The way of the hero vs. the way of the bad and evil

[mjohnson092088]

good and evil is essentially relative. think of 9/11. most of us believe osama bin laden is pure evil and a coward. to his followers on the other side of the world, he's a hero. i have to agree with mr. neon coyote man. you should really take a step back and really think about what "good" and "evil" really are. or moreso, what are the impacts of these "good" and "evil" entities? "good" is limited to "good intentions", evil is limited to "selfish gratification". or are these ideas REALLY limited?

[Nathan Karr]

No, good and evil aren't relative, and never have been. It's simply not possible to think that way, if you think deeply on the subject at all.

An evil person can self-justify his actions, he could have some sort of Freudian excuse wherein his evil is supposedly the result of something that happened to him, but deep down he knows what he's doing is wrong.

Murder is wrong, plain and simple. Hindus believe that since people can be reincarnated into cows, killing cows is the same as killing people. Muslims believe that non-Muslims aren't people. Many, many people throughout history, including Christians like myself, believe that there are times where killing another human is not murder (for two examples, slaying your enemy in war, or executing a criminal under the power of civil authority). Values change and vary, morals never do.

And, yes, I expect everyone to know the basics of morality without being told.

[Twinconclusive]

You blobheads are arguing the same point

Also maybe relevant, I don't even know

[The Wobbler]

I liked this better when it was about the Village People.

[Bob the Hamster]

Muslims believe that non-Muslims aren't people.

Arg! I disagree with many things in that post, <s>but the only one I am going to stop and yell at you about is this one</s>.

<b>A very small percentage of</b> Muslims <b>who are considered insane by mainstream Muslims</b> believe that non-Muslims aren't people.

EDIT: okay, actually in the interest of civil debate, it doesn't make any sense at all for me to post my one "angry" objection, and not mention my other thoughts.

I think that relative morality is a reasonable idea. Relative morality just means that each person sees morality a little different. Relative morality doesn't mean random morality, nor does it mean I am trying to justify someone who we agree upon to be evil by saying "all points of view are equally valid" that is not what relative morality means.

It is very interesting that most people can automatically agree on certain major points of morality, like "killing is wrong".

But I don't think that a universal unchangeable morality is required for that to happen. Morality, as it applies to society as a whole, can naturally emerge from the things we all share as humans. We are mortal, we feel pain, and we have to compete with other humans for the things we need to survive. Those facts alone are enough to explain a lot of common morality, even if each individual person has to decide what their own morality is going to be.

[JSH357]

No, good and evil aren't relative, and never have been. It's simply not possible to think that way, if you think deeply on the subject at all.

An evil person can self-justify his actions, he could have some sort of Freudian excuse wherein his evil is supposedly the result of something that happened to him, but deep down he knows what he's doing is wrong.

Murder is wrong, plain and simple. Hindus believe that since people can be reincarnated into cows, killing cows is the same as killing people. Muslims believe that non-Muslims aren't people. Many, many people throughout history, including Christians like myself, believe that there are times where killing another human is not murder (for two examples, slaying your enemy in war, or executing a criminal under the power of civil authority). Values change and vary, morals never do.

And, yes, I expect everyone to know the basics of morality without being told.

Ready thy bow, Nathan! There is treachery afoot!

[mjohnson092088]

morality is absolutely relative. in fact, it is nothing else but relative. to some, it is clear cut in stone, like a superhero. to others, it is merely malleable, like to drug dealers. to few, it is incomprehensible, whether they do not have the capacity to understand it, or just plain choose not to. there are the basic ideals, such as don't kill nobody! and don't take what ain't for yous! these are givens. the one common morality i believe we should all follow is "do unto others as you would like to have done unto yourself", not "do unto others as they would do unto you". that would lead to feuds. instead, don't do anything you wouldn't like to have done to you, which, amazingly, many people don't understand anyway. they take from others, and are surprised about the retaliation. mind-boggling. of course, the average person is closer to being mentally retarded than they are to being geniuses, and that's not an exaggeration at all. it's just sad, really. in general terms, it's hard to expect someone to share your morals and ideals when they can't even tie their shoes. or change lanes correctly. arg.

not to mention the fact that people are easily confused and wouldn't understand if we complicated things with too many morals. just think of how many interpretations of the bible there actually are by so many people. you would like to believe that there is only one, but even two people can read the exact same scriptures from the exact same book, and come to two different conclusions, as if they were reading two different books in two different languages. there are the basic common morals that we all share because, like james said, we share experiences just by being human. but, even things this simple complicate themselves.

