"Evil implies killing others" does not mean "killing others is always evil," as Weirdo has pointed out.
Actually Weirdo didn't point that out. Among his 4 options, 3 acknowledge that at least partially it is right and good to kill evil, and his 1st option which is that killing is a necessary evil necessarily requires atonement or falling for every single time a paladin takes a life.
The alignment system reflects a world in which good and evil are objective forces. You can say "that's not realistic" which many do, but hey neither is "magic".
I don't think anyone is saying it is unrealistic. It's philosophically impossible to meet the criteria of what people want in an "objective" moral system in game. They want it to be personally meaningful for them and make them feel good for being good, but it also can't be any version of Who-Whom morality or a matter of divine providence, but these criteria can't actually be filled without adhering to this objective morality in real life also (which is really what people want and what they are arguing for).
"Realism" doesn't enter into it; impossibility does. If you've got an objective moral system in the game world you are going to be incapable of going forward without defining some players as immoral that disagree with the dogma of that objective system. This is really what is at the core of these arguments.
You aren't going to have an objective moral system that is going to have every single player of the game capable of feeling like a hero by obeying it. Since that is demonstrably the case then why favor one brand of hero over the other?
Your definition is very logical and very understandable for real life. However, this is your belief system and NOT the explicit system defined by the designers.
It's not logical, unless you are using logical as a buzzword. You can't logically make claims about the way things ought to be based on observations about the way they are, and the "Good" character defined by Mikaze would necessarily be a radical that disregards things like organized religion, tradition, patriotism and filial piety as that is all extended "monkeysphere" stuff.
To be defined as "Good" you must necessarily be some humanist stripe of globalist libertarian or internationalist socialist, which is probably bringing us back to the point of really arguing about Good and Evil in real life.
I'd defy you to find five where Paladins don't come up.
Paladins are an important part of the alignment discussion because any definition of the game's objective Good needs to account for defining the essential paladin as the epitome of Goodness.
So, nine combinations. One is Good, three are Neutral, five are Evil.
Notably the outcome doesn't matter. Which brings us back to Anzyr's critique. You merely have to have good intentions, and then try. How is this hard? I guess you could say it is hard to perpetually fail, but on the level of connotation when we say something is hard in this way it's implying skill and perseverance, not mere hardship. It's not hard to be a loser.
Also what kind of act is killing?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say again, since we are discussing Good and Evil in the context of a game NOT in real life -
(Playing a character as) Good is Easy.
There is no soul-forging struggles to do the "good" thing. If it is a choice of giving up your treasure for the encounter so a town can be rebuilt (without getting anything for it) or keeping it, the easy choice is to give up the treasure. Keeping the treasure goes against most people's personal beliefs so strongly that you would always despise that character and soon lose all enjoyment playing it. Sacrificing your PC's life (when you can just make a new one) for a "heroic" end is easy. Letting an innocent die so your character can have a bit more loot is hard.
(playing a character as) Evil is Hard
You first say you are not talking about the context of real life. But then you discuss how hard it is to play a character. Playing a character is done in real life.
Good is Hard for the character in the game. That's the point.
What's easy/hard for a player at the table isn't the issue.
Good is Hard for the character in the game. That's the point.
What's easy/hard for a player at the table isn't the issue.
That's how I read the OP as well.
That's how I read the OP as well.Good is Hard for the character in the game. That's the point.
What's easy/hard for a player at the table isn't the issue.
And that's how I intended my comment as well: from the point of view of the character.
That's my impression of Ross's intent for the discussion as well.
a lot of heroes, can be considered neutral or even evil. Judge Dredd, was lawful neutral with an evil slant. he wasn't corrupt, and he had a paladinlike code, but he was slaughtering people left and right, inflicting all sorts of bad cop torture, and well, he seemed pretty vicious. there was a reason Joseph Dredd had a Reputation.
