|
In another conversation it was suggested that murder could be for the the Common Good and thus used to Justify the right of Good People to Kill.
Under that Philosophy the slaughter of women and children on the streets of a city that has grown corrupt and immoral - to encourage the otherwise chaotic populace to return to the embrace of civilized law and order - becomes a good act, and Jack the Ripper becomes a Paladin defending Civilization from itself. A Paragon of Law and Order for the Common Good.
Question: Was Jack the Ripper an Agent of the Crown (secret police) working to instill a need in the populace to return to the Embrace of a Lawful and Orderly way of life?
Sounds like this line of questioning is quickly going to swerve into the "Do the ends justify the means?" track of debate...
|
|
In another conversation it was suggested that murder could be for the the Common Good and thus used to Justify the right of Good People to Kill.
Under that Philosophy the slaughter of women and children on the streets of a city that has grown corrupt and immoral - to encourage the otherwise chaotic populace to return to the embrace of civilized law and order - becomes a good act, and Jack the Ripper becomes a Paladin defending Civilization from itself. A Paragon of Law and Order for the Common Good.
Question: Was Jack the Ripper an Agent of the Crown (secret police) working to instill a need in the populace to return to the Embrace of a Lawful and Orderly way of life?
probably not but I bet you could right a good detective novel with that idea if you wanted to.
|
In another conversation it was suggested that murder could be for the the Common Good and thus used to Justify the right of Good People to Kill.
Under that Philosophy the slaughter of women and children on the streets of a city that has grown corrupt and immoral - to encourage the otherwise chaotic populace to return to the embrace of civilized law and order - becomes a good act, and Jack the Ripper becomes a Paladin defending Civilization from itself. A Paragon of Law and Order for the Common Good.
Question: Was Jack the Ripper an Agent of the Crown (secret police) working to instill a need in the populace to return to the Embrace of a Lawful and Orderly way of life?
Well, if his victims were enemies of the state who's very existance would do more harm to society than good, then I could see an argument to be made for the scenario you present. If they were just random vicyims intended to scare people back into a lawful and orderly life I would have to say that he was more lawful evil in that case, although I could see an argument for chaotic good if you wanted to cast him as a vigilante taking the law into his own hands to make the streets safer.
Have you ever read I, Robot (sp. "The Evitable Conflict")?
In that case, he's lawful evil. Unless he's absolutely done his homework on every person he kills, determined them incapable of turning over a new leaf (after giving them a shot and trying to make them see the error of their ways) and knows that ultimately the entire society is better off without them. Even then, his brutal methods would make him lawful neutral at best; I don't think a really lawful good character allows themselves to become judge, jury and executioner without losing the gold star on their karma punchcard.
And that doesn't even touch on using terror and hysteria as a method of putting people on the "right track" as deemed by the government in this scenario. Lawful Good characters, in my view, strive to lead by example. Lawful evil characters, no matter their ultimate intentions, crack the "bad eggs" and put the fear into the masses.
|
|
And that doesn't even touch on using terror and hysteria as a method of putting people on the "right track" as deemed by the government in this scenario. Lawful Good characters, in my view, strive to lead by example. Lawful evil characters, no matter their ultimate intentions, crack the "bad eggs" and put the fear into the masses.
Where the hell were you when I was arguing that Good doesnt kill under any condition?
If the kills are random, then it can't be representative of law and order. If instead specific individuals are targetted for specific reasons and those reasons are clear and easy to understand then it could be for law and order (though still probably not necessarily for the common good). Otherwise it could be said the Joker in the new batman movie was working for Law and Order and the Common good.
Besides any fan of Babylon 5 knows he was mistaken in his beliefs and the Vorlons showed him the truth.
To answer your question, No Jack the Ripper was not an agent of the Crown (IMO) it seems most likely he was royalty and was locked away in a mental institution.
But even if he was, if he did work for Law and Good, his actions were neither, in that scenario he would be a Chaotic Evil tool used to try an reestablish morals in a decaying society.
|
|
If the kills are random, then it can't be representative of law and order. If instead specific individuals are targetted for specific reasons and those reasons are clear and easy to understand then it could be for law and order (though still probably not necessarily for the common good). Otherwise it could be said the Joker in the new batman movie was working for Law and Order and the Common good.
