Redemption; too easy?
By
Adeon Hawkwood,
Posted on: 2011-01-10 24:01 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
I don't have a definition handy for "in cold blood".
Anyway, any jurisdiction with the death penalty has at least one clearly defined instance of "killing a human being in cold blood when they are no possible danger to you, with unambiguous evidence of premeditation, planning, scheduling, and so on, in order to collect a paycheck", which is not considered "murder".
As a general rule, the term "murder" in practice means "killing which we thought was morally wrong", but since there are kinds of killing that society doesn't judge as wrong, that can create exceptions.
Consider, if you will, a sniper. People have been given missions which consisted of finding someone who was engaged in a war in the general case, but was at that time not fighting, quite possibly unarmed, and killing that person, ideally without any open firefight occurring at all. This is usually not regarded as "first degree murder", even though it's clearly premeditated killing "in cold blood" (meaning, not in a rage or in a combat situation).
Life's complicated. So's death.
Quote:
Long ago, in another game, a character who had been played as consistently Evil (think like a CoH villain) was confronted with a problem:|
Originally Posted by Megajoule
If you're taking your character redside just to get him a power that you think he should have, I'd strongly suggest not putting it in his story - especially if, as noted, it would add other things to that story that don't fit/aren't wanted.
|
There was a quest which involved rescuing terrified people from an army of the undead. There was no obvious personal gain to be had from doing so. And yet, the player knew that doing this created a great deal of convenience (it added a new town to the map, with vendors and such) and opened up a quest chain which was crucial to later events.
So I just dropped character and did it. First time she ever went significantly out of character for any length of time in something like five years of gameplay, but it was mechanically necessary.
I'd do the same thing with patron pools. Swapping alignments to get a patron pool is obviously out-of-character unless you have a particular reason to want that story.
Quote:
Or realise that supers aren't real people and quite possibly have completely different standards to be held to. Uncle Ben's lessons are nice and all, but when you're talking about individuals who can literally defeat armies single-handedly, for whom it might take concerted effort on the part of a team of likewise untouchable individuals to ever possibly bring them to justice to begin with, maybe the standards aren't the same as they are for those that aren't nigh invulnerable. |
Originally Posted by Venture
In order to believe this character is now a hero it is necessary to handwave away his past.
|
Is it really worth the expense and trouble of imprisoning Koronos - a cost likely in the millions if not billions, and potentially requiring the long-term contracting of one or more other supers for the task - when all his present actions have proven he, if not regrets, has at least turned away from his bloody past? Isn't it easier to give him the chance to be the good guy than spend all the time, effort, and money it would cost to contain him?
Quote:
Um... "in cold blood" doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.|
Originally Posted by Venture
Since I already specified "murder in cold blood" there really isn't any ambiguity. If there is a jurisdiction that considers premeditated killing of a human being in cold blood to be less than first-degree murder it's news to me.
|
It means "deliberately, coldly, and dispassionately."
It has very VERY little legal meaning, as you could argue...
... A "premeditated act" can-- and often IS very passionate. Most murders are crimes of passion happening in heat-of-the-moment incidents. Most are still considered premeditated in that steps were taken prior to that moment that increased the likelihood of an incident leading to death.
Example: You and I often argue... in person, we have a history of shouting matches... some of which even lead to fistfight. We're usually run into each other at the bars Wednesday night, and this time, you decide to bring your gun-- you've got a license to carry a concealed weapon, so its legit, but you've never bothered taking it before. As the argument ensues, you get pissed and shoot me.
Aside from the fact that any jury you get will accept your "well, he needed shootin" defense, you've got an act that wasn't "in cold blood" but had premeditated elements that could lead prosecutors to seek the greater charges.
---
On the other hand, a gangsta robbing a convenience store might actually SHOOT a person "in cold blood", but it would be 2nd degree murder in most states (a death during the course of a felony). Interestingly, if he hit someone with his getaway car-- something that might be considered lesser manslaughter at another time, it would also be 2nd degree murder in many/most jurisdictions (but not cold blood).
