<<However, educated people also don't simply agree to the oppositions definition because that is the only definition the opposition will accept. I've been taking this class recently on human migratiosn based on Y-chromosome polymorphisms and there was recently a summit held in which all the labs worlwide got together to define and name the different point mutations that ocurred over evolutionary time, because each lab had its own nomenclature. One or two of the labs refused to accept the majorities definition of these terms, and thus were left out of the decisions. Its very similar to you Brittany not being willing to accept anyones definition than your own.>>

No, they don't, but they do more than what has been done here. You bring up an excellent point, and it's one of the reasons why Paladins still discuss dark paladins, fallen paladins, and any other *-paladins, because we have never been able to agree on terms. Therefore, real (as in, discussion not about what the terms mean, or discussions that degenerate to such) has never really gone anywhere because we all have these different notions of what these are.

There are solutions:

1) These terms are defined by dragonrealms staff. This would be the easiest solution. If GMs said "In elanthia, a dark paladin is a paladin who...", there could be no discussion. They put the term forth, and that's what it means within the context of elanthia.
I would love for the gms to sit down and hammer out definitions for dark paladins, fallen paladins, and whatever else. One of the reasons I would say that the council (was it the council? not sure) said dark paladins don't exist is that to them, the term dark paladin is a contradictory term, as paladin in elanthia only refers to beings dedicated to justice and honor and holding up ideals that dark aspects do not hold.

2) These terms are defined by players, in a summit not dissimilar than the one mentioned by Lennon. This leaves some people dissatisfied, but if it can be agreed by a majority what exactly these terms mean, then we can have a decent vaulting point for discussion. Definitions that end up not being assigned one of these debated terms could also here be assigned new terms, so that may still be used.
It should be noted that a lot of this may be just a confusion of terms. Maybe Paladin A's notion of Dark Paladin is Paladin B's notion of Fallen Paladin, and vice versa. If the name of your version of dark paladin is changed to fallen paladin for the sake of uniformity, then you really lose nothing.

All that being said, in philosophy, more specifically in proofs, ANY proof begs the question (meaning that there's something wrong with one of the premises, disallowing a logical following to the conclusion) for someone who does not accept one of the premises. How do you deal with this in this situation? Well, the person begging either has to find a new term for his/her definition, or you have to tell him/her too bad.

But ya know what? I don't foresee either of those two happening, though I would very much like to witness/be a part of that.

Dandon

"If they ever come up with a swashbuckling School, I think one of the courses should be Laughing, Then Jumping Off Something" ~ Jack Handy

>So under our laws goblins, trolls, etc. aren't covered and are basically considered enemies of the state. They produce no good and are a scourge upon the face of elanthia, which supposedly makes killing them by the hundreds justified. What also should be noted is that this world and these creatures do not follow earth standards. Maybe these creatures are in fact born evil, and using the DESCRIBE verb on them seems to lend credence to that idea.<

I would think anything with its own confirmed language, intellect enough to cast magic, and do have established communities, can define it as a sentient creature. But you did get one thing right, that we as the "preferred" races of elanthia have tagged these creatures as base and vile and without rights including the right to exist or think or be individuals like any other race.

Wow what paragons of diversity and morality we are.

Lord Krymson Dyne Ebonrune
Dark Paladin of Urrem'tier

<<Not because they're different, smell, and basically annoy us, but because they seek to consume, destroy and conquer the world, thus undermining the join alliance of the 13 immortals.>>

How do you know this?

Drongol's Player


PC also stands for "Paying Customer."

<<How do you know they're simply peace loving people trying to defend their homes and children, whishing to be left alone in peace and love?>>

Logic. We know that Grishnok, for example, has favors, and furthermore, we know that many of the "evil" creatures have never ventured forth from their lands to attack people.

Drongol's Player


PC also stands for "Paying Customer."

<<We do? How many does he have?>>

At least one, seeing as how he hasn't walked yet.

<<Don't creatures in hunting areas attack people even if they are standing still and not harming anyone?>>

Don't we attack Death Spirits in town even if they are standing still and not harming anyone?

