Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Movie Review: Kingdom of Heaven

Last response: in Video Games
Share
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 8:23:40 PM

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

In short: pretty good. Nothing noticeably bad. The sword technique is
typical Hollywood unrealism that would immediately destroy a real sword and
the trebuchets seem to have the rate of fire and power of modern artillery,
but otherwise nothing too egregious.


The setting is (mostly) Jerusalem in 1164. The Crusades started 100 years
ago. The people living there have worked out a modus vivendi with the
Saracens, but the continual influx of new Crusaders from Europe threatens
the peace. The king of Jerusalem works to keep a lid on things, but he's a
leper and very ill. The next in line after him is his sister, who is weak
and married to the chief troublemaker. He is the leader of the Templars,
who are not presented in a positive light at any point in the movie and are
the chief villains. The Hospitallers are also present, but Hospitaller
characters are generally good guys.

Orlando Bloom is the bastard son of a local baron who inherits his fathers
estate and his belief in maintaining the modus vivendi.

The villains in general are the religious fanatics, who let their ideology
dominate their thinking. This is important, but I don't think Ridley Scott
makes it clear enough how it applies to the hero.


About half way though the movie, after making an impression on just about
everyone, the Leper King makes Bloom an offer. He will be made chief of the
armies of Jerusalem. The princess's husband and any of his knights who
refuse to swear to obey him will be executed. He will marry her, and he
will become king of Jerusalem when the king dies. Bloom won't condone a
course of action that will result in more deaths. He refuses, because it
would violate his beliefs...


It sounds nice and pretty, and in every way Bloom has been presented as a
good man. But...

The king duly dies.

The (new) queen's husband duly takes over.

He duly leads the army against Saladin.

They're duly slaughtered.

Bloom leads the defense of the city and fights well enough that Saladin
offers terms- safe passage out of the city for everyone, which Bloom
accepts. He returns to Europe and the epilogue is his observing a new
crusade in the making.


Bloom is actually no better than those the movie would condemn. He refuses
to compromise his beliefs and war results. Tens of thousands are killed and
the city taken because he wouldn't continence the killing of the chief
villain.

The king's moral flexibility was the right path. The inflexibility of even
the hero leads to disaster.
May 6, 2005 9:18:14 PM

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

Interesting sounding story. I'll let absolute verismilitude slide in a
movie of this nature --- after all, as an enthusiastic Dungeons &
Dragons player I can't expect entertainment to mirror historical
reality too closely, can I? I'm a little surprised at how down on this
movie the members of some D&D message boards I've read are before they
have even seen it. I plan to see and decide for myself.
The reviews I've read online have alternately praised and condemned the
picture. It sounds like a pretty interesting story line -- but despite
his good performance in Lord of the Rings as Legolas, I'm not a big
Orlando Bloom fan. In LOTR, he seemed appropriately remote and icy ---
which seemed a good fit for Tolkien's elves. In Pirates of the
Carribean, Bloom seemed pretty wooden --- especially since he was
opposite Johnny Depp playing the wierdest but most charismatic pirate
I've ever seen in a movie.
Thanks for the review. I find myself looking forward to this one.
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 2:47:32 AM

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

Mere moments before death, Shawn Wilson hastily scrawled:
>The king's moral flexibility was the right path. The inflexibility of even
>the hero leads to disaster.

The king's moral flexibility may have been wise, but that doesn't make
it "right". The right thing to do is the right thing to do, no matter
what others may do because you do the right thing. In other words, if
you don't stand on your principles, you never really had any to begin
with.



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
Related resources
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 2:47:33 AM

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

"Shawn Wilson" <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2hWee.6418$D91.2251@fed1read01...

> What principles? Refusing to continence the killing of a few to prevent
> the killing of many? Bloom was faced with a binary choice and chose the
> path that lead to the worst outcome out of misguided 'morality'.


The word should be 'countenance'. Please adjust your records accordingly...
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 5:00:52 AM

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

sure its not 1184, or better yet 1187, because unless my memory is failing,
the battle at the horns of hattin was in early July of 1187, and the movie
is about the siege of Jerusalem by Saladin some two months later. Please
tell me they got the dates right, because if they can't look in a history
book.....
"Shawn Wilson" <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%%See.6374$D91.5127@fed1read01...
> In short: pretty good. Nothing noticeably bad. The sword technique is
> typical Hollywood unrealism that would immediately destroy a real sword
> and the trebuchets seem to have the rate of fire and power of modern
> artillery, but otherwise nothing too egregious.
>
>
> The setting is (mostly) Jerusalem in 1164. The Crusades started 100 years
> ago. The people living there have worked out a modus vivendi with the
> Saracens, but the continual influx of new Crusaders from Europe threatens
> the peace. The king of Jerusalem works to keep a lid on things, but he's
> a leper and very ill. The next in line after him is his sister, who is
> weak and married to the chief troublemaker. He is the leader of the
> Templars, who are not presented in a positive light at any point in the
> movie and are the chief villains. The Hospitallers are also present, but
> Hospitaller characters are generally good guys.
>
> Orlando Bloom is the bastard son of a local baron who inherits his fathers
> estate and his belief in maintaining the modus vivendi.
>
> The villains in general are the religious fanatics, who let their ideology
> dominate their thinking. This is important, but I don't think Ridley
> Scott makes it clear enough how it applies to the hero.
>
>
> About half way though the movie, after making an impression on just about
> everyone, the Leper King makes Bloom an offer. He will be made chief of
> the armies of Jerusalem. The princess's husband and any of his knights
> who refuse to swear to obey him will be executed. He will marry her, and
> he will become king of Jerusalem when the king dies. Bloom won't condone
> a course of action that will result in more deaths. He refuses, because
> it would violate his beliefs...
>
>
> It sounds nice and pretty, and in every way Bloom has been presented as a
> good man. But...
>
> The king duly dies.
>
> The (new) queen's husband duly takes over.
>
> He duly leads the army against Saladin.
>
> They're duly slaughtered.
>
> Bloom leads the defense of the city and fights well enough that Saladin
> offers terms- safe passage out of the city for everyone, which Bloom
> accepts. He returns to Europe and the epilogue is his observing a new
> crusade in the making.
>
>
> Bloom is actually no better than those the movie would condemn. He
> refuses to compromise his beliefs and war results. Tens of thousands are
> killed and the city taken because he wouldn't continence the killing of
> the chief villain.
>
> The king's moral flexibility was the right path. The inflexibility of
> even the hero leads to disaster.
>
>
>
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 9:36:45 AM

