Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5008226" data-attributes="member: 61155">Ok, yes, it isn't likely to simply happen. But one could have evil inclinations without ever acting on them until that single act, and that act remains just as irreversible.   But that's not even what I'm talking about here. I'm discussing an evil person taking good actions - and stating that doing so in no way violates some 'evil code of conduct' he is supposed to abide by.    That seems to really, really simplify the concept of evil, as though at some point a figure just instantly becomes a psycopath. I've found that most effective villains tend to have reasons for their actions, even if those reasons are self-serving - some are simply misguided, some are selfish, some are power-hungry, etc. There are also those that simply enjoy killing for its own sake, but I'd say that is one specific area of 'evil', and not the entirety of it.  For a very easy example to counter your point, though: Say there exists a human lord who hates elves, and barely even sees them as people. An elven boy insults him, and he cuts him down in cold blood. But most of the time, he works for the betterment of his city, and would even run into a burning orphanage to save the (human) children inside. He believes himself a good man, and sees no inconsistency in his behavior - but his willingness to kill elven children at a whim clearly makes him evil. That one single murder, without remorse or regret, makes him a good man, because it crosses the line. And as Janx said, 'good' is restricted from doing certain things, and it only takes crossing the line once to end up on the other side.  On the other hand, say there is a skilled assassin and thief who will murder anyone for the right coin. He kills for profit, and enjoys it - thus is an evil man by any measure. But when not at work, he doesn't simply cut down people in the streets. He'll tip well, and if he sees some drunks harassing his favorite barmaid, he'll drive them off. If he sees some orcs attacking a caravan of travelers and their children, he'll step in to kill the orcs, confident in his ability to do so. Being willing to help someone out, or take these good actions, doesn't undercut the fact that he is a murderer at heart. Being evil doesn't restrict him to not doing good in any way, shape or form.  Oh, redemption and such might be possible. But I'm talking about the fact that an evil character can commit a good act without becoming good - can retain all their standard evil ways, even as they do this good deed. While a good character cannot so easily commit an evil act.   I'd say that it is a bit disengenous to try and completely ignore the example I'm discussing. And I'm quite confused that you don't seem to regard "saving the life of a child" with an equivalent comparison to "murdering a child".  In any case... yes, obviously, throwing around insults or similarly harmless acts doesn't make a good person evil. But your original claims was that evil was outright restricted from good acts in the same way good is restricted from evil acts, and that just isn't remotely true. I'm using extreme acts because they are the clearest to illustrate this.  A good character is restricted from murder, among other extreme acts. Killing someone innocent in rage or pride or hate or for whatever reason - a character can't do that, and remain 'good'. Perhaps they can atone. But this is clearly an act that defines them as evil.  There is no similar restriction for evil characters. No one single act of mercy or generosity or salvation inherently undoes their nature. If they then go on to spend the rest of their life doing good deeds, than sure, they are now good - but if they continue to commit evil acts, the occasional act of good doesn't remove their evil nature!  Well... like I said, I don't really buy it. I see a neutral character as somenoe who won't go out of his way to help others, not someone that actively commits harm and then tries to 'balance the scales'. I know that some interpretations of alignment work that way, as I said - I just don't particularly agree with them.  And there are of course many different characters that walk many different shades of grey. And bringing in the question of how characters should treat children of monstrous races... yeah, that's a whole 'nother dilemma, and not one I think needs to be brought into this discussion.  But what I'm looking at the absolute you stated - that evil characters have to somehow commit to a 'code of cruelty' in order to retain their evil nature. And that just seems absurd to me.</blockquote>

Verification