Drongol's Player


PC also stands for "Paying Customer."

just some info..

Goblins have their own god that they worship. So yes, they are heathens

I don't necessarily know about the ogre culture but keep in mind that Naarg has symbols of Urrem'tier, and he is a chieften. So maybe they arent heathens

The Elpalzi believe in the thirteen. I got this information from Parnore. So they aren't heathens.

The s'lai...its up in the air. Whereas the story is that the Elpalzi were not created by anyon

Kobolds...while Archrost is not the rule he is an example. I've never thought of Kobolds as being a race that worshipped the Thirteen, and Archrost definately did not give me a reason to change my mind.

Trolls...no idea.





Vidumavi exclaims, "Wait!"
Vidumavi points at you.
Vidumavi exclaims, "Your that Blasword guy!"
>nod vid
You nod to Vidumavi.
Vidumavi exclaims, "You are the bomb!"

<<.....sings long winded chanty's in honor of them, weeps over their graves, and then goes off takes a caring possesion of their children and ensures they receive a proper education. Every time too. Honest.>>

Wow! You too! And everyone said I was weird when I burst out into "I WILL ALLWAYS LOVE YOOOOOOU!" over that sea of dead feild goblins.

THE MEISTRO... prances off pondering about Wood Trolls in his local elementary school.

Peace never made a good idea for a computer game.


Dandon

"If they ever come up with a swashbuckling School, I think one of the courses should be Laughing, Then Jumping Off Something" ~ Jack Handy

Yep gotta agree with Drongol. I mean the fact is that the current mechanics basically presents the front that these are creatures that were set for for the purpose of killing for experience. But from a reality standpoint its pretty rediculous knowing that things such as goblins, etc are a race of creatures and therefore have individual thought, and yet here we have the Paladins, upholders of virtue taking the old "Kill them all and ask questions later" mentality.

Furthermore that Aspasia is using game mechanics to specify what is an accepted race or not. I mean was there something IG that had the 13 coming down and saying "Accept and treat these new races as you would yourself be accepted and treated, yeah they may be heathens that don't worship us, but who cares....now those goblins on the other hand...death to them all!" I'm sorry I don't really mean to be cynical but it just doesn't make sense for one to be considered over the other when it comes to races that do not worship the 13, and if you use Lanivals compact again as your reasoning, was there something I missed where the compact was revised in an IC fashion to accept the new races?


Lord Krymson Dyne Ebonrune
Dark Paladin of Urrem'tier

<<Furthermore that Aspasia is using game mechanics to specify what is an accepted race or not.>>

First of all she aint' using "game mechanics". She's arguing from both an OOC and IC perspective here.

<<I mean was there something IG that had the 13 coming down and saying "Accept and treat these new races as you would yourself be accepted and treated, yeah they may be heathens that don't worship us, but who cares....now those goblins on the other hand...death to them all!" >>

Look, is there something in DR that would imply that this isn't the case? Why does this standard only get applied to views you disagree with? Why can't you say well since nothing says this isn't the case, then it's possible that it could be the case. It's just biased, and slanted criticizm.

<<I'm sorry I don't really mean to be cynical but it just doesn't make sense for one to be considered over the other when it comes to races that do not worship the 13,>>

Um, pardon me. But frankly it does make sense. Goblins and Ogers have never been considered civilized races and this theme is cemented within game mechanics. We don't get soul hits for killing them. In all fairness I really think your obsessing over rediculous technicallites.

<<and if you use Lanivals compact again as your reasoning, was there something I missed where the compact was revised in an IC fashion to accept the new races.>>

Again you can't expect a computer generated game to be 100% perfect and allways accurately consistent. I could go through all the mechanics and list all the reasons why something should be this way or that. But really that would be silly. Keep in mind, we still get soul hits for killing the new races. Perhaps the Compact should be updated, but really who the hell cares. The point is Aspasia's view is reasonable, plausible and just as likely as any other.

