Tony Soprano = Lawful Evil
Jack Ballard
viewing "evil" NPCs in D&D as drooling, psychopathic monsters. For
this reason I had little to no interest in ever playing an evil PC.
Then my wife (who knows a little bit about D&D, tho she doesn't play)
pointed out that Tony Soprano (we're big Sopranos fans) would be best
classified as Lawful Evil by the D&D alignment system.
Lawful because of his role as mafia boss and all of the inherent
order, structure, and discipline (adherence to "tradition", etc.) that
implies.
Evil because he is a brutal murderer when crossed and regularly cheats
on his wife. Plus, he's, well, a mafia boss. His actions on a daily
basis lead indirectly to the suffering of others.
Yet, like so many "evil" characters, he is dedicated to his wife and
children (sort of ;-P )
Can anyone think of other interesting examples of characters who are
Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, yet don't fit the drooling
psychopath mould? Characters who would be interesting and even
rewarding to play?
Robert Singers
> Can anyone think of other interesting examples of characters who are
> Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, yet don't fit the drooling
> psychopath mould? Characters who would be interesting and even
> rewarding to play?
<Baskin> Everyone must be Lawful Good otherwise they wouldn't be able to be
a member of society and wear clothes and stuff. </Baskin>
--
Rob Singers
"All your Ron are belong to us"
Working Varl
news:d69c6d77.04010...@posting.google.com...
: Can anyone think of other interesting examples of characters who are
: Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, yet don't fit the drooling
: psychopath mould? Characters who would be interesting and even
: rewarding to play?
My favorite would have to be General Kale from Willow. Neutral Evil. I
think he epitomizes what I envision a neutral evil warrior would be
like. Cruel, callous, and wearing a cool skull helm.
Ian R Malcomson
>Can anyone think of other interesting examples of characters who are
>Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, yet don't fit the drooling
>psychopath mould? Characters who would be interesting and even
>rewarding to play?
Elric. Even before getting hold of Stormbringer (or vice versa? ;)), he
was a very definition of CE. Okay, so maybe he could play the
psychopath (but compare him to Jest...), but I can't recall him ever
drooling...
--
Ian R Malcomson
Skydragon
be
> a member of society and wear clothes and stuff. </Baskin>
>
Unless its an evil society. The definition of lawfulness by the DnD standard
is people who follow a set of rules that govern the society as a whole. If
you combine that with evil, which is the disregard of the worth of others
and possibly the self as well, then you have a society that views the core
of human nature as inherently flawed and possibly evil needing rules ensure
that we do not harm ourselves or others.
(Big Door Just Creaked Open And I Can't Wait For The Flames Of Hell To Blast
Through)
First Prophet of Kaos
wrote:
<Snip>
>Can anyone think of other interesting examples of characters who are
>Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, yet don't fit the drooling
>psychopath mould? Characters who would be interesting and even
>rewarding to play?
From Fantasy:
Raistlin is the most obvious one, but Gerald Tarrant is a fine example
of Lawful Evil.
I would say Lestat might qualify as neutral or chaotic evil, as well.
--
When in doubt, RTFM.
Jack Ballard
> Out from under a rock popped Jack Ballard and said
>
> > Can anyone think of other interesting examples of characters who are
> > Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, yet don't fit the drooling
> > psychopath mould? Characters who would be interesting and even
> > rewarding to play?
>
> <Baskin> Everyone must be Lawful Good otherwise they wouldn't be able to be
> a member of society and wear clothes and stuff. </Baskin>
Robert Singers, whoever you are, you should know that an infantile
moron with the IQ of a reptile is using your Internet access.
Robert Singers
> Robert Singers <rsin...@finger.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns946973C99DDDErsingers@IP-Hidden>...
>> Out from under a rock popped Jack Ballard and said
>>
>> > Can anyone think of other interesting examples of characters who
>> > are Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, yet don't fit the drooling
>> > psychopath mould? Characters who would be interesting and even
>> > rewarding to play?
>>
>> <Baskin> Everyone must be Lawful Good otherwise they wouldn't be able
>> to be a member of society and wear clothes and stuff. </Baskin>
>
> Robert Singers, whoever you are, you should know that an infantile
> moron with the IQ of a reptile is using your Internet access.
IKYABWAI
Bryan J. Maloney
thusnews:Xns9469A17D8535Brsingers@IP-Hidden:
>
> IKYABWAI
>
GQLFITYNW
hikaru
"First Prophet of Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:mmomvvgh0oli9nr13...@4ax.com...
Lestat would be NE , from my POV. Almost chaotic, but he isnt insane- he
mostly just doesnt give a damn.
Darth Vader= lawful evil. He was genuinely fond of his son in ESB- wanted
Luke to join him, defeat the Emperor, and become his 'dark padawan'.
--
Trav
hood...@KODT.net
To reply, replace 'KODT' with 'rfci'.
11/Sept/01: Never forget. Never forgive.
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary
Americans ..." Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page
2A)
Chris Camfield
Brand from the Amber series, for instance. Although he's mentally unstable, it
seems, he basically wants to remake the world in his own image (but not to
sacrifice it to Evil God #23). But he can also be quite charming and
persuasive.
Another perhaps more interesting example is Vlad Taltos from the series about
him by Stephen Brust. To start out with, he's essentially working in the
fantasy empire equivalent of the Mafia. He kills people rather unthinkingly.
Later on, he is forced to reconsider his own actions...
Evil characters don't have to be drooling monsters. They "just" have to have a
certain disregard for human life. An overzealous defender of a good, orderly
society might become evil - killing criminals unnecessarily, using torture, and
so on - even though his motives are "for the greater good". When a character
acts as if the ends always justify the means - that's quite possibly evil.
Chris
John Phillips
"Jack Ballard" wrote
> For the longest time I found myself falling into the stereotype of
> viewing "evil" NPCs in D&D as drooling, psychopathic monsters. For
> this reason I had little to no interest in ever playing an evil PC.
>
> Then my wife (who knows a little bit about D&D, tho she doesn't play)
> pointed out that Tony Soprano (we're big Sopranos fans) would be best
> classified as Lawful Evil by the D&D alignment system.
>
> Lawful because of his role as mafia boss and all of the inherent
> order, structure, and discipline (adherence to "tradition", etc.) that
> implies.
>
> Evil because he is a brutal murderer when crossed and regularly cheats
> on his wife.
Cheating on the wife is more Chaotic than Evil I would say. Otherwise yeah,
spot on.
> Plus, he's, well, a mafia boss. His actions on a daily
> basis lead indirectly to the suffering of others.
>
> Yet, like so many "evil" characters, he is dedicated to his wife and
> children (sort of ;-P )
>
> Can anyone think of other interesting examples of characters who are
> Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, yet don't fit the drooling
> psychopath mould? Characters who would be interesting and even
> rewarding to play?
Bester from Babylon 5. Neutral Evil. Cares only about him self and those he
considers his own kind.
John
Arivne
>
<snip...well, see Subject Header>
>
> Can anyone think of other interesting examples of characters who are
> Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, yet don't fit the drooling
> psychopath mould? Characters who would be interesting and even
> rewarding to play?
Here's a list of my favorite movie villains:
Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai: John Lithgow as Lord John Whorfin/
Dr. Emilio Lizardo
Batman (1989): Jack Nicholson as the Joker
Beetlejuice: Michael Keaton in the title role
Big Trouble in Little China: James Hong as David Lo Pan
Blade Runner: Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty
Dick Tracy (1990): Al Pacino as Big Boy Caprice
Die Hard: Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber
Disney's "Peter Pan": Captain Hook
"The Jungle Book": Shere Khan
"20,000 Leagues Under the Sea": James Mason as Captain Nemo
The Final Conflict/Omen 3: Sam Neill as Damien Thorne
Flash Gordon (1980): Max von Sydow as the Emperor Ming
The Golden Child: Charles Dance as Sardo Numspa
Golden Voyage of Sinbad: Tom Baker as Prince Koura
James Bond movies:
Auric Goldfinger (Gert Fröbe, "Goldfinger")
Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher Lee, "Man With the Golden Gun")
Ernst Stavro Blofeld (Charles Gray, "Diamonds Are Forever")
Kananga/Mr. Big (Yaphet Kotto, "Live and Let Die")
Judge Dredd: Armand Assante as Rico
Labyrinth: David Bowie as Jareth the Goblin King
Legend: Tim Curry as Darkness
Maverick: Alfred Molina as Angel
Night Gallery (1969): Richard Kiley as Herme Arndt/Josef Strobe
Phantasm (1979): Angus Scrimm as The Tall Man
Philadelphia Experiment 2: Gerritt Graham as Dr. William Mailer
Predator: Kevin Peter Hall as The Predator
Primal Fear: Edward Norton as Aaron Stampler
Raiders of the Lost Ark: Paul Freeman as Dr. Rene Belloq
Robocop 2: Tom Noonan as Cain
Something Wicked This Way Comes: Jonathon Pryce as Mr. Dark
The Sting: Robert Shaw as Doyle Lonnegan
Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan: Ricardo Montalban as Khan Noonien Singh
Generations: Malcolm MacDowell as Dr. Tolian Soren
Superman 1 and 2: Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor
Three Amigos!: Alfonso Arau as El Guapo
The Three/Four Musketeers: Charlton Heston as Cardinal Richelieu
Time Bandits: David Warner as "Evil"
Under Siege: Tommy Lee Jones as William Stranix
Warlock: Julian Sands as The Warlock
Wild Wild West: Kenneth Branagh as Dr. Arliss Loveless
And the Grand Prize Winner, Best Movie Villain of All Time:
Silence of the Lambs: Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Hannibal Lecter
IMHO, of course. ;-)
Arivne
Jack Ballard
> > Evil because he is a brutal murderer when crossed and regularly cheats
> > on his wife.
>
> Cheating on the wife is more Chaotic than Evil I would say.
You must not be married...
Wayne Shaw
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Elric. Even before getting hold of Stormbringer (or vice versa? ;)), he
>was a very definition of CE. Okay, so maybe he could play the
>psychopath (but compare him to Jest...), but I can't recall him ever
>drooling...
Elric? They guy who was consistently more humane than his
surroundings and tried to be moreso (but events never seemed to let
him)? Elric is almost a classic Neutral far as I can tell.
Ian R Malcomson
He is a willing participant in the destruction of his own nation. He
actively seeks out, claims, then bemoans a continuing struggle with
Stormbringer. He is shown to revel in the sword taking the *souls* of
his foes, and when the souls taken are those of ones he has attachment
to he mourns *for himself*. He seeks means to destroy the world, and
takes the souls of both his wife and his closest friend to achieve that
destiny. His eventual turn to Balance as an ideal is based more on him
getting sick of the manipulations of the Lords of Law and Chaos than of
any wish for Balance itself.
Maybe I can see him as CN at the start of his saga, but with
Stormbringer his actions mark him solidly as CE.
Elric as a "humane character" is...somewhat laughable. The wake of
destruction and the shattered lives as those who associate him strongly
suggest otherwise.
--
Ian R Malcomson
Wayne Shaw
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> writes
>>On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:47:27 +0000, Ian R Malcomson
>><i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Elric. Even before getting hold of Stormbringer (or vice versa? ;)), he
>>>was a very definition of CE. Okay, so maybe he could play the
>>>psychopath (but compare him to Jest...), but I can't recall him ever
>>>drooling...
>>
>>Elric? They guy who was consistently more humane than his
>>surroundings and tried to be moreso (but events never seemed to let
>>him)? Elric is almost a classic Neutral far as I can tell.
>
>He is a willing participant in the destruction of his own nation. He
And no Neutral has ever done anything like that?
>actively seeks out, claims, then bemoans a continuing struggle with
>Stormbringer. He is shown to revel in the sword taking the *souls* of
And what sign do you have he knew Stormbringer was an evil sword or as
hard to control when he got it? Quite the contrary, far as I can
tell.
