By
Agonus,
Posted on: 2010-03-19 09:52 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
|
Originally Posted by billy_pilgrim
have you listened to recluse's propaganda over the speakers in grandville?
|
Lots of good replies (I do enjoy this community, hehe).
"Hero" and "Evil" are not really proper antonyms.
A good person may never be in a situation to be a hero.
And an evil person may be in such a situation and even do the heroic thing, thus they could be called a "hero" for that action.
The simplest definition of "hero" is just someone that does something with personal risk that results in benefiting another/others.
Someone defined as "evil" could, perhaps even by chance, do something "heroic". Often times, it is not even by chance... A truely determined malevolent being may need to take personal risks in order to accomplish what they want... And there may be many that are benefited from those actions. Those people may see that person as a "hero". I think history is full of questionable (If not "evil") people that were, at one point, seen as "heroes".
Just as many "heroes" have been seen as quite the opposite, whether it is simply as a public menace or far worse.
A term such as "evil" needs to be defined.
Evil is a term not just used for doing wrong, but perhaps used more to define inherently wrong motivations that lead to wrongful actions. "Acts of evil" would be actions that are wrong... But just "evil" on its own seems to be more about the true nature of the being in question.
The judging of particular people/characters is based on what you know about them... and, in reality, that usually falls entirely on their actions.
I mean.. if someone constantly had "evil" thoughts and motivations, but never acted on them... are they "evil"? Are they heroic for fighting against those inner desires? Hmm...
Regardless, other than the above... Steampunkette said what I was going to say:
|
Originally Posted by Steampunkette
Firstly you've got to define Good and Evil... Since different people have different definitions.
Personally I prefer the following definitions. Evil: Generally Selfish acts or acts which spread emotional or physical pain. Good: Acts which are altruistic in nature, helping others, supports emotional well being. Now with Good and Evil so defined... If you mean Good (Altruism, Helping others, Supporting Emotional Well Being) but do something Evil (Spreads Pain) then you've performed an Evil act... Regardless of motive. If you mean Evil (Selfish Acts for Selfish Reasons) but do something good (helping Others by doing it) you've performed a good act for an evil reason. As you can see, the Act itself is unchanged based on motivation... The person is either good or evil by their own nature. A Good person who spreads emotional and physical pain by committing an evil act, with the best of intentions, is still vilified by the act. An evil person who does a good thing for evil purposes is still an evil person, even though he's held aloft as a hero. It's not a question of Good or Evil, under this definition. It's a question of Right, Wrong, and public opinion of the acts. -Rachel- |
|
Originally Posted by Warkupo
I always hated this plot in time travel science fiction. You don't have to kill the *******. That's the easiest method, sure. Instead remove him from the scenario that enabled him to become a tyrannical *******.
|
|
Originally Posted by Rodion
Similarly, killing and torturing people who have done evil things is also evil.
However, it is often necessary to do evil things for the greater good, such as fighting a war in self defense or killing someone who is trying to kill innocents. But anyone who does these things will have to answer for those actions in whatever court of law is applicable. But saying that these necessary evil deeds are not evil, or lying about having done them, or failing to admit your guilt, or reveling in those evil deeds, or finding other excuses for those evil deeds, unquestionably marks you as being evil. In the case of legally declared wars, soldiers are not evil when they kill if they abide the laws of war. Similarly, law enforcement officers performing their duties according to the laws of the land are not evil if they must kill. But when someone in those positions employs deadly force and finds pleasure in it, they are evil. However, if the laws themselves are evil, then even "legal" actions performed by military or law enforcement personnel are evil. Soldiers and law enforcement personnel must not obey illegal orders or follow unethical or immoral laws. If forced to choose, they must refuse the order or resign their positions or they become evil themselves. Of course, what's evil is defined by the religious, moral and ethical beliefs of the population involved. But acts that cause irreparable harm are unquestionably evil regardless of whatever moral compass you might have: murder and torture are always evil. Whether they are justifiable is another question that must be answered on a case-by-case basis. |
*waves at Electric Knight!*
Ultimately the whole topic is fairly subjective. I prefer to use objective terms on Good and Evil, personally. but some people simply can't accept absolutes, and thus argue the semantics of my point rather than the point itself.
