Agony, Alignments, and Permanence Wards

[Crazy Lou]

So agony is a pretty nasty spell. It can be used for torture purposes, and punishment, etc, as well as in combat. I want to know what you'd say in regards to a character's alignment if he wanted to stitch a permanence warded agony spell into someone? Suppose that the person being so punished was a despicably evil person who'd perpetrated countless murders of innocents, blood sacrifices, etc. But once defeated instead of killing him, the character decided to incapacitate him and punish him for the rest of his natural life with a permanent agony spell?

[drewkitty ~..~]

Then the only alinement that do such a thing is the Diabolic alinement. Any other would execute them.

[Carindel]

Agony also drains HP from the victim. Assuming this is possible, while it would be a horrific way to die, it would kill them within a relatively short time period, assuming human-level HP.

[Crazy Lou]

Agony also drains HP from the victim. Assuming this is possible, while it would be a horrific way to die, it would kill them within a relatively short time period, assuming human-level HP.

Actually no, the spell Agony doesn't do any damage at all. It just 100% incapacitates the victim for the duration by inflicting unimaginable pain continuously. You're thinking of the pain version of Bio-manipulation super psionic power. If the victim wasn't given any food or water/put on life support the person so permanently enchanted would die in 3-5 days without water. If however hooked to an IV and provided with nutrients, he could live, trapped in a world of pain for years.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Actually no, the spell Agony doesn't do any damage at all. It just 100% incapacitates the victim for the duration by inflicting unimaginable pain continuously. You're thinking of the pain version of Bo-manipulation super psionic power. If the victim wasn't given any food or water/put on life support the person so permanently enchanted would die in 3-5 days without water. If however hooked to an IV and provided with nutrients, he could live, trapped in a world of pain for years.

Sounds like what Hell is going to be like fore the devil and everyone going there, but w/o the fire.

I will still stick with my original statement.

[Carindel]

You're right, Crazy Lou, my mistake. So is such a process actually possible, as per the rules?

[Crazy Lou]

You're right, Crazy Lou, my mistake. So is such a process actually possible, as per the rules?

Yep. It occurred to me just before I posted my question. Scary thought really, such a cruel punishment.

[Crazy Lou]

oh yeah, you'd be a complete nutcase if you endured that for years.

Plus, being "rescued" would very possibly kill him, considering that removing the ward after it's been on him for so long does a ton of damage to him. Although even dying would be better than his previous situation.

[The Beast]

Then the only alinement that do such a thing is the Diabolic alinement. Any other would execute them.

I beg to differ. I could see at least Aberant aligned characters doing this as well, just not as often as a Diabolic one.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Then the only alinement that do such a thing is the Diabolic alinement. Any other would execute them.

I beg to differ. I could see at least Aberrant aligned characters doing this as well, just not as often as a Diabolic one.

I would beg to differ, the Aberrant is the one evil alinement that would defiantly not do it. Remember th Aberrant alinement is one that values "honor".
Where the miscreant might do it, but they would turn diabolic in the doing of it.

[Crazy Lou]

I could see aberrant doing it, depending on his "twisted code of ethics." It says they can use torture to extract information or intimidate others. I think that your minions would be EXTREMELY intimidated if you made an example of a some great failure by stitching a permanent agony spell onto the one who failed you. Plus, your "twisted code of ethics" could say that horrible ineptitude means that the failing minion doesn't earn the right or mercy of a quick/painless/honorable death. So you do that in the alternative for punishment.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. While when I first started reading this thread I had thought the Aberrant character might be okay with it, after rereading the Alignment I'd say they wouldn't (barring very specific circumstances, which I'll discuss at the end). To help show my case, I'll use HU and R:UE (more or less the same wording).

He expects loyalty from his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a swift, merciful death or banishment

He will never be cruel or vindictive ...

These two parts make it pretty clear he's not about torture or making someone suffer, regardless of the reasons. If the Aberrant character did do it, it would likely be a result of the honor, having some type of oath to someone else compelling him to do it (like if he swore to serve someone who later ordered him to do it, he'd have to do it to fulfill his oath). He'd find it distasteful, but for one reason or another honor bound to do it.

Diabolic and Miscreant can do it. Or, at least I don't see why Miscreant can't do it since they even torture for pleasure (drewkitty seems to disagree, so I'd be interested in his reasons for saying Diabolic only). Actually, I could even see an Anarchist doing it once. He's not "likely" to do it for pleasure, but if there is a good reason for it (it'll bring about servitude) that'll help move him up in the world I can see it. Making a habit of it will drop them down to evil, but once might work. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Khanibal]

Well, I can see an Aberrant character doing it, IF it was a punishment for something horrible AND it was made clear to the victim that this would be his punishment before he comitted this crime.

For example:
The aberrant king declares this will be the punishment for child molesters. Next week the police/guard nab a child molester. Guess who's not getting 5-7 yrs. with time off for good behavior.

[Tor]

Then the only alinement that do such a thing is the Diabolic alinement. Any other would execute them.

Implying it is more moral to murder than to torture?

I could see a Principled with twisted perceptions actually being okay with this. Perhaps the pain will teach them empathy and how to be good?

Aberrant is the one evil alinement that would defiantly not do it. Remember th Aberrant alinement is one that values "honor".

What is dishonorable about inflicting continuous pain upon an enemy?

I'll use HU and R:UE (more or less the same wording).

He expects loyalty from his minions, punishing disloyalty and treachery with a swift, merciful death or banishment

He will never be cruel or vindictive ...

These two parts make it pretty clear he's not about torture or making someone suffer, regardless of the reasons.

The first quote is irrelevant. Merciful and swift deaths are luxuries only necessarily afforded to former minions. It doesn't apply to other enemies.

Eternal agony is not necessarily cruelty. Someone who does this may not draw pleasure from the suffering, and they might not be indifferent to it. It could very well be that they hate the idea of doing it, but because they feel it is deserved, that it will better society.

Not being vindictive means they won't do it as a form of revenge, but as a means of creating a better individual and a better world.

