|
Aaaaand still not feeling sorry *after* he killed those 60 innocents. Evil.you see the result of the act itself and not the conditions that led up to the tragedy. His character already has exhibited unstable behavioral patterns and had a major deathwish at the begining of his career. He tried everything he could to catch the invisible foe, but it didnt work out. He saw he was about to die along with his friends so he snappedOther points you made which I didn't include in the quote are perfectly valid though especially the part about not caring.Well, there we have it. Evil. Not caring about killing 60 innocents makes him a clear sociopath.
Personally I would say the character is evil. Not because of the act persay though that is a evil act. I would say the character is evil cause he doesn't care in the slightest he killed innocent people IMHO.
Anyone with an ounce of morality already knows that.I tried to back out of this discussion because it is fundamentally retarded. The player's morality is what the GM says it is.
But when calvinNhobbes makes an uninformed statement like the above and, thereby, asserts that there is only one way anyone with an ounce of morality would side in this discussion, that gets offensive.
The -fact- is that philosophers have argued over moral codes since the dawn of time. Whether you side with Kant's categorical imperative or Spinoza's or Hume's moral relativism, anyone with an ounce of education beyond the 4th grade level knows that there are multiple ways of modelling morality and that the side a person falls on has jack squat to do with where they fall on some hypothetical "morality meter".
That's the smartest post so far.
To you calvin, self righteousness has nothing to do with being good.
That's the smartest post so far.And the troll bait gets it second victim, LOL!
To you calvin, self righteousness has nothing to do with being good.To you Xum, what makes you think I am self righteous? I would never consider myself a GOOD person. I am NEUTRAL at best. The idea of self-sacrifice for a stranger is beyond me. But the RAW are clear on what it means to be good, neutral, and evil in the imaginary world of d20.
Well played. ;)
I'm not concerned with your taking in it anymore, to you, obviously, 95% of the world is evil, so, kuddos to you.
We are gonna have to agree on disagreeing here. The thing is, as I stated earlier, the act it self MAY be evil, but the person itself may not. And that's what I've been saying all along.
*Some other stuff*
You call it evil, I call it pragmatism. As I recall, the military has had standing orders or can be given the orders to shoot down a civilian plane that has been hijacked to prevent another 9/11 situation. Is that evil? No it is not, that is reality. It's a tough decision that has to be made for the greater good. Tough decisions aren't always popular, but popularity has nothing to do with good or evil.
I have no problem agreeing that, in war, there are times when you have to do horrible things to save even more lives - there's a question of immediacy to the situation that doesn't allow for a better choice to be thought of. If there is no other way to take down the plane, shoot it down.
But if those soldiers that have done so shed not one bloody tear for the lives they were forced into taking, they are evil. Or Klingon. (No tear ducts, you know.) Good people feel remorse when they have to take lives. Neutral people feel remorse when they have to take lives. Evil people feel no remorse.
Shooting down a plane for this reason is still an evil act. Shooting the child that runs towards you loaded with bombs is an evil act. The grief and guilt at being pushed into it are the mitigating factors that differentiate the evil person from the non-evil person.
|
|
I think, by this point, we've already firmly established that there are about a bazillion philosophers who have fallen on either side of this question. There is no consensus.
Your personal moral code is just another moral code among countless others.
No not really. Thats what one calls moral equivilancy.
|
I have no problem agreeing that, in war, there are times when you have to do horrible things to save even more lives - there's a question of immediacy to the situation that doesn't allow for a better choice to be thought of. If there is no other way to take down the plane, shoot it down.
I agree.
But if those soldiers that have done so shed not one bloody tear for the lives they were forced into taking, they are evil. Or Klingon. (No tear ducts, you know.) Good people feel remorse when they have to take lives. Neutral people feel remorse when they have to take lives. Evil people feel no remorse.
War is kill or be killed. Remorse will get you and your buddies killed.