I think there is a confusion of semantics here. You seem to be using "hero" to mean "protagonist of the story," which is a valid definition of the word, but it's not what we're really discussing. The protagonist of a story can be good or bad, admirable or despicable, Good or Evil.
Another meaning of "hero" is: "A person of distinguished courage and ability, admired for brave deeds and noble qualities." This is the definition of "hero" that is entwined with the notion of Good.
(A third meaning of "hero" is "submarine sandwich," but let's not cloud the issue.)
In The Sopranos, Tony Soprano is the protagonist of the series. He has many positive qualities, and the audience usually sympathizes with him. But he's a thief and a murderer who doesn't care about the people whose lives he takes or destroys to get what he wants. From a literary perspective, he's an antihero: the main character who has the reader/viewer's sympathies, but he's actually a bad guy. From the perspective of an RPG, he's certainly Evil.
In the James Bond series, the superspy regularly risks his life to save the world. His bravery is unquestionable. He's also a misogynist, a womanizer, a drunk, a hedonist, someone who has few compunctions about killing people, and regularly causes wanton destruction of private property. (c.f. the "tank chase in Moscow" scene in Goldeneye. I remember thinking, "That chase must have had a body count in the dozens!") Bond is certainly the hero (first sense) of the films, and he is often heroic (second sense) in deeds, yet his callousness about the property and feelings of others makes him Neutral at best in my estimation.
I'm not a huge comics fan, but it's hard to pin down alignments on characters like Batman or Superman that have existed for 75 years, with hundreds of writers, and through significant sea changes in perceptions of social norms. It really depends on who's writing the particular story.
|
In a world more like ours, refusing to pick one of the evils can mean picking the greater evil by default. It's evil to kill civilians, but if the alternative is the Nazis getting a nuclear bomb? It's not heroic to cause massive suffering because you can't accept anything less than perfection.In a world more like ours, questions of good and evil aren't part war planning or any serious discussion outside of demagogues or philosophers.
False. The most obvious counterexample would be the definition of War Crimes by policymakers and international law - acts considered evil enough to be unjustifiable in wartime. Military leaders may also study Just War Theory. Now, these principles might not always be obeyed in war, but that simply means that most nations are not Good (because Good is Hard)!
In a campaign that's being advertised as HEROIC FANTASY, should mean that a heroic option should exist, even if it means great sacrifice, and might take effort for the heroes to discover.
Not all games are advertised as such. However it can still be entertaining and interesting to play a heroic character outside of a heroic setting. I'm still hoping to play a character seeking Golconda (peace & enlightenment) in a World of Darkness Vampire game. (Interestingly, WoD gives you a "guilt saving throw" to avoid morality loss after performing an immoral action.)
IF the DM isn't going to permit a heroic option, he should be chucking alignment considerations out the window along with the Paladin class. Because lets face it, these discussions NEVER come up when a Paladin isn't involved.
Not true. My first PF campaign had some pretty intense Mercy vs Justice conversations initiated by a Summoner. There was quite a lot of OOC discussion regarding whether the Summoner was actually Good or whether her reckless insistence on a peaceful solution rendered her Neutral. If the game had been a little less Heroic Style the Summoner might have brought about the apocalypse with her actions!
In the same campaign my character was bumped from TN to NG for being a too eager to make sacrifices for people she didn't know.
False. The most obvious counterexample would be the definition of War Crimes by policymakers and international law - acts considered evil enough to be unjustifiable in wartime. Military leaders may also study Just War Theory. Now, these principles might not always be obeyed in war, but that simply means that most nations are not Good (because Good is Hard)!In a world more like ours, refusing to pick one of the evils can mean picking the greater evil by default. It's evil to kill civilians, but if the alternative is the Nazis getting a nuclear bomb? It's not heroic to cause massive suffering because you can't accept anything less than perfection.In a world more like ours, questions of good and evil aren't part war planning or any serious discussion outside of demagogues or philosophers.