I think an Aberrant king(depending on his personal-code) would punish molesters like that if the means were available. Not too many crimes other than that would qualify. Hell, I'd be willing to do that to a child molester(and looking through the alignment section, aberrant fits me).

Why wouldn't murder or the rape of adults qualify? Or theft, or not saluting the king, for that matter? We should avoid being biased by our own views of Aberrants, their values can vary widely.

[Prysus]

Eternal agony is not necessarily cruelty. Someone who does this may not draw pleasure from the suffering, and they might not be indifferent to it.

Greetings and Salutations. So your stance is that causing pain and suffering (even "agony") is not cruel? Interesting take. Let's see if the dicitonary agrees.

cru·el

/ˈkro͞oəl/
adjective

1. willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.
adjective: cruel; comparative adjective: crueller; superlative adjective: cruellest; comparative adjective: crueler; superlative adjective: cruelest
"people who are cruel to animals"

synonyms: brutal, savage, inhuman, barbaric, barbarous, brutish, bloodthirsty, murderous, vicious, sadistic, wicked, evil, fiendish, diabolical, monstrous, abominable; callous, ruthless, merciless, pitiless, remorseless, uncaring, heartless, stony-hearted, hard-hearted, cold-blooded, cold-hearted, unfeeling, unkind, inhumane; dateddastardly; literaryfell
"a cruel man"

antonyms: compassionate

2. causing pain or suffering.
"the winters are long, hard, and cruel"

synonyms: harsh, severe, bitter, harrowing, heartbreaking, heart-rending, painful, agonizing, traumatic;

First definition off of a Google search "cruel definition." What is #1? "1. willfully causing pain or suffering to others" and then followed by an "or" statement (in other words, an either/or, but both are not required). What about #2? "2. causing pain or suffering" (no further qualifiers). Let's even look at a synonym of #2 ... "agonizing." So does this definition support your claim that causing agonizing pain and suffering isn't cruel? Not even close. Let's continue.

cru·el
adjective \ˈkrü(-ə)l\

—used to describe people who hurt others and do not feel sorry about it

: causing or helping to cause suffering : terrible and unfair

cru·el·erorcru·el·lercru·el·estorcru·el·lest

Full Definition of CRUEL

1: disposed to inflict pain or suffering : devoid of humane feelings <a cruel tyrant>

2 a: causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain <a cruel joke>
b: unrelieved by leniency <cruel punishment>

That's the Merriam Webster definition, next on the list (I'm not even being biased, straight down the list). One of the ways it starts off is: "causing or helping to cause suffering" (no further qualifiers). #1? Admittedly, doesn't really apply here. Let's see about #2a? ": causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain" ... so causing pain is cruel, got it. How about #2b? "b: unrelieved by leniency" So "unrelieved" ... as in causing eternal agony? Eternal ... ergo, never being relieved ... ever, regardless of actions or potential leniency? So still cruel. Next ...

cru·el
[kroo-uhl] Show IPA

adjective, cru·el·er, cru·el·est.
1. willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.

2. enjoying the pain or distress of others: the cruel spectators of the gladiatorial contests.

3. causing or marked by great pain or distress: a cruel remark; a cruel affliction.

4. rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe

Next on the list, from Dictionary.com this time. #1: "willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others." So is this willfully and knowingly causing pain to another? Yes. Fits the definition of cruel. #2: Doesn't fit, I'll grant that. #3: "causing or marked by great pain or distress" Is this causing pain? Yes, then still cruel. #4: "rigid; stern; strict; unrelentingly severe" ... whether or not it's "severe" is a judgment call, but we know that it is "unrelenting" (as this is "eternal"). Questionable whether it fits.

So what we see (repeatedly) is that "causing pain and suffering" is considered "cruel." Motivation is irrelevent if you're "willfully" and "knowingly" doing it, especially if you're "unrelenting." That's just the first three off of Google (I don't want to make page after page after page repeatin the same definitions). Even if ONE definition of each (and in most cases it was more) qualifies the actions as cruel, that means it's still cruel. lf all three sources had drastically different definitions you might be able to argue inaccuracy, but all three agree causing pain and suffering (no other qualifiers) is cruel.

Example: I could say "I'm gay." Slang indicates homosexual and definition indicates happy. So I could mean "I'm homosexual," "I'm happy," or "I'm a happy homosexual." However, if I say "I'm not gay," then it means I can be neither happy nor homosexual. If someone is NOT cruel, they cannot fall under any of the various meanings of that word.

We should avoid being biased by our own views ...

Agreed, and that's why I'll stick to the actual dictionary meaning of cruel, and not whatever added meanings you decide to apply.

Farewell and safe journeys to all.

[Tor]

I do not accept your definition that merely causing suffering makes you cruel. Were that the case then doctors would be cruel in that they may willingly inflict suffering through things like surgery that have the patient's long-term health in mind.

The only definition I accept is the more specific 'not having concern' or 'not feeling sorry' about it. That is clearly the common meaning of cruelty. Your "the dictionary" is wrong by being too inclusive, cruelty is a more specific thing than willingly inflicting suffering. It is the aim and the reaction which are critical to defining it.

You are choosing the most broad "the dictionary" (the use of a definite article here with authority is misleading) to cover something that people commonly do not think of as cruel. Cruelty is suffering inflicted out of malice, or to seek pleasure, or without empathy, it is not merely the inflicting of suffering.

You might note that one of your uses has the "winter" being cruel. How does winter have a will? It's clearly got metaphorical applications where one assumes malice for dramatic impact regardless of the will or emotion of the subject.

If you want to pull up big names though, the top definition listed at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruelty is "a desire to cause others to suffer".

[eliakon]

I do not accept your definition that merely causing suffering makes you cruel. Were that the case then doctors would be cruel in that they may willingly inflict suffering through things like surgery that have the patient's long-term health in mind.

