REQ: Can't romance Viconia if you play a elf character?
XJohn Deth
Talen
Deth) wrote:
>Is this true? That sucks.
Why does it suck? She hates them. Keldorn's not the only person who
hasn't perfect race views, you know.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
CATS: ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
CATS: YOU ARE ON THE WAY TO DESTRUCTION.
CAPTAIN: WHAT YOU SAY !!
CATS: YOU HAVE NO CHANCE TO SURVIVE MAKE YOUR TIME.
CATS: HA HA HA HA ....
- Cats and Captain, Zerowing
The Gurus love you
Michael Kell
> Why does it suck? She hates them. Keldorn's not the only person who
> hasn't perfect race views, you know.
>
It may not be perfect, but its correct. I don't understand this
gripe, unless you're new to AD&D. Considering the society of the
Drow, not to mention the alignment and attitude of Viconia, Keldorn is
very correct in his words and deeds. I had them both in my party and
did decide to get rid of Keldorn eventually.
Gebhard Blucher
Talen <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:o5qq3u4p8i9brjfse...@4ax.com...
> hasn't perfect race views, you know.
>
Keldorn actually has nothing against the Drow. He practically fawns
over Drizzit. I don't see racism at all. IMO, it's just a straw-man
some people throw up. ;-) I think it's more that, as an Inquisitor,
he has dedicated his entire life towards stamping out evil magic-users
and clerics (and Vic qualifies). Vic is certainly unrepentant in her
devotion to Shar (at least until ToB came out). I've heard that he
will also come to blows with Edwin.
Korgan, at least, doesn't actually do anything evil. He seems to be
more talk than show (and even tells Mazzy that he'll try to mend his
ways for her sake). Vic, on the other hand, commits an evil act every
time she calls upon the name of her fell deity. Keldorn has no choice
as I see it: Torm demands her death.
Some people wonder why Keldorn doesn't slaughter everyone at the
Temple of Talos, but if you check you'll find that all of the
Talos-ites is that what they're called?) are Neutral, not evil at all.
Besides, in the game, the Talos-ites seem to be more Chaos-oriented
than Evil-oriented. Keldorn does, at one point, say that he'll return
to the Shadow Thief guild, in force, and stamp it out (so it's not
like he is afraid, or only fights evil when it's convenient).
Disclaimer: I don't know much about Forgotten Realms deities (or the
Forgotten Realms for that matter), so I could be off big-time here.
GB
Didn't I say that I'll never comment on this again? ;-)
Kish
> Talen <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:o5qq3u4p8i9brjfse...@4ax.com...
> > Why does it suck? She hates them. Keldorn's not the only person who
> > hasn't perfect race views, you know.
> >
>
> Keldorn actually has nothing against the Drow. He practically fawns
> over Drizzit. I don't see racism at all. IMO, it's just a straw-man
> some people throw up. ;-) I think it's more that, as an Inquisitor,
> he has dedicated his entire life towards stamping out evil magic-users
> and clerics (and Vic qualifies). Vic is certainly unrepentant in her
> devotion to Shar (at least until ToB came out). I've heard that he
> will also come to blows with Edwin.
>
> Korgan, at least, doesn't actually do anything evil. He seems to be
> more talk than show (and even tells Mazzy that he'll try to mend his
> ways for her sake). Vic, on the other hand, commits an evil act every
> time she calls upon the name of her fell deity. Keldorn has no choice
> as I see it: Torm demands her death.
>
> Some people wonder why Keldorn doesn't slaughter everyone at the
> Temple of Talos, but if you check you'll find that all of the
> Talos-ites is that what they're called?) are Neutral, not evil at all.
Like Lehtinan. That's what we call "a huge thumping bug that makes one of
the paladin stronghold quests positively ridiculous." As you may have
noticed in terms of PCs...THERE CAN"T BE A NON-EVIL CLERIC OF TALOS.
Moonfruit
news:u3sqo2s...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Talen <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:o5qq3u4p8i9brjfse...@4ax.com...
> > Why does it suck? She hates them. Keldorn's not the only person who
> > hasn't perfect race views, you know.
> >
>
> Keldorn actually has nothing against the Drow. He practically fawns
> over Drizzit. I don't see racism at all. IMO, it's just a straw-man
> some people throw up. ;-) I think it's more that, as an Inquisitor,
> he has dedicated his entire life towards stamping out evil magic-users
> and clerics (and Vic qualifies). Vic is certainly unrepentant in her
> devotion to Shar (at least until ToB came out). I've heard that he
> will also come to blows with Edwin.
That would be Minsc vs. Edwin
Kish
> "Gebhard Blucher" <g_bl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:u3sqo2s...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > Talen <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> > news:o5qq3u4p8i9brjfse...@4ax.com...
> > > Why does it suck? She hates them. Keldorn's not the only person who
> > > hasn't perfect race views, you know.
> > >
> >
> > Keldorn actually has nothing against the Drow. He practically fawns
> > over Drizzit. I don't see racism at all. IMO, it's just a straw-man
> > some people throw up. ;-) I think it's more that, as an Inquisitor,
> > he has dedicated his entire life towards stamping out evil magic-users
> > and clerics (and Vic qualifies). Vic is certainly unrepentant in her
> > devotion to Shar (at least until ToB came out). I've heard that he
> > will also come to blows with Edwin.
>
> That would be Minsc vs. Edwin
No, that would be Keldorn vs. Edwin.
They both come to blows with Edwin.
Mlarz
Htn963
>Keldorn actually has nothing against the Drow.
His first comment on seeing Viconia at the stake is along the line of:
"Alright! they're burning a drow" _not_ "...they're burning an evil cleric."
And these fanatics were also vigilantes, not law officers, so by condoning
their actions, he is also in fact condoning lawlessness. Another strike
against your paladin.
> He practically fawns over Drizzit.
Drizzt, you infidel.:)
And he respects Drizzt like all bullies respect strength -- Drizzt could
mince him up in a couple of seconds, like he did Bodhi recently.
>I don't see racism at all.
You see Carsomyr. Even Jan can be a Force to be Feared with that
substitute dick in his hand.
> IMO, it's just a straw-man some people throw up. ;-)
Are you sure you're using the term "straw-man" correctly here? Even
Keldorn apologists have admitted that he's got serious bigotry problems, and
racism is never a trivial issue, especially when they interfere with your
judgment.
If Jaheira had treated Viconia like Keldorn did, I'd dumped her in an
instant.
> I think it's more that, as an Inquisitor,
>he has dedicated his entire life towards stamping out evil magic-users
>and clerics (and Vic qualifies).
By that logic, he should also have attacked, or at least have nothing to
do with, a PC who is a Priest of Talos. It doesn't matter, as some have
tried to justify this inconsistency, that the PC may keep a good reputation,
because he is still irredemiably eeevviilll no matter what he does, as is
Viconia.
If you can justify Keldorn's treatment of Vic (and his family) in strict
definitional terms and disregard everything else, then you should also hold
Keldorn accountable to the same rigid standard.
> Vic is certainly unrepentant in her
>devotion to Shar (at least until ToB came out).
TOB has proven Keldorn to be at least grievously mistaken.
>I've heard that he
>will also come to blows with Edwin.
I've heard that it was Edwin who initiated the fight. And Edwin, unlike
Vic, is unrepentantly evil, I might add.
>Korgan, at least, doesn't actually do anything evil. He seems to be
>more talk than show (and even tells Mazzy that he'll try to mend his
>ways for her sake).
Kinda like Viconia in a romance with the PC, hmm?
> Vic, on the other hand, commits an evil act every
>time she calls upon the name of her fell deity. Keldorn has no choice
>as I see it: Torm demands her death.
You've always been fairly reasonable, even when arguing Keldorn issues,
but I think you're being absurdly extreme here. If Torm demands that a cleric
of evil alignment deserves to die just for casting one healing spell, then who
is the really evil god here?
>Some people wonder why Keldorn doesn't slaughter everyone at the
>Temple of Talos, but if you check you'll find that all of the
>Talos-ites is that what they're called?) are Neutral, not evil at all.
Hehe, that specious distinction belongs with other past laffers as to why
Keldorn didn't attack the Talos Temple such as: a) the Temple of Talos is
really, really, really far away from the Order of the Radiant Heart because of
game scale; and b) Keldorn doesn't want to break the law by detroying
property.
Again, alignment is predilection, not conviction. People may worship evil
gods but may not necessarily be irredemiably evil themselves. This can also
be a bug -- most "evil" characters in the game are, in fact, just enemies.
In any event, definitionally, a Priest of Talos _only_ has a choice of
evil alignments. Try playing as one and you'll see.
>Besides, in the game, the Talos-ites seem to be more Chaos-oriented
>than Evil-oriented.
Well, considering how Keldorn apologists have also tried to justify his
callous action towards his wife in terms of him valuing law as much as good,
then fighting chaos should also be one of Keldorn's prime missions in life,
besides picking on weak, renegade female drows.
>Keldorn does, at one point, say that he'll return
>to the Shadow Thief guild, in force, and stamp it out (so it's not
>like he is afraid, or only fights evil when it's convenient).
Hmm, I don't recall seeing that on his resume at the end of TOB. But in
any event, not attacking strong evil characters like Korgan and Edwin is
enough for me to form my own opinion about his bravery.
>Disclaimer: I don't know much about Forgotten Realms deities (or the
>Forgotten Realms for that matter), so I could be off big-time here.