Lazar, even if that were true (thank you Weirdo), that just proves that Good is not pragmatic. When 'Total war' was coined circa the American Civil War, the entire point was that victory is faster and easier (and sometimes possible instead of impossible) if you abandon conventional honor and morality. Burning a town to the ground because maybe it's factories and workforce will go back to supplying the enemy after your army leaves is certainly pragmatic. But it sure as hell isn't Good.
That's why Evil thinks 'Good is Dumb'. Good isn't dumb: it is well aware that those decisions may bite it in the ass, but does it anyway because the lives of others are important too.
Please note that I am not trying to equate 'Good' with 'correct' or even with 'right'.
a lot of heroes, can be considered neutral or even evil. Judge Dredd, was lawful neutral with an evil slant. he wasn't corrupt, and he had a paladinlike code, but he was slaughtering people left and right, inflicting all sorts of bad cop torture, and well, he seemed pretty vicious. there was a reason Joseph Dredd had a Reputation.I think there is a confusion of semantics here. You seem to be using "hero" to mean "protagonist of the story," which is a valid definition of the word, but it's not what we're really discussing. The protagonist of a story can be good or bad, admirable or despicable, Good or Evil.
Another meaning of "hero" is: "A person of distinguished courage and ability, admired for brave deeds and noble qualities." This is the definition of "hero" that is entwined with the notion of Good.
(A third meaning of "hero" is "submarine sandwich," but let's not cloud the issue.)
In The Sopranos, Tony Soprano is the protagonist of the series. He has many positive qualities, and the audience usually sympathizes with him. But he's a thief and a murderer who doesn't care about the people whose lives he takes or destroys to get what he wants. From a literary perspective, he's an antihero: the main character who has the reader/viewer's sympathies, but he's actually a bad guy. From the perspective of an RPG, he's certainly Evil.
In the James Bond series, the superspy regularly risks his life to save the world. His bravery is unquestionable. He's also a misogynist, a womanizer, a drunk, a hedonist, someone who has few compunctions about killing people, and regularly causes wanton destruction of private property. (c.f. the "tank chase in Moscow" scene in Goldeneye. I remember thinking, "That chase must have had a body count in the dozens!") Bond is certainly the hero (first sense) of the films, and he is often heroic (second sense) in deeds, yet his callousness about the property and feelings of others makes him Neutral at best in my estimation.
I'm not a huge comics fan, but it's hard to pin down alignments on characters like Batman or Superman that have existed for 75 years, with hundreds of writers, and through significant sea changes in perceptions of social norms. It really depends on who's writing the particular story.
a lot of these protagonists, are treated as if they were heroes, whether because they are simply the protagonist, or because, reputation and the author hints at them being the good guys
you can be a Heroic Protagonist with a Selfish Goal, Malicious Intent or whatever. there is a difference between Good and Heroic. look at the Fable Heroes Guild on the XBox. not even the 360. Hero was simply a way of saying that one was a powerful figure with a massive reputation and the power to sway massive amounts of people in a desired direction, such as most protagonists, regardless of alignment or actions.
an Anti-Hero. is still portrayed as a hero, and well, they deal with things no hero truly does. in fact, a truly good and self sacrificing hero whom willingly sacrificed everything he or she had for the good of all and was loved by everyone, on a scale that surpasses the disney princesses, is such a Mary Sue that even the disney princesses cannot keep up. i'm not saying Idealistic, Purehearted and Naive characters are a bad thing, but if such a character doesn't adapt to the adventuring life, they aren't going to live long as an adventurer
by using, person of distinguished courage and ability, a lot of protagonists can count, even if most of them got their courage from outside help. does Judge Dredd? have less distinguished courage and ability? for simply doing his job very well? for being one of the top judges? than Superman? whose whole courage and ability comes from his species and the fact he is facing foes whom pose no challenge to him?
