Is "Evil" defined by action, intent, both or neither?
By
Agonus,
Posted on: 2010-03-19 09:52 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
You know, it's funny, but when I first read Watchmen I felt like the one unforgivable thing he did was to kill his own henchmen. I mean, sure, the other stuff was bad too, but he had a grand goal. I could understand what the other characters meant when they said it was too big to be judged. But killing his own henchmen like that? That was just cold.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
A couple of questions for those who have seen/read Watchmen...
1) If you beleive Ozymandias was a villain, do you beleive that he was evil? If you beleive he was evil, when did he cross the line? |
If I reread it now, I would probably have a different reaction, but that's what I remember from when I first read it.
I like this thread, by the way. It's thought-provoking.
Avatar: "Cheeky Jack O Lantern" by dimarie
Quote:
And what of his arrogance in assuming he had the right to choose life or death for millions to satisfy his own ends, regardless of what they were?|
Originally Posted by DreamWeaver
Not sure, but I haven't seen any references to the ending of Watchmen yet.
SPOILER ALERT IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT YET... Ozymandias' plan wipes out millions of innocents (in the book, it's a psychic shockwave from a genetically created "alien race": in the movie, it's caused by Doc Manhattan's reactor which Ozy turns into a bomb). However, the slap in the face draws the world back from the edge of nuclear meltdown, and unites the nations in hatred and fear of the "other" (whether the mysterious aliens or the Doc). Question - do these twin evils, the killing of millions and the brainwashing and fear induced in billions more... are they justified by the results? |
I've seen Ozymandius used as an example many times in this thread; his goals, his methods, one justifying the other.
What of his arrogance? That's at the root of his choice and the foundation for many an evil man's choices. Hitler thought he had the right to choose life or death for others and felt himself superior, all for the greater glory of Germany. Ozymandius' views, methods, and intentions weren't much different. Everyone, not just jews, gypsies, the disabled, the mentally retarded, etc, were all inferior to him and okay to sacrifice to achieve his goals.
Together we entered a city of strangers, we made it a city of friends, and we leave it a City of Heroes. - Sweet_Sarah
BOYCOTT NCSoft (on Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/517513781597443/
Governments have fallen to the power of social media. Gaming companies can too.
To be fair, Ozymandias is probably right in his feeling of superiority. He's basically better and richer than everyone else except perhaps Doctor Manhattan. 
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt
Quote:
Be wary of that logic. Smarter, yes. Richer, yes. Kinder? Wiser? More compassionate?|
Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper
To be fair, Ozymandias is probably right in his feeling of superiority. He's basically better and richer than everyone else except perhaps Doctor Manhattan.
|
Many people are smart. Many people are rich. Many have political power. Many have physical strength.
These attributes do not give them, or anyone, the right to kill or choose other's destinies. That way of thinking leads to eugenics, racism, sexism, factionalism, religious hatred, and tyrrany.
Edit: There is no real difference in value between me and a poor Nigerian farmer. Not really. Wealth doesn't make me superior, it just means I don't have to worry about starving.
Together we entered a city of strangers, we made it a city of friends, and we leave it a City of Heroes. - Sweet_Sarah
BOYCOTT NCSoft (on Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/517513781597443/
Governments have fallen to the power of social media. Gaming companies can too.
We are having a similar discussion in the Liberty Forum. Something I read reminded me of something else.
A round table, where all were considered to be equal and free to speak their mind. Where the idea was born, Not might is right, but might for right. Where the strong protect the weak, help the poor and down trodden.
If killing one person saves the world, is that a world worth saving?
Would the movie Armageddon have had the same ending impact if Harry Stamper had been killed in order to save the planet then his noble selfless act of staying behind.
It had been a long time from the time I had read the Watchman to when I saw the movie, there were things I had forgot, and the ending was one of them. Was the movie good, it was okay, It left a bad taste in my mouth that that was what they were suggesting was heroic... I rather watch the first Hulk movie with the gamma dogs
Valor
Quote:
|
by Star Ranger 4 WIN LOSE OR DRAW, WE WILL FIGHT. WE ARE HEROES This is what we DO! |
Decide that this will be another day in which you Walk The Talk.