It doesn't matter. We're discussing individuals, not deities. Even in
FR, people, not their Gods, are (and should be) responsible for their own
actions.
>
>GB
>
>Didn't I say that I'll never comment on this again? ;-)
Never say never.
--
Ht
|Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore
never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
--John Donne, "Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions"|
Kish
> "Gebhard Blucher" wrote:
>
> >Keldorn actually has nothing against the Drow.
>
> His first comment on seeing Viconia at the stake is along the line of:
> "Alright! they're burning a drow"
"...who is probably here as a spy for a potential drow invasion." Don't edit
important parts out.
> > I think it's more that, as an Inquisitor,
> >he has dedicated his entire life towards stamping out evil magic-users
> >and clerics (and Vic qualifies).
>
> By that logic, he should also have attacked, or at least have nothing to
> do with, a PC who is a Priest of Talos.
True. Also the two evil clerics trying to burn Viconia.
Jeremiah
Kish <Kis...@pacbell.net> spake thusly:
> Htn963 wrote:
>
>> "Gebhard Blucher" wrote:
>>
>> >Keldorn actually has nothing against the Drow.
>>
>> His first comment on seeing Viconia at the stake is along the line of:
>> "Alright! they're burning a drow"
>
> "...who is probably here as a spy for a potential drow invasion." Don't edit
> important parts out.
it's the word that proves Keldorn's bigotry.
Kish
All the more reason to honestly quote Keldorn's /entire/ sentence, I would think.
Grand Negus of Weird
terrified far more than minsc, for example (viconia never runs) he will also
stay with the most heinous of pcs as long as rep is maintained.
while i agree that keldorn can be an axcellent addition to the party
(provided he's equipped properly) i also think kish is reaching to justify
his own affection for keldorn rather than impartially examining the
evidence.
my bias: well, anyone that has a problem with viconia will end up like
sarevok at the end of bg1. viconia, like minsc, is only too happy to be
treated like fodder and will fight like a wolverine under practically all
circumstances. just remember to give minsc something to prevent chaos (he
can't beserk all the time).
ot - i would also like to romance imoen, after all, u only share the divine
part of your heritage and gods never seem to care about mortal
improprieties.
gnow
"Kish" <Kis...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3C35C725...@pacbell.net...
BabyBrain
"Htn963" <htn...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20020111234332...@mb-fd.news.cs.com...
> "Gebhard Blucher" wrote:
>
> >I don't see racism at all.
>
> You see Carsomyr. Even Jan can be a Force to be Feared with that
> substitute dick in his hand.
>
> > IMO, it's just a straw-man some people throw up. ;-)
>
> Are you sure you're using the term "straw-man" correctly here? Even
> Keldorn apologists have admitted that he's got serious bigotry problems,
and
> racism is never a trivial issue, especially when they interfere with your
> judgment.
A straw-man is making a caricature of someones view simply to make their
arguments seem more vulnerable. So no, he didnt use the term correctly
there.
Still, 'Keldorn attacks Viconia because he is a bully and a racist' is a
rhetorical argument. Here is an argument that relies on appealing to
peoples emotions, but it doesnt actually give any reason for the conclusion
and oversimplifies the issue ignoring obvious facts.
And Keldorn is an Inquisitor and his primary duty is to destroy evil magic
users. So he already has at least one legitimate reason to kill Viconia
that doesnt rely on him being a racist or a bully.
Of course the next point is why doesnt he attack Edwin. Well Edwin attacks
him or so I'm told (somebody will have to verify that though). Also Edwin
isnt exactly the most evil person in the realms. Like Korgan he's basically
just a mercenary, the kind of person who can be bought. Viconia OTOH does
worship an evil deity and that alone is enough reason for any person of INT
greater than 6 to question whether or not she'll stay loyal. Her loyalty
cant be bought and her promises arent really worth much (Although admittedly
Viconia actually betraying the party was in fact cut from the game).
> If Jaheira had treated Viconia like Keldorn did, I'd dumped her in an
> instant.
Well she comes pretty close, which makes me wonder why you continually
overlook the obvious - Viconia just isnt a nice person. Every time she
opens her mouth theres a 96% chance that she's going to deliberately offend
someone. She enjoys being nasty to everyone its how she gets kicks and she
thinks it a sign of strength, the same way most drow do.
Given all we know about Viconia and about Keldorn, you can very reasonably
assume that Keldorn doesnt attack her on sight because he is in some part
aware of the necessity of making a few distasteful allies in order to
complete the quest. Viconia then winds him up to the point of him having
had enough, him being very distrustful and uneasy about her to start with.
Overeaction possibly and might show him to be too short of temper, and
although I personally cant be having with that sort of behaviour I can find
no valid grounds to label him a racist.
> > I think it's more that, as an Inquisitor,
> >he has dedicated his entire life towards stamping out evil magic-users
> >and clerics (and Vic qualifies).
>
> By that logic, he should also have attacked, or at least have nothing
to
> do with, a PC who is a Priest of Talos. It doesn't matter, as some have
> tried to justify this inconsistency, that the PC may keep a good
reputation,
> because he is still irredemiably eeevviilll no matter what he does, as is
> Viconia.
Perhaps so, but that is a straw-man argument. There could be a number of
reasons why he wouldnt attack a Priest of Talos, the simplest being that the
writers just didnt think about it at the time and so didnt script it. Could
be that they did but decided against it because of gameplay issues. That
all sounds terribly simplistic, but it is a big computer game and sometimes
people just make these mistakes and overlook things.
> > Vic is certainly unrepentant in her
> >devotion to Shar (at least until ToB came out).
>
> TOB has proven Keldorn to be at least grievously mistaken.
Keldorn wont attack Viconia in ToB anyway. None of the NPCs fight in ToB,
or leave the party. Viconias attitude hasnt changed a great deal, but I
guess if Keldorn hasnt killed her by this point then he's learnt to put up
with her.
> > Vic, on the other hand, commits an evil act every
> >time she calls upon the name of her fell deity. Keldorn has no choice
> >as I see it: Torm demands her death.
>
> You've always been fairly reasonable, even when arguing Keldorn
issues,
> but I think you're being absurdly extreme here. If Torm demands that a
cleric
> of evil alignment deserves to die just for casting one healing spell, then
who
> is the really evil god here?
Thats another straw-man. Its likely Vic will have done more than cast one
healing spell while in your party.
> >Disclaimer: I don't know much about Forgotten Realms deities (or the
> >Forgotten Realms for that matter), so I could be off big-time here.
>
> It doesn't matter. We're discussing individuals, not deities. Even
in
> FR, people, not their Gods, are (and should be) responsible for their own
> actions.
If you're a Paladin or a Cleric then I'd say that to some extent actions are
determined by the doctrine of your god. Overall, just like in real life its
a combination of individual personality and beliefs.
Htn963
"Honestly"? If you are implying that I deliberately left out important
parts in referencing Keldorn's dialogs to make my point then you're being out
of line. Did I accidentally ran over your cat?
Note the "...along the line of" qualifier. I didn't even remember the
part you thought was important (again, we seem to interpret dialogs in vastly
different fashion) and was replying to GB's claim that K had nothing against
drows, _not_ whether K had any justifiable reason to be suspicious of drows.
BTW, while we're concerning ourselves with "correctly" quoting dialogs,
I was about to post an addendum to the previous "Cernd the Shapeshifter and
Aerie's initial reaction..." thread, which dealt with similar issues.
Aerie's line on seeing Viconia at the stake was actually: "I wonder what
she did to make them want to burn her... not that _anyone_ [not "they" as you
quoted] would need a reason, I suppose."
Your putting "they" in place of "anyone" gave rise to some interesting
discussions on whether Aerie was expressing her own bigotry or just commenting
on the bigotry of the people who were referred to as "they." But "anyone" to
me now is a clear expression of Aerie's own feelings.
And note that I am not implying that you're not "honestly" quoting entire
lines or "editing important parts" out, just mistaken.
Gebhard Blucher
>
> >Keldorn actually has nothing against the Drow.
>
> His first comment on seeing Viconia at the stake is along the
line of:
> "Alright! they're burning a drow" _not_ "...they're burning an evil
cleric."
> And these fanatics were also vigilantes, not law officers, so by
condoning
> their actions, he is also in fact condoning lawlessness. Another
strike
> against your paladin.
>
I think the line is: "A drow elf? Here? One must wonder what plot
the dark ones have in store. It appears justice is about to be
laid... may its black and evil heart char into powder!"
Remember: Keldorn can Detect Evil at will. Vic /is/ evil. You don't
have Neutral Evil on a character sheet because you're 'misunderstood'.
>
> And he respects Drizzt like all bullies respect strength --
Drizzt could
> mince him up in a couple of seconds, like he did Bodhi recently.
>
Bah. This is /your/ prejudice speaking. :-)
>
> You see Carsomyr. Even Jan can be a Force to be Feared with
that
> substitute dick in his hand.
>
When did I say that? I don't even care for the monty weapon. I only
defend Keldorn because no one else does. I always root for the
underdog. If everyone bashed Vic instead, I would take her side. (I
actually like Vic's character more than Keldorn's.)
>
> Are you sure you're using the term "straw-man" correctly here?
Even
> Keldorn apologists have admitted that he's got serious bigotry
problems, and
> racism is never a trivial issue, especially when they interfere with
your
> judgment.
