|
4 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2009 - 9:24PM
#4001
|
|
|
Now who's talking extreme? People who do evil things for good reasons do not remain good people. I'm not talking selling drugs here, because that is a pittance to killing innocents. Where is the line? What is too far? Is nothing too far over the line in the name of the right cause, whatever it may be? If your black ops group must regularly commit acts of atrocity, they will not remain good people. There is a reason that undercover cops can only do their job for so long. There comes a point where they risk becoming that which they are opposing.
I think it odd that you literally find a limit based on the action, rather than on the act of good that the end result will be. Apparently its okay in your mind to deal drugs in order to catch people swearing in public, because drug-dealing is a pittance... but murder to save millions, or even the world, and that's just wrong! If the end result doesn't outweigh the means to get there, the act is still evil in my book. However evil murder may be, the concept behind "greater good" is that the acts committed are minor in comparison to the final product of their works. Killing a dozen innocents is nothing compared to saving the lives of millions.
The fact that you and I disagree is the fundamental reason why alignment shouldn't be a core mechanic of the game.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2009 - 9:52PM
#4002
|
|
|
I think it odd that you literally find a limit based on the action, rather than on the act of good that the end result will be. Apparently its okay in your mind to deal drugs in order to catch people swearing in public, because drug-dealing is a pittance... but murder to save millions, or even the world, and that's just wrong!
I said that? I said that it's okay to deal drugs to catch someone swearing in public? I don't recall that. I'm pretty sure that I said that I do not equate the action of dealing drugs to be on the same level as committing murder, not tactical assassination, but murder.
If the end result doesn't outweigh the means to get there, the act is still evil in my book. However evil murder may be, the concept behind "greater good" is that the acts committed are minor in comparison to the final product of their works. Killing a dozen innocents is nothing compared to saving the lives of millions.
Is this what this supposed group does every time they go out and commit these atrocities? Are they faced with this extreme case every time? Because the way you described them, they are going out and committing atrocities in the name of good on regular basis. Are they always facing extreme cases such as "save the world, kill the innocent"? Maybe you should be a little clearer on what kinds of actions they must do on a regular basis to make your point so I can get a better gauge of what you mean by "evil actions". Do they regularly go out and rape, murder and torture in the name of their cause? Or do they only do this when the world hangs in the balance? Or does it always hang in the balance?
It seems to me, more and more, that you are trying to use an extreme situation to make your point.
The fact that you and I disagree is the fundamental reason why alignment shouldn't be a core mechanic of the game.
The fact that you and I disagree has nothing to do with any perceived failings of alignment and everything to do with our different perspectives and philosophies. If we played together, we would have to come to a consensus on what was considered good or evil in the fantasy world, irregardless of the real world. It wouldn't be just you and me, though, but a few others, too. As a DM, I find out what kind of expectations people have and work from there with the group. The whole point is to create an experience that everyone can enjoy as much as possible.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2009 - 10:06PM
#4003
|
|
|
I said that? I said that it's okay to deal drugs to catch someone swearing in public? I don't recall that. I'm pretty sure that I said that I do not equate the action of dealing drugs to be on the same level as committing murder, not tactical assassination, but murder.
And I don't equate the action of a drug ring to an organization trying to mass-murder millions of people. If the target doesn't equate, and the end result of success equate, then why do the actions have to equate?
Is this what this supposed group does every time they go out and commit these atrocities? Are they faced with this extreme case every time? Because the way you described them, they are going out and committing atrocities in the name of good on regular basis. Are they always facing extreme cases such as "save the world, kill the innocent"? Maybe you should be a little clearer on what kinds of actions they must do on a regular basis to make your point so I can get a better gauge of what you mean by "evil actions". Do they regularly go out and rape, murder and torture in the name of their cause? Or do they only do this when the world hangs in the balance? Or does it always hang in the balance?
It seems to me, more and more, that you are trying to use an extreme situation to make your point.
