Why Is Evil Being Good So Important To Some People...


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

401 to 450 of 904 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
amethal wrote:


But there is no practical difference between "no reason that we can determine" and "no reason".
I don't even know how to respond to a statement so foolish.

Rolling eyes often helps.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

This entire thread is a catastrophic case of people talking past one another. Note to self: Alignment threads BAD.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, there's a pretty big difference. That said, being intentionally patronizing isn't helping anybody.

I'm more concerned with the idea of a solid idea. How do you make something that's metaphysical physical without loosing all sense of the thing in the first place.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
This entire thread is a catastrophic case of people talking past one another. Note to self: Alignment threads BAD.

Things that never seem to make good threads

1. Alignment
2. Paladin codes
3. Druid codes
4. Adamantine
5. "Hands"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
I'm more concerned with the idea of a solid idea. How do you make something that's metaphysical physical without loosing all sense of the thing in the first place.

I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but I suspect it's more of that talking past each other again.


In an objective alignment world, are there aligned subatomic particles?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
amethal wrote:


But there is no practical difference between "no reason that we can determine" and "no reason".
I don't even know how to respond to a statement so foolish.

Protip: DON'T.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm amused that objective morality would shatter anyone's verisimilitude in a game with literal gods and demons.

Except the "gods" in Pathfinder are nothing of the sort. At least not in the modern western understanding. They're not omnipotent, they're not omniscient, and they didn't create the universe. They're mostly just people with a bigger stick.

"Atheists" in Golarion don't deny the obvious evidence that those beings exist; they deny that those beings are worthy of worship.

I wish more people understood this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ventnor wrote:
In an objective alignment world, are there aligned subatomic particles?

I suppose in theory there could be. I think that's something like what pH unbalanced was describing.

It's certainly not necessary. It's far more of a pseudo-sciencey explanation than I like with my fantasy.

People in the real world who believe in objective morality generally don't talk about particles, but about God.

In a fantasy setting, you can just talk about evil without bringing pseudo-science into it. It's not like midichlorians made anyone happier about the Force.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
I'm amused that objective morality would shatter anyone's verisimilitude in a game with literal gods and demons.

Except the "gods" in Pathfinder are nothing of the sort. At least not in the modern western understanding. They're not omnipotent, they're not omniscient, and they didn't create the universe. They're mostly just people with a bigger stick.

"Atheists" in Golarion don't deny the obvious evidence that those beings exist; they deny that those beings are worthy of worship.

I wish more people understood this.

Reminds me of the gods in Dragaera, since I just read one of those. The Easterners worship them, the Dragaerans respect their power and sometimes serve them, but do not worship them.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Now...if you want to debate *why* having your soul coated in evil tends to make you behave in a vile manner, then we have an interesting conversation.

Perhaps evil is like a heavy metal for the soul. Evil poisoning being equivalent to lead poisoning. Chaos to mercury poisoning.

We've touched on bits of that earlier, but foundered again on "The rules don't actually say that it does".
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.

Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Now...if you want to debate *why* having your soul coated in evil tends to make you behave in a vile manner, then we have an interesting conversation.

Perhaps evil is like a heavy metal for the soul. Evil poisoning being equivalent to lead poisoning. Chaos to mercury poisoning.

We've touched on bits of that earlier, but foundered again on "The rules don't actually say that it does".
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

But that's just more arbitrary words. Why do you need rage to use force lighting? Why does emotion lead to the Dark Side?

Which also pushes the "Is the Dark Side evil?" question.


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Now...if you want to debate *why* having your soul coated in evil tends to make you behave in a vile manner, then we have an interesting conversation.

Perhaps evil is like a heavy metal for the soul. Evil poisoning being equivalent to lead poisoning. Chaos to mercury poisoning.

We've touched on bits of that earlier, but foundered again on "The rules don't actually say that it does".
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

But that's just more arbitrary words. Why do you need rage to use force lighting? Why does emotion lead to the Dark Side?

Which also pushes the "Is the Dark Side evil?" question.

Going by the lore and the RPG materials, essentially to be a proper Light Side Force user, you essentially have to be going for the Vulcan ideal of Kohlinar. Emotions,both positive and negative are a distraction from the Light Side's ideal of serenity. The method of Force Lightning involves feeding off your internal rage, so that's about as Dark Side as you can get.

Being of the Light side has nothing to do with being good. A Force-using assassin who maintains a cold level-headed demeanor can be just as much a light-sider as Ben Kenobi.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Now...if you want to debate *why* having your soul coated in evil tends to make you behave in a vile manner, then we have an interesting conversation.

Perhaps evil is like a heavy metal for the soul. Evil poisoning being equivalent to lead poisoning. Chaos to mercury poisoning.

We've touched on bits of that earlier, but foundered again on "The rules don't actually say that it does".
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

But that's just more arbitrary words. Why do you need rage to use force lighting? Why does emotion lead to the Dark Side?

Which also pushes the "Is the Dark Side evil?" question.