Good and Evil, as I've defined them, are objective. If it causes emotional or physical distress and pain it is evil. If it fosters positive emotional wellbeing then it's good.
Right and Wrong are, to me, the subjective versions of Good and Evil.
For example: Killing a baby to bring in a good harvest for the village. Good or Evil? Well the -act- is evil, even if the intent and result are good. is it the Right thing to do? Possibly, based on the community's moral and ethical structure. But the act itself, the murder of the baby, is still evil.
By the definition I've set forth, that Evil spreads (or in this case inflicts) emotional or physical pain, killing the baby is an evil act. If you're working with a different definition of evil, feel free to define it. And then show me how the murder of an innocent is not, in fact, evil.
-Rachel-
The problem is, what we define as "evil" in an absolute sense doesn't exist. It's based on the observer's viewpoint. At the risk of Godwinning the heck out of the thread, the typical example of "absolute Evil" in the modern world is usually Hitler, but his position as Master of Evil was only determined by historical hindsight by the winning side. The majority of Germans didn't consider him evil, and he definately didn't. His leadership of Germany is still one of their highpoints in modern history (the economy was better than ever, services worked, they had order and law and went from a provencial area into a world power in very short order). However, the whole "ruling the world" thing and the Holocaust show him as "evil" to most people today (and yes, there are a sizable number who do NOT believe that). Had germany won WWII that situation would be reversed.
Evil is determined not by action or intent, but by hindsight.
To use another example, Manson is seen as one of the gurus of evil, especially after sending his followers on a murder spree to start what he thought was going to be a race war. But change the context, put him in a uniform and have him sending his troops to take out a cell of terrorists to disrupt a group of cells and suddenly hes a hero.
Evil is determined not by action or intent, but by context.
A third example... Susan Smith placed her children in a car and rolled it into a lake because, she claimed, God had told her too. But change the historical setting and she could have been one of the great heros of the Bible, like Abraham (who was stopped just short of carving his own child) or Jephthah who sacrifices his daughter because he promised to in order to win a battle.
Evils is determined not by action or intent, but historical setting and morals.
Personally, I think that hero and villain are antonyms, and good and evil are antonyms, but hero and good and villain and evil are not synonyms of each other.
I think that hero is synonymous with PROTAGONIST, or someone that is "on your side" or does something that you feel is beneficial to you or your beliefs, while villain is someone that is antagonistic to you or your beliefs.
And I think good and evil aren't related to the person's relationship to YOU, but rather their relationship to whatever ethical code you follow.
I'll try to use an example. When playing online games, especially FPSs like Unreal Tournament 2004, I see the other players in a free for all as being my "villains". I do NOT however, see them as being "evil" OR "good", they're just here to mess with me. If I'm on a team online game, my allies are my "heroes" and the enemy team are "villains". But again, neither are good or evil.
I think that people that molest children are EVIL.... even though it doesn't affect me personally or directly. I think that people that feed the hungry in Africa are GOOD, even though it doesn't affect me directly or personally.
So, I think that's what it comes down to, is hero/villain is personal based on your relationship to that person/act, and good/evil is impersonal and based on your guiding ETHIC's relationship to that person/act. Because we are not our ethics.
Often times the ethics we were raised with either don't apply to a given situation/person, or the event or person that's being talked about has no relation to or effect on us.
That's what I think the difference is... or did I just make it more confusing?
