OOTS #1069 - The Discussion Thread

[Goblin_Priest]

I'm almost positive either Xykon or Tarquin explicitly mentions Unearthed Arcana. I think it was Tarquin.

Wasn't Redcloak the one pulling books out?

[Liquor Box]

Ah, well, I didn't call them universally evil, for the record. I think the police are generally more lawful neutral than anything else and lean whichever way their society leans. But there are exceptions.

Yeah, I still think they tend to trend more toward lawful good than the ordinary member of society, but I don't think it;s something I can provide objective evidence of. Our different opinions may just be down to different anecdotal impressions, or us being at different places on the cynicism/naievity spectrum.

[Knaight]

I think that the institution of the police in a democratic society is aimed at lawful goodness. Obviously individual police will vary, but I think they tend more toward lawful goodness than the average member of society.

It depends on the democratic society. Most modern democratic societies also have some protection of rights for minorities. These protections are generally what we consider to be "Good" at a governmental level. Of course, I'm using D&D's "Good" here which roughly translates to, "selfless pursuit of beneficial results for others." By guaranteeing "the weak" (aka the minority) rights that "the strong" (aka the majority, in a democracy) can not [easily] destroy, that society and government is acting in a Good manner.

Those societies themselves are aimed, to some degree, at Goodness. The police are inherently an instrument of law, and thus those police as an institution would be aimed at Lawful Goodness.

But it certainly isn't guaranteed. Democratic Evil societies can (and have) certainly exist(ed). A majority of a population may want to enslave and torture the minority, in a pure democracy there is nothing to stop this, but using D&D ethics it certainly would be considered an Evil act.

Ah, yes, that is what I was referring to. In a true democracy, the majority opinion doesn't need protection of speech quite as much - they're not going to be oppressed. (That can be replaced with whatever power, of course...)



I wasn't referring to any specific real world event. But slavery and democracy existed simultaneously even during the birth of Athenian democracy in the 6th century BCE.



Ah, well, I didn't call them universally evil, for the record. I think the police are generally more lawful neutral than anything else and lean whichever way their society leans. But there are exceptions.

The police had an important role in U.S. slavery during the 19th century though. Slave patrols, Night Watchers, etc. The police played an active role in capturing slaves who were attempting to escape. For reference in U.S. federal law, please see the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.

Yeah, I still think they tend to trend more toward lawful good than the ordinary member of society, but I don't think it;s something I can provide objective evidence of. Our different opinions may just be down to different anecdotal impressions, or us being at different places on the cynicism/naievity spectrum.

This? This is exactly what I was talking about in terms of things getting political quickly - and I can say that I'm currently resisting a bit of "Someone is wrong on the internet" which would just make this worse.

[SilverCacaobean]

This? This is exactly what I was talking about in terms of things getting political quickly - and I can say that I'm currently resisting a bit of "Someone is wrong on the internet" which would just make this worse.

You're not the only one We need some help here.

Resist, resist, resist, resist the temptation to have a politically heated argument that will result in a locked thread, wasted time and dead dreams, ok maybe not that last one!

...There.

[Cazero]

Resist, resist, resist, resist the temptation to have a politically heated argument that will result in a locked thread, wasted time and dead dreams, ok maybe not that last one!

Every time a politically heated argument where one side is basicaly defending their "right" to be racist happens, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream die a little.
So yes, also that last one.

[Liquor Box]

Every time a politically heated argument where one side is basicaly defending their "right" to be racist happens, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream die a little.
So yes, also that last one.

Who on earth is doing anything even remotely resembling that?

I have my doubts that a (completely non-heated on both sides) discussion on whether police tend toward lawful neutral or lawful good (using the DnD defintioins of those terms) is even political.

[Cazero]

Maybe I should stop making jokes. Maybe I'm not made for stand-up comedy.
Or maybe some people on the internet are tone-blind. Hard to tell.

[Goblin_Priest]

Every time a politically heated argument where one side is basicaly defending their "right" to be racist happens, Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream die a little.
So yes, also that last one.

Who on earth is doing anything even remotely resembling that?

I have my doubts that a (completely non-heated on both sides) discussion on whether police tend toward lawful neutral or lawful good (using the DnD defintioins of those terms) is even political.

Well, freedom of thought/conscience is a right defended by the UN and enshrined in many charters and constitutions. The right to be free in one's thoughts includes the right to have unpopular opinions and beliefs.