>
Straw Man: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or
adversary) set up only to be easily confuted. "Keldorn is a
bigot/racist" is such an argument. He gets along with drow, elves,
halflings, dwarves, gnomes and even half-orc PCs. No racism present.
He has a problem with evil (and he will even turn on the PC in many
cases).
> If Jaheira had treated Viconia like Keldorn did, I'd dumped her
in an
> instant.
>
Jaheira, on the other hand, is the ultimate hypocrite. (And you know
I like Jaheira's character.) She's constantly going on about the
'balance' and yet encourages the 'good' paths at every turn. She
should suffer a change of alignment (to Neutral Good) and be stripped
of her druidic abilities.
>
> By that logic, he should also have attacked, or at least have
nothing to
> do with, a PC who is a Priest of Talos. It doesn't matter, as
some have
> tried to justify this inconsistency, that the PC may keep a good
reputation,
> because he is still irredemiably eeevviilll no matter what he does,
as is
> Viconia.
>
> If you can justify Keldorn's treatment of Vic (and his family)
in strict
> definitional terms and disregard everything else, then you should
also hold
> Keldorn accountable to the same rigid standard.
>
But such a PC isn't eeeeviiiil and should be stripped of his clerical
powers as well. That the game doesn't allow evil characters to 'fall'
when reputation soars (as it will if the PC chooses non-evil options,
just as it will drop to the cellar if the PC chooses evil options)
should be considered a bug or design oversight in the game. Such an
evil (but really good) PC would suffer an alignment change with a
human DM.
> TOB has proven Keldorn to be at least grievously mistaken.
>
ToB is post-SoA. Keldorn, you may have noticed, doesn't come to blows
with Vic in ToB.
As far as I'm concerned I hate the fact the Vic changes alignment in
ToB. I think it weakens a great character. I /like/ her as evil
b***h. :-)
>
> I've heard that it was Edwin who initiated the fight. And
Edwin, unlike
> Vic, is unrepentantly evil, I might add.
>
In SoA, Vic is unrepentantly evil too.
>
> Kinda like Viconia in a romance with the PC, hmm?
>
Again, in ToB only. I've completed the SoA romance with Vic and she
doesn't seem to want to change her ways at any point, that I can
recall. I completed her romance with an evil character (and evil
party, with the exception of Yoshimo/Imoen) and at many points in the
game (not romance related) she actively displays an evil nature. Just
as an example: she wants to torture Quallo, in the sewers, to learn
what he knows.
Try an evil game with Vic. You might see more of her unsavory side.
Even when she describes her break with Lolth (when she refused to
sacrifice a child), I don't remember her saying that what she was
doing was wrong, just pointless. Note that she had no problems
sacrificing anyone else before then.
>
> You've always been fairly reasonable, even when arguing
Keldorn issues,
> but I think you're being absurdly extreme here. If Torm demands
that a cleric
> of evil alignment deserves to die just for casting one healing
spell, then who
> is the really evil god here?
>
But this is D&D. No one said it made sense. ;-) Now I don't know
much about the details of Shar's faith, but I doubt they sing Kumbiyaa
(or however you spell it) around the campfire.
>
> Hehe, that specious distinction belongs with other past
laffers as to why
> Keldorn didn't attack the Talos Temple such as: a) the Temple of
Talos is
> really, really, really far away from the Order of the Radiant Heart
because of
> game scale; and b) Keldorn doesn't want to break the law by
detroying
> property.
>
> Again, alignment is predilection, not conviction. People may
worship evil
> gods but may not necessarily be irredemiably evil themselves. This
can also
> be a bug -- most "evil" characters in the game are, in fact, just
enemies.
>
> In any event, definitionally, a Priest of Talos _only_ has a
choice of
> evil alignments. Try playing as one and you'll see.
>
I agree with Kish. It's a bug. But then so is fact that the paladins
can coexist peacefully with the Talosians. Two bugs cancel each other
out.
>
> Well, considering how Keldorn apologists have also tried to
justify his
> callous action towards his wife in terms of him valuing law as much
as good,
> then fighting chaos should also be one of Keldorn's prime missions
in life,
> besides picking on weak, renegade female drows.
>
Keldorn forgives his wife's trespasses and even takes some of the
blame. The PC can steer him to turn his wife in to the authorities,
but he's not happy about it.
>
> Hmm, I don't recall seeing that on his resume at the end of
TOB. But in
> any event, not attacking strong evil characters like Korgan and
Edwin is
> enough for me to form my own opinion about his bravery.
>
He mentions it when you talk to the Shadow Thief torturer. And he
does attack Edwin, remember? And, as I've said earlier, Korgan
expresses some desire to mend his ways.
>
> Never say never.
>
All in fun. :-) You know I don't take this seriously. I hope.
GB
Gebhard Blucher
> Like Lehtinan. That's what we call "a huge thumping bug that makes
one of
> the paladin stronghold quests positively ridiculous." As you may
have
> noticed in terms of PCs...THERE CAN"T BE A NON-EVIL CLERIC OF TALOS.
>
Touche Kish. I concede the point.
But then, what's a bug? Given the above is a bug, then the Paladins
should be all over the Talos-ites. Should the fact that the paladins
(and Keldorn) /aren't/ attacking, and in are fact coexisting
peacefully with their next-door neighbors, the Talos-ites be
considered a bug too?
Come to think of it... the Temple of Talos is in pretty bad shape.
The door to the High Priestesses' chamber is even smashed down, lying
on the floor. Maybe the paladins raided the place earlier and killed
all of the Evil Talos-ites?
(BTW, I'm using 'Talos-ites' and that can't be right. :-) 'Talosians'
maybe? heh.)
GB
Htn963
<snip>
>Still, 'Keldorn attacks Viconia because he is a bully and a racist' is a
>rhetorical argument. Here is an argument that relies on appealing to
>peoples emotions, but it doesnt actually give any reason for the conclusion
>and oversimplifies the issue ignoring obvious facts.
Ironic, because you're argument that my argument is rhetorical is
rhetorical. How does it "oversimplifies issues and ignore obvious facts"?
Keldorn attacks Viconia, but ignore Korgan, Edwin, and the priests of
Talos just down the block from his headquarters, so some of us may reasonably
assume he did so because there are other reasons besides her just being evil,
being an evil magic user, or worshipping an evil god.
>And Keldorn is an Inquisitor and his primary duty is to destroy evil magic
>users. So he already has at least one legitimate reason to kill Viconia
>that doesnt rely on him being a racist or a bully.
He has a legitimate reason to be suspicious of Viconia, not to plan her
eventual demise.
>Of course the next point is why doesnt he attack Edwin. Well Edwin attacks
>him or so I'm told (somebody will have to verify that though). Also Edwin
>isnt exactly the most evil person in the realms.
You're speculating. And besides, it is moot in giving quantifiers to
evilness in BG2. It, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Now Keldorn
to me is the embodiment of Lawful Evil, where Law and "Good" are corrupted to
pernicious ends.
Like Korgan he's basically
>just a mercenary, the kind of person who can be bought.
Unlike Viconia, who in more than one dialogs in SOA and TOB has expressed
her loyalty to the PC. If you haven't seen those dialogs, then I suggest you
use the Control I key now.
Viconia OTOH does
>worship an evil deity and that alone is enough reason for any person of INT
>greater than 6 to question whether or not she'll stay loyal. Her loyalty
>cant be bought and her promises arent really worth much (Although admittedly
>Viconia actually betraying the party was in fact cut from the game).
Yes, I heard about this betraying plot from Glen Bjorge. That would have
really spiced up the Viconia romance even more. But in any event, it didn't
happened, so it's moot.
>> If Jaheira had treated Viconia like Keldorn did, I'd dumped her in an
>> instant.
>
>Well she comes pretty close,
A miss is as good as a mile. Jaheira, as someone of Elven heritage, has
more compelling reasons than Keldorn to be hostile and suspicious of drows,
but she never lets her feelings get in the way of acting and behaving in a just
and compassionate way. And for the good of the party. Now, mind you, she
isn't always right or perfect, as my numerous posts about her may
indicate...she just tries her best.
And as we both know, Jaheira angrily threatened to kill Vic because Vic
made a salacious reference to her beloved, dead Khalid. She, like Valygar, was
provoked. Viconia only had one spat with Keldorn and even apologized for it
afterwards.
which makes me wonder why you continually
>overlook the obvious - Viconia just isnt a nice person.
I am not continually overlooking the obvious. I know Viconia isn't a nice
person...most of the time. She, at least, doesn't pretend to be a force of law
and good.
Every time she
>opens her mouth theres a 96% chance that she's going to deliberately offend
>someone. She enjoys being nasty to everyone its how she gets kicks and she
>thinks it a sign of strength, the same way most drow do.
Again, talk is cheap.
>Given all we know about Viconia and about Keldorn, you can very reasonably
>assume that Keldorn doesnt attack her on sight because he is in some part
>aware of the necessity of making a few distasteful allies in order to
>complete the quest. Viconia then winds him up to the point of him having
>had enough, him being very distrustful and uneasy about her to start with.
Wind him up how? What else did she do in the game to elicit this sort of
distrust and uneasiness from him besides his being closeminded and stupid?
Again, you're speculating.
>Overeaction possibly and might show him to be too short of temper, and
>although I personally cant be having with that sort of behaviour
Good.
> I can find no valid grounds to label him a racist.
Too bad. We'll just have to agree to disagree then.
