Absolute Evil?

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?

Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?

Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?

- Ron ^*^
88 answers Last reply
More about absolute evil
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    >
    > Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >
    > Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    > zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >

    Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    "Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic. You need
    some basic structure to be able to think and act.

    Also, to be *ABSOLUTE* evil I think you HAVE to be capable of good,
    of understanding it and of comprehending its appeal... because it's
    the CHOICE of evil that's the worst of all.


    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <42B45B2A.7010902@obvioussgeinc.com>,
    seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com says...

    > Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.

    What about Lawful Evil?


    --
    Jasin Zujovic
    jzujovic@inet.hr
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1d1e7a52f39997409896eb@news.iskon.hr...
    > In article <42B45B2A.7010902@obvioussgeinc.com>,
    > seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com says...
    >
    >> Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    >
    > What about Lawful Evil?
    My impression of the D&D alignment table is that LE means that
    you have to do whatever advances the ultimate goal of the evil that
    you believe in. Therefore, a good deed COULD be done as long
    as that deed ends up furthering the evil goal.
    EXAMPLE: a cleric of an evil deity finds a good man lying by the
    road almost dead. They recognize the good man as a messenger
    to a king that they despise. They could heal the man to full health
    (a good deed) while replacing the message he is delivering (thus
    furthering their evil goal).

    Evil need not be destructive for the sake of destruction. And most
    evil believing people don't really think of themselves as evil, just self-
    serving.
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:VzYse.65$up5.20@lakeread02...
    >
    > Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >
    > Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like
    > absolute zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually
    > reach it?
    >
    > Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    > foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?
    >
    > - Ron ^*^

    Well I'd say in most settings, yes demons, devils and evil gods are
    absolutely evil.
    Demons being the chaotic representation of it, devils the lawful
    aspects.

    Why would I say that? Well, I think the simpliest answer is this.
    Without absolute evil there could be no absolute good. Fantasy has
    played
    upon these ideas, it uses them to create an environment where heros
    can exist.
    If everything was a shade of grey, there would be no real reason for a
    hero
    or a villian, since everybody displays traits of both.

    Of course there are exceptions to this, and it is quite possible to
    see
    a devil who acts kindly to others, or a demon in utter moments of
    chaos
    forgets about evil and stops to smell the roses.

    Or an overly zealous Archon whose feelings regarding the elimination
    of evil
    over step the bounds of "good."

    So I'd actually have to answer yes to all your questions, but limit
    the yes to
    setting specifics. In the end, the rules are a framework for your
    entertainment
    and what you and your players or DM come up with is what works for
    you.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Werebat wrote:
    >>
    >> Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >>
    >> Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    >> zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >>
    >
    > Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    >"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    >definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.

    Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    an entirely different trait.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <11b8tt9rjqv0p96@corp.supernews.com>,
    "Willie" <wroop@net-link.net> wrote:

    > "Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic@inet.hr> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.1d1e7a52f39997409896eb@news.iskon.hr...
    > > In article <42B45B2A.7010902@obvioussgeinc.com>,
    > > seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com says...
    > >
    > >> Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    > >
    > > What about Lawful Evil?

    > Evil need not be destructive for the sake of destruction. And most
    > evil believing people don't really think of themselves as evil, just self-
    > serving.
    >
    >

    That's how I see it too - the self-serving part I mean. I think yes, if
    you're talking about the real-world, choosing evil would be as bad as it
    gets. Although in D&D terms, I kind of look at demons and devils as evil
    embodied. They don't get choice, but it doesn't matter because they just
    can't do something good. Following a set of rules doesn't make you any
    more good. Especially if it's a rule like, I only kill on Monday.
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    > Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?

    What do you mean by "absolutely?"

    > Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    > zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?

    Evil isn't a single point, like absolute zero. It's a vast continuum
    that stretches infinitely from the horribly-blurred borders of
    Neutrality. Imagine the darkest heart that you could possibly conceive
    of, and chances are, some being could be even more vile (and even that
    being could run into another being that would make it seem like a
    Brownie Scout).

    > Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    > foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?

    IMO, any tiny sparks would not be of Good, just slightly less Evil. And
    the reverse applies to Archons. You don't find any fallen Archons or
    risen Demons in any of my campaigns. When they fall or rise, they cease
    being what they were.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:VzYse.65$up5.20@lakeread02...
    >
    > Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >
    > Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    > zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >
    > Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    > foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?
    >
    > - Ron ^*^
    If you have the time, and like reading good books, the series by
    Piers Anthony that includes On a Pale Horse is GREAT for taking
    skewed looks at intangible concepts like this. There is a story for
    War, Nature, Death, Fate, Time and Evil. Maybe more, but these I have
    read. They are all seperate stories that combine to make a huge
    interlinking plotline. It makes these ideas into Incarnations that
    are treated as offices held by mortals. Death is held by a person
    that kills the current officeholder. The rub is, to see death you have
    to be about to die! Time chooses his replacement with the help of
    the other Incarnations. He lives backwards from the time he takes
    office until the time of his birth. Evil is the book you want to start with
    for your answer. The embodyment of Evil wasn't such a bad person.
    But when he took the job, he was tasked with the advancement of
    Evil. The interesting parts in the book were trying to figure out all
    the Lies hidden in truths wrapped up in misinformation that hid the
    ...... well you get the idea.
    All in all, these are almost required reading for any RPG buff. They
    sit on my bookshelf right next to Tolkien, Terry Brook and Joel
    Rosenberg.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp wrote:
    > Kaos wrote:
    > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    > > <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Werebat wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    > >>>
    > >>>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    > >>>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    > >>"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    > >>definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    > >
    > >
    > > Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    > > an entirely different trait.
    >
    > You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    > increase of entropy.

    First of all, literally _everything_ that happens increases entropy.
    You can reduce entropy in a given environment, but only at the cost of
    a larger increase somewhere else.

    Secondly, don't confuse the physics notion of "chaos" with the D&D
    notion. They don't really have much to do with each other.

    > Thus, pure evil degenerates to random, destructive chaos.

    Stalin's Russia is generally understood to have been a horrendously
    evil society, but it was certainly not "random", and I very much doubt
    anyone would describe it as chaotic. Except the people dragged from
    their houses at night, of course. But the society, as a whole, was very
    orderly.

    Laszlo
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp wrote:
    > Kaos wrote:
    > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    > > <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    > >
    > >
    > >>Werebat wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    > >>>
    > >>>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    > >>>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    > >>"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    > >>definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    > >
    > >
    > > Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    > > an entirely different trait.
    > >
    >
    > You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    > increase of entropy. Thus, pure evil degenerates to random,
    > destructive chaos.
    >

    I wouldn't go that far, since the universe tends toward entropy and I
    wouldn't call the universe "evil." I think actions are more important
    than motives, personally, because the best villians are ones who think
    they're doing the right thing and are so certain of it, that they're
    blind to the pain, death, destruction, or suffering they cause to
    achieve their goals. IMO, the D&D demons and devils are basically
    alien to the human mindset since I don't think "evil" is a concrete
    like it is in most D&D cosmologies. It's hard to fathom creatures who
    are built with the essence of "evil" and do it for its own sake because
    humans in the real world don't do so. You'll rarely, if ever, find a
    person who says "I do naughty things because I'm a nasty and evil SOB"
    while truly believing it. And I also agree with your other points that
    one can't do "evil" unless they're also capable of doing "good",
    because like "light" and "dark", the contrast in opposites help define
    the other.

