How do you handle evil?

[RuinousPowers]

Its an evil action, Id say the Doctor is likely neutral, and certainly lawful for participating.

I'd say he is not evil because he doesn't kill on a regular indiscriminate basis.

What if the doctor's job was delivering lethal injections all over the country, so he does do it on a regular basis? Would that make him evil?

 

[payn]

What if the doctor's job was delivering lethal injections all over the country, so he does do it on a regular basis? Would that make him evil?

It's not necessarily how often they do it, but why they do it. If the doctor started doing assisted suicides and purposely hurting/killing their patients then it seems pretty evil. Likely, LE because they have found a loophole to kill people and not be punished for it. If the doctor just does it for a job and wants it done humanely, then Id call that doctor LN.

 

[RuinousPowers]

It's not necessarily how often they do it, but why they do it. If the doctor started doing assisted suicides and purposely hurting/killing their patients then it seems pretty evil. Likely, LE because they have found a loophole to kill people and not be punished for it. If the doctor just does it for a job and wants it done humanely, then Id call that doctor LN.

I wouldn't call assisted suicide evil, and "purposefully killing their patients" is pretty much the description of a doctor whose job is to employ lethal injections.

What I find interesting is you describe a character as neutral who is doing actions you deem evil. To me, Neutral isn't just a transitory alignment between good and evil, requiring a balancing act of good and evil deeds to maintain. It's its own thing, so I would not make a statement that "Neutral characters commit evil acts". Neutral characters act in Neutral ways.

 

[le Redoutable]

I wouldn't call assisted suicide evil, and "purposefully killing their patients" is pretty much the description of a doctor whose job is to employ lethal injections.

What I find interesting is you describe a character as neutral who is doing actions you deem evil. To me, Neutral isn't just a transitory alignment between good and evil, requiring a balancing act of good and evil deeds to maintain. It's its own thing, so I would not make a statement that "Neutral characters commit evil acts". Neutral characters act in Neutral ways.

and you throw up a happy smiley !
brrrr !

 

[payn]

I wouldn't call assisted suicide evil, and "purposefully killing their patients" is pretty much the description of a doctor whose job is to employ lethal injections.

By purposefully, I mean they actually want to derive some satisfaction from taking a life personally. Not doing it for external reasons like for society or to ease a persons suffering.

What I find interesting is you describe a character as neutral who is doing actions you deem evil. To me, Neutral isn't just a transitory alignment between good and evil, requiring a balancing act of good and evil deeds to maintain. It's its own thing, so I would not make a statement that "Neutral characters commit evil acts". Neutral characters act in Neutral ways.

Good folks are not going to kill unless they have to. Neutral folks can be persuaded that sometimes killing is for the best, but generally avoid it. Evil folks think killing to achieve your goals is fine in any context.

As I have always read it, neutral doesn't have a strong compunction to act in good or evil (law or chaos). They can lean either way as the situation presents itself. Thus, there isnt really any such thing as a neutral act.

 

[RuinousPowers]

Thus, there isnt really any such thing as a neutral act.

And I think that's the crux of the disagreement/misunderstanding. I do have behaviors that are defined as Neutral. One thieves guild battling another theives guild over territory would not be evil if the violence was contained only to those members, for example.

 

[payn]

And I think that's the crux of the disagreement/misunderstanding. I do have behaviors that are defined as Neutral. One thieves guild battling another theives guild over territory would not be evil if the violence was contained only to those members, for example.

Interesting take. Is this based on readings of alignment (any edition) or just something you came up with? (Its perfectly ok to be your take I'm just interested how you got there.)

 

[billd91]

As I have always read it, neutral doesn't have a strong compunction to act in good or evil (law or chaos). They can lean either way as the situation presents itself. Thus, there isnt really any such thing as a neutral act.

Of course there are neutral acts - they're things you do that don't have a moral component. A lot of them are pretty routine. Getting your chores done, selling your surplus at the market, using the chamber pot.... all things you do without significant moral character or implication.

And I think that's the crux of the disagreement/misunderstanding. I do have behaviors that are defined as Neutral. One thieves guild battling another theives guild over territory would not be evil if the violence was contained only to those members, for example.

Why would that not be evil? Does evil really have to be done to innocent people for it to truly be "evil"? Evil can't prey on other evil?

 

[RuinousPowers]

Of course there are neutral acts - they're things you do that don't have a moral component. A lot of them are pretty routine. Getting your chores done, selling your surplus at the market, using the chamber pot.... all things you do without significant moral character or implication.


Why would that not be evil? Does evil really have to be done to innocent people for it to truly be "evil"? Evil can't prey on other evil?

Of course evil could, and would, prey upon other evil beings. But evil killing evil wouldn't necessarily be an evil act.

 

[le Redoutable]

Of course there are neutral acts - they're things you do that don't have a moral component. A lot of them are pretty routine. Getting your chores done, selling your surplus at the market, using the chamber pot.... all things you do without significant moral character or implication.


