Praetoria is NOT "goatee" Paragon
By
Anti_Proton,
Posted on: 2009-10-26 15:41 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
Even if he is there, the weapon doesn't have to be loaded. Testing resolve is funy like that.
|
Originally Posted by Arilou
It should be noted that nothing in the example says the dictator has to be *there* when he hands you the weapon. He's not neccessarily that stupidl.
|
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
Quote:
Ah, you wouldn't like my MA arc then |
Originally Posted by GreenLantern68
<snerk>
Funny...but in the process you bent my head and it hurts. A pox on you. Ow. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zwillinger
GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Captain_Photon
NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.
 |
Quote:
While the third option solution is clever (VERY clever |
Originally Posted by Olantern
Exactly. A famous philosopher (Kant? someone law professors like to talk about) posed the following scenario: A despot hands you a pistol and tells you to shoot the innocent political prisoner standing in front of you. If you don't do it, the despot will shoot you instead, then shoot the prisoner himself. The philosopher, whoever it was, asserted that the only moral option was to allow the despot to shoot you, since you'd be actively wronging the prisoner by shooting him. I've met any number of people in real life and many more in fiction who'd proudly tell the despot to kill them.
I believe those people are wrong. In this scenario, an activist becomes a martyr to self-determination and morality. A hero shoots the despot instead. |
) I don't think that's the point. The point is to test whether a person can excuse themselves doing a terrible act by a sufficiently convincing excuse. This one, in particular, is a tough choice, but it's an extension of a moral question we actually see every day - we know something bad is going to happen, so it might as well be us that do it, such that we may profit from it. I mean, it'll happen anyway, right? What's the harm in cashing in on the inevitable?The response to this, and it's one I've actually given in real life, is "I don't care if it's going to happen. I refuse to be the one to do it." This is, of course, subjective and that's just my opinion on the matter, but if kill an innocent or die AND get the innocent killed anyway are the only options, I'd still pick the latter for a good guy. I'm not sure what I'd do in real life (haven't had enough of a close call to know how I'd react), but I subscribe to a more idealistic, romantic vision of fiction, where it comes down to not just saving the world, but ensuring you end up with a world worth saving in the end.
Which actually brings about my own view on moral relativism. I don't mind questionable morality, grey characters and even a world half empty as a PLOT POINT, as long as everything gets resolved by the end. As long as the narrative doesn't become malicious (Japanese anime tends to go there half the time), I can accept a LOT of crap thrown my way by a story provided it ends with a resolution. But when a story ends with it essentially telling me that there IS no resolution and that we really live in a crapsack world, my response is to flip my TV a birdie and go watch something else.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
Well, by definition, if he's handing it to you, he must be there. If you wanted to leave him that out while constructing the scenario, you'd have to say he was providing you with a weapon or something similarly nonspecific. |
Originally Posted by Arilou
It should be noted that nothing in the example says the dictator has to be *there* when he hands you the weapon. He's not neccessarily that stupidl.
|
Quote:
Actually, it is - there are things that are always evil, no matter where you are, and thing sthat are always good too.
|
Originally Posted by Lord_Kalistoh
You think Good and Evil are concrete, but that's not true.
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
You are supporting my point: the society doesn't approve it.|
Originally Posted by inktomi
You've never encountered evil if you believe that.
Just because someone wants to kill you or hates your way of life, doesn't mean they are evil -- you can still reconcile that if you can avoid killing each other. But when you meet a guy who skins kids alive, or who ***** a guy through a colostomy scar and gave him herpes, there is no society where that behavior is okay. In the western world we just don't get much face-time with real evil because those people are likely to be institutionalized pretty early on. When you go to parts of the world where someone can get away with skinning little kids or forcing their parents to eat them, the society there doesn't "approve" of that behavior in any way, it's just that no one is able to stop it. I'm not so certain of a concrete "good", but I've met enough demons to believe in evil. |
In a possible society where the cruelty is the basis, that wouldn't be seen like evil.
You think you are an ant. You would think that humans are evil: they destroy your lands, they kill your people (sometimes just for the lol), they're everywhere. Are we really evil?
Quote:
People who kill animals or insects for the fun of it are not good people.|
Originally Posted by Lord_Kalistoh
You are supporting my point: the society doesn't approve it.
In a possible society where the cruelty is the basis, that wouldn't be seen like evil. You think you are an ant. You would think that humans are evil: they destroy your lands, they kill your people (sometimes just for the lol), they're everywhere. Are we really evil? |
Although, animals can't really be moral the way we are - so the stuff they do can't really be called evil.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
OK, lets jail all those little kids stomping ants.|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
People who kill animals or insects for the fun of it are not good people.