>his foes, and when the souls taken are those of ones he has attachment
As a side effect of Stormbringer's effect on him, which it would have
on pretty much anyone.
>to he mourns *for himself*. He seeks means to destroy the world, and
>takes the souls of both his wife and his closest friend to achieve that
>destiny. His eventual turn to Balance as an ideal is based more on him
Largely because he was convinced it was the greater good.
>getting sick of the manipulations of the Lords of Law and Chaos than of
>any wish for Balance itself.
>
>Maybe I can see him as CN at the start of his saga, but with
>Stormbringer his actions mark him solidly as CE.
Would you call it the same if a Neutral had an intelligent sword that
sometimes dominated him? That he _couldn't get rid of_?
>
>Elric as a "humane character" is...somewhat laughable. The wake of
>destruction and the shattered lives as those who associate him strongly
>suggest otherwise.
Only if you don't understand that exterior events frequently ride him.
Ian R Malcomson
>On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 18:46:40 +0000, Ian R Malcomson
><i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> writes
>>>On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 00:47:27 +0000, Ian R Malcomson
>>><i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Elric. Even before getting hold of Stormbringer (or vice versa? ;)), he
>>>>was a very definition of CE. Okay, so maybe he could play the
>>>>psychopath (but compare him to Jest...), but I can't recall him ever
>>>>drooling...
>>>
>>>Elric? They guy who was consistently more humane than his
>>>surroundings and tried to be moreso (but events never seemed to let
>>>him)? Elric is almost a classic Neutral far as I can tell.
>>
>>He is a willing participant in the destruction of his own nation. He
>
>And no Neutral has ever done anything like that?
Sure - treachery of one's homeland, instigation of virtual genocide
against one's own people... Yep, absolutely Neutral thing to do...
>>actively seeks out, claims, then bemoans a continuing struggle with
>>Stormbringer. He is shown to revel in the sword taking the *souls* of
>
>And what sign do you have he knew Stormbringer was an evil sword or as
>hard to control when he got it? Quite the contrary, far as I can
>tell.
Quotes from Elric of Melniboné:
[Cymoril on Yrkoon's location] "'To find the two black swords - the
runeswords - of our ancestors - Mourbblade...' 'And Stormbringer, ' said
Elric grimly. 'Those swords are cursed.'"
"'The swords are legendary.'"
"And Elric was reminded of a tomb. Had some ancient hero been buried
here? Or had the tomb been built to house the Black Swords - imprison
them so that they might never enter the world of men again and steal
men's souls?"
"'Yrkoon', said Elric at last, 'those swords are mine.'"
Oh, he knew about them all right. He knew they were evil, and he
claimed them for himself.
Claiming evil artefacts for oneself, knowing that they are evil: Evil.
Doing so under the advice of the greater Lord of Chaos: Chaotic.
>>his foes, and when the souls taken are those of ones he has attachment
>
>As a side effect of Stormbringer's effect on him, which it would have
>on pretty much anyone.
Yep - an alignment-changing side-effect (if he wasn't CE already). He
revels in the sword's power, with few and far between periods of
conscience or remorse except where events have directly caused himself
grief.
>>to he mourns *for himself*. He seeks means to destroy the world, and
>>takes the souls of both his wife and his closest friend to achieve that
>>destiny. His eventual turn to Balance as an ideal is based more on him
>
>Largely because he was convinced it was the greater good.
Evil acts for the greater good are still evil acts.
>>getting sick of the manipulations of the Lords of Law and Chaos than of
>>any wish for Balance itself.
>>
>>Maybe I can see him as CN at the start of his saga, but with
>>Stormbringer his actions mark him solidly as CE.
>
>Would you call it the same if a Neutral had an intelligent sword that
>sometimes dominated him? That he _couldn't get rid of_?
Is it so certain that Elric *couldn't* get rid of Stormbringer? On
several occasions, he resists the sword's pull (read Fortress of the
Pearl for a particularly graphic illustration of how he could resist
when he chose to). In virtually all of his battles wielding the sword,
it is *he* that makes the decision to draw Stormbringer, not the sword
springing suddenly into his hands. Also, there are times when Elric
commits murder in order to have Stormbringer drain a victim's soul to
save himself from weakness.
Stormbringer is more an addiction for Elric than a domination.
>>Elric as a "humane character" is...somewhat laughable. The wake of
>>destruction and the shattered lives as those who associate him strongly
>>suggest otherwise.
>
>Only if you don't understand that exterior events frequently ride him.
Many of which are events he himself instigated. He allowed Yrkoon an
opening to usurp Melniboné, for example. His decisions in dealing with
events that present themselves to him force him into even further acts.
With few exceptions, he refuses (or simply does not even see or
acknowledge) possibilities that would lead to some form of redemption.
--
Ian R Malcomson
Wayne Shaw
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>And no Neutral has ever done anything like that?
>
>Sure - treachery of one's homeland, instigation of virtual genocide
>against one's own people... Yep, absolutely Neutral thing to do...
I see nothing in being Neutral that forbids treachery against a
homeland the person has stopped believing in, and it was hardly
genocide. There were enough Melniboneans left to form a mercenary
company later in the series.
>>And what sign do you have he knew Stormbringer was an evil sword or as
>>hard to control when he got it? Quite the contrary, far as I can
>>tell.
>
>Quotes from Elric of Melniboné:
>
>[Cymoril on Yrkoon's location] "'To find the two black swords - the
>runeswords - of our ancestors - Mourbblade...' 'And Stormbringer, ' said
>Elric grimly. 'Those swords are cursed.'"
>
>"'The swords are legendary.'"
>
>"And Elric was reminded of a tomb. Had some ancient hero been buried
>here? Or had the tomb been built to house the Black Swords - imprison
>them so that they might never enter the world of men again and steal
>men's souls?"
>
>"'Yrkoon', said Elric at last, 'those swords are mine.'"
>
>Oh, he knew about them all right. He knew they were evil, and he
>claimed them for himself.
Cursed. Not evil. He knew they could steal souls but nothing
suggested he knew they dominated the user.
>
>Claiming evil artefacts for oneself, knowing that they are evil: Evil.
>Doing so under the advice of the greater Lord of Chaos: Chaotic.
I don't even buy the first, it the person has enough motivation.
Neutral people are permitted some evil acts from time to time, you
know.
>>As a side effect of Stormbringer's effect on him, which it would have
>>on pretty much anyone.
>
>Yep - an alignment-changing side-effect (if he wasn't CE already). He
Sorry, but no. Too temporary.
>revels in the sword's power, with few and far between periods of
>conscience or remorse except where events have directly caused himself
>grief.
Guess that's why he did his best to get rid of the damned thing not
once but twice, huh?
>
>>>to he mourns *for himself*. He seeks means to destroy the world, and
>>>takes the souls of both his wife and his closest friend to achieve that
>>>destiny. His eventual turn to Balance as an ideal is based more on him
>>
>>Largely because he was convinced it was the greater good.
>
>Evil acts for the greater good are still evil acts.
And Neutrals can do evil acts, just as they can do good ones.
Motivation _does_ matter.
>>>Maybe I can see him as CN at the start of his saga, but with
>>>Stormbringer his actions mark him solidly as CE.
>>
>>Would you call it the same if a Neutral had an intelligent sword that
>>sometimes dominated him? That he _couldn't get rid of_?
>
>Is it so certain that Elric *couldn't* get rid of Stormbringer? On
He tried. Twice. And it kept showing up where he was going.
>springing suddenly into his hands. Also, there are times when Elric
>commits murder in order to have Stormbringer drain a victim's soul to
>save himself from weakness.
Again, because he thinks it's the only way.
>
>Stormbringer is more an addiction for Elric than a domination.
Not when he _can't_ walk away from it for good.
>>Only if you don't understand that exterior events frequently ride him.
>
>Many of which are events he himself instigated. He allowed Yrkoon an
But not with the final results in mind.
>opening to usurp Melniboné, for example. His decisions in dealing with
>events that present themselves to him force him into even further acts.
>With few exceptions, he refuses (or simply does not even see or
>acknowledge) possibilities that would lead to some form of redemption.
Given the few times he tries it goes badly, I'm not suprised.
Ian R Malcomson
Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> writes
>On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 00:08:51 +0000, Ian R Malcomson
><i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>And no Neutral has ever done anything like that?
>>
>>Sure - treachery of one's homeland, instigation of virtual genocide
>>against one's own people... Yep, absolutely Neutral thing to do...
>
>I see nothing in being Neutral that forbids treachery against a
>homeland the person has stopped believing in, and it was hardly
>genocide. There were enough Melniboneans left to form a mercenary
>company later in the series.
Elric's intent was not to "let a few escape to form a mercenary
company". Accidental partial genocide is *still* evil.
>Cursed. Not evil. He knew they could steal souls but nothing
>suggested he knew they dominated the user.
Sucking souls is not evil? Cursed is not evil? When someone says "that
be cursed, that be", you translate that as "oh, it's neutral"? You know
something has the potential to eat your soul, and you don't immediately
think "evil"?
>>Claiming evil artefacts for oneself, knowing that they are evil: Evil.
>>Doing so under the advice of the greater Lord of Chaos: Chaotic.
>
>I don't even buy the first, it the person has enough motivation.
>Neutral people are permitted some evil acts from time to time, you
>know.
There's evil, and there's evil. Take the Hand of Vecna. If your
character knew even a portion of its past (as Elric knew a portion of
the past history of Stormbringer), you'd have your Neutral character
actively seek it out and claim it as his own? In all seriousness?
>>>As a side effect of Stormbringer's effect on him, which it would have
>>>on pretty much anyone.
>>
>>Yep - an alignment-changing side-effect (if he wasn't CE already). He
>
>Sorry, but no. Too temporary.
Really? An artefact can easily have a permanent effect on alignment.
We're not talking some stock unholy sword here.
>>revels in the sword's power, with few and far between periods of
>>conscience or remorse except where events have directly caused himself
>>grief.
>
>Guess that's why he did his best to get rid of the damned thing not
>once but twice, huh?
Twice counts as "few and far between", given the timespan of the series.
>>>>to he mourns *for himself*. He seeks means to destroy the world, and
>>>>takes the souls of both his wife and his closest friend to achieve that
>>>>destiny. His eventual turn to Balance as an ideal is based more on him
>>>
>>>Largely because he was convinced it was the greater good.
>>
>>Evil acts for the greater good are still evil acts.
>
>And Neutrals can do evil acts, just as they can do good ones.
>Motivation _does_ matter.
No, it doesn't. An evil act is still an evil act. A Neutral character
would still have a crisis of conscience about committing an evil act -
as he would a good act. Neutral *does not mean* "commit evil and good
acts to equality".
>>>>Maybe I can see him as CN at the start of his saga, but with
>>>>Stormbringer his actions mark him solidly as CE.
>>>
>>>Would you call it the same if a Neutral had an intelligent sword that
>>>sometimes dominated him? That he _couldn't get rid of_?
>>
>>Is it so certain that Elric *couldn't* get rid of Stormbringer? On
>
>He tried. Twice. And it kept showing up where he was going.
There you go then - Elric *could* get rid of Stormbringer.
Stormbringer, as an entity, didn't want to get rid of Elric. Thus Elric
wasn't dominated by Stormbringer - so his actions with the sword *were
his own*. QED.
>>springing suddenly into his hands. Also, there are times when Elric
>>commits murder in order to have Stormbringer drain a victim's soul to
>>save himself from weakness.
>
>Again, because he thinks it's the only way.
Even though he knows it is not. He survived to adulthood without using
Stormbringer as a crutch. He went for some time using concoctions
instead of Stormbringer to keep his strength up. "He thinks it's the
only way" - if we boil it down to "die or eat someone's soul", and he
chooses "eat soul" - that's *evil*. That enters BoVD evil!
>>Stormbringer is more an addiction for Elric than a domination.
>
>Not when he _can't_ walk away from it for good.
Because Stormbringer keeps finding him again, not because he can't leave
the sword.
