ursulav made a teeny post featuring the painting title from a dream: "Two Ninjas Negotiating With An Earth Elemental To Buy Gravity." (never seen in the dream, sadly).
Now I want to do a magic system based on the premise of magic-users licensing from various elemental beings the right to use, abuse, and violate natural laws.
Well, the straight man is often the subject of humor, but I think he has to be able to appreciate the humor in order to truly participate, otherwise it starts to feel like picking on someone who can't hit back.
A scoundrel, maybe... I was thinking conscience-less, closer to evil - sell people out. As odd as it may seem, I view people like Slippery Jim (the Stainless Steel Rat of Harry Harrison's books) being not without integrity, but possessed of a more flexible moral code. There are lines they won't cross.
You might be right, re: the character being crippled by a lack of self-respect, as much as anything else. I dunno, maybe it's worth digging the story up and filing off the serial numbers.
I think to be conscience-less you'd have to sell your conscience. No integrity means no one could ever trust you to keep your word or follow any sort of rules, but that doesn't mean you'd suddenly NOT feel bad if someone you cared about got hurt.
But right, there wouldn't be any line you wouldn't cross if you thought it was a good idea, and a lot of people probably have a bunch of psychotic behavior just waiting for a lack of integrity to slip out and cause horrific damage.
Thieves and Kings put it like (paraphrased 'cause I don't remember it exactly), "A thief follows no rules, which means that he has to be extra careful that he's doing the right thing. If anyone else causes harm they can fall back on 'I did everything I was supposed to' or 'I was just doing what I was told', but a thief has no one to blame but himself for the consequences of his actions."
Well, the 90s maybe, although I didn't start reading it 'till the 2000s and it was still putting out new issues until a couple years ago, when it sort of trailed off. I don't think it ever officially ended.
That is an interesting take on it. Pretty much the "chaotic good" view, I suppose, but I hadn't heard it phrased that way. So integrity is what makes you follow the rules even when you don't want to? I think integrity is also what keeps people from taking bribes ... I'm not sure how that'd fit in. It works, I think -- integrity is deciding to do things the right and difficult way, instead of the easy way that probably won't cause (much) harm.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-20 10:01 pm (UTC)A scoundrel, maybe... I was thinking conscience-less, closer to evil - sell people out. As odd as it may seem, I view people like Slippery Jim (the Stainless Steel Rat of Harry Harrison's books) being not without integrity, but possessed of a more flexible moral code. There are lines they won't cross.
You might be right, re: the character being crippled by a lack of self-respect, as much as anything else. I dunno, maybe it's worth digging the story up and filing off the serial numbers.
no subject
Date: 2008-06-20 10:12 pm (UTC)But right, there wouldn't be any line you wouldn't cross if you thought it was a good idea, and a lot of people probably have a bunch of psychotic behavior just waiting for a lack of integrity to slip out and cause horrific damage.
Thieves and Kings put it like (paraphrased 'cause I don't remember it exactly), "A thief follows no rules, which means that he has to be extra careful that he's doing the right thing. If anyone else causes harm they can fall back on 'I did everything I was supposed to' or 'I was just doing what I was told', but a thief has no one to blame but himself for the consequences of his actions."
no subject
Date: 2008-06-20 10:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-20 10:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-21 06:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-21 09:48 pm (UTC)And it's certainly chaotic to not value integrity, whether or not you have it yourself.
Hee. Lazy chaos == no integrity. Lazy law == no critical thinking. Lazy good == no self respect?
no subject
Date: 2008-06-22 02:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-21 05:50 pm (UTC)