[ QUOTE ]
That's most assuredly not how it's presented to you by the contact, though. Seeing as you were so resolute on going by what the perception was as given by CoH not a few posts before, it seems a bit much of an about-turn to suddenly ignore what the game has to say, contextually, and make an abstract argument that at no point was theorised either explicitly or implicitly by the contact.
[/ QUOTE ]
Could you present what the contact says, then?
The only comments I've seen approaching that are from CoV contacts; which support the view he's only clearing things up to avoid Longbow diverting too many resources to his capture.
As this is clearly going nowhere, I'm going to get out of the land of harsh white and matt black and go back to soothing Greysville.
If Co* was a Four Colour world, then yes, Black and White morals would be expected. It isn't though, so we have black, white and the shades of grey between.
Hence it was a question, and a playful one at that.
For that one time he seems concerned, how meny times have you had to stop his minios spreding another plauge? for the plague stopper badge for instance, or taking down patient Zero.
A single swallow does not make a summer.
Though as to his personal views? yes of course he thinks he's in the right, he's blinded by the prize.
[ QUOTE ]
Could you present what the contact says, then?
[/ QUOTE ]
Not got your specs on today? 
[ QUOTE ]
Dr Anne-Marie Engles, on Dr Vahzilok: "It's interesting that he seemed to have the same goal as you: eradicating the deadly plague he had caused. I guess it's possible that Vahzilok really does care about the harm he causes."
[/ QUOTE ]
Or, in full:
"So, you actually came face to face with Dr. Vahzilok himself? Few people have done that and lived to tell the tale. It's interesting that he seemed to have the same goal as you: eradicating the deadly plague he had caused. I guess it's possible that Vahzilok really does care about the harm he causes." (The Vahzilok Plague)
[ QUOTE ]
The only comments I've seen approaching that are from CoV contacts; which support the view he's only clearing things up to avoid Longbow diverting too many resources to his capture.
[/ QUOTE ]
Which is the mindset you'd expect from villains, no? The impression I got, from having played both sides of the stories, is that the villains are doing pretty much what you're doing here: putting their own perspective on the situation and deriving a result based on that. The heroic contacts seem much more minded ( in the main) to viewing the situation objectively.
@Synaesthetix
"Here, take some more bees with you. You may need them."
Union: FU//LoUD
"that Syn is that that" - Mothers Love
Fair enough, Syn, I'll concede that point. For now.
I still maintain, however, that a single good intention doesn't make up for everything else he's responsible for. Attempting to poison water supplies, the aformentioned psycho recruitment, his most trusted follower being someone who abducts innocents and has them carved up just so some rich fart can have a new face...etc, etc.
Heck, if one good act is enough to redeem anyone, we might as well as just say everyone on this Earth is pure.
I believe it was the philosopher A J Ayer, who put forward the view that there is no such thing as a true moral/ethical statement.
Whenever you say something as such, you are merely publically displaying your view on a situation.
For example; saying "Killing people is wrong" does not make the act of killing a moral fact of being wrong. You are merely *actually* saying "I believe that killing people is wrong"
Hence, you cannot say that there are moral/ethical facts, as the actual act of expressing your support or condemnation for any act, regardless of whether 'laws' uphold it or not, is merely a subjective expression.
(If I can locate my work on A J Ayer, I'll post it up to give a fuller definition.)
Moral ambiguity, and the depiction of both heroic and villainous characters as being less that strictly Good or Evil is what makes great fiction. We can't truly enjoy a villain whose motivations or desires do not in some way come close to our own.
Dr. Vahzilok wants to eradicate death. Which of us has never lost a loved one, and wished they could be brought back? We can sympathise with the desire to prevent death, even if we do not agree with the methods involved, or even the goal itself (which I do not).
Black and White is boring, and becomes stale. Co* is not a four-colour setting. It is one with varying shades of grey, on both sides.
One of the things I find objectionable about this debate is the lack of willingness to accept other peoples' viewpoints. Something which Syra and Augury are particularly guilty of in this instance, in some cases coming close to being insulting with their responses.
Again I'll just point out that while you may argue that morality is relative until the day the sun explodes and vaporizes all of us, ethicality is not. Ergo while someone's morality may dictate that the end warrants the means, ethics say he is still quite evil, and ethics are more objective than morality ever will be.
Ethics being a set of written and unwritten laws of right and wrong that applies to most of the world, and those who fall outside of this model which is closest to objective right and wrong (since it's written down and followed as law by groups of individuals and professionals, or embedded in the collective subconscious) are considered evil.
