Musician Archive
Thread: AFK Musician Killed
Page 2 of 2
Kiatra
Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:25 pm
#14
this kinda thing happens a lot, and quite frankly i dont feel sorry for the people...they have every right to kill you. I dont know i guess to me death in this game really isnt that big a deal less you got buffs or summ...you can clone to avoid wounds, and well things dont decay taht badly...
Tape_Dispenser
Mon Apr 19, 2004 2:29 pm
#15
Shyloche wrote:
Eesh. While I certainly agree with my own opinion and have my certain views, my anecdote was purely to elicit a chuckle, not create a debate, orgarner excuses for me or the one who killed me. Asa roleplayer, I support versimilitude...ie. imperials are evil, murderous, cowardly, and unsportsman as a general rule (not a constant), so it is fitting that an imperial should slay me down without concern for ethics, morals, or rules of war. In fact, I would even agree that it is an imperialistic perogative to execute such individuals blithely. Since it is fitting for an imperial to be dishonorable....I see no need to argue that they are justified for being unethical. Since it is fitting for a Rebel to be honorable, I see no need to argue that it is justified to be outraged by such an action. As for actual argument itself....there IS no argument since the side I support is an actual law, therefore by default described as right. To believe going against said law is ok because it makes things easier, or more fun, is by default wrong. You can just as effectively argue that you shouldn't have to stop at a red light because you can see that there is no traffic coming.
Lol. I have to say that this is one of the most pompous posts I think I've ever read. First of all, although some may view the Imperials as "evil, murderous, cowardly, and unsportsman[like]," I view them as simply rational. To them,victory is valued above all else. They care much more about winning than about fighting a fair fight, and so it is only natural that they will always look for an edge, and certainly will take one when it presents itself. If this includes killing entertainers or medical personnel, then so be it. That's just logical, it makes sense, and I would think that in a debate centered around who can provide a more rational argument, that one would win over the "honorable" side. Honor, ethics, sportsmanship, these are all based upon an individual's opinions, whereas reason is not. Killing an entertainer makes sense if you are trying to win a war, and that's all there is to it.
I have to admit I feel a little goofy saying all of this, because I understand that it was only meant to "elicit a chuckle," and actually thought it was kind of funny to see all of this arising out of it, however after the "imp-bashing," I felt I had to chime in with my two cents.
Also, the fact that someone decided to make a law out of it doesn't make your position "by default described as right." The truth is there is no "right" or "wrong" here, because the issue is entirely based on opinions, which is why there can be a debate about it. I'm pretty sure these people weren't arguing over whether there was a law about this, but rather whether they thought it was okay to kill medical personnel in a time of war, and so your statement that the law is on your side isout of placehere. Personally I think that you should be able to runa red light if there is no traffic coming, especially late at night when there are literally no other cars on the road. It feels so goofy sitting at a red light for two minutes when there is nothing going on around you. I don't deny that my argument wouldn't get me out of a fine, but it is still an argument over an opinion that I am capable of having, regardless of what the law says.
Rhythmic
Tue Apr 20, 2004 8:51 am
#16
I wonder how rational it was to destroy the unarmed planet of Alderran to prove a point.
Darkfalcon03
Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:56 pm
#17
/bump
Please keep this mindless argument going. It is the highlight of my days.
LadyGrey
Thu Apr 22, 2004 4:22 pm
#18
Well, to muddy the waters further: The Red Cross are non-combatants, usually do not carry weapons, and are usually not affiliated with one side or another. Medics, however, are in a gray area. A medic is affiliated with a particular side, and though they cannot be forced to use a weapon, they are certainly allowed to use one to defend themselves or their patients. Although a medic is allowed to use their skill to heal any casualties, regardless of affiliation, they could become a target at certain times because of their value as a healer, especially during a running battle.
If, however, a medic was seen to take up arms, especially if not in defense of themselves or their patients, then that medic would simply be another soldier, who just happens to have some skills in addition to the primary function of attacking the enemy. In which case, that particular person could not justify themselves as a simple medical non-combatant, and would be just as liable to attack as any other soldier on the battlefield (or cantina).
I congratulate the original poster for having a good sense of humor about the situation. It was perhaps a bit unfair, but was also understandable.
If, however, a medic was seen to take up arms, especially if not in defense of themselves or their patients, then that medic would simply be another soldier, who just happens to have some skills in addition to the primary function of attacking the enemy. In which case, that particular person could not justify themselves as a simple medical non-combatant, and would be just as liable to attack as any other soldier on the battlefield (or cantina).
I congratulate the original poster for having a good sense of humor about the situation. It was perhaps a bit unfair, but was also understandable.
Gknee
Thu Apr 22, 2004 5:53 pm
#19
Traigal wrote:
Even in war there are people on each side who are offlimits!!
you ever hear of the red cross anyone ever cought attacking them in in wartime would be sought after for war crimes by the rest of the world after so the argument that if you join a side you should be killed is bull**edit** come kill a priest of a pastor next? I mean they are on a side right?
Yes...true..red cross. But...in SWG..if you are factioned..you aren't "red cross". If you want to be "red cross" stay neutral.
Tackoi
Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:28 am
#20
Exactly what I was going to say.
Gknee wrote:
Traigal wrote:
Even in war there are people on each side who are offlimits!!
you ever hear of the red cross anyone ever cought attacking them in in wartime would be sought after for war crimes by the rest of the world after so the argument that if you join a side you should be killed is bull**edit** come kill a priest of a pastor next? I mean they are on a side right?
Yes...true..red cross. But...in SWG..if you are factioned..you aren't "red cross". If you want to be "red cross" stay neutral.
Page 2 of 2