Going by the lore and the RPG materials, essentially to be a proper Light Side Force user, you essentially have to be going for the Vulcan ideal of Kohlinar. Emotions,both positive and negative are a distraction from the Light Side's ideal of serenity. The method of Force Lightning involves feeding off your internal rage, so that's about as Dark Side as you can get.

Being of the Light side has nothing to do with being good. A Force-using assassin who maintains a cold level-headed demeanor can be just as much a light-sider as Ben Kenobi.

Whereas even love or righteous anger leaves you a servant of the Emperor, for reasons I've never understood.

But I'm pretty sure that interpretation exists only in the EU stuff, not in the original conception or movies. Probably largely because of fan arguments like this one. :)


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Now...if you want to debate *why* having your soul coated in evil tends to make you behave in a vile manner, then we have an interesting conversation.

Perhaps evil is like a heavy metal for the soul. Evil poisoning being equivalent to lead poisoning. Chaos to mercury poisoning.

We've touched on bits of that earlier, but foundered again on "The rules don't actually say that it does".
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

But that's just more arbitrary words. Why do you need rage to use force lighting? Why does emotion lead to the Dark Side?

Which also pushes the "Is the Dark Side evil?" question.

Going by the lore and the RPG materials, essentially to be a proper Light Side Force user, you essentially have to be going for the Vulcan ideal of Kohlinar. Emotions,both positive and negative are a distraction from the Light Side's ideal of serenity. The method of Force Lightning involves feeding off your internal rage, so that's about as Dark Side as you can get.

Being of the Light side has nothing to do with being good. A Force-using assassin who maintains a cold level-headed demeanor can be just as much a light-sider as Ben Kenobi.

Whereas even love or righteous anger leaves you a servant of the Emperor, for reasons I've never understood.

But I'm pretty sure that interpretation exists only in the EU stuff, not in the original conception or movies. Probably largely because of fan arguments like this one. :)

Yoda does caution against strong emotion in Empire; it kind of gets immediately rolled over by fear leading to hate and hate leading to the dark side, but it's there. I would have loved it if the prequel trilogy had explored the Jedi code as repression is the key to enlightenment, but we got space hippies instead.

Why is my first post on the thread about Star Wars? Because I've been following it for all 9 pages and I still can't tell if we're discussing players not understanding the repercussions of their characters' actions, or whether or not an evil alignment is a valid character choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I don't think the real world works by objective morality. I have no problem with a fantasy world having one. I have no problem with magic having its own moral rules and definitions.
Indeed, but I have a problem with a stupid rule like 'rocks are happy' or 'evil spells are evil because I say so'.

Would you have a problem with a brief writeup of a deity that said "Paroz - LE - Domains: Fire, Sun, Community, Law"? I'm not told why he's evil and there's no reason that those domains are associated with evil.

I'm guessing that because deities have intelligence, you'd say there are motives or something that explains the evil. In other words, there's reasons not revealed in the writeup. That's the way I (and I think many of the folks on the opposite side of this discussion) feel about evil spells. They're telling us something through the fact that it's evil. From a rules perspective, it's the originator. From an in-world perspective there's more to it than we know right now and it's the responsibility of the GM to flesh it out if that's not a satisfactory answer.

Edit: to be clear, not the spells have intelligence. That the full extent of the spell's effect on the universe isn't included. Just like how fireballs presumably lead to infinitesimal global warming by adding a bit of heat to the world.


thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I'm more concerned with the idea of a solid idea. How do you make something that's metaphysical physical without loosing all sense of the thing in the first place.
I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but I suspect it's more of that talking past each other again.

Well, evil is objective in this universe right? Demons and devil's are made of the stuff apparently. What is solid idea? How does the idea of evil become a sentient creature. What changes about an idea when it becomes something that is explicitly not an idea anymore?

Is that more clear?


Hitdice wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

But that's just more arbitrary words. Why do you need rage to use force lighting? Why does emotion lead to the Dark Side?

Which also pushes the "Is the Dark Side evil?" question.

Going by the lore and the RPG materials, essentially to be a proper Light Side Force user, you essentially have to be going for the Vulcan ideal of Kohlinar. Emotions,both positive and negative are a distraction from the Light Side's ideal of serenity. The method of Force Lightning involves feeding off your internal rage, so that's about as Dark Side as you can get.

Being of the Light side has nothing to do with being good. A Force-using assassin who maintains a cold level-headed demeanor can be just as much a light-sider as Ben Kenobi.

Whereas even love or righteous anger leaves you a servant of the Emperor, for reasons I've never understood.

But I'm pretty sure that interpretation exists only in the EU stuff, not in the original conception or movies. Probably largely because of fan arguments like this one. :)

Yoda does caution against strong emotion in Empire; it kind of gets immediately rolled over by fear leading to hate and hate leading to the dark side, but it's there. I would have loved it if the prequel trilogy had explored the Jedi code as repression is the key to enlightenment, but we got space hippies instead.