    I think personally Ron just threw this out there to start a debate
    which will likely turn into a flamewar that will never be resolved 100%
    as somebody wades in and starts passing off their ethics as fact.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamh...@freemail.hu wrote:
    > Sea Wasp wrote:
    > > Kaos wrote:
    > > > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    > > > <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >>Werebat wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >>>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    > > >>>
    > > >>>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    > > >>>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    > > >>>
    > > >>
    > > >> Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    > > >>"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    > > >>definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > > Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    > > > an entirely different trait.
    > >
    > > You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    > > increase of entropy.
    >
    > First of all, literally _everything_ that happens increases entropy.
    > You can reduce entropy in a given environment, but only at the cost of
    > a larger increase somewhere else.
    >
    > Secondly, don't confuse the physics notion of "chaos" with the D&D
    > notion. They don't really have much to do with each other.
    >
    > > Thus, pure evil degenerates to random, destructive chaos.
    >
    > Stalin's Russia is generally understood to have been a horrendously
    > evil society, but it was certainly not "random", and I very much doubt
    > anyone would describe it as chaotic. Except the people dragged from
    > their houses at night, of course. But the society, as a whole, was very
    > orderly.
    >

    Not to mention that the ones doing Stalin's bloody work didn't see
    themselves as doing the wrong thing, but for the "greater good" of
    Stalin's State. Like Orwell said, language corrupts thought and the
    great villians in history have to load the language with euphemisms and
    weasel words to get people to do nasty things. I mean, you can't kill
    or torture large numbers of people unless you do so in the name of
    "virtue." That's why Stalin's "dictatorship of the proletariat that
    gave the people freedom from want" became the dictatorship over the
    proletariat that gave little freedom at all and the enforcers and
    commisars were none the wiser. I'd imagine D&D devils when corrupting
    mortals exploit people's noble intentions and turn them into bad people
    in much the same way.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp wrote:
    > Chris Hayes wrote:
    > >
    > > Sea Wasp wrote:
    >
    > >>You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    > >>increase of entropy. Thus, pure evil degenerates to random,
    > >>destructive chaos.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > I wouldn't go that far, since the universe tends toward entropy and I
    > > wouldn't call the universe "evil."
    >
    > As I noted in the reply I just sent to Lazlo, evil is the DELIBERATE
    > increase of entropy. The universe as we know it isn't "evil" as it
    > doesn't have any intellect to be evil WITH. You have to have purpose
    > to commit evil.
    >

    Yes, I recognize that and I'm glad you clarified it. I'm not trying to
    distort you to imply otherwise, but stating my thoughts on the matter.

    > I think actions are more important
    > > than motives, personally, because the best villians are ones who think
    > > they're doing the right thing and are so certain of it, that they're
    > > blind to the pain, death, destruction, or suffering they cause to
    > > achieve their goals.
    >
    > They are still doing it purposefully. They are also, possibly, insane
    > and delusional if they ignore the basic consequences of their actions.
    > It DOES make them less evil in that they don't consciously intend to
    > do things they consider evil -- that is, they aren't deliberately
    > intending to destroy things.
    >

    I'm well aware of that and don't find the "I'm was only following
    orders" or "I think I'm doing the right thing" defense to be
    convincing. In fact, it's one reason why I'm a harsh critic of
    American cops who enforce unjust laws because I know they're not
    automata, but moral agents who are just as responsible as any of the
    politicians who make them. We don't draft police officers. They
    willingly chose the profession. The old question I think of is "What
    if the politicians beat the drums of war but nobody came"?

    > As you yourself state, it's rare for there to be truly EVIL people in
    > the world; some say there ARE no such, which I doubt, but certainly
    > it's rare for someone to be out there doing nasty things while
    > accepting that they're nasty to do. That's the difference between
    > people and demons, basically.
    >

    Agreed, totally. I think me and you are on pretty much the same page
    when it comes down to this topic.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    > Chris Hayes wrote:
    > >
    > > laszlo_spamh...@freemail.hu wrote:
    > >
    > >>Sea Wasp wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>Kaos wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    > >>>><seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>Werebat wrote:
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    > >>>>>>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    > >>>>>"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    > >>>>>definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    > >>>>an entirely different trait.
    > >>>
    > >>>You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    > >>>increase of entropy.
    > >>
    > >>First of all, literally _everything_ that happens increases entropy.
    > >>You can reduce entropy in a given environment, but only at the cost of
    > >>a larger increase somewhere else.
    > >>
    > >>Secondly, don't confuse the physics notion of "chaos" with the D&D
    > >>notion. They don't really have much to do with each other.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Thus, pure evil degenerates to random, destructive chaos.
    > >>
    > >>Stalin's Russia is generally understood to have been a horrendously
    > >>evil society, but it was certainly not "random", and I very much doubt
    > >>anyone would describe it as chaotic. Except the people dragged from
    > >>their houses at night, of course. But the society, as a whole, was very
    > >>orderly.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > Not to mention that the ones doing Stalin's bloody work didn't see
    > > themselves as doing the wrong thing, but for the "greater good" of
    > > Stalin's State. Like Orwell said, language corrupts thought and the
    > > great villians in history have to load the language with euphemisms and
    > > weasel words to get people to do nasty things. I mean, you can't kill
    > > or torture large numbers of people unless you do so in the name of
    > > "virtue." That's why Stalin's "dictatorship of the proletariat that
    > > gave the people freedom from want" became the dictatorship over the
    > > proletariat that gave little freedom at all and the enforcers and
    > > commisars were none the wiser. I'd imagine D&D devils when corrupting
    > > mortals exploit people's noble intentions and turn them into bad people
    > > in much the same way.
    >
    > Witness any number of human institutions that use the phrase "for the
    > children". Often they are really working for the benefit of children,
    > but often they are not. Frequently they are treading a gray area.
    >
    > Read up a bit on Child Support Enforcement and the divorce industry and
    > how they work to fill your state's coffers, for example. Or watch Death
    > to Smoochy, or work in a public school system. "For the children" is
    > sometimes altruism, and sometimes just words used to get the goods.
    >

    Most everything involving the government is done like that. Since
    you've probably done more research on this specific issue, I'll take
    your word for it that there's serious problems in "helping children",
    especially in a country which builds more prisons than schools and
    spends far more on the military than anyone else. It's one of those
    flaws of bureaucracy, American in particular.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    > Chris Hayes wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Sea Wasp wrote:
    > >
    > >>Kaos wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    > >>><seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>Werebat wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    > >>>>>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    > >>>>"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    > >>>>definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    > >>>an entirely different trait.
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >>You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    > >>increase of entropy. Thus, pure evil degenerates to random,
    > >>destructive chaos.
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    > > I wouldn't go that far, since the universe tends toward entropy and I
    > > wouldn't call the universe "evil." I think actions are more important
    > > than motives, personally, because the best villians are ones who think
    > > they're doing the right thing and are so certain of it, that they're
    > > blind to the pain, death, destruction, or suffering they cause to
    > > achieve their goals. IMO, the D&D demons and devils are basically
    > > alien to the human mindset since I don't think "evil" is a concrete
    > > like it is in most D&D cosmologies. It's hard to fathom creatures who
    > > are built with the essence of "evil" and do it for its own sake because
    > > humans in the real world don't do so. You'll rarely, if ever, find a
    > > person who says "I do naughty things because I'm a nasty and evil SOB"
    > > while truly believing it. And I also agree with your other points that
    > > one can't do "evil" unless they're also capable of doing "good",
    > > because like "light" and "dark", the contrast in opposites help define
    > > the other.
    > >
    > > I think personally Ron just threw this out there to start a debate
    > > which will likely turn into a flamewar that will never be resolved 100%
    > > as somebody wades in and starts passing off their ethics as fact.
    >
    > Actually I saw the beginning of a bio on Evel Kenevil (sp?) called
    > "Absolute Evel", and started wondering about absolute evil and absolute
    > zero.
    >

    You know, you can crack me up at times. Watching something on a
    death-defying daredevil would probably not inspire an interest on this
    topic in me. Then again with my interests, I wouldn't watch it unless
    really bored.
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    If angels can become fallen (i.e. Lucifer) then the opposite should hold
    true for demons/devils who wish to do good. Even angels/fiends have free
    will.