<<I would love it if the goblins came out with true factual evidence that changed history of the game and that we invaded the lands of Zouleran, Therengia, and Ilithia after fleeing the Gorbesh lands far to the east so many many years ago. And then we killed off the goblins, ogres, s'lia, and ect and then claimed our gods were the true gods and all others are wrong.>>

Heh, you'd love it? This particular sentiment is quite typical. Don't you realize this would obligate Krymson to defend the rights of Goblins and ogres. You frankly would have to sacrifice about 60% of all huntable critters out there, and start attacking other people who tried to hunt there. If goblins are indeed simply misunderstood, and opressed, peace loving beings, then your honor would dictate your committment to protecting them.

Aspasia of course has no problem with this, because, as a normal rational elf, she understands that orcs, trolls and goblins, are simply dark and evil critters. And that the compact in spirit or letter dosn't cover them. She knows that by fighting them, she honors the Immortals, and protects Elanthia.

More than anything else, the reason why I prefer to view goblins as "evil" etc.., is mostly for practical reasons. If the truth was that goblins and all the other beings we hunt are really innocent victims of genocide, then that would frankly be quite stupid. It would throw an unreasonable "monkey wrench" into the game playing. It would make it impossible to persue honor and justice, without sacrificing the abillity to train up our skills and forcing us to engage in constent PvP over goblin and troll rights. You see I doubt you'd "love" it if goblins were just opressed, peacefull beings. Unless you plan on rationalizing and ignoring Krymson's committment to honor and justice.

Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Undojen'pelci)

"If ever the Darkness should conquer the Light, the last gleam shall come from the uplifted blade of one of a righteous Paladin."

Sir Cleworth, paladin initiation speech.

<<Aspasia of course has no problem with this, because, as a normal rational elf, she understands that orcs, trolls and goblins, are simply dark and evil critters. And that the compact in spirit or letter dosn't cover them. She knows that by fighting them, she honors the Immortals, and protects Elanthia.>>

I'll accept that, I'm just pointing out though perhaps in the goblin, ogre, troll societies they are the good ones and we are the evil that they are trying to defeat. Once again I'm just pointing out the debate here started not with goblins being evil, it's if goblins were intelligent creatures that had homes, societies, and gods which they do. It just so happens they are not on the same side as us.

<<Um, pardon me. But frankly it does make sense. Goblins and Ogers have never been considered civilized races and this theme is cemented within game mechanics. We don't get soul hits for killing them. In all fairness I really think your obsessing over rediculous technicallites.>>

See though, now game mechanics have cemented them as civilized in thier own nature(note: thier own nature). Take Tnok for example. He's the King of goblins in a fortress in his own goblin town and rules his goblins. They have created homes, buildings, weapons, armor, farmland and other stuff. The reason we don't get a soul hit is because they don't follow our gods or have an alliance (take the new races gods) with ours. Perhaps if Tnok ever had the chance of making a peace treaty with us, then goblins would give a soul hit if you kill the "friendly" ones and not the bad ones. I mean thugs, and swain don't give soul hits but they are of the races under the compact, but they are considered evil arn't they?

<<I mean was there something IG that had the 13 coming down and saying "Accept and treat these new races as you would yourself be accepted and treated, yeah they may be heathens that don't worship us, but who cares....now those goblins on the other hand...death to them all!" >>
<<Why does this standard only get applied to views you disagree with? Why can't you say well since nothing says this isn't the case, then it's possible that it could be the case. It's just biased, and slanted criticizm.>>

It's being applied because the topic at hand was whether or not the new races, and the goblin/ogres races if they ever became friendly with us would automatically be placed under the compact without any reasons for it. The new races came to us are refugees. Our gods never said anything about accepting them, and because of game mechanics and not RP we automatically had an update to the compact to include thier races without reason because of mechanics.

I mean it'd be kinda insane to have the new races not be under the compact and people would just be killing people and claiming it as RP, but the point was there was no RP to support the mechanics of the game given. That is why when the new races come out in DR2, people on those boards are requesting a bigger RP to incorporate thier history with ours and our gods so a debate like this won't happen.


Ellsdragon Dride

Yay! Ellsdragon's got it. Good post.

Lord Krymson Dyne Ebonrune
Dark Paladin of Urrem'tier

We also don't get soul hits for hunting in Throne City, where we can even walk people.

