>>527974374
Your entire argument is the intellectual equivalent of reading one paragraph of a novel and thinking you’ve understood the whole story. Yes, you keep saying “extenuating circumstances exist,” but then you instantly hand-wave them away when the actual details get inconvenient for your take. It’s like recognizing a rainstorm and then blaming someone for getting wet.

Here’s where your reasoning falls flat: you treat extenuating circumstances as a checkbox, something to note and then ignore if the “total evil” passes some arbitrary threshold. But that’s not how moral judgment - or D&D alignment - works. The weight of coercion, trauma, and lifelong manipulation fundamentally changes what it means to “choose evil.” It’s not a footnote, it’s the entire context. You might acknowledge it, but you never actually let it change your conclusion, which just exposes the shallow, mechanical way you’re looking at this.

And your idea that “enough evil acts override any circumstance” is less a moral stance and more a stubborn refusal to deal with complexity. You see a ledger, not a life. The result is an argument so rigid and binary it could double as an IEP worksheet.

You’re convinced you’re arguing nuance, but all you’re doing is reciting the same “bad actions = evil alignment” formula, regardless of how or why those actions happened. That’s not advanced reading comprehension, that’s moral color-by-numbers.

So sure, keep circling this drain. You’re not actually engaging with the real question - you’re just locked in a loop, like someone trying to brute-force a social interaction using a script and missing the point every time.