Time for Another Alignment Thread!

[Matthias]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Unless you've been living in a hole somewhere, you know about Terri Schindler
Schiavo, her husband, and his quest to have her be put to death by starvation
and dehydration, because (according to him) she once said that "she wouldn't
want to live this way" (to be in a vegetative state). Had she left a living
will, there would be no question; however the judge is acting only on witness
testimony that she once remarked while watching a movie that she would not want
to be kept alive if her life was being artificially extended by life support
equipment.

The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be removed. As
well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution" in one
to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.

This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other. Which
alignment should prevail, and why? How would you differentiate a Lawful Good
character who would choose to adhere to the rule of law, from a Lawful Good
character who would choose to do "the right thing" in the face of an (in this
case) injust law being applied?

There are times when being neutral has its advantages ...

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias wrote:
>
> This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.

No, it's a case of Law vs. Chaos: do you respect the
(alleged) right of the individual to die with dignity
or do you believe that the state/government properly
has the authority to legislate such things for you?

Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
he is or not.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:27:44 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be removed. As
>well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution" in one
>to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
>
>This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.

Frankly I don't think either Law or Good is clearly on one side or the
other. Therefore I believe your question is based on an invalid
premise.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Mere moments before death, David Johnston hastily scrawled:
>On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:27:44 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be removed. As
>>well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution" in one
>>to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
>>
>>This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.
>
>Frankly I don't think either Law or Good is clearly on one side or the
>other. Therefore I believe your question is based on an invalid
>premise.

Hey! Those words were stolen directly from my thoughts! Return them
at once!



Ed Chauvin IV

--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rupert Boleyn wrote:
> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Hey! Those words were stolen directly from my thoughts! Return
them
>> at once!
>
> You wouldn't know that if they were truely stolen, so clearly only a
> copy was made. Therefore it's a matter of civil (copyright) law, and
> not a criminal case.

Apparently, these thoughts are community property and shared by many.
I'm one of this community, as well.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Senator Blutarsky wrote:

> Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
> husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
> he is or not.

The fact that in the last two months he's been offered:

1) One million dollars to annul the marriage and leave it in the hands
of her parents.
2) Ten million dollars to do the same.

and he's turned down both suggest that he's not lying. There is the
matter of her life insurance policy (and the fact that he only gets that
when she's dead, and if he were to annul the marriage he'd forfeit his
right to it) to call his motives into question, but the fact that he's
turned down so much money convinces me that it's not about that.

Mind you, CAT scans have revealed that her cerebral cortex has
completely degenerated, and her skull is now filled entirely with spinal
fluid except for her brain stem, so it's really no longer an issue of
whether she's suffering or not -- Terri isn't there anymore. (There
have been a few doctors who said that she's got something like 35% of
her brain left and a recovery is possible, but the doctors saying that
have, coincidentally I'm sure, all been in the employ of her parents.)
--
Stephenls
Geek
"You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
-Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"Matthias" wrote
> Unless you've been living in a hole somewhere, you know about Terri
Schindler
> Schiavo, her husband, and his quest to have her be put to death by
starvation
> and dehydration, because (according to him) she once said that "she
wouldn't
> want to live this way" (to be in a vegetative state). Had she left a
living
> will, there would be no question; however the judge is acting only on
witness
> testimony that she once remarked while watching a movie that she would not
want
> to be kept alive if her life was being artificially extended by life
support
> equipment.
>
> The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be
removed. As
> well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution"
in one
> to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
>
> This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.
Which
> alignment should prevail, and why? How would you differentiate a Lawful
Good
> character who would choose to adhere to the rule of law, from a Lawful
Good
> character who would choose to do "the right thing" in the face of an (in
this
> case) injust law being applied?

What makes you think Lawful people would have to adhere to the rule of law?
In this case both the husband and parents could be argued as Good or
Neutral. One wants to end her suffering (per her wishes) and the other wants
to try and save their daughter.
All in all an awful situation for both.
As for Congress, one could put up an argument for any Alignment.

> There are times when being neutral has its advantages ...


John

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Matthias wrote:

> This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
other.

Here's a thought. Don't start an open ended thread with your own bias.


there are a couple of options. a) she did say that and does feel that
way in which case letting her die is not only the right thing to do but
hte legal thing to do. b) she didn't say that and her husband is just
making it up in which case it's evil on hisd part, but nobody else can
know for sure. Still lawful, and for the vast majority still good
because they are acting on his information. c) leave the poor woman
alone. You're an inch away from trolling. And keep your shitty
pro-life sentiment to yourself.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rexx Magnus wrote:

> Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere
to the
> law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.

Do you even play the same game as everyone else?

The fact that thay're lawful means that they believe in order and
should behave in a structured way. It doesn't mean they should follow
the law. This is alignment 101.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Anivair wrote:
> Matthias wrote:
>
> > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
> other.
>
> You're an inch away from trolling.

Looked like a first down to me.

--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:42:16 GMT, John Phillips scrawled:

> What makes you think Lawful people would have to adhere to the rule of
> law? In this case both the husband and parents could be argued as Good
> or Neutral. One wants to end her suffering (per her wishes) and the
> other wants to try and save their daughter.
> All in all an awful situation for both.
> As for Congress, one could put up an argument for any Alignment.

Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere to the
law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.