>>>Only if you don't understand that exterior events frequently ride him.
>>
>>Many of which are events he himself instigated. He allowed Yrkoon an
>
>But not with the final results in mind.
Of course not. That still does not deny that the events were of his own
making (however misguided).
>>opening to usurp Melniboné, for example. His decisions in dealing with
>>events that present themselves to him force him into even further acts.
>>With few exceptions, he refuses (or simply does not even see or
>>acknowledge) possibilities that would lead to some form of redemption.
>
>Given the few times he tries it goes badly, I'm not suprised.
So he gives up, and embraces evil actions instead.
--
Ian R Malcomson
James Quick
theyliv...@yahoo.ca (Jack Ballard) wrote:
His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
covers honoring commitments.
--
James Quick [][][] jamesqu...@hotmail.com
I find this embrace of cognitive dissonance somewhat perplexing.
It makes me want to kick you in the nuts.
- MSB to Cope, on rgfd
James Quick
"hikaru" <hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote:
> Lestat would be NE , from my POV. Almost chaotic, but he isnt insane- he
> mostly just doesnt give a damn.
You don't have to be insane to be chaotic.
John Phillips
"James Quick" wrote
> Jack Ballard wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > Evil because he is a brutal murderer when crossed and regularly
cheats
> > > > on his wife.
> > >
> > > Cheating on the wife is more Chaotic than Evil I would say.
> >
> > You must not be married...
>
> His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
> covers honoring commitments.
Now, if he were doing it to try and hurt his wife, then it could be Evil.
John
James Quick
<2t4Lb.10461$214.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"John Phillips" <jsphi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Why? Would it kill her?
Mike1
>His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
>covers honoring commitments.
Actually they mean whatever the PHB says they mean, or you're playing a
different game.
--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
"An election is nothing more than an advance auction of stolen goods."
-- Ambrose Bierce
James Quick
<mike1_justfordangoodman...@news.usfamily.net>,
Mike1 <mike1_justfo...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
> >covers honoring commitments.
>
> Actually they mean whatever the PHB says they mean, or you're playing a
> different game.
The PHB agrees with me, fuckhead:
łGood˛ implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the
dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices
to help others.
łEvil˛ implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil
creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms
if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for
sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
łLaw˛ implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and
reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include close-mindedness,
reactionary adherence to tradition, judgmentalness, and a lack of
adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only
lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each
other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will
act as they should.
łChaos˛ implies freedom, adaptability, and flexibility. On the
downside, chaos can include recklessness, resentment toward legitimate
authority, arbitrary actions, and irresponsibility. Those who promote
chaotic behavior say that only unfettered personal freedom allows
people to express themselves fully and lets society benefit from the
potential that its individuals have within them.
John Phillips
"James Quick" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote:
>
> > > His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
> > > covers honoring commitments.
> >
> > Now, if he were doing it to try and hurt his wife, then it could be
Evil.
>
> Why? Would it kill her?
You can be Evil with out ever killing anyone you know.
John
Christopher Adams
>>>> on his wife.
>>>
>>> Cheating on the wife is more Chaotic than Evil I would say.
>>
>> You must not be married...
>
> His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
> covers honoring commitments.
So a real Lawful Evil character would arrange for his wife's death in order to
free himself from the commitment, then.
--
Christopher Adams - SUTEKH Functions Officer 2003
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrante.
Ian R Malcomson
Adams <mhacde...@spammity-spammity-spam.yahoo.com> writes
>>>>> Evil because he is a brutal murderer when crossed and regularly cheats
>>>>> on his wife.
>>>>
>>>> Cheating on the wife is more Chaotic than Evil I would say.
>>>
>>> You must not be married...
>>
>> His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
>> covers honoring commitments.
>
>So a real Lawful Evil character would arrange for his wife's death in order to
>free himself from the commitment, then.
Yep - a Chaotic Evil one wouldn't consider himself bound by the
commitment anyway.
--
Ian R Malcomson
James Quick
<bG7Lb.11462$214.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"John Phillips" <jsphi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Cheating on your wife, no matter what the reason, does not fall within
the purview of Evil. Read the PHB.
Chris Camfield
wrote:
>In article
><mike1_justfordangoodman...@news.usfamily.net>,
> Mike1 <mike1_justfo...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
>> James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
>> >covers honoring commitments.
>>
>> Actually they mean whatever the PHB says they mean, or you're playing a
>> different game.
>
>The PHB agrees with me
[snip]
>³Evil² implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.
Note the mention of hurting and oppressing as well as killing. The book doesn't
say that this hurt has to be physical. If the character cheats on his wife *in
order to cause his wife mental anguish*, rather than simply because he wants to
hop in the sack with someone he's attracted to for the sex, that's arguably
evil.
Chris
Bradd W. Szonye
> In article
><2t4Lb.10461$214.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "John Phillips" <jsphi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> "James Quick" wrote
>> > Jack Ballard wrote:
>> >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Evil because he is a brutal murderer when crossed and regularly
>> cheats
>> > > > > on his wife.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheating on the wife is more Chaotic than Evil I would say.
>> > >
>> > > You must not be married...
>> >
>> > His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
>> > covers honoring commitments.
>>
>> Now, if he were doing it to try and hurt his wife, then it could be Evil.
>
> Why? Would it kill her?
Have you forgotten about "dignity of sentient beings"?
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Wayne Shaw
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <2aa05c9ce047d1df...@news.nntpserver.com>, Wayne
>Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> writes
>>On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 00:08:51 +0000, Ian R Malcomson
>><i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>And no Neutral has ever done anything like that?
>>>
>>>Sure - treachery of one's homeland, instigation of virtual genocide
>>>against one's own people... Yep, absolutely Neutral thing to do...
>>
>>I see nothing in being Neutral that forbids treachery against a
>>homeland the person has stopped believing in, and it was hardly
>>genocide. There were enough Melniboneans left to form a mercenary
>>company later in the series.
>
>Elric's intent was not to "let a few escape to form a mercenary
>company". Accidental partial genocide is *still* evil.
And I find no evidence in the story he wanted to destroy them as a
race. As a nation, yes, but then, just who in that world short of
them _didn't_ think the place would be better off without the
Melnibonean Empire (or what was left of it) as players?
>
>>Cursed. Not evil. He knew they could steal souls but nothing
>>suggested he knew they dominated the user.
>
>Sucking souls is not evil? Cursed is not evil? When someone says "that
>be cursed, that be", you translate that as "oh, it's neutral"? You know
>something has the potential to eat your soul, and you don't immediately
>think "evil"?
Take note D&D has life draining weapons that are not evil. They
certainly aren't good, but those aren't the same statements.
>
>>>Claiming evil artefacts for oneself, knowing that they are evil: Evil.
>>>Doing so under the advice of the greater Lord of Chaos: Chaotic.
>>
>>I don't even buy the first, it the person has enough motivation.
>>Neutral people are permitted some evil acts from time to time, you
>>know.
>
>There's evil, and there's evil. Take the Hand of Vecna. If your
Yes, and in the context he was in and with the knowledge he had, it
likely seemed by far the lesser of two evils.
>character knew even a portion of its past (as Elric knew a portion of
>the past history of Stormbringer), you'd have your Neutral character
>actively seek it out and claim it as his own? In all seriousness?
In his situation? Most likely. Especially since the alternate was to
have his psychotic kinsman get them.
>>Sorry, but no. Too temporary.
>
>Really? An artefact can easily have a permanent effect on alignment.
>We're not talking some stock unholy sword here.
And if it effected him all the time, I might agree with that. But it
_only_ effected his behavior in battle, and when using it.
>
>>>revels in the sword's power, with few and far between periods of
>>>conscience or remorse except where events have directly caused himself
>>>grief.
>>
>>Guess that's why he did his best to get rid of the damned thing not
>>once but twice, huh?
>
>Twice counts as "few and far between", given the timespan of the series.
Given both times showed no sign that it'd work, there's this concept
called "wasting your time". I don't recall him in any situation where
dumping it looked any more likely to work than the prior two
occurances.
>>>Evil acts for the greater good are still evil acts.
>>
>>And Neutrals can do evil acts, just as they can do good ones.
>>Motivation _does_ matter.
>
>No, it doesn't. An evil act is still an evil act. A Neutral character
We can keep going around on this, but I'm not playing. Both
motivation and action matter. You can't exclude one
>would still have a crisis of conscience about committing an evil act -
>as he would a good act. Neutral *does not mean* "commit evil and good
>acts to equality".
No, it means commiting acts that are sometimes good, sometimes evil,
and sometimes neither.
>>>Is it so certain that Elric *couldn't* get rid of Stormbringer? On
>>
>>He tried. Twice. And it kept showing up where he was going.
>
>There you go then - Elric *could* get rid of Stormbringer.
>Stormbringer, as an entity, didn't want to get rid of Elric. Thus Elric
>wasn't dominated by Stormbringer - so his actions with the sword *were
>his own*. QED.
This is the most bizarre conclusion from this I can imagine.
>>Again, because he thinks it's the only way.
>
>Even though he knows it is not. He survived to adulthood without using
>Stormbringer as a crutch. He went for some time using concoctions
And he did it in a pampered setting where he wasn't having to deal
with other problems that required physical activity on his part.
>instead of Stormbringer to keep his strength up. "He thinks it's the
>only way" - if we boil it down to "die or eat someone's soul", and he
>chooses "eat soul" - that's *evil*. That enters BoVD evil!
And when the alternative is a greater evil _neutral characters do
that_.
>>Not when he _can't_ walk away from it for good.
>
>Because Stormbringer keeps finding him again, not because he can't leave
>the sword.
And I still fail to get your point. It's a difference that makes no
difference.
>
>>>>Only if you don't understand that exterior events frequently ride him.
>>>
>>>Many of which are events he himself instigated. He allowed Yrkoon an
>>
>>But not with the final results in mind.
>
>Of course not. That still does not deny that the events were of his own
>making (however misguided).
If you cause and effect shows no relationship because fate is guiding
you to them (and that's clearly the case, as with all the Eternal
Champions) then in practice your only options are to find the most
benign path amidst those you'll be permitted.
>
>>>opening to usurp Melniboné, for example. His decisions in dealing with
>>>events that present themselves to him force him into even further acts.
>>>With few exceptions, he refuses (or simply does not even see or
>>>acknowledge) possibilities that would lead to some form of redemption.
>>
>>Given the few times he tries it goes badly, I'm not suprised.
>
>So he gives up, and embraces evil actions instead.
No, he choses the best actions available. Context matters.
Wayne Shaw
<JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <d69c6d77.04010...@posting.google.com>,
> theyliv...@yahoo.ca (Jack Ballard) wrote:
>
>> > >
>> > > Evil because he is a brutal murderer when crossed and regularly cheats
>> > > on his wife.
>> >
>> > Cheating on the wife is more Chaotic than Evil I would say.
>>
>> You must not be married...
>
>His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
>covers honoring commitments.
Though when cheating becomes known to the spouse and it does harm,
it's an arguably evil act. But I have to agree that undiscovered
cheating is a chaotic act but not an intrinsically evil one in D&D
terms.
Wayne Shaw
<JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article
><2t4Lb.10461$214.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "John Phillips" <jsphi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> "James Quick" wrote
>> > Jack Ballard wrote:
>> >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Evil because he is a brutal murderer when crossed and regularly
>> cheats
>> > > > > on his wife.
>> > > >
>> > > > Cheating on the wife is more Chaotic than Evil I would say.
>> > >
>> > > You must not be married...
>> >
>> > His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
>> > covers honoring commitments.
>>
>> Now, if he were doing it to try and hurt his wife, then it could be Evil.
>
>Why? Would it kill her?
If death was the only issue then torture would be okay for Goods. I
don't think that's what you're claiming, James.
Wayne Shaw
<JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article
><mike1_justfordangoodman...@news.usfamily.net>,
> Mike1 <mike1_justfo...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>
>> James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
>> >covers honoring commitments.
