Posted by Forum Reader on May 12, 2000 at 14:35:28:
In Reply to: Situational ethics: posted by Khiravn on May 12, 2000 at 12:53:36:
> 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".
I agree with what you've said, but you can't disregard historical factors. Has Dolraxis freely given
out shit in the past. If so, has he made the smallest attempt to receive a "loosely defined payment".
One of the problems with discussing this is that we don't have the whole story. We don't know if there
is a backstory to all this. Is there precedent in Dolraxis' past? Does his role say that he will seek
out "loosely defined payment" later?
> 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.
The problem was just looking at the log is that Baalimon never said, "I will
pass on this information for part of the loot". All it would take was a quick
tell. You claim they'll loose the emperor's codex, well shit, the two of them
could take it right back.
> 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.
You are usually fairly level headed, but this is ridiculous. What sort of Empire do you
want? Genofen's Empire? Or Tacelous'? One big happy evil family? Or back stabbing/infighting/
I want all the power to myself empire.
> 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:
This is MY point. Why should it be evident that Dolraxis has been watched for questionable behavior? It goes to the point that we
don't know the backstory and we are getting a very ONE-SIDED view.
> 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*)
Arbitrary and short sighted? The immortals have an specific view of the Empire in mind.
The Laws are there to maintain order within the Empire. Being lawful evil, isn't it up
to you to bend those laws to suit your own needs?
If it breaks down to "situational ethics", I can sit here and put a different spin on the
situation that might lead to a different interpretation. An imperial should be looking to gain
from any situation. Be it a raid, a counter raid, or a pk in the middle of New Thalos.
> 2. Just dont' play an Imperial.
Your reaction to this makes me wonder if you're playing one.