Author Topic: A moral question  (Read 31724 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #40 on: September 21, 2008, 04:38:21 AM »
It has a great deal to do with the fact that "killing someone is wrong!" is only true if that someone is innocent.

Now, betraying someone is wrong. Bad mark here. Killing someone, no.

But malicide (killing evil people to destroy evil) is a perfectly laudible thing.

However, that doesn't sound like it was the reason, and the kobold isn't the kind of evil that cannot be allowed to exist because its very presence blights the world (as a demon would be).
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #41 on: September 21, 2008, 04:40:46 AM »
It has a great deal to do with the fact that "killing someone is wrong!" is only true if that someone is innocent.

Not true. The way in which someone is killed or the reason for that killing can still make it an evil act, no matter how terrible the person being killed was.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #42 on: September 21, 2008, 04:44:36 AM »
Let me put it this way.

Killing someone =/= evil.

However:
1) Killing someone for an evil reason = evil.

2) Killing someone in an evil way = evil.

3) Killing someone in self-defense =/= evil.

4) Killing someone to rid the world of evil = good if not 1 or 2.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #43 on: September 21, 2008, 05:02:23 AM »
Let me put it this way.

Killing someone =/= evil.

However:
1) Killing someone for an evil reason = evil.

2) Killing someone in an evil way = evil.

3) Killing someone in self-defense =/= evil.

4) Killing someone to rid the world of evil = good if not 1 or 2.

1-3 are fine, but "ridding the world of evil" is not a valid justification for someone who claims to be good. It's right alongside revenge.

Now, killing someone to prevent them from accomplishing evil they are actively attempting, that's another matter entirely.

altpersona

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2939
  • BG forum Emperor Ad Litem
    • Altpersona.net
Re: A moral question
« Reply #44 on: September 21, 2008, 05:09:04 AM »
almost.

the ends justifying the means is evil.

good, the greater good, the milk n cookies good, the mother teressa and ghandi good.. avoids killing at all cost.

this is why self sacrifice is honorable.

while killing one to save one seems fine saving two is good.

put another way, choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. (i say that alot)

the lesser weevil is still a weevil.

the idea that 'i had too or it would have done evil' is false. there are other solutions.

if its an intelligent (int >3) thing then killing it to prevent it from doing evil is evil

if its an animalistic (int 1 or 2) then it is unable to discern right and wrong and cannot do evil it can only survive or follow its training.

if its unintelligent (int -) then its generally not alive and you cannot kill that which eternal lies, wait no, got distracted...
if its unintelligent then its generally not alive and cannot be killed it might be able to be brought to life or it may just be stopped / unanimated. if its brought to life, then killing it is evil.

of course, if your lg god puts a flashing billboard in front of you that says go kill the son bitch... well i guess you get a by on that one..

one could argue the degree's of evil, and how 1% evil is not really enough to count, but that an argument with the devil and only happens in hell..

none of the above applies to politicians, lawyers and clowns. as they are evil incarnate.
The goal of power is power. - idk
We are not descended from fearful men. - Murrow

The Final Countdown is now stuck in your head.

Anim-manga sux.


Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #45 on: September 21, 2008, 05:11:54 AM »
No, ridding the world is a VERY good objective. Evil is a threat to the world. Getting rid of it is a good (and Good) thing.

The problem with revenge is that it tends to be "I want him to suffer!", which is under any other reason wanting someone to suffer.

A world where orcs are either all good/neutral or extinct is a better world than a world where orcs are mostly evil and very much alive because the individual orcs didn't personally and directly hurt those with the power to do one of those two things.

Good=/=non violent pacifism. Good=/= unjustified use of violence.

Arguing that Good must avoid violence at all costs is granting Evil the power to dominate utterly.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #46 on: September 21, 2008, 05:17:01 AM »
A world where orcs are either all good/neutral or extinct is a better world than a world where orcs are mostly evil and very much alive because the individual orcs didn't personally and directly hurt those with the power to do one of those two things.

I hate to Godwin this, but when did Hitler get a BG account?

Are you seriously promoting genocide as a good action because of the mere potential for evil coming from the race?

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #47 on: September 21, 2008, 05:19:38 AM »





Because I'm reasonably sure that this isn't a time to smack people with Godwin's law...