Team Dark is like Some Villains that Join Vanguard. Just because your goal (self preservation against the Rikti) happens to coincide with what evert Hero and Normal Civilian in the CoH universe wants doesn't mean you're not a scumbag at heart.
|
Originally Posted by Steampunkette
*waves at Electric Knight!*
Ultimately the whole topic is fairly subjective. I prefer to use objective terms on Good and Evil, personally. but some people simply can't accept absolutes, and thus argue the semantics of my point rather than the point itself. Good and Evil, as I've defined them, are objective. If it causes emotional or physical distress and pain it is evil. If it fosters positive emotional wellbeing then it's good. Right and Wrong are, to me, the subjective versions of Good and Evil. For example: Killing a baby to bring in a good harvest for the village. Good or Evil? Well the -act- is evil, even if the intent and result are good. is it the Right thing to do? Possibly, based on the community's moral and ethical structure. But the act itself, the murder of the baby, is still evil. By the definition I've set forth, that Evil spreads (or in this case inflicts) emotional or physical pain, killing the baby is an evil act. If you're working with a different definition of evil, feel free to define it. And then show me how the murder of an innocent is not, in fact, evil. -Rachel- |
|
Originally Posted by Warkupo
It's similiar to how I don't see 'argument' and 'debate' being different, but many people would disagree with me.
|
|
Originally Posted by Redbone
The problem is, what we define as "evil" in an absolute sense doesn't exist. It's based on the observer's viewpoint. At the risk of Godwinning the heck out of the thread, the typical example of "absolute Evil" in the modern world is usually Hitler, but his position as Master of Evil was only determined by historical hindsight by the winning side. The majority of Germans didn't consider him evil, and he definately didn't. His leadership of Germany is still one of their highpoints in modern history (the economy was better than ever, services worked, they had order and law and went from a provencial area into a world power in very short order). However, the whole "ruling the world" thing and the Holocaust show him as "evil" to most people today (and yes, there are a sizable number who do NOT believe that). Had germany won WWII that situation would be reversed.
|
|
Originally Posted by Redbone
The problem is, what we define as "evil" in an absolute sense doesn't exist. It's based on the observer's viewpoint. At the risk of Godwinning the heck out of the thread, the typical example of "absolute Evil" in the modern world is usually Hitler, but his position as Master of Evil was only determined by historical hindsight by the winning side. The majority of Germans didn't consider him evil, and he definately didn't. His leadership of Germany is still one of their highpoints in modern history (the economy was better than ever, services worked, they had order and law and went from a provencial area into a world power in very short order). However, the whole "ruling the world" thing and the Holocaust show him as "evil" to most people today (and yes, there are a sizable number who do NOT believe that). Had germany won WWII that situation would be reversed.
Evil is determined not by action or intent, but by hindsight. To use another example, Manson is seen as one of the gurus of evil, especially after sending his followers on a murder spree to start what he thought was going to be a race war. But change the context, put him in a uniform and have him sending his troops to take out a cell of terrorists to disrupt a group of cells and suddenly hes a hero. Evil is determined not by action or intent, but by context. A third example... Susan Smith placed her children in a car and rolled it into a lake because, she claimed, God had told her too. But change the historical setting and she could have been one of the great heros of the Bible, like Abraham (who was stopped just short of carving his own child) or Jephthah who sacrifices his daughter because he promised to in order to win a battle. Evils is determined not by action or intent, but historical setting and morals. |
|
Originally Posted by Marcian Tobay
Relevant to both the upcoming Going Rogue and the Hero/Villain relationship in City of Heroes, I ask you the subject line: Is Evil defined by action, intent, both or neither?