Superman is so overpowering, he could defeat Judge Dredd, but if Judge Dredd got lucky and defeated Superman. i'm sure people would praise the mortal man whom took down a superpowered freak of unknown origin clad in funny and silly clothes. which would show distinguished courage, while superman is a case of (not really) distinguished ability.
superman, is dependant on his heightened ability and the absurd power of his broken race, but should someone get lucky and prove him mortal. it would show he isn't as scary as he once was. and imagine how scary a guy that can tank several rocket launcher rounds and punch a huge dent in an aircraft carrier is, before you account for the fact he can fly and fire lasers from his eyes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.
|
|
"Evil implies killing others" does not mean "killing others is always evil," as Weirdo has pointed out.Actually Weirdo didn't point that out. Among his 4 options, 3 acknowledge that at least partially it is right and good to kill evil, and his 1st option which is that killing is a necessary evil necessarily requires atonement or falling for every single time a paladin takes a life.
Yes, that's exactly what I pointed out. Even the option that says "it is right to kill evil things because it is evil," agreeing with your position 100%, is saying "evil implies killing others does not mean killing others is always evil, because killing evil creatures is not evil."
However, if option 3 were the case it would be as inaccurate to say "it is right and good to kill evil" as it would be to say "it is right and good to kill innocents" because when good/evil is determined by the outcome of an action, in a situation in which is is right to kill evil, it is equally right to kill an innocent - it's not that it's right to kill evil, but it's right to kill anyone to avoid a greater evil.
My argument did not support either of your end positions, it only disproved the statement:
I see "evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others," not "evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing the innocent." The inference seems pretty obvious. YMMV.If that were the case then killing anyone would always be evil, every time, no matter what, which is clearly not the case.
...because Option 3 allows us to kill some creatures sometimes without making a distinction between killing evil creatures and innocents.
In fact, if we read "Evil implies killing (or harming, or oppressing) others" as a logical statement (not always safe with PF RAW, but bear with me) it means "All Evil creatures kill/harm/oppress others," not "killing others is always evil." Read logically, that statement alone says absolutely nothing about whether Good characters do or do not kill.
That said, the alignment discussion (1) is written as statements characteristic of good and evil characters, not as logical absolutes and (2) considers the alignment of the target in some conditions but not others. For example, good characters protect innocents (not "protect others"), but "respect life," not only "respect innocent life."
|
It's not logical, unless you are using logical as a buzzword. You can't logically make claims about the way things ought to be based on observations about the way they are, and the "Good" character defined by Mikaze would necessarily be a radical that disregards things like organized religion, tradition, patriotism and filial piety as that is all extended "monkeysphere" stuff.
To be defined as "Good" you must necessarily be some humanist stripe of globalist libertarian or internationalist socialist, which is probably bringing us back to the point of really arguing about Good and Evil in real life.
Hardly.
You merely have to be able to see when something is standing in the way of doing the good thing and not let it hold you back.
now if you could please-oh-so-very-please post about what is Law in equally eloquent manner, you'd be my hero for the year.Maybe in a week or two I'll post "On the nature of Law and Chaos (Or 'Law is not legal')"
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove.
there is more to heroes than simply alignment, and even the most evil and vicious of people, could have a reputation as a hero under the right circumstances. there is like literally 3 Prerequisites for a hero of any alignment
1. you have something that allows you to stand out compared to everyone else, whether a trait, power, deed or whatever
2. through whatever makes you stand out, you spread reputation of your accomplishments or others spread it for you
3. through your reputation, people try to emulate you
in other words, all it takes to be a hero, is the be distinguished enough to stand out, if we go by person of distinguished courage and ability as the primary definition
but, at times, the city guardsmen whom got the lucky crossbow bolt that killed the dragon, would be honored for his luck.
most RPG heroes, in just about any RPG, don't fit well with a good alignment, and even the most innocent, naive and idealistic of heroes, is going to take a few levels in Jaded Veteran if they intend to survive for long, in fact, most of the purehearted heroes that survived, were either not as purehearted as the romanticized tales describe them to be, are no longer as pure as they once were, or were mary sues with mountains of plot armor.
people shouldn't be afraid of allowing evil PCs. because our culture is loaded with stories and accounts of heroes of questionable morals, a lot of which, can be considered evil by some standard.
there is more to heroes than simply alignment, and even the most evil and vicious of people, could have a reputation as a hero under the right circumstances.
