral character =
might say, "Yes I killed him, but reason X is more important." And =
reason X would be something beyond personal convience or advantage. =20
=20
An evil character says, "I wiped out the village, yeah, so what." =
There is no acknowledgment or understanding that it was wrong. Put most =
susinctly, an evil character does not see anything wrong with an evil =
act, hence there is nothing to justify.
=20
Kenneth Gauck
Hmmm . . . I accept the above situation as a Chaotic Evil outlook just =
fine, since any and all destroyer gods in fantasy are CE, as far as I =
can remember. The Lawful Evil accepts and understands that some things =
are wrong, based upon whatever code of law they accept. They may =
justify occasional violations of this law, as well as violations of its =
spirit, with "ends justify means" (hereinafter referred to as The =
Justification). Your argument definitely requires further thought on my =
part - I may try this argument again tomorrow . . .
While I'm on the topic of The Justification, I will respond to Samuel =
Weiss' post regarding this long-running debate. He states that The =
Justification is a null argument; obviously, both the esteemed Kenneth =
Gauck and myself disagree, or this debate would have ended a long time =
ago.
The Justification is a tool primarily for Moral Neutrals, or neutrals =
with respect to the Good-Evil axis. Lawful Good characters don't use =
The Justification, simply because their actions tend to not require =
justification. Both their actions and their motives are in the interest =
of justice, order, and good. The easiest example is a paladin, since =
they define what it means to be LG. Their actions are beyond reproach, =
or they lose paladinhood in a hurry. In the case of dilemmas that have =
no good side, choosing the lesser of two evils is not an application of =
The Justification.
Lawful Neutrals DO use The Justification in many cases; they feel that =
the needs of the state (or Law, or Order, or whatever) outweigh the =
needs of the people. Thus the spy for the secret police justifies his =
actions. He may snitch on those who placed their trust in him. Not a =
good act. The Justification, however, prevents him from easily being =
classified as LE.
CG freedom fighter/terrorists might use The Justification; however, that =
position is pretty hard to support, and as long as I'm the DM, the =
murder of innocents as a Good act is a pretty damn untenable position. =
If any of youse is a member of the Real faction of the IRA, you disgust =
me. Not that the British are better.
I humbly beg the pardon of everyone NOT included by the last two =
sentences, but that's something I feel pretty strongly about.
I could spend the rest of the night examining the rest of the =
alignments, but sleep is a far more productive use of my time. Maybe =
later, if my statements draw enough objections.
Brandes

- ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BE5DF0.13826740
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable









 

-----Original =
Message-----From:=20
Kenneth Gauck <c558382@earthlink.net>To:=20
birthright@MPGN.COM =
<birthright@MPGN.COM>Dat=
e:=20
Sunday, February 21, 1999 10:35 PMSubject: Re: =
[BIRTHRIGHT] -=20
Neutral Alignment
Brandes, the reason I would consider that evil =
characters=20
do not employ an end-justifies-the-means thinking is that they don't =
need to=20
justify their behavior.  Such mode of thinking rationalizes bad =

behavior for people who still worry about such things.  The =
Neutral=20
character might say, "Yes I killed him, but reason X is more=20
important." And reason X would be something beyond personal =
convience=20
or advantage. 
 
An evil character says, "I wiped out the =
village,=20
yeah, so what."  There is no acknowledgment or =
understanding that=20
it was wrong.  Put most susinctly, an evil character does not =
see=20
anything wrong with an evil act, hence there is nothing to=20
justify.
 
Kenneth Gauck
Hmmm . . . I accept the above situation as a Chaotic =
Evil=20
outlook just fine, since any and all destroyer gods in fantasy are CE, =
as far as=20
I can remember.  The Lawful Evil accepts and understands that some =
things=20
are wrong, based upon whatever code of law they accept.  They may =
justify=20
occasional violations of this law, as well as violations of its spirit, =
with=20
"ends justify means" (hereinafter referred to as The=20
Justification).  Your argument definitely requires further thought =
on my=20
part - I may try this argument again tomorrow . . .
While I'm on the topic of The Justification, I will =
respond to=20
Samuel Weiss' post regarding this long-running debate.  He states =
that The=20
Justification is a null argument; obviously, both the esteemed Kenneth =
Gauck and=20
myself disagree, or this debate would have ended a long time =
ago.
The Justification is a tool primarily for Moral =
Neutrals, or=20
neutrals with respect to the Good-Evil axis.  Lawful Good =
characters don't=20
use The Justification, simply because their actions tend to not require=20
justification.  Both their actions and their motives are in the =
interest of=20
justice, order, and good.  The easiest example is a paladin, since =
they=20
define what it means to be LG.  Their actions are beyond reproach, =
or they=20
lose paladinhood in a hurry.  In the case of dilemmas that have no =
good=20
side, choosing the lesser of two evils is not an application of The=20
Justification.
Lawful Neutrals DO use The Justification in many =
cases; they=20
feel that the needs of the state (or Law, or Order, or whatever) =
outweigh the=20
needs of the people.  Thus the spy for the secret police justifies =
his=20
actions.  He may snitch on those who placed their trust in =
him.  Not a=20
good act.  The Justification, however, prevents him from easily =
being=20
classified as LE.
CG freedom fighter/terrorists might use The =