Why is my first post on the thread about Star Wars? Because I've been following it for all 9 pages and I still can't tell if we're discussing players not understanding the repercussions of their characters' actions, or whether or not an evil alignment is a valid character choice.

Yeah, it's hinted at, but as you say, only negative emotions are actually addressed. And it's never explicitly stated, but the Dark Side is definitely presented as evil and the Light as good.

Because the movies are basically straightforward space opera/epic fantasy, with little focus on ethical implications or deep philosophical underpinnings. Black and white. Good guys and bad guys. Fall and redemption.
The fans and some of the EU authors took all the world-building and metaphysics far more seriously than it was ever intended.
As we're doing here.

as far as this thread, I don't think we're discussing either.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What people aren't allowed to take the world-building and metaphysics more seriously than Lucas did, just because he made up the story? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I'm more concerned with the idea of a solid idea. How do you make something that's metaphysical physical without loosing all sense of the thing in the first place.
I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but I suspect it's more of that talking past each other again.

Well, evil is objective in this universe right? Demons and devil's are made of the stuff apparently. What is solid idea? How does the idea of evil become a sentient creature. What changes about an idea when it becomes something that is explicitly not an idea anymore?

Is that more clear?

Are they actually made out of evil? They are evil. They are, at least in most cases, born from mortal souls.

But more generally, whether they're actually made of evil or not, evil isn't an just an idea in the setting. There are places, lower planes, that are evil. It's not that the idea of evil becomes a physical thing and somehow changes. We get our poor understanding of evil (your idea) from that real pre-existent thing. Think Platonic ideals.

Alternately, it's not clear to me what "solid" even means in the context of the outer planes. Souls go there and can be directly interacted with - tortured for example. Souls aren't ideas, but they also aren't physical things. In the outer planes though, they seem to have physical existence. Does that mean some other body is built up out of some planar matter around the soul or is the nature of those planes and the creatures there more like souls already?


Hitdice wrote:
What people aren't allowed to take the world-building and metaphysics more seriously than Lucas did, just because he made up the story? :P

You're allowed to do whatever you want.

My real point is that Star Wars works despite not being even vaguely rigorous about this kind of thing.
I'm not at all sure that the kind of philosophizing that makes Jedi just as much the villains as the Sith (or as the Emperor, since the Sith were basically just a word until the prequels) actually improves the story.
Mind you this would be a better argument had the prequels lived up to the original trilogy, but I'm still pretty sure that's not why.

In much the same way, Pathfinder works as the adventure game it's designed for despite (and possibly because) of its failings at world simulation.


thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I'm more concerned with the idea of a solid idea. How do you make something that's metaphysical physical without loosing all sense of the thing in the first place.
I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but I suspect it's more of that talking past each other again.

Well, evil is objective in this universe right? Demons and devil's are made of the stuff apparently. What is solid idea? How does the idea of evil become a sentient creature. What changes about an idea when it becomes something that is explicitly not an idea anymore?

Is that more clear?

Are they actually made out of evil? They are evil. They are, at least in most cases, born from mortal souls.

But more generally, whether they're actually made of evil or not, evil isn't an just an idea in the setting. There are places, lower planes, that are evil. It's not that the idea of evil becomes a physical thing and somehow changes. We get our poor understanding of evil (your idea) from that real pre-existent thing. Think Platonic ideals.

Alternately, it's not clear to me what "solid" even means in the context of the outer planes. Souls go there and can be directly interacted with - tortured for example. Souls aren't ideas, but they also aren't physical things. In the outer planes though, they seem to have physical existence. Does that mean some other body is built up out of some planar matter around the soul or is the nature of those planes and the creatures there more like souls already?

I don't think it matters what a soul is or isn't (largely because the idea of soul isn't well defined in reality, never mind pen and paper), only that a devil can be summoned to the material plane and demons and devil's don't have a dualistic nature explicitly. Because they don't have a dualistic nature, they must be made of whatever there soul is. Since a demon is more or less his soul and he is explicitly pure evil, it follows that this soul stuff is evil itself. So what are we even talking about anymore? Can we even define evil anymore with these weird interactions?

I don't know.


Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
I'm more concerned with the idea of a solid idea. How do you make something that's metaphysical physical without loosing all sense of the thing in the first place.
I'm not sure what you're responding to there, but I suspect it's more of that talking past each other again.

Well, evil is objective in this universe right? Demons and devil's are made of the stuff apparently. What is solid idea? How does the idea of evil become a sentient creature. What changes about an idea when it becomes something that is explicitly not an idea anymore?

Is that more clear?

Are they actually made out of evil? They are evil. They are, at least in most cases, born from mortal souls.

But more generally, whether they're actually made of evil or not, evil isn't an just an idea in the setting. There are places, lower planes, that are evil. It's not that the idea of evil becomes a physical thing and somehow changes. We get our poor understanding of evil (your idea) from that real pre-existent thing. Think Platonic ideals.

