good and evil, what is greater?

[Kahuna Burger]

Evil is overly romanticized. Most evil I have encountered is actually boring, unreflective, and stupid--as others have said, a lack of goodness rather than some active force.

heh, I'm with you there... In college, there was a psuedo intelectual subset that had to prove how cool and edgy they were by trying to 'logically' argue that acting like a sociopath was smarter than 'accepting social restrictions'. Luckily, I never met a one of them who wasn't a complete poser, so I could safely roll my eyes and ignore them rather than preparing for the possibility of having to put any of them down like a mad dog...

Now in the sense of cosmic forces and fantasy, I perfer neutrality. Why? Because once you assign loyalty and sides and gods and cosmic struggles for dominance, the actual social use of calling something good or evil is diluted by their (for want of a better term) political associations. Wanton slaughter becomes "good" because the folks you are slaughtering are politically aligned with "Evil". The terms become perscriptive rather than descriptive, about morals rather than ethics, and suddenly being a sociopath is artificially made a viable life choice, because you need those hordes of complete evil so you can slaughter them in the name of good....

*sigh* and people wonder why I perfer to seperate personality descriptors from cosmic forces....

Kahuna burger

 

[Kahuna Burger]

That is about as simple as I can put my beliefs into text without a religious discussion. I think it is impossible to define morality etc without religion. Because without it we have no defining points to start from.

Unfortunately, you just followed your claim to not want a religious discussion with a very inflamatory religious statement. its like saying that you aren't going into a political discussion, but you think that the rise of a democratic presidency would mean the complete downfall of our nation, and expect the discussion to stay non-political. I'm going to skip any in depth discussion of it (because that is what the mods would call "religious", not the orriginal assertion), but lets just say that your assumption is both wrong and insulting to some very moral/ethical individuals by implication.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Henry]

My perspective is this:

Evil is more likely in our young adult years, but as we get older, we get more tired.

Evil, and maintaining evil, is very tiring. Evil typically leads to oppression, fear, and power. You eventually get tired of looking over your shoulder, tired of wondering who's going to shaft you next, who do you need to dominate next to maintain the status quo. It takes a lot of work to keep that up.

Good requires sacrifice and pain, but is not as tiring. Good inspires love (though it doesn't create it, big difference here). Good also inspires peace. In the end, we are all tired, and need to rest. Good is more prone to giving rest than evil.

To me, Good is the tortise, and Evil is the Hare.

Just my take on the two.

 

[Henry]

And while I'm at it, let's be very careful about adding religion to this; when you do, it invokes relgious debate, which gets things closed.

I don't mind discussing why lessons of good or evil are in an RPG, but let's not go much farther than that.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Well, it seems clear to me. Assuming "Evil" and "Good" exist as separate, distinct forces, all we have to do is check and see which one is still around. After all this time, if one of them was greater, it should have defeated the other by now.

[The rest of this post is semi-philosophical ranting on the nature of good and evil and might not be relavent or even interesting]
I remember that somebody (famous, I think) once came up with a hypothetical description of the most totally evil person imaginable and the most totally good person imaginable. The evil person was about what you'd expect, cruel, horrible, evil to the core, etc..., EXCEPT, the final, clinching factor that made him the MOST evil person was that everybody thought he was good. Nobody ever witnessed his evil acts. In public he was always the perfect gentleman. In fact, he was so good in people's eyes that everybody in the world would have voted for him as the most GOOD person in the world. He was so evil he had fooled the entire world into thinking he was good.

The ultimate good guy was just the opposite. He was good, pure, compassionate, etc... ad infinitum. Except that everybody in the world thought he was evil and wanted to kill him. In spite of all that, he was unswayed, undismayed, and kept on being good and doing good, even though he never got a bit of credit for it. The fact that he could untouched by that ultimate level of hatred is what makes him the most good person in the world. Nobody else could possibly stand it. Everybody in the world would have voted him as the most EVIL person in the world.
[/semi-philosophical rant]

 

[MerakSpielman]

I think it is impossible to define morality etc without religion. Because without it we have no defining points to start from.

Ever hear of philosophy? You can discussing something philosophically without discussing it religiously.

There is no ultimate, universally excepted definition of evil. The best I can do is say that to any given individual, what he percieves as "evil" is whatever it is that stands most directly in opposition to his deepest and most strongly treasured beliefs.

In a D&D world, by the rules, evil is a definable force that can be magically identified. You can be neutral, commit a few crimes, and then show up as evil. You can wait for somebody to die then go track down their soul in the outer planes and see where it ended up. A little experimentation and testing and people can catalogue what is evil and what isn't with direct proof.

We lack such an ultimate, unequivical frame of reference in the real world. We can have a belief framework that we use as an ultimate reference, but it can never be emperically tested for accuracy.

That's why we call it faith.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

Course, there is the tiny problem of what is actually good or evil?

Almost anything I can think of that we consider evil nowadays have been considered quite normal in other cultures at other times...

For example:

The Aztecs (among many other cultures) were big into human sacrfice.

The Greeks and Romans regularly had young boys as lovers.

Both cultures considered those things pretty normal and actions of 'good' people. In much of the modern world you are an 'evil' person if you do either of these things.

Killing people is an 'evil' example. Yet it's still considered to be a 'good' thing under the right circumstances - self defense, defense of others, war?

Perhaps it simply comes down to your intentions when you perform any action?

/rambling.

 

[Mark Chance]

Almost anything I can think of that we consider evil nowadays have been considered quite normal in other cultures at other times...

Illogical. This and similar lines of thinking (i.e., "There is no universally accepted definition of evil" sorts of sentiments) conflate opinion with fact. The truth of X is not dependent on what people's opinions pro or contra X happen to be at any particular moment. If X is true, then X remains true even if the whole world objects. Likewise, if X is false, then arguments to the contrary are sheer sophistry.