MA #14724 Operation: Discredit @American Valor
Sentinel Of Liberty SG
Crimson says it well:
It's interesting to think about how ferociously all of those people fought for control of the Revenant program. Now, I can see the tactical appeal of having disposable superhumans to do all of your dirty work, but I believe that if you're not willing to risk your life or what you hold dear to accomplish your goal, then maybe you should re-think what you really want. Power, control, security; all of those are just fancy ways of saying that you're afraid, and you want to not be afraid anymore. People will do a lot to avoid fear, even become the monsters they're afraid of.
I suppose I also believe, as Abraham Lincoln said, that 'As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.'
Together we entered a city of strangers, we made it a city of friends, and we leave it a City of Heroes. - Sweet_Sarah
BOYCOTT NCSoft (on Facebook)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/517513781597443/
Governments have fallen to the power of social media. Gaming companies can too.
Quote:
Yes, no qualifiers. One life to save over 6 billion lives? I don't even think it's really a question. And before you ask: yes, I would be willing to be that one person.|
Originally Posted by American_Valor
If killing one person saves the world, is that a world worth saving?
|
The moral ambiguity for me comes with killing large numbers of people to save the world, and where do you draw the line? That's a much harder question to answer, and I'm not sure I could answer it.
Then there's people like the Operative:
Quote:
|
The Operative: I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin. Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world? The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done. |
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt
Quote:
If the Operative's masters were willing to sanction his actions, then they don't belong in the perfect world he's espousing either.|
Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper
Yes, no qualifiers. One life to save over 6 billion lives? I don't even think it's really a question. And before you ask: yes, I would be willing to be that one person.
The moral ambiguity for me comes with killing large numbers of people to save the world, and where do you draw the line? That's a much harder question to answer, and I'm not sure I could answer it. Then there's people like the Operative: |
So, why the hell are they allowed to guide it into being? People can be selfless, and willing to sacrifice body and soul for greater causes, but a bureacracy? You can't expect a monolithic dictatorial authority to have "a perfect world" as it's goal. It wants a better world, sure, for itself only.
Horrible outcomes from heroic intent is tragedy.
Surgery is a gruesome act, with good intentions.
www.paragonwiki.com is a great source of information for this game.
New or returning to the game? Want advice from experienced players who want to help YOU?
The Mentor Project: Part of the New Player Council.
Quote:
Okay two things: |
Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper
Yes, no qualifiers. One life to save over 6 billion lives? I don't even think it's really a question. And before you ask: yes, I would be willing to be that one person.
The moral ambiguity for me comes with killing large numbers of people to save the world, and where do you draw the line? That's a much harder question to answer, and I'm not sure I could answer it. Then there's people like the Operative: |
First:
You say "And before I ask: yes I would be willing to be that one person." which person is that the triggerman or the victim.
I didn't say self sacrifice, I said Kill one person. Two very different things.
Kill by definition means: (to deprive of life : cause the death of ) but more specifically I was speaking of Murder: included in the very definition of Kill as: (specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility)
Second:
You say "large numbers" How large is a large number? How many people is it okay to kill/ murder to save the world. At what number does it become bad. I can answer that question for me and my family. That number is zero. To kill/murder even one person is a price which is just too high.
Would I lay down my life to protect: a family member, friend, casual acquaintance, a stranger? Would I have the courage to be a Harry Stamper in Armageddon and denotate a nuke to save the world, I would like to believe so.
Would I want to No. I love life, my family and friends. Many people I know I believe would do the same. Thats self sacrifice.
The thread title is "Evil define by action, intent both or neither? I posted other comments here but to sum it up.
Yes, Evil is defined by both; Action and Intent.
In 1770 Edward Burke wrote: When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
He must have been trying to establish rules for teaming
American Valor
Quote:
|
by Star Ranger 4 WIN LOSE OR DRAW, WE WILL FIGHT. WE ARE HEROES This is what we DO! |
Decide that this will be another day in which you Walk The Talk.