I am stating that if "all orcs are evil", then kill all the orcs.

If "most orcs are evil", then kill the evil ones.

If "some orcs are evil", then kill the evil ones.

If "a few orcs are evil", kill the evil ones.

If "no orcs are evil", kill only if you can't defend yourself from them in any other way.


[spoiler] But first, kill all the lawyers. [/spoiler]
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 05:22:08 AM by Elennsar »
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

altpersona

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2939
  • BG forum Emperor Ad Litem
    • Altpersona.net
Re: A moral question
« Reply #48 on: September 21, 2008, 05:22:14 AM »
good must triumph with out using the tools of evil to truly be good.

i didnt say any thing about avoiding violins, i said killing. while violins can lead to killing they dont have to.
they can lead to a party...

and good is = non violent peacafism.

if the lion could survive and prosper without killing it would, and we call those lions house cats.

if you can save the lives of all the villagers and all the orcs then that is good. less is shaking the devils hand.
The goal of power is power. - idk
We are not descended from fearful men. - Murrow

The Final Countdown is now stuck in your head.

Anim-manga sux.


EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #49 on: September 21, 2008, 05:24:19 AM »
If "most orcs are evil", then kill the evil ones.

And who are you to decide which are evil until something evil has been done by them? Making that decision, the whole 'greater good' philosophy, is in fact classically evil.

That's my point.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #50 on: September 21, 2008, 05:25:25 AM »
Good must triumph and must destroy evil. If that requires killing, then kill without hestitation.

If it can be done without killing, then think damn hard before even using violence.

If it can be done without violence, then don't even go armed.

The idea that "killing is a tool of evil" is a great way to ensure that evil survives forever.

Ejo: Someone who, in a D&D setting, has detect evil.

Or in our world, someone who believes that there's a difference between right and wrong and is determined to side with the former regardless of the cost to the latter.

If there is a God (an entirely seperate discussion, I'm stating my feelings as part of what I would consider "I die content with what I did in life."), I want to be able to stand before Him (or Her) and say "I did my best to eliminate evil, within myself and within the world. I hope that I have been right in my understanding of what is good and what is evil."

I have no desire to say "I did nothing that could be evil, and I did nothing to stop any evil, either."
« Last Edit: September 21, 2008, 05:28:54 AM by Elennsar »
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

altpersona

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2939
  • BG forum Emperor Ad Litem
    • Altpersona.net
Re: A moral question
« Reply #51 on: September 21, 2008, 05:26:12 AM »
ejo is correct, race in this case is being used as justification for failing in the pursuit of good.
The goal of power is power. - idk
We are not descended from fearful men. - Murrow

The Final Countdown is now stuck in your head.

Anim-manga sux.


altpersona

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2939
  • BG forum Emperor Ad Litem
    • Altpersona.net
Re: A moral question
« Reply #52 on: September 21, 2008, 05:28:47 AM »
Good must triumph and must destroy evil. If that requires killing, then kill without hestitation.

If it can be done without killing, then think damn hard before even using violence.

If it can be done without violence, then don't even go armed.

The idea that "killing is a tool of evil" is a great way to ensure that evil survives forever.

Ejo: Someone who, in a D&D setting, has detect evil.

Or in our world, someone who believes that there's a difference between right and wrong and is determined to side with the former regardless of the cost to the latter.

good does not seek to destroy evil, evil will destroy its self, good seeks to save the evil.

the good abides.

as for killing being the tool of evil, and evil enduring forever... 'you may strike me down darth... '
The goal of power is power. - idk
We are not descended from fearful men. - Murrow

The Final Countdown is now stuck in your head.

Anim-manga sux.


Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #53 on: September 21, 2008, 05:30:26 AM »
And I will only become a ghost who will be virtually unable to do anything whatsoever to help the world other than by nagging and giving advice to those who have the the will to act.

If Darth Vader could be redeemed rather than destroyed, as Luke thought was the case (and as turned out to be the case), then not fighting him would be best.

If he could not be convinced to turn back to the Light, then it was Luke's duty to destroy him.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #54 on: September 21, 2008, 05:33:38 AM »
Ejo: Someone who, in a D&D setting, has detect evil.