Then there are the many LEGAL times that "in cold blood" dispassionate killings take place. People who have killed in self defense, or officers facing criminals, often speak of a moment of cool calm at the moment they decide to pull the trigger. Its like something turns off inside to make the action more palatable. In a sense, they're dispassionate in that killing... but it isn't a crime.
Point is, what you were judging your terms to mean and how they actually play out in reality (asking rian if he knew of people that have killed AND now seek to work in gang outreach, for example) didn't fit your fantastic defintion in any way that made sense.
----------
Now, the rest of your post that I snipped away gave in-game examples of what's done a villain's carreer. That's different, and I would concede that none of the released killers that currently work gang outreach probably have done anything as cinematic as that.
Quote:
Veering off topic and into forbidden territory as I may be, I'm going to have to take exception to this. It's quite rational, even cold-blooded, to try to squeeze the maximum benefit out of everyone, even criminals; it's sentimental to want to punish them (at considerable cost in resources and lost opportunity) for the sake of the satisfying feeling of vengeance. No, good and bad acts are not fungible, because that's not a practical way to achieve desirable outcomes (see also: paying for murder in advance). But there is no net benefit to punishment over reform, either, and considerable cost.|
Originally Posted by Venture
[...] such programs are the result of bleeding hearts putting sentiment above rational decisionmaking.
|
This logic does extend to CoH. Metahumans are rare and valuable. If there was a good chance of reforming one and getting the benefit of their power, I for one wouldn't instead say "no, unforgivable!" and throw them in jail forever (and it'd be a heck of an expensive jail, too, if you wanted to actually keep them there...).
But then, I'm a cold-blooded snake of a utilitarian. Your miles may vary.
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Quote:
Oh you just hit my #1 pet peeve. People trying to pass emotional reactionism as rationality, and accuse of weakness a rational AND empathetic position. As a big proponent of rationality, I must intervene.|
Originally Posted by Venture
I'm just going to stop here with your examples because the answer is going to be the same down the line: ethical actions are not fungible. Good deeds don't "cancel out" bad deeds. I don't care what someone does with the rest of their life; if they've killed in cold blood they can never be forgiven for it. State programs to the contrary notwithstanding; such programs are the result of bleeding hearts putting sentiment above rational decisionmaking.
|
First, obviously an opinion that rehabilitation programs are wrong can't be rational by any ideology that emphasizes practicality. You can only back that up with opinions about how crimes can be dealt with, and where do those come from? It sounds much like an emotional, vengeance driven philosophy. You didn't provide any reason why you believe it, just dogmatic declarations.
Next, the rational, practical, and moral reasons for such programs are many. Society does not gain by spending money to incarcerate a person who is not dangerous, and certainly not if they can actually be USEFUL. Chase_Arcanum provided plenty of examples and scenarios, but beyond that, any claim that a repentant murder can never be a positive contributor is automatically absurd due to its blanket nature. The moral reasons are again a matter of opinion, but I believe unnecessary incarceration is immoral, and any moral system that cares to provide the most good (and that is the whole point of moral systems isn't it) can't support depriving society of a person who wishes to do good deeds just so people can have vengeance porn. Even more importantly, such rehabilitation programs say nothing about whether a person can be morally forgiven. It's a topic of legality, mercy, and practicality.
Ultimately, anybody who calls others bleeding hearts loses the debate automatically. It's almost universally used not to support rationality, but to insult positions that are more merciful than the traditional, expected, or popular norms. The opposite of rationality. It makes no sense as any kind of reasoning. Is there some prescribed amount of mercy that is too much? Can it be used to support ANY kind of cruel behavior? Can't a murderer simply tell you not to be a bleeding heart and let him continue?
A game is not supposed to be some kind of... place where people enjoy themselves!