Prostitution is a crime that goes unpoliced by corrupt policemen.
Besides any fan of Babylon 5 knows he was mistaken in his beliefs and the Vorlons showed him the truth.
Prophaganda...especially If he was doing it to sway the population from away from the influences of Chaos.
Jack the Ripper becomes like: "Some must be sacrificed if all are to be saved."
|
Just because he was working for the forces of Law or Good doesn't make him Lawful or Good.
LN Politician: "We need to scare the populace by any means."
LE Secret Agent: "No problem."
LE Secret Agent then pays CE Jack the Ripper to do a job. Jack the Ripper agrees, but eventually clues into what his job is doing (forcing the populace to be more lawful) and so stops murdering indiscriminately, and instead turns on his employers and is taken down in an epic battle. Way off track, but my point is to be a Paladin you have to directly do good, otherwise you could justify destroying the world to remake it with only good people in it a good act.
And that doesn't even touch on using terror and hysteria as a method of putting people on the "right track" as deemed by the government in this scenario. Lawful Good characters, in my view, strive to lead by example. Lawful evil characters, no matter their ultimate intentions, crack the "bad eggs" and put the fear into the masses.Where the hell were you when I was arguing that Good doesnt kill under any condition?
Why did god make cows so tasty then?
|
|
Why did god make cows so tasty then?And that doesn't even touch on using terror and hysteria as a method of putting people on the "right track" as deemed by the government in this scenario. Lawful Good characters, in my view, strive to lead by example. Lawful evil characters, no matter their ultimate intentions, crack the "bad eggs" and put the fear into the masses.Where the hell were you when I was arguing that Good doesnt kill under any condition?
That is not a Cow...!
A good person can kill, for the right reasons. Usually for self defense, or in the defense of others.
Jack the Ripper is a horrible example of someone trying to kill for the greater good. He mutilated these women after he killed them. That is a pretty solid argument that he was not acting as a concerned citizen.
|
|
A good person can kill, for the right reasons. Usually for self defense, or in the defense of others.
Jack the Ripper is a horrible example of someone trying to kill for the greater good. He mutilated these women after he killed them. That is a pretty solid argument that he was not acting as a concerned citizen.
Closet Evil: Uses phrases like "for the greater good" and "Kill in self defence" - doesnt anyone incapacitate?
If Jack the Ripper has killed for the "Greater Good" then is not mutilation of victims an effort to increase the fear of lawlessness and evil (considering no one cared if you were stabbed to death by robbers)? If it is in the interest of the "Greater Good" then there is no obvious limit to what you can resort.
The ends justifies the means, A few must be sacrificed if all are to be saved, ect.
Jack the Ripper qualifies as Chaotic Evil, even under this scenario. He acts alone, rather than with a team or embedded in an institution. He strikes at whores and the poor, rather than targeting either the middle classes or upper classes, who would then care about instituting law and order and have the social power to make it stick. It's a haphazard, ill-thought out plan. And this isn't just murder, and it goes beyond torture. He spent a great deal of time with his corpses.
He might be part of a Lawful Evil plan, instituted by his superiors in the secret service, as you suggest. But as their obsessed lone agent, he'd be their chaotic evil pawn.
For Lawful Good, the ends do not justify the means. The means are always already a part of the ends.
|
|
Closet Evil: Uses phrases like "for the greater good" and "Kill in self defence" - doesnt anyone incapacitate?
I would hazard to suggest there is a difference between "goodness" and "righteousness". A good person goes out of their way to preserve life, and regrets taking it when necessary. A righteous person will give their own life if rather than take anothers unavoidably: for example, it is righteous t attempt to knock out a hill giant even though it is not the best course of action, but a righteous character will only ever do the good thing, even at the expense of their life. A righteous person views things from a cosmic perspective - they will be demeaned in the afterlife for killing the giant, the giants victims will be honored regardless, and the giant might even see the error of its ways and repent, possibly because of their sacrifice.