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

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> Mere moments before death, Shawn Wilson hastily scrawled:
> >The king's moral flexibility was the right path. The inflexibility
of even
> >the hero leads to disaster.
>
> The king's moral flexibility may have been wise, but that doesn't
make
> it "right". The right thing to do is the right thing to do, no
matter
> what others may do because you do the right thing. In other words,
if
> you don't stand on your principles, you never really had any to begin
> with.

Well, that all depends on whether the king is Lawful Good or Chaotic
Good, doesn't it? :) 

-Pat

--
Pat Luther -- pat at gwob dot org
Director, Geeks Without Borders: http://www.gwob.org
"The universe is an origami crane made of paper a billion light-years
thick."
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 11:11:35 PM

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

George Christie wrote:
> sure its not 1184, or better yet 1187, because unless my memory is
failing,
> the battle at the horns of hattin was in early July of 1187, and the
movie
> is about the siege of Jerusalem by Saladin some two months later.
Please
> tell me they got the dates right, because if they can't look in a
history
> book.....

The movie starts in 1186, but it spans a goodly length of time. The
exact passage of time is never really spelled out, but there's
definitely enough room to get us to 1187.

--
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com
Anonymous
May 7, 2005 11:13:24 PM

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

> Bloom is actually no better than those the movie would condemn. He
refuses
> to compromise his beliefs and war results. Tens of thousands are
killed and
> the city taken because he wouldn't continence the killing of the
chief
> villain.

It would have been interesting if Scott had actually grabbed such an
interpretation by the balls and run with it.

Unfortunately:

(1) The film clearly wants you to think that Bloom has found the "right
choice" and that his journey is one which should be emulated.

(2) I can't begin to fathom what moral code, exactly, Bloom has adopted
for himself that results in his fateful decision. (Nor is his moral
code ever explicated by the film.) It's not like the King said, "Hey,
I'd like to kill my innocent brother-in-law and have you marry my
sister because it would be better for everybody." What the king
actually said was, "If I execute my brother-in-law for the heinous
crimes he's guilty of, would you marry my sister?"

Bloom's objection here cannot be the simple killing of people. Because
he spends the rest of the film killing lots of people.

Bloom's objection cannot be to marrying the king's widowed sister.
Because he does precisely that.

So, apparently, the only things Bloom objects to are: (a) Executing
mass murderers; and (b) preventing genocidal war.

And, frankly, with a moral code like that, it's *really* dificult to
relate to him as a protagonist. Or to share the filmmaker's obvious
endorsement of his personal character and ethical conduct.

--
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 3:01:41 PM

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

Dirk Collins wrote:
> Agreed. The disaster wasn't caused by the heroes' (Blooms)
> inflexibility, it was the result (and symptoms) of the lack of
> morals on the part of the old king that created, (not having seen
> this particular movie, though it is on my watch at the big screen
> theatre list)to wit;

I love it when people opine from utter ignorance.

> It was the dishonorable actions of the old king that created the
> situation in the first place, not the actions of the young prince.

Wrong.

> Let the blame fall on whom truly deserves it, to wit, the immoral
> wishes of the dying king.

Wrong.

> On the Christian side their was much more ambition
> and greed from the various leaders involved.

There was plenty of freed and ambition seen in the movie.

--
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 4:56:12 PM

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

Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com wrote:

> >>The king's moral flexibility was the right path. The inflexibility of
> >>even
> >>the hero leads to disaster.
> >
> > The king's moral flexibility may have been wise, but that doesn't make
> > it "right". The right thing to do is the right thing to do, no matter
> > what others may do because you do the right thing. In other words, if
> > you don't stand on your principles, you never really had any to begin
> > with.
>
> What principles? Refusing to continence the killing of a few to prevent the
> killing of many? Bloom was faced with a binary choice and chose the path
> that lead to the worst outcome out of misguided 'morality'.

I watched KoH yesterday and I said the same thing, but one of my friends
made a very good point: would the killing of the few really prevent the
killing of many?

Sure, de Lusignan and the red-headed henchman deserved to die, and
things would've probably turned out better if they had.

But would that and the Balian on the throne have been enough to prevent
the war?

How long before some other warlord arose and gave Saladin a pretext to
invade? Remember that Saladin was being pressured to attack Jerusalem,
one of his henchmen using the very same words that the Templars did:
"God wills it", and that he wasn't exactly averse to the idea himself.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 8:45:36 PM

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

"Justin Bacon" <triad3204@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1115518295.073662.30040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> The movie starts in 1186, but it spans a goodly length of time. The
> exact passage of time is never really spelled out, but there's
> definitely enough room to get us to 1187.

The blacksmith learned rather a lot about warfare between the start and
end of the movie! Big timeline.

-Michael
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 8:45:37 PM

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

"Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:Qmrfe.10627$HL2.5177@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:

> "Justin Bacon" <triad3204@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1115518295.073662.30040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> The movie starts in 1186, but it spans a goodly length of time. The
>> exact passage of time is never really spelled out, but there's
>> definitely enough room to get us to 1187.
>
> The blacksmith learned rather a lot about warfare between the
> start and
> end of the movie! Big timeline.

