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: 1558077" data-attributes="member: 3146">I think it basically comes down to the fact that Takyris, Quaseton, et al, believe the core rules specify that evil alignment=deserving death and everything else that they say is based off of that premise. If it doesn't deserve killing, it wouldn't radiate evil. If it radiates evil, it deserves killing. When confronted with examples of people who fit the description of evil alignments--people who are out for themselves, who will do anything they can get away with regardless of whom it hurts, or who enjoy hurting people, but who represent fairly commonplace types of individuals who ordinary people wouldn't consider killing for the evil they exhibit, they either:A. Beg off the question by claiming that children (which may or may not be applicable depending upon how old the people in question are), don't have alignments.B. Maintain that, because the person doesn't appear to be a major villain, he isn't evil. (Ignoring the actual descriptions of evil alignments on the basis of "evil alignments are for villains and monsters" and refusing to read any kind of ambiguity into the definition of either villains or monsters).C. Briefly admit that spells like Misdirection which introduce a small fear of false positives make detect+smite problematic without further information and promptly go back to advocating for detect+smite.D. Change the subject by introducing a new example.All of these tactics are necessary because there is simply no way to deal with the examples of evil people who don't deserve to die without discarding the premise that all evil people deserve to die. In order to retain that premise, it is necessary to minimize and deny the evil of everything and anything that doesn't merit punishment by death.Where they stand on the city of Swordpoint is unclear, but it seems that, given their interpretation, there is a strong prima facia case that the rational position for any D&D society governed by good people with the ability to detect evil is to simply walk through the city detecting evil and go from house to house killing anyone who radiates evil.They are mistaken in my view--I've already gone through the descriptions of the various evil alignments and demonstrated that it's quite possible for a person to 1. Accurately fit the alignment descriptions and yet not be worthy of any kind of judicial execution in a civilized society (let alone a good one) or 2. Be closer to the description of one of the evil alignments than to the description of any other alignments and not be worthy of any kind of judicial execution. However, no amount of argument seems likely to persuade them since the conclusion of their argument is in the premise. If only people who deserve smiting detect as evil then it will always be right to smite evil. This is clearly seen in the supposedly similar example of the orcslayer. Premise 1: The orcslayer can detect orcs. Premise 2: The half-orc detects as an orc.Conclusion: The orcslayer has an obligation to smite the half-orc.That conclusion only follows if you add premise 2.5: All orcs deserve to be slain.The example only serves as an illustration of what it's clear they were saying all along: [if all evil deserves to be slain], then it's OK to smite anything that radiates evil.WRT the Holy Sword argument, I don't think the fact that first level evil NPCs holding a holy sword will die demonstrates that all evil deserves to die. I think it demonstrates that the writers of D&D didn't consider all of the ramifications of giving negative levels (said first level NPC has a chance of returning as a wight (so holy swords create evil undead) and an evil vampire or other undead creature will actually benefit from holding it since they are helped rather than hurt by negative energy). It doesn't demonstrate that evil people all deserve to die, however, any more than the fact that sugar ican be harmful to diabetics demonstrates either that sugar is bad or that all diabetics deserve to die. If one assumes that, in D&D, good is the appropriate alignment that humans should strive towards (a dubious assumption, given that the existence of neutral and evil deities gives equal divine sanction to neutrality and evil, but quite possibly justified in the case of examining the rationale behind a [good] item's behavior), then an evil person is morally defective. If something that is ordinarily good (sugar) can kill a diabetic because of a physical defect, it doesn't seem problematic to me that something that is ordinarily good (a holy sword) might kill an evil person because of that person's moral defect. The nature of defects is often to make people take injury from what ought to be good for them. If one can accept the idea that evil is a moral defect then it shouldn't be surprising that weapons designed for the pure of heart might be fatal to them.</blockquote>

Verification