Alternately, it's not clear to me what "solid" even means in the context of the outer planes. Souls go there and can be directly interacted with - tortured for example. Souls aren't ideas, but they also aren't physical things. In the outer planes though, they seem to have physical existence. Does that mean some other body is built up out of some planar matter around the soul or is the nature of those planes and the creatures there more like souls already?

I don't think it matters what a soul is or isn't (largely because the idea of soul isn't well defined in reality, never mind pen and paper), only that a devil can be summoned to the material plane and demons and devil's don't have a dualistic nature explicitly. Because they don't have a dualistic nature, they must be made of whatever there soul is. Since a demon is more or less his soul and he is explicitly pure evil, it follows that this soul...

This could be resolved with the aligned subatomic particles idea. A devil's being is made up of eviltrons and lawtrons. The way that those particles act at a fundamental level is what makes evil evil and law law.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:
What people aren't allowed to take the world-building and metaphysics more seriously than Lucas did, just because he made up the story? :P

They are. People have been telling other people "if it bothers you, house rule it" since the first page of this chemical fire of a thread.

Apparently that's not enough, though, and there are people who insist on sending Lucas to a re-education camp, or rewriting the SW movies Ministry-of-Truth style.

starwars reporting doubleplusungood refs unconcepts reshoot fullwise upsub antefilling


Hitdice wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Now...if you want to debate *why* having your soul coated in evil tends to make you behave in a vile manner, then we have an interesting conversation.

Perhaps evil is like a heavy metal for the soul. Evil poisoning being equivalent to lead poisoning. Chaos to mercury poisoning.

We've touched on bits of that earlier, but foundered again on "The rules don't actually say that it does".
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

But that's just more arbitrary words. Why do you need rage to use force lighting? Why does emotion lead to the Dark Side?

Which also pushes the "Is the Dark Side evil?" question.

Going by the lore and the RPG materials, essentially to be a proper Light Side Force user, you essentially have to be going for the Vulcan ideal of Kohlinar. Emotions,both positive and negative are a distraction from the Light Side's ideal of serenity. The method of Force Lightning involves feeding off your internal rage, so that's about as Dark Side as you can get.

Being of the Light side has nothing to do with being good. A Force-using assassin who maintains a cold level-headed demeanor can be just as much a light-sider as Ben Kenobi.

Whereas even love or righteous anger leaves you a servant of the Emperor, for reasons I've never understood.

But I'm pretty sure that interpretation exists only in the EU stuff, not in the original conception or movies. Probably largely because of fan arguments like this one. :)

Yoda does caution against strong emotion in Empire; it kind of gets immediately rolled over by fear leading...

The main reasons Anakin does fall is for love... His rage against the loss of his mother, and the prophesised death of his wife.


thejeff wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
What people aren't allowed to take the world-building and metaphysics more seriously than Lucas did, just because he made up the story? :P

You're allowed to do whatever you want.

My real point is that Star Wars works despite not being even vaguely rigorous about this kind of thing.
I'm not at all sure that the kind of philosophizing that makes Jedi just as much the villains as the Sith (or as the Emperor, since the Sith were basically just a word until the prequels) actually improves the story.
Mind you this would be a better argument had the prequels lived up to the original trilogy, but I'm still pretty sure that's not why.

In much the same way, Pathfinder works as the adventure game it's designed for despite (and possibly because) of its failings at world simulation.

I get what your saying about Star Wars not being rigorous about it, but I think that's a difference between movies and RPGs. Every Star Wars RPG I've ever played has much more robust light side/dark side mechanics than D&D/PF alignment.

Forgive the stupid question, but how would the philosophizing make the Jedi just as villainous as the Sith?

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hitdice wrote:


Forgive the stupid question, but how would the philosophizing make the Jedi just as villainous as the Sith?

In summary - it's because taken to the extreme

emotions = bad

greater good = only good

etc.

can end up with Jedi being a sort of Big Brother sort of thing. After all - freedom = bad anyway, so if they have to take away yours for the greater good...

I've even heard an argument that that's why the tech in the old republic in KOTR etc is pretty much the same as 1000+ years later: their culture & technology have stagnated.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

4 people marked this as a favorite.
bugleyman wrote:
This entire thread is a catastrophic case of people talking past one another. Note to self: Alignment threads BAD.

Would you say that alignment threads are... [evil]? YEEEAAAAHHHHH


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Hitdice wrote:


Forgive the stupid question, but how would the philosophizing make the Jedi just as villainous as the Sith?

In summary - it's because taken to the extreme

emotions = bad

greater good = only good

etc.

can end up with Jedi being a sort of Big Brother sort of thing. After all - freedom = bad anyway, so if they have to take away yours for the greater good...

I've even heard an argument that that's why the tech in the old republic in KOTR etc is pretty much the same as 1000+ years later: their culture & technology have stagnated.

Along with the whole "bring balance to the force" thing meaning they need more Dark side, less Light side control.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
thejeff wrote:
pH unbalanced wrote:

Now...if you want to debate *why* having your soul coated in evil tends to make you behave in a vile manner, then we have an interesting conversation.

