It's all about me, me, me!

The law in Praetoria, a despotic regime, is illegitimate. No human being is wrong for opposing Praetoria's laws, which can more fairly be called Cole's desires.

They don't kill Innocent civilians... And they don't enslave anyone, either. They -return- slaves back to their owners, but don't go out and capture any.

One extrajudicial Execution, though that could be played either way, since your choices are execute a spy or murder a cop to join the resistance. Personally I washed my hands of it and let Washington kill her.

As for propping up a madman: They don't do anything of the sort. They stop others from killing innocents, or what are innocents to the best of their personal knowledge.

They don't torture anyone, or aid or abet Genocide... Don't know WHERE you're getting -that- line from.

And while the organization might be Lawful evil, individual members can be Lawful Good.

-Rachel-

Well from what I can see Vanguard is pretty much Neutral or Chaotic already so no issue there. As for Lawful Good Heroes (which does not apply to all Heroes), yes arguably it would be wrong for them to oppose Cole since he was legally elected. However he has attacked Primal Earth so under the circumstances it is acceptable for a Primal Earth Hero to defend his (or her) dimension.

To be honest that line was poorly worded, it would have been better to say: trying to destroy the system of the society that you belong to is not necessarily a "good" act and is definitely not a "lawful" act. Better?

There's nothing polite about Tyrant's society

And oppession isn't subjective when it's the oppression of a dictatroship

And murder the families of teachers who don't educate the people in the "right" way.

Protecting the dictatorship isn't the same as protecting the people

Loyalist don't seem to be too hot on providing freedom for the people they're "protecting"

While damaging their mental health by drugging them to be docile and obedient.

With a third of Tyrant's budget spent on "security", the stromtroopers are certainly a growth industry

Being a Seer is pretty high up on the list of degrading things you could do to someone.

It's drinkable, yeah - and Tyrant really wants you to drink it too

And torture chambers and slaughter houses underneath the streets and roads.

The BAF certainly has space for a lot of residents - and all rent-free too.

Indeed it does

Every citizen is a victim fo the dictatorship

Maybe if Tyrant gave the people their freedom they wouldn't feel the need to rise up against him?

The difference is that the people have no say. A say in the rules you live under is important. It's absolutely critical. It why when people trot out the tired and irrelevant argument that the USA has laws, all I can do is shake my head and pray for better history education.

Of course, we live under the rule of law, but we have the right in a democracy to have a say in how those laws are created and enforced. We can question the government and hold it accountable. This is not possible in Praetoria.


There is a corollary to the argument you make above. You denounce the resistance for opposing all this, but do not question whether the list you provide above is good or bad. Living in a nanny state is not good. Unearned safety turns a populace into sheep. That is not good.

Why do good parents allow their children to make mistakes? Because that's the only way that they grow. Freedom isn't easy, it isn't always fun, it isn't always safe. But it allows us to grow and develop who we are as human beings. That's a good thing IMO. And it's even further evidence of the absolute evil that is Praetoria.

No....they most certainly do not.

Not true, Cole was appointed rule by the UN and is therefore a legitimate dictator. Besides I never said disobeying the rules was "wrong" (i.e. evil) I said it was not Lawful. For a Lawful Good character rebellion is supposed to be the last resort, working to reform the system from the inside is the ideal goal (which is pretty much what the Responsibility faction is doing).

Well that makes it totally ok then

And what's one little murder amongst all the other crimes you're committing as a loyalist? It's not like theyre' going to notice one more or one less corspe when they're doing the daily body count of "enemies of the state" that they'd dealt with.

If you're not against Tyrant, than you're with him

Anyone you arrest has a pretty good chance of being tortured - unless all those torutre areas under the PPD precinct buildings are some kind of theme park or museum.

You are if you don't turn against Tyrant.

I think Wilfully Blind might be a better alignment for those types

There's no such thing - Tyrant is not a legitimate leader, because he's oppressing the people.

Wait a minute. You have consistently held the Wardens to task for the supposed sins of the Crusaders. You have said that Crusader characters are villains because they murder innocent civilians, but now you stand here and try to let the Responsibility Loyalists out of the sins of the organization they work for.

Everything I've said is things that the PPD have done and can be observed doing in Praetoria. You don't get to have it both ways. If the Resistance can be written off as villains for the sins of a few, then hold the Loyalists to the same standard or show yourself to be a hypocrite.

You can't "appoint" a dictator. He either regularly submits to free and fair elections (quite impossible given Enriche) or he gives up his right to call his rule legitimate. Personally, from the missions, it's not like Cole even cares if his rule is legitimate.

There is no need for a Lawful Good character to try and reform Praetoria. It is not based on the rule of law and rebellion against it is per se just. Luke Skywalker for instance would be Lawful Good, taking up the good fight against a tyrant.

You're right. You're absolutely right, Evil Geko. Just like I've said, earlier in this thread, every path is tarnished. But an individual person's ALIGNMENT and their own deeds are their own. I've only pointed to the Warden commitment to the sins of the Crusaders when Golden Cole or others point to the organization the Loyalists support.

If you look at it from that light, both sides are darkly written and support genocide, murder, and carnage.

If you're taking it at an individual level, everyone except Crusaders can still be a good and -Altruistic- person. The Crusaders program death machines to wipe everyone out, and organize the destruction of every person inside two cities, so I can't ever see them as altruistic and good...

But that's the thing. Are you saying the Organization is evil, or each individual in the organization? I'll agree to the first one, but never the second.

