Grrrr, another delay

Alright, now things were actually going so well.  I cut my giant alignment article into two parts and i was almost done with the first one, it just needed edition.  Then i went on add details to the second article.  So i figured i'd be able to surprise you all by making the article without an announcement, most likely to day or tomorrow.  But somebody (you know who you are) felt that i didn't deserve that sort of luck, so had my dog chew through my internet connection.  So i only get connection from my mother's lab top, at certain times of the day.  so it will be delayed due to transportation

from

EE

Ok, i have an excuse

Right, so as my loyal fans (all three of them) haven noticed with a growing sense of frustration and anger, i haven't been updating very much. But i have a perfectly rational explanation, and by that i mean a series of half hearted excuses. Mostly i've been doing lots and lot of school work, so i haven't had time on my hands between work load, donating blood (really, everybody should do it, it helps people no matter what your stances are) and watching Supernatural at night.....ok that last part is just me being indulgent. The problem is that i normally have this problem in terms of being unable to commit myself to do things, so i've decided i will spend an hour and a half every day writing for the blog except for Tuesday and Thursday where it will only be an hour. Honestly, i really do need to get better work habits, so it will be most likely be better for me, so expect more frequent updates in the coming weeks
thanks
from
EE

The alignment of Brutus

Damn, did I leave the gas on?

For the record

LG-Lawful Good

NG- Neutral Good

CG- Chaotic Good

LN- Lawful Natural

N- figure it out

CN- Chaotic Neutral

LE- Lawful Evil

NE- Neutral Evil

CE- Do you really need me to explain it at this point?

Well, I intended to finish the second alignment article, but due to writer’s block I figured I might as well focus on something I’ve been interested in. So here you have it, a second alignment article, this one of the famous Roman patriot/murderer Brutus (the younger for those who like specifics). Well let’s jump right in shall we. As any fan of the Bard knows, Brutus, like all of William’s characters has been analyzed and discussed by many people with fancier names and nicer looking titles, so anything I offer is inevitably going to come off as pretentious, because nothing annoys people who have dedicated most of their life to studying this subject matter than young teens who’ve watched the movie and read through the play and now feel like their interpretation is the absolute truth. Someday, I might go back and write up a whole piece on the nature of Brutus’ character, but for now I just want to know his alignment.

Just to make this clear, despite the misleading picture, I am using the Brutus from the play “Julius Caesar,” not the real life one or the one from “Rome,” who are very different people. If we take this too logically, Brutus will be evil no matter what, because he is a strong believer in Roman society, which included tenets like slavery and massive oppression (genocide in some areas). As a high-ranking Roman, Brutus would engage in, or at least tolerate, the evil aspects of Roman Society, particularly slavery (Rome as a society is normally LE in history, though this does vary). However, for the sake of keeping this interesting, we will only judge him on the actions we see on stage, and ignore real world logic. Brutus in the play murders his best friend and father figure Julius Caesar out of the belief that he has been corrupted by power. However his honor leads to his defeat as he allows Caesar’s second in command Mark Anthony to make a bloody awesome speech which turns the people of Rome against him leading to a general civil war.

The thing about Brutus is that there are two main different interpretations to his motives. One train of thought says that Brutus is very much an ideal Roman noble (of the Roman Republic, not Empire), and kills Caesar out of his feeling of duty towards Rome, i.e., he was fighting against Tyranny. The other train of thought is that he is an ambitious self serving loser who resents Caesar and uses his ambition as an excuse. Personally I believe the former, this view being supported by his total political naiveté and how his sense of honor leads to his own failure again and again (compared of course to Mark Anthony who is actually politically savvy). Under that assumption, at first glance, I’d put him as LN or LG.

Brutus does commit a major evil action in the play, of course, when he murders Caesar in cold blood. However, a single evil action doesn’t normally change one’s alignment, through it does show much about his character. Now the biggest question is: is he good or neutral? He is certainly honorable (to a fault) and is a firm believer in justice. But is he actually good? While (at least in the play) he isn’t evil, I don’t think he is good. When faced with the prospect of Caesar becoming a tyrant (which in the play is never confirmed through strongly hinted at), he resorts to murder as a solution. At no point in the play does he confront Caesar, nor does he attempt to stop him in any non violent manner. The attack is very much a preemptive as he never actually confirms Caesar’s ambitions; he is acting upon instinct and suspicions, not based upon actual actions of Caesar. And while he was most likely correct about Caesar’s ambitions, he never actually proved it, nor does he even make the attempt to solve the problem in a non-violent manner. He also never portrays the values of good in the play, while he is brave and honorable, he is never shown as merciful, charitable, or sympathetic. I personally peg him down as LN, possibly LE as he acts out of a sense of honor, not by the D&D good values.