By the way, righteous could also be applied to evil/chaotic/lawful characters as well. I am sorely tempted to add it as a 3D axis to alignment:
(righteous -> neutral -> sinful)
Hence you could have, in addition to the normal alignments:
Righteous Lawful Good
Righteous Neutral Good
Righteous Chaotic Good
Righteous Lawful Neutral
Righteous Neutral (this explains a druid alignment compared to an animal)
Righteous Chaotic Neutral
Righteous Lawful Evil
Righteous Neutral Evil
Righteous Chaotic Evil
Sinful Lawful Good
Sinful Neutral Good
Sinful Chaotic Good
Sinful Lawful Neutral
Sinful Neutral
Sinful Chaotic Neutral
Sinful Lawful Evil
Sinful Neutral Evil
Sinful Chaotic Evil
Keeping in mind that this is righteousness or sinfulness based on your personal/group doctrine. A chaotic evil demon can be righteous, and a lawful good paladin can be sinful (but will probably lose their paladinhood for not following upholding their beliefs). It is a good way for me as a DM to determine how committed a villain is to a goal, or even tracking how players are following their alignment - for example, a player who chose to be righteous has a higher standard of alignment conduct than a sinful character. Once a person has the sinful qualifier, their alignment might shift rapidly until they settle down, and it explains more variance in actions compared to alignment. A sinful chaotic good character is less affected by an evil act than a righteous chaotic good character. However, a sinful character is more likely to change alignment more quickly based on DM discretion.
Closet Evil: Uses phrases like "for the greater good" and "Kill in self defence" - doesnt anyone incapacitate?
Yeah, that is what you are supposed to do. Someone comes at you with a knife, and you pick up a tree branch and knock the guy out. It seems your argument is that instead of calling the cops, the good person should just bash the incapacitated guys brains out, am I getting this right?
If Jack the Ripper has killed for the "Greater Good" then is not mutilation of victims an effort to increase the fear of lawlessness and evil (considering no one cared if you were stabbed to death by robbers)? If it is in the interest of the "Greater Good" then there is no obvious limit to what you can resort.
Are you still on your JtR was acting as an agent of the crown? Because that means someone in the British Government is responsible for the murder and subsequent butchering of several young women who may or may not have been prostitutes. Not exactly a great anti-crime plan, is it? I seriously doubt those women were threatening this agent directly, but wait, it would have been evil for him to defend himself. Then again, I guess he returned to the path of good and law when he mutilated the prostitutes...
Oh, and trying to say that those actions are meant to scare other criminals holds no water. He targeted young ladies of the night specifically. No one seemed to report the mutilation of cut-purses, pimps, or muggers during that time. I doubt it was because they were too scared to come out at night.
The ends justifies the means, A few must be sacrificed if all are to be saved, ect.
And who decides who lives and who dies? Your last sentence, that is the greatest example of Closet Evil my friend.
hmm episode 21; aired 10-25-95 title "Comes the Inquisitor" Babylon 5 second season; Jack the ripper was an agent of law and good who worked for the Vorlans doing their dirty work.
When I was in school our teachers taught us that Jack the Ripper was an alien from another planet here on earth taking DNA samples. Is this not right??
I am under the impression everything my teachers taught me is true, and un-biased.
When I was in school our teachers taught us that Jack the Ripper was an alien from another planet here on earth taking DNA samples. Is this not right??I am under the impression everything my teachers taught me is true, and un-biased.
Sometimes teachers set tests to teach students skills and what is being taught is not what is obvious.
Don't listen to him! He's with THEM. You should only listen to the teacher...
|
|
Frankly if Jack the Ripper is just some guy who snapped and decided to torture some folks with meathooks, I'm quickly developing an appreciation for what pushed him over the edge.
Anywa I've enquired with the Royal Archives and they are going to get back to me...hopefully. With any idea on whether the fellow was an agent of the Crown...or if the Monarch of the day suggested that maybe they could "do something about all the Lawlessness and contempt for Authority amongst the poor".
Sometimes teachers set tests to teach students skills and what is being taught is not what is obvious.
