Posted by Graatch(VIP) on May 12, 2000 at 14:03:44:
In Reply to: Situational ethics: posted by Khiravn on May 12, 2000 at 12:53:36:
> > 1 - Dolraxis gives out sanc and heal to
> > other Imperials and even Masters like
> > a pedophile giving candy to children.. often
> > and almost always without getting anything
> > out of it. He should've been anathema'd
> > ages ago for that. He was anathema'd then
> > more for his past actions than anything else,
> > I reckon.
>
> Fine. Although "payment" is loosely defined. There are ways to repay someone other than in gold. If they are raiding for the Emperor's items, should Dolraxis demand gold in return for protections? Because it was only in that situation (that I saw) when Dolraxis handed out protections "like candy".
>
> >
> > 2 - Baalimon, I think the answer was already
> > given.
>
> Again. Situational ethics. Baalimon had much to gain from pinpointing the raider:
>
> 1. loot for him and donations for his sect.
> 2. safety of the codex and the emperor's items.
> 3. recognition of an imperial that might pay off in future events.
>
> Honestly: I find it ridiculous that anyone thinks it is a violation of Imperial law to assist one another when it is for the express purpose of securing the Emperor's items. It is *ridiculous*. Because you can be Anath'd for *not* securing the items. So you log in and an Immortal that Anath'd you reminds the cabal that Law #2 is not being obeyed. Fine. And the only other imperials are from other sects. Fine, you secure their momentary aid. Obeying law #2. and in the midst of a raid, you say:
>
> "Rezikert on side street"
>
> and bam. Anathema? For assisting to obey Law #2? Anathema? For not obeying Law #2?
>
> To me, the Immortal that is Anathematezing you seems to be operating on an internal set of standards that are completely arbitrary and have zero to do with what is going on at the moment.
>
> Reading his post, it seems as though he snoops people for a long time and builds a list of how bad they are as Imperials before Anathematizing them. And that is fine. But that is not clear from the logs we've seen. It isn't clear to anyone unless they're in his mind. And it doesn't appear as though he feels the need to explain his actions to someone, even when that someone has gone through the long process of empowerment. Which, again, is his perogative. Fine. Anyway, the option here is:
>
> 1. Try to meet arbitrary and short-sighted "rules" that aren't included at all in the Sect/Imperial Laws (re: situational ethics during a *raid*)
>
> 2. Just dont' play an Imperial.