Justification; however, that position is pretty hard to support, and as =
long as=20
I'm the DM, the murder of innocents as a Good act is a pretty damn =
untenable=20
position.  If any of youse is a member of the Real faction of the =
IRA, you=20
disgust me.  Not that the British are better.
I humbly beg the pardon of everyone NOT included by =
the last=20
two sentences, but that's something I feel pretty strongly =
about.
I could spend the rest of the night examining the =
rest of the=20
alignments, but sleep is a far more productive use of my time.  =
Maybe=20
later, if my statements draw enough objections.
Brandes

- ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01BE5DF0.13826740--

[Samuel Weiss]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_011C_01BE5DF5.71E423A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>The Justification is a tool primarily for Moral Neutrals, or neutrals =
with respect to the Good-Evil axis. Lawful Good characters don't use =
The Justification, simply because their actions tend to not require =
justification. Both their actions and their motives are in the interest =
of justice, order, and good.<

This argument is circular.
If as you suggest, The Justification is something internal to a groups =
mores, then the statement has even less semantic value when applied to =
one not a part of that group. it becomes a slander with no meaning. "You =
disagree with me and so you are bad." Well of course they are! That is =
the essence of ego based "isms". The basic statement though, makes no =
mention of how or why this should be so. And that is the basis of =
xenophobic "isms".
As for its value within its own gorup, one LG person saying to another, =
'I have to do that because...", or whatever case you select, my point =
was, it does not matter if it is stated openly or not, the very essence =
of placing any set of values makes that staement by default, to ones =
self if no one else.
"I believe this is right because..." You have made a choice, and so are =
making the justification to yourself.
I think you are taking one view and placing it paramount to any other =
and then projecting from there.
Which as I said, makes the Accusation of no value. yes, the believe it, =
but how is that wrong? Examine it from their end, and you will see that =
they could easily say the same things about you.
Remember, though you (and I) believe that murder of an innocent is =
wrong, to a Chaotic Evil fellow, the the endof superior personal power =
justifies whatever actions he needs to take. For us, the end of ensuring =
individual rights justifies the loss of personal power from not taking =
an innocents life, and the ensuing threat in the future from some source =
not overawed by our "strength" and brutality.
That was my point.

Samwise

- ------=_NextPart_000_011C_01BE5DF5.71E423A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable









>The Justification =
is a tool=20
primarily for Moral Neutrals, or neutrals with respect to the Good-Evil=20
axis.  Lawful Good characters don't use The Justification, simply =
because=20
their actions tend to not require justification.  Both their =
actions and=20
their motives are in the interest of justice, order, and=20
good.<
 
This argument is=20
circular.
If as you suggest, =
The=20
Justification is something internal to a groups mores, then the =
statement has=20
even less semantic value when applied to one not a part of that group. =
it=20
becomes a slander with no meaning. "You disagree with me and so you =
are=20
bad." Well of course they are! That is the essence of ego based=20
"isms". The basic statement though, makes no mention of how or =
why=20
this should be so. And that is the basis of xenophobic=20
"isms".
As for its value =
within its own=20
gorup, one LG person saying to another, 'I have to do that =
because...", or=20
whatever case you select, my point was, it does not matter if it is =
stated=20
openly or not, the very essence of placing any set of values makes that =
staement=20
by default, to ones self if no one else.
"I believe this =
is right=20
because..." You have made a choice, and so are making the =
justification to=20
yourself.
I think you are =
taking one view and=20
placing it paramount to any other and then projecting from=20
there.
Which as I said, =
makes the=20
Accusation of no value. yes, the believe it, but how is that wrong? =
Examine it=20
from their end, and you will see that they could easily say the same =
things=20
about you.
Remember, though you =
(and I)=20
believe that murder of an innocent is wrong, to a Chaotic Evil fellow, =
the the=20
endof superior personal power justifies whatever actions he needs to =
take. For=20
us, the end of ensuring individual rights justifies the loss of personal =
power=20
from not taking an innocents life, and the ensuing threat in the future =
from=20
some source not overawed by our "strength" and=20
brutality.
That was my=20
point.
 
