How do you handle evil?

Well how do you handle it?

  • I'm okay with players choosing any alignment.

    Votes: 30 42.9%
  • I think players who choose an evil alignment are edgelords/wangrods.

    Votes: 11 15.7%
  • I don't understand how a player can make an evil character with in my campaign.

    Votes: 8 11.4%
  • Evil? I think evil is so fun I've made evil campaigns set in mostly evil worlds.

    Votes: 8 11.4%
  • I throw up my hands at alignment because the players are all murderhobos anyways.

    Votes: 6 8.6%
  • I just don't find evil all that fun.

    Votes: 38 54.3%

payn

Legend
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.
Thats why I just try and keep it simple. Evil doesn't necessitate bad outcomes and Good doesnt ensure it. A single evil action doesn't an evil alignment make, a vis a vis.
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?
For me the difference is intent and method. Good characters sometimes kill, but usually try their best to avoid it. They may have their back against a wall and need to choose self defense. They might pre-emptively choose to kill for the best outcome, but this should very rare and extreme. Evil characters see killing as a perfectly reasonable conflict resolution method.

For example, a police officer may have to take a life in their line of duty. Its not the purpose of their duty, and they should try and avoid having to do this at all. The punisher defines himself as a murderer; its what he does.
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.
There have been some attempts to make The Punisher seem more altruistic. I think those are misguided attempts to make the Punisher fit with super heroes in general. Ultimately, murder is always the Punishers method and you cant really get around that. I think anti-heroes have their place and make stories more interesting than simple white hat vs black hat.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

BrokenTwin

Biological Disaster
The reason it's illegal, is that it's immoral. Murder is immoral, regardless of reason.
While I don't disagree with your opinion on Frank Castle (though not as strongly), I highly disagree with the bolded sentence, and cannot get into why without flying screaming past the "Don't talk about politics" rule of this site beyond saying that some things are illegal despite being moral.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I'm not arguing that Castle is a good guy, because he clearly isn't. I am just stating that I don't put "killing murderers" into the alignment category of "evil". Evil, to me, is defined by hurting the innocent and defenseless, which Castle is clearly not doing.
In his case, though, he could walk down the street shooting everyone in sight and not be doing anything bad in his mind. If being a criminal is "not innocent," then none of us are innocent.

 

RuinousPowers

Adventurer
ehhh ! it is good material here :)
( I wanted to push you all to LE as in Judge Dredd ) ,
if to care for the innocent and helpless is from LG, hence implying there is the opposite,
then LE should use contracts ??
Some people would argue that JD is the classic LN. I wouldn't use the 9 point alignment system, but I would put him into the neutral category. But, once again, with such a long standing character there is a lot of contradictions- one sourcebook stated that the death penalty was only for city wide dangers or working with the enemy in times of war, despite him administering it for much less offenses.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
While I don't disagree with your opinion on Frank Castle (though not as strongly), I highly disagree with the bolded sentence, and cannot get into why without flying screaming past the "Don't talk about politics" rule of this site beyond saying that some things are illegal despite being moral.
Sure, but then you're expanding my argument past what I said. I said, "The reason it's illegal, is that it's immoral." with "it" clearly being murder in the context of the current discussion. If you're including anything other than murder, then you've gone past the scope of my argument. ;)
 


payn

Legend
While I don't disagree with your opinion on Frank Castle (though not as strongly), I highly disagree with the bolded sentence, and cannot get into why without flying screaming past the "Don't talk about politics" rule of this site beyond saying that some things are illegal despite being moral.
Legality is a culture concept. Its on the Law/Chaos axis. I cant speak for Maxperson, but I agree that murder is always immoral. There are certain contexts in which, as a society, we accept the immoral action as legal. That doesn't make it good, its just not punished due to the context within where the action lies.
 

RuinousPowers

Adventurer
In his case, though, he could walk down the street shooting everyone in sight and not be doing anything bad in his mind. If being a criminal is "not innocent," then none of us are innocent.

If you insist on using your version of the character instead of the version I have repeatedly said I was referencing, than there can't be meaningful discussion.
 

le Redoutable

Call me the Gaspi
Legality is a culture concept. Its on the Law/Chaos axis. I cant speak for Maxperson, but I agree that murder is always immoral. There are certain contexts in which, as a society, we accept the immoral action as legal. That doesn't make it good, its just not punished due to the context within where the action lies.
in " the Republic " from Platon, there is reference to Guardians ...
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
If you insist on using your version of the character instead of the version I have repeatedly said I was referencing, than there can't be meaningful discussion.
I'm not. I'm saying FELONIES. Not infractions like littering or jay walking. Virtually every man and woman in the US are criminals who have committed felonies. The TV version doesn't murder felons?
 

BrokenTwin

Biological Disaster
For me the difference is intent and method. Good characters sometimes kill, but usually try their best to avoid it. They may have their back against a wall and need to choose self defense. They might pre-emptively choose to kill for the best outcome, but this should very rare and extreme. Evil characters see killing as a perfectly reasonable conflict resolution method.
Personally, I will never argue that an act of killing can be Good, but I will argue until I'm blue in the face that it can be the Lesser Evil. Like most concepts in life, morality is an attempt to define a part of the messy spectrum of reality.
[Note: I am not saying that it is useless as a conceptual model]

Sure, but then you're expanding my argument past what I said. I said, "The reason it's illegal, is that it's immoral." with "it" clearly being murder in the context of the current discussion. If you're including anything other than murder, then you've gone past the scope of my argument. ;)
I've had to deal with people who seriously argue that law and morality are the same thing, and those were not pleasant conversations to have. Had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction when I saw that line. 😅
 

RuinousPowers

Adventurer
Legality is a culture concept. Its on the Law/Chaos axis. I cant speak for Maxperson, but I agree that murder is always immoral. There are certain contexts in which, as a society, we accept the immoral action as legal. That doesn't make it good, its just not punished due to the context within where the action lies.
So, is the doctor who administers the lethal dose evil? Is he not evil because the killing is state sanctioned? Is only the state allowed to access the morality of killing?
 

RuinousPowers

Adventurer
I'm not. I'm saying FELONIES. Not infractions like littering or jay walking. Virtually every man and woman in the US are criminals who have committed felonies. The TV version doesn't murder felons?
The violent felons responsible for his family's death. You don't see him hunting down people committing felony insurance fraud.
 


payn

Legend
So, is the doctor who administers the lethal dose evil?
Its an evil action, Id say the Doctor is likely neutral, and certainly lawful for participating.
Is he not evil because the killing is state sanctioned?
I'd say he is not evil because he doesn't kill on a regular indiscriminate basis. He kills within certain contexts. He is a lawful person because he follow state sanctioned murder, it has nothing to do with if he is good/neutral/evil.
Is only the state allowed to access the morality of killing?
No, I think I made that clear that the state can only effect cultural perspective, and not individual perspective. The state doesn't make it moral/immoral, they only decide which to punish and which to allow.
 

le Redoutable

Call me the Gaspi
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. He kills within certain contexts. He is a lawful person because he follow state sanctioned murder, it has nothing to do with if he is good/neutral/evil.

No, I think I made that clear that the state can only effect cultural perspective, and not individual perspective. The state doesn't make it moral/immoral, they only decide which to punish and which to allow.
I think fer you the only Evil beings are those who are CE ( regular indiscriminate basis )
 





Dungeon Delver's Guide

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top