Are you actually trying to make a point here?

Death relieve suffering, therefore killing people is good. Therefore all people should die...
Are you actually going anywhere with this...
becuase I can't see anything approaching a solid argument here...

The whole idea of mercy killings in Lusternia is basically limited to wanting to keep your stuff if you're being robbed, or wanting to shed off an affliction lock when there are no healers around. I think there's enough evidence from those who came out of the Portal that says that killing isn't going to fix anything like taint. That's applying a very OOC concept to Lusternia.

No it isnt, they are obviously tainted and crazy, they are a danger to themselves and the other people around them. They're crazy and suffering the life of a tainted they cant realise how much better it would be if they could come to the light, but oh well every dog has its day time to put them out of their misery put them down and let them rest in piece.

Its compasinate to put down a person or an animal whos suffering and has no quality of life, you can argue the tainted are like this just they dont realise it, a la rabid dog or the donkey on the feris wheel "He dosnt know how he got up their, but he's sure as heck going to bite the first person that tries to get him down,".... Sorry I really just wanted to say that as well



Repeat it as much as you like thats not my arguement.

Going from the IC perspective that the fates will resurrect you anyway is a lame RP reason. Yes your character sees others return constantly, but that is a necesarry OOC evil or the game would not work (howmany people would want to start from scratch every dead?). However meeting the fates should ICly still be considered to cause perma-dead in most cases. Just like the other ooc evils like only having a handfull of NPCs in cities while it probably would have thousands of non player citizens.

Razorvine, you seem to have a fundamental problem with believing compassion is an ooc good only thing. However it's not so, compassion knows no sides and there have been a lot of 'compassion killings' in real life simply because the moral grounds of a person where totally different.

conclussion
compassion != good
compassion != moral high ground
compassion != snugglefest
compassion = an action you do because you pity someone and want to help them by changing the thing you pity.

Well its pretty much suspend your disbelief, we know death ooc isnt a big deal but ic death and praying kind of could be you may not come back from it.

I mean I know I cant kiss someone to death but that dosn't stop me from doing it in game now does it.

Yes it is.
You are attempting to justify violence on the grounds of compassion. Not good.
What else do you think you are trying to argue here?


What do you mean by this?


And this is a weak argument...
"Any action is valid on the grounds of compassion, therefore I can justify any action by saying I do it for compassionate reasons." - this just doesn't stand up. Maybe some actions can be justified (and here we enter into the area of euthanasia), but certainly not all.

Now... the really hard part of this arguement is that in order to justify its in-game application you would need to show how genocide can be excused as compassion. I'm sorry, but I just don't think you are going to convince any sane person of this.

The question is, compassion for who...

Compassion for your countrymen, genoicide can be compassion... or even "humanity" as a whole.

Think about the genoicide of bacteria for the sake of humans.

Compassion = Celest. A swarm of idiots to rival the Zerg with a few people half decent in combat. And when they start to lose and you buy the expansion pack, they join up with their former enemies the Protoss to stomp the attackers into the ground.

I've been playing Starcraft a lot lately. Sue me. I'll edit this post the moment I remember what my point was.

2. oddly enough I have never argued that murder is good, only that it can be compesionate. It's what I meaned with 1., you can't seem to see compassion seperate from the good/evil spectrum.

3. Compassion does not make any action valid, it only makes us feel better about doing it.

4. once again Genocide of a diseased race can easily be excused as compassion. It just tends towards the evil spectrum of a game though. And Celest is supposed to be evil and inquistiony and not at all the snuggly place it is now. Heck, I have yet to see a merian RP superiority to other races in Celest, something that is sorta implied in Celest's design.

-edit- meh appears this one was logged in and not anisu, pretend anisu posted that.

Razorvine your not at all listening to my arguement, and you've not once replied to a single point i have made aside from the made up one about violence is compassion. Until you actually refute my post theres no point arguing with you.

Not true. I have addressed your aguement directly.

Your aguements have involved saying that you can use compassion to excuse violence. You have provided no support for this claim. However, regardless of whether you did or didn't, this was and always will be a weak argument. This is pretty self-evident if you read some of the other posts trying to justify it.

However...
This is not really what I am trying to do here.
I would like to encourage everyone to stop following the "I can find an excuse to kill you in the name of compassion" arguement and look for something more interesting.

Try starting from "Compassion is strength" and see where it leads you.

Elgar = Anisu?