>> > I think it's more that, as an Inquisitor,
>> >he has dedicated his entire life towards stamping out evil magic-users
>> >and clerics (and Vic qualifies).
>>
>> By that logic, he should also have attacked, or at least have nothing
>to
>> do with, a PC who is a Priest of Talos. It doesn't matter, as some have
>> tried to justify this inconsistency, that the PC may keep a good
>reputation,
>> because he is still irredemiably eeevviilll no matter what he does, as is
>> Viconia.
>
>Perhaps so, but that is a straw-man argument.
If that is a straw-man argument, then so is the claim that Keldorn is
entirely justified in whacking Viconia for just being an evil cleric.
> There could be a number of
>reasons why he wouldnt attack a Priest of Talos, the simplest being that the
>writers just didnt think about it at the time and so didnt script it. Could
>be that they did but decided against it because of gameplay issues. That
>all sounds terribly simplistic, but it is a big computer game and sometimes
>people just make these mistakes and overlook things.
Perhaps, but this inconsistency looms large.
>> > Vic is certainly unrepentant in her
>> >devotion to Shar (at least until ToB came out).
>>
>> TOB has proven Keldorn to be at least grievously mistaken.
>
>Keldorn wont attack Viconia in ToB anyway. None of the NPCs fight in ToB,
>or leave the party. Viconias attitude hasnt changed a great deal, but I
>guess if Keldorn hasnt killed her by this point then he's learnt to put up
>with her.
No, the point was that TOB has shown that Viconia is loyal to the PC and
is capable of change, growth, and renouncing her "evil" ways. And thus, a
favorite tactic of Keldorn apologists, attacking Viconia's character in SOA to
justify his persecution of her -- rather like blaming crime victims in rl --
has been debunked.
>> > Vic, on the other hand, commits an evil act every
>> >time she calls upon the name of her fell deity. Keldorn has no choice
>> >as I see it: Torm demands her death.
>>
>> You've always been fairly reasonable, even when arguing Keldorn
>issues,
>> but I think you're being absurdly extreme here. If Torm demands that a
>cleric
>> of evil alignment deserves to die just for casting one healing spell, then
>who
>> is the really evil god here?
>
>Thats another straw-man. Its likely Vic will have done more than cast one
>healing spell while in your party.
Well, one extreme deserves another, but you probably got me there. Vic
also summons slew of skeleton warriors and Aerial servants, invaluable helpers
for the party in tough battles, and will also gleefully slingshot to death
really, really evil drows.
>> >Disclaimer: I don't know much about Forgotten Realms deities (or the
>> >Forgotten Realms for that matter), so I could be off big-time here.
>>
>> It doesn't matter. We're discussing individuals, not deities. Even
>in
>> FR, people, not their Gods, are (and should be) responsible for their own
>> actions.
>
>If you're a Paladin or a Cleric then I'd say that to some extent actions are
>determined by the doctrine of your god. Overall, just like in real life its
>a combination of individual personality and beliefs.
Yes, paladins and clerics are more influenced by their gods than other
classes, but they can also be sorely mistaken in interpreting their gods'
tenets. Keldorn has done so; Viconia hasn't.
Kish
>
> Aerie's line on seeing Viconia at the stake was actually: "I wonder what
> she did to make them want to burn her... not that _anyone_ [not "they" as you
> quoted] would need a reason, I suppose."
You're quite right. I quoted it wrong the second time, as well as the first time.
>
>
> Your putting "they" in place of "anyone" gave rise to some interesting
> discussions on whether Aerie was expressing her own bigotry or just commenting
> on the bigotry of the people who were referred to as "they." But "anyone" to
> me now is a clear expression of Aerie's own feelings.
To you? Sure. But the thing is, you're reading "would" to mean something it
doesn't mean. She does not indicate approval. She observes that no one would need
a reason to burn a drow...and she's not quite right, but she's pretty close. Have
you read the Drizzt novels? Do you know how many people tried to kill him on
sight, back before he got his current impressive reputation?
>
>
> And note that I am not implying that you're not "honestly" quoting entire
> lines or "editing important parts" out, just mistaken.
I appreciate that. I don't think you're deliberately editing parts you consider
important out, and I apologize if you feel I implied such.
BabyBrain
> "BabyBrain" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Still, 'Keldorn attacks Viconia because he is a bully and a racist' is a
> >rhetorical argument. Here is an argument that relies on appealing to
> >peoples emotions, but it doesnt actually give any reason for the
conclusion
> >and oversimplifies the issue ignoring obvious facts.
>
> Ironic, because you're argument that my argument is rhetorical is
> rhetorical. How does it "oversimplifies issues and ignore obvious facts"?
Keldorn doesnt have race issues with any other non-human NPC, nor does he
try to forcefully persuade anybody weaker than him. There simply isnt
enough evidence to support the claim that he is being racist or that he's a
bully.
The only evidence that might conceivably support the claim comes from this
one incident, and given what the Drow represent on FR, Viconias attitude,
alignment and occupation theres plenty of reason to question the validity of
that evidence.
Now if you'd simply claimed that Keldorn is an over-zealous lout who doesnt
have a social life, then yes, I think I could back that argument up.
> Keldorn attacks Viconia, but ignore Korgan, Edwin, and the priests
of
> Talos just down the block from his headquarters, so some of us may
reasonably
> assume he did so because there are other reasons besides her just being
evil,
> being an evil magic user, or worshipping an evil god.
Again theres the burden of proof. If you accused a politician of being a
racist and he decided to take you to court, then you have to defend your
position by providing irrefutable evidence that the claim is true, if you
cant then it's gonna cost you a lot of cash.
Not that Keldorn would take you to court, he'll probably just challenge you
to a duel or something.
> >And Keldorn is an Inquisitor and his primary duty is to destroy evil
magic
> >users. So he already has at least one legitimate reason to kill Viconia
> >that doesnt rely on him being a racist or a bully.
>
> He has a legitimate reason to be suspicious of Viconia, not to plan
her
> eventual demise.
Its his job to destroy her, that is what his god wants him to do. Even when
he's not running her through with his sword I expect him to at least be
sizing her up for any time she might unlease her evil magics upon the group.
> >Of course the next point is why doesnt he attack Edwin. Well Edwin
attacks
> >him or so I'm told (somebody will have to verify that though). Also
Edwin
> >isnt exactly the most evil person in the realms.
>
> You're speculating. And besides, it is moot in giving quantifiers
to
> evilness in BG2. It, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
I'm speculating based on Edwins character and his dialogues. He hasnt got
any holy doctrine to live by, he is just out to serve himself and so long as
he believes he is in a 'strong' position within a group he isnt a threat.
Its only when he himself feels threatened that he'll turn on everyone.
> Now Keldorn
> to me is the embodiment of Lawful Evil, where Law and "Good" are corrupted
to
> pernicious ends.
That conclusion I dont think is rational to make based on one incident.
> Like Korgan he's basically
> >just a mercenary, the kind of person who can be bought.
>
> Unlike Viconia, who in more than one dialogs in SOA and TOB has
expressed
> her loyalty to the PC. If you haven't seen those dialogs, then I suggest
you
> use the Control I key now.
I think I've pretty much seen all Viconia's dialogs by now. She comes
across as a skilled liar and manipulator. Even by the end of the SoA
romance she still just isnt 100% trustworthy.
> Viconia OTOH does
> >worship an evil deity and that alone is enough reason for any person of
INT
> >greater than 6 to question whether or not she'll stay loyal. Her loyalty
> >cant be bought and her promises arent really worth much (Although
admittedly
> >Viconia actually betraying the party was in fact cut from the game).
>
> Yes, I heard about this betraying plot from Glen Bjorge. That would
have
> really spiced up the Viconia romance even more. But in any event, it
didn't
> happened, so it's moot.
Apparently she was a werewolf as well. In any case although it wasnt
included its definitely the type of thing I'd be weary of when travelling
with Viconia, knowing as I do her disdain for anything that isnt a drow.
> >> If Jaheira had treated Viconia like Keldorn did, I'd dumped her in
an
> >> instant.
> >
> >Well she comes pretty close,
>
> A miss is as good as a mile. Jaheira, as someone of Elven heritage,
has
> more compelling reasons than Keldorn to be hostile and suspicious of
drows,
Likewise, Aerie as pure blooded elf has more reason than Jaheira to be
hostile and suspicious of drow, seeing as the drow have in fact a holy order
to destroy all the surface elves and enslave every other race.
But again this is what Drow represent on FR. It makes sense, if you want to
create an evil race you base it on what just about everyone regards as the
greatest evil ever to threaten the real world. Even their colorisation,
grey-black skin, white hair reminds me of Nazi uniforms.
In fact in just about every fantasy or Sci-Fi setting the bad guys are just
some form of fascists or sometimes communists. The only exception is Star
Trek, where in fact the good guys, The Federation, are just living under a
perfectly executed communist system.
> >Given all we know about Viconia and about Keldorn, you can very
reasonably
> >assume that Keldorn doesnt attack her on sight because he is in some part
> >aware of the necessity of making a few distasteful allies in order to
> >complete the quest. Viconia then winds him up to the point of him having
> >had enough, him being very distrustful and uneasy about her to start
with.
>
> Wind him up how? What else did she do in the game to elicit this
sort of
> distrust and uneasiness from him besides his being closeminded and stupid?
> Again, you're speculating.
