Why is it always....

[Crisis21]

....the evil characters who spout out things like:

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Tarquin.png Son, labels like "good" and "evil" are just words. Words with many possible capitalizations.

?

[hamishspence]

Mostly because convincing the hero that Good and Evil are much less important than the hero thinks, is the first step in corrupting them.

RoTS novel Palpatine: "Good is a point of view, Anakin. And the Jedi concept of "good" is not the only valid one."

[Lvl45DM!]

Because if you're good you dont need to justify it. If you're evil you do. If you were a good guy going around saying "Evil is a point of view. Orcs have a right to eat elf babies if they want" you you know...arent a good guy

[Crisis21]

Actually, I just realized that Tarquin's also got a 'for the greater good' moment going on in that same speech.

[hamishspence]

From the RoTS novelization, there's a whole lot of justifications from Palpatine, often as to why the Jedi Way is the Wrong Way:

Dooku fight scene:
Dooku: I sense great fear in you. You are consumed by it. Hero With No Fear indeed. You're a fraud, Skywalker. You are nothing but a posturing child. Aren't you a little old to be afraid of the dark?
(Anakin starts to lose the edge in the fight)
Palpatine: Don't fear what you're feeling, Anakin, use it! Call upon your fury. Focus it, and he cannot stand against you. Rage is your weapon. Strike now! Strike! Kill him!
(Anakin defeats Dooku, cutting off both his hands in the process)
Palpatine: Good, Anakin! Good! I knew you could do it!
Palpatine: Kill him. Kill him now.
Dooku: Chancellor, please! Please, you promised me immunity! We had a deal! Help me!
Palpatine: A deal only if you released me. Not if you used me as bait to kill my friends.
Palpatine: Anakin, finish him.
Anakin: I shouldn't-
Palpatine: Do it! Now!
(Anakin kills Dooku)
Anakin: I- I couldn't stop myself...
Palpatine: You did well, Anakin. You did not only well, but right. He was too dangerous to leave alive.
Anakin: He was an unarmed prisoner...
Anakin: I shouldn't have done that.
Palpatine: Nonsense. Disarming him was nothing; he had powers beyond your imagination.
Anakin: That doesn't matter. It's not the Jedi way.
Palpatine: Have you never noticed that the Jedi way, is not always the right way?
Anakin: You don't understand. You're not a Jedi. You can't understand.
Palpatine: Anakin, listen to me. How many lives have you just saved with this stroke of a lightsaber? Can you count them?
Anakin: But-
Palpatine: It wasn't wrong, Anakin. It may be not the Jedi way, but it was right. Perfectly natural- he took your hand, you wanted revenge. And your revenge was justice.
Anakin: Revenge is never just. It can't be.
Palpatine: Don't be childish, Anakin. Revenge is the foundation of justice. Justice began with revenge, and revenge is still the only justice some beings can ever hope for. After all, this is hardly your first time, is it? Did Dooku deserve mercy more than did the Sand People who tortured your mother to death?
Anakin: That was different.
Anakin: You promised we would never talk about that again.
Palpatine: And we won't. Just as we need never speak of what has happened here today. I have always kept your secrets, have I not?
Anakin: Yes- yes, of course, Chancellor, but-
Palpatine: Anakin, my restraints, please. I'm afraid this ship is breaking up. I don't think we should be aboard when it does.
Palpatine: Come along, Anakin. There is very little time.
Anakin: Obi-Wan - !
Palpatine: Leave him, Anakin. There is no time. This whole spire may be about to break free-
Anakin: Then we'll all be adrift together.
Anakin: His fate, will be the same as ours.

And this is just the first of several of the lectures Palpatine uses to manipulate Anakin's morals throughout the book.

[Conuly]

In what context would a good person get to say "Good and evil are only words/outdated concepts/labels", exactly? I can't imagine when it would ever even come up!

Well, other than on an alignment thread, that is. But even then...!

[B. Dandelion]

Tarquin in particular probably had to say it just because it's such a well-worn villainous cliche thing to say.

[Rakarth]

Well, to borrow from another Star Wars scene:

Luke Skywalker: "You see what a thin line separates Paplatine and Yoda? Palpatine sought power over others; Yoda sought power from within."

