I think in a question of any point of light or darkness approach we need to consider “the norm.” We can talk about levels of light and darkness but we need this as a metaphor not for evil or good but relative level in terms of power. That means if “the norm” of evil enters a point of light, there is a good chance they die. If “the norm” of good enters a point of darkness, there is a good chance they die. Thus in the latter case heroes are needed because being heroes they are “above the norm.”
If the local militia (generally speaking “the norm”) could go into a point of darkness and take it out (without significant losses) but does not choose to do so because they are lazy then that is not a point of “darkness.” Given this notion, Ciudad Juarez Mexico is a “point of darkness” while Oakland is still questionable.
(Remember one of the biggest problems in the real world is that the standard D&D morality is EVIL. You can’t just go in and kill all the gang members like you can a population of trolls or flesh-eating zombies. “What do you mean we have to talk to this creature? The last creature we ‘talked’ to ate half of the party!”)
I do think you need to always go back to “the norm” in order to understand the point of light/dark metaphor. If “the norm” (of goodness) can go into “out yonder” without a significant chance of getting killed (as long as “the norm” avoids “those places”) then you have a points of darkness metaphor. If “the norm” cannot go into “out yonder” or anywhere outside of the safety of his locale without risk to life and limb then the model is a “points of light.”
In points of darkness, good people drive trucks to and fro without any worry about getting robbed. In points of light, good people assemble their trucks into convoys with escort (above the norm) because if they don’t they will be robbed.
If the local militia (generally speaking “the norm”) could go into a point of darkness and take it out (without significant losses) but does not choose to do so because they are lazy then that is not a point of “darkness.” Given this notion, Ciudad Juarez Mexico is a “point of darkness” while Oakland is still questionable.
(Remember one of the biggest problems in the real world is that the standard D&D morality is EVIL. You can’t just go in and kill all the gang members like you can a population of trolls or flesh-eating zombies. “What do you mean we have to talk to this creature? The last creature we ‘talked’ to ate half of the party!”)
I do think you need to always go back to “the norm” in order to understand the point of light/dark metaphor. If “the norm” (of goodness) can go into “out yonder” without a significant chance of getting killed (as long as “the norm” avoids “those places”) then you have a points of darkness metaphor. If “the norm” cannot go into “out yonder” or anywhere outside of the safety of his locale without risk to life and limb then the model is a “points of light.”
In points of darkness, good people drive trucks to and fro without any worry about getting robbed. In points of light, good people assemble their trucks into convoys with escort (above the norm) because if they don’t they will be robbed.