Keldorn like everyone distrusts a strange drow for really very obvious
reasons, and he knows she isnt good because he can detect evil. Really that
alone might be enough for some people to jump to a conclusion. He then
learns that she a Cleric of Shar, an evil deity. Right from the start
Viconias in few peoples favor.
And we know from other Vic related conversations that she does wind people
up, and that often has nothing to do with her being drow, she winds them
because she chooses and wants to.
I am speculating in that I am assuming that there is more that goes on
between a group of adventurers travelling together across Amn than we are
privvy to.
What goes on can only be guessed at through the information we do know,
given what we know about both characters from when they're not at eachothers
throats we can reasonably reach the above conclusion.
There is no evidence to suggest that Keldorn has a racist attitude, nor is
there evidence to suggest that Viconia will make any genuine attempt to be
nice, not before ToB anyway (and even then you get it out of her through a
gruelling romance) and by then this isnt an issue anyway.
> >> By that logic, he should also have attacked, or at least have
nothing
> >to
> >> do with, a PC who is a Priest of Talos. It doesn't matter, as some
have
> >> tried to justify this inconsistency, that the PC may keep a good
> >reputation,
> >> because he is still irredemiably eeevviilll no matter what he does, as
is
> >> Viconia.
> >
> >Perhaps so, but that is a straw-man argument.
>
> If that is a straw-man argument, then so is the claim that Keldorn is
> entirely justified in whacking Viconia for just being an evil cleric.
No, you see, you're just doing it again.
> >Keldorn wont attack Viconia in ToB anyway. None of the NPCs fight in
ToB,
> >or leave the party. Viconias attitude hasnt changed a great deal, but I
> >guess if Keldorn hasnt killed her by this point then he's learnt to put
up
> >with her.
>
> No, the point was that TOB has shown that Viconia is loyal to the PC
and
> is capable of change, growth, and renouncing her "evil" ways. And thus,
a
> favorite tactic of Keldorn apologists, attacking Viconia's character in
SOA to
> justify his persecution of her -- rather like blaming crime victims in
rl --
> has been debunked.
Why? Keldorns persecution of Viconia happens in SoA, when she hasnt
renounced her evil ways and even if you've romanced her she is resisting
your attempts to change her. So why should we expect Keldorn in SoA to know
what happens in the future, and only one slim possible future at that.
> >> You've always been fairly reasonable, even when arguing Keldorn
> >issues,
> >> but I think you're being absurdly extreme here. If Torm demands that a
> >cleric
> >> of evil alignment deserves to die just for casting one healing spell,
then
> >who
> >> is the really evil god here?
> >
> >Thats another straw-man. Its likely Vic will have done more than cast
one
> >healing spell while in your party.
>
> Well, one extreme deserves another, but you probably got me there.
Vic
> also summons slew of skeleton warriors and Aerial servants, invaluable
helpers
> for the party in tough battles, and will also gleefully slingshot to
death
> really, really evil drows.
And again. How about Vic attacks the faith and beliefs of other party
members, or Vic insults peoples heritage, or Vic just treats everyone like
dirt and refers to them all as excrement, and she does all that not for her
own survival but just because she really doesnt respect anyone because
they're not drow priestesses and therefore by Vic logic dont deserve
respect.
> >If you're a Paladin or a Cleric then I'd say that to some extent actions
are
> >determined by the doctrine of your god. Overall, just like in real life
its
> >a combination of individual personality and beliefs.
>
> Yes, paladins and clerics are more influenced by their gods than
other
> classes, but they can also be sorely mistaken in interpreting their gods'
> tenets. Keldorn has done so; Viconia hasn't.
I think in some ways Viconia might have done, but thats not important right
now. As far as I can tell though Keldorn has done what his duty as a
paladin requires, and his god wont feel any remorse over Viconias death.
Though his personal opinion and anger may have influenced him somewhat.
Jesse Yeager
> maybe? heh.)
Talons
Derville
"Grand Negus of Weird" <grandneg...@btopenworld.comNOSPAM> wrote in
message news:a1pg4o$o2v$1...@knossos.btinternet.com...
> the acid test for bravery is symbol:fear, keldorn, in my xp, runs away
> terrified far more than minsc, for example (viconia never runs) he will
also
> stay with the most heinous of pcs as long as rep is maintained.
> while i agree that keldorn can be an axcellent addition to the party
> (provided he's equipped properly) i also think kish is reaching to justify
> his own affection for keldorn rather than impartially examining the
> evidence.
Symbol: Fear is a spell, and very nearly works on proper mathematical issues
like rolling for saving throws. Believe me, the *last* thing that ever gets
bundled into these "Keldorn's a git" threads is logic, facts and truth ;-).
Also, by using Symbol:Fear as a test, my money's on the likes of Korgan
every time to come out as the bravest, simply due to his unholy saving
throws against spells. Viccy has the advantage of magic resistance when
facing spellslingers, and poor old Keldorn has to really wait for Carsomyr
before his defences come up to scratch.
> my bias: well, anyone that has a problem with viconia will end up like
> sarevok at the end of bg1. viconia, like minsc, is only too happy to be
> treated like fodder and will fight like a wolverine under practically all
> circumstances. just remember to give minsc something to prevent chaos (he
> can't beserk all the time).
That would be getting Viccy to cast Chaotic Commands on Minsc ;-). Assuming
Viccy gets the same access to equipment as is necessary to make Jaheira a
half decent warrior, then she can fill a very useful role as a defensive
stopper, albeit with a THAC0 nearly as bad as the aforementioned
tree-hugger. For the record, I kinda like Vic as an NPC - she's got the
advantage of properly coded magic resistance this time round, she's got
workable stats (Con isn't important to me, Strength is easily altered, but
her biggie is good scores in Wisdom and Dex), and makes a more than useful
blocker to protect more vulnerable characters. Add in the fact that I put a
lot of value in Cleric spells in BG2 (with decent summons, lots of
protections for the meatheads in the team and the odd offensive spell,
including the fact that Viccy gets the good and bad versions of spells, i.e.
Holy Sh- Smite and Unholy Blight), Vic makes a nice addition to a party.
IMHO, of course. Now to retreat to a safe distance from this thread, which
is sure to spontaneously combust as the words "Keldorn", "Viconia" and
"motive" are all present somewhere in it ;-).
--
Phil (remove 'your.inhibitions' to reply)
"You know, Nordom you are perhaps the cutest little rogue modron I have ever
encountered."
"'Cutest' is a subjective term. I prefer the designation 'fearsome cubed
warrior.'"
"Of course! That's why you're so cute."
Htn963
> Htn963 wrote:
> > "Gebhard Blucher" wrote:
> >
> > >Keldorn actually has nothing against the Drow.
> >
> > His first comment on seeing Viconia at the stake is along the
> line of:
> > "Alright! they're burning a drow" _not_ "...they're burning an evil
> cleric."
> > And these fanatics were also vigilantes, not law officers, so by
> condoning
> > their actions, he is also in fact condoning lawlessness. Another
> strike
> > against your paladin.
> >
>
> I think the line is: "A drow elf? Here? One must wonder what plot
> the dark ones have in store. It appears justice is about to be
> laid... may its black and evil heart char into powder!"
Yes, he jumps to conclusion and condones the action of this lynch
mob as "justice" because the person at the stake is a drow elf, not an
evil cleric.
> Remember: Keldorn can Detect Evil at will. Vic /is/ evil. You don't
> have Neutral Evil on a character sheet because you're 'misunderstood'.
And remember: Korgan and Edwyn is also evil. And Korgan is, ah,
"misunderstood."
I think you are giving too much credit to the paladin's vaunted
Detect Evil ability. It only detects evil alignment, not evil intent
or imminent actions of evil. Yes, it is a useful tool for a paladin
to gain information in his work, but it is not the dispositive judge
and executioner, unless the paladin was incredibly inexperienced or
stupid.
As Speaker-to-Customer pointed out hypothetically in a past K v.
V thread, if Keldorn goes with the party into a tavern and whacks the
first patron whom his abilities highlight in red, he'd be killing an
innocent, breaking the law, and ruining the party's reputation.
> > And he respects Drizzt like all bullies respect strength --
> Drizzt could
> > mince him up in a couple of seconds, like he did Bodhi recently.
> >
>
> Bah. This is /your/ prejudice speaking. :-)
Yes, I'm a Drizzt fanboy! So why dontya admit that you are a
Keldorn fanboy, hmm? But at least you're not arguing out of
hormones...or are you.:)
> > You see Carsomyr. Even Jan can be a Force to be Feared with
> that
> > substitute dick in his hand.
> >
>
> When did I say that? I don't even care for the monty weapon.
You've mentioned it often enough whenever praising Keldorn's
value, and it's a given whenever Keldorn fanboys (and fangirls) gushes
about him. Without it, he'd be a mediocre addition to the party. He
needs help with strength _and_ dexterity to be a viable tank.
(OTOH, Jaheira, unlike what some inexperienced and misguided
detractors would claim, does not need to be decked out all over with
trinkets to become an awesome tank -- all she needs is a strength
boost.)
> I only
> defend Keldorn because no one else does. I always root for the
> underdog.
Heh, whereever did you get the idea that Keldorn was the underdog
around here? You are overestimating my influence in this newsgroup.
For every person that agrees with me or at least comes round to
respecting my point of view, another rises up and calls me an infidel,
a fabricator of facts, an unskilled logician, an FR ignoramus, or
worse.:)
> If everyone bashed Vic instead, I would take her side. (I
> actually like Vic's character more than Keldorn's.)
