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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6733945" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I was referring to non-D&D stories, where one could identify clearly villainous characters who strictly adhere to their word, even while they plot and scheme to gain an advantage over everyone they can. For a more D&D-centric example, many high-level "devils" exhibit this kind of behavior. For example, in...one of the NWN games, I don't remember which, there's a point where you meet somebody who has gotten into a serious bind with a devilish entity. There's an enormous and minutely-worded contract, requiring the guy you're helping to do certain services in exchange for power. Should these services fail to happen, the guy's soul is forfeit; now he's being asked to do something really really awful (like murder a family member or something) and he can't bring himself to do it.If you have the stats for it (high Wis or Int, IIRC, and appropriate skills), you can read through the contract and find an escape clause that the devil clearly didn't think through--or (rightfully) didn't think the signer would figure out the use of. By exploiting that clause, you end the contract safely, so the guy doesn't have to do the Terrible Thing and doesn't lose his soul either. The devilish entity would love nothing more than to hide this fact, and will do everything it can to dissimulate, distract, or try to make you think it won't work. But if you do find the loophole, you can use it, and the devilish entity will reluctantly accept it, because it prides itself in never violating a contract and always executing its promises exactly as given. It just also relies on those promises being never quite as nice as people expect them to be!How do we deal with that sort of situation--which is perfectly cromulent and crops up all the time in D&D fiction, especially now that the Warlock has been a core class for two editions running?Then it sounds to me like it is Gygax's fault for presenting a standard that is incoherent. Hence why I'm not really big on using his definitions.Why not? "Not concerning oneself with rights" just means you don't believe people inherently "deserve" anything. They only "deserve" what they are allotted by law, and no more. An LE person will pursue those laws which permit minimally fettered influence on their own interests, and maximal protection of those interests from outside influences. See, for example, the concept of the "wicked corporation." In the archetypal case, "Evil Inc." cares nothing for others' rights and privileges, but seeks maximal rights and privileges for itself; it opposes* laws about minimum wages, overtime, sick leave, workplace safety, taxation, etc. because they reduce profits, but it supports** laws protecting IP, enforcing contracts, creating sanctioned monopolies, shielding from legal culpability, etc. because they increase profits (at least in the short term, in both cases--long-term is hotly debated).And putting your own interests--which, generally, include "happiness"--categorically before the interests of others is perfectly commensurate with saying that a person doesn't concern herself with happiness. She doesn't care whether a thing makes other people happy or not; she cares whether it accomplishes a particular goal. People generally have their own happiness as one of their goals--but that need not always be the case either.*Read: "tries to legitimately prevent the creation of, and tries to legitimately remove extant examples of"**Read: "tries to foster the creation of, and prevent the removal of""Ruthless" means "without pity." "Malice" means "desiring harm, injury, or suffering of another." The former indicates that no clemency is provided, the latter indicates that harm inflicted on others is, in fact, exactly what is wanted. Stripping out the malice is precisely why it doesn't make sense to you--you're removing the "harming others is AWESOME" part.Wait, so now we are treating Law as being instrumental? I thought you were against that notion. What's wrong with having both things--instrumental and whatever the not-instrumental side would be, because my brain is fried at 3 am--counting as "values"? You even use the word that way: "Its value." What if L/C is by its very nature an Instrumental axis?</blockquote>

Verification