Hence Doc Vahz is still, you guessed it, evil. His morality might dictate that he is not, ethics dictate that he is, and a person's individual morality changes constantly, while ethics generally do not.
As for being guilty of not accepting other people's viewpoints, I'm just dumbstruck at the ability for people to say "Doctor Vahzilok is not evil". I hope that's just a special tailored case of Co* morality and it doesn't reflect the way they look at things in actual life.
But speaking of accepting viewpoints, let's all start agreeing with eachother all the time and then we can vacate the forums since discussion won't be necesary. 
[ QUOTE ]
One of the things I find objectionable about this debate is the lack of willingness to accept other peoples' viewpoints. Something which Syra and Augury are particularly guilty of in this instance, in some cases coming close to being insulting with their responses.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was really quite un-neccesary, Word, especially when you yourself seem pretty unwilling to shift in viewpoint.
[ QUOTE ]
Again I'll just point out that while you may argue that morality is relative until the day the sun explodes and vaporizes all of us, ethicality is not. Ergo while someone's morality may dictate that the end warrants the means, ethics say he is still quite evil, and ethics are more objective than morality ever will be.
Ethics being a set of written and unwritten laws of right and wrong that applies to most of the world, and those who fall outside of this model which is closest to objective right and wrong (since it's written down and followed as law by groups of individuals and professionals, or embedded in the collective subconscious) are considered evil.
[/ QUOTE ]
...
I think you'd better go back and check your dictionary definition of ethics, then maybe come back and edit your post. Ethics are a set of principles of proper conduct, as dictated by contemporary society - meaning that they're no more or less fallible than morals.
In the Greek era, pederasty was seen as being ethically sound. Slightly closer to the present era, it was ethically sound to keep blacks as slaves, deny women the vote, and prevent homosexuals from entering into a legal union (the latter still forcing a split throughout the Western World). I'd suggesting revising your viewpoint that ethics are unmalleable and constant. You can't even point to the sanctity of human life as a constant, as we legally (basing legality as a result of ethicality, per the latter part of your post) kill all the time - our army, our police force, and up until relatively recent years, our judicial process all resorted to the ending of human life as part of their ethically sound, socially acceptable process.
Morality, and ethics, are purely relative; whether something is socially accepted is, I tender, not a sound basis for "wrong" or "right", "good" or "evil".
@Synaesthetix
"Here, take some more bees with you. You may need them."
Union: FU//LoUD
"that Syn is that that" - Mothers Love
My first and most important point, is that the following are simply the representations of different philosophical views, I will not state which one(s) I agree with, they are simply here for contemplation
(Apologies for any disjointedness)
OBJECTIVE APPROACHES
Moral Universalism claims that all or some moral principles apply to everyone
Moral Objectivism claims that certain actions are objectively and intrinsically moral or immoral
Moral Absolutism claims that there are no exceptions to these moral judgments, commands and prohibitions in the light of circumstances.
OTHER APPROACHES
Cultural Relativism
1.) Different cultures have different moral codes.
2.) There is no objective standard that can be used to judge one societal code better than another
3.) The moral code of our own society has no special status: it is merely one among many
4.) There is no 'universal truth' in ethics; that is, there are no moral truths that hold for all peoples at all times
5.) The moral code of a society determines what is right within the society: that is, of the moral code of a society says that a certain action is right, then that action *is* right, at least, within *that* society
6.) it is mere arrogance for us to try and judge the conduct of other peoples. We should adopt an attitude of tolerance toward the practices of other cultures (James Rachels)
Normative Relativism
One should neither pass judgement on the values of anyone else nor try to persuade them to conform to one's own values
Individual Relativism
Like taste and aesthetic judgments, morality varies from individual to individual. Therefore, moral judgments are expressions of personal attitudes, desires or feelings.
Proportionalism
Ontic/premoral evil may not be wrong in context
-"One can never intend premoral evil as an end, but one can intend and do premoral evil as a means to an end, provided there is a proportionate reason" (Curran.)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the things I find objectionable about this debate is the lack of willingness to accept other peoples' viewpoints. Something which Syra and Augury are particularly guilty of in this instance, in some cases coming close to being insulting with their responses.
[/ QUOTE ]
That was really quite un-neccesary, Word, especially when you yourself seem pretty unwilling to shift in viewpoint.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, and I'd like this to stop. Now.
If anyone feels that another poster has 'crossed the line', the correct thing to do is let me know.