In essence, the "bad guys" will always be trying to assert their will over everyone else...be they an enemy on the battlefield or their own son. Tarquin, now that we've pretty much established his alignment, would thus not stray from established cliches.

[hamishspence]

In what context would a good person get to say "Good and evil are only words/outdated concepts/labels", exactly? I can't imagine when it would ever even come up!

Well, other than on an alignment thread, that is. But even then...!

Maybe in a Star Wars type world?

That said, it's not too hard to imagine a Good-ish character, in a world where they aren't Forces, but the terms Good and Evil are thrown around a lot,

insisting that most of the time, Evil is a label which we put on that we object to, that most of the misery of the world comes from people who call themselves Good and their enemies Evil, and so on.


Well, to borrow from another Star Wars scene:

Luke Skywalker: "You see what a thin line separates Palpatine and Yoda? Palpatine sought power over others; Yoda sought power from within."

What novel was that in?

[Gettles]

In what context would a good person get to say "Good and evil are only words/outdated concepts/labels", exactly? I can't imagine when it would ever even come up!

Well, other than on an alignment thread, that is. But even then...!

Its not quite the same but Shojo managed to get an "obsolete morality" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) out before getting cut in half.

[Mastikator]

Actually, I just realized that Tarquin's also got a 'for the greater good' moment going on in that same speech.

Indeed, why is it always the villain who uses "the greater good" as an excuse for stuff like genocide and tyranny?

In fact, it probably wouldn't be that hard for Tarquin to retain some semblance of a moral high ground. For example if slavery was abolished and their sham legal system was rectified to actually carry out justice it wouldn't be a clear cut case of "Tarquin is an evil SOB who must be stopped".

[Katrover_Swatroad]

Because it's a trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AboveGoodAndEvil

[Barstro]

Because if you're good you dont need to justify it. If you're evil you do. If you were a good guy going around saying "Evil is a point of view. Orcs have a right to eat elf babies if they want" you you know...arent a good guy

It's much more basic than that. Two "good" people will not have a conversation justifying being good. Likewise, two "evil" people will not have a conversation justifying being evil. The justification conversation only happens when at least one from each side says that the other needs to justify. We get the "evil" person justifying because almost all books are written with a "good" character as the protagonist.

You will get Tarquin's speech from a crazy, overly "good", my-way-or-the-highway person. Or you would if she weren't already cut in half. A person like Miko, if left to run an entire continent, would wind up saying something similar to justify her inquisition, or whatever else was "necessary for the greater good".

[Conuly]

Insisting that most of the time, Evil is a label which we put on that we object to, that most of the misery of the world comes from people who call themselves Good and their enemies Evil, and so on.

Like I said, alignment threads :smallsmile:

[Porthos]

'Vimes had heard that good and evil were just two ways of looking at the same thing - or, at least, so said people traditionally considered under the category of "evil".'
-TheFifthElephant

[doodthedud]

Refusing to believe in absolute morality makes you very likely to begin believing in your own morality. No matter what it is.

If you get into an argument with facts there is proof to prove you wrong. If you get into an argument about opinions you can say "well it's just my opinion" and there's nothing else that can be said.

Thus, if you pretend right and wrong are merely opinions, you don't NEED to justify them with anything beyond "it's just my opinion on the matter"

[Porthos]

Refusing to believe in absolute morality makes you very likely to begin believing in your own morality.

At the risk of turning this into one of those threads, the only real problem with believing in absolute morality is trying to figure out whose absolute morality to believe in. :smallwink:

Even in a system like DnD, you have several sets to chose from (the Nine Alignments, with all of the "alignments are not straightjackets" variations within said alignments). As for Real Life.... Ain't going there on this board. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Even in a system like DnD, you have several sets to chose from (the Nine Alignments, with all of the "alignments are not straightjackets" variations within said alignments).

Yup- and the splatbooks open up Evil and Neutral alignments in considerably more depth.

Heroes of Horror allows Neutral characters to break the general PHB guideline for Neutral -"makes personal sacrifices for friends, family, or nation, but not for strangers"

And Champions of Ruin allows Evil characters to be more than simply "debase or destroy innocent life for fun or profit".

