Infiniti2000 said:
No, that's not even remotely a plausible analogy. You're ignoring two very important facts. (1) you are gaining significantly from the "death" of the summoned creature. Just because you could heal normally doesn't mean anything because, similarly, you could just move into flanking position behind the balor yourself. (2) The creature is not actually dying. Any analogy you've come up with is ignoring these. More importantly, nothing in the rules precludes having the monster not remember his ordeal at all. What if that's the way I play it in my game? I'm not wrong about it, so is the usage of the summoned monster still Evil, in your book?
Elethiomel said:
These comparisons are very bad.
Fly comparison: If you were stabbing the fly with a pin to make your wounds close, that would be a better example. Just tearing off the wings with tweezers isn't applicable as it doesn't gain the wielder of tweezers any benefit, plus it's a common image of the evil, mean-spirited kid. In short, the comparison doesn't apply and uses prejudiced imagery.
Slavery comparison: Last time I checked, human slaves didn't have INT 4, exist as the manifestation of an element, and return to their home plane unharmed 24 hours after dying. Again with the prejudiced imagery, too.
Make better comparisons, please.
And in worrying about the differences in the fly vs. slave vs. elemental, you're both missing my intended point based on the differences of flyswatter vs. tweezers or the differences of North vs. South.
The guy using a flyswatter is killing the fly. So is the boy with tweezers. Both want the fly dead. End result is the same. Few the guy with the flyswatter twisted or dysfunctional, but most will the boy with the tweezers.
Why? The boy with the tweezers is maximizing the pain factor for the fly. The guy with the swatter is just killing it. Both have the same net effect. The guy with the flyswatter is getting rid of an annoying pest, so is the kid with the tweezers. The guy with the flyswatter, however, is just getting rid of an annoying pest. The kid with the tweezers is learning to enjoy causing pain. There's a fundamental difference between the two: The kid takes pleasure in another creature's pain, the man is merely removing a pest. Net result, however, is exactly the same - the only differences in the example is the amount of pain for the fly and the fun factor of the person. The two have a fundamentally different approach, and yet the results are exactly the same. One is considered bad, the other, not bad. Results are not necessarily the measure of good or bad. There's something else there, too. This is what that example was intended to convey. Apparently I'm not the best at getting my point across quickly.
When it came down to it, the slavery issue that triggered the state's rights issue that the Civil War was technically fought over was about 90% a question of the "personhood" of slaves (by whatever term - other terms used being "citizenship" "humanity" or similar). In the south, they weren't people, they were property. In the north, they weren't property, they were people. Neither side is logically provable without a pre-existing framework that covers the issue reasonably directly that all involved agree is authoritative - which is, to say, the difference is a fundamental assumption about what constitutes personhood. There was no such agreed-upon framework for actual logical discourse in which proof for one side or the other was actually possible. The two sides could not really understand each other; North's position made no sense to the south (the slaves aren't people, their suffering didn't matter) while the South's position made no sense to the North (how can you let people suffer so?). They had different base assumptions, and these base assumptions are fundamentally unarguable. The "how is it evil" vs. "how is it not" is extremely similar. This is what that example was intended to convey. Apparently, I'm not the best at getting my point across quickly.
The man who uses a Summoned Critter to distract a balor, is getting the summoned critter temporarily killed for his own benefit (and the "greater good"). The man who uses a vampiric dagger on a summoned critter is getting the summoned critter temporarily killed for his own benefit (and the "greater good"). It's not necessarily a good action, but it's not properly evil in my book. The man who is personally repeatedly poking what D&D considers an intelligent creature against said creature's will, with no evidence that the intelligent creature had made evil decisions, is engaging in an evil act in my book.
As a side not, the "remembers or not" issue matters, or not, based on the ethical framework used to evaluate. In some, it's the pain itself that matters. In others, it's the future impact of the previous pain that matters. Which framework is used is, again, a fundamental assumption, and not logically arguable.
Which is a really long-winded way of saying "I do not believe it is possible to convince you, and I do not believe it is possible for you to convince me" with a why in place for the mutual pointlessness.
Am I being clearer as to my intended meaning with the use of my typed words?