Normally, I would have ended the article here and gone off to amuse myself with the Oblivion physics engine and tricking the AI, but, alas, I am cursed with a brain that won’t shut up when it should. So instead of following the internet custom of presenting a point as truth because I said so, I am instead going to look over my work again. In retrospect, why am I so sure he is Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil? Is he really that lawful? Oh he has lawful motives and lawful intentions certainly, but Law and Chaos are more about the methods then the motives. It is the way one carries out a task. Brutus is a strong believer in law and justice, and has debatable honorable motives, but think about the way he handles things! When talked to by Cassius, he instantly goes along with murder as a solution to the problem, for a crime that Caesar has not yet committed. To make matters more against custom, he kills him in the Senate house, with daggers. So you could really make an argument that he isn’t lawful at all, just thinks he is.

Damn it, again I could have very easily walked off after “proving” my point, but again I have to argue with my self. I need to get the hang of this idea of “I’m right because I say so” way of doing things, John Solomon can do it so why can’t I? Again, I look over what I said and realize something that disproves that theory as well. Despite his unlawful way of handling things, Brutus still does act in a very lawful manner at times, normally when it trips him up. After making his speech to the crowd, he follows the words of his oath to Mark Anthony to the letter and lets him talk after he leaves. Later he hinders his own battle plans in the scene with Cassius. He also spares Mark Anthony’s life when Cassius says they should do other wise, not out of any real sense of kindness but more out of a sense duty, Mark Anthony committed no crime.

But wait, and again I hinder my own argument. While there are numerous examples of Brutus acting in a manner one would presume lawful, an argument could be made that he is simply being honorable, which is not the same thing. A chaotic person can certainly have a sense of honor and duty, that isn’t something inherent to the lawful alignment. The greatest example of his blind following of the law is when he allows Mark Anthony to speak after him even when it doesn’t suit his interest. But one could say that is simply an example of Brutus’ stupidity rather than lawful manner. While Brutus is certainly honorable and believes in the law, we should remember that society’s law isn’t the same as the D&D’s law. Brutus is doing what he thinks is right, which isn’t so much acting lawfully as much as acting honorably. Law doesn’t have to entitle taking your enemy’s word for granted, naiveté and plain stupidity can explain that just as well.

Actually, you could very easily make a case that Brutus is being lawful along with being naïve but…no screw that. No, you don’t get to hear my next solution, because if I keep on with this schizophrenic use of the devil’s advocate, this post will start to become like the “Yellow Submarine” film and then nothing would make sense. So, in the style of the stereotypical martial artist, I am going to tap into the festering wastes of the Internet and draw upon the power of the troll. In this, I ignore logic or any conclusion other than my own and present my point like this. Brutus is LN -- deal with it…

Honestly, Brutus is most likely Neutral, Lawful Neutral, or Lawful Evil. And now I’m going to bed.

Ok, we will be delayed

This blog is being checked for spam, which is a little all things considered, so i'm not sure when i should post. I'll make this message and wait until they stop and clear me, so sorry for the delay.

Whats coming up is
1) Alignment part two, which covers how the system actually works, actions vs. intent, classification of actions, and the nine alignments in detail.
2) The Alignment of Brutus from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar
3) A review of the Film M

Order may change but that is how it stands
from
EE

Officer Bud White

Violence is the solution to every problem

Characters and Alignment: Officer Bud White

I started this blog in September, and it took me a month to figure out how to get the tech working, so I owe you 5 articles of this feature. Basically, I plan to find an historical figure, or a character from whatever source -- book, movie, video game, what ever -- and I figure out their alignment based upon D&D morality. Now this may be controversial, but, hey, what isn’t?

