Jarelk
2007-06-05, 09:00 AM
I am aware that the chance of htis existing is extremely high, but nevertheless, here it is. It's not finished yet, but this is a good beginning, I think:smallsmile: .
Oh, and to those who may disagree with me on some points:
It's just a way of learning. It's not meant to change your opinion. If you look closely enough, you can see I settled a few points of view, and then released my opinion on it. Some of you may view things more or less evil/good than I do, but I don't care, because where would life be if we were all the same, no:smallwink: ?
The Concept of Good and Evil
Mishaps with Good and Evil
Evil
What I notice a lot in games with the ability to become evil is that it’s suicide. You become evil nearly equals certain death. The biggest example I can give is, of course, Black & White. Good is easy to achieve, though not easy to maintain. Evil is easy to get, but very, VERY hard to survive. Let me explain Black & White for those who don’t know it. You’re a god, and you can cast miracles, like Fireball or Rain and such. You need to take good care of your villagers to gain believe, and so win the game. Let me tell you this: If you want to become really evil, the only option you have is to harass villagers, not to take care of them and throw fireballs and incredibly painful miracles everywhere. And then you die, because you have no villagers. Or a village. You burnt it down, remember? And so, you die.
Good
Good is the more survivable kind of thing. But good is far too easy to lose. Though that is naturally, cause burning a house down is easier than building one. But I kind of get the feeling it is too easy to lose. I agree that burning down a house can get you evil. But how about the small evil deeds? Like pick-pocketing? Now, don’t use what I’m about to say in real life as an excuse for pick-pocketing. Really,
This article is not encouraging any acts against the law in any kind of form. Not even urinating in public. That’s gross.
Here’s the deal: How about reasons? You stole the horse because you needed one more horse to pay the landlord so he wouldn’t evict your family. Okay, kinda evil, but not as evil as it’s often brandished. You wanted your family to remain happy and have a good life. Though a selfish act it may be, it was for good intentions. On the other hand, maybe that horse was from a poor guy who used that horse in a circus and you robbed him from his livelihood. That’s another thing: is evil you didn’t know you committed really evil?
It is like that a lot. You get evil, you gain certain death. Because evil is a way to hurt people. Mostly people you’re depending from. Getting good is really pleasant. But not that pleasant when you realize you became evil when you (maybe accidentally) killed someone.
Maybe he was a criminal, hello?! This article is to exploit evil and good more, so that evil is more survivable, and good is better to recognize.
Philosophy
Ten bucks says half of you fell asleep when you read the head of this. Philosophy bores me too when read to me, but this is just a fitting title.
This part is about the philosophic part of evil and good. A crime you didn’t know you committed, is it really evil? Is giving money to a poor guy on the street who probably spends it on drugs good or evil?
The first one is a question I believe I can answer. A crime you didn’t commit isn’t necessarily evil, unless you were aware of the danger. Also, the recklessness you may have shown in such a case gives you a nudge towards evil too. Now, “recklessness” is an important part about the question. Let’s say, for example, someone invented a time machine. He went back in the past and accidentally did something that altered the future and let Scotland sink, even though being careful not to contact any folk or such. The recklessness he showed wasn’t that big, but the crime that happened was huge. The one that went back in time isn’t evil. That’s my opinion, anyhow.
Now, let’s say that the guy who went back in time started meddling with the past on purpose. Talking to strangers, giving alms to the poor, getting in a bar fight, etc. If that guy would accidentally cause Scotland to sink in the future, I would brandish him evil, though not much. He may have been very reckless and aware of it, but he never intended to let Scotland sink.
And now a third. The guy who went back in time WANTED to cause something bad to happen, but not as bad and huge as sinking Scotland. This guy is very evil. He could’ve known the consequences of meddling with the past, and TRYING to do something evil…
Well, that’s clear, right?
I hope you learned from what I just said. You can view a crime from different points of view and then try to brandish it good or evil. I hope you got my point. Next chapter!
Oh, and to those who may disagree with me on some points:
It's just a way of learning. It's not meant to change your opinion. If you look closely enough, you can see I settled a few points of view, and then released my opinion on it. Some of you may view things more or less evil/good than I do, but I don't care, because where would life be if we were all the same, no:smallwink: ?
The Concept of Good and Evil
Mishaps with Good and Evil
Evil
What I notice a lot in games with the ability to become evil is that it’s suicide. You become evil nearly equals certain death. The biggest example I can give is, of course, Black & White. Good is easy to achieve, though not easy to maintain. Evil is easy to get, but very, VERY hard to survive. Let me explain Black & White for those who don’t know it. You’re a god, and you can cast miracles, like Fireball or Rain and such. You need to take good care of your villagers to gain believe, and so win the game. Let me tell you this: If you want to become really evil, the only option you have is to harass villagers, not to take care of them and throw fireballs and incredibly painful miracles everywhere. And then you die, because you have no villagers. Or a village. You burnt it down, remember? And so, you die.
Good
Good is the more survivable kind of thing. But good is far too easy to lose. Though that is naturally, cause burning a house down is easier than building one. But I kind of get the feeling it is too easy to lose. I agree that burning down a house can get you evil. But how about the small evil deeds? Like pick-pocketing? Now, don’t use what I’m about to say in real life as an excuse for pick-pocketing. Really,
This article is not encouraging any acts against the law in any kind of form. Not even urinating in public. That’s gross.
Here’s the deal: How about reasons? You stole the horse because you needed one more horse to pay the landlord so he wouldn’t evict your family. Okay, kinda evil, but not as evil as it’s often brandished. You wanted your family to remain happy and have a good life. Though a selfish act it may be, it was for good intentions. On the other hand, maybe that horse was from a poor guy who used that horse in a circus and you robbed him from his livelihood. That’s another thing: is evil you didn’t know you committed really evil?
It is like that a lot. You get evil, you gain certain death. Because evil is a way to hurt people. Mostly people you’re depending from. Getting good is really pleasant. But not that pleasant when you realize you became evil when you (maybe accidentally) killed someone.
Maybe he was a criminal, hello?! This article is to exploit evil and good more, so that evil is more survivable, and good is better to recognize.
Philosophy
Ten bucks says half of you fell asleep when you read the head of this. Philosophy bores me too when read to me, but this is just a fitting title.
This part is about the philosophic part of evil and good. A crime you didn’t know you committed, is it really evil? Is giving money to a poor guy on the street who probably spends it on drugs good or evil?
The first one is a question I believe I can answer. A crime you didn’t commit isn’t necessarily evil, unless you were aware of the danger. Also, the recklessness you may have shown in such a case gives you a nudge towards evil too. Now, “recklessness” is an important part about the question. Let’s say, for example, someone invented a time machine. He went back in the past and accidentally did something that altered the future and let Scotland sink, even though being careful not to contact any folk or such. The recklessness he showed wasn’t that big, but the crime that happened was huge. The one that went back in time isn’t evil. That’s my opinion, anyhow.
Now, let’s say that the guy who went back in time started meddling with the past on purpose. Talking to strangers, giving alms to the poor, getting in a bar fight, etc. If that guy would accidentally cause Scotland to sink in the future, I would brandish him evil, though not much. He may have been very reckless and aware of it, but he never intended to let Scotland sink.
And now a third. The guy who went back in time WANTED to cause something bad to happen, but not as bad and huge as sinking Scotland. This guy is very evil. He could’ve known the consequences of meddling with the past, and TRYING to do something evil…
Well, that’s clear, right?
I hope you learned from what I just said. You can view a crime from different points of view and then try to brandish it good or evil. I hope you got my point. Next chapter!