Shooting down a plane for this reason is still an evil act. Shooting the child that runs towards you loaded with bombs is an evil act. The grief and guilt at being pushed into it are the mitigating factors that differentiate the evil person from the non-evil person.
All the people on the plane are going to die anyway. You are preventing more death = good act.
Shooting a child strapped with bombs is no different than shooting an adult strapped with bombs. They were going to kill you. You killed them instead. How is that evil? Evil is the person who strapped the bombs to them or brainwashed them into doing it.
You should feel no grief or guilt in saving your life or the lives of others, even if it did come at a cost.
I'm more like,
Feels remorse = good
Do not feel remorse(cause did what had to be done) = neutral
Actually likes it = Evil
The way I see this specific situation an evil guy wouldn't even try ways to avoid this, first thing he would do is fire at will, damned however is in range.
The Neutral guy (OP) tried several other tactics and failed, when there was nothing else to do he did what had to be done to complete the mission.
A guy who is neutral, is less likelly to "fall" as he is to rise. Cause he doesn't care about being good or evil. Now, when a good guy does something like this, he would fall a little bit, staying in neutral at least. Or an evil guy doing something "horrendously" good, would rise to neutral.
That's why I like the alignemnt shift so much. To me there is Good, Good with neutral tendencies, Neutral with good tendencies, Neutral, Neutral with evil tendencies, Evil with neutral tendencies and Evil.
I could even add a REALLY GOOD and REALLY EVIL there, but I think u understood my point.
So, in my book a good guy doing this, would fall 2 steps, a neutral guy would fall one.
You call it evil, I call it pragmatism. As I recall, the military has had standing orders or can be given the orders to shoot down a civilian plane that has been hijacked to prevent another 9/11 situation. Is that evil?
Yes, thats why they call it necessary evil. But see in that case the 60 or so people on the plane are dead for sure and can not be saved. It is still an evil act even then. In the OP case he had options as folks have said he chose to kill as many people as he needed to. He is no less evil then the BBEG.
|
|
Yes, thats why they call it necessary evil. But see in that case the 60 or so people on the plane are dead for sure and can not be saved. It is still an evil act even then. In the OP case he had options as folks have said he chose to kill as many people as he needed to. He is no less evil then the BBEG.
You call it evil, I call it pragmatism. As I recall, the military has had standing orders or can be given the orders to shoot down a civilian plane that has been hijacked to prevent another 9/11 situation. Is that evil?
I couldn't disagree with you more. If there is no way to save the people on the plane and shooting it down will save more lives, then there is nothing evil about it. Neutral for sure, good depending on how much of a conscience you have.
I couldn't disagree with you more. If there is no way to save the people on the plane and shooting it down will save more lives, then there is nothing evil about it. Neutral for sure, good depending on how much of a conscience you have.Yes, thats why they call it necessary evil. But see in that case the 60 or so people on the plane are dead for sure and can not be saved. It is still an evil act even then. In the OP case he had options as folks have said he chose to kill as many people as he needed to. He is no less evil then the BBEG.
You call it evil, I call it pragmatism. As I recall, the military has had standing orders or can be given the orders to shoot down a civilian plane that has been hijacked to prevent another 9/11 situation. Is that evil?
+1
Murder is murder. You have a good cause yes, but that does not make it the good choice even at the time if it is your only one. The men that shoot that plane down need to live with that, good men will have nightmares for a long time. But the act is evil if necessary
|
|
Xpltvdeleted, by your logic, we should just nuke everyone then.
We should have nuked Vietnam, Korea, Korea again maybe, Iraq, Iran, heck the whole Middle East, maybe parts of Eastern Europe, and while were at it, all of Africa. Sound about right?
It is without a doubt the most pragmatic solution. It's all just collateral damage.
And then according to you we shouldn't even feel bad about it.
Hmmm, you would make an excellent BBEG.
