apocalypstick
First Post
All I know is, it's more fun to stop the evil. 
Is it better to do good or to stop evil?
- Thread starter Arravis
- Start date
Kind of the same situation the U.S. is in right now too... very interesting.
Anyway, as soon as I figure out what going to happen, I'll let you guys know... I might take an "Inigo Montoya" route, and have her not know whom the culprit was, and when she can she searches for him/her/it.
That would add a nice murder-mystery flavor to it...
Anyway, as soon as I figure out what going to happen, I'll let you guys know... I might take an "Inigo Montoya" route, and have her not know whom the culprit was, and when she can she searches for him/her/it.
That would add a nice murder-mystery flavor to it...
On Arravis' original statement:
For the FR flavor Monk's of Illmater need to remember one of the classical lines out of the FRCS "Turn the other cheek". If the monk has the ability to do good in the immediate moment than that is the greater good in-her-case. She should help ease the suffering of others around her in whatever form her own skills match the situation. Part of being a monk, and I like the approach you mentioned (movie wise), is being acutely aware of your own limits and of the environment that you are a part of in space/time.
"To be suffering with another is to be the other; losing oneself, and the distinction that any suffering is not our own, is our truth." - Tao de Illmater
Illmater is not about needless suffering though, so your idea for the 10 days is a very honorable way of dealing with the monk's own inner demons. Walking the path of perfection through recognition of suffering is noble and difficult; Illmater does not expect his followers to be perfect in their pursuit of the greater good. Bringing those who caused the evil act (yes mutilating others falls in that category of evil) both serves the monk's thirst for revenge and serves the good. It discourages some criminals who see the miscreants brought to justice, and promotes local jobs.
I like the Inigo Montoya idea. Perhaps another one: the "evil-doers" are important officials in the area who get away with occasional acts of violence because they keep the city from falling apart (i.e. Lawful Evil power center). The monk keeps her peace because for her to act would tear the area apart, but during her 10 days hires the players to find out information which will bring the officals to justice for their crimes...
On the ethics, morales, and perception of good, greater good, and evil:
"No man walks with his feet 3 inches off the ground." - trans: those who are perfect leave this mortal realm we speak of and our discussions of good/evil are nothing compared to the reality they experience. We, as mortals, wish generally to do what is 'good' in whatever format we see it in. We cannot, and do not, see all possibilities and all probabilities of all of our actions all of the time. So we resign ourselves, through experience and maturity, to doing what we believe is good when we can.
There is no universal "greater good/evil"; the universe does not keep ticker marks of one good outweighing another. Terms such as these apply only on a biological/sociological level. In which case, saving the water to save the greatest number of lives is best, unless saving the life of the person trapped in the car will save more lives later (because they are a doctor, fireman, messiah of some sort, etc.). But there again one runs into the problem of perception and doing "the best one can".
For the FR flavor Monk's of Illmater need to remember one of the classical lines out of the FRCS "Turn the other cheek". If the monk has the ability to do good in the immediate moment than that is the greater good in-her-case. She should help ease the suffering of others around her in whatever form her own skills match the situation. Part of being a monk, and I like the approach you mentioned (movie wise), is being acutely aware of your own limits and of the environment that you are a part of in space/time.
"To be suffering with another is to be the other; losing oneself, and the distinction that any suffering is not our own, is our truth." - Tao de Illmater
Illmater is not about needless suffering though, so your idea for the 10 days is a very honorable way of dealing with the monk's own inner demons. Walking the path of perfection through recognition of suffering is noble and difficult; Illmater does not expect his followers to be perfect in their pursuit of the greater good. Bringing those who caused the evil act (yes mutilating others falls in that category of evil) both serves the monk's thirst for revenge and serves the good. It discourages some criminals who see the miscreants brought to justice, and promotes local jobs.
I like the Inigo Montoya idea. Perhaps another one: the "evil-doers" are important officials in the area who get away with occasional acts of violence because they keep the city from falling apart (i.e. Lawful Evil power center). The monk keeps her peace because for her to act would tear the area apart, but during her 10 days hires the players to find out information which will bring the officals to justice for their crimes...
On the ethics, morales, and perception of good, greater good, and evil:
"No man walks with his feet 3 inches off the ground." - trans: those who are perfect leave this mortal realm we speak of and our discussions of good/evil are nothing compared to the reality they experience. We, as mortals, wish generally to do what is 'good' in whatever format we see it in. We cannot, and do not, see all possibilities and all probabilities of all of our actions all of the time. So we resign ourselves, through experience and maturity, to doing what we believe is good when we can.