Let’s start with a controversial character from everybody’s favorite film noir “LA Confidential”: Officer Bud White, played by Russell Crow. At first glance, one might assume that White is Chaotic Good or even Neutral good, a tough cop who’s dedicated his life to defending the weak and fighting evil. Sounds nice, and I’m sure Bud thinks of himself that way. But let’s go into the gritty details. Protecting women and fighting evil is a good thing, no argument there, but Bud’s methods damn him. Take the first scene as one of his more light-handed examples of justice. Bud and his partner are watching a man beat his wife through a window. Now those of your familiar with the movie know what happens, so sorry for boring you. Basically, after watching the beating for about five minutes, Bud walks up to the front door; tears the Christmas decorations off the room that fall to the ground with a massive crash, then after insulting the wife-beater, beats him up, and handcuffs him to his porch. Then he calls for somebody to pick him up. Approach this logically. Bud has committed evil actions here. 1) He randomly smashes the man’s decorations for no reason other than to provoke him into punching first. 2) He deliberately goads him into a fight when other options were available. 3) After the fight, he keeps beating him until he is unable to move, then handcuffs him. Now this situation in itself isn’t that bad. For example, lets say Bud was a citizen and without power; beating the man up would be good. But Bud wasn’t desperate, and he had plenty of options where he wouldn’t have to resort to brutality. First, when the scene starts he has apparently been watching the assault for some time, and we see him watch for another few minutes. And yet he didn’t call for back up (i.e., dudes to take the man away after Bud was done with him) until he’d beaten the man to a pulp. It is a bit odd that he simply watches the woman get beaten for some time before doing something. Bud was a cop and he had a badge -- he could have simply arrested the man. Then he could have taken him to the station in his car, or handcuffed him to the porch and let the police pick him up. Beating the man is not evil if no other option presents itself, but when there was a nonviolent solution to the problem available, it is simple brutality. It is also worth noting that Bud deliberately goaded the man into fighting him. Apart from destroying his Christmas decorations, he responds to the man’s demand of an explanation by insulting him. He never shows his badge, demands surrender, or attempts to avert a conflict in any way. Bud simply wants to beat the man in order to use his own brand of justice, and goes out of his way to accomplish this. This is evil. He is beating the man because he likes to beat abusive spouses. That isn’t good, just indulging in a love of brutality. I mean, its like saying the Mafia in “M” are good when they put Peter Lorre on trial.

Bud’s attitude doesn’t change and he commits a whole list of controversial actions including:

1) Attacking Buzz Meeks without provocation. Ok this one is just chaotic not evil; he doesn’t hurt Meeks, who was a potential threat.

2) Taking part in Bloody Christmas. While at first he only wants to keep his partner under control, when one of the Mexican suspects has the audacity to insult him despite being handcuffed, he not only punches him, he helps his fellow cops in a full scale beating of the unarmed prisoners.

3) Refusing to assist the police in their trial against the abusive cops. Granted not that evil, but shows that he doesn’t care about justice very much when it comes to his friends.

4) Shooting an unarmed man in his underwear that had already surrendered, then putting a gun in his hand to cover his crime. The man being a rapist doesn’t justify the fact he is still a defenseless man. To make things worst, Bud went in alone specifically to do this, and the cops were right outside.

5) Acting as a torturer for the chief. While he doesn’t like this, most of the regret comes from the fact he has such a demeaning job more than anything else. He still beats people for information and does nothing to stop the chief on moral grounds.

6) Attempting to beat Officer Ed Exley to death for sleeping with his girlfriend. While he was talked out of it, that doesn’t change the fact he did fully intend to kill him and if Exley weren’t quick on the draw very well would have. And while it is understandable to get pissed at Exley, resorting to murder is not a sign of virtue.

7) Torturing the corrupt senator for information. Again, the fact that the man is corrupt doesn’t justify torture, when Bud beats him, semi-drowns him, then hands him out of a window until his gives information.

8) Beating his girlfriend. It was only one punch so I wouldn’t say evil, but certainly chaotic.

9) Almost castrates a person in order to gain information.

Now fans of the movie are going to be asking “But EE, how can he be evil, he is harming bad people”. Now I have to ask, have you heard of the well intentioned extremist? Just because the people he hurts are bad does not justify his brutality. They are still human beings, and no amount of negative film description changes that fact. In American law, Bud’s actions are illegal on many counts and he would be spending time in prisoner for abuse, battery, assault, and murder in the first degree (he planned to kill the rapist and make it look like an accident beforehand). Again, I know what some of you are going to say using my mind power. “But EE, Bud White is a hero, and everything he did is good in the film”. The thing is, the film simply glorifies Bud White’s actions in the same way a propaganda film might justify the elimination of the Jews. If you put the director’s approval of Bud’s actions aside, underneath Bud White is little more than a self righteous thug, who punishes those who offend him with their own methods and is more than willing to use torture to get what he wants. No respect for the law or order when it comes between him and his own idea of justice, and he is more than willing to put himself on the same level of those he hunts in his administration of so called justice. Clearly, Chaotic Evil.