A very small percentage of Muslims who are considered insane by mainstream Muslims believe that non-Muslims aren't people.

just want to say that the quran states that this is actually the case. in fact, a true muslim wouldn't NOT spill the blood of a non-believer in the name of allah. as an atheist, i have read the scriptures of many religions, both old and revised, and is the very reason why i am an atheist. aside from the fact that the idea of a "god" is just plain silly and childish to me anyway, especially in this day and age of information and technology. of course, that is the topic of another discussion that should not and shall not take place.

of course, not every muslim is radical (thankfully). if they were, the world would be filled with the same amount of explosions as michael bay's last film. radicals exist in most, if not every religion and religious sect. is not al qaeda comparable to the crusades? radicals will always exist. they never wither. they can never be killed. if we wiped out all terrorists in the world simultaneously, including those would have joined them in the future due to ideals or circumstance, it would only be a matter of time before a similar ideal arose, albeit in a different form, most likely. you can't fight a war on terrorism anymore than you can fight a war on drugs. they have both existed in every society since the beginning of "civil" society. we're all just too different to get along.

as for the topic of killing, as james said, it is very easy to agree that killing is wrong. but it is also easy to disagree on what degree of killing is wrong. personally, i believe that killing somebody for any reason other than they are trying to kill you specifically is wrong. killing in self-defense is only acceptable if there is no alternative for your own personal safety, whether it is you who is targeted, or randomly selected targets, or a combination of both (for example, psychopaths like jared loughner). even killing in war is not acceptable, providing the war is not being fought in self-defense. it is usually not, however. wars like that don't happen very often, yet wars are being fought continually every single day. why? because somebody somewhere is benefiting from the slaughter, whether that be financial gain, or control. anyway...

as for self-justification, take osama bin laden. he truly believes that his ideals are absolute, and deep down, believes he is right. he does not need any self-justification. in his own eyes, and the eyes of his followers, he is almost like a freedom fighter. this is how morality, good, and evil are all relative to those who view them.

[Mogri]

Let's try to get back on topic. If you want to discuss religion, open a new thread for it.

[mjohnson092088]

of course, that is the topic of another discussion that should not and shall not take place.

let's not and say we did.

[Nathan Karr]

absolutely relative

These words alone illustrate my point perfectly. Absolute relativism can't stand up to itself; absolute absolutism absolutely can.

I don't give a flying rip what people choose to believe, only what is true. This has meant, on many, many occasions, changing what I believe.

I can believe that the sky is orange, that pork and beef taste the same, or any other thing I please. Likewise, I can believe that stealing is okay if it's only done to the rich by the poor, but that doesn't make this belief valid.

The sky's color is objectively provable; even if we changed the name of the color for the sky (which is gray where I'm posting from) to orange, that would not change what color it actually was.

Beef and pork will, naturally, taste somewhat similar (well, remotely, and mostly to people who haven't had much meat at all), both being the flesh of land-dwelling mammals raised by humans for consumption. There are still differences, and still will be.


A better terminology than that which I've used above may substitute "value" with "moral", and "moral" with "ethic," my point is the same in that what is wrong is simply wrong, no matter what people may think, but specific interpretations of broad-reaching laws vary considerably across time and space.

[Mogri]

Let's try to get back on topic. If you want to discuss religion, open a new thread for it.

Not going to say this again.

[Twinconclusive]

There is no Neutrality!
Gray is just a bastardization of Black and a corruption of White!

[mjohnson092088]

There is no Neutrality!
Gray is just a bastardization of Black and a corruption of White!

rrright, anyway...

how about heros are generally naive? usually to what is really going on.

this is why they would hinder before they help. they dig their own grave before they realize they did it.

[Nathan Karr]

Let's try to get back on topic. If you want to discuss religion, open a new thread for it.

Not going to say this again.

I don't know why you felt the need to repeat that. Seriously, I'm baffled.

There is no Neutrality!
Gray is just a bastardization of Black and a corruption of White!

Exactly 100% true and spot-on observation by whoever that guy is. I think I played a game where one of the character portraits I was offered looked like that, but I'm not sure because he looks like a pretty generic fantasy badslime.

how about heros are generally naive? usually to what is really going on.

this is why they would hinder before they help. they dig their own grave before they realize they did it.

This I can believe, but I've seen that angle played so many times that I consider it refreshing to see villains who understand their actions to be wrong, and heroes with the wisdom and awareness not to be easily deceived.

Still, the angle of a hero who unwittingly works against another hero is very believable; this is actually what Knuckles was to Sonic in Sonic 3 & Knuckles, and the Game Gear games from around the same time. Executed well, even the most common themes still have potential.

Eh, probably another result of my limited reference pools, like the way I've only seen the staff chick played straight in [s]two[/s] three games I've made, and one game by Fenrir.

[mjohnson092088]

There is no Neutrality!
Gray is just a bastardization of Black and a corruption of White!

Exactly 100% true and spot-on observation by whoever that guy is. I think I played a game where one of the character portraits I was offered looked like that, but I'm not sure because he looks like a pretty generic fantasy badslime.

just FYI, he's keldorn, a paladin from baldur's gate 2: shadows of amn. if i remember correctly, he's not 100% "lawful good", if you know what i mean, so he makes a perfect example for the point twin was trying to make.

as for there being no neutrality, druids are supposed to be "true neutral", at least in D&D terms. they might help you save the world one day, but then lead a hoard of goblins to run rampant across the country the next. why? to preserve the balance of good and evil in nature. also, another example of this would be charlie in a certain episode of "it's always sunny in philadelphia". WIIILD CARD!!!

oh, and you quoted me as mrjohnson092088 instead of just mjohnson092088... i kinda like that, even though it makes me feel old.

you durn kids get off my lawn!!