Evil is cool

[Umbran]

It's what King Arthur does.

Well, typically isn't it more depticted as "Arthur goes out and unseats all the greedy warlords, and unites people under one peaceful banner"? Arthur's in the lawless time after Rome leaves Britain, and local leaders are all looking out for their own interests, getting into fights among themselves that mean nothing to their people (but cost their lives), while at the same time leaving the people victim to threats from the outside?

Sounds like the evil princes had already taken over, and Arthur is again, reacting to the situation.

Good works on the basic tenet that if it ain't broke, you don't fix it. If someone breaks it, you break them, and then fix it yourself.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, typically isn't it more depticted as "Arthur goes out and unseats all the greedy warlords, and unites people under one peaceful banner"?

What does how it is depicted have to do with it? Arthur devours the neighboring princedoms. That he's a good king and rules wisely and justly and those that he conquers aren't legitimizes what he does, but it's still conquest.

Sounds like the evil princes had already taken over, and Arthur is again, reacting to the situation.

That stretches the definition of 'reaction' to the point that everything is a reaction. It's certainly far removed from passivity.

Good works on the basic tenet that if it ain't broke, you don't fix it. If someone breaks it, you break them, and then fix it yourself.

I think you are thinking of Conservativism, but I can see how you might get confused.

 

[Hussar]

I dunno. I think "Arthur sees the bad people doing bad things and rights the wrongs and unites the people" is a pretty reactive version of good.

If the other lords had been depicted as generous, kind, wise rulers, would we still view Arthur as good? I don't think so. There is still the concept of just war. To use a very bad example, we see Xerxes as evil because Leonidas is good. Never mind the actual history of course, we don't want to talk about that. But, in the 300 story, Leonides protects his home from the warlord about to take away their freedom.

If there was no invasion, then there would be no story.

Or, to put it another way, it's pretty rare for the story to be told from the point of view of the robber baron, oppressing his people and being generally Baron McEvil and then seeing the White Night as the antagonist and evil.

Heros are good (by and large and, yes, I know that's painting with a HUGELY broad brush).

That's a very modern trope though, and so is the idea of 'Evil is cool'.

Oh, certainly. Post-modern all the way. No disagreement here. However, D&D is also based on modern morality (well such morality as its based on at all).

Put it another way, how many D&D settings have a good god declaring crusade on a neighbouring kingdom, which is also good aligned? Now, how many D&D settings have an evil god doing the same thing?

 

[fuzzlewump]

Desire and intention are different.

Sure, but desire to kill your family and intention to kill your family are both evil, though perhaps intention is further down the scale toward evil.

But being discussed wasn't desire vs. intention, it was thought vs. action. Desire, emotion, and intention both live in the brain as thought, so thought can definitely be evil as Celebrim posited as well as action.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Sure, but desire to kill your family and intention to kill your family are both evil, though perhaps intention is further down the scale toward evil.

after a weekend of christmas shopping with my family I desire to kill some of them...

 

[pawsplay]

Sure, but desire to kill your family and intention to kill your family are both evil, though perhaps intention is further down the scale toward evil.

But being discussed wasn't desire vs. intention, it was thought vs. action. Desire, emotion, and intention both live in the brain as thought, so thought can definitely be evil as Celebrim posited as well as action.

How is the desire to kill your family evil? Surely, restraining your own desire and thereby saving your family is Good.

 

[pawsplay]

I dunno. I think "Arthur sees the bad people doing bad things and rights the wrongs and unites the people" is a pretty reactive version of good.

Just as a side-note, Mordred is the very definition of reactive Evil. But I agree this is a stretch for being "reactive." Arthur is not simply answering this wrong here and that one there, he has a plan (unite Britain) that is a positive step in fighting evil and promoting good. He did not merely unseat evil rulers, he also built Camelot.

If you use this as the measure of being "reactive," then Doctor Doom is reactive toward every other country in the world that is more powerful than Latveria.

 

[fuzzlewump]

How is the desire to kill your family evil? Surely, restraining your own desire and thereby saving your family is Good.

Maybe, depends on the motivation for restraint. If the restraint is because "it's wrong" then I would guess you'd end up at a neutral alignment, given that you'd be kind of half-evil half-good. I imagine that's where most people in the world are: sometimes thinking evil thoughts, but showing moral restraint most of the time. If the restraint is because "i dont want to spend my life in prison" then it's still evil.

 

[Hussar]

Just as a side-note, Mordred is the very definition of reactive Evil. But I agree this is a stretch for being "reactive." Arthur is not simply answering this wrong here and that one there, he has a plan (unite Britain) that is a positive step in fighting evil and promoting good. He did not merely unseat evil rulers, he also built Camelot.

If you use this as the measure of being "reactive," then Doctor Doom is reactive toward every other country in the world that is more powerful than Latveria.

Sort of. If Britain was a peaceful country and all those other leaders were kind, wise, good kings, would there be a need for a hero to arise to unite the nation and lead it to glory?

Doctor Doom is evil for precisely this reason. He seeks to establish his rulership over nations that are generally considered "good".

 

[Voadam]

Sure, but desire to kill your family and intention to kill your family are both evil, though perhaps intention is further down the scale toward evil.

But being discussed wasn't desire vs. intention, it was thought vs. action. Desire, emotion, and intention both live in the brain as thought, so thought can definitely be evil as Celebrim posited as well as action.

No, I think Celebrim and I were originally discussing emotions. Hate. Pride. Anger.

He asked me what I thought would be an example of evil and I said actions like torture. So I think emotion versus action is the comparison.

Lumping feeling emotions with deciding to take actions as morally equivalent just because they are both in your head is not valid.

So is there a morally significant line between feeling anger at your neighbor and murdering him with a power drill? Or is it just a matter of degree, a minor evil compared to a bigger evil?