The weirdest thing I've seen is someone who banned Neutral, because it was boring.Just true neutral, or did they ban the entire druid alignment spectrum?
I mean...I can underand. If you at least lean on one of the axises, you at least have something to work off of. Helpful, follower of rules, "I do what I want", sadist... you can easily find 'something'.
But yeah...it is likely because of a few too many lazy role players just saying "I'll just be neutral or whatever". You know the guys- the ones that just go on their iphones when NPCs are talking because they didn't point in diplomacy and dumped their CHA hard, and only come back when it is time to hit things with great sword or fireballs.
True Neutral 2nd ed style - I'd kind of agree with you.
But neutral because one simply doesn't care about alignment is straight neutral.
I played a bard that was neutral. He adventured because he's a narcissist who wants to become a legend, and his performance is telling others of his greatness. But he wants to get famous as a hero - saving the innocent etc. His main motivation for saving them is to be famous rather than caring too much. After saving someone and 'releasing them back into the wild' - his line is "Tell all your friends!" *wink*.
He's not good - because he's too narcissistic, and he'd do evil to save his own butt if he needed to. He's not evil because he typically avoids doing wrong if he can help it... bad for the image. And he really doesn't care much about the law - though again, he doesn't want to be seen breaking it much either.
So - straight neutral (NOT true neutral) - but not boring either.
I have to say, your Bard actually does sound kinda evil. He has no unselfish motivations, and only performs good to deceive people into thinking he's a hero. He doesn't publicly perform evil because of other people's opinions. Sounds like a classic psychopath to me.
It's also very possible to play "good" characters who are grossly disruptive to the game and played as bad caricatures as well. Like I said, the problem is not the alignment but the players OOC.Regardless of any other disagreement this is very true. If the group is going evil and that guy plays mr good, it is every bit as disruptive.
sometimes even the good aren't good enough , and have to be whipped into shape.
sometimes even the good aren't good enough , and have to be whipped into shape.
Kinky. What alignment is that and how many times do I need to cast Protection from Good/Evil/Chaos/Law if I want to modify my alignment to remain True Neutral while doing so?
probably lawful good, don't understand what protection from whatever has to do with anything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
probably lawful good, don't understand what protection from whatever has to do with anything.
Obviously if I'm doing an X alignment act I need to cast a spell with the opposite descriptor to undo the shift X did to my alignment. It's like being able nuke a town in Fallout 3 and still being a saint because you gave 10 bottles of water to a beggar. That's what I got from all the topics about Infernal Healing totes making you evil anyway; "evil" spells are evil acts therefore "good" spells are good acts and it just balances out.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As someone who does generally "ban" evil alignments (pending negotiation with the player, at least) I find it weird that some of you have said you just shouldn't play with the player who causes problems when they play an evil alignment.
Not every group's going to be the same, and not every player is a mature roleplayer yet. Sometimes, you need to help them along and teach them how to function in a cooperative RPG, or else they won't ever learn how to be better at it.
Develop your players!
Plus, sometimes you like the people you're playing with, and sometimes you don't have anyone else to play with. I don't know what your experience is, but I don't exactly have a huge bench of available talent just waiting to flood my games. I've got a lot of folks I can ask to join if I need someone, sure, but they're busy people. It doesn't usually work out.
(I have played some evil characters, myself, so I know they work well with the party if you get the right concept and play it decently. I just think that's a tall order for a lot of players to handle.)
As someone who does generally "ban" evil alignments (pending negotiation with the player, at least) I find it weird that some of you have said you just shouldn't play with the player who causes problems when they play an evil alignment.
Not every group's going to be the same, and not every player is a mature roleplayer yet. Sometimes, you need to help them along and teach them how to function in a cooperative RPG, or else they won't ever learn how to be better at it.
Develop your players!
Plus, sometimes you like the people you're playing with, and sometimes you don't have anyone else to play with. I don't know what your experience is, but I don't exactly have a huge bench of available talent just waiting to flood my games. I've got a lot of folks I can ask to join if I need someone, sure, but they're busy people. It doesn't usually work out.
(I have played some evil characters, myself, so I know they work well with the party if you get the right concept and play it decently. I just think that's a tall order for a lot of players to handle.)