The only definition I accept is the more specific 'not having concern' or 'not feeling sorry' about it. That is clearly the common meaning of cruelty. Your "the dictionary" is wrong by being too inclusive, cruelty is a more specific thing than willingly inflicting suffering. It is the aim and the reaction which are critical to defining it.

You are choosing the most broad "the dictionary" (the use of a definite article here with authority is misleading) to cover something that people commonly do not think of as cruel. Cruelty is suffering inflicted out of malice, or to seek pleasure, or without empathy, it is not merely the inflicting of suffering.

You might note that one of your uses has the "winter" being cruel. How does winter have a will? It's clearly got metaphorical applications where one assumes malice for dramatic impact regardless of the will or emotion of the subject.

If you want to pull up big names though, the top definition listed at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruelty is "a desire to cause others to suffer".

Isn't "I am going to make you suffer for the rest of your life" pretty much that?
just because a person feels that they have a justification for an act does not make that act inherently more or less cruel.
Or you can just make a personal decision that "Aberrant can do anything as long as they feel its justified" This works, as long as all the players in the game are aware of the changes.

[Prysus]

Greetings and Salutations. So you reject the dictionary definition because ... it differs from your opinion, so it must be wrong. Okay then ... that tells me a lot about the level of hope for this conversation. But just for the heck of it, I'll try at least once more. To spare the others of the cruelty of needing to scroll through it, I'll post most of my response in a Spoiler tag.

Spoiler:

I do not accept your definition

For the record, it wasn't my definition. It was the dictionaries definition, of which I quoted three. I wasn't selective, just quoted the first three, one of which you consider a "big name" (Merriam-Webster) that said different than your personal view of the world.

Were that the case then doctors would be cruel in that they may willingly inflict suffering through things like surgery that have the patient's long-term health in mind.

There's a few factors on that. Before I start all that, I'll start by saying surgery is cruel (as odd as that sounds). But I'll explain.

1: Is it causing pain or suffering? If it causes pain, it would technically fall under the definition. This is not a general usage of the word though, I admit. So I'll continue.

2: Doctors who perform surgery aren't attempting to cause pain. They're attempting to heal, and they do what they can to alleviate the pain. That is why they (usually) put people to sleep or otherwise numb the pain during surgery. This is why they give people pain killers. If the doctor could (safely) prescribe pain killers, and simply refused because he didn't feel like it, most people would probably say he's being cruel though (of course, I'm only guessing at what other people would say). If he forced a patient to suffer through a painful surgery without giving Anesthesia (when he could safely and reasonably due so, and the patient wanted it), he'd probably even be brought up on criminal charges.

3: Most people use personal perception to define cruel. Example: Most people will not consider modern surgery cruel (if it's necessary and life saving). However, if we go back some time, they'd give a patient a bit of alcohol and then take a hacksaw to amputate a patient's leg. If you went into a fully functioning hospital today and a doctor did that, he'd again be sued and possibly thrown in jail (at the very least probably have this license taken away). If we had Star Trek level medical technology and a doctor decided to use modern technology for the srugery, he'd probably be considered cruel as well (because it'll cause more pain, more scarring, take longer to heal, etc.). Did the definition of "cruel" change, or just our perspective? Since the definition isn't changing, it's only our perspective. If we're to leave bias out of it (as you claim to want), then we need to leave personal perspective out of things.

The only definition I accept is the more specific 'not having concern' or 'not feeling sorry' about it.

So regardless of facts, you'll only accept your personal definition. Got it.

That is clearly the common meaning of cruelty.

First, the word used in the book is "cruel." Minor issue, but still worth noting. Secondly, "clearly" to who? I'm clearly disagreeing with you. Others in this thread have disagreed with you. Where is your proof that this is the common meaning? Or are you speaking from personal perspective (even though you tell others to leave their bias out of it)?

Your "the dictionary" is wrong by being too inclusive, cruelty is a more specific thing than willingly inflicting suffering. It is the aim and the reaction which are critical to defining it.

The fact you're calling the dictionary wrong because it disagrees with you is hilarious by the way.

You are choosing the most broad "the dictionary" (the use of a definite article here with authority is misleading) to cover something that people commonly do not think of as cruel.

Broad? I guess by quoting multiple dictioniaries which all agree ... that's broad. As opposed to you trying to find one specific definition and cling only to that while ignoring all others. Also, you're speaking (again) of what people commonly think of as cruel. I'm a person, and I can tell you that my definition of cruel is clearly different than yours. Others have clearly disagreed with you as well, yet you're telling me what all people agree with your viewpoint. Note: The posters in this thread are "people" too. Consider listening to what people are saying instead of just telling us what we think.

Also, again, you refer to what people think, yet complain about biased opinions (as you did earler in this thread). Frankly what people think is irrelevent if you don't want their bias. If all you want is facts, you can look to a resource (such as the dictionary, which you're also rejecting by the way).

But setting all that aside, let's look at some usss of the word "cruel."

Cruel and Unusual: Hmm ... so if the 8th Ammendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment.." Since it uses the word "and" it must include both "cruel" as well as "unusual" to be prohibited. So using your defintion ... beheading with a chainsaw is totally acceptable form of execution as long as you feel bad about it afterwards. As long as you feel regret, torture is apparently constitutional as well. Fascinating theory Tor, but not sure the U.S. Constitution would agree with your personal view on the matter.

You have to be cruel to be kind: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/You ... to+be+kind This actually almost fits what you're trying to describe with your torture scenario, and still calls it cruel. Also something "people" say.

Cruelty is suffering inflicted out of malice, or to seek pleasure, or without empathy, it is not merely the inflicting of suffering.

Well, at least you clearly stated your definition. Admittedly, it is also one of the definitions of cruel, just not the only one. Many words have more than one definition (as I mentioned in my last post).

You might note that one of your uses has the "winter" being cruel. How does winter have a will? It's clearly got metaphorical applications where one assumes malice for dramatic impact regardless of the will or emotion of the subject.

The only person here saying that "cruel" must have a will is you, not the dictionary. Winter (and weather in general) can cause harm and suffering. The cold can cause frostbite, wind burn, general discomfort from the cold, throwing your back out from shoveling, etc. The winter can cause pain and/or suffering, ergo by the definition it can be cruel.

