Justice

[Cartman]

Alright, I was wandering something. Knights have to be good, Legion/Evil, but I think Justice should have to be only Neutral. Due to the fact that goods go against goods, which is blasphemy and all that fun stuff. Goods should be more dedicated to the death of Darkness, (aka Knights). Plus, Evils bring Chaos, Justice dispose of Chaos, catch my drift?

[Esivole]

Ah, horrible thought again.
The goods don't go against goods they merely keep the laws of the land,
And evil can Doesn't always mean chaos.
You are thinking in terms of alignment, not ethos, In your terms all goods are lawful and all evils chaotic.
Think, yes please do think, it might help ye some.

[Louis]

what about warlords, heralds, and assassins?

[Cartman]

Even in keeping Justice, the Goods can and will attack other goods. Evils I can somewhat understand. But a drow dark knight should not be in Justice merely because they are all that is evil. They don't believe in Justice, only greed and power. Actually that pretty much sums up most evil classes. I could see an Elf paladin being a Justice, because they represent all that is right, but when a healer gets flagged, the paladin will throw in his damage to help kill the person quicker, in which he should be marked an outcast right away due to fighting another good.

[Mendek]

Drow justice is some of the most brutally strict you'll ever see. Read the R. A. Salvatore stuff before you go saying drow don't have justice.

[Addreodyn]

In simple terms, Justice characters have decided that their lawfulness overrides their alignment when the two are in conflict.
You are defining good and evil in too narrow of terms. Learn to expand your RP beyond simple align/ethos. I decide how my character is going to act and then determine what his align/ethos should be, not the other way around.

[Athaekeetha]

In limited terms it can be described something like this:

Good
------
1) Lawful
- what you are describing as "good". Basically, your standard do-
gooder that never would think of doing anything wrong.

2) Neutral
- a basically "good" person who perhaps does not agree with the laws as they are set forth. They are not willing to get in trouble over breaking them, so for the most part they play along, but if they think they can get away with it they will. To break a law that they do not agree with does not contradict what they view as "good".

3) Chaotic
- a "good" person who seeks to fight evil in whatever form, whatever the cost, even if that means breaking the rules here and there. The quest to remove evil is far more important than the laws (and the laws could in fact be un-just, for instance in a kingdom ruled by an evil necromancer where there could be a law that if your name starts with B you are sentenced to death because the ruler has a lisp and cant pronounce the letter B.

Evil
----
1) Lawful
- an "evil" person who seeks as you say power and riches. However, he is willing to work within the confines of the law (or perhaps become the law himself) in order to meet his needs. For this person, time in a jail cell will work against his desires, rather than for them, so the laws are abided (or perhaps created by) this individual. This is sort of like a modern day cop that extorts money for "protection", or steals evidence, takes bribes, whatever.

2) Neutral
- a neutral "evil" follows the same sort of template as a neutral good, except they are evil. Ie, they bide their time and only break laws when they think they can get away with it. They do not flaunt their lawbreaking.

3) Chaotic
- self explanitory.. what you are defining as "evil". This is the sort of evil that knows no bounds and does whatever it takes to gain their ends (power, money, whatever). They care not a whit about what anyone else thinks or does.


These are of course very simplistic definitions, as they must be. There are no hard-and-fast rules when it comes to roleplay. You make up what you want, and fit it as closely as possible with one of the 9 possible align/ethos combinations. I wont detail the "neutral" chars here because they are much alike to what I've already shown. Hope that helps.

[Phostan]

Mendek, you are like the n00b cannon of Forgotten Realms. Seriously, holy shit. Are you perhaps, a novice to the arts of understanding? Do you know who the drow worship in Forgotten Realms? The evil Drow who live underground? They worship Lloth, the Spider Queen, also known as the Lady of Chaos. I want to hit you now. This is the second time you got Forgotten Realms wrong. The noble houses overthrow each other all the time, and it's allowed, as long as they don't leave any surviving members of the other noble house. The nobles can beat the crap out of whoever they please, if they're not noble. Commoners, slaves, they kill them all on whims, that guy looked at me funny, bam. They encourage deceit and underhandedness. Shit, Drows shouldn't be able to be lawful. I keep looking back at your post to see if there's something there to suggest you were being sarcastic, but no, it looks like you're buying good books and letting them go to waste. They are strict like I'm not a virgin. Overthrowing and killing your own mother to assume control of a noble House is expected common practice. Killing another Wizard with a dagger in the back because you couldnt beat him in a spell duel, is expected common practice. That's like there being a priest of Helm who is all about the crazy mad orgies and random knivings on the street. You make my head hurt through your lack of understanding. Any Justice drows have is a hollow mockery of true Justice as compared to what is expected on AR. a Drow Justice would snap and break those rules in about 5 seconds. "Oh, here's 5000 gold, go stand outside while I kill this guy? Thanks" Or "Oh shit, you saw that? Here's a mace of unholy spirits, how about you unflag me now? thanks." Never again shall you speak unknowingly, because I did my best to censor myself from being a flame, and I'm gonna let slip the dogs of war next time.[/quote]

[Davairus]

[Phostan]

No, that's dumb, because powerful enough houses are completely exempt even if they do a sloppy enough job of the takeover, if they have enough allies. If you ever read Homeland, Exile, and Sojourn, specifically the first book, someone survived the massacre of their family, yet they couldn't come right out and claim anything, because it was said Drizzt's family was too powerful to drag down with just his accusation, and he'd likely just be silenced. That's very loosely enforced laws. That's not strict at all. That's like, if a tiny tiny house, like, the 80th house, overthrowed the 79th, and f'ed it up, well, they're not even the top 8 houses, so who gives a shit? House 79 is all but dead, House 80 botched the job,everyone kill House 80, House 81 absorbs the remainders of house 79, all happy. If they were strict, they'd have no exceptions. If the Baenre family was bored and started killing the Second house, and didnt finish the job, it's very unlikely people would be like, hey, hey you, you were sloppy, we're gonna tear you apart now. Nope, wouldn't happen, then have Bregan D'aerthe or whatever Jarlaxle's band of rogue's are called, and they have an illithid to back them up, and they have a shitload of high priestesses, and are the favored house for thousands of years. No one would touch them. Those are not strict laws. It's like how rich famous people get off easy when it counts.