I chose Bud White as my first example for three reasons

1) I had just watched LA confidential in my high school film class and I am sick of its justification of violence.

2) Bud White is a great example of how people can be evil without thinking themselves as of such. It also show how people that you might consider good people are in fact evil. I’m tired of the stereotype of D&D evil equaling total sociopath, so this is a good example of proving this assumption wrong.

3) Make it clear that just because somebody's actions are glorified in a film/book doesn't make their actions right in the eyes of the D&D morality, again an very specific ideal of good and evil

from

EE

Alignment part one

Wait, when did this make sense again?

Note: most of the discussion of alignment is related to pre 4E D&D, when it still mattered. Also, “the game” refers to 3.5 edition Dungeons & Dragons. Not the game that you just lost.

Well, its time for my first article on this blog, so I figured I might as well start this off with a controversial statement that will raise as many eyebrows as possible, and cause enough arguments and outraged replies that my poor site will most likely crash from the amount of traffic on the comment section. So, let’s talk about alignment. I’ve already written a lot on this topic, and later in this blog one of my intentions is to host a special event every week where I define the alignment of a fictional character or historical figure, so it seems like a good place to start

Of all the issues with D&D, alignment has always been the most controversial topic, by far. Unlike many of the games’ problematic aspects, the alignment system itself is not actually at fault for its own problems, just the way it’s perceived. More than anything, the alignment system is simply misunderstood and is the victim of quite a few fallacies. In fact, almost every problem with the alignment system is, in fact, brought about by misconceptions of the system, with a few notable exceptions (undead, poison, mind control, ect). In my first draft, I instantly launched into a detailed explanation of alignment, and a complicated, in-depth essay that could make the writings of Mark Twain look like a mere fan fic. When my dad looked at my writing and said something along the lines of “I have no idea what your talking about,” “This stuff doesn’t make sense to me because I’m not familiar with the nature of alignment” and “I secretly wish to disinherit you,” I decided to include some explanation for those of you who don’t have enough free time to learn about the morality of fantasy role-playing game (no, you cannot judge me).

Now if this doesn’t scream controversial I don’t know what will, but unlike most of their products, the makers of the game had actually thought this one through. The general idea is that the alignment system creates nine categories (along the axis of good, neutral, evil and lawful, neutral, chaotic) for everybody in the world, based upon their actions, personal morals and belief systems. Somebody’s alignment can change based upon their actions. For example, a good person who starts torturing people for information will slip very quickly into neutral then evil. The purpose of this system is that is to have a well-defined understanding of good and evil within the game’s world, at least in the first 3 editions where the designers actually cared. Now first I want to make this clear, there are two ways to do morality in a game, which I will explain in detail. They are 1) The relative and 2) the absolute.

Relative morality is a system where morality isn’t cleanly defined. Good and evil are not laid out for you in the game, but are left up to each person's personal beliefs. Basically, morality is totally left up to the player’s own decisions and options. Song of Fire and Ice is a great example of how most people imagine Relative morality. Good and evil are really a matter of personal choice and every single person has a different idea of them. A subset of this type of morality in play is to have cultural alignments. Cultural alignments work just like absolute alignments, except the system is clearly only limited to the culture itself. Legend of the Five Ring’s honor system works like this; a character’s honor is absolute, but the morality of the entire world are not defined by only one honor system, just the morals a particular country. In a relative system, an action doesn’t make you “more good” or “more evil”; it only effects how people perceive you. A society that magically raises its dead on a regular basis is only evil if certain characters (or nations, or gods, for that matter) object to them, and even then it’s just a personal basis more than anything else. It’s very much like real life; things that are offensive or criminal in certain cultures are A-OK in others. Murder in Japan or the Aztecs wasn’t a sin, while today it is a big deal in most first world nations. Other morals don’t matter on the good and evil basis, but different cultures perceive them differently. For example sex can be viewed as a sin, as an art, or as unimportant. The advantage and disadvantage of this system is that there can be no real “evil” things in the world. In an absolute system, it’s kind of nice to have an actual unholy entity that is clearly evil. But more importantly, you lack some options in terms of the realms beyond. Most people can put up with this, but in a game like D&D, where planar travel, coming back from the dead, and the matter of the afterlife comes into question, considering heaven and hell. If morals are relative, then the after life is really nothing more than you going to your own gods.