    "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:VzYse.65$up5.20@lakeread02...
    >
    > Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >
    > Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    > zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >
    > Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    > foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?
    >
    > - Ron ^*^
    >
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Alex Petrovich wrote:
    > If angels can become fallen (i.e. Lucifer) then the opposite should hold
    > true for demons/devils who wish to do good. Even angels/fiends have free
    > will.
    >
    >

    In fact, a Planescape product make a point of mentioning this in _Faces
    of Evil_, probably the best D&D book on devils and demons and other
    naughty planar races IMO.

    > "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    > news:VzYse.65$up5.20@lakeread02...
    > >
    > > Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    > >
    > > Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    > > zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    > >
    > > Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    > > foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?
    > >
    > > - Ron ^*^
    > >
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Chris Hayes wrote:
    >
    > laszlo_spamh...@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    >>Sea Wasp wrote:
    >>
    >>>Kaos wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    >>>><seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Werebat wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    >>>>>>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    >>>>>"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    >>>>>definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    >>>>an entirely different trait.
    >>>
    >>>You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >>>increase of entropy.
    >>
    >>First of all, literally _everything_ that happens increases entropy.
    >>You can reduce entropy in a given environment, but only at the cost of
    >>a larger increase somewhere else.
    >>
    >>Secondly, don't confuse the physics notion of "chaos" with the D&D
    >>notion. They don't really have much to do with each other.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Thus, pure evil degenerates to random, destructive chaos.
    >>
    >>Stalin's Russia is generally understood to have been a horrendously
    >>evil society, but it was certainly not "random", and I very much doubt
    >>anyone would describe it as chaotic. Except the people dragged from
    >>their houses at night, of course. But the society, as a whole, was very
    >>orderly.
    >>
    >
    >
    > Not to mention that the ones doing Stalin's bloody work didn't see
    > themselves as doing the wrong thing, but for the "greater good" of
    > Stalin's State. Like Orwell said, language corrupts thought and the
    > great villians in history have to load the language with euphemisms and
    > weasel words to get people to do nasty things. I mean, you can't kill
    > or torture large numbers of people unless you do so in the name of
    > "virtue." That's why Stalin's "dictatorship of the proletariat that
    > gave the people freedom from want" became the dictatorship over the
    > proletariat that gave little freedom at all and the enforcers and
    > commisars were none the wiser. I'd imagine D&D devils when corrupting
    > mortals exploit people's noble intentions and turn them into bad people
    > in much the same way.

    Witness any number of human institutions that use the phrase "for the
    children". Often they are really working for the benefit of children,
    but often they are not. Frequently they are treading a gray area.

    Read up a bit on Child Support Enforcement and the divorce industry and
    how they work to fill your state's coffers, for example. Or watch Death
    to Smoochy, or work in a public school system. "For the children" is
    sometimes altruism, and sometimes just words used to get the goods.

    - Ron ^*^
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Chris Hayes wrote:

    >
    > Sea Wasp wrote:
    >
    >>Kaos wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    >>><seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Werebat wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    >>>>>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    >>>>"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    >>>>definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    >>>an entirely different trait.
    >>>
    >>
    >>You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >>increase of entropy. Thus, pure evil degenerates to random,
    >>destructive chaos.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I wouldn't go that far, since the universe tends toward entropy and I
    > wouldn't call the universe "evil." I think actions are more important
    > than motives, personally, because the best villians are ones who think
    > they're doing the right thing and are so certain of it, that they're
    > blind to the pain, death, destruction, or suffering they cause to
    > achieve their goals. IMO, the D&D demons and devils are basically
    > alien to the human mindset since I don't think "evil" is a concrete
    > like it is in most D&D cosmologies. It's hard to fathom creatures who
    > are built with the essence of "evil" and do it for its own sake because
    > humans in the real world don't do so. You'll rarely, if ever, find a
    > person who says "I do naughty things because I'm a nasty and evil SOB"
    > while truly believing it. And I also agree with your other points that
    > one can't do "evil" unless they're also capable of doing "good",
    > because like "light" and "dark", the contrast in opposites help define
    > the other.
    >
    > I think personally Ron just threw this out there to start a debate
    > which will likely turn into a flamewar that will never be resolved 100%
    > as somebody wades in and starts passing off their ethics as fact.

    Actually I saw the beginning of a bio on Evel Kenevil (sp?) called
    "Absolute Evel", and started wondering about absolute evil and absolute
    zero.

    - Ron ^*^
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    > >
    > > Sea Wasp wrote:
    > >>You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    > >>increase of entropy.
    > >
    > >
    > > First of all, literally _everything_ that happens increases entropy.
    > > You can reduce entropy in a given environment, but only at the cost of
    > > a larger increase somewhere else.
    >
    > It is the DELIBERATE increase of entropy for no purpose other than to
    > do so, in its ultimate manifestation.

    All right. I don't really see that as evil, though. Building a bonfire
    just for the fun of it fits your definition exactly, for instance.

    You're really talking about situations where the deliberate increase of
    entropy _hurts others_ (like killing people, or razing a village, or
    burning a village's crops, or whatever). But that's evil because it
    hurts others, not necessarily because it's a deliberate increase of
    entropy.

    But quibbles aside, I do see what you're trying to say.

    > > Secondly, don't confuse the physics notion of "chaos" with the D&D
    > > notion. They don't really have much to do with each other.
    >
    > I'm not. I also don't confuse the D&D notion with my own. I take
    > precedence. The game follows my design, not the other way around.

    Fair enough. Just pointing out that the creators of D&D had a different
    opinion on this. It's a matter of definition, though, so you can be
    just as right as they are, assuming that your system is coherent.

    > >>Thus, pure evil degenerates to random, destructive chaos.
    > >
    > >
    > > Stalin's Russia is generally understood to have been a horrendously
    > > evil society,
    >
    > A society cannot be "evil" as such. Without intent, there is no evil
    > or good, just events, and a society cannot really have intent. You
    > can't talk to a society, or give it shock treatment, or seduce it, or
    > anything else you can do with an intelligent individual.

    This is largely true for many societies. For democracies, anarchies, or
    any other society where decisions are made by many people, you would be
    right.

    However, dictatorships (and Stalin's Russia was a dictatorship, make no
    mistake about that) _do_ usually bear the characteristics of their
    rulers. Since many of the horrible things that happened in Russia were
    Stalin's fault and happened at his command, I'd probably consider that
    society to have the same alignment as its ruler: Lawful Evil.