/sigh There is a difference between destroying an entire country and a few civilians dying in a handful of isolated incidents. Besides, it's the least pragmatic solution 2bh. We fire a nuke and everyone who has nukes fires them. Nuclear winter is bad, mkay? That being said, i have no problem with the use of nukes when we did use them.
Make sure that, if you use me as a BBEG, i get my likeness royalties. :P
|
|
Murder is murder. You have a good cause yes, but that does not make it the good choice even at the time if it is your only one. The men that shoot that plane down need to live with that, good men will have nightmares for a long time. But the act is evil if necessary
Pin it on the terrorsits that hijacked the plane. They murdered the people, you are just preventing further loss of life.
Huge difference between an FRPG and reality with regards to good/evil/morality arguments. In an FRPG you have tangible proof, beyond point of view circumspection, of evil. You cannot put faith in moral ambiguity to be a cushion between you and your deity. You must adhere to someone else's (deity, GM, players) views of morality. Or suffer the consequences.
A soldier who is forced to kill a child strapped with bombs is not evil. True it is an evil act, but the evil lies with the person who put that child in this position. The soldier allowed his instincts for self survival to take over.
This is what we are talking about, he said the act was not evil. I said it was and good men would be effected by what they had to do. Necessary evil.
|
|
In your opinion there is a difference. Evil people like to make justifications that their evil is not "really evil" because it has limits. For example, see LE and the example about not killing women or childern.
There is a huge difference between nuking an entire country and some civilian casualties. If your enemy intentionally uses a church/mosque/temple as shelter, then THEY are endangering those civilians, and their blood is on their hands, not yours. Nuking an entire country is overkill.
Would they? Do you really think Russia, China, or another nuclear power would nuke us if we didn't nuke them? If we nuked North Korea, do you really think China would nuke us, after we just showed we are willing to nuke? Hell no! But then we lose the moral high ground.
You really think China, Russia, or Iran (when they finish their nuke program) wouldn't jump at a chance to justify destroying the US? If so you are naive.
So what is different now? Exactly, now other people have nukes so there are reprecussions to us using them now. Like I said before, it is their consequences that prevent the true evil nature of humanity from running uncheck.
The use of the bomb in WWII was evil, and the fact you have no problem with it reinforces my belief you are an evil person.
The difference is, when they were used before, they saved more lives than they took by putting an end to the hostilities. If used now, their death toll would outweigh the lives saved in the end...no longer a pragmatic solution.
|
|
This is what we are talking about, he said the act was not evil. I said it was and good men would be effected by what they had to do. Necessary evil.
A soldier who is forced to kill a child strapped with bombs is not evil. True it is an evil act, but the evil lies with the person who put that child in this position. The soldier allowed his instincts for self survival to take over.
Why is it evil? Because it is a child? Would it be evil if it was an addult? The child or whoever strapped the bombs to them forced your hand...it is in no way an evil act for you to stop them. The evil person is the triggerman or the person who brainwashed said child.
Ya know, I'm totally late to this, and I realize the conversation has gone elsewhere, but I need to procrastinate right now, so here's my 2 cents on the OP's question:
I'm playing a character who is borderline evil...or is he evil? I don't know. All of the other players see him as evil but I still consider him (and have his alignment written down as) Chaotic Nuetral. The reason the others see him as evil is because he does some truly evil things.
So he does evil things, but he's not evil? I don't understand how that's possible.
But, my personal sense of morality and logic aren't really important here. Let's see what the Rules of the Game have to say, since as far as I can figure, the point is do you have the right alignment written on your character sheet, based on how you're playing?
He once channeled and killed 60 innocent bystanders in some twisted carnival (RotRL, I think) just to damage an invisible foe that we had no other way to get at.
The rules say:
Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.
60 innocent lives killed, for the profit of destroying one man. That suggests an Evil act.
The rules also say (with my added emphasis)
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.
Neutral people do not kill the innocent if they can help it. Evil people do kill the innocent.