Keldorn is a respected pillar of the Athkatla community, lives in
a large estate, hasn't ever had to suffered exile and hardships among
an alien race, hasn't been hunted and persecuted by "knights," and
hasn't been tortured and raped by rivvens after he chose to trust
them, and you dare to call Keldorn instead of Vic the underdog?!
> > Are you sure you're using the term "straw-man" correctly here?
> Even
> > Keldorn apologists have admitted that he's got serious bigotry
> problems, and
> > racism is never a trivial issue, especially when they interfere with
> your
> > judgment.
> >
>
> Straw Man: a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or
> adversary) set up only to be easily confuted. "Keldorn is a
> bigot/racist" is such an argument.
The definition is sound, but I still don't think your application
of it is correct. It's a strawman only if I ascribed the claim that
Keldorn is a bigot/racist to _you_ and then proceed to debunk it.
What you (and Babybrain) are getting at is that, to you, there isn't
enough prima facie evidence to conclude that Keldorn is a racist -- an
issue, of course, open to reasonable debate -- which isn't the same
thing as a strawman.
He gets along with drow, elves,
> halflings, dwarves, gnomes and even half-orc PCs. No racism present.
> He has a problem with evil (and he will even turn on the PC in many
> cases).
"Gets along" doesn't mean trust and respect. He belittles Jan,
telling him to respect his betters and leaders in their conversations,
and there were comments made by Nalia and Edwyn that the Order of the
Radiant Heart, of which Keldorn is a staunch icon, is not a model of
racial openness and enlightenment.
But, really now, why do I need to prove that Keldorn looks down
on other races in FR to prove that he held racist attitudes against
drows? In real life, one does not need to prove that a person is
guilty of racism against blacks by proving that he is also guilty of
racism against other ethnic groups such as Asians, Latinos, and
Indians.
> > If Jaheira had treated Viconia like Keldorn did, I'd dumped her
> in an
> > instant.
> >
>
> Jaheira, on the other hand, is the ultimate hypocrite.
Next to Keldorn.:)
> (And you know
> I like Jaheira's character.)
Shucks, you like (or at least claim to) like everybody. Do you
like Anomen?
> She's constantly going on about the
> 'balance' and yet encourages the 'good' paths at every turn. She
> should suffer a change of alignment (to Neutral Good) and be stripped
> of her druidic abilities.
No arguments there. At least she can always be a ranger/cleric,
though I'll miss them druidic maple syrups and hot and sweaty nights
in bear forms. Sex, Druids, and Rock and Roll.
> > By that logic, he should also have attacked, or at least have
> nothing to
> > do with, a PC who is a Priest of Talos. It doesn't matter, as
> some have
> > tried to justify this inconsistency, that the PC may keep a good
> reputation,
> > because he is still irredemiably eeevviilll no matter what he does,
> as is
> > Viconia.
> >
> > If you can justify Keldorn's treatment of Vic (and his family)
> in strict
> > definitional terms and disregard everything else, then you should
> also hold
> > Keldorn accountable to the same rigid standard.
> >
>
> But such a PC isn't eeeeviiiil and should be stripped of his clerical
> powers as well. That the game doesn't allow evil characters to 'fall'
> when reputation soars (as it will if the PC chooses non-evil options,
> just as it will drop to the cellar if the PC chooses evil options)
> should be considered a bug or design oversight in the game. Such an
> evil (but really good) PC would suffer an alignment change with a
> human DM.
True, but I don't claim to be versed in the pnp rules.
And note that I'm not advocating that Keldorn _should_ attack any
Priest of Talos, only that he should not have attacked Viconia.
> > TOB has proven Keldorn to be at least grievously mistaken.
> >
>
> ToB is post-SoA. Keldorn, you may have noticed, doesn't come to blows
> with Vic in ToB.
But he (and you in a prior post) suspected her of ultimately
plotting to betray the PC and harm the party in SOA. Which, at best,
was inconclusive in SOA, and proven to be wrong in TOB.
> As far as I'm concerned I hate the fact the Vic changes alignment in
> ToB. I think it weakens a great character. I /like/ her as evil
> b***h. :-)
I'm doing the TOB Viconia romance right now and haven't gotten to
that point yet, so we'll see. I have to say though that what I don't
really like so far is the sleazy sex dialogs -- I had thought that
phase was long over with in SOA and a more emotional and mature
working of the relationship would be underway. Underneath that layer
of drow lust and haughtiness is a strong, brave and loyal woman whom I
respect and trust and I'd wish the scriptwriters would get over this
drow sex schtick and spend more time portraying this part of her --
perhaps she needs to spend much more time on the surface to get over
the drow's insidious brainwashing influence, or perhaps, as someone
commented awhile back in the comp.sys.ibm.pr.rpg newsgroup, these
dialogs, unlike the Jaheira dialogs, were written by males to
facilitate masturbation.:)
> Try an evil game with Vic. You might see more of her unsavory side.
Ugh. That sounds about as appealing as doing the Aerie romance
again. I usually play neutral characters but I do have a game going
as an evil wild mage, so again, we'll see.
>
> Even when she describes her break with Lolth (when she refused to
> sacrifice a child), I don't remember her saying that what she was
> doing was wrong, just pointless. Note that she had no problems
> sacrificing anyone else before then.
Pointless _and_ wrong was my read. And she did have a problem
with sacrificing them (See again the dialog regarding her first
sacrifice)but feared the torment of the Drow priestesses and Lloth
more.
<snip>
> > Well, considering how Keldorn apologists have also tried to
> justify his
> > callous action towards his wife in terms of him valuing law as much
> as good,
> > then fighting chaos should also be one of Keldorn's prime missions
> in life,
> > besides picking on weak, renegade female drows.
> >
>
> Keldorn forgives his wife's trespasses and even takes some of the
> blame. The PC can steer him to turn his wife in to the authorities,
> but he's not happy about it.
We've been through this over and over, but again, his first
impulse was to turn her in, _not_ to forgive her, and the PC has to
steer him to do the latter. You Keldorn apologists always take this
point backward.
> > Hmm, I don't recall seeing that on his resume at the end of
> TOB. But in
> > any event, not attacking strong evil characters like Korgan and
> Edwin is
> > enough for me to form my own opinion about his bravery.
> >
>
> He mentions it when you talk to the Shadow Thief torturer. And he
> does attack Edwin, remember?
Because Edwin attacked him. Vic had one spat with him and even
apologized, the only time she has ever done so with any other npc.
Vic has also known the PC since BG1, not Keldorn, and the PC is in
charge of the party, not Keldorn. For what he tried to do to Vic, he
is a monster.
> And, as I've said earlier, Korgan
> expresses some desire to mend his ways.
Ah, but did he actually? There was no evidence of this in TOB,
putting aside the SOA/TOB distinction for the nonce.
> >
> > Never say never.
> >
>
> All in fun. :-) You know I don't take this seriously. I hope.
Of course, mein heir. You are always enjoyable to talk to and
don't stoop to personal attacks...but you did come close with that
"straw-man" bit.:)
>
> GB
Talen
(Jeremiah) wrote:
It's amazing how Keldorn has to be perfect when the game designers
deliberately made him not to be.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"What? So you wanna be the bad guy in _everything_?"
"Er, _Yes_."
"Okay. Just checking..."
- Rick Hall and Jim Stanfield
The Gurus love you
Talen
>
> "Honestly"? If you are implying that I deliberately left out important
>parts in referencing Keldorn's dialogs to make my point then you're being out
>of line. Did I accidentally ran over your cat?
I have to say, for all your techincal knowledge, you seem swift to
leap to somewhat... odd argumentative tactics.
I take it that you're arguing this multiple times with several people
who know you more closely than I, someone who hasn't been on this NG
long, has? I know it gets up my nose when, when arguing with some
friends in my own fashion, some newbie complains about my decorum.
And while I'm at it, I'd like to know why stereotyping a group of
people who run around killing surface people for fun and generally are
a thing to be feared as people you don't want to hang around much is a
bad thing. Stereotypes like that are why you don't walk up to
seven-foot tall bikers and ask them if they know who won the tennis
last night.
Talen
<g_bl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Talen <tal...@spamspamspamspam.optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>news:o5qq3u4p8i9brjfse...@4ax.com...
>> Why does it suck? She hates them. Keldorn's not the only person who
>> hasn't perfect race views, you know.
>
>Keldorn actually has nothing against the Drow. He practically fawns
>over Drizzit. I don't see racism at all. IMO, it's just a straw-man
>some people throw up. ;-) I think it's more that, as an Inquisitor,
>he has dedicated his entire life towards stamping out evil magic-users
>and clerics (and Vic qualifies). Vic is certainly unrepentant in her
>devotion to Shar (at least until ToB came out). I've heard that he
>will also come to blows with Edwin.
<shrugs> I have no personal experience with Keldorn and Drow, bar
Viconia. So I was basing it off that. And since his language was 'it's
a _drow_', I took that to mean what he said.
By that same score, incidentally, bear in mind that Drizzt is
_famous_. This guy has dipped into hell itself and has been parading
around now for a good few years.
>Korgan, at least, doesn't actually do anything evil. He seems to be
>more talk than show (and even tells Mazzy that he'll try to mend his
>ways for her sake). Vic, on the other hand, commits an evil act every
>time she calls upon the name of her fell deity. Keldorn has no choice
>as I see it: Torm demands her death.
