Evil is cool

[Garthanos]

Who said self-preservation is evil? Self-absorption is not the same thing.

Tomato tomatoe... self absorbed is just hiding "a measure of degree" in the term... "making self" over important element in ones decisions or "greed"
is fed by rather basic needs of self preservation ... I need food... I need shelter.... I need to know I am significant. none of which are intrinsically wrong except in a matter of degree. Applying the term evil to minor things is what I was complaining about... somethings are not even wrong until they are imbalanced by a measure of extremity.

 

[fuzzlewump]

It's neutral to defend your own life, good to risk your own life for others, evil to risk others lives for yourself.

It's evil to be angry (with the amount/intensity of anger directly corresponding with evil) and it's good to be forgiving (with the amount/intensity of forgiveness directly corresponding with good.) It returns to the idea that good and evil don't have separate frameworks, an evil person follows (voluntarily or not) evil guidelines more often than not, and a good person follows good ones more often than not.

I'm not sure what usefulness of terms has to do with how often one's actions are considered evil or good. The existence of minor evils or minor goods doesn't have a bearing on whether the terms are useful, either, unless you have a reason that they should.

 

[Garthanos]

I'm not sure what usefulness of terms has to do with how often one's actions are considered evil or good.

might as well call it fizbop because if the terms arent not useful why categorize.... for instance lets say you specialize your term so far that they do not help judge or make decisions? people will go back to definitions which do.

The existence of minor evils or minor goods doesn't have a bearing on whether the terms are useful, either, unless you have a reason that they should.

See above...
Something at one degree is neutral but taken to an extreme is evil....
I am important ... I am so important I am willing to do supremely heinous things for the things I need.

Every action takes in to account the needs of the self, every human choice is affected by it. I object to calling that evil.. it undermines "evil" as a categorization it amounts to a blanket condemnation of the neutrality of basic human needs.

see the following quote... which I was objecting to with regards to minor evils

Originally posted by Celebrim
Are they never petty? Are they never irrational? Are they never cruel? Selfish? Inconsiderate? Self-absorbed? What makes you think this isn't a world where minor evil is a day to day occurance?

And irrationality as a minor evil????? that often results in good behavior.. just not coherent behavior.

You referred to evil instincts? Can you name a common one? that isn't just neutral unless pushed to an extreme.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Actually, I assumed you were the one who thinks instincts are good or evil, I think they are neutral. You seem to think self-preservation should be evil, but it's not. I'm not sure where you're getting any other idea. It's instinct to protect oneself. It's not instinct to murder. Where is the disconnect here?

EDIT: I think I see a bit of confusion. I meant in the original post that just because something is an instinct doesn't mean it is good or evil or neutral. I think our instincts for the most part round off to being neutral, but not out of necessity.

You seem hung up on the "self-absorbed" thing. Being concerned with yourself is neutral. Are you disputing that, or do you think I've argued differently? Being concerned with yourself to the harm of others is evil. Where are we disagreeing? I think you think I'm saying it's a minor evil to be concerned with yourself. No. It's a minor evil to be concerned with yourself to the minor harm of one other. The scale increases with the intensity of harm and amount of people harmed.

And you still haven't said why the terms are not useful. I agree, if terms are not useful you might as well call them fizbops. But you haven't said why "good" and "evil" are not useful even if they don't mean just extremes. If basic human instinct is to harm others (not necesarrily physically, of course) for the benefit of the self, and thus humans are basically evil, that doesn't make the terms useless. It makes them sad. But, I don't think that humans are basically evil.

 

[renau1g]

I think evil's a fun break from playing good all the time (that's why I DM). I think that a lot of the most popular super-heros have been anti-heros (or having a bit of evil in them), i.e. Batman and Wolverine. (Wolvie moreso)

 

[Garthanos]

Actually, I assumed you were the one who thinks instincts are good or evil, I think they are neutral. You seem to think self-preservation should be evil, but it's not. I'm not sure where you're getting any other idea. It's instinct to protect oneself. It's not instinct to murder. Where is the disconnect here?

EDIT: I think I see a bit of confusion. I meant in the original post that just because something is an instinct doesn't mean it is good or evil or neutral. I think our instincts for the most part round off to being neutral, but not out of necessity.

You seem hung up on the "self-absorbed" thing. Being concerned with yourself is neutral. Are you disputing that, or do you think I've argued differently?

Celebrim referred to it and several other things as a evidence that minor evils may be pervasive. I was refuting that.

Why? What is objectionable about, "everyone would be filled with minor evil"?

the entire thought.. repels.

Being concerned with yourself to the harm of others is evil. Where are we disagreeing? I think you think I'm saying it's a minor evil to be concerned with yourself.

We aren't, (and I did) it was Celebrims definitions appeared way too far in to neutral ranges way too big of net was being cast in search of evidence of pervasive minor evil. If every act is tinged by it then the term looses meaning and usefulness.

Humanity is the earth on which either can grow.

I too am generally inclined to call instincts neutral and yet....

"preserve your young"... if it is just that and nothing more it may be neutral... yet all my emotions say this is a fundamental on which good grows... push it generalize it and first its not just our own personal young and then perhaps not just the young but all to whom you are related and finally realizing how fundamentally related and interconnected we all are...it is everyone.

"sense of self importance" pushed to an extreme seems the fundament on which grows evil?.. and yet without it we wither and die a child can be killed slowly by deprivation of this sort - it is a "need" not something to be denigrated. Religions variously bolster humanity calling us sons and daughters of god, or travelers on the journey to become one with the universal divine ourselves even though in apparent contradiction simultaneously promoting egoless-ness or subservience (depending on western or eastern inclination). I think this is one about balance.

I have enjoyed this branching of the thread... but I think early on .... somebody said the most cogent answer to the actual thread.
reworded.. because I am lazy.

Evil is awesome in games and fiction and movies so the heros will be shown even more awesome when they kick it's bloody buttocks. But for me it is anything but cool.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Yeah, I enjoyed it too.

I think most important in dispelling evil is cool is realizing evil isn't "do whatever you want, whenever you want," it's "do evil whenever you can."

Let's say I do whatever I want, whenever I want. (Maybe that's true, I'm not sure.) But if whatever I want to do is usually neutral, sometimes good things, with evil happening very seldomly, clearly, no casual observer would call me evil.

A good person avoids evil, and an evil person avoids good. Pretending evil has no inherent guidelines is what makes them seem cool. Evil people/characters probably would not recognize that they have guidelines, or would reject them, but at the end of the day would follow them, or else they are not evil. Same applies for good.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think evil's a fun break from playing good all the time (that's why I DM). I think that a lot of the most popular super-heros have been anti-heros (or having a bit of evil in them), i.e. Batman and Wolverine. (Wolvie moreso)

Proof that you should never allow anti-heros into your game