Samwise

- ------=_NextPart_000_011C_01BE5DF5.71E423A0--

[Kenneth Gauck]

While there are many things in Brandes' post I agree with there are others I
disagree with well.
-----Original Message-----
From: brandes
Date: Sunday, February 21, 1999 10:26 PM

Hmmm . . . I accept the above situation as a Chaotic Evil outlook just
fine, since any and all destroyer gods in fantasy are CE, as far as I can
remember. The Lawful Evil accepts and understands that some things are
wrong, based upon whatever code of law they accept. ...
The Justification is a tool primarily for Moral Neutrals, or neutrals with
respect to the Good-Evil axis.

You are overlooking the lawful-chaotic axis. Lawful Evil accepts the value
of order in a society, but not life. That alignment is more concerned about
acts that are disruptive to the social order, than those which do harm to
individuals. Lets say Jaison Raenech is draining a swamp to provide acres
of farmland for many people, and will make food more avialable in the
province. Such extensive public works implies a Lawful tendency. Let us
consider how three characters, Lawful, Neutral, and Evil, might regard the
problem of local peat cutters who made their livelihood in the bogs.
Lawful Good: "Your families are not forgot. You shall recieve 50 acres from
the newly productive land to farm

or to sell as you desire."
Lawful Neutral: "The needs of the thousands of this province greatly exceed
the few dozen of you. Find other peat lands." Compensation, if offered
would be far less than the LG character, perhaps a few gp's.
Lawful Evil: "Drive those peat cutters out of the area if they cause
problems, or cut them down if they slow down my project. The prosperity of
the province is important. These people are meaningless."

These cases focus on harm being done to others. Perhaps if we consider one
that deals with the Law-Chaos axis, my distinction will be made more clear.
Jordan Swordwraith is the new regent of Aerenwe. Coeranys comes to Aerenwe
seeking an defensive alliance against Osoerde. Aerenwe knows that if he was
tied up in a war with Osoerde, Roesone might take advantage of the situation
and join against him.

Lawful responce: I cannot make such an agreement, for in the event of a war
I must asses the situation in Roesone. Consider me a friend, but I cannot
allow you to rely on me when in truth I could not be reliable.
Neutral responce: Agrees to the treaty, hedges enough in negotiations that
Coeranys does not rely 100% on Aerenwe, and when war comes, breakes the
treaty and stays at peace (for Roesone is eager to use any conflict to
double-team Aerenwe), but makes grants of GB's and RP's to Coeranys, and
uses diplomacy in friendly realms to encourage further aid to Coeranys. She
upheld the treaty should would have liked to honor, but made it in poor
faith and eventually broke it. Considerably dishonest.
Chaotic responce: Agrees to the treaty knowing she while only fulfil his
obligations if it is in his best interests (narrowly construed). In the
event might totally blow it off and side with Osoerde. Who knows, who
cares.

Lawful Neutrals DO use The Justification in many cases; they feel that
the needs of the state (or Law, or
Order, or whatever) outweigh the needs of the people. Thus the spy for
the secret police justifies his actions. He may snitch on those who placed
their trust in him. Not a good act. The Justification, however, prevents
him from easily being classified as LE.
CG freedom fighter/terrorists might use The Justification; however, that
position is pretty hard to support, and as long as I'm the DM, the murder of
innocents as a Good act is a pretty damn untenable position.

I agree with most of this, and will add some comments.
Take the "spy for the secret police". I consider his acts of deception to
be chaotic and not in anyway evil, unless he knows he is wrongfully sending
people to the hangman. But I do agree that "the Justification" does prevent
an alignment violation in cases where the character understands their action
to be a balance between two goods (one a means and one and ends). Since I
chaff at the very idea of a secret police in BR (its so much a feature of a
bureaucratic regime) I will change the example. Lets say a one prominant
individual, a priest, is going to be spyed on. Since this particular kind
of justification (there are many let's not forget) requires performing an
act which the character finds wrong, and spying does not strike me was
wrong, lets complicate the scenario. Say the spy does not represent the
legitimate authority, but a rival power of the regent. Say we are in the
Western Imperial Temple. Rhobher Nichaleir has found a new lieutenant,
Adarc Conel. One of Nichaleir's rivals and possible successors in the WIT,
presents the character in question with the syping mission: spy on Adarc
Conel and dig up some dirt on him. You could go there and report what you
find no matter the findings (the lawful thing to do), or you could plant or
concoct evidence which your patron could use. Where do your loyalties lay?
Undertaking the mission in the first place woudl require some justification
by a lawfully aligned player, or its a possible violation. How do you
report, honestly or falsely? If you were lead into this mission under false
pretense, do you inform Nichaleir? Players who can make a convincing case
for the alignment they decided fit their character are much better off than
players who openly comprimise.

Kenneth Gauck
c558382@earthlink.net

[AndrewTall]

This is an SRD category for creatures with a neutral alignment.