Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="shurai" data-source="post: 3745371">I think it is the character that &quot;is truly&quot; evil, even if grammar is what we're going by:&nbsp; The adjective &quot;evil&quot; in the sentence &quot;A chaotic evil character&quot; modifies the noun &quot;character&quot;.&nbsp; How come the second part of the sentence undoes this close association, or else takes precedence over it?&nbsp; This isn't a rhetorical question; I want to understand your thinking.&nbsp; For example, do you perhaps see the first phrase &quot;chaotic evil character&quot; as a sort of term-of-art that doesn't necessarily mean what it would if we'd never played D&amp;D before?I think you may be running into the true problem with D&amp;D alignments and real-world notions of Good and Evil as well, namely, that Good really is more rational than Evil, even from a position of self-interest most of the time.&nbsp; So, evilness really is inadvisable, even for the one that is being evil, while goodness really is conversely advisable, even for the one that is being good, most of the time.&nbsp; So, if you're having trouble understanding how being Evil could possibly be an advisable course of life, that probably means you're not Evil, but that you are rational.&nbsp; : ]Moreover, we also know that D&amp;D Evil, and real life meaning of evil, isn't exactly equivalent to excessive self-interest, I don't think.&nbsp; The SRD says this about the meaning of Evil:As you can see, this is not the same as self-interest necessarily.&nbsp; Instead, it seems to coincide more with feelings, for example, compassion, and with actions, for example, doing harm to others.&nbsp; Whether or not these feelings and actions are reasonable from a position of pure self-interest is not really discussed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="shurai, post: 3745371"] I think it is the character that "is truly" evil, even if grammar is what we're going by: The adjective "evil" in the sentence "A chaotic evil character" modifies the noun "character". How come the second part of the sentence undoes this close association, or else takes precedence over it? This isn't a rhetorical question; I want to understand your thinking. For example, do you perhaps see the first phrase "chaotic evil character" as a sort of term-of-art that doesn't necessarily mean what it would if we'd never played D&D before? I think you may be running into the true problem with D&D alignments and real-world notions of Good and Evil as well, namely, that Good really is more rational than Evil, even from a position of self-interest most of the time. So, evilness really is inadvisable, even for the one that is being evil, while goodness really is conversely advisable, even for the one that is being good, most of the time. So, if you're having trouble understanding how being Evil could possibly be an advisable course of life, that probably means you're not Evil, but that you are rational. : ] Moreover, we also know that D&D Evil, and real life meaning of evil, isn't exactly equivalent to excessive self-interest, I don't think. The SRD says this about the meaning of Evil: As you can see, this is not the same as self-interest necessarily. Instead, it seems to coincide more with feelings, for example, compassion, and with actions, for example, doing harm to others. Whether or not these feelings and actions are reasonable from a position of pure self-interest is not really discussed. [/QUOTE]

Verification