>>
>> Actually they mean whatever the PHB says they mean, or you're playing a
>> different game.
>
>The PHB agrees with me, fuckhead:
>
>³Good² implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the
>dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices
>to help others.
>
>³Evil² implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil
Notice it mentions _both_ hurting and killing, James. To claim life
is the only issue is a poor reading of this passage. I expect better
of you.
John Phillips
"James Quick" wrote
> "John Phillips" wrote:
>
> > > > > His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death,
Chaos/law
> > > > > covers honoring commitments.
> > > >
> > > > Now, if he were doing it to try and hurt his wife, then it could be
> > Evil.
> > >
> > > Why? Would it kill her?
> >
> > You can be Evil with out ever killing anyone you know.
>
> Cheating on your wife, no matter what the reason, does not fall within
> the purview of Evil. Read the PHB.
Physical isn't the only type of hurt and suffering you know. If he did it so
he wife would find out and be hurt and miserable, and he took pleasure in
that suffering, that would be Evil.
John
Jeff Heikkinen
> >>>> Evil because he is a brutal murderer when crossed and regularly cheats
> >>>> on his wife.
> >>>
> >>> Cheating on the wife is more Chaotic than Evil I would say.
> >>
> >> You must not be married...
> >
> > His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
> > covers honoring commitments.
>
> So a real Lawful Evil character would arrange for his wife's death in order to
> free himself from the commitment, then.
If he thought he could get away with it, and was fairly bloodthirsty (a
usual trait of Evil characters but not, I think, a necessary one), and
he had nothing to gain by keeping the mariage intact, and his problems
with it were serious.
Otherwise cheating is just a lapse in his Lawfulness, but anyone can
have those. Very few people follow every dictate of their alignment all
the time (at least four out of five complaints about alignment that I
see forget this important fact).
James Quick
Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
The pain of having someone ceat on you is the pain of having a
commitment broken. I suppose some reading could call it evil if you
cheated just so they other would find out and be hurt, but it seems a
particularly self aggrandizing way to go about it.
James Quick
Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
I will admit that motivation matters. It seems a construed situation
to claim someone may cheat not for the sex or the thrill or what ever
but specifically so he could get caught and that the catching would
cause his spouse to suffer. Awfully contrived though.
James Quick
No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
be cheated on? I do not, though I have conceded on other grounds.
James Quick
Chris Camfield <ccam...@DELETEMEemail.com> wrote:
Very contrived, but I will concede the point for argument's sake.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> Why [is infidelity evil]? Would it kill her?
> "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>> Have you forgotten about "dignity of sentient beings"?
> No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
> be cheated on?
Definitely!
> I do not ....
Then I must ask what color the sky is in your world.
Bradd W. Szonye
> The pain of having someone cheat on you is the pain of having a
> commitment broken. I suppose some reading could call it evil if you
> cheated just so they other would find out and be hurt, but it seems a
> particularly self aggrandizing way to go about it.
Evil isn't just about hurting people intentionally. It's also about not
caring whether your actions cause harm.
Stephenls
> Actually they mean whatever the PHB says they mean, or you're playing a
> different game.
Shades of Gary Gygax in the 1e DMG, there.
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "Actually they mean whatever
the PHB says they mean, or else you're talking about house rules which
are beyond the scope of this discussion," in which case he'd be entirely
within his place to reply something along the lines of "I'm expanding
the scope, fuckhead."
--
Stephenls
Geek
"That was the funnest coma ever." -Willow
Ian R Malcomson
>On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 02:10:47 +0000, Ian R Malcomson
><i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Elric's intent was not to "let a few escape to form a mercenary
>>company". Accidental partial genocide is *still* evil.
>
>And I find no evidence in the story he wanted to destroy them as a
>race.
I'd note that you didn't find any to say he knew anything about
Stormbringer's abilities, either.
>As a nation, yes, but then, just who in that world short of
>them _didn't_ think the place would be better off without the
>Melnibonean Empire (or what was left of it) as players?
Elric didn't attack Melniboné "for the good of the world". That's
pretty clear. It was a selfish act directed largely against Yrkoon.
>>>Cursed. Not evil. He knew they could steal souls but nothing
>>>suggested he knew they dominated the user.
>>
>>Sucking souls is not evil? Cursed is not evil? When someone says "that
>>be cursed, that be", you translate that as "oh, it's neutral"? You know
>>something has the potential to eat your soul, and you don't immediately
>>think "evil"?
>
>Take note D&D has life draining weapons that are not evil. They
>certainly aren't good, but those aren't the same statements.
**Cough**
Nine Lives Stealer: Strong necromancy [evil]...
The non-evil life-draining weapons simply bestow negative levels on a
victim; only the nine lives stealer comes remotely close to
Stormbringer. If a "baby Stormbringer" sword radiates *strong* evil
magic, there's no way this side of the Abyss you can convince me that a
sword such as Stormbringer *wouldn't* be evil in D&D terms.
>>No, it doesn't. An evil act is still an evil act. A Neutral character
>
>We can keep going around on this, but I'm not playing. Both
>motivation and action matter. You can't exclude one
Then we'll agree to disagree on this. If you like, the BoED has a nice
discussion on evil acts vs. motivation in D&D which backs my point, but
otherwise it's down to interpretation.
>>would still have a crisis of conscience about committing an evil act -
>>as he would a good act. Neutral *does not mean* "commit evil and good
>>acts to equality".
>
>No, it means commiting acts that are sometimes good, sometimes evil,
>and sometimes neither.
Which defines virtually any character except the extreme stalwarts.
What matters is general trend, and the general trend in Elric's life is
evil. Through the course of 9 novels and 2 collections, I can think of a
plethora of evil acts, and nary a handful of good ones. Okay, so
numerous ones that are neither, too.
>>>>Is it so certain that Elric *couldn't* get rid of Stormbringer? On
>>>
>>>He tried. Twice. And it kept showing up where he was going.
>>
>>There you go then - Elric *could* get rid of Stormbringer.
>>Stormbringer, as an entity, didn't want to get rid of Elric. Thus Elric
>>wasn't dominated by Stormbringer - so his actions with the sword *were
>>his own*. QED.
>
>This is the most bizarre conclusion from this I can imagine.
Really? If he was so dominated by Stormbringer, he wouldn't have been
able to even attempt to get rid of the sword. If he was abhorred by the
acts Stormbringer "caused" him to commit, he would have continued in his
attempts. But he gave up, and kept the sword, and continued to use it
to commit evil. He had no strong desire to *not* be evil.
>>>Again, because he thinks it's the only way.
>>
>>Even though he knows it is not. He survived to adulthood without using
>>Stormbringer as a crutch. He went for some time using concoctions
>
>And he did it in a pampered setting where he wasn't having to deal
>with other problems that required physical activity on his part.
Read Fortress of the Pearl. Yes, the earliest sections in Melniboné
were in a pampered setting; the start of FotP was far from that.
>>instead of Stormbringer to keep his strength up. "He thinks it's the
>>only way" - if we boil it down to "die or eat someone's soul", and he
>>chooses "eat soul" - that's *evil*. That enters BoVD evil!
>
>And when the alternative is a greater evil _neutral characters do
>that_.
*Not consistently*. If a D&D character *consistently* chooses the evil
route to spare a "greater evil", sooner or later the DM is going to
apply alignment shifts on that character. Besides which, choosing
murder in a horrific way over one's own death isn't committing evil to
halt a greater evil - it's committing evil for selfish ends.
>>>Not when he _can't_ walk away from it for good.
>>
>>Because Stormbringer keeps finding him again, not because he can't leave
>>the sword.
>
>And I still fail to get your point. It's a difference that makes no
>difference.
Being able to shoo off the demon means the demon has no dominance over
you. The demon's capability to follow you around does not deny that
fact.
>>Of course not. That still does not deny that the events were of his own
>>making (however misguided).
>
>If you cause and effect shows no relationship because fate is guiding
>you to them (and that's clearly the case, as with all the Eternal
>Champions) then in practice your only options are to find the most
>benign path amidst those you'll be permitted.
It is clear that Elric's path is fated, yes. One major facet of the EC
books is how the EC in question deals with fate. Von Bek, for a large
part, virtually ignores it; Erekose embraces it; Elric comes to despise
it; don't ask me what the hell Cornelius does with it. The realisation
that you are in the arms of fate does not deny you decisions. The ones
Elric makes are most often driven by self-pity, vengeance, hatred
towards being manipulated, and selfishness.
>>>>opening to usurp Melniboné, for example. His decisions in dealing with
>>>>events that present themselves to him force him into even further acts.
>>>>With few exceptions, he refuses (or simply does not even see or
>>>>acknowledge) possibilities that would lead to some form of redemption.
>>>
>>>Given the few times he tries it goes badly, I'm not suprised.
>>
>>So he gives up, and embraces evil actions instead.
>
>No, he choses the best actions available. Context matters.
This is a circle. Read BoED p.9.
--
Ian R Malcomson
Jeff Heikkinen
> In article <slrnbvr2oi.7...@szonye.com>,
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
> >
> > Have you forgotten about "dignity of sentient beings"?
>
> No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
> be cheated on? I do not, though I have conceded on other grounds.
Take a step back, James. There is a point in some Usenet arguments
where one or more participants start saying completely ridiculous things
just because they feel a need to disagree with the other guy; you have
CLEARLY reached it.
James Quick
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
> James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Why [is infidelity evil]? Would it kill her?
>
> > "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
> >> Have you forgotten about "dignity of sentient beings"?
>
> > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
> > be cheated on?
>
> Definitely!
>
> > I do not ....
>
> Then I must ask what color the sky is in your world.
If the injured party behaves with dignity, then they will be seen as
dignified. You cannot take away who I am no matter what you do to me.
James Quick
Jeff Heikkinen <o...@s.if> wrote:
If my wife were to cheat on me, it would not damage my dignity in any
way. The way I handle myself in that situation might even strengthen
my dignity.
Part of the paroblem is that Bradd left of the most important part,
"respect for the..." dignity of sentient beings.
Bradd W. Szonye
> In article <MPG.1a67a2a91...@news.easynews.com>,
> Jeff Heikkinen <o...@s.if> wrote:
>
>> James Quick, worshipped by llamas the world over, wrote...
>> > In article <slrnbvr2oi.7...@szonye.com>,
>> > "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Have you forgotten about "dignity of sentient beings"?
>> >
>> > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
>> > be cheated on? I do not, though I have conceded on other grounds.
>>
>> Take a step back, James. There is a point in some Usenet arguments
>> where one or more participants start saying completely ridiculous things
>> just because they feel a need to disagree with the other guy; you have
>> CLEARLY reached it.
>
> If my wife were to cheat on me, it would not damage my dignity in any
> way.
Have you been taking lessons from Sea Wasp or something? I seriously
doubt that your belief is at all common in reality.
> Part of the paroblem is that Bradd left of the most important part,
> "respect for the..." dignity of sentient beings.
What's your point? You and I both know that it's part of the definition.
Bradd W. Szonye
> In article <slrnbvrmd1.8...@szonye.com>,
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>
>> James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>> Why [is infidelity evil]? Would it kill her?
>>
>> > "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>> >> Have you forgotten about "dignity of sentient beings"?
>>
>> > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
>> > be cheated on?
>>
>> Definitely!
>>
>> > I do not ....
>>
>> Then I must ask what color the sky is in your world.
>
> If the injured party behaves with dignity, then they will be seen as
> dignified.
Bullshit.
Wayne Shaw
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> writes
>>On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 02:10:47 +0000, Ian R Malcomson
>><i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Elric's intent was not to "let a few escape to form a mercenary
>>>company". Accidental partial genocide is *still* evil.
>>
>>And I find no evidence in the story he wanted to destroy them as a
>>race.
>
>I'd note that you didn't find any to say he knew anything about
>Stormbringer's abilities, either.