Absolutely. As I'm fond of pointing out, Evil should never just wake up and eat a basket of puppies, merely because 'that is what Evil does'. Evil people always have a solid motive for their actions. Villains, especially, are likely to view themselves as the hero of their own story.
Lex Luthor wants to rid the world of an alien interloper who could destroy it if he ever turned bad.
The Joker (Heath Ledger version) had a mission of enlightening the world to certain truths.
Smaug conquered the dwarves fair and square and was protecting his property.
Loki (Tom Hiddleston version) was going to turn Earth into a second Asgard - Just one that happened to be under his thumb. And prove his worth to his adoptive father at the same time.
But that doesn't make them Good.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if that's how you want to run the game, that's how heroes will have to be in your world. If I want to run a game where a pure heart and honor are the keys to victory, I can do that.
It's a game. There's no one way to do it.
Frankly, I find the cynical "No good deed goes unpunished", "every hero has feet of clay" style to be just as cliched and boring as the opposite.
THIS.
I love my heroes to have flaws, but I'm long past sick of "no good deed goes unpunished"-style misery porn all the damn time every damn time.
Frankly, one of the worst things a GM can do is to set out to try and make an idealistic PC cynical. Because hey, maybe that player actually wanted to play an idealistic hero!
Not everyone wants to play a "kill things and take their stuff" child-killing-apologist murderhobo. And it's damn infuriating when others insist they be forced into that role.
there is more to heroes than simply alignment, and even the most evil and vicious of people, could have a reputation as a hero under the right circumstances.Absolutely. As I'm fond of pointing out, Evil should never just wake up and eat a basket of puppies, merely because 'that is what Evil does'. Evil people always have a solid motive for their actions. Villains, especially, are likely to view themselves as the hero of their own story.
Lex Luthor wants to rid the world of an alien interloper who could destroy it if he ever turned bad.
The Joker (Heath Ledger version) had a mission of enlightening the world to certain truths.
Smaug conquered the dwarves fair and square and was protecting his property.
Loki (Tom Hiddleston version) was going to turn Earth into a second Asgard - Just one that happened to be under his thumb. And prove his worth to his adoptive father at the same time.
But that doesn't make them Good.
and even them, many evil aligned creatures work alongside the protagonists because their goals benefit each other's. wanton destruction for destruction's sake, isn't evil, it's stupid. what do you do when there is no longer anything to destroy?
Tyrants whom wish to conquer the world? what happens after they conquer the word? they have to have something to do after they accomplished their goals, something long term.
but yeah, "the no good deed goes unpunished misery porn" is just as bad as the "we are so happy we poop rainbows level of idealism porn" that creates a Mary Sue topia.
THIS.
I love my heroes to have flaws, but I'm long past sick of "no good deed goes unpunished"-style misery porn all the damn time every damn time.
Frankly, one of the worst things a GM can do is to set out to try and make an idealistic PC cynical. Because hey, maybe that player actually wanted to play an idealistic hero!
Not everyone wants to play a "kill things and take their stuff" child-killing-apologist murderhobo. And it's damn infuriating when others insist they be forced into that role.
i like my heroes to have flaws, like Mikaze, i'm not going to try to make an idealistic hero turn Cynical, but a lot of DMs i know, tend to push the "Misery Porn" as it's called to the point of making idealistic heroes a bad idea, and a lot of them, don't push these ideas till after they get an idealistic PC, just so they can pass idealism off as a bad idea.
and a lot of them, are the guys that strip paladins of their powers by forcing them in "you are screwed" scenarios, and a lot of them, are miserable themselves, so they write with a focus on misery.
