Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 2143129" data-attributes="member: 2013">No.&nbsp; Again, you're using a straw man here.&nbsp; &quot;Mean&quot; is not the same as &quot;Evil&quot; (with a capital E, referring to a person whose alignment in an absolute morality sense is Evil).Hurting, oppressing, and killing others is &quot;mean&quot; under most senses of the word &quot;mean&quot; I am familiar with that do not involve mathematical averages. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; Hence, an evil person is mean, but a mean person is not necessarily evil (in the same way that all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not necessarily squares).&nbsp; A scrupulously honest, to the point of tactlessness, twelve-year-old girl would probably be considered as &quot;mean&quot; by most, but that does not make her evil.Hypothetically, if I have a fat wife (I don't), is telling my wife, &quot;yes, honey, that dress DOES make you look fat&quot; a mean act?&nbsp; An evil one?&nbsp; If it's the truth, isn't it an evil act to lie?&nbsp; That puts me in a &quot;damned if I do, damned if I don't&quot; position.&nbsp; Of course, being scrupulously honest, in such a case I would say, &quot;no, dear, the dress doesn't make you look fat - you make it look fat.&quot; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> *glad my wife doesn't read these forums*So again, no.&nbsp; You're trying to argue via straw man.&nbsp; Mean != Evil.&nbsp; My position is that kililng a twelve-year-old girl who is known (by the slayer) to be Evil (capital &quot;E&quot;), regardless of whether or not she's actually committed a crime (because the local laws could be written so that &quot;Evil&quot; acts are &quot;legal&quot;), is consistent with the Chaotic Good alignment.&nbsp; Heck, I'll take it one step further.&nbsp; Killing an infant who is known to be evil (example under the rules as written: a baby monster of a race whose alignment entry reads &quot;always evil&quot;) is consistent with the Chaotic Good alignment.Whether or not I think these rules are good design choices (I'm not sure I like &quot;always X-aligned&quot;) is immaterial.Please stop trying to read into that more than it says.--The Sigil</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 2143129, member: 2013"] No. Again, you're using a straw man here. "Mean" is not the same as "Evil" (with a capital E, referring to a person whose alignment in an absolute morality sense is Evil). Hurting, oppressing, and killing others is "mean" under most senses of the word "mean" I am familiar with that do not involve mathematical averages. ;) Hence, an evil person is mean, but a mean person is not necessarily evil (in the same way that all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are not necessarily squares). A scrupulously honest, to the point of tactlessness, twelve-year-old girl would probably be considered as "mean" by most, but that does not make her evil. Hypothetically, if I have a fat wife (I don't), is telling my wife, "yes, honey, that dress DOES make you look fat" a mean act? An evil one? If it's the truth, isn't it an evil act to lie? That puts me in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" position. Of course, being scrupulously honest, in such a case I would say, "no, dear, the dress doesn't make you look fat - you make it look fat." ;) *glad my wife doesn't read these forums* So again, no. You're trying to argue via straw man. Mean != Evil. My position is that kililng a twelve-year-old girl who is known (by the slayer) to be Evil (capital "E"), regardless of whether or not she's actually committed a crime (because the local laws could be written so that "Evil" acts are "legal"), is consistent with the Chaotic Good alignment. Heck, I'll take it one step further. Killing an infant who is known to be evil (example under the rules as written: a baby monster of a race whose alignment entry reads "always evil") is consistent with the Chaotic Good alignment. Whether or not I think these rules are good design choices (I'm not sure I like "always X-aligned") is immaterial. Please stop trying to read into that more than it says. --The Sigil [/QUOTE]

Verification