Note that according to the charter in question, the right to have a belief does not necessarily include the right to express it, and in general, does not allow for one's right to override another's. Generally speaking, this means that in most jurisdictions, people have the right to *be* racist, but probably not to *act* racist. For example, thinking X minority is bad/inferior/whatever would be a protected right, but enforcing a "we don't hire Xs here" policy would not.

And honestly, I have a hard time seeing this as bad or as being a right pushed too far, given how people with agendas are quick to stick labels on people with whom they disagree. I'll refrain from going into specific examples to not get things too political, but in short, in respectable democracies that value human rights and dignity, the crimes aren't for being bad persons, but for acting bad. There have been enough witch hunts in the past, most jurisdictions have learned and moved away for conscience trials. So yea, people have a right to despicable, though that right does not grant them the liberty to act despicable. An important nuance often lost by both sides of any such conflict.

[Liquor Box]

Well, freedom of thought/conscience is a right defended by the UN and enshrined in many charters and constitutions. The right to be free in one's thoughts includes the right to have unpopular opinions and beliefs.

Note that according to the charter in question, the right to have a belief does not necessarily include the right to express it, and in general, does not allow for one's right to override another's. Generally speaking, this means that in most jurisdictions, people have the right to *be* racist, but probably not to *act* racist. For example, thinking X minority is bad/inferior/whatever would be a protected right, but enforcing a "we don't hire Xs here" policy would not.

And honestly, I have a hard time seeing this as bad or as being a right pushed too far, given how people with agendas are quick to stick labels on people with whom they disagree. I'll refrain from going into specific examples to not get things too political, but in short, in respectable democracies that value human rights and dignity, the crimes aren't for being bad persons, but for acting bad. There have been enough witch hunts in the past, most jurisdictions have learned and moved away for conscience trials. So yea, people have a right to despicable, though that right does not grant them the liberty to act despicable. An important nuance often lost by both sides of any such conflict.

I agree with almost all of this, although I'm not sure how it follows from the discussion that was being had.

[KorvinStarmast]

One thing to keep in mind is that Frosty the Giantess may be the highest leveled member of the tribe by now. Winning through diplomacy may involve pointing this out and suggesting she make herself queen.

Given the number of frost giants slain by V, Belkar, and Haley, and the previous 3.5e exposition on a tribe of frost giants being 20-30, the head count from the strip where the FG's were revealed was 29 ( I counted them, last panel ) she may be the queen of a tribe of one, or maybe a half dozen, by the time this battle is over should (she survive). If she gets out of this fight with her life, she and whomever else from the clan/tribe survives can begin rebuilding their clan the old fashioned way, or find another Frost Giant clan to join with.

But in the 18th and 19th centuries, duels were no longer so useful in terms of reducing overall violence, so their legitimacy eroded.

The Burr/Hamilton duel certainly got more people in the US condemning it ... though it had already fallen into some disfavor by the turn of the century.

Normal caveats about faint praise, low bar or long ways to go apply.

If anyone would like to google Grace Hopper for someone simply being excellent ....

Haley could talk someone into believing he was a wallaby in a sentence.

And then pick its pocket.

You really think the police are lawful good?

The ones who I know are.

Elan being instrumental** in the defeat of giantess seems too easy to predict. Belkar has had his day of SSGOW versus giants, time for Elan to get a little spot light.

** (heh, that was on purpose)

[Knaight]

I have my doubts that a (completely non-heated on both sides) discussion on whether police tend toward lawful neutral or lawful good (using the DnD defintioins of those terms) is even political.

It's only non heated because some of us are still staying out because it can get political.

[Cazero]

It's only non heated because some of us are still staying out because it can get political.

Don't the frost puns also help?

[Liquor Box]

It's only non heated because some of us are still staying out because it can get political.

So it would become heated if you, and others like you got involved? Good thing nobody like you participated in it then.

[Knaight]

So it would become heated if you, and others like you got involved? Good thing nobody like you participated in it then.

That's one way to spin it. Another would be that the absence of heat comes from one side demonstrating restraint while the other throws their talking points all over the thread and fawn over how civil they are.

[Liquor Box]

That's one way to spin it. Another would be that the absence of heat comes from one side demonstrating restraint while the other throws their talking points all over the thread and fawn over how civil they are.

What is the other "side" you are talking about? Gusion and I disagreed, made about three posts each discussing our different "sides", and ultimately agreed to disagree. Unfortunately this may be somewhat of a surprise to some people, but the fact that two posters can have a conversation without getting heated does not mean they were on the same "side".