Incidentally, apparently, evil Clerics radiate 'evil' on the scale
(according to the books) more potently than anything barring the
_avatar_ of an evil god.
>Some people wonder why Keldorn doesn't slaughter everyone at the
>Temple of Talos, but if you check you'll find that all of the
>Talos-ites is that what they're called?) are Neutral, not evil at all.
They're called Talons. Amusing.
Talen
<g_bl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>As far as I'm concerned I hate the fact the Vic changes alignment in
>ToB. I think it weakens a great character. I /like/ her as evil
>b***h. :-)
It especially is rather pathetic when you realises she changes because
YOU, the PC, TELL her to.
Sarevok changes his ways because, by interacting with the PC, realises
that maybe he's not in the right, and changes his ways because he
WANTS to.
It really sucks a lot out of Vick to have her puppying her own self to
someone else. Peh.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"A special note to Talen -- I'm going to kill you. Agh, too
much math, brain hurts, aah!"
- Jim Stanfield
The Gurus love you
Talen
<baby...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Htn963" <htn...@cs.com> wrote in message
>news:20020112173523...@mb-fq.news.cs.com...
>> "BabyBrain" wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >Still, 'Keldorn attacks Viconia because he is a bully and a racist' is a
>> >rhetorical argument. Here is an argument that relies on appealing to
>> >peoples emotions, but it doesnt actually give any reason for the
>conclusion
>> >and oversimplifies the issue ignoring obvious facts.
>>
>> Ironic, because you're argument that my argument is rhetorical is
>> rhetorical. How does it "oversimplifies issues and ignore obvious facts"?
>
>Keldorn doesnt have race issues with any other non-human NPC, nor does he
>try to forcefully persuade anybody weaker than him. There simply isnt
>enough evidence to support the claim that he is being racist or that he's a
>bully.
As a note:
Anomen forcefully disagrees with Keldorn, who chooses to simply step
back and wait the kid out. A bully would kick him around and demand he
behave himself.
Cernd insults Keldorn's faith a few times over and Keldorn responds by
telling Cernd to shut up _and closes his own mouth_. A bully would
have smacked Cernd or at least threatened violence.
Valygar disagrees with Keldorn on the subject of religion. Keldorn and
Valygar reach an amicable agreement on the subject. A bully wouldn't
have given up with anything less than a 'yes, I serve helm'.
These are all examples off the top of my head.
>The only evidence that might conceivably support the claim comes from this
>one incident, and given what the Drow represent on FR, Viconias attitude,
>alignment and occupation theres plenty of reason to question the validity of
>that evidence.
Plus, her innate behaviour could well lead Keldorn to _checking_ if
she's evil or not. It's something I discussed with someone else who
was roleplaying Bg2 with me, who claimed her character would not want
to hang around Edwin at all, because he was lawful evil. I posed this
question; how would the character in question KNOW Edwin was lawful
evil? Lawful and chaotic are, in fact, the more commonly SEEN
attributes of a person. Edwin acts within the law, which is less
likely to garner unwanted attention.
>Again theres the burden of proof. If you accused a politician of being a
>racist and he decided to take you to court, then you have to defend your
>position by providing irrefutable evidence that the claim is true, if you
>cant then it's gonna cost you a lot of cash.
>Not that Keldorn would take you to court, he'll probably just challenge you
>to a duel or something.
Not by my estimation of him. Unless Htn was suitably able to defend
himself - even going by Htn's own view of him as a Flawful Evil
character, - he wouldn't really take chunks out of someone
significantly weaker than him.
>> >Of course the next point is why doesnt he attack Edwin. Well Edwin
>attacks
>> >him or so I'm told (somebody will have to verify that though). Also
>Edwin
>> >isnt exactly the most evil person in the realms.
>>
>> You're speculating. And besides, it is moot in giving quantifiers
>to
>> evilness in BG2. It, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.
This, incidentally, is wrong. That's why spells like "know alignment"
work. There _is_ an evil, there _is_ a good. The writers seem to not
agree with Htn on one character in particular here.
>I'm speculating based on Edwins character and his dialogues. He hasnt got
>any holy doctrine to live by, he is just out to serve himself and so long as
>he believes he is in a 'strong' position within a group he isnt a threat.
>Its only when he himself feels threatened that he'll turn on everyone.
Edwin, in fact, is a downright _well behaved_ example of the Red
Wizards; they're CHAOTIC evil, he's LAWFUL evil.
>> >> If Jaheira had treated Viconia like Keldorn did, I'd dumped her in
>an
>> >> instant.
>> >
>> >Well she comes pretty close,
>>
>> A miss is as good as a mile. Jaheira, as someone of Elven heritage,
>has
>> more compelling reasons than Keldorn to be hostile and suspicious of
>drows,
>
>Likewise, Aerie as pure blooded elf has more reason than Jaheira to be
>hostile and suspicious of drow, seeing as the drow have in fact a holy order
>to destroy all the surface elves and enslave every other race.
Especially seeing that Jahiera's attitude is based out of druidic
lore, which states that there _IS_ a reason the Drow exist, and they
are part of the balance.
And the funny part of it all is that Jahiera strikes me as a Chaotic
Good person, who holds to a True Neutral order. <shrugs>
>> Wind him up how? What else did she do in the game to elicit this
>sort of
>> distrust and uneasiness from him besides his being closeminded and stupid?
>
>> Again, you're speculating.
>
>Keldorn like everyone distrusts a strange drow for really very obvious
>reasons, and he knows she isnt good because he can detect evil. Really that
>alone might be enough for some people to jump to a conclusion. He then
>learns that she a Cleric of Shar, an evil deity. Right from the start
>Viconias in few peoples favor.
>And we know from other Vic related conversations that she does wind people
>up, and that often has nothing to do with her being drow, she winds them
>because she chooses and wants to.
Plus, she details the murder of four or five people (admittedly,
rapists) and how she relishes in them - to the PC. She doesn't take
him aside beforehand. In fact, most of the 'proper' conversations
where she shows some goodness in her, she IS aside from everyone else.
She LIKES being known as a bitch.
>There is no evidence to suggest that Keldorn has a racist attitude, nor is
>there evidence to suggest that Viconia will make any genuine attempt to be
>nice, not before ToB anyway (and even then you get it out of her through a
>gruelling romance) and by then this isnt an issue anyway.
I'd claim Keldorn is racist, but in the same way I point out that
everyone discriminates. Hell, living with teachers, you realise that
you HAVE to discriminate, or everyone gets 100% on every test.
Keldorn is going off some basic facts. The first one being that he's
dealing with a race that is evil. Try claim that the Drow society
isn't evil and I'll laugh at you. Sorry.
It makes SENSE to see a member of a particularly evil race as evil
fercrissakes. Hell, it's why poeple tend to like Halflings - they're
_usually_ good.
--
Talen
http://shatteredreality.net/talen/
"What? So you wanna be the bad guy in _everything_?"
"Er, _Yes_."
"Okay. Just checking..."
- Rick Hall and Jim Stanfield
The Gurus love you
Gebhard Blucher
Htn963 <Htn...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:d12cac0f.02011...@posting.google.com...
>
> The definition is sound, but I still don't think your application
> of it is correct. It's a strawman only if I ascribed the claim that
> Keldorn is a bigot/racist to _you_ and then proceed to debunk it.
>
I don't think a person has to debunk his own argument for it to be a
strawman. As far as I could tell, I was using it correctly. The
'bigot' argument is weak, imaginary and easily confuted. ;-)
> What you (and Babybrain) are getting at is that, to you, there isn't
> enough prima facie evidence to conclude that Keldorn is a racist --
an
> issue, of course, open to reasonable debate -- which isn't the same
> thing as a strawman.
>
I was actually contending that there is enough negative evidence to
dismiss the notion out of hand. Somewhat jokingly of course, hence
the smiley in my original quote. Now that I think of it though, it
WAS kind of like me saying that your argument was completely
worthless. I'm definitely sorry for that. I didn't mean to be
insulting.
> Shucks, you like (or at least claim to) like everybody. Do you
> like Anomen?
>
Heh. You got me. I do actively like most of the characters. I'm
easy I guess. ;-) The worst I can say about some of the characters is
that they are either boring (Cernd) or tiresome after a while (Jan).
>
> I'm doing the TOB Viconia romance right now and haven't gotten
to
> that point yet, so we'll see. I have to say though that what I
don't
> really like so far is the sleazy sex dialogs -- I had thought that
> phase was long over with in SOA and a more emotional and mature
> working of the relationship would be underway.
>
I can do without the sleaziness too. In fact, the nicest thing about
J's romance is that the sex is almost an afterthought and isn't even
required. Then again, I play these games for the combat and tactics
mostly. The interactions and 'role-playing' are a distant second.
The BG games /are/ pretty good in this regard, but they're still
computer games and very inferior to P&P.
>
> Ugh. That sounds about as appealing as doing the Aerie romance
> again. I usually play neutral characters but I do have a game going
> as an evil wild mage, so again, we'll see.
>
I usually play a neutral character too. Heck, I even play one in real
life. :-) Evil can be just as fun as Good and Evil games though. You
just have to suppress your Ego and Super-Ego and let your Id run free.
;-)
> Of course, mein heir. You are always enjoyable to talk to and
> don't stoop to personal attacks...but you did come close with that
> "straw-man" bit.:)
>
At first this part confused me, then I thought about it (and touched
upon it above). Again, I apologize. I didn't mean it as a personal
attack at all.