    Laszlo
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos wrote:
    > On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    > <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >
    >
    >>Werebat wrote:
    >>
    >>>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >>>
    >>>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    >>>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >>>
    >>
    >> Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    >>"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    >>definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    >
    >
    > Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    > an entirely different trait.
    >

    You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    increase of entropy. Thus, pure evil degenerates to random,
    destructive chaos.

    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <11bamblbogith34@corp.supernews.com>,
    Willie <wroop@net-link.net> wrote:
    >If you have the time, and like reading good books, the series by
    >Piers Anthony that includes On a Pale Horse is GREAT for taking
    >skewed looks at intangible concepts like this.
    >[snip]
    >All in all, these are almost required reading for any RPG buff. They
    >sit on my bookshelf right next to Tolkien, Terry Brook and Joel
    >Rosenberg.

    I found them to be "worth reading" once, but I didn't particularly want to
    reread them. Most of his archetypes seemed at least a little off, especially
    Death, Evil, and Good.
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    > Sea Wasp wrote:
    >
    >>Kaos wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    >>><seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Werebat wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    >>>>>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    >>>>"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    >>>>definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    >>>an entirely different trait.
    >>
    >>You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >>increase of entropy.
    >
    >
    > First of all, literally _everything_ that happens increases entropy.
    > You can reduce entropy in a given environment, but only at the cost of
    > a larger increase somewhere else.

    It is the DELIBERATE increase of entropy for no purpose other than to
    do so, in its ultimate manifestation.


    >
    > Secondly, don't confuse the physics notion of "chaos" with the D&D
    > notion. They don't really have much to do with each other.

    I'm not. I also don't confuse the D&D notion with my own. I take
    precedence. The game follows my design, not the other way around.

    >
    >
    >>Thus, pure evil degenerates to random, destructive chaos.
    >
    >
    > Stalin's Russia is generally understood to have been a horrendously
    > evil society,

    A society cannot be "evil" as such. Without intent, there is no evil
    or good, just events, and a society cannot really have intent. You
    can't talk to a society, or give it shock treatment, or seduce it, or
    anything else you can do with an intelligent individual.


    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Chris Hayes wrote:
    >
    > Sea Wasp wrote:

    >>You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >>increase of entropy. Thus, pure evil degenerates to random,
    >>destructive chaos.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I wouldn't go that far, since the universe tends toward entropy and I
    > wouldn't call the universe "evil."

    As I noted in the reply I just sent to Lazlo, evil is the DELIBERATE
    increase of entropy. The universe as we know it isn't "evil" as it
    doesn't have any intellect to be evil WITH. You have to have purpose
    to commit evil.

    I think actions are more important
    > than motives, personally, because the best villians are ones who think
    > they're doing the right thing and are so certain of it, that they're
    > blind to the pain, death, destruction, or suffering they cause to
    > achieve their goals.

    They are still doing it purposefully. They are also, possibly, insane
    and delusional if they ignore the basic consequences of their actions.
    It DOES make them less evil in that they don't consciously intend to
    do things they consider evil -- that is, they aren't deliberately
    intending to destroy things.

    As you yourself state, it's rare for there to be truly EVIL people in
    the world; some say there ARE no such, which I doubt, but certainly
    it's rare for someone to be out there doing nasty things while
    accepting that they're nasty to do. That's the difference between
    people and demons, basically.


    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp wrote:

    > Chris Hayes wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Sea Wasp wrote:
    >
    >
    >>> You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >>> increase of entropy. Thus, pure evil degenerates to random,
    >>> destructive chaos.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> I wouldn't go that far, since the universe tends toward entropy and I
    >> wouldn't call the universe "evil."
    >
    >
    > As I noted in the reply I just sent to Lazlo, evil is the DELIBERATE
    > increase of entropy.

    Sometimes this is not an evil thing, though.

    In a stratified society where most people are screwed from birth and a
    few elite tread on their bodies and drink thier blood, and this has been
    going on for generations, shaking up the status quo with no real plan
    for the future is probably going to result in something better than what
    you've got. Chaos is Good.

    And, if you believe Octavia Butler, God is Change.

    > As you yourself state, it's rare for there to be truly EVIL people
    > in the world; some say there ARE no such, which I doubt, but certainly
    > it's rare for someone to be out there doing nasty things while accepting
    > that they're nasty to do. That's the difference between people and
    > demons, basically.

    Interesting difference. Demons know they are evil and revel in their
    evil, and few humans do this (even if they can be corrupted into doing
    evil acts by being convinced that they are ultimately good).

    - Ron ^*^
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Chris Hayes wrote:
    >
    > Werebat wrote:

    >>Actually I saw the beginning of a bio on Evel Kenevil (sp?) called
    >>"Absolute Evel", and started wondering about absolute evil and absolute
    >>zero.
    >>
    >
    >
    > You know, you can crack me up at times. Watching something on a
    > death-defying daredevil would probably not inspire an interest on this
    > topic in me. Then again with my interests, I wouldn't watch it unless
    > really bored.

    Well I only watched the first 5 minutes or so. It was the title that
    got me to thinking.

    - Ron ^*^
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Willie wrote:

    > "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    > news:VzYse.65$up5.20@lakeread02...
    >
    >>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >>
    >>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    >>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >>
    >>Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    >>foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?
    >>
    >> - Ron ^*^
    >
    > If you have the time, and like reading good books, the series by
    > Piers Anthony that includes On a Pale Horse is GREAT for taking
    > skewed looks at intangible concepts like this. There is a story for
    > War, Nature, Death, Fate, Time and Evil. Maybe more, but these I have
    > read. They are all seperate stories that combine to make a huge
    > interlinking plotline. It makes these ideas into Incarnations that
    > are treated as offices held by mortals. Death is held by a person
    > that kills the current officeholder. The rub is, to see death you have
    > to be about to die! Time chooses his replacement with the help of
    > the other Incarnations. He lives backwards from the time he takes
    > office until the time of his birth. Evil is the book you want to start with
    > for your answer. The embodyment of Evil wasn't such a bad person.
    > But when he took the job, he was tasked with the advancement of
    > Evil. The interesting parts in the book were trying to figure out all
    > the Lies hidden in truths wrapped up in misinformation that hid the
    > ..... well you get the idea.
    > All in all, these are almost required reading for any RPG buff. They
    > sit on my bookshelf right next to Tolkien, Terry Brook and Joel
    > Rosenberg.

    I've read On a Pale Horse, and liked it. Haven't gotten to any of the
    others, though.

    - Ron ^*^
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:

    >
    > Sea Wasp wrote:
    >
    >>laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >>
    >>>Sea Wasp wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >>>>increase of entropy.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>First of all, literally _everything_ that happens increases entropy.
    >>>You can reduce entropy in a given environment, but only at the cost of
    >>>a larger increase somewhere else.
    >>
    >> It is the DELIBERATE increase of entropy for no purpose other than to
    >>do so, in its ultimate manifestation.


    > All right. I don't really see that as evil, though. Building a bonfire
    > just for the fun of it fits your definition exactly, for instance.

    > You're really talking about situations where the deliberate increase of
    > entropy _hurts others_ (like killing people, or razing a village, or
    > burning a village's crops, or whatever). But that's evil because it
    > hurts others, not necessarily because it's a deliberate increase of
    > entropy.