Although, animals can't really be moral the way we are - so the stuff they do can't really be called evil. |
BTW you eluded my question: Are we evil? We destroy, exterminate and enslave entire races just because we can.
Quote:
Yep, definitely Kant. One of the reasons I really dislike his ethical system. Even worse is his example (keep in mind he came up with it, not anyone pointing out flaws in his system) where an axe-murderer comes to your door, looking for your buddy, who happens to be in the shower at that point (or otherwise not nearby, but still in the house). The question: do you lie to the murderer, and tell him your buddy is out of town? Or do you say "sure, lemme go get him", knowing full well the murdered is going to chop him up into little pieces? According to Kant, you should choose the second option, because lying is always wrong.
|
Originally Posted by Olantern
Exactly. A famous philosopher (Kant? someone law professors like to talk about) posed the following scenario: A despot hands you a pistol and tells you to shoot the innocent political prisoner standing in front of you. If you don't do it, the despot will shoot you instead, then shoot the prisoner himself. The philosopher, whoever it was, asserted that the only moral option was to allow the despot to shoot you, since you'd be actively wronging the prisoner by shooting him. I've met any number of people in real life and many more in fiction who'd proudly tell the despot to kill them.
I believe those people are wrong. In this scenario, an activist becomes a martyr to self-determination and morality. A hero shoots the despot instead. |
@Morac | Twitter
Trust the computer. The computer knows all.
Quote:
People who harm animals for any reason are not good people.|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
People who kill animals or insects for the fun of it are not good people.
Although, animals can't really be moral the way we are - so the stuff they do can't really be called evil. |
vs.
Here's a literal cookbook on how to prepare the animals you eat.
Both are good, virtuous in their culture, and mutually exclusive ideas of what is "good".
Can someone provide me with a link to animal sacrifice being holy and noble? I want to complete the triangle!
Animals and morality regarding them is one of the largely undifined areas of morality. Different theories have wildly varying viewpoints, sometime even within the same theory there are major differences (see: Bentham vs Mill on utilitarianism).
@Morac | Twitter
Trust the computer. The computer knows all.
I think of it as an altered Praetoria. Something that changed because of all the time travel maybe - Oroboros - you knew something was going on there. After so much time travel and so many people traveling back in time to fight all the Praetorians, things there changed... we'll see it in weird order because time paradoxes do things like that.
Reasonable enough of a reason to retcon things.
And anyway, Tyrant Cole is not at all being given that much of a "good" makeover. He's just being portrayed as evil in the Countess Crey good-PR-at-all-costs sort of way. The loyalists are equated to villains and the resistance to heroes in Praetoria gameplay.
I can definitely still see him, as a non aging old guy, succumbing to the overtures of his taboo-defying, beautiful, appearing as his age descendant. Without it impacting his public image at all 
Praetoria SHOULD be 'Goatee' Earth
Why?
Because you know, there can be more than one alternate reality. There's no reason to retcon anything. I can easily see an introductory arc where you think you're going to Tyrant's world and find yourself in a veritable heaven.
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Quote:
I'm pretty sure animal sacrifice features in the bible, and if it doesn't, I'm sure there are religions where it's prominent. Which brings up another interesting point - our views of what is good and evil are a fairly modern phenomenon, and to a large extent the result of Western European and North-American views on morality. Even right now, what is moral and good in something as simple as the middle or far east, or even Africa is quite different, and looking back in history to the old American people in pre-colonial times when human sacrifice was not only expected, but glorified and worshipped, the water just gets muddier.|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
People who harm animals for any reason are not good people.
vs. Here's a literal cookbook on how to prepare the animals you eat. Both are good, virtuous in their culture, and mutually exclusive ideas of what is "good". Can someone provide me with a link to animal sacrifice being holy and noble? I want to complete the triangle! |
I'm not going to argue with anyone that says our current understanding of good and evil is probably the most tolerant, fair one, but again, just because we hold it as an ideal does not make it a universal fact. It's quite possible to run into a society where, say, living past the age of 20 is forbidden and you are killed and chopped up for food when you do. I'm not saying we should justify acts of evil as "well, he's just different in that he likes to eat people," but I AM saying that not all peoples of the world hold the American/European ideals of good and evil quite as they stand.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
They're not races |
Originally Posted by Lord_Kalistoh
OK, lets jail all those little kids stomping ants.
BTW you eluded my question: Are we evil? We destroy, exterminate and enslave entire races just because we can. |
It's evil to be cruel to animals.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Goodness, you people don't understand evil. |
Originally Posted by Techbot Alpha
Quote:
|
The evil despot gives you an unloaded gun.
The evil despot WILL destroy you. Either way.