So how many levels of commoner would you say he gained over the course of
the movie?
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 8:58:18 PM

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

Ed Chauvin IV wrote:

> Mere moments before death, Shawn Wilson hastily scrawled:
>
>>The king's moral flexibility was the right path. The inflexibility of even
>>the hero leads to disaster.
>
>
> The king's moral flexibility may have been wise, but that doesn't make
> it "right". The right thing to do is the right thing to do, no matter
> what others may do because you do the right thing. In other words, if
> you don't stand on your principles, you never really had any to begin
> with.

Agreed. The disaster wasn't caused by the heroes' (Blooms)
inflexibility, it was the result (and symptoms) of the lack of
morals on the part of the old king that created, (not having seen
this particular movie, though it is on my watch at the big screen
theatre list)to wit;

"The princess's husband and any of his knights who refuse to swear
to obey him will be executed. He will marry her, and he will
become king of Jerusalem when the king dies. Bloom won't condone
a course of action that will result in more deaths. He refuses,
because it would violate his beliefs..."

It was the dishonorable actions of the old king that created the
situation in the first place, not the actions of the young prince.
Let the blame fall on whom truly deserves it, to wit, the immoral
wishes of the dying king.

This movie is actually about Baldwin the IV, and is not accurate
historically. On the Christian side their was much more ambition
and greed from the various leaders involved.

Reference: http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm

Interestingly enough, after Jerusalem fell, King Richard "The
Lionheart" sailed to the middle east with a freshly raised army
beginning the Third crusade. He landed, besieged, then took Acre.
He rested for a bit as did Saladin (Both reinforcing their
armies). After that he began his march to retake Jerusalem where
Saladin was waiting with an army of 25,000 or so. On the road near
present day Jaffa with some 2-4,000 knights and archers the two
kings met. Richard was heavily outnumbered and hard pressed. He
won the day though by riding out with his personal Knight
gaurdians and personally challenging the Saracens champions to
fight in one-on-one duels.

During a short repreive in the fights during the day, Saladin had
a fresh horse sent to Richard so he wouldn't have to fight with
such a "tired and poor" mount.

In the evening, with no Saracen challenger willing to face King
Richard one-on-one, Saladin took his army back to Jerusalem to
prepare the defenses of the city.

Over the next several months Richard made several different offers
in an attempt to retake Jerusalem and to secure a peace between
the saracens and the christians, but all of the attempts failed
due in no small part to the unwillingness of the various parties.
In this case, the Christians lost Jersualem on account they
wouldn't obey the wishes of King Richard. He had to return to
Europe on account of other Intrigues and schemes cooked up by his
Brother Henry and Philip Augustus, and so arranged a temporary
peace in the mideast before his departure.

My other favorite story from the crusades, is when the vikings
sailed with almost 40 longboats in the first crusade. When they
arrived in the middle east (near Constantinople), the Viking chief
had their longboats burned. They helped retake Jerusalem in a
series of campaigns and as part of their treasure, received a
splinter of the holy cross. The warband returned to Norway via
Russia, fighting and trading their way in an epic 17 year overland
journey. To this day, a splinter of the holy cross from the first
crusade is on display at a museum in Oslo.


Re,
Dirk
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 10:22:54 PM

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

Dirk Collins wrote:
> Justin Bacon wrote:
> > Dirk Collins wrote:
> >
> >>Agreed. The disaster wasn't caused by the heroes' (Blooms)
> >>inflexibility, it was the result (and symptoms) of the lack of
> >>morals on the part of the old king that created, (not having seen
> >>this particular movie, though it is on my watch at the big screen
> >>theatre list)to wit;
> >
> > I love it when people opine from utter ignorance.
>
> You post whoring yet again, Eh?...

I'm not sure why you believe such an obvious non sequitur makes you
look like less of an ignorant fool.

> >>It was the dishonorable actions of the old king that created the
> >>situation in the first place, not the actions of the young prince.
> >
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> Wrong. If IRC Baldwin IV (The Leper King) set up the situation at
> the first, with his decrees leaving the young prince played by
> Bloom no choice but to accept said decrees, in order to marry his
> daughter, and therefore take to the crown.

Uh... what? The king made no such decree. And Bloom's character
obviously had other choices, since he chose a different choice.

> In both the movie and
> historically there was dissension amongst the christians as to the
> course of action following the death of Baldwin, in that the
> Princess crowned the fictional character played by Bloom. This was
> not the custom of that time.

The Princess did no such thing.

Seriously, Dirk, you haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking
about. I'd suggest apologizing now and then shutting the hell up until
you've actually seen the movie. Otherwise you're just going to continue
making a bigger fool of yourself.

--
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 10:48:06 PM

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

>> The king's moral flexibility may have been wise, but that doesn't
>make
>> it "right".

If it really was "wise" then that does make it "right". The stupid
thing to do is never the right thing to do.
Anonymous
May 8, 2005 11:53:21 PM

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

Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Ed Chauvin IV just said...
> >What principles? Refusing to continence the killing of a few to prevent the
> >killing of many?
>
> No, refusing to be directly responsible for killing.
>
> > Bloom was faced with a binary choice and chose the path
> >that lead to the worst outcome out of misguided 'morality'.
>
> His choices weren't the ones that resulted in death. Sure, his choice
> allowed others an opportunity to wreak havoc, but he didn't cause the
> death any more than he caused the sun to burn.

As hesitant as I am to take Shawn's side, while lots of people here
endorse this sort of keep-your-own-hands-clean "morality", I know of
very few moral philosophers who would endorse it, and NO fellow grad
students at my school who take any of them seriously. Obviously any
consequentialist would find it repugnant, but so would most ethicists
who reject consequentialism.