Perhaps evil is like a heavy metal for the soul. Evil poisoning being equivalent to lead poisoning. Chaos to mercury poisoning.

We've touched on bits of that earlier, but foundered again on "The rules don't actually say that it does".
I'm just surprised at the lack of Dark Side references. After all - why would force lighting be inherently more evil than stabbing someone with a plasma sword? It makes the same amount of sense.

Plasma swords can be used to kill cleanly. Force Lightening, if I recall correctly, specifically targets nerve endings to make the subject feel excruciating pain.

thejeff wrote:

People in the real world who believe in objective morality generally don't talk about particles, but about God.

Not necessarily. See Aristotle.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

Passion is a conduit to the Dark Side, because it clouds reason, makes serenity impossible, and thus, good judgement. It's not "emotion" in itself. Luke

The Expanded Universe had made that pretty clear with the New Jedi Order before f-ing Disney decided to throw all in trash.

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Being of the Light side has nothing to do with being good. A Force-using assassin who maintains a cold level-headed demeanor can be just as much a light-sider as Ben Kenobi.

Um, not really. Respect for all forms of life is a basic tenet of the Light. Jedi only use violence as a last resort. The movies try to make that clear, tough it's easy to miss.

thejeff wrote:
Whereas even love or righteous anger leaves you a servant of the Emperor, for reasons I've never understood.

*sigh* Let's go.

It was not love that drove Anakin to the Emperor. It was the fear of loss. Anakin didn't want to lose Padme, and that eventually drove him to slaughter children for the promise of eternal life/ressurection.

Compare Luke. He loved Leia. The Emperor tried to use Leia as a bait to make him feel wrath, despair and fear and turn over to the Dark Side. It didn't work.

The only "love" that leads to the Dark Side is the kind that says "I'd rather watch the world burn than lose you".

The Dark Side is all about emotions, because it's all about "me". It's selfishness without any consideration for the other. If I feel angry, it doesn't matter if the person didn't mean to offend me, or that it wasn't even a offense to begin with. In fact, it doesn't even matter if this person really offended me or someone that looks a lot like her. I feel offended, and thus angry, and I am entitled to let it loose.

If I want something, it's mine. If I despise something, it has no right to exist. And so it goes.

thejeff wrote:
Along with the whole "bring balance to the force" thing meaning they need more Dark side, less Light side control.

Considering that the prophecy is fulfilled when Anakin gets rid of the Emperor and of Vader (By repeting his actions as a Sith), that's a pretty... creative idea.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Patrick C. wrote:


Plasma swords can be used to kill cleanly. Force Lightening, if I recall correctly, specifically targets nerve endings to make the subject feel excruciating pain.

And yet Obi Wan didn't go to the dark side when he cut off Anakin's arm, chopped off his legs, and left him to slowly burn to death next to lava, obviously screaming in agony?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have heard that last bit by jeff before, and it was mentioned in some fiction I read. There is a thin thread to it in phantom menace when mace windu mentioned that the Jedi connection to the force has weakened over time, but that was reaching even in the fiction.

Also expanded universe still exists as star wars legends. Noone from disney has come to my house to take away my stuff as of yet.

Also, what the hell does this have to do with the topic? How did we get on star wars?


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:


Plasma swords can be used to kill cleanly. Force Lightening, if I recall correctly, specifically targets nerve endings to make the subject feel excruciating pain.
And yet Obi Wan didn't go to the dark side when he cut off Anakin's arm, chopped off his legs, and left him to slowly burn to death next to lava, obviously screaming in agony?

Did he enjoy doing it? Was he the aggressor? Did he cause unnecessary pain, or just let Anakin follow the path of his own choice?

I mean, I don't want to sound inflammatory here, but this is like saying that a cop that kills on duty while under fire is the same as a sadistic serial killer that targets teenagers. There are something called circumstances that need to be taken into account.


Patrick C. wrote:
thejeff wrote:
People in the real world who believe in objective morality generally don't talk about particles, but about God.
Not necessarily. See Aristotle.
I did say generally, but point taken.
Patrick C. wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Because it takes rage to use Force Lightning, and emotion is a conduit to the Dark Side.

Passion is a conduit to the Dark Side, because it clouds reason, makes serenity impossible, and thus, good judgement. It's not "emotion" in itself. Luke

The Expanded Universe had made that pretty clear with the New Jedi Order before f-ing Disney decided to throw all in trash.

The EU added a lot of stuff that wasn't in the original movies, as I think I said earlier. Often while trying to explain or justify the exact kinds of things we're talking about in this thread.

Patrick C. wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Whereas even love or righteous anger leaves you a servant of the Emperor, for reasons I've never understood.

*sigh* Let's go.

It was not love that drove Anakin to the Emperor. It was the fear of loss. Anakin didn't want to lose Padme, and that eventually drove him to slaughter children for the promise of eternal life/ressurection.