>
About Stormbringer's ability to influence it's user, no. Nor have I
heard you quote any.
>>As a nation, yes, but then, just who in that world short of
>>them _didn't_ think the place would be better off without the
>>Melnibonean Empire (or what was left of it) as players?
>
>Elric didn't attack Melniboné "for the good of the world". That's
>pretty clear. It was a selfish act directed largely against Yrkoon.
Sure. So what? Neutral people do that kind of thing. You apparently
have the bizarre view that neutrals aren't permitted to do selfish
acts. Kindly quote where D&D says this is the case.
The point was, given the Melniboneans, wrecking their culture was
hardly an evil.
>>>Sucking souls is not evil? Cursed is not evil? When someone says "that
>>>be cursed, that be", you translate that as "oh, it's neutral"? You know
>>>something has the potential to eat your soul, and you don't immediately
>>>think "evil"?
>>
>>Take note D&D has life draining weapons that are not evil. They
>>certainly aren't good, but those aren't the same statements.
>
>**Cough**
>
>Nine Lives Stealer: Strong necromancy [evil]...
>
>The non-evil life-draining weapons simply bestow negative levels on a
>victim; only the nine lives stealer comes remotely close to
And as such can kill them quite dead.
>Stormbringer. If a "baby Stormbringer" sword radiates *strong* evil
>magic, there's no way this side of the Abyss you can convince me that a
>sword such as Stormbringer *wouldn't* be evil in D&D terms.
I'm not saying it wouldn't, but I'm saying someone who heard of one
wouldn't automatically assume such. I can certainly think of at least
one piece of fiction that doesn't treat all of it's soul stealing
weapons as evil.
>
>>>No, it doesn't. An evil act is still an evil act. A Neutral character
>>
>>We can keep going around on this, but I'm not playing. Both
>>motivation and action matter. You can't exclude one
>
>Then we'll agree to disagree on this. If you like, the BoED has a nice
>discussion on evil acts vs. motivation in D&D which backs my point, but
>otherwise it's down to interpretation.
And after the fact discussion by a single one of it's authors, and one
I'm getting second hand from you. Sorry, still not playing.
>
>>>would still have a crisis of conscience about committing an evil act -
>>>as he would a good act. Neutral *does not mean* "commit evil and good
>>>acts to equality".
>>
>>No, it means commiting acts that are sometimes good, sometimes evil,
>>and sometimes neither.
>
>Which defines virtually any character except the extreme stalwarts.
Except Neutral characters don't show a strong tendency in one
direction or the other.
>What matters is general trend, and the general trend in Elric's life is
>evil. Through the course of 9 novels and 2 collections, I can think of a
And I still disagree; he does a number of good acts including fighting
against a number of far worse opponents, in some cases specifically
because they're worse.
>>>>He tried. Twice. And it kept showing up where he was going.
>>>
>>>There you go then - Elric *could* get rid of Stormbringer.
>>>Stormbringer, as an entity, didn't want to get rid of Elric. Thus Elric
>>>wasn't dominated by Stormbringer - so his actions with the sword *were
>>>his own*. QED.
>>
>>This is the most bizarre conclusion from this I can imagine.
>
>Really? If he was so dominated by Stormbringer, he wouldn't have been
>able to even attempt to get rid of the sword. If he was abhorred by the
As I've said several times _dominated when in battle_. The rest of
the time he just couldn't usefully get rid of the damn thing. The
fact it doesn't directly parallel the way D&D handles such things
doesn't change his fundamental situation. Short of staying away from
fights (which he wasn't effectively allowed to do for long) he was
stuck with a devil's choice.
>>>Even though he knows it is not. He survived to adulthood without using
>>>Stormbringer as a crutch. He went for some time using concoctions
>>
>>And he did it in a pampered setting where he wasn't having to deal
>>with other problems that required physical activity on his part.
>
>Read Fortress of the Pearl. Yes, the earliest sections in Melniboné
>were in a pampered setting; the start of FotP was far from that.
Yet he still had access to the potions rather than having to spend
plenty of time travelling cross country and fighting dark powers that
were overrunning everyone else.
>>And when the alternative is a greater evil _neutral characters do
>>that_.
>
>*Not consistently*. If a D&D character *consistently* chooses the evil
They aren't consistently forced into the situation the way he is.
He's a ruddy _eternal champion_; fate is going to drag him into these
things whether he wants to or not, same way it does all the rest of
them.
>route to spare a "greater evil", sooner or later the DM is going to
>apply alignment shifts on that character. Besides which, choosing
Not if the GM is consistantly forcing him into situations where that's
his set of options.
>>If you cause and effect shows no relationship because fate is guiding
>>you to them (and that's clearly the case, as with all the Eternal
>>Champions) then in practice your only options are to find the most
>>benign path amidst those you'll be permitted.
>
>It is clear that Elric's path is fated, yes. One major facet of the EC
>books is how the EC in question deals with fate. Von Bek, for a large
>part, virtually ignores it; Erekose embraces it; Elric comes to despise
>it; don't ask me what the hell Cornelius does with it. The realisation
>that you are in the arms of fate does not deny you decisions. The ones
>Elric makes are most often driven by self-pity, vengeance, hatred
>towards being manipulated, and selfishness.
And only the last of those is evil. Most of the rest are not
presented with _nearly_ the ugly set of choices he is. In fact the
only other one I know who gets the screws placed on him nearly as
badly is Corum.
>>>>Given the few times he tries it goes badly, I'm not suprised.
>>>
>>>So he gives up, and embraces evil actions instead.
>>
>>No, he choses the best actions available. Context matters.
>
>This is a circle. Read BoED p.9.
If you want me to know it, you quote it to me. I'm not buying a book
I don't consider central to the D&D alignment discussion just to make
you happy.
Wayne Shaw
<JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
>be cheated on? I do not, though I have conceded on other grounds.
Of course it can. It brings into question your judgement in choice of
a mate.
Malachias Invictus
"James Quick" <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JamesQuick1967-2C0...@news.verizon.net...
> In article <slrnbvrmd1.8...@szonye.com>,
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>
> > James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Why [is infidelity evil]? Would it kill her?
> >
> > > "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
> > >> Have you forgotten about "dignity of sentient beings"?
> >
> > > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
> > > be cheated on?
> >
> > Definitely!
> >
> > > I do not ....
> >
> > Then I must ask what color the sky is in your world.
>
> If the injured party behaves with dignity, then they will be seen as
> dignified. You cannot take away who I am no matter what you do to me.
Damn right. I am totally with James on this one. The only one who has lost
dignity in this situation is the one who behaved in an undignified manner.
Forcing his wife to perform slave labor, now *that* is an act disrespecting
the dignity of another human being.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Bradd W. Szonye
does show compunctions against doing harm, and a strong desire to do
better than his upbringing has taught him. On the other hand, he's still
a creature of that upbringing in many ways. His compunctions suggest a
neutral alignment, but his failings show that he might be a bit shy of
actual neutrality. It's a tough call, so it's not surprising that the
two of you can't reach agreement.
Malachias Invictus
"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
news:58ef0233a1c0919d...@news.nntpserver.com...
...on the other hand, *that* is a pretty good point.
Nikolas Landauer
> James Quick wrote:
> >
> > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's
> > dignity to be cheated on? I do not, though I have conceded
> > on other grounds.
>
> Of course it can. It brings into question your judgement
> in choice of a mate.
I've been trying to stay out of this, but this statement is just
ridiculous. What another person does demonstrates *THEIR* lack of
dignity or ethics, not yours, no matter what connection you have to
them.
--
Nik - remove clothing to reply
"I have high hopes that you're going to be stupid enough
to actually make MSB cry." - Rob Singers, to Chris Basken
Keith Davies
>
> I can certainly think of at least
> one piece of fiction that doesn't treat all of it's soul stealing
> weapons as evil.
Which one is that? I'm curious.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Your ability to bang your head against
keith....@kjdavies.org reality in the hope that reality will
crack first is impressive, but futile"
-- Geoffrey Brent, rec.games.frp.dnd
Ian R Malcomson
>On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 23:21:23 +0000, Ian R Malcomson
><i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>I'd note that you didn't find any to say he knew anything about
>>Stormbringer's abilities, either.
>>
>
>About Stormbringer's ability to influence it's user, no. Nor have I
>heard you quote any.
Your actual note was:
"And what sign do you have he knew Stormbringer was an evil sword or as
hard to control when he got it? Quite the contrary, far as I can tell.
"
The "influence" part was a second facet of yours which, I agree, I can
find no source to absolutely say he knew this. On the first facet, you
were wrong.
>>>As a nation, yes, but then, just who in that world short of
>>>them _didn't_ think the place would be better off without the
>>>Melnibonean Empire (or what was left of it) as players?
>>
>>Elric didn't attack Melniboné "for the good of the world". That's
>>pretty clear. It was a selfish act directed largely against Yrkoon.
>
>Sure. So what? Neutral people do that kind of thing. You apparently
>have the bizarre view that neutrals aren't permitted to do selfish
>acts. Kindly quote where D&D says this is the case.
I have no such view. But selfish to the point of genocide (or, if you
prefer, culture-cide) goes beyond neutral-selfish.
>The point was, given the Melniboneans, wrecking their culture was
>hardly an evil.
Same as wiping the face of the world clean of orcs wouldn't be evil?
>>>>Sucking souls is not evil? Cursed is not evil? When someone says "that
>>>>be cursed, that be", you translate that as "oh, it's neutral"? You know
>>>>something has the potential to eat your soul, and you don't immediately
>>>>think "evil"?
>>>
>>>Take note D&D has life draining weapons that are not evil. They
>>>certainly aren't good, but those aren't the same statements.
>>
>>**Cough**
>>
>>Nine Lives Stealer: Strong necromancy [evil]...
>>
>>The non-evil life-draining weapons simply bestow negative levels on a
>>victim; only the nine lives stealer comes remotely close to
>
>And as such can kill them quite dead.
Yes - as Stormbringer did. Except Stormbringer can do it a heck of a
lot more than just nine times.
>>Stormbringer. If a "baby Stormbringer" sword radiates *strong* evil
>>magic, there's no way this side of the Abyss you can convince me that a
>>sword such as Stormbringer *wouldn't* be evil in D&D terms.
>
>I'm not saying it wouldn't, but I'm saying someone who heard of one
>wouldn't automatically assume such.
The fact that the swords were part of Elric's culture (which you admit
is an evil one, in your "destroying it provides good motive"), that
Elric knew a fair bit about them (as evidenced by his conversations with
Cymoril, Arioch, and Rakhir) means that Elric had done more than "just
hear of them".
>I can certainly think of at least
>one piece of fiction that doesn't treat all of it's soul stealing
>weapons as evil.
And the piece of fiction we are discussing treats its soul stealing
weapons as evil. Very evil. Stormbringer's own quote at the close of
its eponymous novel show that clearly.
[In fact, if you're looking for Moorcock's own figuring of Elric's slant
towards evil, Stormbringer's closing boast carries some interpretative
weight.]
>>>>No, it doesn't. An evil act is still an evil act. A Neutral character
>>>
>>>We can keep going around on this, but I'm not playing. Both
>>>motivation and action matter. You can't exclude one
>>
>>Then we'll agree to disagree on this. If you like, the BoED has a nice
>>discussion on evil acts vs. motivation in D&D which backs my point, but
>>otherwise it's down to interpretation.
>
>And after the fact discussion by a single one of it's authors, and one
>I'm getting second hand from you. Sorry, still not playing.
Ah, so when you say things like "Kindly quote where D&D says this is the
case.", and I do so, your counter will always be "I'm ignoring that
source" if it doesn't match your view? The fact is, that single author
carries more weight in defining what alignment actually means than you
do.
>>>>would still have a crisis of conscience about committing an evil act -
>>>>as he would a good act. Neutral *does not mean* "commit evil and good
>>>>acts to equality".
>>>
>>>No, it means commiting acts that are sometimes good, sometimes evil,
>>>and sometimes neither.