2. Do you really believe that murder (not euthanasia) can be compassionate? Even if you do, I doubt you'll convince many others. Compassion may well be used as an 'excuse' but if the action is viewed objectively - will anyone really believe that murder is compassionate? I think not.

1. Seems to me good and evil is irrelevant to this debate.

3. Yes, Used as an excuse. Now, was the action truely compassionate?

4. Yes, this is about as weak as the argument gets. Do you expect anyone to believe this. I believe you are being clouded by in character views. In fact bringing any in-game references into this discussion really just weakens the argument more.

Without wanting to open up a debate which I'd rather we left alone, that reminds me of the type of language used by a certain 20th century German Dictator.

The thing is though, real life is not Lusternia.. we should try not to put real world analogues to an in-game situation. I understand the kill-the-Tainted-compassionate argument. It makes sense enough In Game.. it just loses all coherence if you take it out.

You still arguing besides the point here. I'll humor you by pointing it out again

Compassion != a moral deed (or 'good')

Compassion has to do with intent. Moral deeds exist out of intent, means, result (who would of thought I'd ever have to use my psychology lessons). While Celest's intent is good, their means are appaling and the result would be it's pretty useless since you can't destroy taint. Making it a bad action, yet still compasionate.

You are still thinking that Compassion soully lives on a good moral ground.

1. good and evil are subjective terms, let's just pretend good = moral and evil = not moral.
2. accourding to definition of compassion, it's still compassion
4. I'm not clouded by my characters views, as my character Anisu is not a moral person and doesn't claim to be either. Me oocly does not approve of murder nor would I do even half of what Anisu does.

It's a fair point, but you haven't read that bit of Razorvine's post where he writes "if the action if viewed objectively". As a result you're sort of arguing at cross purposes.

I did accually, and I also saw he immediatly returned that someone would say it's not compassionate. But the opposite is quite true, there have been trials where someone was convicted for compassionate murder, Psychological profiling proved this person believed he was really freeing his victem. As a result he was labeled a psychopath and send to a special institute.

If Razorvine wants to argue that compassion killing taint would not work if you tried it in real life, then ofcourse not. You Aiakon, brought the example of someone that did. However you also kindly pointed out we are allowed to be fascist, unmoral, overzealous murderers in game.

However he keeps trying to argue it's not 'compassion'. Which objectively is false.

Thank you. I think this supports my view quite well.
As you illustrate above, attempting to justify violence with compassion... is not a strong case.

And such a boring view...
A little more creativity would be nice...

No you havn't.

It seems you don't understand the point im trying to make.

To make it simple I will ask you a few questions to help you.

First of all explain to me how it isnt compasinate to kill or put down something that has no quality of life and no real life any more.

Answer that and ill continune to explain my point so you can understand it.

I do enjoy this sort of argument.

Ok, Ferlas.

How is it not compassionate to kill or put down something that has no quality of life and no real life any more? Well. Before we answer that question, let's just take a step back. Who are we to decide who has and who does not have a decent quality of life? After all, most people reading this thread would assume that we had 'no real life' at all. Barring the clearly obvious, it is difficult to find an objective measurement for what is "quality of life" and what isn't. I was reading an article recently about two people suffering from terminal illnesses, I forget which. Two patients in more or less the same state had thoroughly different opinions: The first, though in great pain, wished to enjoy the few months that remained, believing each day to be a blessing; the second wanted euthanasia.

Having agreed that we can never be truly sure that our measurements for quality of life are the true ones, it is much harder to agree with your original premise: the highly reductive "it is compassionate to kill something without quality of life". We could perhaps change it... "it is compassionate to kill something which believes it has no quality of life." Makes more sense, no? Then lets apply that back to Lusternia again.

Anisu clone: Hey Aiakon! You're a tainted viscanti bastard, and I should kill you, because you would be happier.

Aiakon: I beg to differ, old chap.. I'm rather happy as I am, thanks awfully.

Anisu: No. No you're not. You're not happy, so I will kill you and it will be compassionate.

Aiakon: urr.. no. I'm happy. Really, I'm happy. Look, see my big teethy smile? I'm happy!

Anisu: But you must DIE ANYWAY, because once dead, you will be happier.

Aiakon: No, no.. I've been dead before, didn't like it much I must confess. Not anxious to repeat it.. sorry, find a depressive Magnagoran. Plenty about..

Anisu: DIE!

etc