Compare Luke. He loved Leia. The Emperor tried to use Leia as a bait to make him feel wrath, despair and fear and turn over to the Dark Side. It didn't work.

The only "love" that leads to the Dark Side is the kind that says "I'd rather watch the world burn than lose you".

The Dark Side is all about emotions, because it's all about "me". It's selfishness without any consideration for the other. If I feel angry, it doesn't matter if the person didn't mean to offend me, or that it wasn't even a offense to begin with. In fact, it doesn't even matter if this person really offended me or someone that looks a lot like her. I feel offended, and thus angry, and I am entitled to let it loose.

If I want something, it's mine. If I despise something, it has no right to exist. And so it goes.

Agreed. Sort of. They showed negative emotions leading to the Dark Side. They said emotion led to the Dark Side. The Jedi preached and practiced detachment.

Vader spent half the trilogy trying to get Luke to give in to anger against him and the Emperor, so that Luke would turn to the Dark Side and join them. That's not "selfish anger even though the person didn't really do anything wrong". Anger at Vader and the Emperor is completely justified. Righteous, even.
But somehow it would still lead to joining them.
Quote:
thejeff wrote:
Along with the whole "bring balance to the force" thing meaning they need more Dark side, less Light side control.
Considering that the prophecy is fulfilled when Anakin gets rid of the Emperor and of Vader (By repeting his actions as a Sith), that's a pretty... creative idea.

Well, it's certainly not original to me. And I agree it wasn't what Lucas meant. But what sense does it make in the over all series?

The prophesy is introduced in the prequels. When the Jedi run everything and aren't even aware of the existence of a Sith Lord, but still think it means something.
Then Anakin helps Palpatine wipe out the whole Jedi Order, then years later kills himself and the Sith Lord, leaving only one half trained Jedi apprentice. Is that supposed to be balance? Wiping out both sides counts, I guess.


Freehold DM wrote:

I have heard that last bit by jeff before, and it was mentioned in some fiction I read. There is a thin thread to it in phantom menace when mace windu mentioned that the Jedi connection to the force has weakened over time, but that was reaching even in the fiction.

Also expanded universe still exists as star wars legends. Noone from disney has come to my house to take away my stuff as of yet.

Also, what the hell does this have to do with the topic? How did we get on star wars?

It's very related, actually, since the idea of intrinsically Dark abilities and the moral demands of the Light side are almost the same thing as the evil spells debated here.

Sovereign Court

Patrick C. wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:


Plasma swords can be used to kill cleanly. Force Lightening, if I recall correctly, specifically targets nerve endings to make the subject feel excruciating pain.
And yet Obi Wan didn't go to the dark side when he cut off Anakin's arm, chopped off his legs, and left him to slowly burn to death next to lava, obviously screaming in agony?
Did he enjoy doing it? Was he the aggressor?

Okay - but how is that any different from using force lightning to defend yourself?

Patrick C. wrote:
Did he cause unnecessary pain, or just let Anakin follow the path of his own choice?

Yes - he pretty obviously did. At that point he should have finished him off mercifully.


thejeff wrote:

Agreed. Sort of. They showed negative emotions leading to the Dark Side. They said emotion led to the Dark Side. The Jedi preached and practiced detachment.

Vader spent half the trilogy trying to get Luke to give in to anger against him and the Emperor, so that Luke would turn to the Dark Side and join them. That's not "selfish anger even though the person didn't really do anything wrong". Anger at Vader and the Emperor is completely justified. Righteous, even.
But somehow it would still lead to joining them.

The idea of "righteous anger" points to "reasonable". "Reasonable anger", anger that can be understood and even approved of. But see, it presupposes a reasons, that is above anger, that sits in judgement of anger, that validates or condemns anger.

But someone who's angry is not always reasonable. That's why we have expressions like "seeing red". Once you let anger flow, it's very easy to simply follow it, lose control, and ride the high. Anger breaks serenity, but it's serenity that authorizes "righteous" anger in the first place.

Do you know The Hunger Games? Gale Hawthorne's anger against the Capitol is completely justified. Righteous. The Capitol is an oppressive government. Its politics are inhuman. Sadistic. Reducing thousands of people to objects for the elite's pleasure.

Gale Hawthorne's anger, by the end, leads him to build weapons that kill indiscriminately. Actually, that are designed to kill the most empathic, caring and dedicated people - field medics.

He led his anger guide him, and his anger, in the end, turned him not only against people that deserved it, but also against those who were the complete opposite.

That's why the Light Side preaches that emotion is dangerous. Anger can be righteous, yes, but in itself, it doesn't discriminate between deserving and undeserving. It just wants to punish and destroy. Luke's anger against the Emperor and Vader could easily be turned to the Empire itself - all the bureaucrats, soldiers, citizens, functionaries that, even if not completely innocent, wouldn't deserve death. And he would become a sort of a vigilante.

See also: Netflix's Daredevil, and the juxtaposition between the title character and the Punisher.