We need to just realize that most soul hits are a way to limit Paladins from acting out in PvP. That's all it is.

Need a babelfish for DragonRealms?

http://www.bakshiloa.com/libraryindex.html

"Not all opinions are wrong, mind you, but unless you have something more than blanket assertions, then your opinion here is unwarranted."

Sorry Aspasia, but you can't name a single blanket assertion that I have made and could not back up with either facts or at the very least well thought out counter oppinions. Not one. No oppinion is unwarrented, another place we absolutely disagree. It's a matter not so much of intellect as of who has the open mind, which, in many oppinions is directly related to intellect after all. The idea is never to assume you know more than anyone else and realize that everyone has something to teach. If I showed you I can get into the mensa website, beyond the login, what would that mean? That I'm smart? Or just crafty? Or perhaps both? Is one not directly related to the other? Depends on one's point of view no? No oppinion is wrong to the person with the oppinion at first thought, to them its entirely plausible whether the reasoning behind it is flawed or not. The question is can you change the mind of the person who hold the oppinion through fact or by providing enough counter proposals or innacuracies to change their thinking...and that dear lady is a powerful thing indeed.

>I think the example of goblins and trolls etc. creates a greater conundrum for you than me. I mean if hunting goblins is immoral, then is Krymson willing to throw down and protect them against other paladins who don't see his view? If I call you out and agree that we should not hunt any sentient critter, then will Krymson join with Aspasia to protect them from other PC?s that may try to kill them?<

The true conundrum is in your underestimation of Krymson. Krymson absolutely never categorizes anyone or anything with the capability to do good or evil into one category or another. There is always an exception, and stereotyping is for the weak of mind. Is Krymson willing to throw down and protect a group of goblins who wish not to participate in battle and are there only to protect their families? Absolutely and would stand up to any Paladin that wishes to persecute them because they lack the ability to see beyond stereotypes. I would never agree not to hunt any sentient creature, in fact I will hunt even the children of the 13 the circumstances warrant such action. None are above judgement on an individual basis.

>Just for a refresher?I believe that goblins, ogres, trolls etc?were races spawned from and because of evil. They are denizens of darkness, the armies of chaos who seek to sweep down upon the lands and seize it from the reigning pantheon. They are harsh, cruel and unnatural beings. While there may be ?good? ones here and there, Aspasia?s beef isn?t with them, and will happily leave those goblins in peace. With the understanding that peaceful goblins won?t be looking for a fight themselves. And frankly I don?t think that this is a huge stretch or ?ridiculous?. I think it is the common understanding and view of most players.<

The beginning is an interesting theory which would have to be proven, on the other hand they could be a race brought about by the result of a great many things, inter racial breeding, a curse, magic, etc. You say evil, what do you define as a being of evil? Any gods or beings whom do not acknowlege the 13 or that you take a soul hit for if you attack? That seems plausible? What's more plausible if they were in fact created by an immortal, is that we have no idea what that or those immortals who spawned such creations had in mind when they made such creatures. In fact, here is something that will boggle your mind altogether...perhaps in the grand scheme of things, they were the true first creatures of Elanthia? What if they were at first the chosen of the races to walk proud upon Elanthia? You know history is written by the victorious. Who is to say that the once chosen creatures of Elanthia weren't cursed and twisted and outcast?

No one can say, because their is nothing yet discovered or perhaps even written to say otherwise. But is it any less reasonable? As Paladins I would think that we are seekers of truth before we are seekers of justice, for how can you truly have justice without understanding the truth? But that is just my oppinion. ;)


Lord Krymson Dyne Ebonrune
Dark Paladin of Urrem'tier

>Mind demonstrating how this is a fact? Frankly, if you're going to be so bold as to call my ideas "flawed", then you should first establish what exactly you find flawed. Really, Mike your just tossing yet another assertion at me. This isn't debating it's just a "high minded" attempt to pre-emptively disarm my points, by simply declaring them "flawed" without even bothering to prove your point.<

