Praetoria is NOT "goatee" Paragon

Enemies are, by definition, contrary to your morality, and that makes them evil to you. You can't have enemies that are good, because that would mean that you know what are you doing is evil. No-one does things that think are evil (unless they think there's a better good after).

PD: If something is hard to understand, sorry. English isn't my 1st language. Sometimes it's difficult to me to express the exact thoughts.

So, then, democracy is bad? You know, it's based on the premise of the good of the majority.
If most of people think that blowing my house to put a mall is good, then it's Good? Don't I have the freedom to put my house wherever I want?

English isn't my first language, either

They key point that keeps being used intermittently here is "to you" that I bolded in the quote. It's important, because that's essentially the linchpin of this entire debate. It's common practice in war, and even in everyday life, to vilify your enemies and try to present their position as objectively wrong, so that you can have a justification for why you are right and they are wrong. When it comes to acts of violence and war, it's kind of past the "agree to disagree" phase, and if you're going to be KILLING someone, you might as well try and make it seem like they really deserved it.

But the key to writing a good story with a convincing moral ambiguity is to not side the reader (or, indeed, side yourself as a writer) with one side and try to present their subjective view of the world as an objective truth in that world. City of Heroes generally sides with the heroes, presenting their views of the world as the correct ones, so their enemies are evil villains, and a lot of the time unashamedly so. Good on them - it's a large part of what makes super hero interesting. Morality is relatively clear, and where it isn't, it's at least possible to be set straight in the end.

Going Rogue is sort of the other side of super hero comics, the side where morality is never really clear and the deeper you go, the more complicated it gets. There are no easy answers and no clear heroes and villains, just different people fighting for what they believe in. Some may be painted as better and others as worse, but the key here is that they all have a point and they all have a reason to fight. The narrative doesn't give you a ready answer as to whose morality is true and whose is false, because that's the whole point of the expansion - uncertain morality that can easily lead a hero astray and a villain into the path of good. Right and wrong are subjective in Praetoria.

Of course, if we want to have any sort of meaningful side-changing system, we NEED to have a basis in absolute morality, so Praetoria's grey and grey morality system will likely end up being judged by Paragon City's and the Rogue Isles' black and white morality system, and while it will offer you a greater degree of freedom of self-definition, it won't exactly allow you to redefine what is good and what is bad. I've no doubt that the resistance will be presented as the good guys and the Loyalists as the bad guys, but I also have no doubt that they'll be constantly crossing the line into each other's moral territory, leading the player to having to think for himself and not just blindly follow contacts in whatever they say.

As an interesting example, people say that all missions in CoH are goody-goody, but that isn't necessarily true. Plenty of missions have you going out of your way to break into Crey property without a warrant, and your contacts routinely have you roam around and beat up Crey agents doing business which is officially completely legitimate. In fact, at one point Countess Crey actually gets a warrant out for your arrest. But because the plot says so, you're still a paragon of justice even though you just broke into a private property, beat up a bunch of people without cause and attacked a legitimate business on nothing more than a hunch. We're heroes, damn it! Nothing we do is wrong, because the game doesn't have a way to make it meaningful.

But it will.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Actually, I'm going to have to disagree here. Whilst in war attempts are made to demonise the opposition through propoganda, its actually fairly rare that there is a real conflict of morality.

World War II in the European Theatre, would be a prime example of one where there was a clear conflict of morality. (even if not necessarily obvious at the start)

World War I, however wasn't about morlaity at all, but about a balance of power struggle, and over the 'right' to exploit Imperial resources.

"War is a continuation of diplomacy by other means" :- Karl Von Clausewitz

I actually did try using it once, but I ended up with consecutive posts anyway.

Now I just sort of wave at the tide and move on (and yeah, that's the second time this week I referred to that metaphor).

I can think of a few.

Seems the media bashed Israel a couple of years ago because They fired back at people lobbing missiles at them from Lebanon. Unfortunately, those people lobbing missiles were hiding among the "innocent" citizens and near schools. It became a choice between two evils. Which was worse, allowing people to continue to lob missiles across the border killing Israelis, or take out the ones firing the missiles, and possibly innocent civilians in the process (called collateral damage).

I suspect that this will bring La Cólera del Ocho down upon this thread.

How many died in Israel, how many in Lebanon?

If all human lives are equal, then math is the answer.

It is likely.

The lives of your people are always worth more then the lives of other people when those other people are causing direct harm. In a fight buildings such as churches, schools, and hospitals are only protected targets as long as they aren't being used as offensive platforms.

True, but in this example neither are my people.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

I think it'd be accurate if you just left off the "annoying, pretentious, overthinking" part

That was my point actually. :/

I think you win the thread...I'll need the other judges to confirm though.

Well, it's either give them the thread or let it go into talk of morality in the great Middle East conflict so...

*Pizza trophy*

I offer concurrence. 'Twas epic, 'twas magical. 'Twas awesome.

Last thought on this: you may want to check out Just and Unjust Wars, by Micheal Walzer, or anything else regarding Just War theory. It's some interesting stuff.

Counterpoint: I also have one. WHATCHA GONNA DO NOW!?

Well, yeah, but you're evil. It's not really a surprise, ya know?

THEY SAY you are crazy ?

THEY SAY one day the computer will rule all.

THEY SAY many things.

Is the coming storm the Drakh ? and have they planted a keeper on Morac ?

How dreadfully nationalistic and xenophobic. As far as I'm concerned if it's human and on this planet, it's my people.

That's why this is a thought-exercise. It's a clear cut what-if scenario, the bare bones of the ethical dilemma and nothing more, no awkward national loyalties to get in the way and bias us all. You're not meant to look for a real-world scenario and work with that, you're just meant to go with the question as asked. Tricky that way isn't it?