[The Extinguisher]

Hey, if evil characters can go around doing evil things "for the greater good" and just in general claiming to be good, does that mean I can play a character who says he's evil, but goes around and helps people "for the greater evil"?

[hamishspence]

Yup- as long as they do evil deeds of some sort.

A devil, specializing in tempting good people into evil, might disguise themselves as a good person, and do "good works" in order to keep their cover- knowing their fiendish overlords won't punish them for doing so, since it's all for "the greater evil".

That said, most evil characters aren't interested in "the greater evil" but some overarching goal of their own.

Also:

A good character, in an exceptionally Evil kingdom, might masquerade as an Evil character, call themselves Evil, and whenever they're caught helping others, try and find a "For The Greater Evil" rationale, to keep inquisitive villains from investigating them.

[Rakarth]

What novel was that in?

It was from the first book of the Black Fleet Crisis trilogy, entitled Shield Of Lies; author's Michael P. Kube-McDowell. Setting is 16 years after A New Hope.

[hamishspence]

The Black Fleet Trilogy is one of the few Bantam-era sets of Star Wars books I've heard of but never actually read.

I know the main villains are the Yevetha, though.

[Rakarth]

.

I know the main villains are the Yevetha, though.

Indeed. And like a number of evil protagonists, perhaps the Yevetha, who refer to any and all outsiders as vermin, don't believe they themselves are any kind of evil.

Perhaps because in any given fantasy setting, we the viewers are most often presented with a two-sided perspective, one side each for good and evil, that we lean towards the one and view the other with disdain.

Crisis21's original thread question could simply be a matter of our skewed observation of "evil" characters.

Or perhaps it's just more fun that way. Who doesn't want to see a potential comic villain spouting righteousness and propaganda?

[Mordaenor]

Simple: Because good is dumb. :)

[DarthMcBob]

To answer the original question, I'd say that the reason that only evil characters say that is because they feel the need to justify themselves to others - and to themselves. I often suspect that deep within almost everyone, there's a little voice we call conscience that bites at people who are evil and who know, on some level, that they are. They know that their actions would be judged evil, even by their own conscience, and so feel the need to rationalize why they are not evil for doing what they do. This philosophy makes it easy for them to sleep, always telling themselves "There is no evil. There is no evil. I can't be evil. I just can't be." They know what they do is wrong, so they justify it with whatever it takes to shut that annoying little voice up.

That's my two cents anyway.

Oh, and hi.

[mikau013]

Because since the main chars are good they mostly fight evil.
Thus the atagonist speeches are usually delivered by evil people.

That being said people also generally react more passionately to evil than to good.
Burning people alive leaves a greater mark than saving dirt poor peasants.

Oh and evil is stronger than good
Proof : Doing evil for the greater good is evil.
And doing good for the greater evil is also evil :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

There is a strong element of "intentions are more important for good than for evil"- especially in BoED.

result-

"good" deeds (involving helping others for no direct reward) with dubious intentions (personal gain) become Neutral,

but Evil deeds with very Good intentions, stay Evil.

[Swordpriest]

Because if you're being a total creep, and trampling on other people's faces, it makes you feel a bit better about yourself if you can at least partly convince yourself that it really doesn't make you a bad person, and you have nothing to regret or feel guilt about.

Evil could be defined in one way as a rejection of moral/good behavior, yet if you acknowledge the existence of good, then you are also acknowledging that it is superior to evil. Therefore, it is necessary to reject the concepts themselves -- or pretend to -- in order to justify the wretched stuff you're doing.

Also, if you spout it out, some weak-minded people will actually believe you and acquiesce in whatever horrors you are perpetrating. Nobody is going to take a stand against you if their moral fiber has been weakened by the idea that there is no good or evil, so your actions are basically meaningless and contained in a moral limbo. Even a few less people who think it matters that you're evil means a few less potential rebels.

Why would someone with strong moral values -- someone of good alignment -- want to convince someone else that evil is just as valid as good? Wouldn't that, in itself, be an evil act, since it would be encouragement for others to give in to evil impulses, rather than resisting them?