Actually your taking too much personal interest in the word flawed. Some of my oppinions are also flawed, but I most certainly have established why I find your oppinions flawed and any oppinion I have challenged I have explained why, including this example. ;) Debating is disarming a persons points. That's what its all about, whether using facts to counter oppinion (Facts generally win over oppinion of course) or by making a case that constructively eats away at the foundation of your oppionions by eliminating possibilities within it. (i.e. the argument is that you are positive a particular person stole your keys from your pocket. But I provide facts that show this person had previously had an accident with a bottle of sticky red molasses not three minutes prior to the incident, and yet there is not a mark upon your person or the recovered keys. Counter proposal: The man had gloves found on his person, the man was a well known practiononer of the arcane and could have easily chanted a quick cantrip, etc etc etc.)

Do not confuse thought processes which may be flawed with being unintelligent. If I didn't think you were intelligent I would not waste time debating with you. ;) We all have the best of intentions and think that our oppinions are sound in the beginning, myself of course included. Until that is someone provides a perspective that makes me think "Hmmm wow they have a point." and its back to the drawing board.

>Which really is what I've been saying. On an individual basis, I think, the case can be made that goblins, orcs, and trolls are inherently evil critters.<

Absolutely just as the case can be made against elves, humans, dwarves, etc.

>No it dosn't. :) Let me explain myself better. Evil is not defined by which pantheon, or which set of standards for that matter, happens to be in vouge. What is trully "evil" will allways be evil, even if nobody thinks it's evil, otherwise it wouldn't be trully evil. An evil person is someone who abundantly and knowingly persues actions, motives, or ends that are malliciously harmfull, cruel, or selfish. So basically even heathen gods can technically be good or evil on their own accord. Being "heathen" and being "evil" are two different things.<

I agree in part. One of course is evil because yes while you and I may know its whats in a persons heart that makes him or her evil, evil is still very much open to the perceptions and ideals of others to use as a judgement of what they think is good or evil. (i.e. A warrior walks into a pub and proceeds to dispatch a group of innocent drinkers at a table. On the surface thats pretty damn evil, but did the group kill his family? Or more elaborate he travled from the future where this group not twenty minutes later assasinates the prince who is known for secretly meeting with a young lady at this very bar, saving the only heir to the throne and the golden age to come after his coronation.) but thats really a different argument but still important because in the example I can guarantee you the warrior would either be killed immediately for his crime or, less likely, given a trial which could very well lead to the same fate.

Yes the heathen gods should be subject to good and evil like any intelligent creature. And because of that anything that is considered a sentient and intelligent creature is subject to good and or evil.

>Yes this is a possibillity. But at this crossroads of debate, I refer to OOC reasoning. How practical would your view be to RP? Not very, like I said before, it would require us giving up 60% of all huntable critters, having to engage in PvP to protect goblin rights, and basically creating a big headache, not to mention that your view is unlikely to be the intended view of those that designed DR to begin with. Critters in general were meant for hunting purposes, I think, with the implied understanding that killing them was not an evil act. This extends to critters like Marauders and Adanf, which may or may not be members of the 11 races. It's just easier to accept that the critters are bad thingies who deserve to be killed.<

No its extremely practical to rp, just not within the boundaries of mechanics and you explain why in that paragraph.

You especially hit it on the nose about the intended view of the original designers of DR, thats one of the reasons you don't find the word evil used in a vast majority if not all descriptions within DR. They conveniently used the word darkness as an alternative because they couldn't find a more appropriate term that meant the same thing without really saying it ;). I say that because it is blatently obvious that the persons involved in DRs creation leaned more toward the side of being devoted to religion and morality in their personal lives, which while definately not a bad thing, many such people are often close minded when it comes to the darker or unexplained things, situations, or what have you in the grand scheme of life. It's like that belief that if you think positive then positive things will happen..same view...if you don't acknowlege evil then evil is less likely to impact your life. But just because you don't want the negative effects of either example, doesn't mean they don't exist. Thus no Dark Paladins, Anti-Paladins, etc even though this could be done without being the least bit impacting on smaller children playing the game if that was the excuse. But hell we are in a game where killing others is entirely possible and happens all the time, if they were worried about childrens views of killing then pvp wouldn't even be a possibility. Dark Paladins are entirely possible from a mechanics standpoint. They always have been just like it was always possible to code the game so that clerics had abilities closer to the patron they chose to follow. We're just now touching the surface of necromancy and even still I have yet to see someone raise the dead, but when that does become a possibility its because the original creators or most impacting ones at the time are no longer here to veto diving into, exploring, and creating based upon the "darker" side of existence, life, etc.