>>
>>Which defines virtually any character except the extreme stalwarts.
>
>Except Neutral characters don't show a strong tendency in one
>direction or the other.
And Elric does show a strong tendency towards evil.
>>What matters is general trend, and the general trend in Elric's life is
>>evil. Through the course of 9 novels and 2 collections, I can think of a
>
>And I still disagree; he does a number of good acts including fighting
>against a number of far worse opponents, in some cases specifically
>because they're worse.
And he commits far more acts of murder and destruction.
>>>>>He tried. Twice. And it kept showing up where he was going.
>>>>
>>>>There you go then - Elric *could* get rid of Stormbringer.
>>>>Stormbringer, as an entity, didn't want to get rid of Elric. Thus Elric
>>>>wasn't dominated by Stormbringer - so his actions with the sword *were
>>>>his own*. QED.
>>>
>>>This is the most bizarre conclusion from this I can imagine.
>>
>>Really? If he was so dominated by Stormbringer, he wouldn't have been
>>able to even attempt to get rid of the sword. If he was abhorred by the
>
>As I've said several times _dominated when in battle_.
And he *knows* this is going to happen; and he still willingly enters
into it.
>The rest of
>the time he just couldn't usefully get rid of the damn thing. The
>fact it doesn't directly parallel the way D&D handles such things
>doesn't change his fundamental situation. Short of staying away from
>fights (which he wasn't effectively allowed to do for long) he was
>stuck with a devil's choice.
Yes - and chose the evil course rather than the neutral one (and
definitely not the good one) when faced with it.
>>Read Fortress of the Pearl. Yes, the earliest sections in Melniboné
>>were in a pampered setting; the start of FotP was far from that.
>
>Yet he still had access to the potions rather than having to spend
>plenty of time travelling cross country and fighting dark powers that
>were overrunning everyone else.
Okay, granted - we're seeing Elric there at the end of his supplies.
I'll concede this point.
>>>And when the alternative is a greater evil _neutral characters do
>>>that_.
>>
>>*Not consistently*. If a D&D character *consistently* chooses the evil
>
>They aren't consistently forced into the situation the way he is.
>He's a ruddy _eternal champion_; fate is going to drag him into these
>things whether he wants to or not, same way it does all the rest of
>them.
I don't deny it - it's what he does when dragged into them that counts.
>>route to spare a "greater evil", sooner or later the DM is going to
>>apply alignment shifts on that character. Besides which, choosing
>
>Not if the GM is consistantly forcing him into situations where that's
>his set of options.
True, and it would make a horrible game to play within. But he still
has choices open to him that are not evil, yet he almost consistently
chooses the evil solution.
>>>If you cause and effect shows no relationship because fate is guiding
>>>you to them (and that's clearly the case, as with all the Eternal
>>>Champions) then in practice your only options are to find the most
>>>benign path amidst those you'll be permitted.
>>
>>It is clear that Elric's path is fated, yes. One major facet of the EC
>>books is how the EC in question deals with fate. Von Bek, for a large
>>part, virtually ignores it; Erekose embraces it; Elric comes to despise
>>it; don't ask me what the hell Cornelius does with it. The realisation
>>that you are in the arms of fate does not deny you decisions. The ones
>>Elric makes are most often driven by self-pity, vengeance, hatred
>>towards being manipulated, and selfishness.
>
>And only the last of those is evil.
You just inferred that selfish wasn't evil.
Elric's basic traits are not individually evil; the decisions he bases
upon them collectively are.
>Most of the rest are not
>presented with _nearly_ the ugly set of choices he is. In fact the
>only other one I know who gets the screws placed on him nearly as
>badly is Corum.
Von Bek has a hard time with both nascent Nazis and the Devil...
Hawkmoon's very reality unwravels before him. The von Bek family as a
whole get screwed consistently throughout their documented history - in
fact, Rose is the only von Bek thus far I would consider to be neutral,
although she's faced with some weighty stuff. Corum faces his trials
with a certain heroism that Elric doesn't even approach.
>If you want me to know it, you quote it to me. I'm not buying a book
>I don't consider central to the D&D alignment discussion just to make
>you happy.
Geez...
"When do good ends justify evil means to achieve them? Is it morally
acceptable, for example, to torture an evil captive in order to extract
vital information that can prevent the deaths of thousands of innocents?
Any good character shudders at the thought of committing torture, but
the goal of preventing thousands of deaths is an undeniably virtuous
one, and a neutral character might easily consider the use of torture in
such circumstance. With evil acts on a smaller scale, even the most
virtuous of characters can find themselves tempted to agree that a very
good end justifies a mildly evil means. Is it acceptable to tell a
small lie in order to prevent a minor catastrophe? A large catastrophe?
A world-shattering catastrophe?
In the D&D universe, the fundamental answer is no, an evil act is an
evil act no matter what good result it may achieve."
...
"Whether or not good ends can justify evil means, they certainly cannot
make evil means any less evil."
--
Ian R Malcomson
Wayne Shaw
<keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:56:24 GMT, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>>
>> I can certainly think of at least
>> one piece of fiction that doesn't treat all of it's soul stealing
>> weapons as evil.
>
>Which one is that? I'm curious.
The Draegeran books. Morganthi weapons are certainly nasty things to
be feared, but at least the Great Weapons are not treated as
automatically evil.
Wayne Shaw
<daci...@hotmail.diespam.com> wrote:
>Wayne Shaw wrote:
>> James Quick wrote:
>> >
>> > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's
>> > dignity to be cheated on? I do not, though I have conceded
>> > on other grounds.
>>
>> Of course it can. It brings into question your judgement
>> in choice of a mate.
>
>I've been trying to stay out of this, but this statement is just
>ridiculous. What another person does demonstrates *THEIR* lack of
>dignity or ethics, not yours, no matter what connection you have to
>them.
People you chose to bring into your life show things about you. You
can rail at that all you want, but it's true. You may not chose your
relatives but you do chose your husband and wife, and if you chose a
cheater when you thought you had someone loyal, you're either naive or
you've allowed yourself to be fooled. If you don't think the latter
things effect your dignity, _your_ statement is the ridiculous one.
Keith Davies
I figured you meant Draegera.
I'd suggest that it's simple prudence. Anyone who is strong enough to
handle one of these items is someone to be very careful with. The
Empire is remarkably tolerant of many things, but even the Empire
considers simply *owning* a Morganti weapon a crime. Anyone who
actually gets caught using one who isn't powerful enough (personally or
politically) can expect to be killed with another one. I seem to recall
reading this; it might apply only to assassins.
The Empire is not a very nice place; I don't think it'd be difficult to
conclude that it's on the evil side of neutral. Not necessarily evil
itself, but it's certainly not good. In this setting, that people don't
hunt down and kill very powerful people wielding powerful weapons
shouldn't, I think, be taken as an indication that the weapons aren't
evil. Not evil enough to be worth the trouble, perhaps, but still evil.
Nikolas Landauer
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> > Wayne Shaw wrote:
> > > James Quick wrote:
> > > >
> > > > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's
> > > > dignity to be cheated on? I do not, though I have conceded
> > > > on other grounds.
> > >
> > > Of course it can. It brings into question your judgement
> > > in choice of a mate.
> >
> > I've been trying to stay out of this, but this statement is
> > just ridiculous. What another person does demonstrates
> > *THEIR* lack of dignity or ethics, not yours, no matter what
> > connection you have to them.
>
> People you chose to bring into your life show things about you.
> You can rail at that all you want, but it's true.
But their actions do not.
> You may not chose your relatives but you do chose your husband
> and wife, and if you chose a cheater when you thought you had
> someone loyal, you're either naive or you've allowed yourself
> to be fooled.
Or chastity was not your intent.
Or you don't consider marriage an absolute.
Or that person *changed* from what they were when you chose them.
Or they were loyal until a very bad choice.
Your statement of absolutes shows more about you than about the dignity
of the person wronged.
> If you don't think the latter things effect your dignity,
> _your_ statement is the ridiculous one.
Naivete has nothing to do with dignity.
Being fooled has nothing to do with dignity.
My dignity is my own, and the actions of others have no genuine effect
upon it. My reaction to those actions certainly has an effect on my
dignity, but that's not the same thing.
This kind of thing reminds me of a character in the novel /Bridge of
Birds/, by Barry Hughart (very good book, by the way). Master Li Kao
always introduced himself with "My surname is Li and my personal name
is Kao, and there is a slight flaw in my character." His flaw didn't
detract from his dignity at all; his reaction to it in fact enhanced
his dignity.
First Prophet of Kaos
<hik...@diespamdie.rfci.net> wrote:
>
>"First Prophet of Kaos" <ka...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>news:mmomvvgh0oli9nr13...@4ax.com...
>> On 6 Jan 2004 14:17:37 -0800, theyliv...@yahoo.ca (Jack Ballard)
>> wrote:
>>
>> <Snip>
>> >Can anyone think of other interesting examples of characters who are
>> >Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic Evil, yet don't fit the drooling
>> >psychopath mould? Characters who would be interesting and even
>> >rewarding to play?
>>
>> From Fantasy:
>> Raistlin is the most obvious one, but Gerald Tarrant is a fine example
>> of Lawful Evil.
>>
>> I would say Lestat might qualify as neutral or chaotic evil, as well.
>> --
>> When in doubt, RTFM.
>
>Lestat would be NE , from my POV. Almost chaotic, but he isnt insane- he
>mostly just doesnt give a damn.
Chaos does not require insanity. It simply means not giving a damn
about the rules.
--
When in doubt, RTFM.
First Prophet of Kaos
<i...@domicus.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> writes
>>Would you call it the same if a Neutral had an intelligent sword that
>>sometimes dominated him? That he _couldn't get rid of_?
>
>Is it so certain that Elric *couldn't* get rid of Stormbringer?
Yes. Perhaps not so obvious in the Elric saga itself, but the rest of
the Eternal Champion stories make it painfully obvious that he is
inextricably bound to that sword, as it is to him.
First Prophet of Kaos
<Snip>
>Silence of the Lambs: Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Hannibal Lecter
>
>IMHO, of course. ;-)
YHO sucks IMO, for not including Top Dollar from the Crow.
James Quick
Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
What, people don't change where you are from?
I used to have a good friend who lived with a girl for several years.
Very faithful, good to her, kind, all that rot. His father died, and
he went through som severe emotional turmoil. Part of that was
cheating on his girlfriend. She was never more dignified than she was
when she handled that situation.
James Quick
Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
Or, after XX years of marriage, they changed.
> If you don't think the latter
> things effect your dignity, _your_ statement is the ridiculous one.
My dignity is mine; No one can take it from me unless I allow it.
James Quick
"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
> news:58ef0233a1c0919d...@news.nntpserver.com...
> > On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:18:24 GMT, James Quick
> > <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
> > >be cheated on? I do not, though I have conceded on other grounds.
> >
> > Of course it can. It brings into question your judgement in choice of
> > a mate.
>
> ...on the other hand, *that* is a pretty good point.
No, it really isn't. It completely ignores the fact that the person
who cheated is the moral cripple, and you can be dignified even if you
married a moral cripple, or someone who was not so, but became so at
some point after the marriage.
James Quick
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
> James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnbvrmd1.8...@szonye.com>,
> > If the injured party behaves with dignity, then they will be seen as
> > dignified.
>
> Bullshit.
Sad that you think one cannot be dignified in the face of adversity.
JB
"Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vvrvfki...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James Quick" <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:JamesQuick1967-2C0...@news.verizon.net...
> > In article <slrnbvrmd1.8...@szonye.com>,
> > "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
> >
> > > James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> Why [is infidelity evil]? Would it kill her?
> > >
> > > > "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
> > > >> Have you forgotten about "dignity of sentient beings"?
> > >
> > > > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's
dignity to
> > > > be cheated on?
> > >
> > > Definitely!
> > >
> > > > I do not ....
> > >
> > > Then I must ask what color the sky is in your world.