If you want to pull up big names though, the top definition listed at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruelty is "a desire to cause others to suffer".

Yeah, I quoted them earlier too, and you said Merriam-Webster is wrong (along with all the others). Also, once again, the word used in the book is "cruel," not "cruelty." But heck, I'll play along. Let's look at the full definition listed.

cru·el·ty
noun \ˈkrü(-ə)l-tē\

: a desire to cause others to suffer : the quality or state of being cruel

: actions that cause suffering

: an act or occurrence that causes suffering

Convenient, you left out 2/3rds of the definition, the 2/3rds that say you're wrong and agree with me. Go further and you'll see them refer to things like "the quality or state of being cruel" (and in my previous post I showed Merriam-Webster shows "cruel" to include "causing or helping to cause suffering" as the "top" definition as you call it).

Though just for fun, if you want to talk about "big names" let's take a look at Oxford Dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... lish/cruel

cruel
Syllabification: cru·el
Pronunciation: /ˈkro͞oəl 
/
adjective (crueler, cruelest ; British crueller, cruellest)

1Willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it: ‘people who are cruel to animals’ ‘a cruel remark’


1.1Causing pain or suffering: ‘the winters are long, hard, and cruel’

Notice how it says "or" before your definition? An "or" statement does not require both. It can be the first, or the second. Notice the first one agrees with me? The next definition also agrees with me (and is the winter example ... and does NOT mention anything about "will" or "intent" or any other joy of it or lack of feeling on it).

Edit:: Ooohh ... and Oxford definition gave me another example: Animal Cruelty. As long as the peple conducting experiments feel bad about hurting animals, it's no longer animal cruelty by your definition. You should go tell those protesters they're all wrong. Have fun with that.

So in conclusion, to follow your defintion it means that all the dictionaries are wrong, the U.S. Constitution is wrong, people are wrong (in this thread as well as phrases others use) because they disagree with people, animal protesters are wrong (edited this in there), I'm wrong because I'm using facts instead of my personal view of things, and even you're wrong (because you provided a link to a defintion that provided definitions that disagreed with your viewpoint). Wow ... yeah ... I think that about says it all. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[Nightmask]

Uh I'd have to say that your alignment is certainly going to be on the evil end, most likely miscreant or diabolic. You simply don't inflict endless inescapable agony on someone and remain a moral person, the effort to justify it puts you squarely in the 'evil rationalization' category. However depraved and evil the individual might have been such an act isn't being merciful or just, it's an act of pure retribution and vengeance. To be merciful you'd simply kill them if they couldn't be imprisoned not bind them with something that would require they have medical care just to survive since they couldn't do anything themselves.

It WOULD however make a later story plot for them somehow overcoming it (having their pain nerves severed for example, or head cut off and turned into a full conversion cyborg) and being way more insane than they'd ever been before seeking vengeance most extreme on those who inflicted such agony on them.

[Goliath Strongarm]

I promised myself I wasn't going to get involved in this. But hey, what's one more broken promise to myself?

**Edit to remove something I was wrong about, and realized after re-reading...


Now, as to the alignments...

Principled- not a chance
Scrupulous- Probably not, but possibly. They won't torture for PLEASURE, but, if it has a good reason, possibly would. To do it JUST as a punishment? I doubt it. As a means of helping to control a criminal and preventing them from committing such acts again? Possibly. But they'd probably try to have some other benefit to it.
Unprincipled-I actually seem them LESS likely to use it than scrupulous. However, as a last ditch effort to possibly help control someone? Maybe. But there would have to be NO other options to control the person, and there would probably need to be some other benefit.
Anarchist- Maybe, if there was some other benefit. More likely than the others listed so far. MIGHT do it just for the punishment/control reason.
Aberrant- Doubtful. If there is some other benefit, MAYBE, but there would HAVE to be another benefit. Probably less likely than scrupulous.
Miscreant-Why not? That would be a fun time watching them go out!
Diabolic- AWESOME method! Why didn't I think of it before?

I think that one of the major problems with this discussion is that people are looking at arguments like honor and "good" and "evil". Read the TORTURE portions, because really, that's what this is- torture. It's a slow, painful way to kill someone, or, based on the spell, to keep them completely incapacitated and suffering, with no real benefit.

[Goliath Strongarm]

If you want to pull up big names though, the top definition listed at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruelty is "a desire to cause others to suffer".

Actually, that was with a Merriam-Webster summary, not a definition.

: a desire to cause others to suffer : the quality or state of being cruel

: actions that cause suffering

: an act or occurrence that causes suffering

If you look at the DEFINITIONS of cruelty.

1: the quality or state of being cruel
2
a : a cruel action
b : inhuman treatment
3: marital conduct held (as in a divorce action) to endanger life or health or to cause mental suffering or fear

Selective reading is a bad habit. You should break it.

Want to break them down?
1) The quality of state of being cruel.
Well, what's "cruel"?
Since you like to use the synopsis,
-used to describe people who hurt others and do not feel sorry about it
-causing or helping to cause suffering : terrible and unfair
Or, the definition, which was posted before by someone else. Either way, it fits. Well.

2a) Covered that.
2b) By pretty much ANY definition, except those of the old Soviet Gulags, ETERNAL TORTURE is inhuman treatment. And inhumane treatment, too.
3) Doesn't fully apply- if we look at it outside of the type of relationship, in this case marriage, then we discover that it DOES apply based on the criteria for the behavior inside of the relationship.

So, I ask you Tor... in WHAT world do you think this would NOT qualify as cruel and inhumane treatment of a prisoner?

[Tor]

"a desire to cause others to suffer".

Isn't "I am going to make you suffer for the rest of your life" pretty much that?

Not if suffering is the means TO the desire, rather than the actual desire.

