|
4 years ago ::
Apr 10, 2009 - 7:35PM
#441
|
|
|
What, you mean you don't?
The man who steals because he decided he'd take what he wanted, the man who breaks legs because his boss asked him to and the man who murders are all evil. All 3 would have the Evil Alignment.
Correct. I don't believe in a point-system of Good-Neutral-Evil. I "accept" such a system for the nine-point alignment system, but I don't [s]believe "have confidence without proof" in that.
Assuming the ability to determine right/wrong, and the intention to commit these acts; yes, I believe they are equally evil. There is an act that I consider a greater evil than committing evil, which is teaching another to be evil.
In terms of society's defense, the first two (theft and non-fatal injury) should be treated with rehabilitation, while the third should be permanently removed from society.
If you go to war against an evil kindgom, filled with evil creature who plan to invade you in a nearby future... then are you evil for it?
I consider it an evil act to end the life of living souls, yes. ( I consider sentience to be living, if it's relevant)
Violent takeovers do not work if they remain violent.
I like this (it may be because I'm drunk).
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2009 - 8:57AM
#442
|
|
|
Assuming the ability to determine right/wrong, and the intention to commit these acts; yes, I believe they are equally evil.
That's pretty damn disturbing in its own right. Didn't know view points that were so black and white still were around. Guess I need to go out more.
I consider it an evil act to end the life of living souls, yes. ( I consider sentience to be living, if it's relevant)
Awesome.
Now how does that apply to your typical D&D game, where Good Aligned character have been killing Goblins and Orcs as well as evil Human, Elves and Dwarves ever since the hobby was invented? Not to mention all the other 'equally evil' acts of stealing and injuring - because that happens a lot in your average D&D game as well.
Are good adventurers impossible in your world? Or are you capable of mellowing out your views and see that the fictional world of D&D's morality doesn't work like ours?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2009 - 9:22AM
#443
|
Date Joined:
Sep 12, 2004
|
The ironic thing about Bane is that war for conquest is only 'evil' in modern terms, if you look back at people's attitudes during medieval times Bane would probably fit right in.
Wars for conquest have always been considered good/evil based on which side your on, always...
Case in point, sparta felt the persians were evil even though there conquest of a vast portion of the world brought piece between waring tribes and a level of technology not seen by many before.
Anything which forces change to ones way of life (be it for the better or not) is often met with fear and branded evil...
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2009 - 9:36AM
#444
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2004
|
The fact that life under Roman rule was better than life not under Roman rule is the entire reason why the Roman empire worked; you cannot conquer people if you make their lives worse as they'll just rebel against you, and the Roman Empire was holding far too much land to have a hope of winning should their conquered lands rebel.
Well we can count too on the roman military supremacy and political genius.
But the lands didn't rebel, they accepted the advantages of technology and progress the Romans brought, they became Roman Citizens, sent men to the Senate and the Roman Armies and mostly kept their own pantheons. The Romans added their pantheon to whatever native pantheon was there at the time, but they were pretty loose when it came to how much worship of their gods was actually required; lip service was perfectly acceptable.
Violent takeovers do not work if they remain violent.
Because rebellion didn't happen? The history of the roman empire is full of rebellion: slaves rebellions, countries rebellion, heck even roman rebellion and civil war...
And when I read celtic tale, the thing that hit me the most is the fact that this people seem to resent since two millenium the imperials invasion (roman and english). We have here the exemple of a people who tell tale about the destruction of their culture since a long while ago.
And finally, I can ask: how can we say that the cultural set of value called civilisation is objectively better than the one called "nomadic lifestyle"?
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2009 - 10:27AM
#445
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2002
|
You may notice Daybreaker that while Bane is said to be the god of Tyrants, none of his commands actually require Tyranny; only ridged adhesion to law.
Additionally, many people are often called Tyrants despite the fact that they're actually not. The Romans were often called Tyrants, yet life under Roman rule was in fact better than the alternative.
If Bane were to command that his followers adhere to law, then it wouldn't be tyranny, as long as his followers had the power of choice as to whether or not to be followers. The thing about Bane, and tyrants, is that they don't give you a choice. You're going to follow the law -- their version of it -- whether you like it or not.
And whether or not life was better under the Romans is, I think, inherently arguable. The Romans practiced slavery and did some pretty despicable things to their slaves, sometimes involving public spectacle and forced sex with baboons. I don't think the children stolen from their families and forced to serve in all kinds of terrible ways were better off, and even if they somehow were, what makes it tyranny is that they were not given a choice.
"Give me liberty or give me death," is one way of describing my attitude toward tyranny. Actually, I don't even believe in giving the tyrants a choice (however ironic that might be) -- I have my liberty and they can't have it, and I will not be accepting death from them. 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2009 - 2:59PM
#446
|
|
|
That's pretty damn disturbing in its own right.
