Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8484024" data-attributes="member: 18">Sorry, no, you need to read on.If he'd just said &quot;nits make lice&quot;, it might have been a random phrase he picked up and didn't understand the full consequences or extreme racist and genocidal context of. But, unfortunately for your belief, he doubles-down on it a few paragraphs later.First he says &quot;nits make lice&quot; and claims it's an &quot;old adage&quot;, which, let's be clear, it absolutely is not. It's a specific and extremely creepy piece of genocidal racist thinking.Another poster explicitly challenged him on this, claiming there's no way Chivington could be considered Lawful or Good, and that &quot;nits make lice&quot; is not appropriate thinking for a Good character.To which Gary responds:&quot;Chivington might have been quoted as saying &quot;nits make lice,&quot; but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question.&quot;An observable fact. Great. So he's saying &quot;genocide works and thus is okay!&quot;. That's absolutely part of his &quot;personal philosophy&quot;. That's undeniable. He went out of his way to prove he knew who said it, and claimed it's a &quot;fact&quot;, and then explained it with a specific example, presumably chosen to give the impression that because some Native American tribes were murderous in this way, it was generally &quot;accepted&quot;. Again as a bonus this proves he knew he was quoting a genocidal racist maniac famous for slaughtering and mutilating women and children, and didn't just randomly pick up the phrase. And to be clear, it's not just &quot;rhetoric&quot; to quote people like that, and it's not just &quot;rhetoric&quot; to claim that genocide &quot;working&quot; is a &quot;fact&quot;.Other things we learn from EGG in this thread:1) Killing a normal horse (not a magic one) is Chaotic and Evil, but killing defenceless, intelligent prisoners, even ones who have renounced Evil, is absolutely, unarguably Good.2) Failing to duel-to-the-death with someone who killed your (again normal, not magic) horse is ground for a Paladin's Paladinhood being revoked.3) &quot;An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good.&quot; - Oooookaaaaay whoa. That's a very specific claim and again is not just &quot;rhetoric&quot;.4) That he believes an rather grotesque and far-fetched Anglo-Saxon punishment was so effective that &quot;It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...&quot;. As a supposed scholar of history, this is laughable, because it's very obvious from the historical record that that absolutely was not the case.5) As he goes on it becomes very clear that his definition of &quot;Lawful Good&quot; is to the right of Judge Dredd. Like, literally, by Gary's definition, Judge Dredd is Neutral Good, because he occasionally shows a modicum of mercy, and isn't obsessed with &quot;honour&quot; or the like. This is interesting given by D&amp;D's own definitions, I think most people have always considered Judge Dredd the embodiment of Lawful Neutral.You will note that he keeps bringing real-world examples in rather than keeping it &quot;in-game&quot; and using the existing alignment information or the like.&nbsp; That's strongly suggestive of &quot;personal philosophy&quot;. Also I see you try the old &quot;He was of his time!&quot; defence. No. Gary Gygax was born in 1938. He was the same age as a lot of my teachers, younger than my grandparents, not that much older than my parents. And he was writing in 2005. Chivington was a figure so horrific he caused revulsion and disgust in the 1800s. His behaviour was, frankly, about what you'd expect from a particularly vile Chaotic Evil figure in D&amp;D. And Gygax is choosing to dig his phrase up and claim it's Lawful Good and &quot;fact&quot;. This wasn't some sort of normal attitude for people born in 1938. I'm sure it was more common, but jesus wept.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8484024, member: 18"] Sorry, no, you need to read on. If he'd just said "nits make lice", it might have been a random phrase he picked up and didn't understand the full consequences or extreme racist and genocidal context of. But, unfortunately for your belief, he doubles-down on it a few paragraphs later. First he says "nits make lice" and claims it's an "old adage", which, let's be clear, it absolutely is not. It's a specific and extremely creepy piece of genocidal racist thinking. Another poster explicitly challenged him on this, claiming there's no way Chivington could be considered Lawful or Good, and that "nits make lice" is not appropriate thinking for a Good character. To which Gary responds: "Chivington might have been quoted as saying "nits make lice," but he is certainly not the first one to make such an observation as it is an observable fact. If you have read the account of wooden Leg, a warrior of the Cheyenne tribe that fought against Custer et al., he dispassionately noted killing an enemy squaw for the reason in question." [I]An observable fact[/I]. Great. So he's saying "genocide works and thus is okay!". That's absolutely part of his "personal philosophy". That's undeniable. He went out of his way to prove he knew who said it, and claimed it's a "fact", and then explained it with a specific example, presumably chosen to give the impression that because some Native American tribes were murderous in this way, it was generally "accepted". Again as a bonus this proves he knew he was quoting a genocidal racist maniac [I]famous for slaughtering and mutilating women and children[/I], and didn't just randomly pick up the phrase. And to be clear, it's not just "rhetoric" to quote people like that, and it's not just "rhetoric" to claim that genocide "working" is a "fact". Other things we learn from EGG in this thread: 1) Killing a normal horse (not a magic one) is Chaotic and Evil, but killing defenceless, intelligent prisoners, even ones who have renounced Evil, is absolutely, unarguably Good. 2) Failing to duel-to-the-death with someone who killed your (again normal, not magic) horse is ground for a Paladin's Paladinhood being revoked. 3) "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is by no means anything but Lawful and Good." - Oooookaaaaay whoa. That's a very specific claim and again is not just "rhetoric". 4) That he believes an rather grotesque and far-fetched Anglo-Saxon punishment was so effective that "It was said that a woman and child could walk the length and breadth of England without fear of molestation then...". As a supposed scholar of history, this is laughable, because it's very obvious from the historical record that that absolutely was not the case. 5) As he goes on it becomes very clear that his definition of "Lawful Good" is to the right of Judge Dredd. Like, literally, by Gary's definition, Judge Dredd is Neutral Good, because he occasionally shows a modicum of mercy, and isn't obsessed with "honour" or the like. This is interesting given by D&D's own definitions, I think most people have always considered Judge Dredd the embodiment of Lawful Neutral. You will note that he keeps bringing real-world examples in rather than keeping it "in-game" and using the existing alignment information or the like. That's strongly suggestive of "personal philosophy". Also I see you try the old "He was of his time!" defence. No. Gary Gygax was born in 1938. He was the same age as a lot of my teachers, younger than my grandparents, not that much older than my parents. And he was writing in 2005. Chivington was a figure so horrific he caused revulsion and disgust in the 1800s. His behaviour was, frankly, about what you'd expect from a particularly vile Chaotic Evil figure in D&D. And Gygax is choosing to dig his phrase up and claim it's Lawful Good and "fact". This wasn't some sort of normal attitude for people born in 1938. I'm sure it was more common, but jesus wept. [/QUOTE]

Verification