MA #14724 Operation: Discredit @American Valor
Sentinel Of Liberty SG
Quote:
What do you think? I said I think it's perfectly ok to kill one person in order to save the world. That's my stance. The obvious next post is "would you feel the same if you're the one that has to die?" And I intended to head that off at the pass, as it were: yes, I would feel the same if I were the one that has to die in order to save the world. One life (any life, including my theoretical wife or child, my sister, my parents, &c.) for 6 billion? Yes, I have no issues with that.|
Originally Posted by American_Valor
You say "And before I ask: yes I would be willing to be that one person." which person is that the triggerman or the victim.
I didn't say self sacrifice, I said Kill one person. Two very different things. |
Really, it's not that hard to figure out what I meant.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by American_Valor
Second:
You say "large numbers" How large is a large number? How many people is it okay to kill/ murder to save the world. At what number does it become bad. I can answer that question for me and my family. That number is zero. To kill/murder even one person is a price which is just too high. |
Quote:
| The moral ambiguity for me comes with killing large numbers of people to save the world, and where do you draw the line? That's a much harder question to answer, and I'm not sure I could answer it. |
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt
Quote:
I don't think it was obvious because I didn't asked that. Your statement also implies for knowledge that you would be told or have some other knowledge that you have to die to save the world. No one is told that they are going to be murdered. They simply start to eat their hamburger or drink their soda or attempt to get into their car and are killed. They will never know why. |
Quote: Originally Posted by American_Valor You say "And before I ask: yes I would be willing to be that one person." which person is that the triggerman or the victim. I didn't say self sacrifice, I said Kill one person. Two very different things. What do you think? I said I think it's perfectly ok to kill one person in order to save the world. That's my stance. The obvious next post is "would you feel the same if you're the one that has to die?" And I intended to head that off at the pass, as it were: yes, I would feel the same if I were the one that has to die in order to save the world. One life (any life, including my theoretical wife or child, my sister, my parents, &c.) for 6 billion? Yes, I have no issues with that. Really, it's not that hard to figure out what I meant. |
I will leave it at that and not even address the rest of that comment which I have many issues with..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by American_Valor Second: You say "large numbers" How large is a large number? How many people is it okay to kill/ murder to save the world. At what number does it become bad. I can answer that question for me and my family. That number is zero. To kill/murder even one person is a price which is just too high. Did you even read my post? Quote:
|
I stated before this thread is titled:
Is "Evil define by action, intent both or neither?
Yes, Evil can be and is defined by both; Action and Intent.
I don't know you except from these exchanges. Your statements and intent no matter how noble you believe they are, they are not. I would call you Villain and state you are about evil deeds.
American Valor
Quote:
|
by Star Ranger 4 WIN LOSE OR DRAW, WE WILL FIGHT. WE ARE HEROES This is what we DO! |
Decide that this will be another day in which you Walk The Talk.
MA #14724 Operation: Discredit @American Valor
Sentinel Of Liberty SG
Quote:
No, you didn't ask that. I extrapolated that someone (not necessarily you) would ask that based on my knowledge of human nature and debate. The "you" in my earlier post was the general "you", the ambiguous reader, not you American_Valor.|
Originally Posted by American_Valor
I don't think it was obvious because I didn't asked that. Your statement also implies for knowledge that you would be told or have some other knowledge that you have to die to save the world. No one is told that they are going to be murdered. They simply start to eat their hamburger or drink their soda or attempt to get into their car and are killed. They will never know why.
|
And 'kill' does not imply 'murder', nor does 'murder' (premeditated or not) imply a surprise attack. By your own argument, since you did not explicitly state premeditated murder by surprise attack, nobody reading your post should assume that is what you meant. If you want to ask me, though, my declaration still stands. Under any circumstances you want to set for me, with any target and with any executioner, one life to save the world is absolutely worth it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by American_Valor
I read your post several times, like I have read this one. Personally I wonder if you understood what I wrote before you replied. I'm sure you have an idea of what number that possible number is, but any number looks bad so don't give any.