Let me use the example I used when I brought this up in Comic Culture well over a year ago... Meet Team Dark:  (From Left to Right: Shadow, Rouge, and E-123 Omega) Taken from Sonic Heroes, Team Dark has always fascinated me. Sonic Heroes is about 4 teams, each with their own agenda, playing a hand in saving the world. What intrigues me about this team, however, is their behavior and motivation. They are as follows:
Those motivations don't seem very noble, do they? Rob, destroy, and "do whatever it takes to get what I want". Yet, in the story of the game, the level of destruction that they cause and the Chaos Emeralds Rouge steals are absolutely vital to weakening Robotnik's army enough to save the day. Also, they don't cause any standing damage to anything "Heroic" like a bystanding city or civilians (After all, their quarrel isn't with them). So, for selfish, violent, and greedy reasons, they play a key role in saving the world. Are they heroes or villains? Is "Hero" defined by the intention of your action or its result? If it's result, Team Dark is one of the greatest hero teams in Sonic Lore. If it's intent, they need to be locked up alongside the Eggman. Discuss. |
Busty bats can teach us so much about the world...
|
Originally Posted by Castle
Dr. Robotnik is rich, he employs hundreds if not thousands of people, contributing to the economy. It's likely that he is a philanthropist, donating to various charities regularly (to reduce taxes and to curry favor with his peers.) People who know him only via his good public persona would likely view the team as crazed terrorists trying to destroy a good man. The media would likely paint the group in a similar light, since Robotnik and his companies are sponsors. The only way this would not be the case was if the group were involved in high profile events which earned them public cache outside of their attacks on Robotnik's resources.
|
Everything is relative and there is always more than one side to a story. Even in a case of extreme sociopathy, you have to start wondering about degrees of free will.
In the end, it comes down to intent.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
I mean lets say Rage-Man, is the type who just likes to cause destruction. On Primal Earth he's a villain, because he has no regard for others safety.
He goes to Praetorian Earth, he could easily side with either fraction.
Work with Cole, he gets to legally cause mass destruction at whoever Cole points him after.
Work with the Resistance, and he may be freeing people from an oppressor, but he's just doing it to cause destruction.
He's evil. His intention is to just cause destruction. One side allows him to do so legally.
However, I kinda think GR will be less about intent and more A & B (A: You help Resistance you're good. B: You help Loyalists you're evil).
Loyalist: We need your help stopping a Resistance Member from planting a bomb in a public building, that will kill 25 civilians.
A hero would stop the Resistance Member from planting a bomb, to save the civilians. He just did something evil however as he helped the Loyalists.
Resistance: We need your help stopping the Loyalists from taking a little girl in for mindwiping for saying "I hate Cole", and having her whole personality changed.
A hero would stop the Loyalist Member from mindwiping a civilian. He just did something good, breaking the law to do so. This one is a little more in line with Primal Earth heros however, in that they're protecting the civilian (which is what they do on Primal Earth, but the law works with them in doing so in Paragon).
I think that's what will make GR interresting. Though personally, I think we'll see alot of heroes doing stuff they wouldn't normally do, just so the players can take their hero between Paragon and the Rogue Isles.
As it looks right now...Loyalists and Resistance are less about "Good vs Evil" and more about, "What side of the war are you on?" Are you for personal freedom at the cost of less safety or are you for safety at the cost of personal freedom?
So, to decide if one is truely Good or Evil, one would have to decide when their side is in the right and when their side is in the wrong, which I don't think GR will cover at all. I think it'll be more Black & White. Help one side, evil. Help the other side, good.
|
Originally Posted by Silverado
Combination of both
If you mean well, but do bad, you're not evil (but you may go to jail). If you mean bad, but do well, you're not evil (you can always get away with saying you meant well). If you mean bad AND do bad, then you're evil (which includes kicking puppies and clubbing baby seals). |
I would be scared to meet anyone who could seriously look at the **** of Nanjing, the Holocaust, or any number of things in our history and still say "everything is relative." If everything is relative, then every "evil" (and I say that loosely because if everything is relative then there really isn't an evil) is justifiable, somehow, someway, and noone should say anything except the narrow minded people who can't open their minds to see the full picture of things (and even then, that's just how they were raised).