Quote:
Agreed. |
Originally Posted by SpittingTrashcan
Veering off topic and into forbidden territory as I may be, I'm going to have to take exception to this. It's quite rational, even cold-blooded, to try to squeeze the maximum benefit out of everyone, even criminals; it's sentimental to want to punish them (at considerable cost in resources and lost opportunity) for the sake of the satisfying feeling of vengeance. No, good and bad acts are not fungible, because that's not a practical way to achieve desirable outcomes (see also: paying for murder in advance). But there is no net benefit to punishment over reform, either, and considerable cost.
This logic does extend to CoH. Metahumans are rare and valuable. If there was a good chance of reforming one and getting the benefit of their power, I for one wouldn't instead say "no, unforgivable!" and throw them in jail forever (and it'd be a heck of an expensive jail, too, if you wanted to actually keep them there...). But then, I'm a cold-blooded snake of a utilitarian. Your miles may vary. |
Our correction system should:
- Protect society
- Impose proportionate punishment
- Facilitate rehabilitation for those motivated to seek it
- Do all of the above in the most cost effective way.
So many of the 'bleeding heart' liberal policies that are attacked demonstrate less recidivism, lower cost, and have not shown any demonstrable increased risk in society. I'd even argue that the punishment works better, but that depends on what you intend punishment for... so I'll leave that one out and just say that, rationally, I don't care how friggin bleeding heart they may be, if they do 3 of the 4 things better... and you don't approve them, don't pretend to be the rational thinker.
We have one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world (in proportion to the population) and constantly opt for the highest cost and least effective corrections options-- just to appear "hard on crime." We derail proven efforts that curb costs, reduce recidivism, and increase the number of valuable contributing members into society.... because that's liberal emotional talk. Then we dump the burden of paying for it all on our kids and grandkids- who will also be saddled with the costs of paying for our retirement income and medical care, all while entering the workforce from college with more debt than any point in our history, lower wage potential than we've seen in forty years, and more expensive housing options.
Who's being rational here?
Quote:
Such as snipers?|
Originally Posted by Venture
No, it isn't. Soldiers who kill in cold blood as opposed to in the heat of combat tend to find themselves in front of war crimes tribunals.
|
Perhaps we have different definitions for what "in cold blood" means.
Dr. Todt's theme.
i make stuff...
MAKING ______ISM WORK
Step 1. Find at least two (preferably more) completely rational, objective, perfectly informed human beings.
... yeah, this is gonna take a while.
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City
Easy; Mangle, a well known villain and also discovered to have pyschic powers in a tip mission I've done. You never complete this; He controls your mind and causes you to perform genocide.
most of what has needed said has already been said, but for my shorter thought, we arent even really discussing law, we are discussing moral thought. the law is the least of one's responsibilities to society, morality should be a higher standard where we are aware of our positive duties to society and our moral codes as well as our negative duties to not intentionally cause harm, either through action or negligent inaction.
holding a comically binary position of what can and cannot be forgiven totally removes context and circumstance and renders any attempt to use rationality impossible due to its dogmatic and short sighted outlook, its not a moral theory, its barely a talking point on a shock-pundit show, its just ignorant and poorly formed.
This thread makes me uncertain if I'm glad or upset that we don't have an Ethics and Criminal Law board. Probably a little of both.
Having Vengeance and Fallout slotted for recharge means never having to say you're sorry.
This thread makes me want to say
"Easy? You call that easy?"
Just to see if anyone will follow up.
Quote:
They're tracking us. |
Originally Posted by Flarstux
This thread makes me want to say
"Easy? You call that easy?" Just to see if anyone will follow up. |
(... sorry, it's reflex by now.)
Well honestly I kinda found going from one side to the other to be a pain but I'm also lazy.
However not all villains in paragon are "villains". Alot might of been rogues who went hero?
Quote:
Most of my "villains" have always been more "flawed heroes" that fit the rogue/vigilante mindset than villains anyway. I always found it a more compelling story to be the underdog in an oppressive regime like the rogue isles-- you're TRYING to do right in that cutthroat world, but some ruthlessness is necessary to survive... and sometimes no mater how hard you try to do right, things go wrong.|
Originally Posted by Toony
Well honestly I kinda found going from one side to the other to be a pain but I'm also lazy.