If you had a choice, and can reasonably predict that one option will
have the kind of awful consequences being discussesd here and another
won't, the notion that it's okay to take the first one so long as you're
not responsible (in some sense) for the bad results - or for that
matter, that there's a notion of responsibility on which that's even
true - is, at best, highly controversial.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 12:16:58 AM

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

Mere moments before death, Jeff Heikkinen hastily scrawled:
>Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Ed Chauvin IV just said...
>> >What principles? Refusing to continence the killing of a few to prevent the
>> >killing of many?
>>
>> No, refusing to be directly responsible for killing.
>>
>> > Bloom was faced with a binary choice and chose the path
>> >that lead to the worst outcome out of misguided 'morality'.
>>
>> His choices weren't the ones that resulted in death. Sure, his choice
>> allowed others an opportunity to wreak havoc, but he didn't cause the
>> death any more than he caused the sun to burn.
>
>As hesitant as I am to take Shawn's side, while lots of people here
>endorse this sort of keep-your-own-hands-clean "morality", I know of
>very few moral philosophers who would endorse it, and NO fellow grad
>students at my school who take any of them seriously. Obviously any
>consequentialist would find it repugnant, but so would most ethicists
>who reject consequentialism.
>
>If you had a choice, and can reasonably predict that one option will
>have the kind of awful consequences being discussesd here and another
>won't, the notion that it's okay to take the first one so long as you're
>not responsible (in some sense) for the bad results - or for that
>matter, that there's a notion of responsibility on which that's even
>true - is, at best, highly controversial.

Assumes facts not in evidence.



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
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 12:40:06 AM

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

On Fri, 6 May 2005 20:10:37 -0700, "Shawn Wilson"
<Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Shawn Wilson" <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:2hWee.6418$D91.2251@fed1read01...
>
>> What principles? Refusing to continence the killing of a few to prevent
>> the killing of many? Bloom was faced with a binary choice and chose the
>> path that lead to the worst outcome out of misguided 'morality'.
>
>
>The word should be 'countenance'. Please adjust your records accordingly...

But continence is so much funnier!
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 12:40:07 AM

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

Mere moments before death, David Johnston hastily scrawled:
>On Fri, 6 May 2005 20:10:37 -0700, "Shawn Wilson"
><Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Shawn Wilson" <Ikonoqlast@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:2hWee.6418$D91.2251@fed1read01...
>>
>>> What principles? Refusing to continence the killing of a few to prevent
>>> the killing of many? Bloom was faced with a binary choice and chose the
>>> path that lead to the worst outcome out of misguided 'morality'.
>>
>>
>>The word should be 'countenance'. Please adjust your records accordingly...
>
>But continence is so much funnier!

You're thinking of incontinence.



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
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 3:39:50 AM

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

Ed Chauvin IV just said...
>> His choices weren't the ones that resulted in death. Sure, his
>> choice allowed others an opportunity to wreak havoc, but he didn't
>> cause the death any more than he caused the sun to burn.

Jeff Heikkinen wrote:
> As hesitant as I am to take Shawn's side, while lots of people here
> endorse this sort of keep-your-own-hands-clean "morality", I know of
> very few moral philosophers who would endorse it, and NO fellow grad
> students at my school who take any of them seriously. Obviously any
> consequentialist would find it repugnant, but so would most ethicists
> who reject consequentialism.

True, although I would add a few caveats. For example, I would expect
some deontologists like Kant to condemn both choices, because one has a
duty both to avoid doing harm and to prevent harm when possible. Such a
philospher would recommend looking for a third solution that fulfills
both duties.

I would also expect some deontologists to regard prevention of harm as
superogatory and therefore, while desirable, not required of a merely
moral actor. I suppose that if the consequences were easily preventable,
the superogatory aspect is debatable, but that doesn't sound like the
case here from my very casual reading. Anyway, I don't think they would
recommend immoral behavior even if it ultimately results in a good
outcome. Again, they would recommend a third course of action that
permits the superogatory behavior /without/ sacrificing basic morality.

Now, if the actor shirks some duty with the excuse that it would get his
hands dirty, that's a different story, but again that's not the
impression I got here.

> If you had a choice, and can reasonably predict that one option will
> have the kind of awful consequences being discussesd here and another
> won't, the notion that it's okay to take the first one so long as
> you're not responsible (in some sense) for the bad results - or for
> that matter, that there's a notion of responsibility on which that's
> even true - is, at best, highly controversial.

True.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 3:54:19 AM

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

Justin Bacon wrote:
> Dirk Collins wrote:
>
>>Agreed. The disaster wasn't caused by the heroes' (Blooms)
>>inflexibility, it was the result (and symptoms) of the lack of
>>morals on the part of the old king that created, (not having seen
>>this particular movie, though it is on my watch at the big screen
>>theatre list)to wit;
>
>
> I love it when people opine from utter ignorance.

You post whoring yet again, Eh?...

>>It was the dishonorable actions of the old king that created the
>>situation in the first place, not the actions of the young prince.
>
>
> Wrong.

Wrong. If IRC Baldwin IV (The Leper King) set up the situation at
the first, with his decrees leaving the young prince played by
Bloom no choice but to accept said decrees, in order to marry his
daughter, and therefore take to the crown. In both the movie and
historically there was dissension amongst the christians as to the
course of action following the death of Baldwin, in that the
Princess crowned the fictional character played by Bloom. This was
not the custom of that time.

Re,
Dirk
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:45:14 AM

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

In news:427e1fe4.188421988@news.telusplanet.net,
David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> typed:
> Wait. I haven't seen this movie, but what was the profession of the
> character in question, again?