In newspapers, gray is made up of black ink and white space. Something that looks gray is made up of both in varying densities. The overall look of things will depend on how much of which is there. Some terrible people are have done some good things, but the overall picture of their lives and what they've done...? Hitler was a vegetarian and probably likes puppies, but I can't "everything is relative" away the sum of his legacy...
Heaven help me if I look back and think he was a good guy that got thwarted. Then *my* perspective is screwed up all to hell.
|
Originally Posted by Silverado
Combination of both
If you mean well, but do bad, you're not evil (but you may go to jail). If you mean bad, but do well, you're not evil (you can always get away with saying you meant well). If you mean bad AND do bad, then you're evil (which includes kicking puppies and clubbing baby seals). |
Hmm... question... for those folks with spiritual beliefs, what do you make of "everything is relative?" As a Christian I've got my views already, but wonder how that works with karma (and similar things). After all, if you've got good karma/bad karma, or some sort of karmic debt where you're going through things because of things done in previous lives, wouldn't that indicate some sort of universal value call?
Or is there too much pop-culture mixed in with things so I'm getting it all wrong?
*shrugs* My Buddhist grandparents raised their kids (including my dad) by sending them to a Christian church. Go figure. As such I'm not entirely sure on these things 
|
Originally Posted by Westley
This is why I have a long-standing theory that if we could ALL hear each other's thoughts, or at least UNDERSTAND each other fully, then we'd realize that all the things we do are "good".
Well, not exactly GOOD, but at the very least, not evil. Because deep in our heart of hearts, no one believes that they, or the things that they do, are evil. At least no one sane could live with themselves with such thoughts. So I strongly believe that everyone really believes that what they are doing is good. Now that doesn't excuse them, mind you, but it does make you wonder about the reasoning behind decisions that some call "evil". If you can get inside the head of a person that does "evil" things, I mean REALLY get inside their head... will you still believe that those things are evil once you understand the motivations and reasoning behind them? |
Intent is typically a greater measure of "good or evil" than action.
Action is typically a greater measure of sanity than intent.
|
Originally Posted by Nibb_Nibb
Intent is typically a greater measure of "good or evil" than action.
|
Oh my goodness, an Alignment Thread.
I'd leave it to those who define the setting to give me a working definition of what's "Good" (or Heroic), and "Evil" (or Villainous), and then I would try to work within those as best I can, at least not work against them, and if I just can't stand how they define them, well, I know where the door is.
If the setting's definitions are up for debate, then in an escapist game, I'd prefer something fairly black-and-white as personal preference.
In some of the games I've played, good and evil have been considered fundamental forces, akin to electricity or gravity, and were separate from normal intents, actions and consequences. I found that quite intriguing, since it's so different than how the real world is generally viewed.
|
Originally Posted by Warkupo
I always hated this plot in time travel science fiction. You don't have to kill the *******. That's the easiest method, sure. Instead remove him from the scenario that enabled him to become a tyrannical *******.
|
|
Originally Posted by SneakyPete
Vienna, 1907: after numerous attempts, have infiltrated the Academy of Fine Arts and facilitated Adolf Hitler's admission to that institution. Goodbye, Hitler the dictator; hello, Hitler the modestly successful landscape artist! Brought back a few of his paintings as well, any buyers?
|
|
Originally Posted by SilverFox316
I now turn my attention to our newer brethren, who, despite rules to the contrary, seem to have no intention of reading Bulletin 1147 (nor its Addendum, Alternate Means of Subverting the Hitlerian Destiny, and here I'm looking at you, SneakyPete). Permit me to sum it up and save you the trouble: no Hitler means no Third Reich, no World War II, no rocketry programs, no electronics, no computers, no time travel. Get the picture?
|
|
Originally Posted by tensionfade
I see this question creating a false dichotomy. The definition of hero, evil or whatever doesn't need to be defined in terms of either/or. I mean, why would it? Why would you only look at one or the other and not both to make a determination?
|