|
To head off the next question you might ask ('you', the ambiguous reader, not you American_Valor, in case you American_Valor were confused. Again): the same applies to multiple instances of saving the world. If the world needs to be repeatedly saved by killing a single person, I honestly don't know how many times it could be saved before the killing becomes an issue. Killing a single different individual multiple times is the same as killing multiple people at once, so I would put it at the same unknown line.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by American_Valor
Your statements and intent no matter how noble you believe they are, they are not. I would call you Villain and state you are about evil deeds.
|
Let's assume that I killed someone, saving the world. How that act is seen (good or evil) depends more on the circumstances than on the act itself, I think. For example:
- I kill someone. If that person had lived, he would have become a mad scientist and blown up the planet killing everyone during one of his experiments. Result? I'm seen as a random murderer, because nobody knows the future. I'm locked up for life, or put on death row.
- I encounter a man charging up his Super Mega Death Ray 5000, and kill him before he completes his act of evil. Nobody else knows what was happening, his body burns up on reentry (because, of course, Super Mega Death Rays have been mounted on satellites ever since model #150). I live with the blood on my hands, but nobody knows that they were saved, and nobody knows that I killed him unless I confess.
- A man is holding the world ransom; every country in the world will do X unfortunate thing, or else the planet explodes. You have one hour! I kill him on sight of his webcam. The world heralds me as a hero.
Full information can change things, too:
I kicked a puppy. Therefore I'm a bad person.
I kicked a young rottweiler who had rabies and was attacking me. I was acting in self defense, and should probably get checked out at a hospital.
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt
The end never justifies the means. I'm idealistic that way.
Ozzy didn't tell all the people he murdered (killed) that they were dying for a good cause he just did it. Once you are told and you believe its true then you willing do just that and that changed the complete meaning of the question.
We polizerized to both sides of the discussion and I too also stand by my comments. And where I'm from, yea Murder and Kill are thought of as described. In my opinion there is nothing accidental about killing someone to save the world.
I will agree to disagree.
AV
Quote:
|
by Star Ranger 4 WIN LOSE OR DRAW, WE WILL FIGHT. WE ARE HEROES This is what we DO! |
Decide that this will be another day in which you Walk The Talk.
MA #14724 Operation: Discredit @American Valor
Sentinel Of Liberty SG
If Ozy told the people what he was about to do the act would have been lost. The genius behind his plan was "tricking" the entire planet into playing nice with each other. He was willing to be a villain to the people of the world if it meant saving them. Kind of reminds me of the very last scene in Dark Knight.
Also, before we get along too far, we should clarify that 'kill' and 'murder' are very different words/terms. Killing is an act based on biology, murder is a political/legal term. I don't want to threadjack and get lost on the interpretation based on where we might live, but those two words are very, VERY different.
That said, any world worth living in is worth saving - but the ends only justify the means if you're around at the end. It's all a matter of perspective. I would definitely say that the loss of one person, innocent or guilty, is worth the lives of the rest of the planet. In a college ethics class we were presented with the option to kill a child to save a village. I didn't make too many friends that week - but I wasn't alone. Sure you can rationalize a life unlived to a life well-lived or a life forfeited in prison. But it really comes down to the needs of the many ... you know how that ends.
And after all that - I'll circle back and agree with AV: Evil is defined by both Action and Intent.
Some interesting thoughts:
Let me bring a few things in; a couple people have answered this, but I want to bring it back.
Even if the act of murdering unsuspecting millions to save billions is evil, is everyone who performs that act an evil person?
Ozy did countless acts of pure goodness with his massive holdings in finance and industry: charitable contributions, ethical business practices (with some notable exceptions), the development of technologies, employment, not to mention any personal fisticuffs he might have engaged in versus criminals and villains.
During much of the time where he was doing good deeds, he was planning and working toward this evil act.
Was he born evil?
Do his good deeds in any way mitigate the bad?
Is he a good person?
Does it matter?
Should Ozy go to prison (where he can presumably do no more evil or good)?
Should the truth about his act be exposed even if nuclear doom awaits as the price ("never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon")(should he stand trial)?
Should the other heroes 'let this one slide' under the circumstances/considering the alternatives?
Should Ozy be condemned for things he might do in the future to maintain world peace?