His profession was blacksmith but he was a brilliant warrior and
strategist... ;) 

--
T. Koivula
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 8:12:16 AM

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

Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Ed Chauvin IV just said...
> Mere moments before death, Jeff Heikkinen hastily scrawled:
> >Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Ed Chauvin IV just said...
> >> >What principles? Refusing to continence the killing of a few to prevent the
> >> >killing of many?
> >>
> >> No, refusing to be directly responsible for killing.
> >>
> >> > Bloom was faced with a binary choice and chose the path
> >> >that lead to the worst outcome out of misguided 'morality'.
> >>
> >> His choices weren't the ones that resulted in death. Sure, his choice
> >> allowed others an opportunity to wreak havoc, but he didn't cause the
> >> death any more than he caused the sun to burn.
> >
> >As hesitant as I am to take Shawn's side, while lots of people here
> >endorse this sort of keep-your-own-hands-clean "morality", I know of
> >very few moral philosophers who would endorse it, and NO fellow grad
> >students at my school who take any of them seriously. Obviously any
> >consequentialist would find it repugnant, but so would most ethicists
> >who reject consequentialism.
> >
> >If you had a choice, and can reasonably predict that one option will
> >have the kind of awful consequences being discussesd here and another
> >won't, the notion that it's okay to take the first one so long as you're
> >not responsible (in some sense) for the bad results - or for that
> >matter, that there's a notion of responsibility on which that's even
> >true - is, at best, highly controversial.
>
> Assumes facts not in evidence.


Quite possibly. I haven't seen the movie; I was speaking to the more
general point. The fact remains that "not being directly responsible" is
not, in my eyes or those of many others I respect, a compelling
consideration, and perhaps not even a relevant one.
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 2:46:07 PM

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

"Chipacabra" <chipb@efn.org> wrote in message
news:Xns965089DA61F8Bchipbefnorg@216.196.97.131...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:Qmrfe.10627$HL2.5177@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Justin Bacon" <triad3204@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1115518295.073662.30040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> The movie starts in 1186, but it spans a goodly length of time. The
> >> exact passage of time is never really spelled out, but there's
> >> definitely enough room to get us to 1187.
> >
> > The blacksmith learned rather a lot about warfare between the
> > start and
> > end of the movie! Big timeline.
>
> So how many levels of commoner would you say he gained over the course
of
> the movie?

..... and did he become the BEST BLACKSMITH IN THE WORLD?!
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 3:14:07 PM

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

"Dirk Collins" <dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> wrote in message
news:Kyrfe.9422$7F4.171@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...

> My other favorite story from the crusades, is when the vikings
> sailed with almost 40 longboats in the first crusade. When they
> arrived in the middle east (near Constantinople), the Viking chief
> had their longboats burned. They helped retake Jerusalem in a
> series of campaigns and as part of their treasure, received a
> splinter of the holy cross. The warband returned to Norway via
> Russia, fighting and trading their way in an epic 17 year overland
> journey. To this day, a splinter of the holy cross from the first
> crusade is on display at a museum in Oslo.

Cite?
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:46:15 PM

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

Chipacabra wrote:
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mistermichael@earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:Qmrfe.10627$HL2.5177@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> > "Justin Bacon" <triad3204@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:1115518295.073662.30040@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> The movie starts in 1186, but it spans a goodly length of time.
The
> >> exact passage of time is never really spelled out, but there's
> >> definitely enough room to get us to 1187.
> >
> > The blacksmith learned rather a lot about warfare between the
> > start and end of the movie! Big timeline.
>
> So how many levels of commoner would you say he gained over the
course of
> the movie?

I'd say he started as an Expert and then multi-classed into Aristocrat.
Probably wrapped up around Exp1/Ari4 or thereabouts.

--
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:50:51 PM

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

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> 1. It's likely war will come even if I say I'm OK with killing a lot
of
> people to put me on the throne, so I'd rather not say it.

If by "killing a lot of people" you mean "executing one person who's
guilty of mass murder" then, yes, that would seem to be Balian's
ethical position.

Which is why I don't find Balian's ethics to be compelling in the
slightest.

--
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 4:56:10 PM

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

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> > Uh... What? How did you get from "the king has ordered his
followers
> > not to kill Arabs on pain of death" to "when his followers killed
Arabs
> > they were following the King's orders"?
>
> When I mentione people following their leaders, I was talking about
the
> men under de Lusignan and the Templar guy, whom the King planned to
> force into swearing loyalty to bloom under pain of death (some
loyalty
> that would be).

Ah, I see where we're having problems. As far as I can recall, the king
doesn't say anything about killing their followers or forcing their
followers to swear allegiance on pain of death.

--
Justin Bacon
triad3204@aol.com
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 5:45:25 PM

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

Mere moments before death, Jeff Heikkinen hastily scrawled:
>
>Quite possibly. I haven't seen the movie; I was speaking to the more
>general point. The fact remains that "not being directly responsible" is
>not, in my eyes or those of many others I respect, a compelling
>consideration, and perhaps not even a relevant one.

Well, it wasn't the kind of avoiding direct responsibility where he
literally caused the Bad Things to happen. He was given an option
that he found morally repugnant and turned it down. It's like someone
telling you to strangle a baby, or he's going to slaughter a whole bus
load of children. Strangling the baby doesn't become the right thing
to do, and not strangling the baby doesn't make you morally
responsible for the bus load of children. Doing nothing to save the
bus load of children, on the other hand would. But, that doesn't
necessarily mean you have to strangle the baby.



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
Anonymous
May 9, 2005 11:56:07 PM

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

On Mon, 9 May 2005 20:55:53 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
wrote:


>>
>> Uh...that's typical feudalism for you. What else are you going to do
>> with vassals who refuse to swear loyalty?
>
>Does that making Bloom going along with it the morally right choice?