I think that's the key there, developing the players. Remember, 'alignment issues' is really 'player issues blamed on game mechanic'. Especially talking to someone you think might be an issue when you see CN on their sheet. Is it someone who thinks CN is where to be to avoid being rebuked about playing to their alignment? Be gentle and as long as they're not a class that cracks down on alignment be reassuring that a little drift won't hurt them. Rebellious soul? Keep an eye out, and make sure any fricton remains fun for all involved. Nutball who wants to replace everyone's trail rations with Folger's crystals? Time to break out the long lectures.
You know, I think the most classically evil character I've ever managed to get away with was a paladin. No one is quite as good at being evil as the truly good. Especially when your deity has an oath with some wiggle room for violent action in it. Sure, I can't use poison, or torture folks, but I can intimidate, hold summary courts martial, execute the accused, and do all sorts of pretty wicked stuff, without ever breaking a law or violating a paladin's oath. Just because you're good, doesn't mean you have to be nice, after all.
So, if your GM won't let you be evil, be lawful good instead, and show them just how evil lawful good can be when taken to its crusading and utterly relentless extreme.
I would have to see it in actual play to be sure, I personally would be unlikely to allow that as described to be LG behavior.
This whole thread is why my games have Alignment (Caden Cayleen) and Alignment (Asmodeus) as opposed to Alignment (Chaotic Good) and Alignment (Lawful Evil), and those only apply to character who choose to take on that burden (be they clergy or just very faithful lay folk)
Totally stealing this.
I generally enjoy banning good alignments from my games, for philosophical reasons.
Meh. If you are going to do that you might as well borrow something vaguely like the humanity path mechanics from white wolf. The various morality roads and whatnot.
Hahaha! No thanks.
More than "evil" I'd say he's particularly harsh
|
I have to say, your Bard actually does sound kinda evil. He has no unselfish motivations, and only performs good to deceive people into thinking he's a hero. He doesn't publicly perform evil because of other people's opinions. Sounds like a classic psychopath to me.The weirdest thing I've seen is someone who banned Neutral, because it was boring.Just true neutral, or did they ban the entire druid alignment spectrum?
I mean...I can underand. If you at least lean on one of the axises, you at least have something to work off of. Helpful, follower of rules, "I do what I want", sadist... you can easily find 'something'.
But yeah...it is likely because of a few too many lazy role players just saying "I'll just be neutral or whatever". You know the guys- the ones that just go on their iphones when NPCs are talking because they didn't point in diplomacy and dumped their CHA hard, and only come back when it is time to hit things with great sword or fireballs.
True Neutral 2nd ed style - I'd kind of agree with you.
But neutral because one simply doesn't care about alignment is straight neutral.
I played a bard that was neutral. He adventured because he's a narcissist who wants to become a legend, and his performance is telling others of his greatness. But he wants to get famous as a hero - saving the innocent etc. His main motivation for saving them is to be famous rather than caring too much. After saving someone and 'releasing them back into the wild' - his line is "Tell all your friends!" *wink*.
He's not good - because he's too narcissistic, and he'd do evil to save his own butt if he needed to. He's not evil because he typically avoids doing wrong if he can help it... bad for the image. And he really doesn't care much about the law - though again, he doesn't want to be seen breaking it much either.
So - straight neutral (NOT true neutral) - but not boring either.
Psychopath - no. Sociopath - maybe. (admittedly - a blurry line) But that doesn't mean he's evil. I think your alignment is determined by actions - not intentions, and he's channeled his actions towards mostly goodness, though not for the best of motivations. Though of note - he doesn't do it just to convince people he's a hero. He does it partially to BE a hero. He wants to be famous for the right reasons. He doesn't tell lies about his exploits - which, with his Bluff would be far easier than actually doing them. (exaggerations sure - but not actual lies)
I mean - if you go by the motivations that people claim - Mao was a great guy! He just killed millions of people for the 'greater good'. A very Hobbes way to look at the world - ends justify the means. I think that's BS.
You know what what alignment someone's is by their actions - not their intentions. (Though of note - I wouldn't claim my bard was good despite doing far more good actions than evil ones.)
I'd say intentions factor into alignment, as motives and mentality are determinant for who someone truly is
Personally, I'd say action and intentions both factor into alignment.
On the topic of selfishness and self-interest, I think self-interest is a fundamentally neutral motivation. The character just wants to be a successful bard with a little fortune and glory to go along with it. It's no different from the farmer who only cares about growing his crops so he'll have enough to feed himself, and sell the rest to maybe buy an ox so next his farm will be even more productive.