On the other hand, he's saved many more people than he's needlessly killed and does do many good things as well.
What "good things" has he done? More to the point:
Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others.
Does he do altruistic things not when they are convenient or because that goes with the flow of the party, or does he actively try to do what is right, even at the expense of his personal well being?
There is a difference between a neutral or even evil character doing a nice thing because it's convenient, and a good character out to do what's right because it is the right thing to do no matter what.
If he made a LOT of personal sacrifices to do what he feels is right, and just this ONE time killed 60 innocents to stop one bad person, I would say that the character is probably overall neutral--someone who maybe was once good, but slipped as desperation and anger led him to do terrible things. If he continues to do terrible things, and only does altruistic things when they are convenient, I would see his alignment as slipping toward evil. Based on what is written in the rules.
I would also argue that if you gleefully kill an innocent, and then save an orphanage, the good act doesn't "cancel" the bad act. This isn't Neverwinter Nights where you gain good and evil "points" arbitrarily. If you delight in your evil acts and continue to delight in your evil acts, you're evil, regardless of the "good" things you might do otherwise.
If you have a character that both delights in evil things and then makes personal sacrifices out of altruism, you have a psychopath with multiple personality disorder or something.
He doesn't do what is good or what is evil by definition. He does whatever he feels is necessary to get the job done.
If "what is necessary to get the job done" includes acts described under the evil alignment descriptors in the rules, and he does these repeatedly, willingly, and acceptingly, then he's evil.
If he has some compunctions against cruelty or killing, and only on occasion has felt "forced" to take extreme measures--or tried to atone for the terrible things he did--he's probably neutral. But the more evil acts he does, the more likely his alignment will slide toward evil. (And conversely, the more he tries to atone, and the more he begins to make personal sacrifices for the well being of others, the more he will slide toward good. If his behavior goes back to not doing notably evil things, but being out for his own survival and not helping others because it's right, then he remains neutral.)
So the million dollar question is, what makes someone evil?
This:
Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master.
I would especially look at the phrase, "kill without qualms if doing so is convenient" and see if that applies to your character.
Does commiting evil acts automatically make you evil or does the balance make you nuetral? What alignment do believe my character is.
Ultimately, your GM's answer to that question is the one that's going to apply to your situation, but generally--repeated evil acts without any atonement ever, or going back on one's atonement, is going to point you in the evil direction.
With the "Good" acts you do, again, you have to consider--does your character do these acts because it's convenient (a neutral behavior at best), or because it's right?
And while you have this discussion with your GM, you may as well re-read this:
Chaotic Neutral: A chaotic neutral character follows his whims. He is an individualist first and last. He values his own liberty but doesn't strive to protect others' freedom. He avoids authority, resents restrictions, and challenges traditions. A chaotic neutral character does not intentionally disrupt organizations as part of a campaign of anarchy. To do so, he would have to be motivated either by good (and a desire to liberate others) or evil (and a desire to make those others suffer). A chaotic neutral character may be unpredictable, but his behavior is not totally random. He is not as likely to jump off a bridge as he is to cross it.Chaotic neutral represents freedom from both society's restrictions and a do-gooder's zeal.
You talked a lot about your character, but you said nothing that actually fits this description. He may well be an individualist out for himself and you just didn't have time to explain that how he is so, but review it, and consider whether that description really fits your character best, or whether one of the other descriptions suits your character better.
|
|
1) There is a difference between a country destroyed and 10 civilians killed...
2) Temples/mosques/churches are [strike]assumed[/strike] defined "no war" zones. If your enemy violates this, they are the ones placing that location and its inhabitants at risk
3) We nuked a city, not a country. It was justified to end hostilities.
4) They would retaliate, we would retaliate back, and before you know it nukes would be flying from everywhere to everywhere. Plus one or two nukes of today's caliber would be enough to FUBAR the world.