However not all villains in paragon are "villains". Alot might of been rogues who went hero? |
Most of my villains are now "rogue" for that reason. I'd go through all the trouble to make many of them "vigilantes" if I cared that much about getting the label right, but I want them to be based in my Rogue Isles' villain base.
Quote:
I'm still looking for the other one.
|
Originally Posted by Megajoule
MAKING ______ISM WORK
Step 1. Find at least two (preferably more) completely rational, objective, perfectly informed human beings. ... yeah, this is gonna take a while. |
I was gonna say something, but SpittingTrashcan beat me to it. Reforming people is cold-blooded utilitarianism. Vengeance is emotionally satisfying but useless.
One of the fascinating things about the world is that people can reach identical conclusions through wildly different methods. How should you interact with waiters? A bleeding-heart type who wants to love every living being will interact with them as people who happen to be taking orders, taking genuine interest in them as people and caring about their wellbeing, and will treat them kindly and respectfully. So will a cold-blooded pragmatist who just wants the best possible service.
Some years back, I was convinced that I ought to be nice to people. I try really hard to be nice to people. Unexpectedly, this has resulted in me living in a world full of friendly people who will go out of their way to help me. I didn't anticipate that outcome, but if I'd known about it, I would have been nicer to people sooner, with or without any consideration given to how it affects them.
Quote:
This is actually a pretty good discussion by Internet standards.|
Originally Posted by Kelenar
This thread makes me uncertain if I'm glad or upset that we don't have an Ethics and Criminal Law board. Probably a little of both.
|
Of course, I'm biased, I'm a veteran of Usenet flamewars about the D&D alignment system.
Quote:
I think I can compete with just about anybody on the prestigious topic of 'most violent arguments over D&D alignments witnessed.' Especially if Batman is involved.
|
Originally Posted by seebs
This is actually a pretty good discussion by Internet standards.
Of course, I'm biased, I'm a veteran of Usenet flamewars about the D&D alignment system. |
Having Vengeance and Fallout slotted for recharge means never having to say you're sorry.
My main villain is actually a mercenary, which I guess is similar to, if not the same as, a Rogue. She will kill criminals for money, and will hurt anyone who stands in the way of her making a living, but she has sworn never to harm innocent people.
I would convert her to a Rogue and be done with it, but then I wouldn't be able to earn alignment merits. As a result, I run Tip missions, and I always choose the villainous path, but I run them solo. That way I can just pretend to myself that she never did those things and no one else can prove me wrong. 
Eventually I will turn her to the Rogue side, but I wanna bank a bunch of A-merits first.
(Sometimes, I wish there could be a Dev thumbs up button for quality posts, because you pretty much nailed it.) -- Ghost Falcon
Quote:
Don't forget to spend them before you go Rogue. You will lose them if you switch to Rogue.
|
Originally Posted by mousedroid
Eventually I will turn her to the Rogue side, but I wanna bank a bunch of A-merits first.
|
Quote:
My first villain to 50 was a hero in the isles character. If I still played her at all I'd probably take her to Paragon now.
|
Originally Posted by Chase_Arcanum
Most of my "villains" have always been more "flawed heroes" that fit the rogue/vigilante mindset than villains anyway. I always found it a more compelling story to be the underdog in an oppressive regime like the rogue isles-- you're TRYING to do right in that cutthroat world, but some ruthlessness is necessary to survive... and sometimes no mater how hard you try to do right, things go wrong.
Most of my villains are now "rogue" for that reason. I'd go through all the trouble to make many of them "vigilantes" if I cared that much about getting the label right, but I want them to be based in my Rogue Isles' villain base. |
I kid you not, actual movie plot: Woman is framed for her husband's murder, but he faked his own death. She goes to jail. She gets out, and now she can hunt him down and kill him, because double jeopardy means she can't be tried again for killing him. Ever.
What's truly terrifying is that apparently there are people who actually think it works this way.