Where self-interest crosses the line into selfishness (and evil) is when a character decides they're willing to step on other people in order to advance themselves. A bard who says "I want to win the singing contest at the Royal Festival for the gold prize and fame," he's neutral. When the bard says, "I want to win the singing contest at the Royal Festival for the gold prize and fame, so I better take out anyone who's good enough to challenge me," he's evil.
I'd say intentions factor into alignment, as motives and mentality are determinant for who someone truly is
No... intentions and words are both really bad ways to judge a person, it's why really bad people get away with SO much in real life, because people judge them on their intentions. "Officer this nice boy didn't mean to (insert serious crime) he was only trying to help! Show leniency since he is such a good boy."
I feel that alignment is a mix of action and words. However, I am also of the opinion that alignment is more trouble than it's worth.
I'd say intentions factor into alignment, as motives and mentality are determinant for who someone truly isNo... intentions and words are both really bad ways to judge a person, it's why really bad people get away with SO much in real life, because people judge them on their intentions. "Officer this nice boy didn't mean to (insert serious crime) he was only trying to help! Show leniency since he is such a good boy."
Except you can't lie to your alignment.
If I save someone because it's the right thing to do I'm Good, if I'm doing it for the prospect of a reward I'm Neutral.
In the end the actions are judged on 4 parameters: Action, Intent, Awareness, and Agency. What is most important CAN be up to debate, but saying one of them don't matter is delusion
I find that the "Champions of" line is really nice. In each book they have a full description of each alignment with a few examples of codes of conduct, not unlike a paladin, to give you an idea of how to play various types of characters under each alignment.
So, like in a Skull & Shackles game where all alignments are allowed, even Chaotic Evil, i have chosen to be Chaotic Neutral. I use the "rebel" code from Champions of Balance.
Some rebels are opposed to specific laws or rulers. Others just want to smash the cage of obedience that binds the mortal spirit. But whether the rebel is attempting to free a nation or just herself, she's never afraid to go against the grain to achieve what she believes is right.
If you are a rebel, you:
• May or may not have-or
need-a vision of what should
replace what you're destroying.
• Resent those who dare try to
hold authority over you.
• Can't stop fighting, even when
you probably should.
Code: It's better to die on your
feet than to live on your knees.
for the difference between action and intent determining your character look at the difference between greek and roman myths. the greeks thought intent was more important while the romans thought action was.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As GM I ban evil alignments in my games for two reasons. Primarily it is because I want my games to be about heroic adventuring not mercenary murderhoboing. Secondly, I've run enough games where evil PC's have pretty much ruined the entire thing for everyone and cause the game to fall apart.
|
Ok lets look at the tables that like secret agendas and lone wolves.
YOU can't predict how other players will feel about mr evil. They could be anything from interested to irritated to horrified. It's probably worse if it happens away from the party because now the players have to act like they don't know while adventuring with the evil nasty person. The game stops being fun while they watch you do horrible torture, murder, or worse while they can't stop you, the game becomes ALL about the evil guy and not about doing good deeds.
umh wait I think I spotted the problem here.
Do you feel that the usual natural flow of the story should be "a group doing good deeds"?
Because usually most of my games are less morally charged than that.
Obviously if a campaign is dictated by "doing the right thing" as the only motivating factor for the group, an evil character could be a difficult challenge to tackle.
But I feel it's pretty hard to motivate a group and is also way less engaging to make the goal just "morally acceptable" and not something more personal.
In the campaign I'm running (with mixed alignments) the BBEG is not just someone whose defeat is morally justified, nor is a threat for the whole world.
Is a threat for the group directly.
To let him succeed with his plans is to see their own utter an unavoidable demise.
It doesn't matter if they are evil or good, they are all very interested into stopping this from happening, and that is undeniably what the game is all about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's very possible for someone that's evil to do good deeds. Just less good deeds than evil deeds. And given that most adventurers are prone to killing, killing, and lots of killing, if they're not doing it out of altruism or whatever they're probably going to be evil.
|
|
It's very possible for someone that's evil to do good deeds. Just less good deeds than evil deeds. And given that most adventurers are prone to killing, killing, and lots of killing, if they're not doing it out of altruism or whatever they're probably going to be evil.
By that logic - wouldn't a soldier who is drafted and kills just because he has to evil? It's not altruism. He didn't volunteer. And if he's good at it - he'll do a lot of killing.