i'm not a fan of either extreme, but heroes need flaws, and i mean more flaws than merely dumping charisma, anybody can dump charisma, and call it a flaw.
we get such things as "Child Abusing PCs" and "Women whom are so indiscriminate in their debasing of themselves and others, they break extreme laws."
|
|
Double False. War Crimes are only charged to the losers of a conflict, otherwise the United States would have been brought up on charges for the bombing of Dresden, a nonstrategic target whose sole reason for destruction was to get a test of the results of a new technique for creating something called a Firestorm. (and applied liberally to Tokyo) They wanted an untouched city to try this on, and there had never been any reason to bomb Dresden before or since.
The fact that the US (and other historical "winners") have been powerful enough to avoid prosecution for evil acts does not mean that the international community doesn't consider those acts evil, or that people in power never consider good and evil when making tactical decisions. The Heavy Water Sabotage mentioned earlier took the method of least possible casualties, for example.
people shouldn't be afraid of allowing evil PCs. because our culture is loaded with stories and accounts of heroes of questionable morals, a lot of which, can be considered evil by some standard.
Sure, as long as you're aware that you're playing an evil PC who happens to be sympathetic/likeable, not a Good PC.
Double False. War Crimes are only charged to the losers of a conflict, otherwise the United States would have been brought up on charges for the bombing of Dresden, a nonstrategic target whose sole reason for destruction was to get a test of the results of a new technique for creating something called a Firestorm. (and applied liberally to Tokyo) They wanted an untouched city to try this on, and there had never been any reason to bomb Dresden before or since.The fact that the US (and other historical "winners") have been powerful enough to avoid prosecution for evil acts does not mean that the international community doesn't consider those acts evil, or that people in power never consider good and evil when making tactical decisions. The Heavy Water Sabotage mentioned earlier took the method of least possible casualties, for example.
people shouldn't be afraid of allowing evil PCs. because our culture is loaded with stories and accounts of heroes of questionable morals, a lot of which, can be considered evil by some standard.Sure, as long as you're aware that you're playing an evil PC who happens to be sympathetic/likeable, not a Good PC.
sure, good doesn't always agree, evil doesn't always agree even neutral doesn't. there are moments where a party of mixed alignments have mixed perspectives and mixed approaches, that may conflict occasionally, for contrast, but as long as you aren't Aaron or Larry, it isn't a bad thing.
That's how he spins it. If you wait until he gets into full rant mode, you'll see that he's actually projecting his true feelings of inferiority and xenophobia, mixed up with classic sociopathy. Remember Luthor tends to kill innocents for no other reason than to flex his evil chops.
Lex Luthor wants to rid the world of an alien interloper who could destroy it if he ever turned bad.
Right. My point was that's how he views himself.
Let's start by understanding the methodology of GOOD and EVIL; the threads that oppose one another. Simply put GOOD is love, EVIL is hate. The two are incompatible and only cross on occasion in an act of repulsion.
The very ideology of GOOD is one of morality and love defining It in greater context. To be truly good one stays their "hand" so to speak from wickedness and the selfish acts of degradation that harms one self and others. Corruption is at the heart of EVIL. Where growth and production are at the heart of GOOD.
Good can also be construed as positive; Where evil could be construed as negative.
Playing an evil character is much more difficult than playing a good aligned one. By the very acts of evil the consequences will be severe and most co players will abandon or have to defeat you due to the repetitive negative impact you wll have on the outcome of th egame...even if it is geared towards evil parties. The very premesis of an evil characters character is generalized as non committed to working in groups and parties due to high level of chaos and distrust.
Playing good aligned characters involve participating together wholey as a group and offering support by good natured acts.
I personally could never play nor campaign with other players that are evil aligned. "Way tooo much drama..no siree!!!"
Right. My point was that's how he views himself.That's how he spins it. If you wait until he gets into full rant mode, you'll see that he's actually projecting his true feelings of inferiority and xenophobia, mixed up with classic sociopathy. Remember Luthor tends to kill innocents for no other reason than to flex his evil chops.