And still you don't grasp it.

In loose alignment games, evil does not mean you will do evil acts, nor that you ever have or ever will commit any act worthy of your life being taken.

Even in strict alignment games, having an Evil alignment does not mean you have done nor that you will do anything worth the taking of your life. Look at the Lawful Evil manager who makes the lives of his employees miserable every day and takes pleasure doing it for his own gain, but never goes so far as to cause them lasting pain, even emotionally. He would be pinged by detect evil, but he's certainly not deserving of being killed.

Deciding the life of another person when there is any other course of action is a neutral action at best.

Deciding the life of another person because of something that has not happened and is not immediately being threatened is purely evil.

Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #55 on: September 21, 2008, 05:40:49 AM »
Deciding that Evil alignment does not mean that someone is Evil...not actually an evil person with all of the malevolence and vileness that the term means is making the alignment system meaningless. It also makes paladins meaningless, because they either wait until its possibly too late to do anything, they risk breaking their alignment, or they give up in frustration.

As to deciding the life of others...

If its a choice between letting an evil person have the chance to do evil, and ensuring that they will not do that act, then kill or convert them.

Not "wait until they're about to do something". Get-rid-of-them.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

altpersona

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2939
  • BG forum Emperor Ad Litem
    • Altpersona.net
Re: A moral question
« Reply #56 on: September 21, 2008, 05:42:40 AM »
good says dying is better than killing.

if the evil will not change its ways, you can remove its options with out killing it. hamstring it so to speak.

and again ejo is correct.. to be evil only takes the 1% evil..

the evil may not be life threatening.. it may just be ... evil. mean, cruel, vicious...

so you fail to convert the mean store manager who makes fun of the hanicapable clerk all day.. who throws rocks at kids.. and is generally a douche.. but cant conceive of killing someone... hell they cant stand the sight of blood.. they feint.. what they want is to be left alone by lifes annoyances, to be master of their domain, and whoa to them who do not respect them.. where their domain is the confines of the store they run. but no they are evil, if they wont convert.. kill em..

 
The goal of power is power. - idk
We are not descended from fearful men. - Murrow

The Final Countdown is now stuck in your head.

Anim-manga sux.


Elennsar

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1944
  • The Emperor is watching, the Emperor knows.
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #57 on: September 21, 2008, 05:44:51 AM »
If they're Evil, they've gone well beyond badgering and harassing their employees and throwing rocks at people. (I assume we mean rocks that are roughly fist/baseball sized, incidently?)

Being 1% good doesn't make you Good, being 1% evil doesn't make you Evil aligned.
Faith can move mountains. It still can't deflect bullets.



"Communication with humans." is a cross-class skill for me. Please bear this in mind.

EjoThims

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1945
  • The Ferret
    • Email
Re: A moral question
« Reply #58 on: September 21, 2008, 05:52:09 AM »
Deciding that Evil alignment does not mean that someone is Evil...not actually an evil person with all of the malevolence and vileness that the term means is making the alignment system meaningless. It also makes paladins meaningless, because they either wait until its possibly too late to do anything, they risk breaking their alignment, or they give up in frustration.

Paladins are meaningless, and anything or anyone who has the Evil subtype will show as evil no matter their alignment, as will anyone who regularly commits harmless acts of cruelty and takes pleasure in them.

If its a choice between letting an evil person have the chance to do evil, and ensuring that they will not do that act, then kill or convert them.

Not "wait until they're about to do something". Get-rid-of-them.

This, again, is a Nazi approach to 'good.' Murder and genocide for the sake of preventing a possibility.

Those are acts of evil.

altpersona

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2939
  • BG forum Emperor Ad Litem
    • Altpersona.net
Re: A moral question
« Reply #59 on: September 21, 2008, 05:54:08 AM »
nope, you can be evil, very evil, with out the extremes of the big three evils.. murder, rape , modern art.

is manson evil, his hands never touched a body?
is judas evil, he was doing his duty to his country.
is michael jackson evil, he likes little boys, but not killing them, and they consented..
The goal of power is power. - idk
We are not descended from fearful men. - Murrow

The Final Countdown is now stuck in your head.

Anim-manga sux.