--
http://www.rexx.co.uk

To email me, visit the site.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In message <423E43D9.CB424ED4@comcast.net>, Senator Blutarsky
<monarchy@comcast.net> writes
>Matthias wrote:
>>
>> This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.
>
>No, it's a case of Law vs. Chaos: do you respect the
>(alleged) right of the individual to die with dignity
>or do you believe that the state/government properly
>has the authority to legislate such things for you?
>
>Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
>husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
>he is or not.

You can oppose the government and still be lawful. You can accept the
right of a government's legislative authority, but also recognise that
such legislation isn't automatically lawful just because it was
originated by the government.

--
Ian R Malcomson
"Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> Anivair wrote:
> > Matthias wrote:
> >
> > > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
> > other.
> >
> > You're an inch away from trolling.
>
> Looked like a first down to me.

I think he was genuine but misguided. But I'll defer to you since you
seem to have the flag and whistle.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:16:01 GMT, Anivair scrawled:


> The fact that thay're lawful means that they believe in order and
> should behave in a structured way. It doesn't mean they should follow
> the law. This is alignment 101.
>
>

Ah, ok. I learn something new every day.

--
http://www.rexx.co.uk

To email me, visit the site.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Because a dog cannot tell its husband it would rather be dead than in a
persistant, vegitative state?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1111434848.587087.110370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> If you starved a dog to death, you would be arrested. Explain why you
> should legally be able to treat a human being worse than a dog.

If a dog starved to death on it's own, and happened to fall in your yard,
you would not be arrested. If a person has been brain dead for years, I
have to say that the "life" of that person has already ended. A christian
would say that their soul had already departed.

Modern medical advances allow the appearance of life to breathe hope into
the families of people who otherwise would have croaked a long time ago.

I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't want
to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the bill
for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get done
what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite simple.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

<chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1111445273.185474.209920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Because a dog cannot tell its husband it would rather be dead than in a
> persistant, vegitative state?

Dogs have husbands? I guess that depends how ugly she is...

"On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog..."

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ian R Malcomson wrote:
>
> In message <423E43D9.CB424ED4@comcast.net>, Senator Blutarsky
> <monarchy@comcast.net> writes
> >
> >No, it's a case of Law vs. Chaos: do you respect the
> >(alleged) right of the individual to die with dignity
> >or do you believe that the state/government properly
> >has the authority to legislate such things for you?
>
> You can oppose the government and still be lawful.

Yes, you can. Nevertheless, the belief that such a
decision is *properly* vested in the state/government
rather than the individual is most definitely Lawful in
flavor.

> You can accept the
> right of a government's legislative authority, but also recognise that
> such legislation isn't automatically lawful just because it was
> originated by the government.

Correct. For example, the Bill of Rights was
"originated by the government," yet is undeniably
Chaotic in flavor.

-Bluto

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
> Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
> >
> >One can legally give a lethal dose of drugs to a dog to humanly end its
> >pain/suffering.
>
> What pain? What suffering? Without a brain, neither is possible.

The dog need not be brainless for one to legally give
it a lethal dose of drugs, Ed.

-Bluto

 

[drow]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Alien mind control rays made copeab@yahoo.com <copeab@yahoo.com> write:
> If you starved a dog to death, you would be arrested. Explain why you
> should legally be able to treat a human being worse than a dog.

dogs are worth more XP.

--
\^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
\ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
// \ X-Windows: Putting new limits on productivity.
// \_\ -- Dude from DPAK

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"drow" <drow@bin.sh> wrote in message
news:423f55bc$0$24336$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
> Alien mind control rays made copeab@yahoo.com <copeab@yahoo.com> write:
> > If you starved a dog to death, you would be arrested. Explain why you
> > should legally be able to treat a human being worse than a dog.
>
> dogs are worth more XP.

LOL!! Now *THAT* was funny...

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:56:13 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

>I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't want
>to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
>single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
>It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the bill
>for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get done
>what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite simple.

Also quite incorrect. Years of hospital care mean that guy ran out of
money even after the settlement a long time ago.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:423f1d80.373731870@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:56:13 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't
want
> >to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
> >single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
> >It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the
bill
> >for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get
done
> >what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite
simple.
>
> Also quite incorrect. Years of hospital care mean that guy ran out of
> money even after the settlement a long time ago.

*SOMEONE* is paying for it. Government grants, the family, raised money,
SOMEONE is paying for it. Stop the payments, and the hospital will have
PLENTY to say about what happens. I think he's going about this all wrong.
If he really wants to get it done, just stop the flow of money.

--
Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
It's not a god complex when you're always right

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Rexx Magnus wrote:
> Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere to the
> law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.

Dear idiot newbie; please to be RTFMing, TYVM.

--
tussock

Aspie at work, sorry in advance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:06:12 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
<autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

>"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
>news:423f1d80.373731870@news.telusplanet.net...
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:56:13 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
>> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't
>want
>> >to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
>> >single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
>> >It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the
>bill
>> >for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get
>done
>> >what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite
>simple.
>>
>> Also quite incorrect. Years of hospital care mean that guy ran out of
>> money even after the settlement a long time ago.
>
>*SOMEONE* is paying for it. Government grants, the family, raised money,
>SOMEONE is paying for it. Stop the payments, and the hospital will have
>PLENTY to say about what happens. I think he's going about this all wrong.
>If he really wants to get it done, just stop the flow of money.

He can't because it isn't his money.