Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1554858" data-attributes="member: 3146">According to Dictionary.com a straw man is:   1. A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.   2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.   3. A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow.Obviously 1 and 3 aren't applicable in your case. Definition 2, however, doesn't fit either. In order for definition 2 to be applicable, I would have to be the one creating an argument that is not advocated by any others in the discussion in order to easily refute it. However, as the rest of your post demonstrates, I am not setting up an imaginary argument that has no supporters in this thread. You actually are advocating that the RAW leave no room for subtle, low-key, or commonplace evil. After all, what do you mean by saying that evil (alignment) always and only means Evil if not that commonplace, low-key, and/or realistic evil does not correspond to an evil alignment?Since you have managed to overlook or ignore all of the arguments I've put forward here to the effect that evil can be realistic, commonplace, and even low-key rather than cartoonish and still fit within the RAW, I'll reiterate them here:Two things are relevant here: First, this is an introductory statement and, as such, is probably not intended to exhaust the definition of evil but rather to admit further clarification.Second, by focussing on the idea of killing rather than debasing (and even destroying) you are missing out on the greater meaning here.Debase: To lower in character, quality, or value; to degradeA schoolyard bully who enjoys pushing younger, weaker, or less popular students heads into the toilet and giving them swirlies is debasing innocent life. A brothel owner who lures poor women into his country with promises of honorable employment and then manipulates them into a life they did not choose (usually through a combination of humiliation and threats) is debasing innocent life.A professor who stands one of her students up for ridicule when from the class when he expresses an opinion that differs from hers is debasing innocent life (the intent is to humiliate and intimidate that particular student into changing or keeping silent about his opinion and to intimidate other students so as to prevent them from voicing dissent).Most of the scandal at Abu Ghraib is about guards who participated in the humiliation and debasement of "innocent" human life (though I don't think it matters whether or not the prisoners are innocent myself).Destroy also has different degrees. It would be reasonable to say that someone could "destroy" a person's life without killing them. In the Princess Bride, Wesley's threats to Humperdink center on exactly this point: that he would destroy Humperdink but not kill him. Similarly, it's reasonable to think that burning someone's house down, getting them fired, turning their family against them, and breaking their kneecaps would qualify as destroying someone's life--even though they were still alive. In fact, if the speeches of lawyers are to be believed, any one of those things could constitute destroying a life.But here comes the explanation of the first sentence. (Not the full explanation because that comes in the elucidation of the specific alignments and even that may be taken as emblematic rather than exhaustive). Now, it's clear that hurting, oppressing, and killing others is evil. That's three different levels on which someone could behave evilly.Hurting obviously admits a lot of different degrees. A person can be hurt when the popular people decide to ridicule them as fat or stupid. A person can be hurt when newspapers print lies about them based on anonymous sources. A person can also be hurt when the union enforcers work them over with tire irons and they spend the next few weeks in the hospital. Even if no one particular act instantly makes a person evil (mocking the fat, unpopular kid who later commits suicide for instance), the RAW seem to support a variety of different kinds of evil here, some of which are quite commonplace.This is even more apparent with oppressing people. While I think that most of what is said about oppression in academia these days is a load of hogwash, it does illustrate that oppression is a very flexible term. The sherriff of Nottingham oppressed the saxons with Prince John's high taxes and with harsh reprisals for Robin Hood's actions. The Taliban was said to oppress women by forcing them to wear burquas (depending upon the country in question) and preventing them from working in certain fields or gaining an education. Some people would say that men in Afghanistan were oppressing women in that case. Apartheid South Africa certainly oppressed its majority black population. Exactly what would constitute an individual's involvement in this oppression is unclear but it would be bizarre to maintain that only the leaders (Prince John, the Sheriff, Mullah Omar, and the legislators who voted for Apartheid) were doing the oppressing and that everyone else was just "following orders" or "obeying the law." The oppression standard also supports a more subtle view of evil.Killing people. Okay, I think we're all clear on that one.Have no compassion and kill without qualms if it is convenient. I think that this is a clear allowance for a counter-factual, dispositional analysis of D&D evil. The villain "has no compassion" and has no qualms about killing people. However, it has not yet been convenient for him to kill anyone so he hasn't. It seems to me that under this definition, he is still evil as the description still applies to him (albeit counterfactually in the case of killing without qualms). It's quite possible to be evil without having the capability to kill and get away with it. (I believe that the troublemaker who stirs up Njal's sons to kill Thorgeir the priest in the saga of Burnt Njal fits this description quite well myself--he never killed anyone himself (Skarphedin did that) but he was clearly responsible for the death).First, it's important to note that these descriptions are typical rather than exhaustive. This describes villains who are lawful evil rather than giving a list of criteria that might make a villain lawful evil. Consequently, it's entirely possible that there will be people who do not fit every aspect of this description. That does not necessarily make them neutral; they can still be lawful evil. It just means that they are not as lawful evil as some other characters. (In the same way, many a lawful-good fighter or wizard doesn't quite fit the description (perhaps sharing some lawful neutral or neutral good traits) as well as an Exalted Paladin). Alignment is not a straitjacket for NPCs either.Second, it's important to note that the primary distinguishing factors of the lawful evil villain are 1. playing by the rules and 2. a lack of mercy or compassion. That could fit a lot of "commonplace" villains I discussed in my earlier posts.Lawful evil villains even often have taboos that prevent them from engaging in deeds they consider particularly heinous such as killing in cold blood or hurting children. (The well-known antipathy of ordinary criminals to child molesters in the prison system comes to mind here). As such, they are prime candidates for the common-place evil I discussed.Note that the description of a lawful evil villain doesn't reference killing except in reference to the fact that some lawful evil villains have compunctions against killing. Even an excessively (and tendentiously) literalist reading of the rules would not establish that one has to be a murderer to be lawful evil.A neutral evil character's defining characteristics are listed as "doing whatever she can get away with" and being "out for herself, pure and simple." There are plenty of people who can't get away with murder (or haven't yet had the opportunity to do so) but can get away with a lot of lesser things (see hurting and oppression above).She might kill for profit, sport, or convenience but I don't think it's necessary to suppose that every neutral evil character has done one of those things. That she would (counterfactually) be willing to do such things if "she can get away with it" is sufficient.The chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. (Which may or may not be murder depending upon the circumstances). I don't think it's necessary to suppose that every chaotic evil villian is greedy AND hateful AND lusts after destruction. A combination of several of these should be sufficient to land a villain in the chaotic evil camp. Note again that the chaotic evil description doesn't directly reference killing. Presumably, a hot-tempered biker who is known for starting tavern brawls, beating up people for their money, enjoyed mayhem and destruction, etc could be seen as chaotic evil even if he hasn't yet killed anyone. And he would still be judged chaotic evil at the end of his life even if he never killed anyone.The upshot of all this is that the rules as written support the use of evil alignments for people who aren't EVIL (to use your terminology) and that all evil individuals do not necessarily deserve to have their head smitten from their shoulders by a wandering paladinbot.</blockquote>

Verification