There is no universal "greater good/evil"; the universe does not keep ticker marks of one good outweighing another. Terms such as these apply only on a biological/sociological level. In which case, saving the water to save the greatest number of lives is best, unless saving the life of the person trapped in the car will save more lives later (because they are a doctor, fireman, messiah of some sort, etc.). But there again one runs into the problem of perception and doing "the best one can".
Dax Doomslayer
Adventurer
Hi All,
Interesting philosophical discussion. My view is this: doing good is the way to go. By doing good, it can in theory encourage others to do good also. Thus by its very nature it is more effective. Not everyone is capable of combatting evil but everyone is certainly able to do something that would be beneficial toward others. Just my .02 coppers.
Interesting philosophical discussion. My view is this: doing good is the way to go. By doing good, it can in theory encourage others to do good also. Thus by its very nature it is more effective. Not everyone is capable of combatting evil but everyone is certainly able to do something that would be beneficial toward others. Just my .02 coppers.
Thanks Arravis 
qoute was actually a mixed paraphrase from an old Zen Buddhist text (can't recall name today heh) on the nature of suffering, and my reading of the FRCS on Illmater (plus some other books i've skimmed).
The Tao is more of a "good"/"evil" = rofl.
have fun with yer game.
qoute was actually a mixed paraphrase from an old Zen Buddhist text (can't recall name today heh) on the nature of suffering, and my reading of the FRCS on Illmater (plus some other books i've skimmed).
The Tao is more of a "good"/"evil" = rofl.
have fun with yer game.
Dang, Malcom beat me to it.
I think you have a good grasp on the philosophy that you want to use. I would just put it in context for the game.
The monk lost her arm a mill accident. Someone set fire to the mill and in the course of trying to rescue innocents, her arm got caught in the mechanisms and was ripped free. Now she knows the mill was set on fire intentionally, and she may even know who did it. But she does not have any physical proof. I like the idea that the person she is against is an official. They don't have to be obviously evil either. Maybe it was the mayor punishing the miller for not paying his protection money. Or some other more diabolical idea (mayor is priest of Lovitar).
But this sort of thing puts the monk into more of a certain quandry than a philosophical one. As an NPC this is important because it would be odd (at least in my experience) to have the game session revolve around philosophical debates between PC and NPC for more than one session.
Still as to your first question, this was good. I would have to say for Illmater it would be doing good. For some others it might be stopping evil, but for Illmater it would be doing good.
I think you have a good grasp on the philosophy that you want to use. I would just put it in context for the game.
The monk lost her arm a mill accident. Someone set fire to the mill and in the course of trying to rescue innocents, her arm got caught in the mechanisms and was ripped free. Now she knows the mill was set on fire intentionally, and she may even know who did it. But she does not have any physical proof. I like the idea that the person she is against is an official. They don't have to be obviously evil either. Maybe it was the mayor punishing the miller for not paying his protection money. Or some other more diabolical idea (mayor is priest of Lovitar).
But this sort of thing puts the monk into more of a certain quandry than a philosophical one. As an NPC this is important because it would be odd (at least in my experience) to have the game session revolve around philosophical debates between PC and NPC for more than one session.
Still as to your first question, this was good. I would have to say for Illmater it would be doing good. For some others it might be stopping evil, but for Illmater it would be doing good.
Sinistar wrote: "it would be odd (at least in my experience) to have the game session revolve around philosophical debates between PC and NPC for more than one session."
I've actually had that happen in my games. The beleif's of different people and how they impact each other tends to be an important issue in my games.
Maybe I'm just a weird DM.
I like the mill idea... right now I'm still working on the details of her history. Trying to see how I want the story to unfold and if I want the "bad" guy to be a clear bad guy... or just perhaps a victim of circumstance. (Evil not being necessarily evil, and good not being necessarily good tend to be important concepts in my game. I try to make a grey world, rather then a black and white one)
I've actually had that happen in my games. The beleif's of different people and how they impact each other tends to be an important issue in my games.
Maybe I'm just a weird DM
.I like the mill idea... right now I'm still working on the details of her history. Trying to see how I want the story to unfold and if I want the "bad" guy to be a clear bad guy... or just perhaps a victim of circumstance. (Evil not being necessarily evil, and good not being necessarily good tend to be important concepts in my game. I try to make a grey world, rather then a black and white one)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