On the subject of murderers being evil...
Just some things to consider on the specific subject of 'killing a person without their foreknowledge, outside of actual ongoing combat, because in your mind they are a threat or have committed a capital crime'...
Military/SWAT snipers?
Government Assassins?
A person attempting to escape a kidnapper/captor?
A person defending against a home invader (assuming they do not know whether the invader is armed or means harm)?
A person under a mortal threat to themselves or family should they not murder (for instance, committing murder in order to ransom a loved one)?
My philosophy is that in the absence of omniscience, telepathy, etc, the ethics of a person must be defined in terms of what they beleive about the circumstances of an act as well as their overall pattern of behavior, rather than the heinous quality of an individual act.
I haven't seen the Blair Witch Project, but my understanding is that if an ugly old woman had stumbled upon the campers at the wrong time, they might have deliberately killed her with no evil intent.
The legal considerations of such an act, in my mind, are seperate from the moral ones: even if the person who regularly commits murder honestly beleives they have a good reason every time, they might still need to be imprisoned for the good of society as a whole...whether they 'deserve' it or not.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
I'd do it. And I'd say that by most peoples standards I'm not an evil person.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Some interesting thoughts:
Let me bring a few things in; a couple people have answered this, but I want to bring it back. Even if the act of murdering unsuspecting millions to save billions is evil, is everyone who performs that act an evil person? |
Quote:
| Was he born evil? |
Quote:
| Do his good deeds in any way mitigate the bad? |
Quote:
| Is he a good person? |
Quote:
| Does it matter? |
Quote:
| Should Ozy go to prison (where he can presumably do no more evil or good)? |
Quote:
| Should the truth about his act be exposed even if nuclear doom awaits as the price ("never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon")(should he stand trial)? |
Quote:
| Should Ozy be condemned for things he might do in the future to maintain world peace? |
Quote:
|
On the subject of murderers being evil... Just some things to consider on the specific subject of 'killing a person without their foreknowledge, outside of actual ongoing combat, because in your mind they are a threat or have committed a capital crime'... Military/SWAT snipers? Government Assassins? A person attempting to escape a kidnapper/captor? A person defending against a home invader (assuming they do not know whether the invader is armed or means harm)? A person under a mortal threat to themselves or family should they not murder (for instance, committing murder in order to ransom a loved one)? |
Quote:
|
My philosophy is that in the absence of omniscience, telepathy, etc, the ethics of a person must be defined in terms of what they beleive about the circumstances of an act as well as their overall pattern of behavior, rather than the heinous quality of an individual act. ... The legal considerations of such an act, in my mind, are seperate from the moral ones: even if the person who regularly commits murder honestly beleives they have a good reason every time, they might still need to be imprisoned for the good of society as a whole...whether they 'deserve' it or not. |
@True Metal
Co-leader of Callous Crew SG. Based on Union server.
Quote:
I'm really glad I don't live somewhere that a falling piano automatically sends a moving company employee sent to prison for life.
|
Originally Posted by American_Valor
And where I'm from, yea Murder and Kill are thought of as described.
|
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/36641/My-Little-Exalt
You pose excellent questions and thoughts, Happy to discuss intelligently. And of course my answers are based on the belief that Evil is defined by Action and Intent.
Some interesting thoughts:
Let me bring a few things in; a couple people have answered this, but I want to bring it back.
Even if the act of murdering unsuspecting millions to save billions is evil, is everyone who performs that act an evil person?
Yes on just the stance of the question. What would make it less evil if Superman did it instead of Doctor Doom.
Ozy did countless acts of pure goodness with his massive holdings in finance and industry: charitable contributions, ethical business practices (with some notable exceptions), the development of technologies, employment, not to mention any personal fisticuffs he might have engaged in versus criminals and villains.
During much of the time where he was doing good deeds, he was planning and working toward this evil act.
At some point I believe he became disenchanted with the system and concluded the ends justified the means.
Was he born evil? No
Do his good deeds in any way mitigate the bad? No
Is he a good person?
He would believe he was, just like the Punisher believes he is with his war on organized crime.