Now, here is a problem. I actually prefer absolute alignment system, but I really do like Song of Ice and Fire, and I feel like I’ve given the relative morality too good of a description. Yeah, I’m just too bloody good for my own good (lets just go with that, shall we, and avoid pining the problem on indecisiveness). Now, what I don’t like about relative morality is that I actually like the idea of good and evil being forces on their own, absolute forces. Creatures like demons and devils as the actual absolute embodiments of evil are actually quite cool, a position that they can’t claim in a relative system. Also, the “Always Chaotic Evil” Trope, when used well, is actually quite scary. I like the idea that the world functions on absolutes, it can bring out so much more from the game. I also like the idea of a massive standard that is held over what is just and what is unjust. It also gives the world a sense of justice, which can vary on whether that is a good thing or not. That being said, contrary to what most people believe, relative alignments are easier to do, because morality is a personal ideal rather than something the DM has to control, which is nice. I’ll explain more when I get into our next section.

Absolute alignment. This is the alternative to morality, and is the basis of the D&D morality. The basis of absolute morality is that good and evil are clearly defined entries, and the same goes for people. For example, in D&D good and evil are actual concepts. Not ideals or beliefs, literally forces of the cosmos. Everything in the world has to follow their rules, including gods. Everything simply fits within the realms of good, evil or in-between, as defined by their actions. For example, rape is always evil, no matter what the situation is (short of mind control or accident but I’ll cover that when I get to understanding of the situation below). So if somebody willingly rapes another, they will cease to be good and eventually become evil if they keep it up. There are certain actions that are always evil, like torture, murder, rape, worship of evil gods, human sacrifice, summoning demons, genocide, use of poison, disagreeing with me, and FATAL (For those out of the loop: the worst game ever made. Ever!). These things are always evil, not mater what the situation is and anyone who commits them will start going down the dark path. Some actions are by their nature good: mercy, kindness, honesty, protecting the innocent, etc. And some actions vary, like lying, cheating, killing (not murder), and fanaticism, which depend upon the situation and the morality behind them, essentially neutral. I’ll go into more detail about these later; the important thing I want to make clear is the fact that good and evil are very absolute about what is what.

Now, I want to address this issue later, but I realize the massive amount of misconceptions that are going to come up will prevent me from going on unless I make this clear now. So I want to make this very clear, good and evil may be absolute, however right and wrong are not. Just because one set of morals is classified as “good” doesn’t mean that they are necessarily right (I think so but that isn’t the point). What is considered just or unjust, right and wrong, true and false is still left up to personal option. For example, slavery is always evil according to D&D, but many real life societies had no problems with it. These societies would simply reject the morals of good as wrong and ignorance, and embrace their own as “just”. I mean, evil doesn’t mean that you’re a sociopath or a baby eater; it just means you’ve committed evil acts and haven’t repented. So logically, a lot of people in the world would be evil, because evil acts are so easy to commit. Here is a very long list of elaborate examples where I prove my point again and again until the smarter members of my audience get sick of me mercilessly patronizing them. Naw, I’ll spare you with just one.