Tarquin's position is logical for a villain, illogical for a hero. It's as simple as that.

P.S. DarthBob probably put it more eloquently than I did.

[2-HeadedGiraffe]

I don't think we should ignore the possibility of someone using evil means but still believing he or she is working for the greater good. Whether the idea works out in practice or not is another question altogether, but many evil people believe they're doing the right thing.

[B. Dandelion]

Villains who think they're doing the right thing do tend to still believe in good and evil, just that what they're doing either isn't evil or is at least justified. In fact, that Tarquin rejects the whole module helps to make his other justifications ring rather hollow. How can there be a greater good if that's just an empty concept in the first place?

[Katana_Geldar]

There is no good or evil, only power and those to weak to seek it.

[Ichneumon]

Villains who think they're doing the right thing do tend to still believe in good and evil, just that what they're doing either isn't evil or is at least justified. In fact, that Tarquin rejects the whole module helps to make his other justifications ring rather hollow. How can there be a greater good if that's just an empty concept in the first place?

Hadn't looked at that. That is indeed a mayor flaw in his reasoning.

[Zevox]

Because for one reason or another, most writers don't tend to use moral subjectivity as anything but an excuse used by villains for their villainous acts.

Zevox

[Darth V.]

Actually, if anyone has read the Animorphs, in that series the protagonist frequently invoke concepts like this. For example:
1. The main conflict of the series is the invasion of earth by slug-like aliens called yeerks that dominate people by infesting their brains. Evil, right? of course as the war goes on and some of the kids actually get chances to talk to the yeerks they start to get the impression that it's not so cut and dried. The Yeerks are just doing what Yeerks do to survive. If they're evil for that then isn't humanity evil for feeding on other species. An analogy that gets invoked occasionally is that wolf pups deserve to live just as much as the rabbit pups they're feeding on.
2. There are also a species called the Howlers, which have been engineered into the ultimate killing machines pretty much by being bred to view their entire existence as a first person shooter. Which really raises questions of how morality can be considered a universal concept when it's so affected by an individuals upbringing and neurochemistry.
3. Also the Chee, which are ridiculously powerful androids engineered by their long-extinct creators (pacifists who were easily wiped out by the technologically-inferior howlers) to be pacifists completely incapable of violence. Good, Right? This doesn't stop them from manipulating other people into killing their enemies (sometimes out of pure spite) occasionally following courses of action that give the (usually incredibly ruthless) animorphs pause. Although they generally come off as good guys, most of the animorphs ultimately come to view their extreme pacifism as a a sign of stupidity rather than morality.

[M.A.D]

There is no good or evil, only power and those to weak to seek it.


Because for one reason or another, most writers don't tend to use moral subjectivity as anything but an excuse used by villains for their villainous acts.

Zevox

And they make pretty good excuses, too. I remember a quote commenting on such matter from a Japanese comic book (preferably termed as manga)

"Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say?! But of course it will!! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!!!"

Donquixote Doflamingo, One Piece

[Chaos rising]

That is probably one of my favorite quotes from the series

[Rakarth]

Villains who think they're doing the right thing do tend to still believe in good and evil, just that what they're doing either isn't evil or is at least justified. In fact, that Tarquin rejects the whole module helps to make his other justifications ring rather hollow. How can there be a greater good if that's just an empty concept in the first place?

Interesting point.

He might be wholly rejecting the module, but I think he'd still reckon there is a good...and so long as that good is for him, the ends justify the means.

He's showing that he doesn't buy good vs. evil, but he's happy to use even dastardly means to achieve what's good for him. So for him good and bad may be a personal choice as well as a personal consequence.

[Crisis21]

I've noticed two recurring moral modules in dramatic convention.


No Good or Evil: The one most commonly used by Evil people attempting to justify their actions (usually to the good guys) and morally confuse the issue. Common corruption technique.

The Greater Good: Sometimes used same as above, but more often to convince oneself that what you are doing is right even when evidence points to the contrary. Common method of self-corruption. Alternatively used by the bad guy in an attempt to make themselves look like the good guy.