Lex Luthor wants to rid the world of an alien interloper who could destroy it if he ever turned bad.
Indeed.
The lies we tell ourselves are the psychological tools that enable us to do evil and still function as humans.
Right. My point was that's how he views himself.That's how he spins it. If you wait until he gets into full rant mode, you'll see that he's actually projecting his true feelings of inferiority and xenophobia, mixed up with classic sociopathy. Remember Luthor tends to kill innocents for no other reason than to flex his evil chops.
Lex Luthor wants to rid the world of an alien interloper who could destroy it if he ever turned bad.
Indeed.
The lies we tell ourselves are the psychological tools that enable us to do evil and still function as humans.
"Yeah, we rounded up and killed the civilians and then burned their village to the ground. I felt kind of bad about it, but they were giving shelter to the enemy, and this is war! I'm a good soldier. I was just following orders."
|
|
How do you decide where the border with neutral is?
How evil do you have to be to just barely count as evil and not neutral?
How good do you have to be to just scrape by and be called good instead of neutral?
Bit of a GM call / open for discussion. There was some conversation earlier in the thread over whether acts like giving a stranger a meal or a bit of your time is enough to qualify for "makes sacrifices to help others" and thus good alignment.
I personally would say that the determining factor is whether (1) you're giving more than you get and (2) you're giving enough that you'll feel the loss.
How do you decide where the border with neutral is?
How evil do you have to be to just barely count as evil and not neutral?
How good do you have to be to just scrape by and be called good instead of neutral?
Those are excellent questions, and the answers vary from group to group, since we don't have a real-life detect evil spell.
Which is different from the example, firing on a ship possibly filled with civilians, but definitely containing a WMD, and pulling the trigger. That is a legal order via the chain of command, a morally dubious order, possibly, but following it is a neutral act, slaughter of non-combatants is evil (yes even orcs), but followign orders that may lead to civilian death is a neutral act, giving the order may be evil, following it is neutral, but the same applies in reverse, following a good order is a neutral action, most of the time, you aren't going out of your way, the officer commanding is.Right. My point was that's how he views himself.That's how he spins it. If you wait until he gets into full rant mode, you'll see that he's actually projecting his true feelings of inferiority and xenophobia, mixed up with classic sociopathy. Remember Luthor tends to kill innocents for no other reason than to flex his evil chops.
Lex Luthor wants to rid the world of an alien interloper who could destroy it if he ever turned bad.
Indeed.
The lies we tell ourselves are the psychological tools that enable us to do evil and still function as humans.
"Yeah, we rounded up and killed the civilians and then burned their village to the ground. I felt kind of bad about it, but they were giving shelter to the enemy, and this is war! I'm a good soldier. I was just following orders."
That's a rough one. It implies that a soldier has no moral responsibilities for his own actions.
That's a rough one. It implies that a soldier has no moral responsibilities for his own actions.
Which is different from the example, firing on a ship possibly filled with civilians, but definitely containing a WMD, and pulling the trigger. That is a legal order via the chain of command, a morally dubious order, possibly, but following it is a neutral act, slaughter of non-combatants is evil (yes even orcs), but followign orders that may lead to civilian death is a neutral act, giving the order may be evil, following it is neutral, but the same applies in reverse, following a good order is a neutral action, most of the time, you aren't going out of your way, the officer commanding is.
I think applying the method described by Haladir here is relevant in this case.
Following an evil order = neutral intent, evil act = evil action.
Following a good order = neutral intent, good act = neutral action.
Now, going out of your way to misinterpret the order might shift things of course.
In my example of a soldier reluctantly following orders to commit war crimes, I'd go back to the "motive and act" split. Motive: Neutral (following orders out of respect for authority/sense of duty/fear of disobeying), Act: Evil (committing war crimes). Evil action.
To necro my own thread, a recent episode of Fargo has a very nice parable about why Good is hard.