*sigh*. Here I am, waxing philosophy based on geek entertainment. I'd better go do something useful. But anyway, these are my ten cents.


Patrick C. wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Agreed. Sort of. They showed negative emotions leading to the Dark Side. They said emotion led to the Dark Side. The Jedi preached and practiced detachment.

Vader spent half the trilogy trying to get Luke to give in to anger against him and the Emperor, so that Luke would turn to the Dark Side and join them. That's not "selfish anger even though the person didn't really do anything wrong". Anger at Vader and the Emperor is completely justified. Righteous, even.
But somehow it would still lead to joining them.

The idea of "righteous anger" points to "reasonable". "Reasonable anger", anger that can be understood and even approved of. But see, it presupposes a reasons, that is above anger, that sits in judgement of anger, that validates or condemns anger.

But someone who's angry is not always reasonable. That's why we have expressions like "seeing red". Once you let anger flow, it's very easy to simply follow it, lose control, and ride the high. Anger breaks serenity, but it's serenity that authorizes "righteous" anger in the first place.

That's why the Light Side preaches that emotion is dangerous. Anger can be righteous, yes, but in itself, it doesn't discriminate between deserving and undeserving. It just wants to punish and destroy. Luke's anger against the Emperor and Vader could easily be turned to the Empire itself - all the bureaucrats, soldiers, citizens, functionaries that, even if not completely innocent, wouldn't deserve death. And he would become a sort of a vigilante.

Except it's pretty clear that he wouldn't. That's why they were trying to goad him to anger. He would keep fighting them, but more indiscriminately and with Dark Side powers, he'd come to their side. They were trying to turn him.

Your position is a perfectly reasonable argument against letting anger control you, but it's not what was going on in the movies.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:


Plasma swords can be used to kill cleanly. Force Lightening, if I recall correctly, specifically targets nerve endings to make the subject feel excruciating pain.
And yet Obi Wan didn't go to the dark side when he cut off Anakin's arm, chopped off his legs, and left him to slowly burn to death next to lava, obviously screaming in agony?
Did he enjoy doing it? Was he the aggressor?
Okay - but how is that any different from using force lightning to defend yourself?

Seriously? This is just disingenuous. Why can I shoot a hypothetical assailant in order to defend myself, but not eletrocute his nipples and drive nails under his nails?

Force Lightening requires blinding rage and the intent to really hurt. Are we going to argue that torture is not essentially Evil now?

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:
Did he cause unnecessary pain, or just let Anakin follow the path of his own choice?
Yes - he pretty obviously did. At that point he should have finished him off mercifully.

Except... he didn't intentionally drag Anakin to a lava planet in order to let him rot. He was trying to reach him. To bring him back. He defended himself, and had to use extreme means. And in the end, couldn't bring himself to muder his former best friend - maybe even because he knew Imperial troops would arrive to rescue him.

If you can't see the difference between maliciously pushing an enemy into an acid pool and accidentally doing it while in the course of defending yourself... There's really not much that I can do.

I'm really off now. Have a good day, you guys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Charlie Bell wrote:


Kobold Cleaver: I submit that the very high standard Superman who would rather die than kill Zod isn't good at all, if not killing Zod means Zod is going to go kill other people. That's squeamishness, not good. It's an example of the fluffy Hollywood morality like "if you don't do what I say their deaths will be on your hands" and the hero actually morally agrees with that preposterous statement.

I never said he'd rather let Zod kill people than kill Zod. Just that he would give his own life before he would do so. Careful about putting words in my mouth.

Fairly off-topic, but there's some pretty good comments about Superman's "idealism" here.


pH unbalanced wrote:

Now...if you want to debate *why* having your soul coated in evil tends to make you behave in a vile manner, then we have an interesting conversation.

Perhaps evil is like a heavy metal for the soul. Evil poisoning being equivalent to lead poisoning. Chaos to mercury poisoning.

And here, I thought the 80s were wrong about that...

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I never said he'd rather let Zod kill people than kill Zod. Just that he would give his own life before he would do so. Careful about putting words in my mouth.

Unless he's giving his life to permanently imprison Zod, or Zod is already imprisoned, this is kinda a distinction without a difference. I mean...once Superman is dead, Zod's pretty much got a 100% chance of killing others.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't like an idealistic version of Superman, but there are limits.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's not overexamine the alignment talk here. I am not that into superheroes and will lose any debate that ensues. I can't even convince my friend that BVS is terrible, you think I can convince you of the fine points of Superman alignment hypotheticals? :P

Dark Archive

Orfamay Quest wrote:
amethal wrote:


But there is no practical difference between "no reason that we can determine" and "no reason".
Actually, it's arguably the most single important difference in the history of mankind. It gave us, for example, the scientific method.

I don't think the scientific method allows the determination of things that cannot be determined.

(EDIT - I can't believe I'm adding this, but just to be clear, you do know what the word "cannot" means, right?)