5) By all the war games, there would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of 500,000 to 1,000,000 casualties (combined on both sides) as i recall. We prevented this by killing 150,000.
|
|
Why is it evil? Because it is a child?Yes, a child who does not understand the consequence of the actions and is being used is considered an innocent and therefore killing them is evil.
Would it be evil if it was an addult?Depends. If the adult is a hostage being forced to do it, then yes. A suicide bomber? No, then it is an act of war and Neutral.
The child or whoever strapped the bombs to them forced your hand...it is in no way an evil act for you to stop them.Yes, it is evil.
The evil person is the triggerman or the person who brainwashed said child.There can be more than one evil person in a scenario. In this case both the terrorist who put the innocent child in danger, and you for killing them.
You are definitely one person I would not want to go to war with.
There's that word again "necessary", but you've yet to show why it's necessary.
We are off game topic, but I was responding to shooting down a plane with innocents in it to kill a terrorist to stop another 911. While it may be necessary and the only way you can think to stop it, it is not a good act as Xpltvdeleted kept saying it was.
"Necessary" is used when you can find no other choice and you choose to do the lesser of the two evils. I agree it's a way folks justify doing evil things.
Hey uh guys maybe you two should step back from the thread a bit. It seems to be getting a bit personal
Anyhow do what ya wish just a bit of advice
|
|
LOL, you jsut repeated all your points agian without even addressing my statements, sad really...
Apparently they bore repeating.
Yep, one is evil, the other is really really evil. Both are evil.
One is overkill and unnecessary, the other is a fact of war.
And if you then violate it, then you are also putting the inhabitants at risk. Hence you are as evil as you enemy.
The enemy placed the civilians in that situation, not you. Your job is to destroy the enemy. Yes the civilian deaths might make for some bad PR, but you were not the ones who caused their deaths, your enemy was.
yes, it was a necessary EVIL.
Greater good. Need i say more? In war you do what is best for your "side" and we saved alot of our soldiers' lives, not to mention enemy soldiers' lives.
Why would China retaliate if didn't nuke them? The point is to nuke people who can't retaliate.
Because a nuke in N Korea would affect China as well (fallout). And China is N Korea's ally and would come to their defense.
It is called propaganda. Don't be so naive.
Given the time frame that it would take us to bring in more troops and supplies to that front of the war, I find it a very reasonable number. We would have been out gunned for most of the time the hostilities continued.
|
|
You are definitely one person I would not want to go to war with.I wouldn't want to go to war with you either. You are as likely to kill me than help me even though we would be on the same side.
EDIT: Also, I never said I had a problem killing innocent people in the arena of war. I simply acknowledge the fact that doing so is an evil thing. I don't have a problem with that. You are the one who refuses to accept that war requires evil to be done. Whatever helps you sleep soldier.
No I just believe that when it comes to war a good majority of the rules of good and evil are thrown out the window. What one would find apalling in day to day life becomes normal.
Additionally if you've paid attention to any of the arguments i've been making, all the things i have said have been for the good of my "side" in this hypothetical war. What makes you think I would kill you as soon as help you?
|
|
We are talking about 1940s Japan. Not today. Japan (and the rest of world) at that time had no reponse to the US using the bomb. Hence there were really no reprecussions. Please at least attempt a relevant response next time.Japan attacked us in a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. Despite that, the US offered Japan a chance to surrender before the bombs were dropped (the Potsdam ultimatum). Japan rejected it.
Even after Hiroshima, Japan refused to surrender. It was only after both bombs were dropped that Japan surrendered.This is equivalent to a guy who sneaks into your house and kills and murders your wife and children. He's also attacking, killing, and raping other people in the neighborhood (read what Japan did in Korea). You offer him a chance to surrender. He refuses. So, you blow his head off.
I consider this a good act brought about on a very evil and stupid person. I'd consider it an evil act for a man who has the ability to stop evil to do nothing.
+1