> >
> > If the injured party behaves with dignity, then they will be seen as
> > dignified. You cannot take away who I am no matter what you do to
me.
>
> Damn right. I am totally with James on this one.
I'm with Bradd.
> The only one who has lost
> dignity in this situation is the one who behaved in an undignified
manner.
Cultures throughout history have heaped ridicule on the partner who's
been cheated on. Being labelled a "cuckold" for example has always had
negative conotations and despite their own actions suffer diminished
dignity. A cheated partner who behaves with dignity after the event is
merely engaging in damage limitation (not dimishing their dignity any
further).
Even if your argument were true and the injured party's dignity only
suffers if they behave in an undignified way but you accept the
possibility that cheating may often provoke this bevaviour then
alignment, being what it is, means the cheater has disregarded the
likely *possibility* that their partner's dignity will suffer (depite
the high likelihood if it's an Earth like culture) and therefore this
clause applies. Intent or neglect is important.
> Forcing his wife to perform slave labor, now *that* is an act
disrespecting
> the dignity of another human being.
By your logic if the slave behaves with dignity then that isn't true.
JB
"James Quick" <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JamesQuick1967-2C0...@news.verizon.net...
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>
> > James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> Why [is infidelity evil]? Would it kill her?
> >
> > > "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
> > >> Have you forgotten about "dignity of sentient beings"?
> >
> > > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity
to
> > > be cheated on?
> >
> > Definitely!
> >
> > > I do not ....
> >
> > Then I must ask what color the sky is in your world.
>
> If the injured party behaves with dignity, then they will be seen as
> dignified. You cannot take away who I am no matter what you do to me.
So I can enslave you, paint you orange with green spots and make you
toil naked in my salt mine but so long as your behaviour is dignified
you haven't lost any dignity?!
JB
> In article <slrnbvrum5.8...@szonye.com>,
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>
> > James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <slrnbvrmd1.8...@szonye.com>,
>
> > > If the injured party behaves with dignity, then they will be seen
as
> > > dignified.
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
> Sad that you think one cannot be dignified in the face of adversity.
You can but that doesn't mean your dignity hasn't been affected.
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> you can be dignified even if you married a moral
> cripple, or someone who was not so, but became so
> at some point after the marriage.
You can also be dignified and ashamed *simultaneously*. Don't they make
you kids read Nathaniel Hawthorne in grade school anymore?
bblackmoor
2004-01-09
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> So I can enslave you, paint you orange with green spots and
> make you toil naked in my salt mine but so long as your
> behaviour is dignified you haven't lost any dignity?!
You should read "Man's Search For Meaning", by Viktor E. Frankl.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0671023373/rpglibrary/
bblackmoor
2004-01-09
(P.S. You can trim the "rpglibrary" from the end if you would rather not
divert a few pennies my way, but it won't make the book any cheaper.)
JB
> I will admit that motivation matters. It seems a construed situation
> to claim someone may cheat not for the sex or the thrill or what ever
To seek that thrill *despite* the consequences for the partner. To put
your own, often petty, desires first.
> but specifically so he could get caught and that the catching would
> cause his spouse to suffer. Awfully contrived though.
I *know* people who've cheated just to hurt their partners. I know
people who've cheated and who don't give a crap what their partners
think, were even amused by the situation, until they found out.
Chris
> In article <slrnbvr2oi.7...@szonye.com>,
> "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>
> > James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > "John Phillips" <jsphi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "James Quick" wrote
> > >> > Jack Ballard wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > Evil because he is a brutal murderer when crossed and regularly
> cheats
> > >> > > > > on his wife.
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Cheating on the wife is more Chaotic than Evil I would say.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > You must not be married...
> > >> >
> > >> > His statement was accurate. Evil/good covers life and death, Chaos/law
> > >> > covers honoring commitments.
> > >>
> > >> Now, if he were doing it to try and hurt his wife, then it could be Evil.
> > >
> > > Why? Would it kill her?
> > Have you forgotten about "dignity of sentient beings"?
>
> No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
Its the ultimate betrayal of trust, if you ask me (well, at least one
of the big 'uns). It could completely destroy your self-respect.
Hong Ooi
That's right. There's nothing more shameful than being made to read
Nathaniel Hawthorne, but you can still be dignified about it.
--
Hong Ooi | "Why do you stalk me?"
ho...@zipworld.com.au | -- BJM
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ |
Sydney, Australia |
Chris
> In article <slrnbvrmd1.8...@szonye.com>,
>
> "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
>
> > > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
> > > be cheated on?
> >
> >
> > > I do not ....
> >
> > Then I must ask what color the sky is in your world.
>
First, that's just wrong.
Second, if you take your interpretation to its ultimate conclusion,
whether a person is Evil depends upon their victim's reaction to their
actions. You say that if your spouse cheats on you to try and destroy
your dignity, yet you act proud, your spouse isn't Evil. I am
confident, however, that if I act with dignity as you torture me in
the most heinous ways, you are Evil.
Chris
> In article <bacf592e36b3ef1c...@news.nntpserver.com>,
> Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 05:54:03 GMT, James Quick
> > <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article
> > ><mike1_justfordangoodman...@news.usfamily.net>,
> > > Mike1 <mike1_justfo...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >covers honoring commitments.
> > >>
> > >> different game.
> > >
> > >The PHB agrees with me, fuckhead:
> > >
> > >łGood˛ implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the
> > >dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices
> > >to help others.
> > >
> > >łEvil˛ implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil
> >
> > Notice it mentions _both_ hurting and killing, James. To claim life
> > is the only issue is a poor reading of this passage. I expect better
> > of you.
>
> The pain of having someone ceat on you is the pain of having a
> commitment broken. I suppose some reading could call it evil if you
> cheated just so they other would find out and be hurt, but it seems a
> particularly self aggrandizing way to go about it.
That is the only reading of it. You don't have to be physical to hurt
someone. The likelihood of a spouse cheating for that purpose is
probably pretty slim, if that's your point.
Chris
> > In article <slrnbvrmd1.8...@szonye.com>,
> > "Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
> >
> > > James Quick <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Bradd W. Szonye" wrote:
> > > >> Have you forgotten about "dignity of sentient beings"?
>
> > > > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
> > > > be cheated on?
> > >
> > > Definitely!
> > >
> > > > I do not ....
> > >
> > > Then I must ask what color the sky is in your world.
> >
> > If the injured party behaves with dignity, then they will be seen as
> > dignified. You cannot take away who I am no matter what you do to me.
>
> dignity in this situation is the one who behaved in an undignified manner.
> the dignity of another human being.
I agree with his conclusion (I think), but not his reasoning.
Adultery would generally not be an Evil act, but it has nothing to do
with the fact that the innocent party can maintain their dignity. It
is because the act usually isn't done to damage the innocent parties'
dignity; it is often hidden from their eyes. Clearly chaotic. IF a
person did it with the sole intent of destroying their spouse's
dignity by damaging the trust they had developed, then it is evil.
At least, I think. I am open to changing my mind.
Wayne Shaw
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Regarding Wayne & Ian's long debate on Elric's alignment: Elric clearly
>does show compunctions against doing harm, and a strong desire to do
>better than his upbringing has taught him. On the other hand, he's still
>a creature of that upbringing in many ways. His compunctions suggest a
>neutral alignment, but his failings show that he might be a bit shy of
>actual neutrality. It's a tough call, so it's not surprising that the
>two of you can't reach agreement.
Probably true enough. I don't think it's really going anywhere so I
think I'll let Ian have the last word.
Wayne Shaw
<keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:20:52 GMT, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 01:35:53 GMT, Keith Davies
>><keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:56:24 GMT, Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I can certainly think of at least
>>>> one piece of fiction that doesn't treat all of it's soul stealing
>>>> weapons as evil.
>>>
>>
>>>Which one is that? I'm curious.
>>
>> The Draegeran books. Morganthi weapons are certainly nasty things to
>> be feared, but at least the Great Weapons are not treated as
>> automatically evil.
>
>I figured you meant Draegera.
>
>I'd suggest that it's simple prudence. Anyone who is strong enough to
>handle one of these items is someone to be very careful with. The
>Empire is remarkably tolerant of many things, but even the Empire
>considers simply *owning* a Morganti weapon a crime. Anyone who
>actually gets caught using one who isn't powerful enough (personally or
>politically) can expect to be killed with another one. I seem to recall
>reading this; it might apply only to assassins.
>
Yup. The regular ones are after all, only good for one thing.
>The Empire is not a very nice place; I don't think it'd be difficult to
>conclude that it's on the evil side of neutral. Not necessarily evil
Oh, sure. Though once you study the history and such it's hard not to
think it's a better place than it could be. Even Vlad's perceptions
of the Emperess change a bit after he actually meets her; mine changed
even more after reading "The Paths of the Dead" and finding out what
her motives were for going into the above to get the Imperial Orb.
>itself, but it's certainly not good. In this setting, that people don't
>hunt down and kill very powerful people wielding powerful weapons
>shouldn't, I think, be taken as an indication that the weapons aren't
>evil. Not evil enough to be worth the trouble, perhaps, but still evil.
I'm going more by the way Vlad seems to respond to them. He hates
regular Morganthi weapons (even though he's used them once in a while
in extremis) but he doesn't seem to have quite the same attitude
toward the Great Weapons (of course now he has one of his own, but it
was instructive seeing how that happened too, and explains a bit why I
suspect they aren't quite in the same category as the regular ones).
Wayne Shaw
>I agree with his conclusion (I think), but not his reasoning.
>Adultery would generally not be an Evil act, but it has nothing to do
>with the fact that the innocent party can maintain their dignity. It
>is because the act usually isn't done to damage the innocent parties'
>dignity; it is often hidden from their eyes. Clearly chaotic. IF a
Which is why I agreed it isn't intrinsically Evil; it can cause harm,
but isn't done to cause harm, and often is done in a fashion as to
minimize the harm it can do (though almost always for at least
partially selfish reasons--but I have no reason to believe that
adulterers aren't sometimes being careful not just for their own
sakes).
>person did it with the sole intent of destroying their spouse's
>dignity by damaging the trust they had developed, then it is evil.
>
>At least, I think. I am open to changing my mind.
I tend to agree with your logic, for what it's worth.
Wayne Shaw
<daci...@hotmail.diespam.com> wrote:
>Wayne Shaw wrote:
>> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
>> > Wayne Shaw wrote:
>> > > James Quick wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's
>> > > > dignity to be cheated on? I do not, though I have conceded
>> > > > on other grounds.
>> > >
>> > > Of course it can. It brings into question your judgement
>> > > in choice of a mate.
>> >
>> > I've been trying to stay out of this, but this statement is
>> > just ridiculous. What another person does demonstrates
>> > *THEIR* lack of dignity or ethics, not yours, no matter what
>> > connection you have to them.
>>
>> People you chose to bring into your life show things about you.
>> You can rail at that all you want, but it's true.
>
>But their actions do not.
Yes, they do, because they say things about them, and therefor about
your choice of them as partners.
>
>> You may not chose your relatives but you do chose your husband
>> and wife, and if you chose a cheater when you thought you had
>> someone loyal, you're either naive or you've allowed yourself
>> to be fooled.
>
>Or chastity was not your intent.
In which case the question is moot and adultery is a meaningless term.
>Or you don't consider marriage an absolute.
>Or that person *changed* from what they were when you chose them.
Yet you stayed with them. That doesn't let you off the hook.
>Or they were loyal until a very bad choice.
Nor does that.
>
>Your statement of absolutes shows more about you than about the dignity
>of the person wronged.
And your attempt to divert the topic shows you're not engaging with
it.
>
>> If you don't think the latter things effect your dignity,
>> _your_ statement is the ridiculous one.
>
>Naivete has nothing to do with dignity.
>Being fooled has nothing to do with dignity.
Yes, they do.
>My dignity is my own, and the actions of others have no genuine effect
>upon it. My reaction to those actions certainly has an effect on my
>dignity, but that's not the same thing.