    All of this is equally true for a deliberate increase of order.

    - Ron ^*^
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:VzYse.65$up5.20@lakeread02...
    > Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    > foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?

    The rules already explain this matter perfectly adequately.

    -Michael
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:

    > "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    > news:VzYse.65$up5.20@lakeread02...
    >
    >>Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    >>foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?
    >
    >
    > The rules already explain this matter perfectly adequately.

    No conversation here would be complete without an implied "RTFM" from MSB.

    - Ron ^*^
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Chris Hayes wrote:
    >
    > Sea Wasp wrote:
    >
    >>Chris Hayes wrote:
    >>
    >>>Sea Wasp wrote:
    >>
    >>>>You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >>>>increase of entropy. Thus, pure evil degenerates to random,
    >>>>destructive chaos.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>I wouldn't go that far, since the universe tends toward entropy and I
    >>>wouldn't call the universe "evil."
    >>
    >> As I noted in the reply I just sent to Lazlo, evil is the DELIBERATE
    >>increase of entropy. The universe as we know it isn't "evil" as it
    >>doesn't have any intellect to be evil WITH. You have to have purpose
    >>to commit evil.
    >>
    >
    >
    > Yes, I recognize that and I'm glad you clarified it. I'm not trying to
    > distort you to imply otherwise, but stating my thoughts on the matter.
    >
    >
    >> I think actions are more important
    >>
    >>>than motives, personally, because the best villians are ones who think
    >>>they're doing the right thing and are so certain of it, that they're
    >>>blind to the pain, death, destruction, or suffering they cause to
    >>>achieve their goals.
    >>
    >> They are still doing it purposefully. They are also, possibly, insane
    >>and delusional if they ignore the basic consequences of their actions.
    >>It DOES make them less evil in that they don't consciously intend to
    >>do things they consider evil -- that is, they aren't deliberately
    >>intending to destroy things.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I'm well aware of that and don't find the "I'm was only following
    > orders" or "I think I'm doing the right thing" defense to be
    > convincing.

    I don't find it an exoneration from punishment for the crimes they
    committed. I do find it a reason to consider the person less EVIL,
    unless they are, in fact, using it as an EXCUSE -- i.e., they knew
    perfectly well what they were doing was evil, and looked for a simple
    excuse to use as a cover.

    In fact, it's one reason why I'm a harsh critic of
    > American cops who enforce unjust laws because I know they're not
    > automata, but moral agents who are just as responsible as any of the
    > politicians who make them. We don't draft police officers.

    Yes. Whose job is to ENFORCE THE LAW. Do you REALLY want them to
    enforce THEIR OWN VIEW OF GOOD AND EVIL??? I think the latter would
    lead to something a lot scarier; there's a reason why, in the real
    world, we tend to frown on vigilantes and ask the police to prevent
    that sort of thing.

    They swear an oath to uphold the laws. Yes, at some point one hopes
    that if the laws are REALLY unjust, they will decide not to follow
    them, but the basis of an organized society is, to a great extent, the
    law, and we also generally expect someone who is hired to do a given
    job to do that job for which they are hired.

    It is also assumed, in our society, that our votes select the
    politicians to represent us, and therefore they are merely passing
    laws that we, the people, want passed. Therefore, we have judged the
    laws already and the police enforce our own choices.

    We know, of course, that this view is an ideal which isn't true in
    the world, but it is the view under which the society operates.

    If a cop upholds an unjust law because it amuses him, or because he
    wants to hurt someone, that's evil. It's not so much if he's doing it
    because it's his job.


    They
    > willingly chose the profession. The old question I think of is "What
    > if the politicians beat the drums of war but nobody came"?

    Well, then you'd have to wait until someone else beat the drums of
    war. But rest assured someone will, and someone will follow.


    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp wrote:

    > Chris Hayes wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Sea Wasp wrote:
    >>
    >>> Chris Hayes wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Sea Wasp wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >>>>> increase of entropy. Thus, pure evil degenerates to random,
    >>>>> destructive chaos.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I wouldn't go that far, since the universe tends toward entropy and I
    >>>> wouldn't call the universe "evil."
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> As I noted in the reply I just sent to Lazlo, evil is the DELIBERATE
    >>> increase of entropy. The universe as we know it isn't "evil" as it
    >>> doesn't have any intellect to be evil WITH. You have to have purpose
    >>> to commit evil.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> Yes, I recognize that and I'm glad you clarified it. I'm not trying to
    >> distort you to imply otherwise, but stating my thoughts on the matter.
    >>
    >>
    >>> I think actions are more important
    >>>
    >>>> than motives, personally, because the best villians are ones who think
    >>>> they're doing the right thing and are so certain of it, that they're
    >>>> blind to the pain, death, destruction, or suffering they cause to
    >>>> achieve their goals.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> They are still doing it purposefully. They are also, possibly,
    >>> insane
    >>> and delusional if they ignore the basic consequences of their actions.
    >>> It DOES make them less evil in that they don't consciously intend to
    >>> do things they consider evil -- that is, they aren't deliberately
    >>> intending to destroy things.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> I'm well aware of that and don't find the "I'm was only following
    >> orders" or "I think I'm doing the right thing" defense to be
    >> convincing.
    >
    >
    > I don't find it an exoneration from punishment for the crimes they
    > committed. I do find it a reason to consider the person less EVIL,
    > unless they are, in fact, using it as an EXCUSE -- i.e., they knew
    > perfectly well what they were doing was evil, and looked for a simple
    > excuse to use as a cover.
    >
    > In fact, it's one reason why I'm a harsh critic of
    >
    >> American cops who enforce unjust laws because I know they're not
    >> automata, but moral agents who are just as responsible as any of the
    >> politicians who make them. We don't draft police officers.
    >
    >
    > Yes. Whose job is to ENFORCE THE LAW. Do you REALLY want them to
    > enforce THEIR OWN VIEW OF GOOD AND EVIL??? I think the latter would lead
    > to something a lot scarier; there's a reason why, in the real world, we
    > tend to frown on vigilantes and ask the police to prevent that sort of
    > thing.
    >
    > They swear an oath to uphold the laws. Yes, at some point one hopes
    > that if the laws are REALLY unjust, they will decide not to follow them,
    > but the basis of an organized society is, to a great extent, the law,
    > and we also generally expect someone who is hired to do a given job to
    > do that job for which they are hired.

    And this is precisely the sort of thing that the Devils capitalize on --
    They, too, are very much opposed to Chaotic Good vigilantes running
    about ruining their long-reaching plans. If they can use an order of
    Paladins to bring them to justice in the eyes of the Law, so much the
    better.

    - Ron ^*^
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    > Sea Wasp wrote:
    >
    >>laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >>
    >>>Sea Wasp wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >>>>increase of entropy.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>First of all, literally _everything_ that happens increases entropy.
    >>>You can reduce entropy in a given environment, but only at the cost of
    >>>a larger increase somewhere else.
    >>
    >> It is the DELIBERATE increase of entropy for no purpose other than to
    >>do so, in its ultimate manifestation.
    >
    >
    > All right. I don't really see that as evil, though. Building a bonfire
    > just for the fun of it fits your definition exactly, for instance.

    It creates fun and enjoyment at the expense of no other sentients.
    This makes it, if not good, neutral; the slight increase in entropy
    from burning wood (which was going to be decaying or burning anyway)
    is balanced by the positive.