Quite. I consider the ability to measure "how good" something is to be somewhat unsettling. I'm very disturbed by the concept of an act being evil for one person to commit, but good for another. (moral relativism)
Or are you capable of mellowing out your views and see that the fictional world of D&D's morality doesn't work like ours?
The only thing I toss out of my views for D&D is the question of "being saved", since it makes no sense in a fiction where Jesus never lived.
I have no moral issue with Good people committing Evil acts. Do you have any issue with Evil people committing Good acts?
It does not follow, for me, that an Evil act is the wrong thing to do. A "perfect" person may be able to solve problems without committing evil acts, but many of us lesser people are forced to turn to Evil in order to accomplish Good ends. A "point" system suggests that the ends can justify the means. My belief in absolutes contends that Evil cannot be justified, nor does Good mean right. A Good person, in my system, wishes to do as little Evil as possible, and help others to reduce the Evil in the world.
Murdering a serial killer is both a Good act (prevents him from killing again) and an Evil act (it ends someone's life). If you can do the first without the second, then you should. It isn't always possible.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2009 - 3:13PM
#447
|
|
|
I'm very disturbed by the concept of an act being evil for one person to commit, but good for another.
You can believe in a universal system of morality and still allow for premeditated murder to be a more serious offense than swiping $5 from some guy's wallet.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2009 - 3:48PM
#448
|
|
|
You can believe in a universal system of morality and still allow for premeditated murder to be a more serious offense than swiping $5 from some guy's wallet.
I refer you to the previous statement:
"In terms of society's defense, the first two (theft and non-fatal injury) should be treated with rehabilitation, while the third should be permanently removed from society."
Unless you're talking about sin, Evil is not an offense.
D&D 4E Herald and M:tG Rules Advisor I expect posters to follow the Code of Conduct, use Basic Etiquette, and avoid Poor Logic. If you don't follow these guidelines, I consider you to be disrespectful to everyone on these forums. If you respond to me without following these guidelines, I consider it a personal attack. I grew up in a bilingual household, which means I am familiar with the difficulties in adopting a different vocabulary and grammar. That doesn't bother me. Persistent use of bad capitalization, affirming the consequent, and flaming bother me a great deal. Rule that I would change: 204.1b
Show
204.1b Some effects change an object’s card type, supertype, or subtype but specify that the object retains a prior card type, supertype, or subtype. In such cases, all the object’s prior card types, supertypes, and subtypes are retained. This rule applies to effects that use the phrase “in addition to its types” or that state that something is “still a [card type].” Some effects state that an object becomes an “artifact creature”; these effects also allow the object to retain all of its prior card types and subtypes.
"Eight Edition Rules Update"
We eventually decided not to change this template, because players are used to “becomes an artifact creature,” and like it much better. Players were used to Combat on the Stack, but you got rid of that because it was unintuitive. The only phrase needed is "in addition to its types"; the others are misleading and unintuitive.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2009 - 5:35PM
#449
|
|
|
And I refer you to my original statement, rephrased: seeing in shades of grey has nothing to do with excusing bad behavior, but instead involves considering some offenses worse than others. Throwing around "moral relativism" as slander doesn't prove your point. Besides, just because one states "there is no such thing as universal morality" doesn't mean they can't follow it up with a "but my personal morality is meaningless if I allow the rights of others to be violated." But about Bane... 
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 11, 2009 - 7:56PM
#450
|
Date Joined:
Sep 29, 2008
|
If Bane were to command that his followers adhere to law, then it wouldn't be tyranny, as long as his followers had the power of choice as to whether or not to be followers. The thing about Bane, and tyrants, is that they don't give you a choice. You're going to follow the law -- their version of it -- whether you like it or not.
And whether or not life was better under the Romans is, I think, inherently arguable. The Romans practiced slavery and did some pretty despicable things to their slaves, sometimes involving public spectacle and forced sex with baboons. I don't think the children stolen from their families and forced to serve in all kinds of terrible ways were better off, and even if they somehow were, what makes it tyranny is that they were not given a choice.
"Give me liberty or give me death," is one way of describing my attitude toward tyranny. Actually, I don't even believe in giving the tyrants a choice (however ironic that might be) -- I have my liberty and they can't have it, and I will not be accepting death from them.
You're thinking of FR Bane. Core Bane =/= FR Bane, they're two different entities, similar, but different.
Core Bane is alot closer to Unaligned.
Oh, and if you think Roman slavery was bad you might want to take a look at what the European natives were doing to each other at the time.
By modern standards the Roman empire was pretty barbaric sure, but so was everyone else. At least the Romans were organised barbarism.
|
|
|