Does it matter?
Hmm a question I would have to expand on. Matter to whom, Him or Me. Qzy believes everything he did he did for the good of mankind, for him the end justified the means. Frank Castle aka the Punisher feels the same way. And Castle is an escaped criminal from Rikers having stood trial and been convicted for his crimes.
Should Ozy go to prison (where he can presumably do no more evil or good)?
Yes, No one is above the law.
Should the truth about his act be exposed even if nuclear doom awaits as the price ("never compromise, even in the face of Armageddon")(should he stand trial)?
Yes, think about this the conspiracy theory and when the other nations found out they might assume it was a disguised act of war which would be worse.
Should the other heroes 'let this one slide' under the circumstances/considering the alternatives?
Okay
That would assume that I felt Ozy was still a Hero. I dont his actions and intent in the definition is evil. His deeds are evil and that makes him a villain. Should a hero allow the villain to simply escape, he betrayed and even killed members of his team. Of course some people would believe that was okay also.
Should Ozy be condemned for things he might do in the future to maintain world peace?
His actions have established him as a villain, and to be honest OZY is actually a Supervillain. If nothing else he is a person of interest and needs to be watched, to ensure the continued safety of the planet
On the subject of murderers being evil...
Okay first on the term murderers, a Murderer is a person who has committed the act of murder.
Murder is defined as: (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder)
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson.
Just some things to consider on the specific subject of 'killing a person without their foreknowledge, outside of actual ongoing combat, because in your mind they are a threat or have committed a capital crime'...
Military/SWAT snipers? Does not apply see definition above.
Government Assassins? Only in movies and books in those they are sanctioned by their respective Govts and if caught in the act they would be/are disavowed and left to fend on their own as criminals.
A person attempting to escape a kidnapper/captor? Self defense
A person defending against a home invader (assuming they do not know whether the invader is armed or means harm)? Castle Law/Self Defense
A person under a mortal threat to themselves or family should they not murder (for instance, committing murder in order to ransom a loved one)?
Dicey, but They would still be guilty of murder. Frank Castles family was on a picnic in central park and caught in a crossfire and killed. Thus the Punisher was born.
My philosophy is that in the absence of omniscience, telepathy, etc, the ethics of a person must be defined in terms of what they believe about the circumstances of an act as well as their overall pattern of behavior, rather than the heinous quality of an individual act.
I haven't seen the Blair Witch Project, but my understanding is that if an ugly old woman had stumbled upon the campers at the wrong time, they might have deliberately killed her with no evil intent.
The legal considerations of such an act, in my mind, are separate from the moral ones: even if the person who regularly commits murder honestly believes they have a good reason every time, they might still need to be imprisoned for the good of society as a whole...whether they 'deserve' it or not.
I havent seen that movie either so I cant comment on that. What I could say is If they discussed what they would do if they found the witch and then acted on that upon stumbling on to a old woman that would be action and intent and could be construed to be an evil act.
Bring back the original question:
my answers are based on the belief that Evil is defined by Action and Intent.
Quote:
|
by Star Ranger 4 WIN LOSE OR DRAW, WE WILL FIGHT. WE ARE HEROES This is what we DO! |
Decide that this will be another day in which you Walk The Talk.
MA #14724 Operation: Discredit @American Valor
Sentinel Of Liberty SG
Quote:
Me Too... |
Originally Posted by Fleeting Whisper
I'm really glad I don't live somewhere that a falling piano automatically sends a moving company employee sent to prison for life.
|
AV
Quote:
|
by Star Ranger 4 WIN LOSE OR DRAW, WE WILL FIGHT. WE ARE HEROES This is what we DO! |
Decide that this will be another day in which you Walk The Talk.
MA #14724 Operation: Discredit @American Valor
Sentinel Of Liberty SG
If committing a sufficiently heinous crime, such as killing millions to save billions, defines you as an evil person regardless of past good acts...
...does committing a sufficiently good act, such as saving the universe from destruction by the Cosmic Horrors (by both intent and deed), define you as a good person, regardless of past evil acts?