I don't see that being evil.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic - wouldn't a soldier who is drafted and kills just because he has to evil?
Depends.
If he enjoys his job, that could be evil.
If he hates it but does it anyway because it's what he it's what is expected of him that is probably a sign of lawful tendencies.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's very possible for someone that's evil to do good deeds. Just less good deeds than evil deeds. And given that most adventurers are prone to killing, killing, and lots of killing, if they're not doing it out of altruism or whatever they're probably going to be evil.By that logic - wouldn't a soldier who is drafted and kills just because he has to evil? It's not altruism. He didn't volunteer. And if he's good - he'll do a lot of killing.
I don't see that being evil.
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.
This doesn't prevent the soldier from still being good if they do good things like preforming heroic acts for their fellow man while in this forced service.
I could definitely see someone having a lot of moral stress over being forced to do things they're morally opposed to. I'm pretty sure that very thing has reached classic trope levels in media, concerning soldiers who have many regrets about the evils they were required to commit by their commanders and such, often with the alternative being executed. At which point it becomes about as much about survival for them as self defense, just much, much uglier.
|
|
As someone who does generally "ban" evil alignments (pending negotiation with the player, at least) I find it weird that some of you have said you just shouldn't play with the player who causes problems when they play an evil alignment.
Not every group's going to be the same, and not every player is a mature roleplayer yet. Sometimes, you need to help them along and teach them how to function in a cooperative RPG, or else they won't ever learn how to be better at it.
Develop your players!
Plus, sometimes you like the people you're playing with, and sometimes you don't have anyone else to play with. I don't know what your experience is, but I don't exactly have a huge bench of available talent just waiting to flood my games. I've got a lot of folks I can ask to join if I need someone, sure, but they're busy people. It doesn't usually work out.
(I have played some evil characters, myself, so I know they work well with the party if you get the right concept and play it decently. I just think that's a tall order for a lot of players to handle.)
Sometimes your best friends make the worst gamers. Also, some folks have no intention of developing, playing a disruptive character is what they want to do. There is a point where the effort to make the game work isnt worth it. That line is obviously different for each person/group.
There are alternatives to gaming that doesn't include gaming with asshats. Online, PFS, meetup.com, etc... Ill put more effort into finding folks I want to game with than coming to terms with folks I dont. That means sometimes not playing with family and friends whom I love.
It's very possible for someone that's evil to do good deeds. Just less good deeds than evil deeds.So it's okay to torture people every now and then along the way, as long as I *mostly* save people? I would still ping as Good?
You could say the reverse isn't true. Evil doesn't usually have trouble doing things considered good, if it serves their purposes. Good however doesn't usually want to commit evil acts even if it serves their purposes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very possible for someone that's evil to do good deeds. Just less good deeds than evil deeds.So it's okay to torture people every now and then along the way, as long as I *mostly* save people? I would still ping as Good?
Technically, yes. If your hero has a lapse in morality but still be heroic overall.
Good does not equal perfection. Just as Evil does not equal devoid of good qualities.
Alignment is a tool for developing your character's identity—it is not a straitjacket for restricting your character. Each alignment represents a broad range of personality types or personal philosophies, so two characters of the same alignment can still be quite different from each other. In addition, few people are completely consistent.
I feel many people started to evaluate alignments not for what they can potentially do, but for the wackiest stereotype they can think about it.
Why do so many people let some bad actors define what alignment are allowed in their campaigns?
I don't know if anyone has mentioned yet, but you can thank the old school alignment descriptions for those stereotypes:
Chaotic Neutral: Chaotic neutral characters believe that there is no order to anything, including their own actions. With this as a guiding principle, they tend to follow whatever whim strikes them at the moment. Good and evil are irrelevant when making a decision. Chaotic neutral characters are extremely difficult to deal with. Such characters have been known to cheerfully and for no apparent purpose gamble away everything they have on the roll of a single die. They are almost totally unreliable. In fact, the only reliable thing about them is that they cannot be relied upon! This alignment is perhaps the most difficult to play. Lunatics and madmen tend toward chaotic neutral behavior.