Take Farmer Joe. He grew up in a village, he was a good worker, he was loyal to his family and his nation, and he did his job thoroughly and honestly. As he got older he got married, got his own farm and worked to support his wife and kids. He occasionally cheats on his taxes, has gotten in fights a few times, and has the usual prejudices of his nation, but despite this, he is a dedicated member of his community and has worked hard to support his village. Then he was drafted in war with another nation. There he was used as a basic foot solider in the field, forced to fight in tough conditions, often being used as fodder, far away from home against an enemy who was intent upon killing him. The men he served with were already hardened by the war, and he had seen his friends die horribly or be maimed in a foreign, hostile land. He slowly losses empathy for those around him, and he shields his mind so that he doesn’t have to confront his actions, and no longer feels connected to those who he hurts. He starts to loot both his enemies’ and allies’ bodies, take from their houses and land, and rob the prisoners. He takes out frustration upon enemy spies during integration, he murders enemies who surrendering, knowing they would do the same for him, and he kills civilians who get in his way. He murders innocents in order to protect himself, he allows his fellow solders to torture and beat enemy civilians, and once he even rapes a woman while drunk. In the end of the war, the men sack the enemy city, and he, along with most of this soldiers, burn, kill, and loot the thing clean. Then the war ends and he returns home. He takes his money and uses it for his family in order to help repair the damage done by the war in his village. He has more kids and raises them to be honest hard working citizens, he gives up his free time to help the community, he gives money to charity and he helps the town when it comes to group activities. He still cheats on his taxes and dice, and he holds the prejudice of his nation, but he is also a kind and honest person generally speaking. On one occasion he and his town burned the hermit outside the village as a witch, and another time he and his community lynched a man who most likely murdered a young boy (not sure through in hindsight). This man is still Neutral Evil or Lawful Evil. He doesn’t feel bad about his actions in the war, where he was a true monster; he has committed evil acts since then. He may love his family and at heart be a pretty good person, but he is still evil, both for the deeds he has committed, his inability to repent for them and his ability to do it all over again. Historically, most of the famous figures are evil. The Khan was a ruthless and dictatorial man. And yet, he was also brave, honorable and extremely loyal to his people. Napoleon was a genius, charming, intelligent, likable, and considering the time, actually not that bad as far as rulers go. Elizabeth I authorized the brutal oppression of Ireland. The Scots at Prestonpans massacred fleeing British troops, and British troops at Culloden slaughtered hoards of defeated Scots. A lot of these were culturally acceptable evils, for instance, in Rome, the Vikings, early China, pre WWII Japan, the Aztecs and early Europe. Being evil does not make you a sociopath; it just means you’ve committed evil actions. The point is that what the D&D system defines as “Good” is not automatically justice. Because the morality system is absolute, Good is just a force of nature in the D&D universe, its part of the elemental structure of the cosmology. It is not a golden list of rules that define justice. Justice is what your character, or any other person in the world believes justice to be. Just because one moral system is named “Good” doesn’t make it right.

This is the biggest problem -- that people who find their own personal morals are listed as evil, instead of questioning the validity of good and evil, simply deny the rules that state their idea/actions as evil and instant they are good despite having nothing to back this up. Of the countless alignment threads spread about the dreaded interwebs, the most common is “Torture is acceptable in order to get info needed from bad guys” -- sort of a Sergeant White/Dirty Harry way of looking at things -- with the second being a defense of their favorite characters actions, to the point of denying the actual factual basis of the game in avoid having their character classified as evil (everybody who says V’s latest murder wasn’t evil, yeah, I mean you people). I mean, I can understand the aversion to having yourself or your favorite character declared “evil” because of the negative connotation, but really you need to understand the implications of good and evil. Of all the alignments, evils pretty much covers both the most amount of idea, and the largest range of people, because it has such easy requirements. I mean, by D&D standards I’m LN, I don’t care. The thing is, right and wrong are not the same as Good and Evil. Good and Evil are like two different political parties, which one is right is up to you personally. Take Song of Ice and Fire, where we see every character’s perspective and it really helps in terms of getting a legitimate understanding of everybody’s goals and motivations. They don’t see themselves as evil remember. Or Goblins. Say what you will about Goblins slayer and friends, they do honestly think they are doing good. Ok it is a little heavy handed, but even so they believe what they are doing is right. Rome is a good example of cultural differences of other times.

The basic idea of alignment is that

Alright, since I covered the main issue, let’s get into the specifics in part 2. . I’ll also explain the mechanics of alignments, the way it works, and flaws in the system (poison, mind control ect). Until then, I’m going to sleep while the rest of you dedicate hours of your lives to either drowning me in praise (and if that seems like a negative statement, let me assure, that’s a great way to handle your time) or quoting me words and trying to prove how I’m wrong. Now if your excuse me, I’m going to go pretend to sleep while I worry about how this will be received

From

EE

Introduction.

To Victory!

Introduction:

I’ve always been a bit baffled by blogs. Quite honestly, I don’t see the point; its just one dude ranting about himself to anyone who cares to listen. Like many of my opinions, this comes from an elitist view that allows me to look down upon anything that’s popular and make negative generalizations and dismiss any actual potential. Sadly, as I look closer, I have to admit that the idea of a blog is quite good. For the last year, I’ve been considering a blog, and in celebration of my 17th birthday I decided to start being completely original by ranting on the Internet.

Okay, really, why am I doing this?