GB
Gebhard Blucher
Jesse Yeager <reje...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Qyg08.7931$V55.1...@e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com...
>
> Talons
>
Thanks Yeager. You're a font of lore. :-)
GB
BabyBrain
>
> Htn963 <Htn...@cs.com> wrote in message
> news:d12cac0f.02011...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > The definition is sound, but I still don't think your application
> > of it is correct. It's a strawman only if I ascribed the claim that
> > Keldorn is a bigot/racist to _you_ and then proceed to debunk it.
> >
>
> I don't think a person has to debunk his own argument for it to be a
> strawman. As far as I could tell, I was using it correctly. The
> 'bigot' argument is weak, imaginary and easily confuted. ;-)
A strawman is not necessarily weak, or imagined or even easily confuted. A
strawman is simply a form of rhetoric - the art of persuasion. A rhetorical
argument usually involves appealing to peoples emotion, simply being
assertive and persuasive but not really giving a list of reasons or evidence
to support the conclusion. A rhetorical argument might be true, but we
critical-thinkers generally dont approve of it. In broad terms though
theres not really anything wrong with it.
The term 'strawman' of course comes from the men made of straw that are used
for target practice. A strawman argument tends to involve misrepresenting
another argument in order to make it seem vulnerable, and might go a little
like this:
Person 1: I think we should abolish the monarchy because they no longer
serve a practical role within government.
Person 2: What should we do then? Bring back Hitler?
Person 2 uses a strawman, misrepresenting Person 1's view and implying that
the only alternative to a monarchy is life under the Third Reich. Of course
Person 1 hasnt suggested such a thing and most probably has other
alternatives in mind.
Granted that ones a strawman at its worst.
Jesse Yeager
I try. I'm actually a 41st level bard (jester kit) with 20 INT and 23 WIS
(from tomes and what not).
Gebhard Blucher
BabyBrain <baby...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1XC08.15558$Hg7.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
[snips]
How did this discussion get mired in semantics? :-)
> A strawman is not necessarily weak, or imagined or even easily
confuted. A
> strawman is simply a form of rhetoric - the art of persuasion.
>
Hey, I'm just going by the dictionary definition. Take it up with
Merriam-Webster. :-)
I know certain words/terms often carry nuances of meaning that go
beyond their simple dictionary definitions. When I used the word
however, I didn't intend all of that extra baggage... just the
'simple' meaning.
Here it is again from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate:
Straw Man /n/ 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or
adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.
GB
Htn963
> news:d12cac0f.02011...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > The definition is sound, but I still don't think your application
> > of it is correct. It's a strawman only if I ascribed the claim that
> > Keldorn is a bigot/racist to _you_ and then proceed to debunk it.
> >
>
> I don't think a person has to debunk his own argument for it to be a
> strawman. As far as I could tell, I was using it correctly. The
> 'bigot' argument is weak, imaginary and easily confuted. ;-)
Nuh-uh, GB, I'm afraid this is one of the few times you're
interpreting definitions wrong, or the dictionary you are referencing
defined the term too ambiguously. The basic premise of "strawman"
involves a weak argument or opposition set up by someone for that same
person, _not_ his opponent, to easily confute.
"Strawman: a fabricated or conveniently weak or innocuous
person, object matter, etc., used as a seeming adversary or argument."
-- Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (1996) [Incidentially
one of the best (and cheapest) BIG dictionaries I've ever owned]
> > What you (and Babybrain) are getting at is that, to you, there isn't
> > enough prima facie evidence to conclude that Keldorn is a racist --
> an
> > issue, of course, open to reasonable debate -- which isn't the same
> > thing as a strawman.
> >
>
> I was actually contending that there is enough negative evidence to
> dismiss the notion out of hand.
Lack of evidence (which as I have shown in the prior post wasn't
the case) isn't the same as negative evidence. Negative evidence to
me would be an active effort on Keldorn's part to oppose racism, be it
even a simple act, a gesture, or a comment. IIRC, the only time he
comes close to displaying tolerance is commenting favorably on Aerie's
Gnomish god -- in fact, one of the best dialogs in the game.
> Somewhat jokingly of course, hence
> the smiley in my original quote.
You've used smileys so liberally that perhaps they've become
watered down.:) :) :) :)
> Now that I think of it though, it
> WAS kind of like me saying that your argument was completely
> worthless. I'm definitely sorry for that. I didn't mean to be
> insulting.
No need. I know you didn't mean to be insulting, so don't worry
about it.
But for your info: "fabricated", not "worthless", is the key
word in the "strawman" definition. I don't usually care if someone
thinks my argument is worthless, but I'll likely have problems with
them suggesting that I've made something up. But you haven't actually
done that, because you've interpreted "strawman" differently.
> I can do without the sleaziness too. In fact, the nicest thing about
> J's romance is that the sex is almost an afterthought and isn't even
> required.
While in Vic's romance, love is the afterthought -- that's why I
always found it somewhat depressing despite my liking for her
character.
But anyhow, as Laura Uerling commented in another romance thread,
we can reasonably assume that the PC and his mate are sleeping (if not
always having sex) together regularly after the mutual
"understanding." There's a TOB Jaheira dialog after the sacking of
Saradush where she and the PC commented that they noticed the other
didn't sleep much after the carnage they witnessed -- by that time,
they must have, of course, lain side by side each night.
> Then again, I play these games for the combat and tactics
> mostly. The interactions and 'role-playing' are a distant second.
Not too distant though, I think, or else you'd be spending more
time with strategy games, or more action oriented hackfest like the
Diablos or POR.
> The BG games /are/ pretty good in this regard, but they're still
> computer games and very inferior to P&P.
>
> >
> > Ugh. That sounds about as appealing as doing the Aerie romance
> > again. I usually play neutral characters but I do have a game going
> > as an evil wild mage, so again, we'll see.
> >
>
> I usually play a neutral character too. Heck, I even play one in real
> life. :-)
So do I. Though several people have grossly misunderstood me and
surmised me as Lawful Good -- don't associate me with the likes of
Keldorn, pleeze!
> Evil can be just as fun as Good and Evil games though. You
> just have to suppress your Ego and Super-Ego and let your Id run free.
> ;-)
It's my Super-Ego I'm frightened of, not my Id.
> > Of course, mein heir. You are always enjoyable to talk to and
> > don't stoop to personal attacks...but you did come close with that
> > "straw-man" bit.:)
> >
>
> At first this part confused me, then I thought about it (and touched
> upon it above). Again, I apologize. I didn't mean it as a personal
> attack at all.
Again, I was being more jocular than serious, so no need. When
you pissed me off royally, believe me, you'll know.:)
> GB
--
Ht
BabyBrain
>
> BabyBrain <baby...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:1XC08.15558$Hg7.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
> [snips]
>
> How did this discussion get mired in semantics? :-)
I dont normally bother with smeantics but I got whole bunch of books on
logic and thinking for christmas, and one book on dog care which would come
in very handy should I ever care for my dog.
> > A strawman is not necessarily weak, or imagined or even easily
> confuted. A
> > strawman is simply a form of rhetoric - the art of persuasion.
> >
>
> Hey, I'm just going by the dictionary definition. Take it up with
> Merriam-Webster. :-)
Perhaps, I will.
> Here it is again from the Merriam-Webster Collegiate:
>
> Straw Man /n/ 1 : a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or
> adversary) set up only to be easily confuted.
Well, nothing really wrong with that definition I suppose. I do think
you're misinterpreting it though.
Here is a textbook definition, which is basically similar to what I said
just remarkably more long winded:
'straw man'
'A caricature of your opponents view set up simply so that you can knock it
down. Literally a straw man is a dummy made of straw used for target
practice. Setting up a straw man in argument is the opposite of playing
devil's advocate. Sometimes it is a deliberate ploy; in which case it is a
disreputable form of rhetoric. More often it involves a degree of wishful
thinking stemming from widespread reluctance to attribute great intelligence
or subtlety to someone with whom you strongly disagree. Over confidence in
your own position may lead you to treat dissenting views as easy targets
when in fact they may be more complex and resistant to simple attacks.'
'For example, in a discussion about the merits and demerits of zoos someone
might argue that zoos can serve an important conservation role for
endangered species. An opponent of zoos might misrepresent this point,
perhaps by treating it as equivalent to the view that only endangered
species should be kept in zoos. One way of doing this would be by
suggesting that the defender of zoos' view was absurd beacuse it would imply
that we should liberate non-endangered zoo animals. Clearly the defender of
zoos was only giving one possible defence of zoos, rather than suggesting
that it was the only defence of them. So by misrepresenting the defenders
position, the arguer sets it up as an easy target to knock down.'
'Dr Johnson made a famous attack on Bishop Berkeley's philosophy of idealism
(which claimed that we cant be sure of the continuing existence of
unperceived physical objects except on the hypothesis that God continues to
perceive them) by kicking a large stone and declaring, 'I refute it thus.'
His point was that it was impossible to believe that something so solid was
really just composed of ideas: but Johnson was mistaken if he really thought
that Berkeley's idealism would not be able to explain the fact that
Johnson's toe hit solid rock. Only a caricature of Berkeley's views would
be vulnerable to such a point. So Johnson had set up a straw man. Whilst
it is often tempting to set up and topple east targets this activity has no
place in critical thinking.'
Thinking from A-Z, by some guy called Nigel Warburton. Its a college
textbook available in the UK and North America I believe.