Lord Krymson Dyne Ebonrune
Dark Paladin of Urrem'tier

<<Yah, that's next on our list for soul hits.>>

Honestly, I'd appreciate it. I fail to understand how it is that Thieves (as PCs) are "good" whereas critter Thieves are "evil."

Likewise, I'm curious as to what has turned every Gypsy encountered into an evil creature.

Drongol's Player


PC also stands for "Paying Customer."

<<<<Honestly, I'd appreciate it. I fail to understand how it is that Thieves (as PCs) are "good" whereas critter Thieves are "evil.">>

Not all PCs are "evil" but 99% of creatures seemed to be coded to rip out your throat on sight [if they can]. Pesky things.>>

That still doesn't offer any explanation as to why we can shatter one but not the other. What's the key difference between the two that makes on bad and one at very least not bad. OOC it's easy, but IC it's quite the cunundrum, and the compact is IC for the most part.

Dandon

"If they ever come up with a swashbuckling School, I think one of the courses should be Laughing, Then Jumping Off Something" ~ Jack Handy

<<Not all PCs are "evil" but 99% of creatures seemed to be coded to rip out your throat on sight [if they can]. Pesky things.>>

Kinda like Thieves, then?

Honestly, the whole "attack first, ask questions later" thing seems rather appropriate, since we're honestly entering their turf with obviously hostile inclinations. I mean, if Drongol was to go into the Thieves' Guildhall in the Crossing (yes, I know how to enter it, even now), most pickpockets would be rather hostile to the Dwarf, no?

Drongol's Player


PC also stands for "Paying Customer."

<<Actually your taking too much personal interest in the word flawed. Some of my oppinions are also flawed, but I most certainly have established why I find your oppinions flawed and any oppinion I have challenged I have explained why, including this example. ;)>>

Not to be argumentive, but you're wrong here. My problem, really the only one I have with you is perfectly demonstrated in the above paragraph. You use yet another assertion. You just declare things to be so. You don't offer a framework of logic pointing to why you think this way, or even a few sentences to back up your assertion. Now if you had, like a fair debater would, it would allow me to rebutt excatly what you're calling flawed. But since you just state that you proved things to me, or disarmed my point, but not explained how and why, then I'm unable to defend myself. Basically, blanket assertions, are unfair arguments. Now for me, I understand this is how you typically work, so I usually don't make a big deal of it, but this particular time it irritated me. But I'm fine now. So let's continue on in our friendly discussion. :)

<<Absolutely just as the case can be made against elves, humans, dwarves, etc.>>

Well I definately think humans, elves and all the 11 races can be evil on an individual level. But I think the critter races of Elanthia are designed to be "evil" in general.

<<I agree in part. One of course is evil because yes while you and I may know its whats in a persons heart that makes him or her evil, evil is still very much open to the perceptions and ideals of others to use as a judgement of what they think is good or evil.>>

True, but what is perceived to be evil, may not allways be the truth in case. Certain good deeds can be misinterpreted, or personal beleifs can cloud our perceptions. So what we think and earnestly feel may not allways be correct or accurate. This is why I say that some things are evil, even if people don't allways agree. Because, let's face it, there will never be 100% agreement on even the most obvious of truths, the flat earth society comes readily to mind. But of course, just because some people are unable to see the truth or agree on it, dosn't mean, neccesarily that the truth, on certain issues, does not exist. Like on the Issues of "good" and "evil" within Elanthia...

Brittany (...the player of Aspasia Undojen'pelci)

"If ever the Darkness should conquer the Light, the last gleam shall come from the uplifted blade of one of a righteous Paladin."

Sir Cleworth, paladin initiation speech.