    >
    > You're really talking about situations where the deliberate increase of
    > entropy _hurts others_ (like killing people, or razing a village, or
    > burning a village's crops, or whatever). But that's evil because it
    > hurts others, not necessarily because it's a deliberate increase of
    > entropy.

    Yes. But the basic essential of it is destructive, which in the end
    goes to formless chaos -- entropy incarnate. Entropy comes into it as
    the final, essential, most basic component; one creates and organizes,
    the other destroys. In anything MACROSCOPIC -- that is, anything that
    exists in the moral world at a higher level -- everything partakes of
    some of each. The diabolical villain still has to be organized,
    focused, dedicated, to come up with his Master Plan (say, like Emperor
    Palpatine); these are generally considered to be good qualities, and
    he has them in spades. In order to save his friends, the young hero
    (like Luke Skywalker) has to destroy the ultimate battlestation and
    thousands of people working on it. Wiping out entire populations is
    generally considered bad. However, we have little trouble seeing
    Palpatine's actions as evil (even if, in the prequels, he's a lot
    cooler and smarter than his opposition), and seeing Luke's as good.
    Everything's a mix. Even the demons and devils have the capabilities
    which may be considered good, but they use them for a different purpose.

    >
    > However, dictatorships (and Stalin's Russia was a dictatorship, make no
    > mistake about that) _do_ usually bear the characteristics of their
    > rulers. Since many of the horrible things that happened in Russia were
    > Stalin's fault and happened at his command, I'd probably consider that
    > society to have the same alignment as its ruler: Lawful Evil.

    I would simply say that the RULER was evil. The society is being
    controlled BY him and presumably by some other men and women who are
    either evil or opportunistic at best.


    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp wrote:
    > laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Sea Wasp wrote:
    >>
    >>> laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Sea Wasp wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> You can see it that way. I do not. Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >>>>> increase of entropy.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> First of all, literally _everything_ that happens increases entropy.
    >>>> You can reduce entropy in a given environment, but only at the cost of
    >>>> a larger increase somewhere else.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> It is the DELIBERATE increase of entropy for no purpose other
    >>> than to
    >>> do so, in its ultimate manifestation.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> All right. I don't really see that as evil, though. Building a bonfire
    >> just for the fun of it fits your definition exactly, for instance.
    >
    >
    > It creates fun and enjoyment at the expense of no other sentients.
    > This makes it, if not good, neutral; the slight increase in entropy from
    > burning wood (which was going to be decaying or burning anyway) is
    > balanced by the positive.
    >
    >>
    >> You're really talking about situations where the deliberate increase of
    >> entropy _hurts others_ (like killing people, or razing a village, or
    >> burning a village's crops, or whatever). But that's evil because it
    >> hurts others, not necessarily because it's a deliberate increase of
    >> entropy.
    >
    >
    > Yes. But the basic essential of it is destructive, which in the end
    > goes to formless chaos -- entropy incarnate.

    An overabundance of Law is also problematic for what we might consider Good.

    - Ron ^*^
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    >
    >
    > Willie wrote:
    >
    >> "Werebat" <ranpoirier@cox.net> wrote in message
    >> news:VzYse.65$up5.20@lakeread02...
    >>
    >>> Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >>>
    >>> Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like
    >>> absolute zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually
    >>> reach it?
    >>>
    >>> Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    >>> foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?
    >>>
    >>> - Ron ^*^
    >>
    >>
    >> If you have the time, and like reading good books, the series by
    >> Piers Anthony that includes On a Pale Horse is GREAT for taking
    >> skewed looks at intangible concepts like this. There is a story for
    >> War, Nature, Death, Fate, Time and Evil. Maybe more, but these I have
    >> read. They are all seperate stories that combine to make a huge
    >> interlinking plotline. It makes these ideas into Incarnations that
    >> are treated as offices held by mortals. Death is held by a person
    >> that kills the current officeholder. The rub is, to see death you have
    >> to be about to die! Time chooses his replacement with the help of
    >> the other Incarnations. He lives backwards from the time he takes
    >> office until the time of his birth. Evil is the book you want to start
    >> with
    >> for your answer. The embodyment of Evil wasn't such a bad person.
    >> But when he took the job, he was tasked with the advancement of
    >> Evil. The interesting parts in the book were trying to figure out all
    >> the Lies hidden in truths wrapped up in misinformation that hid the
    >> ..... well you get the idea.
    >> All in all, these are almost required reading for any RPG buff. They
    >> sit on my bookshelf right next to Tolkien, Terry Brook and Joel
    >> Rosenberg.
    >
    >
    > I've read On a Pale Horse, and liked it. Haven't gotten to any of the
    > others, though.

    Like virtually all Piers Anthony series, you have read the best part
    already. It goes downhill from the first book.


    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 13:10:10 -0400, Werebat <ranpoirier@cox.net> scribed
    into the ether:

    >
    >Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?

    They are supposed to be the epitome of their given alignment, but I'd say
    that nothing like that is ever absolute.

    >Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    >zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?

    Latter.

    >Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    >foulest demon?

    Well, some commentary would have it that the demons are all fallen from
    grace...if they possessed goodness to begin with, then it stands to reason
    that there might be some in there someplace.

    > Could the reverse be true of an archon?

    If you played Baldur's Gate II, clerical characters get the ability to
    summon Planetars. If you are evil, they are "Dark Planetars". Part of the
    lengthy endgame battle of Throne of Bhaal involves a Fallen Solar.
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <VzYse.65$up5.20@lakeread02>, ranpoirier@cox.net wrote:

    >Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >
    >Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    >zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >
    >Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    >foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?

    Trying to start an alignment flamewar, eh?

    Outer planer beings are sppsd to be the embodiment of their alignment,
    so I'd say "yes".

    --
    ======================================================================
    ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:15:57 GMT, Sea Wasp
    <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Kaos wrote:
    >> On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    >> <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Werebat wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >>>>
    >>>>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    >>>>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    >>>"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    >>>definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    >>
    >>
    >> Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    >> an entirely different trait.
    >
    >You can see it that way. I do not.

    You are certainly allowed to be wrong, in as much as it's a betrayal
    of the character you seek to portray.

    >Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >increase of entropy.

    You are thinking bluntly. Destruction of thought is destruction no
    less, though it cleanly removes the other side of chaos - creation,
    change and opportunity.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 18:18:30 GMT, Sea Wasp
    <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:

    >laszlo_spamhole@freemail.hu wrote:
    >>
    >> First of all, literally _everything_ that happens increases entropy.
    >> You can reduce entropy in a given environment, but only at the cost of
    >> a larger increase somewhere else.
    >
    > It is the DELIBERATE increase of entropy for no purpose other than to
    >do so, in its ultimate manifestation.

    Seeking the end of everything results in a system that is no longer
    subject to entropy. And *that* is quite unchaotic, yet no less evil
    than any chaotic variant.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Kaos wrote:

    > On Sun, 19 Jun 2005 15:15:57 GMT, Sea Wasp
    > <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >
    >
    >>Kaos wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Sat, 18 Jun 2005 17:34:34 GMT, Sea Wasp
    >>><seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Werebat wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    >>>>>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Depends on the way you define Good and Evil and how you define
    >>>>"Absolute". *PURE* evil is impossible in any thinking being in my
    >>>>definition. Evil is in its essence destructive and chaotic.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Eh, what? Evil in it's essence may be destructive, but 'chaotic' is
    >>>an entirely different trait.
    >>
    >>You can see it that way. I do not.
    >
    >
    > You are certainly allowed to be wrong, in as much as it's a betrayal
    > of the character you seek to portray.
    >
    >
    >>Destruction IS chaotic; it is the
    >>increase of entropy.
    >
    >
    > You are thinking bluntly. Destruction of thought is destruction no
    > less, though it cleanly removes the other side of chaos - creation,
    > change and opportunity.

