The strong should rule over the fates of the weak...

>The strong should rule over the fates of the weak. That is what entitles me to lord over these vermin and do with them as I please.

>Feel free to strike me down. You will only prove my point with your own strength over mine.
>I challenge you to do away with me underhandedly. There is strength in a blade from the shadows or a bullet from afar. My point will stand.
>Why not send your weakest of followers to swarm me? There is strength in numbers, and you shalls reinforce my point all the same. Ah, my many subjects whom I rule? Is it not a testament to my own strength that I keep their wills subservient to mine all the same?

How does your character deal with this generic "strong should rule over the weak" villain?

Other urls found in this thread:

mcsweeneys.net/articles/levels-in-call-of-duty-postmodern-warfare
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Kill him.

Kill it, for none shall challenge MY right to rule.
All your lands are belong to us

Stab him in the kidneys during this lofty speech.

Prove that Noblesse Oblige is far stronger than brute strength. That the might of one who takes ownership and responsibility of the world is far greater than one who would simply force it to do his will. True lordship is a matter of honour and responsibility, and those who try to claim the title without accepting the duty will learn a harsh lesson.

Bitchslap him, showing him he's the weak one, and go "...so, what now? Dumbass."

I mock his philosophy for the high-school bullshit that it is, then pray to my god for power and then use that power to smite his ass.

His philosophy is ass backwards, and seems to classify every variety of strength under the same umbrella. You could make a case that he believes in the view that the weak deserve to be conquered regardless of the methodology used, rather than having a true Might Makes Right viewpoint. The strong defeat the weak, the cunning defeat the weak, the abundant defeat the weak, etc. Basically, the weak lose.

Uh, he's going to kill him?
Let him be insufferably smug as he dies, he'll be dead.
He loses. Who gives a shit about the philosophy of a tyranny of the strong?
Especially as espoused by a dead man.

What will happen, will happen.
And shitbag tyrants usually result in murderous revolutionaries.

"Well, I'm not saying you're wrong but hey.
Jesus Christ was right and see where it got him." Then proceed to dispose of him with various vile magic at my convenience.

And GM gives me the mean look for not respecting the 4th wall

Just kill him. Does it really matter what he believes, once he's dead?

...kill him and prove him right, because he is, I'm just righterer because he's dead and I'm not?

Sorry moralfag.

Who is supposed to be held back by this kind of speech? Is it genuine belief or an underhanded last ditch effort to safe themselves? Does it matter?

It's good that you accept your fate. Let's get this done. En garde!

>implying all of that isn't correct

Whatever makes you feel better while you prioritize smug anime girls over going to the gym, I guess

so when I send my army of robots in, does that make me strong?

also goverment comes from the rule of the goverened.

OR, "die royalist scum, power belongs to the people, MAO ON!!!!"

And then you become Super Communist, and flex

Kill/defeat him. If he dies or loses, in his own words, he does not deserve to rule.

>There is power in the law, because it offers right to rule to the strong AND protection to the weak.
>There isn't much merit to uphold as one-sided law as yours is. You didn't rule; you used. You didn't protect; you were the worst danger of this land. It's time for you to face the consequences. BEGONE!

>so when I send my army of robots in, does that make me strong?

Yes. Power is power. I'd just advise lifting when you can in between building robots.

Poison him.

Then bring a retard cripple to confes he did it.

Presumably we are fighting him not /because/ he rules but because we don't like what he does with that power. I'm not sure how "proving his point" would really subvert the party's actions.

>Strength is not a constant, I was once weak and now I face you on even ground. The strong should foster the weak, give them room to grow strong not crushed and kept weak. I walk the path of true strength, you walk the path of weakness, of cowardice!

Start insulting him with bad "yo momma" jokes etc.

(My Swashbuckler/Dragon Sorcerer/Bard just loves pissing of and humiliating his enemies)

>Feel free to strike me down. You will only prove my point with your own strength over mine.
OK. Enjoy knowing you won the argument as you burn in hell.

It's not as if this is a debate club.

>>Feel free to strike me down. You will only prove my point with your own strength over mine.
Kill him, tell him to his face that he never realized how unique he really is. Like everyone.

>Noblesse Oblige
That's my favorite phrase in the history of anything ever, my man. Both for the way it sounds and for what it expresses. Shit son, that phrase is so beautiful it puts me on the verge of tears.

Helluva coincidence.
Just last night I dreamed up a fantasy webcomic depicting the strong fated to fall at the feet of the weak.
Neat.
I'll post it if I manage to get it done.

By murdering him. I'm not here to fight him over his ideological views im here to because he is running the country poorly

Offer him employment. He'd fit in great with the other Security guys.