Which brings me back to why did god make cows so tasty then?
If good never kills for any reason and god made us so that we would die, that makes me question his 'goodness'. Granted, allowing someone to die is not the same as killing.
Also, why did god set up the natural order of things so that some animals would have to kill other animals in order to survive? Does that make carnivores != good? Does that make god at least somewhat != good by association?
|
|
If good never kills for any reason and god made us so that we would die, that makes me question his 'goodness'. Granted, allowing someone to die is not the same as killing.
Also, why did god set up the natural order of things so that some animals would have to kill other animals in order to survive? Does that make carnivores != good? Does that make god at least somewhat != good by association?
Maybe we are already "dead" and fighting each other for the scraps...considering we are normally immortal and infinite in possibility and now are not.
Nice provocation, but...no.
First of all, if one finds prostitution to be the most offending crime affecting the society, one hasn't been looking that hard (especially since afaik in those days street prostitution was not yet linked that much to organized crime).
Then, if one's solution to handle street prostitution is to kill random prostitutes one would have to be really stupid or evil.
And the whole terror campaign, slashing the victims in imaginative ways and IIRC taking bits of them with you definitely pushes the whole thing to "evil" category.
|
|
Nice provocation, but...no.
First of all, if one finds prostitution to be the most offending crime affecting the society, one hasn't been looking that hard (especially since afaik in those days street prostitution was not yet linked that much to organized crime).
Then, if one's solution to handle street prostitution is to kill random prostitutes one would have to be really stupid or evil.
And the whole terror campaign, slashing the victims in imaginative ways and IIRC taking bits of them with you definitely pushes the whole thing to "evil" category.
Where do you put Prostitution in a lawless society? They are vicitims and Employees of a corrupt society. If there is a Social Class strata amongst vermin then Prostitutes are where? In the middle being fed upon by those around them?
What is so illogical about a Regime deciding that the way to separate the Black from the White and bring an end the "spreading unpoliced grey area" is to cut the heart out of it (and paint the walls with words)?
|
When we talk about Jack The Ripper being one of those Lawful "For the Greater Good", "For King and Country" Paladins of the Crown, I suppose we are talking about the same sort of Paladin who crashes wayward princesses into support Pylons in Paris Tunnels because they are too free...
I saw that episode of Spooks, and I'm convinced the government had nothing to do with it.
Where do you put Prostitution in a lawless society? They are vicitims and Employees of a corrupt society. If there is a Social Class strata amongst vermin then Prostitutes are where? In the middle being fed upon by those around them?
What is so illogical about a Regime deciding that the way to separate the Black from the White and bring an end the "spreading unpoliced grey area" is to cut the heart out of it (and paint the walls with words)?
Well, in prostitution if there is a victim in that crime, it is the prostitute herself (leaving out of male prostitutes for now, as especially in Victorian London I doubt they played major role). Thus it is usually more interesting to understand the causes which drive women to prostitution and preferentially deal with those causes. This should be evident for all paladins with even average WIS score.
It is however not illogical for a Regime to do just like you described, that regime would however be LE and might directly or indirectly be the cause here.
For historical note, in the end of 19th century prostitution was actually much more common profession in large European cities than it is now...so perhaps certain democratic developments have contributed to shrinking this. Or maybe it was organized crime, forcing the freelancers out of the job.
|
|
In another conversation it was suggested that murder could be for the the Common Good and thus used to Justify the right of Good People to Kill....I think it's an important semantic to differentiate 'murder' and 'kill'--they are distinctly different.
How modern of you...murder is the same as kill (just not as popular a brush to be tard with).
Rippy didn't just slay... he left a brutal mess of the remains.
Murder scene photo of one of Jack's victims... not for the squeamish.
Even if people were provably bad, there is no moral good in festooning a room in their viscera.
If you suggested that he was killing demons and the bodies were left that way as part of a ritual to end their fiendish power, then he could be a closet good guy/demon hunter.
|
|
Rippy didn't just slay... he left a brutal mess of the remains.
Murder scene photo of one of Jack's victims... not for the squeamish.
