Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8709607" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Well, one thing to be quick about, elves aren't really anarchistic in... any meaningful way. The most classive depictions of elves include elven nobiltiy and royalty. Frankly, I've never seen the &quot;elves are free spirits who don't believe in laws&quot; in any way shape or form in most fantasy literature. But also, I notice you never used the words &quot;good&quot;, &quot;lawful&quot; or &quot;chaotic&quot;. You say dwarves are very bureaucratic. Okay, I could see that. And halflings are... parliamentarian? Frankly, I don't see the difference between the two. Because all governments have bureacracies to one degree or another, and this just seems to mean that dwarves have a massive system of laws and &quot;proper ways&quot; while halflings have an elected government of representatives... but dwarven bureacracy likely is headed by either a council of elected members (same as the halflings) or a king (same as literally every fantasy race ever). But you can't describe a governmental system by saying &quot;well these people are Good, so therefore they will have X system of government&quot; because there is no definitively &quot;good&quot; form of government. You have to base it off of other factors. And, secondly, &quot;not everyone is X alignment&quot; is kind of pointless to the discussion. The point being brought is that one of the single most defining traits of halflings, the thing that sets them apart from every other race, is their goodness. That they are literally defined by being good. To then turn around and say that no all halfings are good 1) makes me wonder why we just claimed they are definitionally good 2) Doesn't make a difference. Defining all Drow as &quot;evil elves&quot; doesn't suddenly become better just because you can say &quot;but not all drow are evil, Driz'zt was a good guy&quot;. You are still trying to define drow by being evil elves. And that still doesn't work, because if they aren't all evil... then what defines them? Now, for Drow, various communities have done a lot of different work, but I want to swing this back around to halflings. 1) Defining them as &quot;The Good Race&quot; is a problem, both because it undercuts the other races (who are not the good race) and because defining a race by its alignment is problematic2) Following this up by saying that racial alignments are not universal, and instead personal defeats the entire point of trying to define a race by alignment to begin with, because you can no longer even attempt to define them that way, or suddenly non-good or non-evil versions of those races no longer are those races, but must be something else. All you have basically said here, is the same as &quot;all hot dogs are definitionally served on buns, except the hot dogs you don't serve on buns&quot; which is saying nothing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8709607, member: 6801228"] Well, one thing to be quick about, elves aren't really anarchistic in... any meaningful way. The most classive depictions of elves include elven nobiltiy and royalty. Frankly, I've never seen the "elves are free spirits who don't believe in laws" in any way shape or form in most fantasy literature. But also, I notice you never used the words "good", "lawful" or "chaotic". You say dwarves are very bureaucratic. Okay, I could see that. And halflings are... parliamentarian? Frankly, I don't see the difference between the two. Because all governments have bureacracies to one degree or another, and this just seems to mean that dwarves have a massive system of laws and "proper ways" while halflings have an elected government of representatives... but dwarven bureacracy likely is headed by either a council of elected members (same as the halflings) or a king (same as literally every fantasy race ever). But you can't describe a governmental system by saying "well these people are Good, so therefore they will have X system of government" because there is no definitively "good" form of government. You have to base it off of other factors. And, secondly, "not everyone is X alignment" is kind of pointless to the discussion. The point being brought is that one of the single most defining traits of halflings, the thing that sets them apart from every other race, is their goodness. That they are literally defined by being good. To then turn around and say that no all halfings are good 1) makes me wonder why we just claimed they are definitionally good 2) Doesn't make a difference. Defining all Drow as "evil elves" doesn't suddenly become better just because you can say "but not all drow are evil, Driz'zt was a good guy". You are still trying to define drow by being evil elves. And that still doesn't work, because if they aren't all evil... then what defines them? Now, for Drow, various communities have done a lot of different work, but I want to swing this back around to halflings. 1) Defining them as "The Good Race" is a problem, both because it undercuts the other races (who are not the good race) and because defining a race by its alignment is problematic 2) Following this up by saying that racial alignments are not universal, and instead personal defeats the entire point of trying to define a race by alignment to begin with, because you can no longer even attempt to define them that way, or suddenly non-good or non-evil versions of those races no longer are those races, but must be something else. All you have basically said here, is the same as "all hot dogs are definitionally served on buns, except the hot dogs you don't serve on buns" which is saying nothing. [/QUOTE]

Verification