The Aztecs (among many other cultures) were big into human sacrfice.

The Greeks and Romans regularly had young boys as lovers.

Again, the same category error. Just because the Aztecs viewed intercine warfare, kidnapping, and human sacrifice (read: murder) as acceptable means to ends does not show that, in fact, the Aztecs' point-of-view was true.

What's more, the second observation is a gross generalization. For example, people widely regarded as the best and brightest of Graeco-Roman society (i.e., Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) objected that same-sex sexual activity was immoral. For example, Plato (in his Laws) calls such activity para physin ("unnatural") and tolmema ("a crime").

Perhaps it simply comes down to your intentions when you perform any action?

When Susan Atkins (IIRC) was asked why she participated in the murder of Sharon Tate, her response was (I paraphrase), "Because I loved her." Those sound like awfully good intentions, but we all know what the road to hell is paved with.

 

[Greyhawk_DM]

Unfortunately, you just followed your claim to not want a religious discussion with a very inflamatory religious statement. its like saying that you aren't going into a political discussion, but you think that the rise of a democratic presidency would mean the complete downfall of our nation, and expect the discussion to stay non-political. I'm going to skip any in depth discussion of it (because that is what the mods would call "religious", not the orriginal assertion), but lets just say that your assumption is both wrong and insulting to some very moral/ethical individuals by implication.

Kahuna Burger

For me my religion defines my morals. By definition morality can be defined as a "code of conduct" to live life by. My religion defines that for me. You cannot have one without the other.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
If my comments have been offensive to you, then I am sorry that you feel that way. They were not meant to offend anyone.

We lack such an ultimate, unequivical frame of reference in the real world. We can have a belief framework that we use as an ultimate reference, but it can never be emperically tested for accuracy.

That I do not believe. If you really want to know the truth all you have to do is search for it. Truth is not defined by what you believe to be true, but what is true. For example you can believe all you want that the pigs can fly, but the truth is they cannot.
That is about all I will comment on "real-world" religion or morality as it is a very volatile subject...

In a D&D world, by the rules, evil is a definable force that can be magically identified. You can be neutral, commit a few crimes, and then show up as evil. You can wait for somebody to die then go track down their soul in the outer planes and see where it ended up. A little experimentation and testing and people can catalogue what is evil and what isn't with direct proof.

Very true. In the game you have a defined moral code in the Nine Alignments. Which makes playing a PC seem easier, but in my 20+ years of gaming, I have not really seen one player that could stick to One of the alignments exclusively without some sort of melding into other areas of alignment.

And back to the original question...Is good greater than evil. Good has to be greater than evil or society would not survive. It would eventually collapse in upon itself.

 

[MerakSpielman]

For me my religion defines my morals. By definition morality can be defined as a "code of conduct" to live life by. My religion defines that for me. You cannot have one without the other.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/
If my comments have been offensive to you, then I am sorry that you feel that way. They were not meant to offend anyone.

You certainly haven't offended me. You seem to have a clear notion as to what will get the thread closed, and you're not crossing the line. In fact, you sound like somebody with whom I could have a good discussion. Too many people - especially online - don't know how to have a polite conversation about their beliefs.

That I do not believe.

I respect that! I'm gonna discuss it with you anyway, though.

If you really want to know the truth all you have to do is search for it. Truth is not defined by what you believe to be true, but what is true. For example you can believe all you want that the pigs can fly, but the truth is they cannot.

You've just pretty much defined the mission of science and the scientific method. I don't think that's what you were going for, though.

Logically, by your argument, all seekers of truth will arrive (and, historically, have arrived) at the same destination, regardless of who they were and from what culture they originated. If this is what you believe, you are much closer to my religion than I originally thought. However, the point should still be debated (a trademark of me when I get in these discussions is that I will often argue against things that I believe. One of my beliefs is that I cannot truly understand my position on any matter unless I am capable of arguing both for and against it.).

Logically, by your assertation, two people born on opposite sides of the planet at the same time, and devoting themselves to knowing the ultimate Truth will always end up comeing to the same conclusions after a lifetime of religious/philosophical devotion. I must observe that this can be shown to not be the case. Unless you mean - and I hope you do not - that all seekers of truth will eventually find your specific religion and recognise its inherant value and then stop seeking.

That is about all I will comment on "real-world" religion or morality as it is a very volatile subject...

You're probably right... And I probably shouldn't have responded, but I find these discussions fun...

Very true. In the game you have a defined moral code in the Nine Alignments. Which makes playing a PC seem easier, but in my 20+ years of gaming, I have not really seen one player that could stick to One of the alignments exclusively without some sort of melding into other areas of alignment.

You're right. Nobody can role-play a character who always follows their alignment to the letter. I would argue, though, that it is possible to play a character who predominantly behaves properly for a particular alignment. On a slightly different note, it's interesting that a paladin who saves villages from monsters for a living is good. If one time he deliberately destroys a village he becomes evil. On the other hand, a Blackguard who destroys villages for a living is evil. If one time he deliberately saves a village from a monster, I think we would all agree that he is not in danger of becoming good. Why the double standard?

And back to the original question...Is good greater than evil. Good has to be greater than evil or society would not survive. It would eventually collapse in upon itself.

This argument seems to assume that civilized society is somehow inherently good. I believe certain societies can be evil and still thrive. Societies exist like living organisms - they consume what they need for growth and survival, they eliminate threats to their existance, and they form mutually beneficial relationships with other society/organisms if the "other" is not currently a threat. In this respect, all socities and civilizations on earth (er, I mean in D&D worlds. yeah, that's it!) behave exactly the same, regardless of the ideology of the inhabitants.