MauvaisOeil said:dorotea said:((You want to know what evil is? Look at most adventurers. There is your evil.))
A point often made since the days of Gary Gygax and maybe way before. In this, you are correct.
MMO setups leave little to no choice in character advancement, it's not like it was storytold for your own group / character. It's fairly easy to play a character that only defends itself in a tabletop RPG setup, but harder in an MMO where aggro radius is barely "beeing attacked".
But pushing the absurd : If a paladin walks into an orc camp and get attacked, is it legitimate defense ?
Definitely not self-defense. If a known killer/looter walks into your house and you defend it, the killer cannot claim self defense.
Vandraad said:Nephretiti said:"There is no good and evil. Only power and those too weak to seek it" - JKRowling
"Nobody is the villian in their own story" - George R. R. Martin.
What a character in a world like Terminus sees as 'evil' wholly depends upon their personal frame of reference. Are the Skar or Ogres evil? Not in their own eyes, no. Are the Elves and Halfings good? In their own eyes, yes.
That is a great quote, Vandraad and very true.
Beefcake said:
Its funny how people say that Skar are evil because they enjoy evil acts.
Why don’t people call out the Paladins that walk into the Orcs camp and slaughter everyone for loot and XP. Especially those that do this day in and out. Seems like they are enjoying it just as much, if not more, than the Soar.
It is because you make the same mistake like many in this thread . Right/Wrong and Good/Evil do NOT apply to persons . Moral is NOT about persons . It is about acts, about behaviour .
It is easy to understand why it is a nonsense to speak about an evil (or good) person . If you want a moral you need a universal absolute definition - if you cannot have that , you cannot have moral rules . Saying that the act of killing an innocent person is evil is universal and absolute because there is no ambiguity . Everybody can make the absolute and universal difference between a living innocent person and a dead innocent person . That's what people understood already a few thousands years ago when they started to define behaviour rules which became later moral .
Now do you see the difference if one says that "a person X is evil" instead of saying that "a particular act of a person X is evil" ? What can that possibly mean ? Does it mean that he does evil acts all the time ? Only evil acts ? And what if he does good acts from time to time ? There is ambiguity , it is neither universal nor absolute . Therefore no living person is purely evil or good . All humans are grey - every person lies (sometimes) or cheats (sometimes) or steals (sometimes) or kills (sometimes) but he also helps (sometimes) or does charity (sometimes) or loves (sometimes) . But if all humans are of different shades of grey how could one apply moral definitions to a particular person ? Well one cannot .
I took special precautions before calling improperly a Skar "evil" by saying that this was a "statistical" generalization based on the game's lore which explains that the Skars as a race enjoy objectively evil acts . If the lore explained f.ex that they love their children or care for old Skars (e.g feel in empathy with them) then I would immediately withdraw this generalization and only say that many of their acts are evil yet they are not . I think that this was the question the OP has been asking (e.g my answer is that the races in Pantheon are idealized) .
I took a second precaution to stress that this applies only to a "statistical" and improper moral generalization of a virtual in game race called Skar (or Elf or Ogre or ...) according to what the lore is saying . This judgement has absolutely nothing to do with the (human) player playing a Skar or an Elf . We humans are all grey so there is no moral difference between players playing a Skar or a Paladin . A significant exception are RP players because they make their characters behave accordingly to what the lore is saying and they would play a Skar in a very different way than a Paladin .
There, we will have to disagree. A creature is the sum of its acts. if a creature does sufficient evil acts, they are evil.
However, evil/good is strictly subjective. One creature judges another creature by their own standards, not by the standards of the one being judged. There is no universal good/evil measurement. At least not one discovered by our race yet.
You bring up killing innocent people. Clearly, this is not universal. Few would consider the Spartans evil, but they killed innocent children if they were deformed at birth.
But, we digress into philosophy more than the original poster probably intended.
In too many games, I see the side that claims to be good be worse than the supposed ”evil” ones. For me, this is exemplified in the Imperial v. Rebel or Sith v. Jedi arguments.