    Precisely.

    - Ron ^*^
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    >
    >
    > Kaos wrote:
    >
    >> You are thinking bluntly. Destruction of thought is destruction no
    >> less, though it cleanly removes the other side of chaos - creation,
    >> change and opportunity.
    >
    >
    > Precisely.

    Creation is the NEGATION of entropy.

    Note that you're all arguing down on the "electron, proton" level,
    when the interesting questions are on the "block of wood" level. I
    simply mentioned where it all distills out TO and you're trying to
    apply that to the macroscopic level -- rather like someone noticing
    that there's thousands of times more empty space than there is
    elementary particles, and then arguing that this elementary particle
    theory MUST be wrong because if it were true you could walk through walls.


    --
    Sea Wasp
    /^\
    ;;;
    Live Journal: http://www.livejournal.com/users/seawasp/
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Sea Wasp wrote:
    > Werebat wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> Kaos wrote:
    >>
    >>> You are thinking bluntly. Destruction of thought is destruction no
    >>> less, though it cleanly removes the other side of chaos - creation,
    >>> change and opportunity.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Precisely.
    >
    >
    > Creation is the NEGATION of entropy.

    To Create, you must Destroy. (Smash a glass and cry, "Too much Joy!")

    Once you have reached the theoretical Nirvana of Law, any
    creation/innovation can only be a deviation from perfection, and
    therefore a form of destruction. Many "Utopian" societies in the past
    have come to this conclusion and tried hard to stifle creative and
    independent thought. Not healthy.


    > Note that you're all arguing down on the "electron, proton" level,
    > when the interesting questions are on the "block of wood" level. I
    > simply mentioned where it all distills out TO and you're trying to apply
    > that to the macroscopic level -- rather like someone noticing that
    > there's thousands of times more empty space than there is elementary
    > particles, and then arguing that this elementary particle theory MUST be
    > wrong because if it were true you could walk through walls.

    The fact remains that without Chaos there would be no change, and we
    wouldn't be having this conversation because we'd be prokaryotes. No,
    we wouldn't even be THAT. Yes, the overall evolution of life forms from
    prokaryote on down to Man *tends* to be a progression from less to more
    complex, which may or may not involve an increase in Law. Either way,
    without Chaos it wouldn't be possible.

    Absolute Law is every bit as detrimental to you and I as Absolute Chaos
    would be.

    - Ron ^*^
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    > Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?

    Those are both tempered by other alignments, you'd have to go to
    Yugoloths for absolute evil in any case.

    In my campain, no. All the outerplanar creatures are just the souls of
    people once alive, so they can have all the personality traits of the
    people they once were. They however do not change or change slowly,
    being dead. They also get affected by the plane they are attached to,
    so like someone on certain drugs they act somewhat differently than
    they normally would, acting more like what you would expect for a demon
    or devil. As they are away from the plane they are from the effect
    starts to fade and it may be possible for a devil to become good if
    they are away long enough.

    >
    > Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    > zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?

    First you have to define evil. The PHB does not actually define evil
    it gives some wishy-washy examples. From the SRD:

    "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether
    for fun or profit"...""Evil" 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."

    This seems to follow the general hurting others bad philosophy, but
    seems more focused on doing it without compassion, or even more for
    "fun or profit".

    I'd go with Cicero's definition that causing pain is evil, and pleasure
    is good. This goes for one self as well, meaning self destructive
    behavior is evil. If you get overall more pain out of something than
    you get pleasure then it's evil. We associate selfishness with evil
    and sacrifice with good as well, so causing pain in others for and
    equal ammount of pleasure is evil and vice versa with good.

    So in this case Absolute evil would be possible, it would do anything
    for any ammount of pleasure, without regards to any pain caused to
    itself or others.

    > Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    > foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?
    >

    Depends on how you define the creatures once again.

    - Justisaur

    PS. to get off on a tangent we could redefine good/evil/law/chaos with
    the pleasue/pain idea. Law = important for group, chaos = important
    for the individual, evil being pleasure for self being more important
    than pain in others, and good being pleasure in others being more
    important than pain in self. So lawful evil means pleasure for the
    group is more important than pain in any group. Chaotic evil means
    pleasure to self more important than pain in all others. Lawful good
    means pleasure to the group more important than pain in anyone and
    chaotic good means pleasure to all more important than pain to oneself.
    Obviously needs some work...
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Justisaur wrote:

    >
    > Werebat wrote:
    >
    >>Are demons, devils, and the like ABSOLUTELY evil?
    >
    >
    > Those are both tempered by other alignments, you'd have to go to
    > Yugoloths for absolute evil in any case.

    Ah, good point. Right you are.


    > In my campain, no. All the outerplanar creatures are just the souls of
    > people once alive, so they can have all the personality traits of the
    > people they once were. They however do not change or change slowly,
    > being dead. They also get affected by the plane they are attached to,
    > so like someone on certain drugs they act somewhat differently than
    > they normally would, acting more like what you would expect for a demon
    > or devil. As they are away from the plane they are from the effect
    > starts to fade and it may be possible for a devil to become good if
    > they are away long enough.

    Interesting take.


    >>Is it possible to be absolutely evil, or is absolute evil like absolute
    >>zero in that you can get very close toit but never actually reach it?
    >
    >
    > First you have to define evil. The PHB does not actually define evil
    > it gives some wishy-washy examples. From the SRD:
    >
    > "Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether
    > for fun or profit"...""Evil" 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."
    >
    > This seems to follow the general hurting others bad philosophy, but
    > seems more focused on doing it without compassion, or even more for
    > "fun or profit".
    >
    > I'd go with Cicero's definition that causing pain is evil, and pleasure
    > is good. This goes for one self as well, meaning self destructive
    > behavior is evil. If you get overall more pain out of something than
    > you get pleasure then it's evil. We associate selfishness with evil
    > and sacrifice with good as well, so causing pain in others for and
    > equal ammount of pleasure is evil and vice versa with good.
    >
    > So in this case Absolute evil would be possible, it would do anything
    > for any ammount of pleasure, without regards to any pain caused to
    > itself or others.
    >
    >
    >>Is there possibly even the tiniest spark of good in the heart of the
    >>foulest demon? Could the reverse be true of an archon?
    >>
    >
    >
    > Depends on how you define the creatures once again.
    >
    > - Justisaur
    >
    > PS. to get off on a tangent we could redefine good/evil/law/chaos with
    > the pleasue/pain idea. Law = important for group, chaos = important
    > for the individual, evil being pleasure for self being more important
    > than pain in others, and good being pleasure in others being more
    > important than pain in self. So lawful evil means pleasure for the
    > group is more important than pain in any group. Chaotic evil means
    > pleasure to self more important than pain in all others. Lawful good
    > means pleasure to the group more important than pain in anyone and
    > chaotic good means pleasure to all more important than pain to oneself.
    > Obviously needs some work...