It means it isn't a "morally" wrong choice. Putting it in D&D terms,
could a Lawful Good ruler execute nobles of his kingdom who refuse to
swear fealty to him? Damn skippy he could. In fact he should. Now,
it is of course possible to refuse power and the burden of
responsibility that comes with it and doing so doesn't make you a bad
person, and there's something a bit squicky about killing a man so you
can marry his wife and have his job. But executing vassals who refuse
their obligation to swear fealty and who will cause all kinds of
problems if they remain independant? Goes with the territory once you
are a ruler.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:55:08 AM

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

Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Ed Chauvin IV just said...
> Mere moments before death, Jeff Heikkinen hastily scrawled:
> >
> >Quite possibly. I haven't seen the movie; I was speaking to the more
> >general point. The fact remains that "not being directly responsible" is
> >not, in my eyes or those of many others I respect, a compelling
> >consideration, and perhaps not even a relevant one.
>
> Well, it wasn't the kind of avoiding direct responsibility where he
> literally caused the Bad Things to happen.

Nothing that I said presupposes that it was.

> He was given an option
> that he found morally repugnant and turned it down. It's like someone
> telling you to strangle a baby, or he's going to slaughter a whole bus
> load of children. Strangling the baby doesn't become the right thing
> to do, and not strangling the baby doesn't make you morally
> responsible for the bus load of children. Doing nothing to save the
> bus load of children, on the other hand would. But, that doesn't
> necessarily mean you have to strangle the baby.

Okay, that makes a lot more sense than what I took you to be saying
before.
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:03:32 AM

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

No 33 Secretary wrote:

> BTW, if you're interested in the subject, it's got some nice cgi of various
> seige weaponry. Maybe not worth the full admission price, but perhaps worth
> catching on cable in a few months.
>

I watched an interview with Ridley Scott this weekend. He said
they built two real catapults, and he was impressed with both the
rate of fire, and accuracy of the weapons while they were filming.

Re,
Dirk
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:59:03 AM

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

Mere moments before death, Jeff Heikkinen hastily scrawled:
>Time to step up the meds; I could have sworn Ed Chauvin IV just said...
>> Mere moments before death, Jeff Heikkinen hastily scrawled:
>> >
>> >Quite possibly. I haven't seen the movie; I was speaking to the more
>> >general point. The fact remains that "not being directly responsible" is
>> >not, in my eyes or those of many others I respect, a compelling
>> >consideration, and perhaps not even a relevant one.
>>
>> Well, it wasn't the kind of avoiding direct responsibility where he
>> literally caused the Bad Things to happen.
>
>Nothing that I said presupposes that it was.

Didn't mean to imply that, just pointing out that it isn't.

>> He was given an option
>> that he found morally repugnant and turned it down. It's like someone
>> telling you to strangle a baby, or he's going to slaughter a whole bus
>> load of children. Strangling the baby doesn't become the right thing
>> to do, and not strangling the baby doesn't make you morally
>> responsible for the bus load of children. Doing nothing to save the
>> bus load of children, on the other hand would. But, that doesn't
>> necessarily mean you have to strangle the baby.
>
>Okay, that makes a lot more sense than what I took you to be saying
>before.

Well, I'm glad to see I'm finally getting through to you. :-)

that's a smiley, it means I'm joking ;-)



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
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:59:05 AM

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

Mere moments before death, No 33 Secretary hastily scrawled:
>
>BTW, if you're interested in the subject, it's got some nice cgi of various
>seige weaponry. Maybe not worth the full admission price, but perhaps worth
>catching on cable in a few months.

That's what I got TiVo for.



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
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 8:25:44 AM

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

Dirk Collins <dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> wrote in
news:UDUfe.253$bm5.180@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>
>> BTW, if you're interested in the subject, it's got some nice cgi of
>> various seige weaponry. Maybe not worth the full admission price, but
>> perhaps worth catching on cable in a few months.
>>
>
> I watched an interview with Ridley Scott this weekend. He said
> they built two real catapults, and he was impressed with both the
> rate of fire, and accuracy of the weapons while they were filming.
>
I didn't see any catapults, though I might have missed them. I did see
trebuchets, which were quite enchanting. There are people who will build
full scale models, if you pay for them. Very dangerous toys.

--
Terry Austin
http://www.hyperbooks.com/
Campaign Cartographer Now Available
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 8:25:45 AM

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

Mere moments before death, Terry Austin hastily scrawled:
>Dirk Collins <dirk.collins@Earthlink.Net> wrote in
>news:UDUfe.253$bm5.180@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
>> No 33 Secretary wrote:
>>
>>> BTW, if you're interested in the subject, it's got some nice cgi of
>>> various seige weaponry. Maybe not worth the full admission price, but
>>> perhaps worth catching on cable in a few months.
>>>
>>
>> I watched an interview with Ridley Scott this weekend. He said
>> they built two real catapults, and he was impressed with both the
>> rate of fire, and accuracy of the weapons while they were filming.
>>
>I didn't see any catapults, though I might have missed them. I did see
>trebuchets, which were quite enchanting.

Most "people", Ridley Scott probably included, think that trebuchets
are catapults.

>There are people who will build
>full scale models, if you pay for them. Very dangerous toys.

I've toyed with the idea of building a small one myself. The
construction's not overly complicated, and it'd be fun to launch the
kids... *ahem* have the kids watch me launch melons hundreds of feet
through the air.



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
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:54:46 PM

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

rgorman@telusplanet.net wrote:

> >> Uh...that's typical feudalism for you. What else are you going to do
> >> with vassals who refuse to swear loyalty?
> >
> >Does that making Bloom going along with it the morally right choice?
>
> It means it isn't a "morally" wrong choice. Putting it in D&D terms,
> could a Lawful Good ruler execute nobles of his kingdom who refuse to
> swear fealty to him? Damn skippy he could. In fact he should.

WTF!?

> Now,
> it is of course possible to refuse power and the burden of
> responsibility that comes with it and doing so doesn't make you a bad
> person,

It's been suggested on the group that it does.

> and there's something a bit squicky about killing a man so you
> can marry his wife and have his job. But executing vassals who refuse
> their obligation to swear fealty

For me, the mass executions were the squickier part. De Lusignan
deserved to die. I'm not so sure that all them men who'd refuse to
accept Bloom as king did.