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
That might be defined as redemption. (The Star Wars SAGA) Sometimes even evil people make the right decision in the end, and they are remembered fondly. But does one good act wipe the slate clean even if its world saving? |
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
If committing a sufficiently heinous crime, such as killing millions to save billions, defines you as an evil person regardless of past good acts...
...does committing a sufficiently good act, such as saving the universe from destruction by the Cosmic Horrors (by both intent and deed), define you as a good person, regardless of past evil acts? |
We tend to want to forgive, and look for reasons too. Weather it makes him a good person would depend on his moviations like Marcian brought up using Team Dark as the example which started this thread.
The question is did the bad guy / villain save the world simply so he could proceed with his own selfish goals and evil schemes. Or is he now continuing to redeem himself for his past misdeeds and make amends. Its a choice he would be making and everyone would be watching always. Nothing makes villains happier then to watch a hero fail and fall...
AV
Quote:
|
by Star Ranger 4 WIN LOSE OR DRAW, WE WILL FIGHT. WE ARE HEROES This is what we DO! |
Decide that this will be another day in which you Walk The Talk.
MA #14724 Operation: Discredit @American Valor
Sentinel Of Liberty SG
I think it's interesting that you mention Star Wars - because Anakin's redemption might not be as obvious as it looks - like at the end of VI, he's a Force ghost, but is that because he's been "forgiven" by the Force, or is it just because he's the Chosen One? Like does he get to be a ghost by default?
In the older movies, he actually doesn't do a huge amount of evil - he kills a few people, mostly his own officers, and that's about it - the worst bit of evil in them, the destruction of Alderaan, isn't actually his work.
But in the newer movies, Lucas goes out of his way to show Anakin taking part in the most evil acts of the movies - not just killing the Jedi, but killing children too - he could have glossed over that, and just shown the clonetroopers storming the Jedi temple, but he made a point of showing Anakin taking a leading role in it.
So, in the older movies, Anakin is evil, but isn't really shown to do any big time evil, so his redemption/forgiveness at the end of VI seems possible - but the newer movies show just how evil he was once he truend to the dark side, but they also add another layer by making him the Chosen One, created by the Force itself, which makes his redemption/forgiveness at the end of VI a much more complex issue.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Yes exactly my point GG you picked up on it perfectly. Anakin / Vader story went from hero to villain and finally maybe redemption. When Anakin saved his son Luke and stopped the Emperor and in doing so sacrificing his own life the ultimate act, there was some good in him. But was he completely redeemed, or was it as you said default because he had been the chosen one.
But we're readily willing to accept he is redeemed and a Force Ghost with Yoda and Ben. But just because he is redeemed does that make him a hero again?
Yet I condem Ozy for the exact opposite because he kills millions to save the planet. He fell from grace and became the Villain he vowed to protect the world from. What would he have to do to redeem himself and could he ever be accepted as a hero again, and would his team mates ever trust him again?
Quote:
|
by Star Ranger 4 WIN LOSE OR DRAW, WE WILL FIGHT. WE ARE HEROES This is what we DO! |
Decide that this will be another day in which you Walk The Talk.
MA #14724 Operation: Discredit @American Valor
Sentinel Of Liberty SG
One note on Star Wars, and this is all speculation since Lucas doesn't comment on this stuff, but Vader was destined to save the Empire but he couldn't do it alone, he needed Luke. Why? Luke was pure good and the Emperor was pure evil. In Lukas' world, only redemptive evil could overcome pure evil. Vader had to traverse the Dark Side so he could understand how to destroy it. (Or that is how I see it.)
Current favs: Champ: Frau Schmeterling-22 MM 50s: NOTW-Blaster, Cat-Girl Commando-corr, Queen of the Dawn-PB, NOTW-Def, Peterbilt-Brute, IcedTNA-Tank, Archilies-scrap, Mann Eater-stalk, Redemptive Soul-toller, Mt Fuji of A-Team-Tank, Hot Stuff Vale-Dom
My MiniCity
1) If you beleive Ozymandias was a villain, do you beleive that he was evil? If you beleive he was evil, when did he cross the line?
The Resistance has boobs too, and better hair!