Why would that not be evil? Does evil really have to be done to innocent people for it to truly be "evil"? Evil can't prey on other evil?

you mean, things done with no purpose, or Amateur works ?
edit : that's not a matter of purpose, but of Challenge !

 

[RuinousPowers]

Interesting take. Is this based on readings of alignment (any edition) or just something you came up with? (Its perfectly ok to be your take I'm just interested how you got there.)

I guess it's because otherwise all fantasy heroes would be evil. Since I'd like more literary options than Galahad, and because I always liked Warhammer's stance that Neutral was the default alignment, instead of the nearly unplayable mess of AD&D.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

then to whom should I be the devil's advocate ??

Oh advocate yourself, of course, you beautiful bastard.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

They can't both be The Punisher simultaneously and differently. The MCU version is not the same as the comic version, which you've admitted.

Utterly false. Don't put words in my mouth. Your assumptions of my intentions are pretty bad, so if you're unclear, ask. You're a fan of the real MCU Punisher and that's fine.

Ultimately, though, the difference isn't relevant to this conversation. Both are evil. A serial murderer is evil no matter what his reasons.

Ugh... So it's just another debate over semantics.

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

They... can though? Hades in Percy Jackson and the Olympians is a VERY different version of the mythological character than Hades in Disney's Hercules, which is a very different version than Hades in SuperGiantGames' Hades. They're not the same version of the character, but that doesn't mean any of them beyond the original 'worshipped in ancient Greece' (and even that one had a lot of different versions) are fake Hades.

Can't really argue with you here. Personally, every exposure I've had to The Punisher has left me with the impression that he's just a hyper-masculine revenge fantasy with a veneer of Good Guy polish on top to make him acceptable to the masses.

That's one of the issues I have with the whole debate, honestly. What counts a "Good" or "Evil" gets more and more nebulous the further into the weeds you get. Is killing someone evil when you know that killing them will save more lives at that exact moment (killing a suicide bomber before they can detonate)? What about killing someone when you know that killing them will save more lives down the line (killing someone who intends to become a suicide bomber)? On what criteria are you basing that assessment on?

In Frank Castle's case, I could easily argue that the character is evil, as vigilante murder is his immediate solution, and he never seems to actually care about proactively protecting or reforming people, just killing those he decided are bad. He's not motivated by helping people, but hurting them. But then, I can't say that's true of every version of the character.

I mean you could always try Nihilism and Absurdism, works pretty swell for accepting that these questions (what are good, evil, "beautiful", why does a cookie taste so dang good and a raw onion so dang bad) can't be answered because there are no answers

 

[le Redoutable]

Oh advocate yourself, of course, you beautiful bastard.

Oh! someone ... ( Kate would say " Give it Time " )

 

[jdrakeh]

I typically use the Law/Chaos only axis of alignment as presented in Original D&D (1974), so it isn't usually an issue for me. On the rare occasions that I use the all out alignment spectrum, I usually only restrict characters from choosing Chaotic Evil as an alignment (because in 20+ years of playing D&D, I've never seen anybody choose that alignment not turn out to be a total jerk).

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

The reason it's illegal, is that it's immoral. Murder is immoral, regardless of reason.

I don't believe he ever knew true love. He modeled it after a fashion, but he screwed up things badly for everyone he "loved" because he wasn't capable of true understanding.

I didn't see it.

Really? The last time I checked basically all of world history, the only reason something is illegal one time and legal another is a complete historical accident, a product of the times. They could chop your hand off in public for being a thief in medieval Europe, heck there was a guy in the 20th century who asked for trial by combat because Parliament forgot to ummm... get rid of feudalism, lmfao.

Moral? Immoral? When has that stopped people from making wacky laws?

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

in " the Republic " from Platon, there is reference to Guardians ...

Hey, you! Over there actually making interesting references... Socrates said that city was a fever dream anyways, if it was ideal it wouldn't need a philosopher king, and Socrates first proposes a very different society.

 

[le Redoutable]

Hey, you! Over there actually making interesting references... Socrates said that city was a fever dream anyways, if it was ideal it wouldn't need a philosopher king, and Socrates first proposes a very different society.

I know I know ! Democracy is a Clysthene thing

 

[Scruffy nerf herder]

I wouldn't call assisted suicide evil, and "purposefully killing their patients" is pretty much the description of a doctor whose job is to employ lethal injections.

What I find interesting is you describe a character as neutral who is doing actions you deem evil. To me, Neutral isn't just a transitory alignment between good and evil, requiring a balancing act of good and evil deeds to maintain. It's its own thing, so I would not make a statement that "Neutral characters commit evil acts". Neutral characters act in Neutral ways.

This! Double stamp and triple stamp it! Take a screenshot! Somebody online understands that there are neutral actions too, quick, get the president on the phone!