strict ( P ) Pronunciation Key (strkt)
adj. strict·er, strict·est
Precise; exact: a strict definition.
Complete; absolute: strict loyalty.
Kept within narrowly specific limits: a strict application of a law.
Rigorous in the imposition of discipline: a strict parent.
Exacting in enforcement, observance, or requirement: strict standards. See Synonyms at severe.
Conforming completely to established rule, principle, or condition: a strict vegetarian.
Botany. Stiff, narrow, and upright.


Drows have the pick and choose law, some are exempt, even though it's not written anywhere that they're supposed to be exempt. The term for that is selective, discriminating, law.

[Davairus]

Obviously I was referring to AR drows, when I mentioned that they're going to be a brutally strict type of law system. Because when I decided their laws, and wrote their history helpfiles, I didn't want to just rip off Forgotten Realms.

So let me get this straight, you're telling everyone that a society that prevents males from having important jobs, has no laws?

[Sebryn]

Everybody seems to be placing too much emphasis on the word 'law' in the word 'lawful.' Everybody automatically assigns the label of "lawful = Justice-friendly" to any character that has a lawful ethos.

Lawful alignments (in most gaming systems) simply refer to the fact that the character believes and adheres to A set of rules or guidelines in a certain aspect of their life, not necessarily "city law." How do you think rangers are allowed to be lawful? They're supposed to be one of the ultimate anti-organized law classes, being strongly opposed to city life and city law structures. However they follow the 'code' of the forest, laws of nature and such. It's not "law"ful according to a Justice, but it's still a set of rules and laws that govern the life of a ranger.

Honestly, I think a good way to RP a ranger in AR would be to be ignorant of the law entirely. You walk up on a corpse, you butcher it. The Justice flags or fines you, and you RP total ignorance, stating that it was a perfectly good piece of meat just lying around that nobody else was using. You'd do the same in the forest, so why wouldn't you in the city (which you're not supposed to be familiar/comfortable with in the first place)? This could be expounded on greatly, but I'll leave it alone here for the simple sake of argument.

As for drow, they also have a set of guidelines and rules. As already said above, their society is extremely rich in behavioral rules and laws that describe how the drow hierarchical monarchies interact with one another, but it's not recognized as "city law." Doesn't mean it's any less 'lawful,' does it?

For the purposes of understanding 'lawful' in relation to AR, here's what the game says when choosing an ethos for a new character:

[Phostan]

You were supporting Mendek's saying of drows being brutally strict, which he used Forgotten Realms drows as an example. Which, is false. I've explained this.

[Davairus]

I was supporting Mendek's saying drows as being brutally strict, therefore they can be lawfuls in the Abandoned Realms setting. His Forgotten Realms example may have been inappropriate, but then so are yours, as they are all equally irrelevant to the discussion of lawful drow on AR. If you would like to argue that drows are not lawful in Forgotten Realms, go ahead and do so on a Forgotten Realms forum. If we're talking about AR, then you telling me that drows shouldn't be lawful here is about as constructive as me telling R.Salvatore to fix the errors he's made in his adaptation of them, in his quest for filling pages and bringing in book sales to put food on his table.

Go ahead and point out where I've defended any interpretation he's made of Forgotten Realms, I'd like to see that. All I remember doing is sniping a few contradictions in your arguments, which conveniently you have been ignoring, and stating as clearly as I could (without passing the point of stupidity) that I was talking about AR's drows.

[Phostan]

Essentially, yes, and the only reason it went any further then that is you decided to comment on my remarks towards Mendek, which were about his lack of knowledge towards Forgotten Realms, and how you thought he was right about them being brutally strict, and even said,

[Davairus]

I'll forgive the misunderstanding of my post, but your worst error is the fallacies you're using, all of which are derived from errors in understanding. In particular, using "ad hominem" is against forum rules. But the most serious, and unfortunately also the most common fallacy I see on this forum, is the tendency people seem to fall victim to "confirmation bias", which I think is what reading Forgotten Realms may have done to you. But that mess is up to you to sort out. Be wary it doesn't happen to you with AR.

[Phostan]

Misunderstanding on whose part? But whatever, some people don't like to admit they made a mistake or phrased something the wrong way. It's always got to be the other guys fault. But hey, I'm sure it IS the other guys fault. So all is well.

[Davairus]

Well obviously the misunderstanding is on your end, as I know full well what I wrote and what I meant. You tell me what sense it makes to follow up with something said about forgotten realms with a specific AR reference, because I don't know. It'd be pretty dumb. If I was arguing about forgotten realms, I'd be quoting from situations inside that, considering there's 200 books of the stuff, NOT from AR.

[Hrash]

*DING DING DING*
Davairus vs. Astinor..who will win?
One has the power to ban/block/slay/screw over everyone on AR and AR forum. The other?.....?.....?.....?

From what I see, Astinor is a huge huge Forgotten Realms fan who will rip out the ball sacks of anyone who screws with his love. As Davairus pointed out, this is AR, not Forgotten Realms. If you wanna discuss what drows do in Forgotten Realms, go play a Forgotten Realms mud. His mud, his rules, his ideas.

[Viggs]

Yes I agree, Thieves should get hellstream.
Shite wrong forum
Bonk!