Hunter Zolomon for example, does not desire Wally West to suffer for its own sake, instead, he sees it as a means to create a better hero who will be more equipped to save the world. As such, in his own twisted perceptions (much like we have seen from Doctor Feral and Guardian Sara) he is not being cruel, not being a sadist, but instead is taking an unsavory pathway to a higher moral endpoint.

just because a person feels that they have a justification for an act does not make that act inherently more or less cruel.

Actually it does. Cruelty can not be inherent to actions, the morality of actions is determined by the intent behind them. Someone can take actions others PERCEIVE as cruel (or at least apathetic) even while hating that it is the only means (so far as they see it) to acquire it, and empathizing heavily with the person they are hurting.

you reject the dictionary definition because ... it differs from your opinion, so it must be wrong.

Incorrect. There is no 'the dictionary' entity. All dictionarys are 'a dictionary'. Please use the indefinite article so as to respect the plurality of definitions that exist and not inject your phrasing with undue authority. Singular reference through definite article should only occur when specifying which dictionary and which edition of it and which of (if several) definitions you are referencing.

To spare the others of the cruelty of needing to scroll through it,

This (I forget if I should call it ironic or something else) misuse probaly doesn't help when trying to clarify the word =/ One can inflict a burden on others without it being cruelty.

For the record, it wasn't my definition. It was the dictionaries definition, of which I quoted three.

By 'your definition' I thought it clear that the meaning was "the one you have chosen to present" and not "I believe you wrote a dictionary". If you quote three dictionaries, you should say 'these dictionaries' definitions' not 'the dictionary's definition'. "The" is only appropriate when you have already specified which.

I wasn't selective, just quoted the first three, one of which you consider a "big name" (Merriam-Webster) that said different than your personal view of the world.

I think you misrepresented that one a bit. You wrote "One of the ways it starts off is: "causing or helping to cause suffering" (no further qualifiers)" yet when I look at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruel there was the further qualifier of "terrible and unfair" as part of that statement. As such, merely causing suffering does not qualify unless that suffering is unfair AND terrible. As to who decides fairness and terribleness, that is presumably according person who holds the alignment.

As for 2a, the "causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain", this is an absurd definition of cruelty that clearly is not the one being used within Palladium's alignment system. Killing someone is clearly done via injurying them, can be painful, and can cause others grief, and aberrents 'may or may not kill an unarmed foe'. How could they possibly kill someone if they 'will never be cruel' and cruelty meant ANY form of harm or pain? It clearly does not, and that is an absurd definition to defend, one not consistent with the predominant usage in English.

In fact, I would challenge you to find the word used in such a broad way. I am skeptical of the sources the Webster guys used here. Dictionaries do not define languages, they REPORT definitions. In this case, this secondary definition is clear mis-reporting and not the usage Palladium goes by.

I'll start by saying surgery is cruel (as odd as that sounds). But I'll explain. 1: Is it causing pain or suffering? If it causes pain, it would technically fall under the definition. This is not a general usage of the word though, I admit. So I'll continue.

Good, because I'm sure we have a few Aberrent Cyber-Docs out there.

2: Doctors who perform surgery aren't attempting to cause pain. They're attempting to heal, and they do what they can to alleviate the pain. That is why they (usually) put people to sleep or otherwise numb the pain during surgery. This is why they give people pain killers. If the doctor could (safely) prescribe pain killers, and simply refused because he didn't feel like it, most people would probably say he's being cruel though (of course, I'm only guessing at what other people would say).

Kind of an iffy area there, what qualifies as 'safe'. Even if painkillers weren't life-threatening, some might take an anti-drug stance, or a religious stance, and see it in a patient's better interests based on their world view.

If he forced a patient to suffer through a painful surgery without giving Anesthesia (when he could safely and reasonably due so, and the patient wanted it), he'd probably even be brought up on criminal charges.

Criminal charges are irrelevant in regard to what cruelty is. There is a difference between a legal system judging that something is cruel, and cruelty being the motivating mindset behind the individual. It's sort of like how most races consider Xiticix Diabolic, and Xicitix consider Xiticix Killers Diabolic, but in truth their alignments are more reasonable.

Most people use personal perception to define cruel. Example: Most people will not consider modern surgery cruel (if it's necessary and life saving). However, if we go back some time, they'd give a patient a bit of alcohol and then take a hacksaw to amputate a patient's leg. If you went into a fully functioning hospital today and a doctor did that, he'd again be sued and possibly thrown in jail (at the very least probably have this license taken away). If we had Star Trek level medical technology and a doctor decided to use modern technology for the srugery, he'd probably be considered cruel as well (because it'll cause more pain, more scarring, take longer to heal, etc.). Did the definition of "cruel" change, or just our perspective? Since the definition isn't changing, it's only our perspective. If we're to leave bias out of it (as you claim to want), then we need to leave personal perspective out of things.

This is what I'm arguing. Your and my perspective on cruelty based on our modern lives is irrelevant to the state of life (and perspective of it) in post-apocalyptic worlds of magic and borgs and reincarnating ghosts trapped in weapons and all that other stuff. Cruelty exists, but the mere act of taking acts which you know will cause pain isn't something that qualifies as cruelty alone... cruelty is more like a delight in it for its own sake. The only valid usage of it outside of sadism that I can see is to convey a ruthless pursuit that makes us imagine a lack of empathy. Yet we often imagine a lack of emotion in people when rather than an absolute lack, or comparative lack to other individuals, it may merely be a lack comparative to other aims the individual has.

For example, is Odin a cruel god if he encourages a Berserker to beat himself with the blunt size of their weapon to work themselves into a rage? This could inflict pain or damage. Or is it a recoverable expenditure that is a means to an end of achieving a warrior state?

So regardless of facts, you'll only accept your personal definition. Got it.

Incorrect, I am merely paraphrasing the portions of existing definitions from established sources (including some you've presented) which I think clearly correspond more closely to the prevalent usage of the word, and to Palladium's usage of it. The broader 'any pain, any injury' (paraphrasing, I use double-quotes when directly quoting) type definitions are nonsense.