And this is why I say your statement is ridiculous. As someone else
said, your actions can preform damage control on your dignity, but it
doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Wayne Shaw
<JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> People you chose to bring into your life show things about you. You
>> can rail at that all you want, but it's true. You may not chose your
>> relatives but you do chose your husband and wife, and if you chose a
>> cheater when you thought you had someone loyal, you're either naive or
>> you've allowed yourself to be fooled.
>
>Or, after XX years of marriage, they changed.
Then why are you still with them.
>
>> If you don't think the latter
>> things effect your dignity, _your_ statement is the ridiculous one.
>
>My dignity is mine; No one can take it from me unless I allow it.
But others can and do damage it.
Wayne Shaw
<JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <58ef0233a1c0919d...@news.nntpserver.com>,
> Wayne Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:18:24 GMT, James Quick
>> <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No. Do you think that it could in any way damage another's dignity to
>> >be cheated on? I do not, though I have conceded on other grounds.
>>
>> Of course it can. It brings into question your judgement in choice of
>> a mate.
>
>What, people don't change where you are from?
What, you can't get divorced where you're from?
Wayne Shaw
>
>"James Quick" <JamesQu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:JamesQuick1967-2A4...@news.verizon.net...
>
>> I will admit that motivation matters. It seems a construed situation
>> to claim someone may cheat not for the sex or the thrill or what ever
>
>To seek that thrill *despite* the consequences for the partner. To put
>your own, often petty, desires first.
I don't think risking harm, if you're attempting to avoid doing so
(the harm) is intrinsically evil. It's not good, but there are acts
that are in-between.
Keith Davies
Given the size, age, and scope of the empire, not to mention that the
various Houses actually *are* physically different -- the Dragaeran
'race' is arguably several subraces -- and the conflicts that can cause,
the Empire is about as 'good as you can expect'. The primary purpose of
the Empire, as described by the Emperess, is basically to maintain
stability so trade continues (and thus food and resources get around,
not necessarily so the merchants make money).
Still, that the Empire more or less ignores Necromancers and Morganti
weapons suggests that the Empire is neutral at best. Actually, TN is
probably about right -- it exists to stabilize things (L -- LG if you
consider that it's largely to ensure that people don't starve), has a
huge degree of privilege and inconsistently enforced laws (N-C), allows
(de facto) the ownership of Morganti weapons (and uses them itself,
though it is in some ways just) (E).
>>itself, but it's certainly not good. In this setting, that people
>>don't hunt down and kill very powerful people wielding powerful
>>weapons shouldn't, I think, be taken as an indication that the weapons
>>aren't evil. Not evil enough to be worth the trouble, perhaps, but
>>still evil.
>
> I'm going more by the way Vlad seems to respond to them. He hates
> regular Morganthi weapons (even though he's used them once in a while
> in extremis) but he doesn't seem to have quite the same attitude
> toward the Great Weapons (of course now he has one of his own, but it
> was instructive seeing how that happened too, and explains a bit why I
> suspect they aren't quite in the same category as the regular ones).
As I recall he was always bothered by Iceflame and Blackwand. His own,
though, doesn't bother him that way at all. There's a very powerful
bond between the Great Weapons and their wielders.
Actually, that might be part of it -- Great Weapons actually do have a
bond and are, in a fashion, under the control of their wielders. They
still kill horribly and destroy souls, and are probably the most
powerful (hence most horrible?) Morganti weapons, but are not completely
uncontrolled.
I still think that not going after wielders of the Great Weapons is more
prudence than deciding the items aren't evil.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "Your ability to bang your head against
keith....@kjdavies.org reality in the hope that reality will
crack first is impressive, but futile"
-- Geoffrey Brent, rec.games.frp.dnd
Ian R Malcomson
Shaw <sh...@caprica.com> writes
Well, Bradd does have a good point, so I guess we'll just agree to
disagree on this one, Wayne.
--
Ian R Malcomson
Bradd W. Szonye
> My dignity is my own, and the actions of others have no genuine effect
> upon it.
That may be true for you, and it may even be a healthy way to approach
dignity and self-confidence, but it's hardly universal.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Bradd W. Szonye
>> I agree with his conclusion (I think), but not his reasoning.
>> Adultery would generally not be an Evil act, but it has nothing to do
>> with the fact that the innocent party can maintain their dignity. It
>> is because the act usually isn't done to damage the innocent parties'
>> dignity; it is often hidden from their eyes. Clearly chaotic. IF a
Wayne Shaw wrote:
> Which is why I agreed it isn't intrinsically Evil; it can cause harm,
> but isn't done to cause harm, and often is done in a fashion as to
> minimize the harm it can do (though almost always for at least
> partially selfish reasons--but I have no reason to believe that
> adulterers aren't sometimes being careful not just for their own
> sakes).
I don't think that mitigates it at all. Compare it to an arsonist who
tries to make sure that the building is empty first, so that he won't be
prosecuted for felony murder. There's no real compunction against harm
there, just a desire not to get caught.
Bradd W. Szonye
>>> Regarding Wayne & Ian's long debate on Elric's alignment: Elric
>>> clearly does show compunctions against doing harm, and a strong
>>> desire to do better than his upbringing has taught him. On the other
>>> hand, he's still a creature of that upbringing in many ways. His
>>> compunctions suggest a neutral alignment, but his failings show that
>>> he might be a bit shy of actual neutrality. It's a tough call, so
>>> it's not surprising that the two of you can't reach agreement.
Wayne Shaw wrote:
>> Probably true enough. I don't think it's really going anywhere so I
>> think I'll let Ian have the last word.
Ian R Malcomson wrote:
> Well, Bradd does have a good point, so I guess we'll just agree to
> disagree on this one, Wayne.
Whew, glad to see that I made some sense despite my head cold, and that
I actually managed to write something non-grumpy! Personally, I dunno
whether to say that Elric is chaotic evil with a strong desire to become
true chaotic, or that he's true chaotic with some significant evil
attitudes.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Here's a list of my favorite movie villains: ...
> Die Hard: Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber
Rickman's Gruber is one of my favorites too. Charming, basically sane,
and willing to kill as many people as necessary to pull of his heist. In
the movie commentary, McTiernan notes that it was one of his top
priorities to make sure that the bad guys came off as sympathetic and
"joyful," and he succeeded admirably.
Nikolas Landauer
> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
> >
> > My dignity is my own, and the actions of others have no genuine
> > effect upon it.
>
> That may be true for you, and it may even be a healthy way to
> approach dignity and self-confidence, but it's hardly universal.
Except that it is. Anyone who feels a blow to their dignity due to
another's actions is making that choice themselves, perhaps
subconsciously... Or they have chosen to abrogate their dignity to
others. I just choose not to do that, meaning the original point is by
no means universal, either.
This is similar, in a way, to the fact that the person who is cuckolded
almost always attacks (either physically or emotionally) the person who
their SO cheated *WITH*, rather than the betrayer SO... Which I also
find incredibly stupid.
--
Nik - remove clothing to reply
"I have high hopes that you're going to be stupid enough
to actually make MSB cry." - Rob Singers, to Chris Basken
Nikolas Landauer
>
> Cultures throughout history have heaped ridicule on the partner
> who's been cheated on.
A perfect example of how those cultures are *immature* and selfish
(i.e. attacking others to uphold oneself as a counterexample).
> A cheated partner who behaves with dignity after the event is
> merely engaging in damage limitation (not dimishing their dignity
> any further).
Or their dignity was undamaged, and they prefer to keep it that way.
> > Forcing his wife to perform slave labor, now *that* is an act
> > disrespecting the dignity of another human being.
>
> By your logic if the slave behaves with dignity then that isn't
> true.
The operative word there was "force". It's difficult to behave with
dignity when your choices are taken from you.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>> Nikolas Landauer wrote:
>> >
>> > My dignity is my own, and the actions of others have no genuine
>> > effect upon it.
>>
>> That may be true for you, and it may even be a healthy way to
>> approach dignity and self-confidence, but it's hardly universal.
>
> Except that it is. Anyone who feels a blow to their dignity due to
> another's actions is making that choice themselves, perhaps
> subconsciously...
You need to watch more Law & Order: SVU! More seriously, what you
describe is very common; your "my dignity is my own" is fairly uncommon.
What's more, if you assume it as true, then there's no point in even
mentioning dignity in the alignment rules!
Wayne Shaw
Good enough. I had some issues with some specifics of your last post,
but other than getting into one of the always interminable general
Alignment arguments (and I'd rather have root canal) it seems not
worth going there.
Wayne Shaw
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>Whew, glad to see that I made some sense despite my head cold, and that
>I actually managed to write something non-grumpy! Personally, I dunno
>whether to say that Elric is chaotic evil with a strong desire to become
>true chaotic, or that he's true chaotic with some significant evil
>attitudes.
Personally, I'm not convinced he's even chaotic, but I'm far less
willing to argue that one. He certainly started out that way, but it
doesn't seem like where he ended up to me.
Wayne Shaw
<keith....@kjdavies.org> wrote:
>Given the size, age, and scope of the empire, not to mention that the
>various Houses actually *are* physically different -- the Dragaeran
>'race' is arguably several subraces -- and the conflicts that can cause,
>the Empire is about as 'good as you can expect'. The primary purpose of
>the Empire, as described by the Emperess, is basically to maintain
>stability so trade continues (and thus food and resources get around,
>not necessarily so the merchants make money).
>
>Still, that the Empire more or less ignores Necromancers and Morganti
>weapons suggests that the Empire is neutral at best. Actually, TN is
Well, I'm not sure necromantic magic is particularly any more evil
than other magic in that setting; it doesn't carry the baggage it does
in D&D in some ways; some discussion in "The Paths of the Dead" seem
to say it's just magic that manipulates the spirits of the dead, and
I'd question whether that's intrinsically worse than some other forms
of magic once you don't have the D&D negative energy issues clouding
matters.
>probably about right -- it exists to stabilize things (L -- LG if you
>consider that it's largely to ensure that people don't starve), has a
>huge degree of privilege and inconsistently enforced laws (N-C), allows
I never really got the impression they were all that inconsistently
enforced on the whole; remember, we're biased by seeing a lot of it
from Vlad's point of view. He sees a lot of selective enforcement
because he's an Eastener _and_ a Jhereg. But if you look at people in
the Empire as a whole, I don't really have a sign it's all that
selective.
>(de facto) the ownership of Morganti weapons (and uses them itself,
>though it is in some ways just) (E).
Do you have a sign that the Empire ever officially uses Morganti
weapons? I don't recall ever seeing anyone in "official capacity" do
so. Of course they may well have covert ops types that uses them, but
that doesn't mean there isn't official frowning on the matter.
Personally, I think I'd call the Empire lawful-neutral. The fact it's
not perfectly lawful doesn't mean it doesn't seem far more on that
edge than toward the middle.
>> I'm going more by the way Vlad seems to respond to them. He hates
>> regular Morganthi weapons (even though he's used them once in a while
>> in extremis) but he doesn't seem to have quite the same attitude
>> toward the Great Weapons (of course now he has one of his own, but it
>> was instructive seeing how that happened too, and explains a bit why I
>> suspect they aren't quite in the same category as the regular ones).
>
>As I recall he was always bothered by Iceflame and Blackwand. His own,
>though, doesn't bother him that way at all. There's a very powerful
>bond between the Great Weapons and their wielders.
>
>Actually, that might be part of it -- Great Weapons actually do have a
>bond and are, in a fashion, under the control of their wielders. They
>still kill horribly and destroy souls, and are probably the most
>powerful (hence most horrible?) Morganti weapons, but are not completely
>uncontrolled.
Right. And now having seen how Godslayer came into existance, I'm
wondering if even the regular ones do _quite_ what everyone thinks
they do.
>
>I still think that not going after wielders of the Great Weapons is more
>prudence than deciding the items aren't evil.
Probably.