The players will assume Ogres, Skar, and Dark Myr to be evil. The developers will promote this, especially by putting the “good” races in one place, the “evil” in another place, and the ”neutral” in yet another. However, I find this trope to be overdone and caused by an idealistic view of one’s own viewpoints, instead of considered the opposing view.
Sorry but you must speak about another Universe . In our Universe ethics and morals are only about acts , not about creatures . Of course it is tautologically true that judging creatures is subjective but it is precisely for that reason that it cannot be a moral judgement which , by definition , cannot be subjective because moral aims at universality . It doesn't mean anything to count a "sufficient" number of evil acts . What is sufficient ? For some 1 will be enough and for others 100 is still too few .
You still make the same mistake . Nobody, me included would call Spartans evil . Neither would anybody call them good . These terms do not apply to people but to acts like I repeatedly explained . However everybody would agree that the act of killing innocent children is universally evil . See the difference between judging an act or a person ? The act of killing innocent children is demonstrably considered universally and objectively evil and has been considered so for quite a long time . Or is here somebody who thinks otherwise ?
I think that if one wants to use the terms right/wrong and good/evil it is necessary to use some real ethics else the discourse starts to be contradictory and words loose their meaning . This was the reason why I found the question of the OP interesting and indeed, a minimum of ethical reasoning is necessary to answer it .
Good and evil are words, made by humans to describe ideas. The simple fact that they are so commonly used to describe people justifies their use to describe people.
It seems that using it to describe more than just deeds was early in their uses, reaffirming this usage. Also, if it only referred to acts would not the surpluss killing of innocent birds by cats would be surely evil? Good and evil require more than just acts, they require understanding of the consequences of those acts. In fact, NO acts are intrinsically either good nor evil, as they have no morality. The intention behind them and the results of them can be both or either*.
(*You wake up in a space ship. With the emergency lighting you see a light switch and flip it. a) The lights go on. b)You flip it and realize you just opened up the cargo area causing the crew to be sucked into space. c) You flip it and realize that it turned on oxygen to a compartment where others were unconscious due to lack of oxygen. Killing everyone or saving everyone will affect most people even though your act was neutral in intent, most doubt the neutrality of the act based on the result. If you thought the switch would cut oxygen or kill the crew, the intent was good or evil regardless of the actual effect and even though the act was the same in all cases.)
P.S. One could argue that the entire genre of Theatrical tragedies is about people being the villian of their own story, even if unintended!
alephen said:Good and evil are words, made by humans to describe ideas. The simple fact that they are so commonly used to describe people justifies their use to describe people.
It seems that using it to describe more than just deeds was early in their uses, reaffirming this usage. Also, if it only referred to acts would not the surpluss killing of innocent birds by cats would be surely evil? Good and evil require more than just acts, they require understanding of the consequences of those acts. In fact, NO acts are intrinsically either good nor evil, as they have no morality. The intention behind them and the results of them can be both or either*.
(*You wake up in a space ship. With the emergency lighting you see a light switch and flip it. a) The lights go on. b)You flip it and realize you just opened up the cargo area causing the crew to be sucked into space. c) You flip it and realize that it turned on oxygen to a compartment where others were unconscious due to lack of oxygen. Killing everyone or saving everyone will affect most people even though your act was neutral in intent, most doubt the neutrality of the act based on the result. If you thought the switch would cut oxygen or kill the crew, the intent was good or evil regardless of the actual effect and even though the act was the same in all cases.)
P.S. One could argue that the entire genre of Theatrical tragedies is about people being the villian of their own story, even if unintended!
Taking your scenario, I would argue it's how you feel after doing it blindly that would determinate your presence on the evil/good spectrum. Guilt, is the proof of a morale and it's absence, even if mainly focusing on the benefits of what you did (if there are any) is a very bad new.
MauvaisOeil said:
Taking your scenario, I would argue it's how you feel after doing it blindly that would determinate your presence on the evil/good spectrum. Guilt, is the proof of a morale and it's absence, even if mainly focusing on the benefits of what you did (if there are any) is a very bad new.
A good explaination of if an individual could be good or evil!