"clearly" to who? I'm clearly disagreeing with you. Others in this thread have disagreed with you. Where is your proof that this is the common meaning? Or are you speaking from personal perspective (even though you tell others to leave their bias out of it)?

It is clear to those who process the bigger picture that alignments paint, by taking into account other statements that define behaviour. My personal perspective is biased by reading other things that the Aberrent alignment says (and what NPCs with Aberrent alignments do) to interpret how Palladium uses the term 'cruel'.

'Cruel' cannot merely mean the causing of pain or injury, because Abberent people are clearly capable of causing pain and injury.

The fact you're calling the dictionary wrong because it disagrees with you is hilarious by the way.

No dictionary is infallible enough to deserve the label 'the dictionary'. Please keep your definite article out of this.

I guess by quoting multiple dictioniaries which all agree ... that's broad.

The dictionaries you've quoted support my usage more predominantly than yours. You're glossing over that the broader usage of the word you have quoted is mentioned AFTER the narrower usage. Dictionaries give precedence to the more established definitions. I've also established that Palladium is using the more popular (and narrower) definition and not your less popular broader definition.

you trying to find one specific definition and cling only to that while ignoring all others.

I'm ignoring secondary usages of the word which are not ones people would reasonably assume apply, and are not ones that make any sense in the context of the entire description of the Aberrent alignment.

you're speaking (again) of what people commonly think of as cruel. I'm a person, and I can tell you that my definition of cruel is clearly different than yours. Others have clearly disagreed with you as well, yet you're telling me what all people agree with your viewpoint.

Incorrect, stating that my view of cruelty is what I believe is more common is not saying 'all people agree with me'. Just 'most people' or 'more people agree with this than with other ones'. Actual numbers don't matter though, as the narrower usage is more specific and meaningful and is clearly what Palladium uses when one looks at what Abberrents may do.

Note: The posters in this thread are "people" too. Consider listening to what people are saying instead of just telling us what we think.

I do not recall stating to know what you or others in the thread think, merely my impression of what view predominates.

you refer to what people think, yet complain about biased opinions (as you did earler in this thread). Frankly what people think is irrelevent if you don't want their bias. If all you want is facts, you can look to a resource (such as the dictionary, which you're also rejecting by the way).

Dictionaries are written by people with biases too, I do not seek a lack of bias. Instead, we should be biased by the proper things. For example: being biased by the context in which a word is used to get indicators as to how it is being used.

Cruel and Unusual: Hmm ... so if the 8th Ammendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment.." Since it uses the word "and" it must include both "cruel" as well as "unusual" to be prohibited. So using your defintion ... beheading with a chainsaw is totally acceptable form of execution as long as you feel bad about it afterwards. As long as you feel regret, torture is apparently constitutional as well. Fascinating theory Tor, but not sure the U.S. Constitution would agree with your personal view on the matter.

The issue here is not about regret or feeling bad. It has more to do with the motive behind committing the act in the first place.

Let's apply this definition to the world of Dead Reign, and substitute a machete for a chainsaw. Is it cruel and unusual to execute a traitor in the group (let's say a Shane) by using this instead of lethal injection or gun? Or is it okay, because there are rational reasons that exist behind the choice? In this case: conserving fuel/ammunition (chainsaws and guns consume those) and minimizing noise.

Regarding chainsaw-executions in modern day, while I will not absolutely assume that it is cruelty that motivates it, that is my general inclination of assumption unless someone can explain to me a rationale besides sadism to justify that choice of means to kill with. It could plausibly be the more reasonable form of execution in a society that lacks poisons, guillotines or ammunition.

You can explain alternate means of killing captives and why they are better, but we might plausibly come up with societies where those means are not feasible or economical. So while chainsaw executions seem cruel to me in the 1st world nations you and I live in, I can perceive how one should not assume them motivated by cruelty in civilizations with fewer resources for a 'humane' death.

You have to be cruel to be kind: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/You ... to+be+kind This actually almost fits what you're trying to describe with your torture scenario, and still calls it cruel. Also something "people" say.

Idioms don't often use words literally, I see this as using 'cruel' metaphorically, like "fire in the belly". Metaphors are subtler in cases like this though.

Cruelty is suffering inflicted out of malice, or to seek pleasure, or without empathy, it is not merely the inflicting of suffering.

Well, at least you clearly stated your definition. Admittedly, it is also one of the definitions of cruel, just not the only one. Many words have more than one definition (as I mentioned in my last post).

While I agree with you that other definitions exist, they are secondary and ones I think we can chalk up to dictionaries reporting MISUSE of words. If a word is misused enough, dictionaries may eventually report them, but I still scorn that usage. The corruption of the suffix 'phobia' being a great example. Much as I won't change Palladium's HF into a 'hate factor', I won't broaden cruelty into something it isn't (and something Palladium and those proficient in English don't seriously do) simply because some dictionaries have reported its misuse. It's not the only: but it's the BEST.

The only person here saying that "cruel" must have a will is you

Only person in existence, or in this thread?

not the dictionary

I plan to refuse to address any statements you make referencing 'the dictionary' due to misleading lack of specifity. Please rephrase any comments like this in the future.

Winter (and weather in general) can cause harm and suffering. The cold can cause frostbite, wind burn, general discomfort from the cold, throwing your back out from shoveling, etc. The winter can cause pain and/or suffering, ergo by the definition it can be cruel.

The 'the definition' you are referencing is recognition of METAPHORICAL applications of the word 'cruel'. Calling winter cruel is an example of when we anthropomorphize things. For example https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/angry mentions the phrase "Angry clouds raced across the sky." It is meant figuratively, to express things in a "don't-take-this-literally" manner. That's what is being done when calling winter cruel.

To take such a broad definition literally utterly annihilates any meaningful use of the word, because literally anything can cause pain or damage within the proper context. 'Cruel' becomes a synonym for 'thing'. A feather is 'cruel' because I might accidentally eat one and choke to death on it. Air is 'cruel' because it makes us so dependent on it that we suffer in its absence. A will is necessary here for the word to have meaning, and that is the valid use of it. We must think for ourselves about language, this is what writers (of books and dictionaries) attempt to do, and we ought to follow that example and be influenced by their word, not fanatic about it.

