Re: City of Berlum

--- Smu Anonymous <sxoa@?????.com> wrote:
> Blackmail is an unlawful demand of money or property under threat or
> coercion to cause bodily harm, or to damage property, or to accuse of
> a crime, or to expose disgraceful defects.
> -From http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/blackmail
>
> So actually Eric is correct when he says blackmail is by definition
> illegal.  Since the author used the word blackmail as opposed
> something like, say, lawful coercion, we know for a fact that it is
> illegal in the city of Berlum.  This means that she violates the law,
> on a regular basis (whenever it is deemed neccesary).  This is, in
> fact, not Lawful Good behavior.

You mean a law that doesn't apply to her?  "Blackmail", regardless of
the formal definition given in one source, is used in everyday
(American) English to describe a type of coercion, illegal or not.  It
is, in fact, frequently used by the "justice system" at many levels.
So the fact that your source doesn't cite all possible definitions
simply shows the incompleteness and unreliability of your source.  And
you still have the problem that she isn't part of that city so its laws
do not apply to her (much like a Saudi prince who arrives in America
with several wives--very lawful under his culture and illegal in
America).

> With bribery
> http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/bribe
> It says it is corrupt, but only usually illegal.

Highlight on usually.  And since in this case it's actually being used
to "uncorrupt" (you can look that one up ;) the definition doesn't seem
to fit the context anyway.  Besides, how can you corrupt something
that's already corrupted?

>  Bribery generally gives an unfair advantage to one party or another,
> when they should be playing on equal footing.  It is also generally
> considered dishonest, both of which are lawful good no nos.  Just ask
> a Paladin, they'll give you a long speech about it.

"Should be playing on an equal footing"?  Where do you get that that
should ever happen, especially when dealing with political intrigue
between nations?  Besides, in this case bribery is the equalest footing
of all:  if the other guy can coem up with more money for the right
people, they win. :)  Not sure where you get that "good" and "lawful"
have "equal footings" as virtues, either.  Have you ever seen the
abilities of a paladin compared to most any other class?  Have you ever
paid attention to how unequal the law is when it drops a small army on
a couple bank robbers?

> <<They temper the law with GOODNESS, you know, things like
> compassion.>>  As well as honesty, and fairness.  Besides the "threat
> or coercion to cause bodily harm, or to damage property, or to accuse
> of a crime, or to expose disgraceful defects" can hardly be labled as
> <<compassionate>>

I've never noticed honesty as part of the definition of GOOD.  Fairness
is dealt with above.  As far as your own quote, you are obviosuly blind
and unable to comprehend my own point originally made:  is is better to
threaten harm or actually slay someone outright?  Hmm, seems the first
is more merciful, compassionate, and gives them the chance to reform in
the future, things that should fit perfectly in your ultra-modern and
narrow view of law and goodness.  After all, its what the punishment
laws of modern society are all about and has that really nice Christian
flavor.


> <<Actually most people are neutral.  They couldn't give a dungheap
> one
> way or the other as long as their asses are fat, dumb, and happy.>>
> While it goes into philosophy and human nature and what not, I would
> disagree with you.
> As evidence I would cite the public outcry concerning the American
> torturing of prisoners in Abu Ghraib.  Their asses are fat dumb and
> happy, yet they still condemn something happening to people they have
> never met and isn't going to change when they get their next meal or
> pay check.

I have looked at the public outcry.  I've sen some politicians stand up
and make speeches for their own benefit when they really don't care
about the Abu Ghraib prisoners.  I've seen the American news media try
to milk the story for all its worth.  And I've seen the Arabs
scratching their heads over why we're still talkign about it (if you
want some perspective I suggest you start with the BBC, not ABC).
Regardless, it's easy to whine when you don't have to do anything.  Now
go ask the Iraqis what they want (or the Afghans, or the Rwandans,
or...) and you'll find they want stability and safety and good give a
rat's butt about kindness and fairness and all that jazz.  Hence we
have 42% of the people saying Saddam should be released without trial
and Russians pining away for Stalin.

At this point I'm not goign to bother to educate you any more.  You
obviously have a very myopic and one sided, absolutest view to lawful
good.  Oh those poor people who might litter in front of a paladin.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail