>I absolutely, positively agree with this statement. The
>good-aligned rager who justifies his killing of good-aligned
>mages with the argument that "they're evil" is not being
>honest with himself, and has convinced himself of these mages'
>evilness in clear opposition to the truth. The average
>goodie mage doesn't act evil. So I would consider it
>highly questionable for a goodie rager to regard them as such.
> But you don't have to regard mages as "evil" to be compelled
>to kill them.

Wait, wait, what? Are you talking about 1st choice of action? I think that as a good, you DO have to regard somebody as evil, or at least exhaust (all?) other avenues of dealing with your target first.

>...it doesn't apply
>to goodie ragers since they target willfull mages who are
>currently engaging in dangerous, destructive activity.
>
>If it's sufficiently "reasonable" for a goodie rager to
>believe that goodie mages are highly dangerous and
>destructive, then his altruistic, compassionate, unselfish
>nature (i.e. his gold-aura-ness) should compel him to take
>appropriate action, which may involve destroying such goodie
>mages. That doesn't mean he thinks they're evil, just that
>they're ignorant as to the true nature of their craft,
>dangerous, and a threat to all Therans.

But... where's the proof? If the mage isn't DOING evil, no matter what our goodie villager BELIEVES and KNOWS to be true, by killing a mage who is doing no evil, but in fact is doing good, he's ignoring what all his experience and senses are telling him. His/her inability to deviate from their "die mage scum (but I'm sorry!)" dogma is supplanting their conscience's ability to determine and identify good and evil, and is instead just doing whatever the hell he feels like. That it is driven by altruism is irrelevant, since if there's no evidence of damage, who exactly are you saving?

>Clearly, some mages (Scions) have as their
>stated goal the destruction of the world. They would
>obviously take priority over some random elf. The goodie
>rager assume that the elf isn't aware that his magic is having
>a negative effect on the world. He knows elves are
>categorically "good", and this is never a goal that an elf
>would work towards. But, it is nevertheless true (in his
>mind) that the elf's magic is bringing Thera that much closer
>to destruction, whether the elf realizes it or not.

If it's only true in his mind, then it's not really a definite anchor for a true goodie's moral compass. If he kills the elf because the elf's magic is evil, he's denying the elf a chance at redemption someday, even though the elf may not change immediately. He's become an inquisitor then, since the elf has not actually DONE any wrong. The question then is: does your intolerance of magic trump the good elf's right to live and do good, though his ways may be wrongheaded and (possibly, since our rager, nor can anybody? prove that magic in and of itself is actually destroying the world) dangerous?

Much love, Isildur, I see where you're coming from, but I you're pushing a relativist/subjective line of logic. And that's often very useful, when it's primal questions of alignment on CF, I don't think it works.