If you turn the gun on the despot. He laughs at your folly. He laughs at your dashed hope. Then he kills the prisoner and kills you slowly.
If you turn the gun on the political prisoner, then you've fallen. You don't actually have to do it. You just have to be willing to. Then you're his.
BWA HA HA HA HA!!!!
The City of Heroes Community is a special one and I will always look fondly on my times arguing, discussing and playing with you all. Thanks and thanks to the developers for a special experience.
Quote:
Supporting arguments plz. Kthxbai.|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
It's evil to be cruel to animals.
|
Oh wait, we already did this in another thread, didn't we? Request rescinded.
@Morac | Twitter
Trust the computer. The computer knows all.
The testing of Abraham by demanding the sacrifice of Isaac, which after the angellic intervention became a sacrifice of a Ram.
Story is common to all three Abrahamic religions.
@Catwhoorg "Rule of Three - Finale" Arc# 1984
@Mr Falkland Islands"A Nation Goes Rogue" Arc# 2369 "Toasters and Pop Tarts" Arc#116617
Quote:
*headdesk*|
Originally Posted by Catwhoorg
The testing of Abraham by demanding the sacrifice of Isaac, which after the angellic intervention became a sacrifice of a Ram.
Story is common to all three Abrahamic religions. |
I feel like I just called tech support and was correctly told that the big button labeled on is how I turn on the computer.
HOW did I not think of that!?
Quote:
Well why would anyone want to make another living creature suffer?
|
Originally Posted by Morac_Ex_Machina
Supporting arguments plz. Kthxbai.
|
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Because meat is tasty. Because we've evolved that way. Because such-and-such religeon says so. There are plenty of reasons, and while I don't really disagree with you (though meat is tasty), simply stating that something is unethical does not make it so.
@Morac | Twitter
Trust the computer. The computer knows all.
Quote:
If someone makes a moral statement regarding Good or Evil, you can keep asking "Why" in response to everything they say, much like a 3 year old.|
Originally Posted by Morac_Ex_Machina
simply stating that something is unethical does not make it so.
|
Keep at it, and you'll eventually get to the cold, withered core of an excuse: "Because I said so".
Unless one subscribes to the concept of a higher being that throws down rules, the terms "Good" and "Evil" are fluid and relative. Heck, religious morality is the same thing, only ending in "Because THEY said so".
The question of "what is good?" or "what is evil?" is , ultimately, worthless. The only question that really applies is: Are you trying your best to be the best human being you can be?
It's vague, shadowy, and all we have.
Quote:
I'd test fire it on the floor first |
Originally Posted by EvilGeko
Goodness, you people don't understand evil.
The evil despot gives you an unloaded gun. The evil despot WILL destroy you. Either way. If you turn the gun on the despot. He laughs at your folly. He laughs at your dashed hope. Then he kills the prisoner and kills you slowly. If you turn the gun on the political prisoner, then you've fallen. You don't actually have to do it. You just have to be willing to. Then you're his. BWA HA HA HA HA!!!! |
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Quote:
Not really, unless you want to throw all existing work into moral philosophy out the window. There is a certain amount of assumption that does go into this sort of debate, but that does not mean that there can be no meaningful discourse.|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
If someone makes a moral statement regarding Good or Evil, you can keep asking "Why" in response to everything they say, much like a 3 year old.
Keep at it, and you'll eventually get to the cold, withered core of an excuse: "Because I said so". Unless one subscribes to the concept of a higher being that throws down rules, the terms "Good" and "Evil" are fluid and relative. Heck, religious morality is the same thing, only ending in "Because THEY said so". The question of "what is good?" or "what is evil?" is , ultimately, worthless. The only question that really applies is: Are you trying your best to be the best human being you can be? It's vague, shadowy, and all we have. |
Also, I was hardly getting into the recursive "why?" loop, I was merely asking for some sort of justification.
@Morac | Twitter
Trust the computer. The computer knows all.
How about the character, who was unelected, came into his position through dubious means, and acted without accountability to anyone. Had a secret organization who did his bidding, and were completely willing to die for him.
The launched a war against an alien race, and smuggled weapons of mass destruction for use against a civilian target (a city) under the guise of peace negotiations.
That is Captain John Sheridan...
There is a huge space of story to be opened up by having the Preatorians be ambiguous rather than the Goatee versions. I am looking forward to it.
WELL done, sir. Absolutely no snark intented. You are exactly correct and would be a great thing to explore in our middle-aged cape and mask computer game. I think a story arc or three that used this idea would be quite welcome around here.
Bravo, Cat.
- Green Lantern
"Say, Jim...woo! That's a bad out-FIT!" - Superman: The Movie
Me 'n my posse: http://www.citygametracker.com/site/....php?user=5608