    Interesting, though. I had thoughts on a church where "good" was
    defined as "attractive", more or less.

    - Ron ^*^
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Werebat wrote:
    > Justisaur wrote:
    >
    > > PS. to get off on a tangent we could redefine good/evil/law/chaos with
    > > the pleasue/pain idea. Law = important for group, chaos = important
    > > for the individual, evil being pleasure for self being more important
    > > than pain in others, and good being pleasure in others being more
    > > important than pain in self. So lawful evil means pleasure for the
    > > group is more important than pain in any group. Chaotic evil means
    > > pleasure to self more important than pain in all others. Lawful good
    > > means pleasure to the group more important than pain in anyone and
    > > chaotic good means pleasure to all more important than pain to oneself.
    > > Obviously needs some work...
    >
    > Interesting, though. I had thoughts on a church where "good" was
    > defined as "attractive", more or less.

    Well IMHO the real definition of good is something a particular person
    thinks is right and evil is something they think is wrong, and those
    definitions change based on who the person is, and the society as well.


    One other thing to consider is most people who others would view as
    evil are convinced they are good, and doing the "right" thing. There
    are a few who are truely heinous who know they are doing something
    wrong, but just can't seem to stop.

    A little expansion on the above bit about pain/pleasure. I've noticed
    that many villains are portrayed not so much as causing pain to get
    pleasure, but causing a terribly diproportionately large ammount of
    pain (at least to most outside observers) to avoid or redress some
    small pain. For instance Hanibal Lector is portrayed as receiving a
    very small amount of pain in the form of an accidental insult, lack of
    respect, or impisonment (well depending on your make up this may be a
    lot of pain), and is willing to cause the ultimate amount of pain in
    the form of a horrific murder to address this. A interview I saw with
    a hit man on HBO indicated that he was much the same, killing a vanload
    of drunken teens because they almost ran him off the road. He felt
    justified in this, he was being threatened, so he removed that danger.
    He also murdered his marks in terribly horrific ways, and felt
    justified in doing so, because they'd all done something to someone
    (who was also paying him) no matter how minor it was.

    - Justisaur
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 01:39:44 GMT, Sea Wasp
    <seawaspobvious@obvioussgeinc.com> dared speak in front of ME:

    >Werebat wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> Kaos wrote:
    >>
    >>> You are thinking bluntly. Destruction of thought is destruction no
    >>> less, though it cleanly removes the other side of chaos - creation,
    >>> change and opportunity.
    >>
    >>
    >> Precisely.
    >
    > Creation is the NEGATION of entropy.

    Indeed. Yet it is also chaos.

    --
    Address no longer works.
    try removing all numbers from
    gafgirl1@2allstream3.net

    --
    Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
    ------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
    Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    David Johnston wrote:
    > On 22 Jun 2005 18:25:09 -0700, "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    > >> >In many cases, the law *is* evil, at least if you're consistent in your
    > >> >ethical code.
    > >>
    > >> You mean, if my ethical code is consistent with your ethical code?
    > >
    > >*Consistent* ethical code. If you consider killing except for
    > >self-defense bad and you support the "law" to take care of people who
    > >engage in it, then it should apply to the enforcers of said policy to
    > >follow it as well.
    >
    > It does. I'm not in favour of cops killing people except in self
    > defense, or of course the defense of others. Most people aren't.
    > They just vary in terms of how much benefit of the doubt they'll give
    > a cop before they assume a killing wasn't in self defense. So what's
    > your point?

    Get an adult to explain it to you if you can't figure it out on your
    own. I spelled it out for you.
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    David Johnston wrote:
    > On 22 Jun 2005 21:52:46 -0700, "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >Sea Wasp wrote:
    > >> Chris Hayes wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > And therein lies the problem. It really boils down to breaking that
    > >> > viscious cycle and teaching people to be responsible rather than blind
    > >> > followers.
    > >>
    > >> No, it boils down to the fact that if you have people who are not
    > >> ready to fight, a group of people who ARE will kick their butts and
    > >> take their stuff, sooner or later. And unless you intend to change
    > >> human nature completely, in a disarmed world someone would recognize
    > >> that, get a bunch of other immoral but capable people together, and
    > >> kick asses and take stuff.
    > >>
    > >
    > >Human "nature" isn't natural because people can rise above the
    > >Hobbesian strawman (and do so all the time). Everybody who talks about
    > >"human nature" in the negative assumes that if the world was just like
    > >them, we'd have no problems.
    >
    > If the world was all just like me, we'd have a _lot_ of problems.
    >

    And there it is. You're part of the world, have a negative outlook on
    life, and there's no denying there are a lot of problems.

    > The main problem is that we usually can't
    > >accept each other's differences. I'm not for total disarmament of
    > >people (I oppose gun control because it only helps career predators).
    > >In fact, I think the problem is the unequal distribution of power where
    > >the strong exploit the weak and people are reduced to mere objects by
    > >unjustified "authorities."
    >
    > Remove the authorities and will the strong magically stop exploiting
    > the weak?

    The scale of exploitation would be reduced after the "playing field"
    has been leveled. Much of what passes for "weakness" is artificially
    put in place by the system. A genius poor kid who has the ability and
    drive to be an excellent scientist or engineer but can't go to college
    due to lack of money is far stronger in character than some kid who was
    born rich and never does anything meaningful in their life. But who
    has more power? The rich kid, who can buy his way out of paying the
    consequences of his actions, whereas the poor kid has little margin for
    error.
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    David Johnston wrote:
    > On 22 Jun 2005 21:42:43 -0700, "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >> It does. I'm not in favour of cops killing people except in self
    > >> defense, or of course the defense of others. Most people aren't.
    > >> They just vary in terms of how much benefit of the doubt they'll give
    > >> a cop before they assume a killing wasn't in self defense. So what's
    > >> your point?
    > >
    > >Get an adult to explain it to you if you can't figure it out on your
    > >own. I spelled it out for you.
    >
    >
    > The law does not allow cops to kill people freely.

    The law does nothing. It's just words on paper. The only reason it
    has teeth is because cops enforce parts of it. And sometimes they'll
    cover each other's asses and claim a homicide was in "self defense"
    even when they know it wasn't so. Cops will be the first to admit that
    law enforcement is like a "family" where they protect their own against
    outsiders.
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    David Johnston wrote:
    > On 22 Jun 2005 22:23:15 -0700, "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >David Johnston wrote:
    > >> On 22 Jun 2005 21:42:43 -0700, "Chris Hayes" <hayes12@fadmail.com>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >> It does. I'm not in favour of cops killing people except in self
    > >> >> defense, or of course the defense of others. Most people aren't.
    > >> >> They just vary in terms of how much benefit of the doubt they'll give
    > >> >> a cop before they assume a killing wasn't in self defense. So what's
    > >> >> your point?
    > >> >
    > >> >Get an adult to explain it to you if you can't figure it out on your
    > >> >own. I spelled it out for you.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> The law does not allow cops to kill people freely.
    > >
    > >The law does nothing. It's just words on paper. The only reason it
    > >has teeth is because cops enforce parts of it. And sometimes they'll
    > >cover each other's asses and claim a homicide was in "self defense"
    > >even when they know it wasn't so.
    >
    > Gosh. And yet people are basically so good, aren't they?

    Most are. You'd notice that if you didn't sit behind a computer all
    day.
Ask a new question

Read More

Games Video Games