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: 1558648" data-attributes="member: 3146">Fair enough, I suppose we've both taken a few cheap shots here. How about we try to stop?I still maintain that this is a legitimate point. In my experience, the majority of humans from age 6 to 17 or so, actively enjoy tormenting and mocking those who are weaker than them--especially those weaker in social standing. (I know I derived a lot of pleasure from tormenting my younger brother until he lost his temper and, if anything I've seen or heard about parenting is true, that's pretty normal. And I knew perfectly well that Mom and Dad and the teachers told me it was wrong (I was fortunate enough to not have teachers who actively undermined my moral development until college). I don't see how my recognizing that other people called it wrong but not caring about that myself (except in as much as I might be caught and punished) differs from an adult who doesn't care that God/god/Pelor/society says something is wrong as long as he doesn't get caught except in that it's thought to be normal for children and adults who think and act that way are expected to either hide it or teach philosophy). After that, people generally have the opportunity to choose their peers much more successfully and there is much more opportunity to avoid such victimization and much less opportunity to engage in it. (However, I suspect that, given the opportunity and a minimum of social pressure, a lot of adults would engage in it with just as much vigor). It is practically a rite of passage for middle-schoolers to tease and torment the most unpopular dozen students until they actively consider committing suicide--and may or may not attempt it. (I remember feeling faint regret when I heard that the one kid everyone picked on freshman and sophomore years in High School (at least partially out of the fear that if you didn't pick on him, you'd be grouped with him in the "target" group but just as much out of the pleasure that feeling "in" by pointing out to someone else that he's the "out" crowd brings) hung himself before finals; I don't remember anyone in the school behaving any more kindly after that).Now one could maintain that this is a result of the unhealthy social dynamics created by modern public school systems and I suspec that one would at least partially be right. However, it still demonstrates tendencies that are common to most humans.As to whether or not "children" is an appropriate word for them, it rather depends. At least half of the PC classes have random starting ages that reach well into that area. So, it's quite possilbe that someone with the age and personality of the high school bully, for instance, could have a barbarian level in D&D land. The concept of a child is pretty flexible (some cultures treat people as coming of age at 13, some at 18, and some at 21, etc). Now, of course, that could look like obfuscation or an underhanded rhetorical trick--using examples of people who would be considered children in the republic of niceness where we both live but would probably be considered adults in at least portions of D&D-land that aren't thinly veiled modern liberated America in Renaissance Faire costume. It's not obfuscation however, for the following reasons:1. The disconnect between the modern and the ancient concept of a child is relevant. The modern concept of a child serves to excuse behavior in modern people who might well exhibit similar kinds of behavior at a similar age in D&D-land. If, however, in D&D-land they are not considered children, it invites the question of whether the modern concept of a child is, in this case, anything other than a filter to mask an unpleasant reality. If everything else is the same, why should the "child" title excuse evil behavior in D&D-land.2. While one might argue that there would be no similar behavior in D&D-land since D&D-land generally lacks the social structures necessary to create and sustain such behavior, that won't eliminate the problem. First, the unique social situation created modern adolescents has not created new problems. It has simply exacerbated ones common to many human societies. The Scarlet Letter has enduring significance because it deals (in a different way) with exactly the same kind of issues of identification, ostracism, and cruelty to non-accepted individuals that are created in our modern societies. Many discussions of the various 18th century witch trials deal with similar social dynamics. Even if they aren't considered children in D&D-land, the people in question are likely to be participating in and experiencing similar social dynamics even if they are not exacerbated by the unique conditions created in modern schools.3. Even if the youth of D&D-land did not participate in any of the same social dynameics as their real life counterparts, it is likely that they will engage in undisputably morally significant activities. As I wrote before, D&D-land is rife with thieves guilds that employ children in all sorts of capacities. In many cases and in a lot of ways, these children will be victims of the thieves guild, however, victimhood does not make one immune to the taint of evil anymore than the past suffering of the Serbs at the hands of the Kosovars made them immune to the temptations of evil. One can be a victim and behave evilly at the same time--in fact, evil is the normal course of human response to being a victim. (People don't talk about cycles of violence for nothing though they do talk about them far too often). The youth of D&D-land who don't have to compete with theives' guilds and the general exaggerated desolation of D&D slums are often the nobility who are trained to rule over subjects and are often trained in evil ways of ruling. The abuses of young nobles are a common theme in D&D adventures.I don't think there's any way to escape the conclusion that many people who would be considered children in our society are moral actors in D&D society. (I think they're moral actors in our society too but that's a different topic). If the standards are different for them than for the older inhabitants of D&D-land, one needs to ask whether those standards are different because of any morally significant difference between them or because you recognize that it is rarely good to kill those that we identify as children but who engage in activity that quite clearly fits the D&D descriptions of evil. If it's the latter, I think it indicates a weakness of your position.Not so. You've clearly read the SRD. I don't think you're interpreting it correctly but that's an entirely different problem. My charge is mistakenness about the meaning of the SRD/PHB in the context of the assumed D&D world (which encounter tables, power center alignment tables, etc all play a part in indicating), not ignorance.If there is any parallel between current political events and Swordpoint, I suspect I see that supposed parallel very differently than you do.The parallel between Swordpoint and certain mid-20th century activities, however, is quite clear. The only question is whether or not it would be justified to behave that way towards anyone who radiated evil. I would argue that it isn't--even if I grant you and Quas your definition of evil (except the "ought to be summarily executed" bit which would beg the question). However, all of the arguments I would use against it would apply equally to random smiting by wandering paladins as they would to organized extermination by detecters of evil* in authority. *Swordpoint need not be ruled by paladins--good, and neutral clerics of all points on the law and chaos axis can detect evil and it seems that your premises justify the summary execution of evil by anyone who can detect it--not just by paladins. In fact, assuming that Swordpoint is run by paladins who are defined as good and just probably begs the question since whether Swordpoint is either good or just is the question the example is supposed to raise; I would maintain that it is neither. For the current discussion, I think a more productive use of the example would probably be this formulation:Swordpoint is run by Lawful Neutral clerics. A paladin walks into Swordpoint during the annual purge. Does the paladin A. Join the clerics because they're smiting evil and evil needs to be smitedB. Wince and think "it's probably not the best way to run a society but who am I to judge--they're evil so they've got it coming."C. Oppose the injustice by word and deed.(For the record, C. is my answer though B. might be acceptable in certain circumstances. From your post you seem to prefer B but I don't think you can consistently  rule out A as an acceptable paladinly answer).</blockquote>

Verification