Even if people were provably bad, there is no moral good in festooning a room in their viscera.
If you suggested that he was killing demons and the bodies were left that way as part of a ritual to end their fiendish power, then he could be a closet good guy/demon hunter.
So you are saying you wouldnt viscerate a bus load of Nuns to bring an end to their evil church...?
Photo is annoyingly black and white...
I am also of the thoughts that Jack would be LE or NE based on his actions.
The was either a love of the slaughter in his 'work' or he had a specific reason and plan in mind while eviscerating his victims. Either way, it wasn't the actions of a random nutter. He picked his victims (or it at least seems that way, at least they were of a type) and did methodical 'operations'.
Just because he did his task while alone does not make him CE. Lawful characters can act alone too, so can NE.
As for believing his actions are for the greater good?
Plenty of evil people think that, in real life and in games. Almost no one, characters or otherwise should actually think of themselves as evil. Your Charles Manson type serial killer perhaps, perhaps Jack the Ripper, but most killers or other criminals don't think that way.
Rippy didn't just slay... he left a brutal mess of the remains.
Murder scene photo of one of Jack's victims... not for the squeamish.
Even if people were provably bad, there is no moral good in festooning a room in their viscera.
If you suggested that he was killing demons and the bodies were left that way as part of a ritual to end their fiendish power, then he could be a closet good guy/demon hunter.
So you are saying you wouldnt viscerate a bus load of Nuns to bring an end to their evil church...?
Photo is annoyingly black and white...
That is absolutely what I'm telling you.
|
|
How modern of you...murder is the same as kill (just not as popular a brush to be tard with).In another conversation it was suggested that murder could be for the the Common Good and thus used to Justify the right of Good People to Kill....I think it's an important semantic to differentiate 'murder' and 'kill'--they are distinctly different.
No, they're different in connotation, despite the era of use. To be slightly facetious, I don't murder the aphids in my garden, I kill them. The police officer who shoots and kills the criminal in an armed robbery doesn't murder the criminal, he kills him. Jack of Whitechapel murdered his victims. I think the distinction there is quite obvious.
Well, in prostitution if there is a victim in that crime, it is the prostitute herself (leaving out of male prostitutes for now, as especially in Victorian London I doubt they played major role). Thus it is usually more interesting to understand the causes which drive women to prostitution and preferentially deal with those causes. This should be evident for all paladins with even average WIS score.
Quoted for truth.
|
How modern of you...murder is the same as kill (just not as popular a brush to be tard with).In another conversation it was suggested that murder could be for the the Common Good and thus used to Justify the right of Good People to Kill....I think it's an important semantic to differentiate 'murder' and 'kill'--they are distinctly different.
So by that statement you mean all soldiers are murderers and every policeman who killed an armed criminal in the pursuance of his duty is too.
Blanket statements like that are just not logical Dingo
And Jack was IMHO that old Arduin alignment...Amoral Evil
|
|
How modern of you...murder is the same as kill (just not as popular a brush to be tard with).In another conversation it was suggested that murder could be for the the Common Good and thus used to Justify the right of Good People to Kill....I think it's an important semantic to differentiate 'murder' and 'kill'--they are distinctly different.So by that statement you mean all soldiers are murderers and every policeman who killed an armed criminal in the pursuance of his duty is too.
Blanket statements like that are just not logical Dingo
And Jack was IMHO that old Arduin alignment...Amoral Evil
The taking of any life is murder no matter the reason...I dont think any of us can criticise the ethics of the line that draws no matter how uncomprimising or how inconvenient (eight of my own ancestors died in three major wars in the last century killing in the employ of a State), a ninth had a job making munitions in a factory). We survive in a world forged from chaos by evil - not even Adolf considered what he was doing evil. There is no flaw in the logic of what is right and wrong.
The Ripper offers us a Corrupt and Evil world in which even the victims must be corrupt and evil if they would survive in it.Into such a foul reality, only one man has the capacity to sway them to the importance of Law and Good. He does so by sacrificing five prostitutes who are (despite their victim status) not above shiving some blighter for his coin if he dont pay for services rendered.