Thanks.
Morality, ethics and the nature of good and evil are fascinating topics, and I'm both pleased and interested to see a discussion about them and how they apply to City of Heroes and Villains. It's my personal belief that these issues lie at the heart of nearly all great 'costumed hero' stories, and are the themes that can lift what has often been dismissed as a childish medium to the status of a truly adult - and relevant - artform.
Please, however, bear in mind that everyone is entitled to their own opinions on these matters, and that thousands of years of philosophical debate have yet to resolve the question of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' - and probably never will.
By all means, discuss and talk about this stuff - but respect the opinions of others, even if they clash with your own.
Thanks.
[ QUOTE ]
[...]thousands of years of philosophical debate have yet to resolve the question of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' - and probably never will.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but imagine the attention Co[VH] would garner if we managed to finally resolve that question here in this forum. You can't but that kind of publicity for money! :-P
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but imagine the attention Co[VH] would garner if we managed to finally resolve that question here in this forum. You can't but that kind of publicity for money! :-P
[/ QUOTE ]
CoX: Making You Not Dumb(tm).
[ QUOTE ]
CoX: Making You Not Dumb(tm).
[/ QUOTE ]
I prefer "CoX: We're not Matrix Online"
Which pretty much says the same thing.
Unlike Syra, I can't let this one slide...
[ QUOTE ]
Which is the mindset you'd expect from villains, no? The impression I got, from having played both sides of the stories, is that the villains are doing pretty much what you're doing here: putting their own perspective on the situation and deriving a result based on that. The heroic contacts seem much more minded ( in the main) to viewing the situation objectively.
[/ QUOTE ]
Now, I haven't seen the villain side of these, but I have done a substantial amount of the hero stuff. I find the hero contacts are also doing a lot of exactly what I expect from a lot of do-gooders. The Clockwork King is a genius trapped in an insane brain. Vazy isn't as bad as he seems. Nemesis could have done so much for the world if he had been good. The villains tend to be cynical, but the heroes don't really seem terribly objective either.
On another note: Is CoH a four-colour comic world? Yeah, I think it is, mostly. The villains do have more depth than a true four-colour world, but a lot of them are just out to take over the world or gain power and money.
I think this discussion has got too hung up on Good and Evil. Those are human concepts, subject to interpretation. It's also nothing to do with the OP's original 'question', which was about playing a basically 'good' character in CoV.
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
Oh bother, my second long post about Ethical Language got removed as well 
[ QUOTE ]
Oh bother, my second long post about Ethical Language got removed as well
[/ QUOTE ]
Ah, but although your post was certainly insightful and informative, I'm glad we're rid of that whole section. I mean, I wrote a post or two I was particularly proud of which got deleted, but if it means we can continue with our lives and forget about everything that went on in those pages, so much the better. I, for one, would much rather miss out on a couple of good posts and forget the slanderous posts, than have to subject myself to reading them, just to find one or two insightful ones.
Besides, you can always post again.
[ QUOTE ]
Besides, you can always post again.
[/ QUOTE ]
Like so, now that I'm not in the middle of the last episdoes of Season 1 of Lost
Theories of Ethical Language:
COGNITIVIST THEORIES
(Ethical statements say something about the issue at hand)
Naturalism / Moral Realism
"Good" is define by reference to some natural quality
-Ethical judgments are factual statements, the truth or falsity of which can be determined by reference to empirical evidence
Intuitionism
"Good" cannot be defined by reference to any other quality, but is recognised intuitively
NON-COGNITIVIST THEORIES
(Ethical statements say something about the speaker's opinions)
Justification
If moral facts do exist, it is very unclear what they are like and how they are recognised
Logical Positivism
Ethical statements are neither analytic nor verifiable, therefore they are strictly meaningless
Emotivism
A J Ayer's view from a previous post:
-Moral judgments are "moral sentiments", that is, expressions of personal feelings, and are no different to displaying a taste in music or food
Prescriptivism
Moral judgments are disguised imperatives, intended to guide choices and actions for oneself and others
A post I made earlier was removed which I feel needs to be repeated.
Callng people out on the boards is against the user agreement. I shouldn't have done it, I was wrong to. I apologise for the offence caused, and wll in future keep such matters private.
Sorry I missed a few days of posts on this thread,had computer issues.
Wow 8 pages..
I guess we would not have so much trouble with the whole "good/evil" question if they did exist as tangible forces as opposed to social constructs, which is the problem I have with the "hero in COV baaad!!" argument.