I imagine that unless there is some serious evil that needs their services in order to extinguish, such an order would be actually doing nothing at all. Honing their skills perhaps, but otherwise doing little unless they are actually needed.
We weren't talking some organization that literally went "hey, let's do bad to do good, cuz it's funny!" I'm talking an organization that came to the self-realization that following the law and adhering to the true tenets of good are often not enough to snuff out the forces of evil.
The fact that you and I disagree has nothing to do with any perceived failings of alignment and everything to do with our different perspectives and philosophies. If we played together, we would have to come to a consensus on what was considered good or evil in the fantasy world, irregardless of the real world. It wouldn't be just you and me, though, but a few others, too. As a DM, I find out what kind of expectations people have and work from there with the group. The whole point is to create an experience that everyone can enjoy as much as possible.
Or, you can just leave the moral justifications off the table and adventure in a fantasy world.
Just throwing that out.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 23, 2009 - 11:06PM
#4004
|
Date Joined:
Mar 22, 2008
|
Three pages since I've been to work. i seem to slipped to the wayside. Oh well, probably for the best as I pretty much said what I wanted to say.
Except for this:
Okay, you want my opinion. I think your character is Evil. Not neutral and definitely not good. If you had described him as a character against slavery and willing to stand up to it in any form where the consequences may sometimes be death, I would grant that you could be a good character. Since you described your character as willing to exterminate slavers or even people who might be slavers, innocent or not, then you are Evil in my book and no better than a psychopath. Even dark characters like the Executioner and the Punisher go out of their way to not harm the innocent. You do not. There you go.
Cool. You are aware, though, that the punisher has gone after and tried to kill innocent people before, right? He doesn't try to establish innocence. He just acts on his ASSUMED perception of guilt. If my character knew someone was innocent, he wouldn't kill that person either. In my opinion, what amounts to less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of his personality isn't enough to make him evil. ::shrug::
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 24, 2009 - 3:48AM
#4005
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
This is part of why the alignments say tends towards, or implies. No character is perfectly chaotic. No character is perfectly Lawful. No character is perfectly neutral.
Exactly. So how can you say the rules are not loose? They are completely loose and no to people are going to have the same definitions of these concepts.
Thats just using alot of the good traits from chaotic and lawful, and purposefully picking ones that arn't opposite.
So what? It's still a viable character. It's not less viable just because you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the rules give no clear guidance as to how to rule that person's alignment.
You challenged us to comeup with a character that doesn't neatly fit into he nine alignment boxes. I did that. You're only response is "Well, you just made that p to meet my challenge." Yes, I did. Which means I met the challenge.
This char on the other hand looks very..how shall we say.....bipolar? Makes little sense?
The character I proposed makes perfect sense and is perfectly feasible. There's nothing contradictory in that personality. moreover, I think it's a bad idea to throw about psychological terms like "bipolar" which doesn't even come close to describing the personality in question.
Someone who displays all the traits of both? Or all the good traits rather? Is just neutral.
Not according to the description of neutrality. You keep imposing your personal views of morality, not the way the rules are written. If a player who didn't know you were to sit down at your table, thiinking you were actually going to try to apply the rules of alignment, I think he'd be a bit surprised when you started to apply your own personal views of what constitutes evil, good, chaotic and lawful.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 24, 2009 - 4:34AM
#4006
|
|
|
Actually the Punisher in the comic does his homework first and then goes after the bad guy. He never goes off half-cocked looking to shoot the nearest guy next to a gun wielding drug dealer. If for some reason an innocent person does die (which is rare)he feels guilty and does his best to make up for his mistake. The difference between the Punisher and say Daredevil is that Daredevil brings the criminals to justice, the Punisher who does not trust the legal system does what ever he has to, to keep the criminals off the street. http://www.marvel.com/universe/Punisher
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 24, 2009 - 4:46AM
#4007
|
|
|
Cool. You are aware, though, that the punisher has gone after and tried to kill innocent people before, right? He doesn't try to establish innocence. He just acts on his ASSUMED perception of guilt. If my character knew someone was innocent, he wouldn't kill that person either. In my opinion, what amounts to less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of his personality isn't enough to make him evil. ::shrug::
You said this:
He felt so strongly about people being free to do as they wished, that he had a pathological hatred of slavers. He would go out of his way to hunt down and murder slavers, no matter if they actually had slaves, were in a country where slaves were legal, or if the slavers weren't actually evil themselves. He showed them no mercy, hacking them down even if they were unarmed and on bent knee. Nor did he bother to find out if they really were slavers, or just had the trappings of slavers for another reason.