I quoted them earlier too, and you said Merriam-Webster is wrong (along with all the others).

You're being too broad. I said "Your "the dictionary" is wrong by being too inclusive", which I stand by. These dictionaries also reported valid definitions, and rightly featured them in the forefront. My objection to their inclusion of the broader (and wrong) definitions is that, if they are going to write that, I think they ought to explain more about the etymology, how it came to be used that way. Dictionaries are void of that context, and due to this, readers gain a false sense of authority even about definitions which are rooted in misuse.

Also, once again, the word used in the book is "cruel," not "cruelty." But heck, I'll play along. Let's look at the full definition listed.

cru·el·ty (1) a desire to cause others to suffer : the quality or state of being cruel (2) actions that cause suffering (3) an act or occurrence that causes suffering

Convenient, you left out 2/3rds of the definition, the 2/3rds that say you're wrong and agree with me.

I left them out because they're not the primary and predominant definition. It's also clear that they are rooted in metaphor, like an angry wind. Cruelty is an emotion-based (not action-based) founded in personal morality, which is clear when one honestly and thoroughly looks into the context of its usage.

Go further and you'll see them refer to things like "the quality or state of being cruel" (and in my previous post I showed Merriam-Webster shows "cruel" to include "causing or helping to cause suffering" as the "top" definition as you call it).

No, you did not. The top definition on http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cruel is "used to describe people who hurt others and do not feel sorry about it". I don't fully agree with that, but it's much closer to the truth than your 'causing suffering' one, which is mentioned SECOND (not 'top'). One would assume 'top' to mean 'first', because if you claim to have intended it to mean 'within the top portion' I will be skeptical of that claim.

if you want to talk about "big names" let's take a look at Oxford Dictionary

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/cruel (1) "Willfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it" (1.1) "Causing pain or suffering"

Notice how it says "or" before your definition? An "or" statement does not require both. It can be the first, or the second. Notice the first one agrees with me? The next definition also agrees with me (and is the winter example ... and does NOT mention anything about "will" or "intent" or any other joy of it or lack of feeling on it).

The next definition (1.1) is metaphorical usage, I reject it on that grounds. As for the first, you should look closer at the term 'willfully'. Notice it is not 'willingly'. The usage of 'willful' here is clearly (from http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/de ... sh/willful) "a stubborn and determined intention to do as one wants, regardless of the consequences" or something to that amount.

The meaning here is that you are causing pain/suffering because you WANT it, for its own ends, and not as a means to some other end. Otherwise 'willingly' would've been used. I challenge you to find any serious usage of this term labelling someone as 'cruel' merely by making a willing choice to inflict a form of pain on another. Cruelty is pain as its own end, and not as a means to another one. This is clear in Palladium and in any serious use of the term. When someone calls a person who inflicts pain "cruel", they are not merely saying "this person inflicts pain", rather they are declaring "this person inflicts pain without acceptable necessity".

Oxford definition gave me another example: Animal Cruelty. As long as the peple conducting experiments feel bad about hurting animals, it's no longer animal cruelty by your definition.

That's correct. If they feel bad in the process of doing it, then they are not without empathy, and motivated by other factors. Calling it cruelty is simply done to demonize those who take actions others do not wish to sanction.

You should go tell those protesters they're all wrong. Have fun with that.

I would, but I am in fear that in response to this they will be angry at me, and cruelly attempt to assault and torture me to gain joy from my suffering. Of course, I could be wrong and they may have some non-cruel motivation behind assaulting and torturing me for disagreeing with them, such as fearing my views will pollute vulnerable minds which should solely be shaped by their views.

So in conclusion, to follow your defintion it means that all the dictionaries are wrong

Hardly, seeing as how the dictionaries you've referenced support my narrow usag as the primary one over your broader usage. I should be more specific here Prysus, rather than 'wrong' (which is vague) I'll be more specific: I believe dictionaries are negligent in mentioning the broader-meaning secondary-used term in a void. I believe the metaphorical context should be elaborated on, because to neglect that leaves people with false impressions as to its valid use.

the U.S. Constitution is wrong

How so? 'No chainsaw beheadings' is an interpretation of the constitution. I don't think the constitution explicitly discusses chainsaws. I do not agree with your proposal that the meaning I see in 'cruel' disagrees with the constitution.

In actuality, your promoted broad-usage of cruel would in effect rule out most (if not all forms) of punishment and hold the US in contempt of the 8th amendment. Jailing someone can 'inflict suffering', after all.

people are wrong (in this thread as well as phrases others use) because they disagree with people

Did you mean to say 'disagree with you' or something here? People are wrong because they're taking metaphorical usage of 'cruel' literally, in a way that conflicts with the serious usage of it in Palladium and in language in general.

animal protesters are wrong (edited this in there)

Incorrect, I did not propose that protesting against animal experimentation is wrong, you are arguing a strawman.

All that I am observing is that it is possible to accuse someone of cruelty when they are not actually engaged in cruelty. The word 'cruel' is thrown at people to villify them. You call a guy cruel for randomly punching an old lady on the street for the lulz, you don't call a guy cruel for punching a mugger in the face so you can get away. Both involve inflicting harm and pain with the intention of doing so, but the difference is what the primary objective is. If pain or suffering are not actual objectives but instead, necessary means to acquiring a different objective, it clearly is not cruelty.

I'm wrong because I'm using facts instead of my personal view of things

Incorrect. "Dictionary B says X" is conveying a fact. Your usage of facts involves by necessity your own personal view of things, because our personal views are used to interpret what we read and in determining what we think it means. In this case, I'm disagreeing with your personal view that the dictionary is conveying a literal meaning simply because it neglected to elaborate about the inherent metaphorical aspect of it.

even you're wrong (because you provided a link to a defintion that provided definitions that disagreed with your viewpoint)

Linking to a PAGE that provides definitions (not 'a definition that provided definitions') doesn't make me wrong. One can quote a book without establishing the entirety (or any) of the book as one's own views.