-Rachel-

Unfortunately for the loyalist stropmntroopers, this isn't Praetoria, so criticism of the insane god-emperor they worship can't be suppressed that easily

I leave the ignorance of ethics to the loyalist stormtroopers

Mass murder, slavery, torture and oppression might be trivial to loyalist stromtroopers, but they're quite a big deal for heroes

Freedom is also and absolute requirement for a good society - so I can see why loyalists might find that kind of absolute to be something they weren't too keen on - absolute power is more their thing

Don't a lot of dictators get thier start by getting elected (or appointed ) fairly, then later getting rid of any fair election?
Seems like I've heard that one before.

The legitimacy of a ruler has nothing to do with how he acts it has to do with his claim to power. Cole's claim to power is legitimate: he was appointed by the UN who presumably in the Praetoria-verse had the authority to do so. His actions afterward mean that he needs to be dealt with but they do not invalidate the legitimacy of that original appointment.

A dictatorship is not inherently evil. Dictatorships tend to be evil because, basically, power corrupts but the basic concept is not inherently evil. There are historical examples of a monarch or dictator who didn't have elections and are still well regarded by history as a just ruler (Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth I are both examples off the top of my head). Any system of government has people who attempt to abuse it to their own purposes. A dictatorship si easier to abuse than most but it is not automatically evil.

It's standard dictator playbook. I don't even argue that he wasn't ORIGINALLY brought to power legally, but you can't get that job for life.

Both rulers you mentioned had their power constrained by the Church, nobility and merchant classes. Not that those groups were any better, but it made both ladies seem nice in comparison!

It still illustrates my point, elections are not required to be "legitimate" or "good" they simply make it slightly easier to weed out the really bad leaders.

But they weren't dictators was my point. They did not have the sort of absolute rule that Cole has.

Only if you incorrectly assume that "Lawful Good" means "Most Good" and is somehow "more" good than "Chaotic Good".

The most infuriating thing about conversations that involve D&D's alignments is this huge misconception that "Lawful Good" is somehow the most good of good alignments (probably based on the also flawed view that Paladins are epitomes of goodness.) This is not the case. One "Good" is not "more good" than any other "Good", and the Law/Chaos axis is as valid a difference as the Good/Evil axis. An individual can value Chaos over Law (and it's clear at least the character you play in these debates does, Evil Geko).

At the most basic, the easiest to understand level, Good and Evil break down to "Selfless vs. Selfish", while Law and Chaos break down to "Society vs. Individual".

Lawful Good is only more good if you also agree that the good of society is more important than the good of an individual.

Technically they did have absolute rule, they just lacked the ability to enforce it. In any case my argument was more against your assertion that free and fair elections were required to make a rule legitimate. I'm not arguing that Cole isn't evil, I simply object to the idea that a lack of elections is the reason he's evil.

EDIT: On the Luke Skywalker side I would say he's Neutral Good. The Jedi Council on the other hand were Lawful Stupid.

Not true. If fact, I find "Neutral Good" to be the most good alignment. It's good unhindered by the concepts of law or chaos. I consider Luke Skywalker, Lawful Good, because uphold certain societal norms of fair play, fair dealing, honesty, etc. He's a criminal in the galaxy of SW, of course, but that's because the government is currently in the hands of an illegitimate ruler who came to power fraudulently.

I agree to a point. But I think that someone who values good and is less concerned with rules (whether they be societal norms or actual laws) is likely to better epitomize good.

As for the role I play, I'm fairly extreme in my defense of individual freedom, yes.

I don't see good as "selfless." There is an argument to be made that being good, even in absence of legal mandate, is in one's personal self-interest. I think altruism, kindness, empathy, respect other's rights better reflect goodness.

I don't believe Lawful Good is more good.

Two points:

First point: It is impossible to argue reason with unreasonable. When the other side's argument is "You're evil, so everything you do is bad, neener neener", it is literally impossible to have a reasoned debate. The reason must come from both sides.

Second point: The problem with reducing the situation down to being a civil war is that, much like many of these arguments, it grossly oversimplifies the issue. One glaring error those that debate on the Resistance side commit constantly and consistently is assuming that Hamidon and the Devouring Earth are non-entities in the equation. The Loyalist side rarely tries to justify crushing individual rights with an argument that acknowledges the Resistance; Praetoria is the way it is because of Hamidon, not the Resistance.

Beyond that, as far as the information we have can tell us, it is an undeniable empirical fact that at least some of the protections and restrictions put in place by the State have, undeniably, saved the human race from extinction at the hands of the Devouring Earth. Whether all the restrictions in place are necessary to maintain that protection is debatable, but until both sides can at least agree that there is a Devouring Earth problem and that it is one that must be addressed, there will be no reasoned debate, because the planes of understanding of the two sides will forever be perpendicular, not parallel, and we'll all just look like flat, empty lines to the other side.

Fixed.

Episode III was a particularly apt example of that.

Again both sides do that. Some people argue that the Crusaders are inherently evil and will accept no argument to the contrary.

I always appreciate that the Hamidon is a risk. But risk is inherent in freedom. Calvin Scott, to my knowledge, has never stated that things will be safer under a free rule. In fact, I personally do not believe that they will. I think the most likely scenario for Praetoria freed of Cole is escape to Primal Earth and the surrender of Praetoria to Hamidon.

I find that to be a vastly preferable solution than the status quo. Because freed of Enriche and living in Primal, the people of Praetoria have a chance to make their own way in life without the nanny state, without the thought police and without Cole. I don't see how living in the nightmare that is Praetoria appeals to so many of you.

By the same token, I wish the pro-Loyalist side could honestly engage on the issue. The Seers are horrific, Cole's mad plans to invade Primal are horrific, Neuron's failed experiments are horrific.

I really get tired of people waving these things away. It is no better than GGs arguments.