> and who will cause all kinds of
> problems if they remain independant? Goes with the territory once you
> are a ruler.

Right, and that's why Bloom didn't want to be a ruler.


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 3:57:16 PM

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

triad3204@aol.com wrote:

> > > Uh... What? How did you get from "the king has ordered his followers
> > > not to kill Arabs on pain of death" to "when his followers killed Arabs
> > > they were following the King's orders"?
> >
> > When I mentione people following their leaders, I was talking about the
> > men under de Lusignan and the Templar guy, whom the King planned to
> > force into swearing loyalty to bloom under pain of death (some loyalty
> > that would be).
>
> Ah, I see where we're having problems. As far as I can recall, the king
> doesn't say anything about killing their followers or forcing their
> followers to swear allegiance on pain of death.

Eh?

IIRC, the King (or perhaps Jeremy Irons) says something like "De
Lusignan will be executed. Along with everyone else who doesn't swear
loyalty to you."

Is it that you don't remember that line, or just interpreting it to
include only the power players like de Lusignan, and not the followers?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 6:05:21 PM

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

Mere moments before death, No 33 Secretary hastily scrawled:
>>>There are people who will build
>>>full scale models, if you pay for them. Very dangerous toys.
>>
>> I've toyed with the idea of building a small one myself. The
>> construction's not overly complicated, and it'd be fun to launch the
>> kids... *ahem* have the kids watch me launch melons hundreds of feet
>> through the air.
>>
>Small ones are not big deal. Big ones are *very* dangerous, if you're not a
>qualified engineer, because of the weights involved. Use materials that
>aren't strong enough, and you could have several tons fall on your head.

No worries, I have no intention of dealing with tons of weight.



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
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 8:30:01 PM

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

David Johnston wrote:
> >How much (and what quality of) loyalty to Bloom do you expect, if it

> >were based primarily on fear of execution?
>
> What makes you think it would be primarily based on fear of
execution,
> instead of say, his being now married to Sybilla, who was in fact the
> historical entire basis of Guy de Lusignan's claim to the throne?

I think you may have something backwards - Guy's templars served
*Guy* and their villainous belief system, not the regime (raiding Arab
caravans was in direct conflict with the King's desires). Sybilla was
the fig leaf that legitimized their exploits, not the foundation of
their loyalty. Executing Guy a traitor and marrying Sybilla in his
stead would not secure their co-operation - only their continued
rebellion. Further, recall that Guy, and more than likely his
comrades-in-arms, considers Balian's bastard heritage completely
illegitimate. A bastard upstart, marrying "their" Queen over the
corpse of Guy? That's not going to go well - they'd have to be put down
to a man or there would be a substantial insurrection.

A man who never wanted power, offered a crown and a wife over a
stack of corpses ...

-Michael
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:35:10 PM

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005 11:54:46 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
wrote:

>rgorman@telusplanet.net wrote:
>
>> >> Uh...that's typical feudalism for you. What else are you going to do
>> >> with vassals who refuse to swear loyalty?
>> >
>> >Does that making Bloom going along with it the morally right choice?
>>
>> It means it isn't a "morally" wrong choice. Putting it in D&D terms,
>> could a Lawful Good ruler execute nobles of his kingdom who refuse to
>> swear fealty to him? Damn skippy he could. In fact he should.
>
>WTF!?

Execute dangerous rebels who are trying to start a civil war? Of
course he should.

>
>> Now,
>> it is of course possible to refuse power and the burden of
>> responsibility that comes with it and doing so doesn't make you a bad
>> person,
>
>It's been suggested on the group that it does.

Refusing responsibility is not in itself a principled choice however.

It's merely a lack of ambition, not a noble aspiration.


>
>> and there's something a bit squicky about killing a man so you
>> can marry his wife and have his job. But executing vassals who refuse
>> their obligation to swear fealty
>
>For me, the mass executions were the squickier part.

Oh don't be so bloody silly. There wouldn't be any mass executions.
How much post mortem loyalty to De Lusignan do you expect?
Anonymous
May 10, 2005 9:43:50 PM

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

rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote in
news:42809683.73135955@news.telusplanet.net:

> On Tue, 10 May 2005 11:54:46 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
> wrote:
>
>>rgorman@telusplanet.net wrote:
>>
>>> >> Uh...that's typical feudalism for you. What else are you going
>>> >> to do with vassals who refuse to swear loyalty?
>>> >
>>> >Does that making Bloom going along with it the morally right
>>> >choice?
>>>
>>> It means it isn't a "morally" wrong choice. Putting it in D&D
>>> terms, could a Lawful Good ruler execute nobles of his kingdom who
>>> refuse to swear fealty to him? Damn skippy he could. In fact he
>>> should.
>>
>>WTF!?
>
> Execute dangerous rebels who are trying to start a civil war? Of
> course he should.

You presume that the only two possible circumstances are "swear fealty to
some buy you've never heard of" and "start a rebellion." You are incorrect.

The Lawful Good ruler would never, ever simply execute anyone who would not
swear fealty. That would be evil, or LN, at best. The LG ruler would give
them the choice of swearing fealty, or giving up their lands and title,
which have always been held with swearing fealty as a condition anyway.
(This is not without historical precedent, BTW, though neither is simple
murder of politically inconvenient allies of one's enemies. Both good and
evil abound throughout history.)
>
>>
>>> Now,
>>> it is of course possible to refuse power and the burden of
>>> responsibility that comes with it and doing so doesn't make you a
>>> bad person,
>>
>>It's been suggested on the group that it does.
>
> Refusing responsibility is not in itself a principled choice however.
>
> It's merely a lack of ambition, not a noble aspiration.

And this has what to do with the movie in question? (Plus, you are
incorrect. There are many reasons to refuse responsibility, and principle
is one of them.)