You simply don't inflict endless inescapable agony on someone and remain a moral person, the effort to justify it puts you squarely in the 'evil rationalization' category.

There is no such category in Palladium. Justification is not inherently "rationalization" as people put it (and I hate that buzz-term, vague, psychologists could've done better in relating the word construction to its assigned meaning).

The morality of inflicting agony (be it brief or eternal) is dependent on the circumstances of doing it. It is not cruelty to do this if it serves a greater end. For example: what if the only way to immobilize the Great Old Ones was to inflict eternal agony on them, instead of eternal sleep? Cruelty is when you take the option of pain and harm when equal or easier means exist to complete an objective.

However depraved and evil the individual might have been such an act isn't being merciful or just, it's an act of pure retribution and vengeance.

Incorrect, eternal agony can be inflicted for reasons besides retribution or vengeance. There may not exist any other way to immobilize a threat, or it may be done thinking that it will strengthen the individual.

To be merciful you'd simply kill them if they couldn't be imprisoned

This comment does not address the supernatural realities of the Palladium Megaverse. Many greater beings can simply be brought back from the dead. Some quite easily. Some automatically. Would you "simply kill" the Juggernaut or Bennu the Phoenix or Apepi if you couldn't imprison them and they were an imminent threat?

not bind them with something that would require they have medical care just to survive since they couldn't do anything themselves.

Not all beings require this, who specifically do you have in mind when you think this would be necessary for survival?

It WOULD however make a later story plot for them somehow overcoming it (having their pain nerves severed for example, or head cut off and turned into a full conversion cyborg) and being way more insane than they'd ever been before seeking vengeance most extreme on those who inflicted such agony on them.

Insanity is not a guarantee, though I could agree with it being a probability. However, your and my agreed estimation that pain will lead to insanity and net loss may not be an opinion shared by an aberrent character. Views differ based on prioritized values.

A good example of such a disagreement could crop up when discussing "is it moral to turn someone into a Palladium Vampire". Or 'is it cruel/immoral to feed on a human's blood'.

Principled- not a chance .. I think that one of the major problems with this discussion is that people are looking at arguments like honor and "good" and "evil". Read the TORTURE portions, because really, that's what this is- torture. It's a slow, painful way to kill someone, or, based on the spell, to keep them completely incapacitated and suffering, with no real benefit.

While people of Principled alignment 'never torture', inflicting permanent agony on another being is not necessarily torture. I can understand why people will instinctively argue against this though. Looking to https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/torture we encounter "Intentional causing of somebody's experiencing agony." Accepting that, the duration would be irrelevant, the spell would be off limits altogether under any context, even prohibiting inflicting it on oneself (self-torture would be off limits to principled characters since it doesn't specify 'others').

In this case I'm going to appeal to M-W for something more specific though. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/torture tells us foremost it is used to mean "the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something"

This is the usage I believe Palladium intends. As such, it is permissible to use the spell agony so long as you are not doing it to force words/actions or to punish them.

It could be used to force INACTION though, as a defensive means. This is often what it's used to do, to paralyze people so they can't harm you.

In the case of permanent agony, that's all you may be doing, forcing inaction defensively, to stop someone from harming you. Or, as a means of HELPING them, in the twisted perceptions of someone (like Hunter Zolomon) who believes people grow from painful experiences. This would not qualify as punishment or as coercing someone to do something specific.

People might casually say "Wally feels tortured about his family" or "Hunter is torturing Wally" or "Hunter is being cruel". But that simply isn't the case. Hunter Zolomon is taking steps he hates because he sees it as pursuing the greater good. By inflicting pain on a small amount of people (heroes and their families) he serves the aim of strengthening them to become more capable of protecting the lives of humanity as a whole.

Actually, that was with a Merriam-Webster summary, not a definition.

You're proposing that the initial discussion of a word with a grey background does not qualify as a definition? I don't agree.

Selective reading is a bad habit. You should break it.

I read everything on the page, you ought to break the habit of assuming what others read. What I did was select QUOTING.

what's "cruel"? Since you like to use the synopsis,
-used to describe people who hurt others and do not feel sorry about it
-causing or helping to cause suffering : terrible and unfair
Or, the definition, which was posted before by someone else. Either way, it fits. Well.

So long as the whole thing is used (keeping in mind the 'do not feel sorry' and 'unfair and terrible' parts) I agree. I took issue with Prysus relying on the first halves and ignoring the second halves. These clearly only present suffering that is 'terrible' and 'unfair' or unapologetic as cruelty. These are factors being ignored in the proposal.

By pretty much ANY definition, except those of the old Soviet Gulags, ETERNAL TORTURE is inhuman treatment.

Irrelevant, inflicting agony is not inherently torture. Torture is agony inflicted for specific purposes, purposes which may not correspond to the reason it is being inflicted in a hypothetical Palladium scenario. People who use torture broadly to describe all kinds of agony are doing so incorrectly in a flashy dramatic fashion. The type who say a doctor tortured them because setting a bone is painful, or who say the winter tortures them with hypothermia.

And inhumane treatment, too.

I've no use for the term 'humane' unless Palladium uses it or you are quoting a definition of a Palladim word which uses the adjective. It is a reprehensible word full of faulty etymology, and trumped by far better words that more clearly and neutrally convey ideas.

in WHAT world do you think this would NOT qualify as cruel and inhumane treatment of a prisoner?

If it were the only feasible means to contain them, would be one plausible scenario. If without the permanent agony they would be able to break out and keep murdering people. This is not the only possible example, just the first that comes to mind. That would not be cruelty, merely necessity.

I don't have a desire to discuss words like 'humane' unless Palladium introduces their usage. I see their avoidance as a credit to Palladium for avoiding meaningless drivel-terms. Crud-words like that which falsely imply that association with humanity somehow implies empathy. Humans are flexible and capable of that, but it is by no means a predominant trait one should define virtues by.