Chaotic Evil: These characters are the
bane of all that is good and organized. Chaotic evil characters are motivated by the desire for personal gain and pleasure. They see absolutely nothing wrong with taking whatever they want by whatever means possible. Laws and governments are the tools of weaklings unable to fend for themselves. The strong have the right to take what they want, and the weak are there to be exploited. When chaotic evil characters band together, they are not motivated by a desire to cooperate, but rather to oppose powerful enemies. Such a group can be held together only by a strong leader capable of bullying his underlings into obedience. Since leadership is based on raw power, a leader is likely to be replaced at the first sign of weakness by anyone who can take his position away from him by any method. Bloodthirsty buccaneers and monsters of low Intelligence are fine examples of chaotic evil personalities.
Obviously, alignment has changed quite a bit over the years, and there have been some very...quirky ideas written down in published books. As time goes on and fewer old-timers cleave to those quirky ideas, alignment becomes less of an issue. But echoes of some of these quirks are hanging on for dear life, even in modern D&D:
Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.
So, moral of the story: History and gaming culture can be a witch.
Except you can't lie to your alignment.I'd say intentions factor into alignment, as motives and mentality are determinant for who someone truly isNo... intentions and words are both really bad ways to judge a person, it's why really bad people get away with SO much in real life, because people judge them on their intentions. "Officer this nice boy didn't mean to (insert serious crime) he was only trying to help! Show leniency since he is such a good boy."
You don't have to lie to your alignment, just your GM.
If intent was the rule than LG character can behave CE all he wants as long as he can smooth talk the GM into believing his character was intending to do good.Action is the only REAL foundation we humans have to judge alignment by. Everything else is loose sand.
Ok lets look at the tables that like secret agendas and lone wolves.
YOU can't predict how other players will feel about mr evil. They could be anything from interested to irritated to horrified. It's probably worse if it happens away from the party because now the players have to act like they don't know while adventuring with the evil nasty person. The game stops being fun while they watch you do horrible torture, murder, or worse while they can't stop you, the game becomes ALL about the evil guy and not about doing good deeds.
umh wait I think I spotted the problem here.
Do you feel that the usual natural flow of the story should be "a group doing good deeds"?
I was building on someones earlier example of an evil character in a good party. It applies to anyone playing an outlier alignment against the group. Like mr good in the evil party is disruptive.
I'd agree that if you are trying to play an evil campaign and one of the players wants to play a good character, that's going to be at least as disruptive as the usual problem. Maybe even more so.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very possible for someone that's evil to do good deeds. Just less good deeds than evil deeds.
Careful—when we try to fit characters into the "49% good, 51% evil" ruleset, we quickly fall into "fifty orphanages burned down, fifty saved, True Neutral" sorts of problems.
It doesn't matter if the vast majority of deeds someone does are Good if he's also fine with doing Evil deeds if the circumstances warrant. That's pretty much the most classic instance of a sympathetically evil character.
You can be Evil and commit Good acts all the time, as long as you still have that Evil expressed either through your motivations ("Save the orphanages to gain the favor of the king") or rare reveals of cruelty ("This farmer's too scared of the Orphan Burning Mafia to tell me where they're gonna hit next. Get me my bamboo splinters"). There's no, "You haven't done anything evil in this dungeon crawl, you are no longer evil."
A "lapse of morality" can only go so far. One killed baby isn't a moral lapse, it's a moral event horizon.
There's nothing wrong with a Lawful Evil hero who occasionally commits evil acts and otherwise tries to stay good. Nothing's forcing Evil characters to be comfortable being evil, nor to be consistently so. That said, I have a simple rule for judging a moral lapse:
"If I were put in the same situation again, I would not do that thing."
If there is genuine regret, and a genuine lesson learned, the alignment can stay the same. If there is not (or if they genuinely regret it but will still resort to it when the time comes), the alignment being at Good is inaccurate. That's why the barbarian who occasionally flips out and beats his loved ones nearly to death is Chaotic Evil: He may regret it, but he still does make the same "lapse" again and again and again.
You don't have to lie to your alignment, just your GM.
If intent was the rule than LG character can behave CE all he wants as long as he can smooth talk the GM into believing his character was intending to do good.
Good thing we don't play with those people. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's why the barbarian who occasionally flips out and beats his loved ones nearly to death is Chaotic Evil: He may regret it, but he still does make the same "lapse" again and again and again.
I'm totally with you. I'd just point out that - as in the most famous case of that (Hercules) - it doesn't affect your alignment if you're under magical compulsion.