It has certainly identified a lot of stuff that can be determined. We all know that (although a few people seem to think I don't).

Dark Archive

Talonhawke wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
This entire thread is a catastrophic case of people talking past one another. Note to self: Alignment threads BAD.

Things that never seem to make good threads

1. Alignment
2. Paladin codes
3. Druid codes
4. Adamantine
5. "Hands"

If you want to discuss whether alignment threads are inherently evil, or only when they are used for evil ends, then you need to start your own thread.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
amethal wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
amethal wrote:


But there is no practical difference between "no reason that we can determine" and "no reason".
Actually, it's arguably the most single important difference in the history of mankind. It gave us, for example, the scientific method.

I don't think the scientific method allows the determination of things that cannot be determined.

(EDIT - I can't believe I'm adding this, but just to be clear, you do know what the word "cannot" means, right?)

It has certainly identified a lot of stuff that can be determined. We all know that (although a few people seem to think I don't).

Unless you can determine that something cannot ever be determined the difference remains moot.

There are plenty of things that we have determined through the scientific method, that once fell into "no reason we can determine".
I, and I think Orfamay, read "no reason that we can determine" as "we don't know" rather than "We know we can't ever know".

And under the Pathfinder rules, there are far more tools for directly investigating evil than there are in the real world. Which certainly changes the "can we determine it" question.


Is a druid allowed to collect human hands, or is that failing to show proper regard to the hands of other animals? Can I make a druid who is obsessed with hands?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick C. wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:
Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:


Plasma swords can be used to kill cleanly. Force Lightening, if I recall correctly, specifically targets nerve endings to make the subject feel excruciating pain.
And yet Obi Wan didn't go to the dark side when he cut off Anakin's arm, chopped off his legs, and left him to slowly burn to death next to lava, obviously screaming in agony?
1. Did he enjoy doing it? Was he the aggressor?
Okay - but how is that any different from using force lightning to defend yourself?

Seriously? This is just disingenuous.Why can I shoot a hypothetical assailant in order to defend myself, but not eletrocute his nipples and drive nails under his nails?

[/b]2. Force Lightening requires blinding rage and the intent to really hurt[/b]. Are we going to argue that torture is not essentially Evil now?

Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Patrick C. wrote:
Did he cause unnecessary pain, or just let Anakin follow the path of his own choice?
Yes - he pretty obviously did. At that point he should have finished him off mercifully.

Except... he didn't intentionally drag Anakin to a lava planet in order to let him rot. He was trying to reach him. To bring him back. He defended himself, and had to use extreme means. And in the end, couldn't bring himself to muder his former best friend - maybe even because he knew Imperial troops would arrive to rescue him.

3. If you can't see the difference between maliciously pushing an enemy into an acid pool and accidentally doing it while in the course of defending yourself... There's really not much that I can do.

I'm really off now. Have a good day, you guys.

1. considering he sat and watched him light up while giving a berating soliloquy, I'd say he didn't not enjoy it. This is letting someone immolate slowly, not letting them fall into a lava pit.

2. Not according to any canon source I own. If you have it written somewhere else let me know. Otherwise I will use it while light side in kotor 1 and 2 and pay greater force point price without breaking a sweat.

And kill Droid by the handful as that is light side. Who cares about droids, they're not even human. God I love being light side.

3. Except there was no acid here. This is lava and letting some one immolate. While. You. Watch. And. Preach. To. Them. About. How. Much. They. Suck.


Deadmanwalking wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
I never said he'd rather let Zod kill people than kill Zod. Just that he would give his own life before he would do so. Careful about putting words in my mouth.

Unless he's giving his life to permanently imprison Zod, or Zod is already imprisoned, this is kinda a distinction without a difference. I mean...once Superman is dead, Zod's pretty much got a 100% chance of killing others.

Now, that doesn't mean I don't like an idealistic version of Superman, but there are limits.

very much agreed and well said. Zod and other insane/evil kryptonians have been a problem storywise for a long time. Lots of hand waving and storyline torturing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
3. Except there was no acid here. This is lava and letting some one immolate. While. You. Watch. And. Preach. To. Them. About. How. Much. They. Suck.

This isn't a Star Wars thread, but, in defense of Obi... He believed that he had dealt a fatal wound to Anakin. Also according to the novelization Padme was somehow latently Force Sensitive and was sustaining his life until the Emperor reached him, or he would have died.

The technology used to save him was also a unique secret prototype and he had a 0% chance of survival without it. So as far as Obiwan knew Anakin was already dead at that point. His friend had become a mad murderer and forced him to kill him.

So... It's understandable.

Anyway... Back on topic.

Evil in Pathfinder is measurable. We know certain spells are evil. We may not know why, but we know they are.

The nay sayers who refuse to accept that without an in depth Paizo explanation are frankly out of order. We know it's Evil, why isn't really important.

This isn't an in-universe opinion it is an in-universe fact.

401 to 450 of 904 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / Why Is Evil Being Good So Important To Some People... All Messageboards