Tarquin actually managed to pull off both of them (though not successfully considering Elan's reaction). In the same speech no less.

[2-HeadedGiraffe]

Villains who think they're doing the right thing do tend to still believe in good and evil, just that what they're doing either isn't evil or is at least justified. In fact, that Tarquin rejects the whole module helps to make his other justifications ring rather hollow. How can there be a greater good if that's just an empty concept in the first place?

I didn't fully consider this. You're right. Tarquin doesn't fit the situation I described.



He might be wholly rejecting the module, but I think he'd still reckon there is a good...and so long as that good is for him, the ends justify the means.

They say all's fair in love and war, and those seem to be his two major activities in life.

[Rakarth]

They say all's fair in love and war, and those seem to be his two major activities in life.

Very well spotted, indeed. That would indicate, since he appears to have no other pursuits, that he's going to be pretty proficient and successful in both activities, since all his XPs and experience would be geared towards two singular activities.

As Crisis21 pointed out, he's managed to pull off both "recurring moral modules" in a single sentence. That kind of ability doesn't grow on trees.

[TreesOfDeath]

Its a standard defence used by socpipaths, *******s and/or trolls.

They know what their doing is wrong, so they say their is no right or wrong, until they are the ones being wronged. Troll a troll next time and see what happens.

[Swordpriest]

Its a standard defence used by socpipaths, *******s and/or trolls.

They know what their doing is wrong, so they say their is no right or wrong, until they are the ones being wronged. Troll a troll next time and see what happens.

Heh .... I know the original quote that comes from. :smallbiggrin: Not politically correct in any way, so I can't reiterate it here, but so true.

[Coidzor]

Actually, if anyone has read the Animorphs, in that series the protagonist frequently invoke concepts like this. For example:
1. The main conflict of the series is the invasion of earth by slug-like aliens called yeerks that dominate people by infesting their brains. Evil, right? of course as the war goes on and some of the kids actually get chances to talk to the yeerks they start to get the impression that it's not so cut and dried. The Yeerks are just doing what Yeerks do to survive. If they're evil for that then isn't humanity evil for feeding on other species. An analogy that gets invoked occasionally is that wolf pups deserve to live just as much as the rabbit pups they're feeding on.

Killing something and eating it is several orders of magnitude different from enslaving entire species of sapients in a bid for the control or destruction of every other sapient entity in the known universe (and expanding the borders of the known universe to find more for the grindstone) and forcing them into tiny cages in order to keep them from exercising their own free will. Furthermore, slavery of recognized sophonts is, and always will be evil. It does not matter whether it is necessary for a creature's survival or not. Vampires are evil because they kill their former fellows for food and treat the less as chattel. Illithids are evil because they practice slavery in such a way as to destroy personhood utterly, leaving, for the most part, dazed half-corpses and relish the taste of the agony and fear their way of feeding produces, causing them to not be satisfied with the thralls they breed to service them.

In the end, they pretty much had to have 90%+ of the population stop being Yeerks anyway, if not all of it. Being fundamentally opposed to all other forms of organic, sapient life and prosecuting a war against them and intentionally breeding in such a way in order to heighten aggression and bloodshed when a sustainable level of population maintenance was possible... that's not only being born predisposed to D&D evil, that's taking the mantle and running with it in the hopes of catching up with some Phaerimm you could ask for pointers.


2. There are also a species called the Howlers, which have been engineered into the ultimate killing machines pretty much by being bred to view their entire existence as a first person shooter. Which really raises questions of how morality can be considered a universal concept when it's so affected by an individuals upbringing and neurochemistry.

An animal is beyond the concept of morality, especially a rabid one that has to be put down for one's own safety. Nor does it do them any good to have the capacity for moral judgment if they do not exercise it, for their destruction is still justified and necessary by virtue of their ever-present threat.


3. Also the Chee, which are ridiculously powerful androids engineered by their long-extinct creators (pacifists who were easily wiped out by the technologically-inferior howlers) to be pacifists completely incapable of violence. Good, Right? This doesn't stop them from manipulating other people into killing their enemies (sometimes out of pure spite) occasionally following courses of action that give the (usually incredibly ruthless) animorphs pause. Although they generally come off as good guys, most of the animorphs ultimately come to view their extreme pacifism as a a sign of stupidity rather than morality.