Humor aside, I actually do have a valid reason for spending my free time ranting on line. I am a dedicated nerd by nature; I enjoy discussion/ranting about the elements of Nerd Culture, most importantly RPGs. I’ve been role-playing since I was eight, and as such, I spend a lot of my free time talking and thinking about RPGs in general. When I was in 8th grade, I came across my favorite webcomic, Order of the Stick (really, check it out, it is worth it), which I learned about from Dragon Magazine. After a year of lurking (i.e., trying to figure out how to make an account), the next year (2006) I chose the red wizard guy avatar and made my name (a deliberate misspelling of the word elitist) and got to work proving how everybody else on the internet is wrong and I’m right. Again, jokes aside, I really do like the Giantip forums, they provide actually stimulating conversation, interesting debates, and a good helpful community which is more than my high school could say, where anti-intellectualism is the norm (I’m not bitter, nope). However, after two years of online debate, I’ve noticed that I tend to be covering the same ground again and again. Don’t get me wrong, Giantip forums are the best I’ve ever seen, and I have enjoyed (and hopefully still will) my time there, however a forum community is very fluid. I find myself repeating the exact same points again and again in different threads on different topics, as new people keep showing up, or people have forgotten, or haven’t seen the old threads. This is certainly understandable in a forum, but I think its time that I move on. Okay, let’s try saying that again without sounding utterly pretentious, and I’m not leaving Order of the Stick behind because I’m suddenly too good for forums.

The main thing is, I write a lot. People who know can attest to my tendency to not only write great walls of text on a regular basis, along with massive super-posts made up of several of these walls of text. While I enjoy the forum as a pastime, I realize I’ve have most likely written enough on the forums to make a fair-sized book (not a good book, mind you, but you get the idea). So I figured, I might as well actually do something useful with all the stuff I’ve done, and so I’ve created this blog partly as a place where I can group my many opinions for reference. Also, I’ve always wanted to become a professional reviewer, but the horrible pay prevents me from considering it (unless I get absurdly successful) so I hope to use this site as a place to throw around my opinion of books/movies/games/shows/music like a petulant child throws toys -- and then belittle anyone who has the audacity to disagree with me.

Now, who am I? Well, I assume you already know me from Order of the Stick, but if not --

I am known as EvilElitest, and no, you don’t get to know my real name, because I, like god, am of the opinion that you mortals should only know as much about the world as I see fit. I have a hard time explaining myself without sounding like an utter egomaniac with delusions of grandeur, so I’ll just warn you in advance. While I wouldn’t consider myself a child prodigy or a savant on any level, I have always been very smart for my age, as well as bookish (reading LOTRS in 2nd grade even. And understanding it enough to recite it. Okay, I’ll stop gloating over petty accomplishments). Thanks to the American Publish School System, I’ve become an extremely cynical embittered person who has an inflated sense of self-importance and tends to lash out at others. Now that I’ve gotten the arbitrary self-criticism over with, I’ll move onto the small amount of personal information that I’m willing to leak out. I’m very young. I’m an American living in rural New York State. I’d say stuff about myself like “I’m very creative/brilliant/sympathetic, etc.,” but honestly, for all my claims of egotism, I always feel uncomfortable about complimenting myself. It is worth noting that I am very, very stubborn, which I, in a responsible manner, blame entirely upon my mixed heritage, specifically the Southern, Puritan, German and Scots branches of the family.

It’s actually somewhat ironic that, contrary to the rather bitter statements above, I’m actually a very happy person. I have no depression (medical or otherwise) and despite being pessimistic and cynical by nature, I generally an enjoyable, if misanthropic by nature.

It is also worth noting I have dyslexia and so, while I will honestly try to edit my work (or get other people to do it for me), my spelling can be creatively bad, so I warn you before hand.

I am also very technophobic, so the site may experience problems from time to time. It is not that I don’t care; I just have trouble actually doing the required work without destroying my own site in the process.

As a final note...Donations.

Eventually, I hope to get a donation function. Honestly, though, I’m in high school. I don’t have the normal vices of most teens and I don’t need money for much and I can make that on my own. So why have a donation function? Here is the thing; the only thing I’d spend money on is to buy new books/games. I will be using all of the money donated to this site to marinate the site, hiring help, and buying more products to review. Yeah, I know what your thinking, “wait, so he gets to spend my money on books and games.” Here is the thing; I am going to be using the books/movies/game I buy to be reviewed on this site. And, in all honestly, they are expensive, and I can’t normally afford most than a couple a month. So all the money does in fact go into the site. More later when I get a donation function.

From
EE

Note, picture is from Google Imageshttp://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/4/41/NapoleonBike.jpg