How is a hero who wants to destroy Arachnos and bring about a benevolent reigeme change in the rogue isles different from a Villain who wants to destroy Arachnos and rule the isles for himself?
One issue that has been brought up is that when other characters find out the "hero" character would be killed, but considering the isles are full of constant infighting even within arachnos itself, how would this be worse or different than characters of different groups encountering each other?
It also raises the issue of how will the villains find out that the character is opposed to them?
I certainly hope that such characters would not be walking around telling everyone they are heroes!
An example I think of of a "dark hero" in COV is the snake hunter guy you meet in mercy island, ok he may be doing it for money but he is making the streets of mercy island safe for all the inhabitants by exterminating the eeeevil snakes.
There exists another possibility for a character of "noble" virtues, a dedicated medic/healer who exists to make people whole and well no matter their alignment, sure they might be causing more harm by keeping scum alive but they are still doing good surely?
[ QUOTE ]
There exists another possibility for a character of "noble" virtues, a dedicated medic/healer who exists to make people whole and well no matter their alignment, sure they might be causing more harm by keeping scum alive but they are still doing good surely?
[/ QUOTE ]
And, currently, there is no dedicated medic/healer in the CoV AT set. 
[ QUOTE ]
It also raises the issue of how will the villains find out that the character is opposed to them?
[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, if they never do, then it doesn't matter.
Of course, since there is actually nothing you can do to disrupt any PC villains in the course of your actions, you won't actually be able to stop them doing anything.
If you did try to do something to stop them, then there is a possibility that you would be discovered. If you were discovered, would you be willing to have your character killed?
Disclaimer: The above may be humerous, or at least may be an attempt at humour. Try reading it that way.
Posts are OOC unless noted to be IC, or in an IC thread.
I also managed to miss out on the first 8 pages of this thread until now, but would just like to voice my personal opinion in favour of COV's "(role)playability" for a basically "not so evil" or perhaps even "heroic" character.
For some reason, all my COV characters have backstories that seem to show that they are not truly evil. IMO there are a lot of concepts that could make COV an interesting setting for such characters, such as e.g. a character being framed for a crime he/she did not commit and working behind enemy lines to clear their name or perhaps an undercover hero.
In response to the "Godmode" objection, I agree with DavidG's point that such "undercover" heroes would certainly not be wise to run about flaunting their actual heroic affiliation, and thus antagonise other (truly villainous) characters.
Needless to say, in playing such characters you will as mentioned by others end up having to "bend" a few mission texts here and there and look at the defeating of foes as "arresting" more than killing, and some missions will have to be "refused" IC for ethical reasons and then done OOC, but this certainly hasn't ruined my fun or my immersion in any of these characters.
Actually, to me it has almost been as if these characters have had an extra dimension because of the way their environment conflicts with their true motivations and because of the many moral and ethical dilemma they have to face more or less constantly.
Finally, the idea of a more "greyish" as opposed to black or white character could seem to fit in well with the upcoming ability to switch sides (something I more or less expect all my COV characters to end up doing!)
I can certainly understand that others may have a different view, but I have just had so much fun playing closet-heroic villains that I wanted to comment.
[ QUOTE ]
One good intention doesn't excuse evil methods and a barbaric approach. He recruits psychopaths and sadists that are shown to enjoy cutting up innocents; as evidenced in a great deal of their dialogue, and a number of missions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but from Vahzilok's point of view, misguided as it may be, he has a job to get done; i.e saving mankind from death. If you had set yourself a task, and you needed help, would you refuse it from someone who's willing to help you, no matter what they do in their lives?
Vahzilok is working to provide a service which, in his mind, will better humanity. Not to excuse his actions behind a tired cliche, but "you can't make omlettes without breaking eggs". With any sort of experiment, whether medical, scientific, or sociological, there will be mistakes. Vahz probably sees it, more than anything else, as trial and error. Does he commit crimes in the world of Co*? Absolutely. However, are his actions 'evil'? As Zortel correctly pointed out, good and evil are subjective. The cel groups of Al-Qaeda aren't evil to themselves, as they believe they are performing a righteous act. We, however, (and hopefully I include everyone on this forum in this 'we') believe what they are doing is wrong. Killing is a horrendous crime, the worst imaginable, for any reason, and to excuse it behind biblical acts, medical tests, or anthing else is the result of a deluded mind preying on the masses for their own gain.
However, the acts themselves, whilst inherently evil, can, more often than not, be excused away in the perpetrator's own mind, whether they be sane or not.