:smallconfused:....No? Only a very naive individual would believe that a pacifist was good by virtue of being a pacifist. Especially an alien entity. That's one of the oldest tricks in the book.

[Irbis]

The Black Fleet Trilogy is one of the few Bantam-era sets of Star Wars books I've heard of but never actually read.

I know the main villains are the Yevetha, though.

You haven't missed much.

It can be summed as "World War II meets Star Wars", with all the negative consequences of that.

[Lvl45DM!]

Snip

BUT it does raise these questions. The point of animorphs is less "nobody is good or evil" more "good and evil are difficult to define"

[Felixc-91]

Its a standard defence used by socpipaths, *******s and/or trolls.

They know what their doing is wrong, so they say their is no right or wrong, until they are the ones being wronged. Troll a troll next time and see what happens.close, but not quite. sociopaths actually don't care. right and wrong have no meaning for them. its a mental disorder. honestly in some ways you can't consider a sociopath evil because they can't comprehend why something being wrong matters. sorta like the rabid dog. you don't kill it because its acts are horrible, you kill it so it won't kill you and every one you know.

[hamishspence]

close, but not quite. sociopaths actually don't care. right and wrong have no meaning for them. its a mental disorder. honestly in some ways you can't consider a sociopath evil because they can't comprehend why something being wrong matters.

In D&D Champions of Ruin though though, it is listed as one of the Evil Archetypes.

Possibly because that book focuses more on "beings that routinely do deeds tagged as [Evil] are evil-aligned" and less on why such beings might do these acts.

[Glass Mouse]

Hey, if evil characters can go around doing evil things "for the greater good" and just in general claiming to be good, does that mean I can play a character who says he's evil, but goes around and helps people "for the greater evil"?

Well. I once toyed with the idea of doing a character who had bought completely into the "cosmic balance" thing. She'd believe that every good act must be balanced by an evil one - and act upon it.
I'm guessing such a character would indeed be working "for the greater evil" 50% of the time.


Oh, and hi.

Hi :smallsmile:


"Those who stand at the top determine what's wrong and what's right! This very place is neutral ground! Justice will prevail, you say?! But of course it will!! Whoever wins this war becomes justice!!!"

Donquixote Doflamingo, One Piece

That's awesome!
"In a war, it doesn't matter who's right, only who's left."

[Nevereatcars]

Why is it always...
That any forum you can find is filled to the brim with philosophers?

[Kish]

This question makes about as much sense as, "Why is it always the evil characters who say things like, 'Mwahaha, I'm going to torture you to death?'" Um, because it's an evil thing to say?

[Conuly]

Wait - torturing people to death is evil now? SINCE WHEN?

[hamishspence]

Since BoED, and FC2, torture in general has had rules calling it an Evil act.

Though based on PHB, a case can be made that it shows "lack of respect for the dignity of sentient beings".

[Falconer]

Why is it always...
That any forum you can find is filled to the brim with philosophers?

I...have no idea, but I'm not complaining.:smallsmile:

Anyways, the two ethical systems of villains (greater good, and no good and evil), seem to me to be generally irreconcilable, as was pointed out earlier. How can there be an objective greater good if there is no such thing as objective good and evil?

[Kish]

Why would every villain think in ways that make sense with the thought processes of every other villain?

[Lvl45DM!]

Why is it always...
That any forum you can find is filled to the brim with philosophers?

Cos we have nothing better to do?

[Felixc-91]

Wait - torturing people to death is evil now? SINCE WHEN?since society in general decided to care about the individual (or at least pretends to care) and it has been proven that those who are predisposed to refuse to work with society have a tendency to die without reproducing...so its evil since the majority looks down on said behavior and those who don't don't last long.

[Glass Mouse]

Why is it always...
That any forum you can find is filled to the brim with philosophers?

Because it's one of the few subjects that doesn't demand any qualifications :smalltongue:

[grimbold]

i am of the opinion that the giant is simply mocking those in the forums who constantly question alignments
or the corruption thing works