>Muh "my ideology being is just reinforced if you kill me"
I'm sure there must be an established fallacy to describe this right, or at least a trope? The Se7en Setback or something? It's like the trolley problem and pallies all over again.

As for my character, he would see him as unworthy of his life and kill him, as long as he's trying to stop me or harm anyone I care about. Otherwise, leave him to his monologues and red wine.

Cast some luck magic on him so later that day he has a brain injury making him lose control of his bowels and bladder and short term memory, then take my leave.

"If your philosophy states it's morally okay for me to murder you and take all your possessions, you may want to re-think your philosophy.

Jesus Christ, even Libertarians have the NAP, as stupid as that idea is. Your position just boils down to COME AT ME BRO."

I then murder him and take all his possessions. It's what he would have wanted. Literally.

Rolled 19 (1d20)

Kick him in the balls.
I want to roll for power, but I don't know if it still works.

>I then murder him and take all his possessions. It's what he would have wanted. Literally.
But do you then take the possessions of everyone else weaker than yourself? If so, you're no better than the BEG. If not, you're actually worse than the BEG because at least he sticks to his guns.

Unless you provide him with a satisfying answer, your options are being a monster or being a hypocrite.

Just beat his ass and ignore that dumb spiel of his. He's retarded: he's got the whole thing backwards. The weak shouldn't rule over the strong: by ruling over others you've proven yourself strong. It's by winning you prove yourself strong. Calling yourself strong before winning is just delusion.

Shit, we have liftoff.

>*The strong shouldn't rule over the weak
Fuck.

>sticks to his guns.
He didn't even imply that he was killing the guy and taking his shit because of the same reasons he would have. Just that he would do that, and the guy would support it.

>The BEG is kicked to the edge of the universe and back
>Having seen all that ever was and all that ever will be, he is a changed man

What? The BEG says that anyone weaker than him doesn't deserve free will, how is stopping him hypocritical?

I'm probably a hypocrite in a thousand ways I never think about, and you don't see me crying myself to sleep over them

I agree with his general point, but it isn't going to change my actions.
We can both do as we like if we have the power to do so, and I'm choosing to oppose him.

Lolwut?

No, his position is that the only authority one needs to back up their actions is might. If anyone asks why he's oppressing people, his answer would basically boil down to "because I can".

Thus, there is no moral imperative for me to rob anyone else except him. Hell, there's no moral imperative for me to rob him, either. I just do it because I can, which is completely in keeping with his philosophy.

If you want to insist that I "have to" do something, you either need to prove you're stronger than me, or you need to start arguing for some other source of authority besides might.

I pin him down and get a starving child with leprosy to shiv him.

>Unless you provide him with a satisfying answer, your options are being a monster or being a hypocrite.

Disregard morality, acquire funds.

I have my pet tiger maul him to death. Then while he's bleeding out I ask if the tiger should rule.

And then I crown the tiger because fuck it, why not?

I seduce him

Doujins when?

The only case of "I whore myself to the BBEG" I could think of would be ShindoL's fem-Link thing.
It doesn't end well.

I ask him if they have ever felt weak, if they have ever had their fate ruled over by a stronger being.
If they say no, I challenge them to a duel to the pain.

"Don't move! You're under arrest!"

Why should I care if *he* thinks he's right? If he can get me to fall for his bantz, he's already won by way of being able to set the rules, so I don't even argue or listen. It's not like my party is in any position to do anything but arrest him and turn him over to the King's justice.

spoken like a true peasant who actually swallows that shit like it means anything

Blow him up with that TNT I placed under the podium an hour ago.

Who gives a shit what he thinks? He's a tyrant and soon to be dead.

Even if he had a point, he applies the term 'strength' so broadly its become all but meaningless.

Treat your followers as vermin, and they will be vermin. Treat your followers as men, and they will be men. An army of men does not fear an army of vermin.

Cripple him so he has to rely on the goodwill of others for the rest of his life.

Peasant and proud!

>"P-Please work harder! I need crops to feed my sister-wife and my eight inbred children and I'm too dumb to grow them myself"
-You

So you're going to make a serialised graphic novel of the Gospel?

option 1 just kill them, history is written by the victors and it won't matter what they believed.

option 2 poison their food, the reason why poison is considered dishonourable is that any chump can put arsenic in your food. thus you disprove them and kill them.

>Unless you provide him with a satisfying answer, your options are being a monster or being a hypocrite.
No user, me not adhering to the dumbass ideology of his which justifies what I do to him doesn't make me a hypocrite or monster, it makes him a dumbass.