There intent obviously does matter. (unless the knowledge of what you did drives you into madness and you go kill more innocents or some such - then the later killings do affect alignment)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously, the dividing line on what degree of out-of-alignment action is required to cause an alignment shift is something that's prone to a lot of YMMV. There can't really be any universal rule on what it takes to earn an alignment shift, since every single example is highly context-dependent and probably depends on the moral views of the people involved in the debate. Instead, I'll just toss out two general principles.
1: Generally, isolated acts do not cause alignment shifts. If a character is consistently Lawful Good up until the point where he, say, roughs someone up to get the information they need to save a dozen orphans, and afterwards continues to act LG, they're still LG.
2: That said, extreme acts can prompt an immediate alignment shift. If a character saves those dozen orphans, but then sacrifice one of them to the Dark Gods for power, he can't still claim to be good because he saved 11/12 orphans.
It's very possible for someone that's evil to do good deeds. Just less good deeds than evil deeds.So it's okay to torture people every now and then along the way, as long as I *mostly* save people? I would still ping as Good?
Absolutely. Of course it also matter why. If you are torturing to get your rocks off and saving people to maintain your cover you are evil. (Think the Comedian from Watchmen.) If you are torturing the evil cultist so you can find out where the sacrifices are being held, then yes you can still be considered one of the good guys overall.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's very possible for someone that's evil to do good deeds. Just less good deeds than evil deeds.
Careful—when we try to fit characters into the "49% good, 51% evil" ruleset, we quickly fall into "fifty orphanages burned down, fifty saved, True Neutral" sorts of problems.
It doesn't matter if the vast majority of deeds someone does are Good if he's also fine with doing Evil deeds if the circumstances warrant. That's pretty much the most classic instance of a sympathetically evil character.
You can be Evil and commit Good acts all the time, as long as you still have that Evil expressed either through your motivations ("Save the orphanages to gain the favor of the king") or rare reveals of cruelty ("This farmer's too scared of the Orphan Burning Mafia to tell me where they're gonna hit next. Get me my bamboo splinters"). There's no, "You haven't done anything evil in this dungeon crawl, you are no longer evil."
A "lapse of morality" can only go so far. One killed baby isn't a moral lapse, it's a moral event horizon.
There's nothing wrong with a Lawful Evil hero who occasionally commits evil acts and otherwise tries to stay good. Nothing's forcing Evil characters to be comfortable being evil, nor to be consistently so. That said, I have a simple rule for judging a moral lapse:
"If I were put in the same situation again, I would not do that thing."
If there is genuine regret, and a genuine lesson learned, the alignment can stay the same. If there is not (or if they genuinely regret it but will still resort to it when the time comes), the alignment being at Good is inaccurate. That's why the barbarian who occasionally flips out and beats his loved ones nearly to death is Chaotic Evil: He may regret it, but he still does make the same "lapse" again and again and again.
The problem is this is essentially how D&D/PF alignment works. It's based on whatever your norm is. Likewise, to do evil once and then not do it again would basically mean you kill once and stop forever. I mean if you kill someone, like an orc, to save a peasant you can regret the fact you had to end the life of a sentient creature but you have opted to do so and may opt to do so again should the same arise.
In Pathfinder there's no rules for moral event horizons. A moral event horizon is about forgiveness in the eyes of the audience.
There's no rules for any of this stuff. ;P
|
There's an old saying that goes something like "One evil act can forever wipe out a lifetime of good"
Again, it's all about perception.
We currently think its evil to lock people into insane asylums or chemically castrate them because they're homosexual or they get caught in the act of self pleasuring.
However, for a long time that was actually considered not only the norm, but was considered to be helping people overcome a mental disease. That act was indeed considered good.
Times change and so does perception.
During Greek and Roman times slavery wasn't considered evil. It was part of life and accepted as a consequence of losing war or becoming indebted. People who owned slaves or captured slaves weren't considered evil for the majority of society.
Recently there was a war were a country invaded another country under false pretences. IT was shown that the governments knew their pretence for the war was false after the act. The enemy were considered evil and many were locked away without trial. The soldiers on one side were treated as heroes, the soldiers on the other were considered evil people perpetrating an evil regime.
Both sides committed atrocities during the war. I'm pretty confident the majority of the people in both armies were just folk fighting for they thought was the right thing. Both sides had folks willing to commit evil acts, and arguably both Governments acted with Evil intent.
Depending who you talk to depends on who the evil ones are.