You described the character as:
- having a pathological hatred.
- uncaring of their own morality.
- killing them in cold blood, armed or not.
- killing them without even finding out if they were even guilty of being slavers.
You've all but described a psychotic killer. Hmm, sounds real heroic to me. Even the guys who perform ethnic cleansings can go home and love their families. I wonder, would you consider them good people, too?
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 24, 2009 - 5:02AM
#4008
|
|
|
And I don't equate the action of a drug ring to an organization trying to mass-murder millions of people. If the target doesn't equate, and the end result of success equate, then why do the actions have to equate?
In extreme situations, extreme measures must be taken. That is not the impression that you are giving. The impression you are giving is that the extreme is the norm. Of course when a group is faced with saving the world by taking out a busload of civilians they will make the hard decision. And they could not be held accountable morally because they were left with no other choice. That's not to say that they wouldn't regret their decision or remember it for a long time, but it wouldn't automatically change their alignment.
I imagine that unless there is some serious evil that needs their services in order to extinguish, such an order would be actually doing nothing at all. Honing their skills perhaps, but otherwise doing little unless they are actually needed.
We weren't talking some organization that literally went "hey, let's do bad to do good, cuz it's funny!" I'm talking an organization that came to the self-realization that following the law and adhering to the true tenets of good are often not enough to snuff out the forces of evil.
So, your group is much like, say, The Unit, if you have seen the show. A unit that fights their war in the shadows, using some of the enemies tactics. Sometimes using extreme measures because of extreme situations. In 4E terms, a group like this could be considered good. I wouldn't say lawful good because they regularly have to bend or break laws in order to do their job. But, they do not go out of their way to harm innocents or kill for pleasure.
Would this be accurate?
Or, you can just leave the moral justifications off the table and adventure in a fantasy world.
Just throwing that out.
Sure, you could.
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. --George Orwell There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people. --Howard Zinn He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster. --Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 24, 2009 - 6:39AM
#4009
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2007
|
Some Counter-Arguments:
[list=I]
It reinforces a campaign world in which good, evil, law and chaos are supra-deific forces.
- Response: I don't believe that D&D's scope should be limited to such worlds.
Some players enjoy the negative consequences or alignment.
- Response: I don't believe game design should be catering to masochists.
Alignment can be useful as a shorthand for personalities and/or goals.
- Response: No mechanics are needed for personality tests.
The second response should be changed to:
"Some players enjoy a consequence mechanism to player actions."
I don't think he was arguing to only get negative consequences. But having both make for a more dynamic and enjoyable game (in his and my opinion). Really, if you don't experience bad experiences, the good doesn't seem as good (my opinion).
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Feb 24, 2009 - 6:43AM
#4010
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2007
|
Cool. You are aware, though, that the punisher has gone after and tried to kill innocent people before, right? He doesn't try to establish innocence. He just acts on his ASSUMED perception of guilt. If my character knew someone was innocent, he wouldn't kill that person either. In my opinion, what amounts to less than 1 tenth of 1 percent of his personality isn't enough to make him evil. ::shrug::
Isn't it good that you can weigh the good vs the evil and make some sort of judgement call? That's more useful than simply saying it cannot be done because he exhibits both qualities.
|
|
|