Actually, treat them like vermin and they're probably gonna feed you your liver.

Hopefully never, AgK was bad.

>You're that scared of dying, aren't you? Fine. You won't die.

I then paralyze him and walk away.

It is worse for the slave to be enslaved because his life is centered around pleasing his master, and his own will hardly comes into it. It is worse for the master to be a master because he has to dedicate a good portion of his life to the subjugation of his slaves.

I will not be either, and I will not tolerate systems or traditions that legitimize my placement into either of these categories. Anyone who claims to be a king, or who accepts a subservient position, is thereby my enemy.

Have at you, spook!

Edgedeath a cute though, she deserves a doujin or two.

"Well, you're not wrong, but if you weren't such a dick you wouldn't have so many people trying to kill you and you'd still be the unchallenged ruler of the land. Philosophy is great and all, but you have to think past the first catchphrase order for it to be useful."

I agree with him, but explain that strength is not only MUSCLESMANLINESS, but also wits, leadership, and luck.
AND THEN I RIP AND TEAR HIS GUTS

"So fucking what? You're still under arrest for treason, muder and conspiracy."

is this the correct way to chaotic neutral?

If the whole party is in, it's A way to chaotic neutral. If it's just the one player, it's likely to ruin everyone's enjoyment, so it's not a good way to do it in that case.

Same guy gaah slippery fingers

"You have the right to remain silent anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, you have the right to an attourney, if you cannot afford an attourney, one will be provided for you, do you understand your rights as I have stated them?"

Kill him, or do the standard superhero thing and capture him for a fair trial. I don't actually care whether he's smug or not as he dies, I care about making him stop doing [whatever evil shit is causing me to want to kill him.]

Then make sure whoever takes over next (possibly me) doesn't go around cruelly oppressing the peasants.

Polymorph into a bunny and keep him as a pet.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

How is turning into a bunny going to help you?

>any chump can put arsenic in your food

Not any chump.

Poison doesn't actually work that way.

Is there some kind of moral ambiguous answer I'm not getting here?

Why would anyone not just kill the villain?

In before >hurr durr you're proving him right

I'm really not unless immediately after killing him the party starts killing everything else and become rulers of the land through brute force alone.

Chop his head off. Philosophical bullshit doesn't grant a bonus to armor class.

100 years gulag. Teach him that we are all equally strong with the labors of our comrades

>Philosophical bullshit doesn't grant a bonus to armor class.
You just gave me a GREAT idea for an RPG system.

Platonic Idealism: Modern Warfare?

>Kill him
>Free all the weak people
>B-but you're still a monster for proving him right!

Dumb weebposter

Postmodern Warfare

That sounds like the complete opposite of what he means.

...

I'd say Platonic Idealism: Theoretical Warfare. That way you stick to one school of thought, make a decent CoD reference, and take a jab at armchair warriors.

mcsweeneys.net/articles/levels-in-call-of-duty-postmodern-warfare

You mean this?

Just because you're correct doesn't mean you are right!
The line between stupidity and justice is paper thin.

Depends. You could explain the same magic both ways.

>tapping into Platonic ideals to alter the world
or
>the world physically shifting to match your views rather than just experientially

That shit is trippy as hell but what makes it postmodern? People throw that word around without even knowing what it means.

Dadaist Warfare: Expressionist Engagement

>Commencing Force

Prepare yourself for unlimited argument works.

Stop using terms you don't know you don't know the meaning of.

Agree with him and then depose him and rule the weak instead.

Call of Solopsism: Nautical Know-Nothings.

Fuck that guy, I'm not here to prove him anything, I'm here because I have a job to do

He has to clean out my poop and pet me, and yet clearly I am the weaker of the two.

Girdle and the subsequent -4 STR.

Stop it! Stop it right now!

I'm a Rule Utilitarian so I don't give a shit what he thinks. If there's an imminent threat I'm responding to it with force. Other than that he's free to spout a Philosophy 097 understanding of Nietzsche all he wants.

"Bla bla bla- Oh do shut up. I've had enough of pseudo-intellectual assholes likes you to last a fucking lifetime. Strong, weak, everything ultimately changes and the cycle turns according to a greater cosmic law. You're not the solution; just another step on the path, just like every power-grabbing warlord and holier-than-thou autocrat and corrupt politician that's come before you. You're symptoms of an eternal sickness and I lost interest in hearing the same drabble about three years ago."

>Post-apocalyptic raider that rook some mentats and realised the world was trapped in a bullshit cycle of destruction he's now seeking to break
>Whether he's a prophet or a madman remains to be seen...