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:42:04 AM

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

rgorman@telusplanet.net wrote:

> >> and there's something a bit squicky about killing a man so you
> >> can marry his wife and have his job. But executing vassals who refuse
> >> their obligation to swear fealty
> >
> >For me, the mass executions were the squickier part.
>
> Oh don't be so bloody silly. There wouldn't be any mass executions.
> How much post mortem loyalty to De Lusignan do you expect?

How much (and what quality of) loyalty to Bloom do you expect, if it
were based primarily on fear of execution?


--
Jasin Zujovic
jzujovic@inet.hr
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:42:05 AM

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:42:04 +0200, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic@inet.hr>
wrote:

>rgorman@telusplanet.net wrote:
>
>> >> and there's something a bit squicky about killing a man so you
>> >> can marry his wife and have his job. But executing vassals who refuse
>> >> their obligation to swear fealty
>> >
>> >For me, the mass executions were the squickier part.
>>
>> Oh don't be so bloody silly. There wouldn't be any mass executions.
>> How much post mortem loyalty to De Lusignan do you expect?
>
>How much (and what quality of) loyalty to Bloom do you expect, if it
>were based primarily on fear of execution?

What makes you think it would be primarily based on fear of execution,
instead of say, his being now married to Sybilla, who was in fact the
historical entire basis of Guy de Lusignan's claim to the throne?
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 3:01:01 AM

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

Suddenly, No 33 Secretary, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the
darkness and exclaimed:

> I'm more inclined towards "I wanna beer, and I wanna see something
> nekkid."
>

So you're a fan of Animal Planet?

--
Billy Yank

Quinn: "I'm saying it's us, or them."
Murphy: "Well I choose them."
Q: "That's NOT an option!"
M: "Then you shouldn't have framed it as one."
-Sealab 2021

Billy Yank's Baldur's Gate Photo Portraits
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze2xvw6/
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 3:13:27 AM

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

Billy Yank <billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> wrote in
news:Xns9652C2959923Abillyyanknetzeronet@199.45.49.11:

> Suddenly, No 33 Secretary, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the
> darkness and exclaimed:
>
>> I'm more inclined towards "I wanna beer, and I wanna see something
>> nekkid."
>>
>
> So you're a fan of Animal Planet?
>
Jeff Foxworthy is on Animal Planet?

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
May 11, 2005 8:13:22 PM

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

On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:13:27 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> raised a finger to the sky and
proclaimed:

>Billy Yank <billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> wrote in
>news:Xns9652C2959923Abillyyanknetzeronet@199.45.49.11:
>
>> Suddenly, No 33 Secretary, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the
>> darkness and exclaimed:
>>
>>> I'm more inclined towards "I wanna beer, and I wanna see something
>>> nekkid."
>>>
>>
>> So you're a fan of Animal Planet?
>>
>Jeff Foxworthy is on Animal Planet?

Why do you want to see Jeff Foxworthy naked?

--
Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
- Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:22:40 AM

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

"T. Koivula" <plistat@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 5m19a$t2c$1@oravannahka.helsinki.fi...
> In news:427e1fe4.188421988@news.telusplanet.net,
> David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> typed:
>> Wait. I haven't seen this movie, but what was the profession of the
>> character in question, again?
>
> His profession was blacksmith but he was a brilliant warrior and
> strategist... ;) 
>
Well, you got a lot of time to think while pounding out horseshoes.

Glenn D.
Anonymous
May 12, 2005 3:37:57 AM

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

Mouse <mail141023@pop.net.invalid> wrote in
news:hb45815nbpn3v7np38q7t7klg7murs3gqh@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:13:27 -0000, No 33 Secretary
> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> raised a finger to the sky and
> proclaimed:
>
>>Billy Yank <billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> wrote in
>>news:Xns9652C2959923Abillyyanknetzeronet@199.45.49.11:
>>
>>> Suddenly, No 33 Secretary, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the
>>> darkness and exclaimed:
>>>
>>>> I'm more inclined towards "I wanna beer, and I wanna see something
>>>> nekkid."
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you're a fan of Animal Planet?
>>>
>>Jeff Foxworthy is on Animal Planet?
>
> Why do you want to see Jeff Foxworthy naked?
>
You obviously have no sense of humor. Otherwise, you'd know the reference.
I suggest you order one from the Sears catalog. They're not the best
available, but they're quite good, at a decent prince, and have a lifetime
warranty. I think that warranty part will be important.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
May 12, 2005 12:47:43 PM

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

On Wed, 11 May 2005 23:37:57 -0000, No 33 Secretary
<taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> raised a finger to the sky and
proclaimed:

>Mouse <mail141023@pop.net.invalid> wrote in
>news:hb45815nbpn3v7np38q7t7klg7murs3gqh@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:13:27 -0000, No 33 Secretary
>> <taustin+usenet@hyperbooks.com> raised a finger to the sky and
>> proclaimed:
>>
>>>Billy Yank <billyUSCOREyank@verizonDOT.net> wrote in
>>>news:Xns9652C2959923Abillyyanknetzeronet@199.45.49.11:
>>>
>>>> Suddenly, No 33 Secretary, drunk as a lemur, stumbled out of the
>>>> darkness and exclaimed:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm more inclined towards "I wanna beer, and I wanna see something
>>>>> nekkid."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you're a fan of Animal Planet?
>>>>
>>>Jeff Foxworthy is on Animal Planet?
>>
>> Why do you want to see Jeff Foxworthy naked?
>>
>You obviously have no sense of humor. Otherwise, you'd know the reference.
>I suggest you order one from the Sears catalog. They're not the best
>available, but they're quite good, at a decent prince, and have a lifetime
>warranty. I think that warranty part will be important.

I got the joke. I was just waiting for it to be funny.

--
Either way, I hate you Count Chocula, if I didn't already.
- Drifter Bob, rec.games.frp.dnd
!